No Arguments!
Philipp Louis
One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody can support the death penalty using
rational arguments that are not originated in revenge. It´s impossible.
If anybody thinks (s)he´s able to prove the opposite, just try it! You
won´t succeed.
SAVE HUMAN LIFE ===> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3366/
Erik Sontum
In article <328A8F...@hotmail.com>, Philipp Louis
<philip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody can support the death penalty using
> rational arguments that are not originated in revenge. It´s impossible.
>
> If anybody thinks (s)he´s able to prove the opposite, just try it! You
> won´t succeed.
>
Ok, how about this one?
You can give a serial killer the death penalty in order to stop him from
killing even more people. That is preventative, not revenge. You probably
counter this argument with "you could do the same by incarcerating him for
life".
My answer would then be that it costs a shitload of money keeping all these
people locked up forever. And this could be described as an economic
reason, and is not neccessarily connected with revenge.
Awaiting your reply...
Erik Sontum
--
Dunkel Prod e-mail: son...@online.no
Dunkel Prod web-site: http://www.uio.no/~larsso/DUNKELPROD/DPindex.html
Dunkel Prod snail-mail: Dunkel Prod, c/o Moonfish Cult Lab, Sagveien 23,
0458 Oslo, Norway.
intp...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody can support the death penalty using
: rational arguments that are not originated in revenge. It愀 impossible.
: SAVE HUMAN LIFE ===> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3366/
Oh dear, so anything against you is impossible. You are right and any
evidence presented would be dismissed.
I wish you could be more fallable.
Save human life you say!!!??? That means murderers, rapists and child
molesters presumably. Would you give the victims of crime the same
concern and effort that you give to criminals.?????
Charles Trew
Philipp Louis (philip...@hotmail.com) writes:
> One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody can support the death penalty using
> rational arguments that are not originated in revenge. It愀 impossible.
>
> If anybody thinks (s)he愀 able to prove the opposite, just try it! You
> won愒 succeed.
Why don't you explain why locking someone in a cell for the rest of
their life is justice and executing someone is revenge?
What is the particular moral difference between the two and what is
that difference based on?
You are the one making the distinction, you explain it to us.....
acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
The only good criminal is a dead one.
With a corpse there is absolutely no risk of a repeat offender!!!
On 14 Nov 1996 intp...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> : One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody can support the death penalty usi=
ng
> : rational arguments that are not originated in revenge. It=B4s impossibl=
e.
> : SAVE HUMAN LIFE =3D=3D=3D> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3366/
>=20
> Oh dear, so anything against you is impossible. You are right and any
> evidence presented would be dismissed. =20
>=20
> I wish you could be more fallable. =20
>=20
> Save human life you say!!!??? That means murderers, rapists and child
> molesters presumably. Would you give the victims of crime the same
> concern and effort that you give to criminals.?????
>=20
>=20
Andy Katz
<acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>The only good criminal is a dead one.
>
>With a corpse there is absolutely no risk of a repeat offender!!!
Oh, yeah? Aren't you forgetting that movie with Lon Chaney Jr. in
which he's executed in the chair, then comes back to life and starts
whacking folks again?
Andy Katz
__________________________________________
So sophisticated is my Net presence that I
now disdain sigs, ascii and even URLs....
a...@interport.net
a...@texas.net
andre...@aol.com
Philipp Louis
acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> The only good criminal is a dead one.
>
> With a corpse there is absolutely no risk of a repeat offender!!!
---------- SORRY YOU LOST ----------
There is also no risk of a repeat offender when he´s in jail.
Greetings
Philipp
************************************************************************
SAVE AN INNOCENT FROM DEATH ROW:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3366/
************************************************************************
Philipp Louis
Okay, Charles, I惻l try to explain it to you.
Some people say that being in prison for the rest of life is worse than an execution.
But nobody can really say that, because nobody has ever died or spent the rest of
their life in prison. I don愒 want to discuss the question if REALLY life-long prison
is too hard, if 20 years are too soft or so. (I myself think that 20 years are the
right penalty for a murderer, but this doesn愒 matter here.) There is one very
important moral difference between REALLY life-long prison and capital punishment:
"Every human being has the right to live." (The Human Rights)
"Thou shalt not kill!" (The Bible)
That愀 enough explanation, everybody who is possession of a brain will understand it.
Greetings,
Philipp
--------------------------------------------
SAVE AN INNOCENT FROM DEATH ROW:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3366/
--------------------------------------------
Philipp Louis
Erik Sontum wrote:
> You can give a serial killer the death penalty in order to stop him from
> killing even more people. That is preventative, not revenge. You probably
> counter this argument with "you could do the same by incarcerating him for
> life".
>
> My answer would then be that it costs a shitload of money keeping all these
> people locked up forever. And this could be described as an economic
> reason, and is not neccessarily connected with revenge.
>
> Awaiting your reply...
>
> Erik Sontum
1) Human life should not depend on "economic reasons".
2) As far as I´m concerned, an execution is more expensive than life-long prison.
---------- SORRY YOU LOST --- NICE TRIAL ----------
Greetings
Philipp
************************************************************************
SAVE AN INNOCENT FROM DEATH ROW:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3366/
************************************************************************
intp...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Actually the cost of execution is small. It's the lawyers that cost the
money. Ng's lawyer estimates he will make 25 million dollars on the case.
It costs 80,000 dollars a year to keep a criminal in jail.
Actually it costs $80,000 to have cafeteria's, gymnasiums, golf lessons:
well you get the idea.
Conor Perry
db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charles Trew) wrote:
>
>Philipp Louis (philip...@hotmail.com) writes:
>
>> One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody can support the death penalty using
>> rational arguments that are not originated in revenge. It愀 impossible.
>>
>> If anybody thinks (s)he愀 able to prove the opposite, just try it! You
>> won愒 succeed.
>
>
> Why don't you explain why locking someone in a cell for the rest of
>their life is justice and executing someone is revenge?
> What is the particular moral difference between the two and what is
>that difference based on?
> You are the one making the distinction, you explain it to us.....
>
Do you beleive that the right to life is inviolable?
Both sentences have the effect of protecting society from the violent
criminal. Both punish the violent criminal. However one sentence takes
a life. The other does not. That, for me, is the moral difference between
the two.
Charles Trew
"Mr Desmond E. Coughlan" (D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk) writes:
>> Why don't you explain why locking someone in a cell for the rest of
>>their life is justice and executing someone is revenge?
>> What is the particular moral difference between the two and what is
>>that difference based on?
>> You are the one making the distinction, you explain it to us.....
> May I? Thank you.
>
> Locking someone in a cell does not constitute an assault on that person.
> It may be an extremely unpleasant experience for the person concerned,
> but those of us against the death penalty don't usually base our
> arguments on whether or not the prisoner will enjoy the time he spends
> being punished (otherwise, we could offer no objection to, for example,
> lethal injection).
I will concede a bit to you on this one, Des.
However, while you may not be against locking someone up in an
isolation cell, many anti-DP people in the U.S. do. They are against any
kind of strict punishment.
Charles Trew
Andy Katz (a...@interport.net) writes:
> <acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>>The only good criminal is a dead one.
>>With a corpse there is absolutely no risk of a repeat offender!!!
> Oh, yeah? Aren't you forgetting that movie with Lon Chaney Jr. in
> which he's executed in the chair, then comes back to life and starts
> whacking folks again?
Another one is Wes Craven's "Shocker." A guy comes back to life after
execution (fantastic sequence BTW)) via electrocution. For the rest of the
movie he hunts down and terrorizes a kid. Great special effects.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <56fbb0$t...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, Charles Trew
<db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>> One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody can support the death penalty using
>> rational arguments that are not originated in revenge. It愀 impossible.
>>
>> If anybody thinks (s)he愀 able to prove the opposite, just try it! You
>> won愒 succeed.
>
>
> Why don't you explain why locking someone in a cell for the rest of
>their life is justice and executing someone is revenge?
> What is the particular moral difference between the two and what is
>that difference based on?
> You are the one making the distinction, you explain it to us.....
>
May I? Thank you.
Locking someone in a cell does not constitute an assault on that person.
It may be an extremely unpleasant experience for the person concerned,
but those of us against the death penalty don't usually base our
arguments on whether or not the prisoner will enjoy the time he spends
being punished (otherwise, we could offer no objection to, for example,
lethal injection).
Furthermore, I can't offhand recall reading anything here which
advocated that convicted murderers (or any criminals for that matter) be
let off unpunished. We are morally obliged to seek to prevent the
criminal from reoffending (without harming him physically), and to at
least *try* to reconcile the prisoner to the effects of his crime, and
seek rehabilitation.
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
http://www.maudit.demon.co.uk
'Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to
which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For
there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a
criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a
horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined
him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in
private life.'
Albert Camus.
kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Conor Perry (gaw...@iol.ie) wrote:
: db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charles Trew) wrote:
: >
: >Philipp Louis (philip...@hotmail.com) writes:
: >
: >> One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody can support the death penalty using
: >> rational arguments that are not originated in revenge. It愀 impossible.
: >>
: >> If anybody thinks (s)he愀 able to prove the opposite, just try it! You
: >> won愒 succeed.
: >
: >
: > Why don't you explain why locking someone in a cell for the rest
of
: >their life is justice and executing someone is revenge?
: > What is the particular moral difference between the two and what is
: >that difference based on?
: > You are the one making the distinction, you explain it to us.....
:
: This is the fundamental question in the whole death penalty arguement.
: Do you beleive that the right to life is inviolable?
No, of course I do not ... do you?
: Both sentences have the effect of protecting society from the violent
: criminal.
The DP when implemented, does the better job, this cannot be argued.
Both punish the violent criminal. However one sentence takes
: a life. The other does not.
Both take a life, the former (when implemented) quickly.
The moral distinction is; that with the former, society is offered the
illusion of the scales being balanced. With the latter, society is
given the finger, and asked not to make a mess while it pukes.
--
Kirk Erickson
kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
twi...@aol.com
Phillip says there is no risk of a offender repeating crimes in jail.
Rape, assault, extortion and murder are common crimes in prison.
TWIFTS
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <56is28$d...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, Charles Trew
<db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>>
>> Locking someone in a cell does not constitute an assault on that person.
>> It may be an extremely unpleasant experience for the person concerned,
>> but those of us against the death penalty don't usually base our
>> arguments on whether or not the prisoner will enjoy the time he spends
>> being punished (otherwise, we could offer no objection to, for example,
>> lethal injection).
>
> I will concede a bit to you on this one, Des.
>
My God, Charles: that's twice that we've managed to discuss capital
punishment without insulting one another. Do you think that this could
catch on. . .?
> However, while you may not be against locking someone up in an
>isolation cell, many anti-DP people in the U.S. do. They are against any
>kind of strict punishment.
>
>
Yes, well quite a few people in the United States
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
http://www.maudit.demon.co.uk
'La lutte elle-même vers les sommets suffit à remplir un coeur d'homme'
Albert Camus (1913-1960)
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
>>
>> Locking someone in a cell does not constitute an assault on that person.
>> It may be an extremely unpleasant experience for the person concerned,
>> but those of us against the death penalty don't usually base our
>> arguments on whether or not the prisoner will enjoy the time he spends
>> being punished (otherwise, we could offer no objection to, for example,
>> lethal injection).
>
> I will concede a bit to you on this one, Des.
>
Thanks. I posted the last reply too soon, before I had finished typing,
so I shall follow up here.
> However, while you may not be against locking someone up in an
>isolation cell, many anti-DP people in the U.S. do. They are against any
>kind of strict punishment.
>
>
Now where was I. . .?
There are quite a few people in the United States who believe that the
Government is withholding information about aliens, but that doesn't
make it a valid point.
My position is clear: if someone goes out with the firm intention of
taking a life, then they deserve everything that's coming to them. I
just don't agree that what comes to them should be death.
The matter is further complicated by what I posted a while ago: that
some people's social background could be a contributory factor in their
drift into criminality. These cases have to be identified, and dealt
with. Otherwise, we're failing ourselves.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <56j9ro$a...@news.sas.ab.ca>, kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
writes
>: This is the fundamental question in the whole death penalty arguement.
>
>: Do you beleive that the right to life is inviolable?
>
>No, of course I do not ... do you?
>
Anyone with an ounce of common sense does.
>: Both sentences have the effect of protecting society from the violent
>: criminal.
>
>The DP when implemented, does the better job, this cannot be argued.
>
The death penalty, when implemented, does a better job than life
imprisonment which is *not* implemented. When both are implemented with
equal vigour, the effect is the same: no reoffending. The difference
is. . .
> Both punish the violent criminal. However one sentence takes
>: a life. The other does not.
>
>Both take a life, the former (when implemented) quickly.
>
Garbage. Life is defined as "the state or quality which distinguishes
living beings or organisms from dead ones, and from inorganic material"
(Collins Dictionary 1994)
Whether or not *you* fancy the idea of being locked in a cell for forty-
odd years, the irrefutable truth is that LWOP does *not* take life.
>The moral distinction is; that with the former, society is offered the
>illusion of the scales being balanced.
You said it: the *illusion* !!
Randy
Philipp Louis <philip...@hotmail.com> wrote......
> Some people say that being in prison for the rest of life is worse than
an execution.
> But nobody can really say that, because nobody has ever died or spent the
rest of
> their life in prison. I don't want to discuss the question if REALLY
life-long prison
> is too hard, if 20 years are too soft or so. (I myself think that 20
years are the
> right penalty for a murderer, but this doesn't matter here.) There is one
very
> important moral difference between REALLY life-long prison and capital
punishment:
>
Real humanitarian here......20 years.....For taking another persons
life...this is really sad when we can now put a time in prison for someone
that has proven they can't function in society.....
> "Every human being has the right to live." (The Human Rights)
Since I don't believe in the united nations, I don't understand this "human
rights", after all, you lose all your rights as a human after you make the
choice of taking another humans life. Your rights are guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights.....Which has to do with due process of the law and nothing
can be done before this to you......Pretty simple explanation, if you wish
to read the full text, visit the Library of Congress, hey what the heck,
their even on line.........
> "Thou shalt not kill!" (The Bible)
Well here we go again, someone miss-quoting the Bible, if you would have
taken your time and actually read the transcripts, you'd find the
translation is "Murder", not "Kill" ....... If you really wish to get
creative here, why not quote the texts of other religions....whoops, I
forgot, almost all older based religions have judgments for the use of the
death penalty, interesting thought though, maybe we can get some Jewish,
Moslem, and Buddhists in on this discussion......
> That's enough explanation, everybody who is possession of a brain will
understand it.
Yes, I guess if your brainwashed, and don't actually research the subject
yourself, you think you do know everything, you make such a ignorant
statement...
-- Randy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ranl...@epix.net - http://www.epix.net/~ranlerch/dp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Sontum
In article <328D2A...@hotmail.com>, Philipp Louis
<philip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Human life should not depend on "economic reasons".
> 2) As far as I´m concerned, an execution is more expensive than life-long
prison.
>
> ---------- SORRY YOU LOST --- NICE TRIAL ----------
First of all, let me say that I´m not 100% for the death penalty, neither
100% against it. I guess I lean towards being for it, though I still have
some moral reservations about giving a government control over who should
live and who should die. If a jury decides to give someone the death
penalty, I feel a lot more comfortable than if a judge or two was to do the
same. Now, on to your comments:
1) I agree with you that, ideally, one shouldn´t make an "economic
assessment" of a human being, as all beings are basically "worth" the same.
But in a world with scarce resources, one has to make sacrifices. If one
could save some money by imposing a death penalty in favor of life-long
imprisonment, then that money could be spent otherwise: feeding the hungry,
healing the sick and so on. I know it´s morally questionable to set weaks
groups up against one another in this way, but it´s how the world
functions.
2) I don´t have any facts about the costs involved here, but I cannot
imagine an execution costing more than a life-time sentence. Does anyone
out there have any documented figures on this one? When you´re saying an
execution is more expensive, are you thinking of "the moral decline of
mankind" or just economically?
One thing I found a bit disappointing was that your answer does not really
make any comments about whether a purely economic motive for the death
penalty is valid or not. Despite the opinion that human life should not be
assessed from an economic point of view, does this render a disaggreeing
person the right to diasagree... and thereby having an economic reason for
being for the DP? A person who solely uses economic reasons for being
pro-DP can exist, and as such, he is someone that does not have any
"revenge" motive. Whether it´s right or wrong to use economic reasoning is
a completely different question, I feel.
One last thing: how on earth can you use a subject heading stating "YOU
LOST!" when we have barely started? It certainly grabbed my attention right
away, though, I´ll give you that. I´ll take it that the subject heading was
written with humorous intentions. There already too many people on Usenet
with no brains/courtesy/whatever... on both sides of this topic, too!
Charles Trew
Conor Perry (gaw...@iol.ie) writes:
>>Philipp Louis (philip...@hotmail.com) writes:
>>> One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody can support the death penalty using
>>> rational arguments that are not originated in revenge. It愀 impossible.
>>> If anybody thinks (s)he愀 able to prove the opposite, just try it! You
>>> won愒 succeed.
>> Why don't you explain why locking someone in a cell for the rest of
>>their life is justice and executing someone is revenge?
>> What is the particular moral difference between the two and what is
>>that difference based on?
>> You are the one making the distinction, you explain it to us.....
>>
>
> Do you beleive that the right to life is inviolable?
No.
> Both sentences have the effect of protecting society from the violent
> criminal. Both punish the violent criminal. However one sentence takes
> a life. The other does not. That, for me, is the moral difference between
> the two.
Why is life so special? Nobody has explained that. I'm for life, who isn't?
Nobody has explained a specific moral difference between locking someone in a hole for
thirty years and executing them.
On specific grounds what is your basis for saying life is in vioable? What
code, what religion? What is the specific difference?
Charles Trew
(kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca) writes:
>
> Conor Perry (gaw...@iol.ie) wrote:
> : db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charles Trew) wrote:
> : >
> : >Philipp Louis (philip...@hotmail.com) writes:
(somewhere here we're all taking):
> : >> One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody can support the death penalty using
> : >> rational arguments that are not originated in revenge. It愀 impossible.
> : >>
> : >> If anybody thinks (s)he愀 able to prove the opposite, just try it! You
> : >> won愒 succeed.
> : >
> : >
> : > Why don't you explain why locking someone in a cell for the rest
> of
> : >their life is justice and executing someone is revenge?
> : > What is the particular moral difference between the two and what is
> : >that difference based on?
> : > You are the one making the distinction, you explain it to us.....
> : >
> :
> : This is the fundamental question in the whole death penalty arguement.
>
> : Do you beleive that the right to life is inviolable?
>
> No, of course I do not ... do you?
>
> : Both sentences have the effect of protecting society from the violent
> : criminal.
> The DP when implemented, does the better job, this cannot be argued.
>
> Both punish the violent criminal. However one sentence takes
> : a life. The other does not.
>
> Both take a life, the former (when implemented) quickly.
>
> The moral distinction is; that with the former, society is offered the
> illusion of the scales being balanced. With the latter, society is
> given the finger, and asked not to make a mess while it pukes.
This really makes the point and is one of the best arguments I've heard in a
long time. When you have someone in LWOP you have taken away their "life" as we all
know it. They are going to die under control and conditions. By the very nature that is
the process.
It's almost like starving someone and then saying, "hey, I didn't *actually*
kill them, they died under different causes..."
kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan (D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <56j9ro$a...@news.sas.ab.ca>, kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: writes
: >The DP when implemented, does the better job, this cannot be argued.
: >
: The death penalty, when implemented, does a better job than life
: imprisonment which is *not* implemented. When both are implemented with
: equal vigour, the effect is the same: no reoffending. The difference
: is. . .
Pie in the sky Desmond, as long as the murderous bastard draws breath,
he is capable of more of the same. Escape, prison riot, you name it,
he is still capable.
: > Both punish the violent criminal. However one sentence takes
: >: a life. The other does not.
: >
: >Both take a life, the former (when implemented) quickly.
: >
: Garbage. Life is defined as "the state or quality which distinguishes
: living beings or organisms from dead ones, and from inorganic material"
: (Collins Dictionary 1994)
Nonsense, both sentences end with the death of a "human being". Didn't
you once express revulsion at such barbarity? Yes ... I believe that
you did.
--
Kirk Erickson
kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <56lliq$g...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, Charles Trew
<db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>
> Why is life so special? Nobody has explained that. I'm for life, who
>isn't?
If life isn't that special, then why punish people who take life? I
assume that you mean innocent life.
>Nobody has explained a specific moral difference between locking someone in a
>hole for
>thirty years and executing them.
Yes, we have. Permit me to recap: locking someone up does not
constitute an assault on his person. Killing him, by definition, does.
Conor Perry
kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>
>Conor Perry (gaw...@iol.ie) wrote:
>: >
>:
>: This is the fundamental question in the whole death penalty arguement.
>
>: Do you beleive that the right to life is inviolable?
>
>No, of course I do not ... do you?
>
Yes.
I beleive this is the foundation of all civilised soceities. Without
respect for the inviolabiliy of life a soceity is merely acting in the
manner of wild animals and will fall apart as the strong battle for
control. I believe that to take life is wrong whether by own's own action
or by those to whom we defer power. This is one of my personal values.
Of course you and others who have repsonded to this posting believe
otherwise, which is regretful in my opinion.But that's life.
As a political statement I would say that it is very dangerous to allow
our governments to derogate from this principle. If we let them make a
law which says they can take our most basic right away, I believe they can
then go on and attempt to make laws which take other rights away. This
has happened successfully many times in history.
>: Both sentences have the effect of protecting society from the violent
>: criminal.
>
>The DP when implemented, does the better job, this cannot be argued.
>
Better not argue about it so :-)
> Both punish the violent criminal. However one sentence takes
>: a life. The other does not.
>
>Both take a life, the former (when implemented) quickly.
>
>The moral distinction is; that with the former, society is offered the
>illusion of the scales being balanced. With the latter, society is
>given the finger, and asked not to make a mess while it pukes.
>--
>
Sorry but I dont understand your moral distinction
>Kirk Erickson
>
>kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
>
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <sontum-ya0230800...@news.online.no>, Erik
Sontum <son...@online.no> writes
>If one
>could save some money by imposing a death penalty in favor of life-long
>imprisonment, then that money could be spent otherwise: feeding the hungry,
>healing the sick and so on. I know it´s morally questionable to set weaks
>groups up against one another in this way, but it´s how the world
>functions.
>
I hate to spoil the party, Erik: but if you'd care to go to the
following web page:
http://www.essential.org/dpic/
. . . you will see evidence that the death penalty costs a great deal
more to administer than prison.
>2) I don´t have any facts about the costs involved here,
You do now. :-)
>but I cannot
>imagine an execution costing more than a life-time sentence.
A lot of people on this newsgroup can't imagine their government ever
conspiring to pervert the course of justice, and to send innocent people
to their deaths in the name of political expendiency, but it happens. A
lot of people in Britain would have been aghast at the notion that their
Government could indulge in political assassination, but that's exactly
what it did shortly after the Falklands War.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that sane, rational people can
take a defenceless prisoner (irrespective of his crimes), strap him into
a chair, and subject him to one of the most painful deaths imaginable.
Yet, it happens.
In short, a lot of things which one wouldn't believe possible, in fact
exist and happen.
>Does anyone
>out there have any documented figures on this one? When you´re saying an
>execution is more expensive, are you thinking of "the moral decline of
>mankind" or just economically?
>
Both, in fact, but the web page above deals with the financial
considerations.
>One thing I found a bit disappointing was that your answer does not really
>make any comments about whether a purely economic motive for the death
>penalty is valid or not.
If we start to bring money into the equation, then we cut overseas aid
because after all, they're 'only niggers'. . . and so on. Human life
must come before money.
Conor Perry
db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charles Trew) wrote:
>
>Conor Perry (gaw...@iol.ie) writes:
>
>>>Philipp Louis (philip...@hotmail.com) writes:
>
>
>
>
>>>> If anybody thinks (s)he´s able to prove the opposite, just try it! You
>>>> won´t succeed.
>
>>> Why don't you explain why locking someone in a cell for the rest of
>>>their life is justice and executing someone is revenge?
>>> What is the particular moral difference between the two and what is
>>>that difference based on?
>>> You are the one making the distinction, you explain it to us.....
>>>
>
>>
>
>
>> Both sentences have the effect of protecting society from the violent
>> a life. The other does not. That, for me, is the moral difference between
>> the two.
>
>thirty years and executing them.
>code, what religion? What is the specific difference?
>
that the right to life is inviolable and also a distrust of giving my
government this much power.
You make a point that long sentences are very harsh. However those facing
the death penalty demonstrate that this is preferable over death by
appealing thier sentence. Many of us say "I would prefer to die than
spend life in prison" . In practice, though, those faced with the choice
dont agree except for a few exception.
/Conor
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <56lq43$n...@news.sas.ab.ca>, kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
writes
>Mr Desmond E. Coughlan (D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <56j9ro$a...@news.sas.ab.ca>, kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
>: writes
>: >The DP when implemented, does the better job, this cannot be argued.
>: >
>
>: The death penalty, when implemented, does a better job than life
>: imprisonment which is *not* implemented. When both are implemented with
>: equal vigour, the effect is the same: no reoffending. The difference
>: is. . .
>
>Pie in the sky Desmond, as long as the murderous bastard draws breath,
>he is capable of more of the same. Escape, prison riot, you name it,
> he is still capable.
>
>: >Both take a life, the former (when implemented) quickly.
>: >
>
>: Garbage. Life is defined as "the state or quality which distinguishes
>: living beings or organisms from dead ones, and from inorganic material"
>: (Collins Dictionary 1994)
>
>
>Nonsense, both sentences end with the death of a "human being". Didn't
>you once express revulsion at such barbarity? Yes ... I believe that
>you did.
>--
>
>Kirk Erickson
>
>kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
>
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <56lmvn$g...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, Charles Trew
<db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
> This really makes the point and is one of the best arguments I've heard
>in a
>long time. When you have someone in LWOP you have taken away their "life" as we
>all
>know it. They are going to die under control and conditions. By the very nature
>that is
>the process.
You and other death penalty supporters, Charles, have accused the anti-
death penalty camp of inventing definitions for words. You have just
done what you berate us for doing.
As I mentioned elsewhere, putting a person in prison for the rest of
their life undoubtedly interferes with the *quality* of his life, but in
no way does it *take* his life.
> It's almost like starving someone and then saying, "hey, I didn't
>*actually*
>kill them, they died under different causes..."
No, because there you have taken positive steps to end a life. If you
lock someone in a cell, and do everything you can to keep that person
alive, then the only way that he or she can die early is through
suicide.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <56lliq$g...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, Charles Trew
<db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>
> Why is life so special? Nobody has explained that. I'm for life, who
>isn't?
If life isn't that special, then why punish people who take life? I
assume that you mean innocent life.
>Nobody has explained a specific moral difference between locking someone in a
>hole for
>thirty years and executing them.
Yes, we have. Permit me to recap: locking someone up does not
constitute an assault on his person. Killing him, by definition, does.
--
Don Kool
Desi Coughlan wrote:
> Charles Trew <db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
> >> One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody can support the death penalty using
> >> rational arguments that are not originated in revenge. It愀 impossible.
> >>
> >> If anybody thinks (s)he愀 able to prove the opposite, just try it! You
> >> won愒 succeed.
> > Why don't you explain why locking someone in a cell for the rest of
> >their life is justice and executing someone is revenge?
> > What is the particular moral difference between the two and what is
> >that difference based on?
> > You are the one making the distinction, you explain it to us.....
> >
>
> May I? Thank you.
>
> Locking someone in a cell does not constitute an assault on that person.
> It may be an extremely unpleasant experience for the person concerned,
> but those of us against the death penalty don't usually base our
> arguments on whether or not the prisoner will enjoy the time he spends
> being punished (otherwise, we could offer no objection to, for example,
> lethal injection).
>
> Furthermore, I can't offhand recall reading anything here which
> advocated that convicted murderers (or any criminals for that matter) be
> let off unpunished. We are morally obliged to seek to prevent the
> criminal from reoffending (without harming him physically), and to at
> least *try* to reconcile the prisoner to the effects of his crime, and
> seek rehabilitation.
We are morally obligated to punish the murderer appropriately
for his crime. A just execution is the only punishment that fits
this criteria. Sory, Desi, you LOSE.
--
Hope this helps,
Don
"The law is there and the will of God. You break that law, you're
breaking the will of God and you're going to go to jail."
-- Charles Manson (Inmate B-33920)
-- Anti Death Penalty Hero
-- Parole Hearing 1992
"I just come out a prison. I got a chance to start over. And I'm
starting over and I'm not breaking no laws. So don't come around
me with no-nothing. I don't want no money. I'll eat out of garbage
cans. I'll stay on the complete bottom. I'm underneath this snake
here. I'm not breaking no law."
-- Charles Manson (Inmate B-33920)
-- Model Parolee
-- Two weeks before the murders
****************** Get your stinking paws off me,
* Don McDonald * You damned, dirty ape !
* Baltimore, MD * ---- Charleton Heston
****************** "Planet of the Apes"
http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
Don Kool
> >
> >> One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody can support the death penalty using
> >> rational arguments that are not originated in revenge. It愀 impossible.
> >>
> >> If anybody thinks (s)he愀 able to prove the opposite, just try it! You
> >> won愒 succeed.
> >
> >
> > Why don't you explain why locking someone in a cell for the rest of
> >their life is justice and executing someone is revenge?
> > What is the particular moral difference between the two and what is
> >that difference based on?
> > You are the one making the distinction, you explain it to us.....
> >
>
> Do you beleive that the right to life is inviolable?
No.
> Both sentences have the effect of protecting society from the violent
> criminal.
The just Death Penalty protects society 100%, LSWOP does not.
> Both punish the violent criminal.
To differing degrees.
> However one sentence takes
> a life. The other does not.
Exactly. On sentence achieves a modicum of parity with the
crime while the other does not.
> That, for me, is the moral difference between
> the two.
Yes, LSWOP allows the murderer to keep exactly what they took
from the victim; their life. This is morally unacceptable.
Don Kool
Desi Coughlan wrote:
> kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes
> >: This is the fundamental question in the whole death penalty arguement.
> >
> >: Do you beleive that the right to life is inviolable?
> >
> >No, of course I do not ... do you?
> >
>
> Anyone with an ounce of common sense does.
Glad to see that your "common sense" would keep you from using
deadly force to protect yourself from an attack. This would truly be
a perfect example of Darwin's Natural Selection as you are too stupid
to live.
>
> >: Both sentences have the effect of protecting society from the violent
> >: criminal.
> >
> >The DP when implemented, does the better job, this cannot be argued.
> >
>
> The death penalty, when implemented, does a better job than life
> imprisonment which is *not* implemented. When both are implemented with
> equal vigour, the effect is the same: no reoffending. The difference
> is. . .
>
> > Both punish the violent criminal. However one sentence takes
> >: a life. The other does not.
> >
> >Both take a life, the former (when implemented) quickly.
> >
>
> Garbage. Life is defined as "the state or quality which distinguishes
> living beings or organisms from dead ones, and from inorganic material"
> (Collins Dictionary 1994)
>
> Whether or not *you* fancy the idea of being locked in a cell for forty-
> odd years, the irrefutable truth is that LWOP does *not* take life.
If it were truly "LWOP" instead of the life supposedly without
parole (LSWOP) that it becomes in practice, it would, by definition,
take a life. The punishment ends when the murderer is dead no matter
how long that takes.
> >The moral distinction is; that with the former, society is offered the
> >illusion of the scales being balanced.
>
> You said it: the *illusion* !!
Yes, because it would be immoral for society to make the
murderer suffer to the same degree that his victims did. We have
to settle for a merciful and just execution.
Erik Sontum
Greetings, Desmond!
I think maybe you´ve misunderstood one of the points I made in my earlier
postings.
It´s not like I want to "bring money into the equation", I´m simply saying
that´s the way the world already operates. Money is what governments base
their decisions on, whether we like it or not. And if serious money could
be saved by imposing death penalties, better uses could be found for the
money saved, including overseas aid! And that would consitute a valid
economic reason for being pro-DP.
Yes, human lives should ideally come before money. How many starving
children could be fed for the same amount of money as having one person in
prison? As you said, human lives should come first... so let´s use that
money more wisely and save more people for the same amount of resources
that we are already using on just one person. If all people are truly equal
in "worth", then surely saving ten (or maybe even one hundred) people is
better then saving just one?!!
As for the cost of the death penalty being higher than life-time
imprisonment, I cannot really believe that. I´ll check out the web-page you
mentioned (http://www.essential.org/dpic/) and get back to you on that one,
but if it´s true then I guess the whole DP-thingie is in serious need of
some re-organization. Logic suggests
that the opposite should be true, I feel.
Concerning your use of a site to back up your claims: How can you trust
this site to speak the truth, while also implying that governments conspire
to pervert "the course of justice"? Would you believe the same site had
they reached a different conclusion or come up with numbers that went the
other way? Wandering of into paranoia... How do we know this research
hasn´t been tampered with by the people who oppose the death penalty in
order to show that their cause is the right one? Statistics are mostly
useless, as people tend to come up with the answers before they start
making questions.
Assuming the death penalty is more expensive than prison, what if someone
found a way that totally altered this. What if I came up with this grand
scheme that could save a billion dollars from execution expenses and wanted
to use all that money to give a thousand poor people in Africa a luxurious
life in the western world for the rest of their lives. Surely that would be
better, wouldn´t it? It would also be a valid economic reason for being
pro-DP, and maybe even considered humanitarian, too.
Furthermore, you state:
>Personally, I find it hard to believe that sane, rational people can
>take a defenceless prisoner (irrespective of his crimes), strap him into
>a chair, and subject him to one of the most painful deaths imaginable.
I believe you´re also basically saying that sane, rational people wouldn´t
kill innocents, either (as some murderers do). In my opinion, you could
either classify murderers as "sane" people because killing is a basic
instinct in man (as with a lot of other animals), or as "insane" because
"the human race is rational, and killing is not a rational act". If the
first was to be true, then murderers shouldn´t be punished by the
government, but others are free to kill the murderer, as well (which leads
to Chaos, Inc). If the second was to be true, then murderers should (pardon
my extremity here, I´m trying to get a point across) be "shot like the
rabid dogs that they are". (Insert the smiley of your choice here!).
Until we speak again...
Erik Sontum
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
Some fascinating points raised here . . .
In article <sontum-ya0230800...@news.online.no>, Erik
Sontum <son...@online.no> writes
>Greetings, Desmond!
>
Greetings, Erik! How's the weather over there in Norway? It's about
minus 15 here in Scotland.
>I think maybe you´ve misunderstood one of the points I made in my earlier
>postings.
>It´s not like I want to "bring money into the equation", I´m simply saying
>that´s the way the world already operates. Money is what governments base
>their decisions on, whether we like it or not. And if serious money could
>be saved by imposing death penalties, better uses could be found for the
>money saved, including overseas aid! And that would consitute a valid
>economic reason for being pro-DP.
>
Unless you were of the belief (as I am) that the death penalty is
unjustifiable whatever the cost. However, as I've said many times in
the past (and this is mentioned further down this article), the death
penalty is much more expensive to administrate than life imprisonment.
>Yes, human lives should ideally come before money. How many starving
>children could be fed for the same amount of money as having one person in
>prison?
As prison is cheaper than the death penalty, not that many.
>As you said, human lives should come first... so let´s use that
>money more wisely and save more people for the same amount of resources
>that we are already using on just one person. If all people are truly equal
>in "worth", then surely saving ten (or maybe even one hundred) people is
>better then saving just one?!!
>
I can see what you're getting at, but consider that by wider
implementation of the death penalty, society leaves itself able to help
fewer people than would be possible if the death penalty were abolished.
>As for the cost of the death penalty being higher than life-time
>imprisonment, I cannot really believe that. I´ll check out the web-page you
>mentioned (http://www.essential.org/dpic/) and get back to you on that one,
>but if it´s true then I guess the whole DP-thingie is in serious need of
>some re-organization. Logic suggests
>that the opposite should be true, I feel.
>
Yes, it is difficult to fathom, until one considers that the procedural
safeguards which are necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice (and
which sometime fail, as appears to have been demonstrated in Georgia
(USA) this weekend) mean that the death penalty is extremely expensive.
>Concerning your use of a site to back up your claims: How can you trust
>this site to speak the truth, while also implying that governments conspire
>to pervert "the course of justice"? Would you believe the same site had
>they reached a different conclusion or come up with numbers that went the
>other way? Wandering of into paranoia... How do we know this research
>hasn´t been tampered with by the people who oppose the death penalty in
>order to show that their cause is the right one? Statistics are mostly
>useless, as people tend to come up with the answers before they start
>making questions.
>
Yep, and my argument would be pretty weak if I had relied on a site
produced simply to forward statistics. The fact is, however, that a lot
of the figures came from studies conducted by respected newspapers, with
no axe to grind either way. Indeed, there are a wealth of studies
produced by governments the world over which destroy practically all the
arguments which one could possibly imagine existing in favour of the
death penalty.
>Assuming the death penalty is more expensive than prison, what if someone
>found a way that totally altered this. What if I came up with this grand
>scheme that could save a billion dollars from execution expenses
The only way I could see this happening is if the government were to say
to those accused of capital crimes that if found guilty, they would be
taken out into the prison yard the following morning and shot. No
appeal, no fuss: just one 9mm bullet in the back of the head.
Now, I can imagine a lot of people in this newsgroup who would be in
favour of this. In fact, I can think of at least six who are
ejaculating over their keyboards even as we speak.
Yet most governments accept the fact that when a prisoner's life is at
stake, it is an absolute necessity that he (or she) have the chance to
prove his (or her) innocence. So to shorten the appeals process would
make the death penalty even more of an affront to decency and humanity
than it already is.
Extrapolating further, however, even if it could be shown that a capital
crime would cost 1p from start to finish, it would still be wrong.
>and wanted
>to use all that money to give a thousand poor people in Africa a luxurious
>life in the western world for the rest of their lives. Surely that would be
>better, wouldn´t it? It would also be a valid economic reason for being
>pro-DP, and maybe even considered humanitarian, too.
>
No, because I can't imagine a situation in which the suffering of one
benefits the many.
>Furthermore, you state:
>
>>Personally, I find it hard to believe that sane, rational people can
>>take a defenceless prisoner (irrespective of his crimes), strap him into
>>a chair, and subject him to one of the most painful deaths imaginable.
>
>I believe you´re also basically saying that sane, rational people wouldn´t
>kill innocents, either (as some murderers do).
Indeed. Murderers and those who carry out executions are equally
repugnant.
>In my opinion, you could
>either classify murderers as "sane" people because killing is a basic
>instinct in man (as with a lot of other animals), or as "insane" because
>"the human race is rational, and killing is not a rational act". If the
>first was to be true, then murderers shouldn´t be punished by the
>government, but others are free to kill the murderer, as well (which leads
>to Chaos, Inc). If the second was to be true, then murderers should (pardon
>my extremity here, I´m trying to get a point across) be "shot like the
>rabid dogs that they are". (Insert the smiley of your choice here!).
>
Killing *is* a basic instinct in man. It is in our nature to destroy
and to kill, but that does not mean that we should give free rein to
that instinct. It could be argued that the death penalty as implemented
by governments is different from revenge killing, but as one poster
stated not that long ago, the people *are* the government (in theory at
least), and so when a government kills in the name of revenge, we all
suffer, and we all sacrifice a little bit of our humanity, and we all
sink a little further down the scale of evolution.
>Until we speak again...
>
>
'look forward to it . . .
Rainer Gstrein
If executions are done because of economical reasons (because a long stay in
prison is too expensive for society), then not only death row inmates should
consequently be killed, but all life long and long term prisoners. That are
100.000s.
Erik Sontum
In article <56q53b$4...@dm2.uibk.ac.at>, Rainer....@uibk.ac.at (Rainer
Gstrein) wrote:
I惴 not advocating that people should be killed, for economic reasons or
otherwise. As I stated earlier, I惴 neither 100% for the DP, nor am I 100%
against it. What I was trying to get across was that someone can have an
economic reason for being pro-DP, and that there doesn愒 necessarily have
to be a revenge motive present. The original posting, found under the "No
argument" subject heading, stated that the only reason someone could have
to be in favor of DP was having a revenge motive. I wanted to make a case
that other reasons could also be present �and valid from a technical view.
I believe that politicians mainly make choices based on economic reasons.
In the case of DP, however, I believe they do it as a deterrent... to make
other people stop doing the same crimes. Whether it works or not, I惴 not
too sure about. One could say that it doesn愒 work because there are
higher-than-average crime rates in the states that are using it, and
counter the argument with the opinion that these states have started using
because they had higher crime rates in the first place. I feel the
cause-effect relationship on this is very uinclear.
One could also speculate as to whether the deterrent effect can in fact
also be traced back to economic reasons: If it works, it lessens the rate
of crime... which leads to a better economy. I惴 not saying this is true,
merely speculating without passing judgments. As for the killing off of
hundreds of thousands of people... well, I heard they started shooting
people for even the smallest of offences in China around 10-15 year ago,
and the crime rate supposedly dropped with around 50% within a year. So it
might work if you愉e really extreme. But, no, I don愒 believe this is the
way to go. If a jury decides on the death penalty, then I feel it is the
right thing... a democratic decision made by the people must be followed,
whether we like it or not.
Ok, I guess that愀 about it for now...
Erik Sontum
P.S. Desmond, I惻l get back to your posting in a day or two.
Lucas Stults
"Mr Desmond E. Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Furthermore, I can't offhand recall reading anything here which
> advocated that convicted murderers (or any criminals for that matter) be
> let off unpunished.
Then you haven't been paying much attention, have you? Phillip has been
calling for the convicted murderer Carzell Moore to be "let off
unpunished." Max, Kidz, Kathy and John have all been calling for the
convicted murder Damien Echols to be "let off unpunished."
You guys are *constantly* calling for convicted murderers to be "let off
unpunished." In fact, where it not for the death penalty, you guys would
be devoting your time and energy exclusively to the release of convicted
killers.
(I'm sure Kathy or some equally silly murderer-groupie is going to whine
about how "innocent" their pet killer is. But that's exactly the point,
isn't it? Des claimed that he's never seen anyone here advocate the
release of a convicted murderer, but it happens all the time.)
dustbunny
snip
They
> (America) should better stop their space missions, stop their wars, and
give the saved
> money to the hungry.
snip
Have I missed something, or have they set up a redemption center where you
can turn in B-1 bombers for food?
Since we now produce more food than ever before on a per acre basis, and
since that production is directly attributable to new technologies,
including satelite imaging, brought to you by the friendly folks at NASA,
isn't stopping space missions in direct opposition to your goal?
People go hungry & even starve because the government allows it. I defy you
to cite a single famine in the last 500 years that was not directly
attributable to politics. The World produces enough food to feed every
single one of her inhabitants. Whether the governments of the world care
enough to feed those people is another story entirely.
dustbunny
Randy
Philipp Louis <philip...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<32950F...@hotmail.com>...
> Randy wrote:
> >
> > Philipp Louis <philip...@hotmail.com> wrote......
> > > "Every human being has the right to live." (The Human Rights)
> >
> > Since I don't believe in the united nations, I don't understand this
"human
> > rights", after all, you lose all your rights as a human after you make
the
> > choice of taking another humans life. Your rights are guaranteed in the
> > Bill of Rights.....Which has to do with due process of the law and
nothing
> > can be done before this to you......Pretty simple explanation, if you
wish
> > to read the full text, visit the Library of Congress, hey what the
heck,
> > their even on line.........
>
> Randy, you don't have to believe in the United Nations. But you have to
accept their
> laws, and their laws are called human rights. But even without the United
Nations,
> there is a natural law, a law of common sense, and it tells us that all
forms of
> killing are wrong. Only exception: self-defense
I could quote the bible here, but I won't, Just remember the words : "WITH
DUE PROCESS", in other words, even if you look at the LWOP slavery, or the
death penalty, they can not be applied without DUE PROCESS Of THE LAW......
Same concept of human rights, but the ultimate punishment can be applied if
found guilty of heinous crimes that society (meaning us) deems necessary.
As far as common sense, society has the obligation to protect itself
(self-defense), and executing the guilty is part of that protection. And
if you want simple here, as long as a person does NOT murder another, the
death penalty will not be needed, their choice......... BTW, I don't have
to live by any united nations laws unless the constitution of the United
States of America and Pennsylvania are both changed to accept another
governments as our leaders, which is highly unlikely (basically the
treaties the US signs mean nothing, unless a majority of states accept
it).......
-- Randy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ranl...@epix.net - http://www.epix.net/~ranlerch/candy.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Randy
Philipp Louis <philip...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<329510...@hotmail.com>...
>
> Haha, feeding the hungry with money saved by executions. It´s a joke,
isn´t it? They
> (America) should better stop their space missions, stop their wars, and
give the saved
> money to the hungry.
Actually all we have to do is continue to not pay the 1 billion dollars
plus for the united nations assessments, and hold back on a little more
foreign aid.......
-- Randy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ranl...@epix.net - http://www.epix.net/~ranlerch/dp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Philipp Louis
Erik Sontum wrote:
>
> 1) I agree with you that, ideally, one shouldn´t make an "economic
> assessment" of a human being, as all beings are basically "worth" the same.
> could save some money by imposing a death penalty in favor of life-long
> imprisonment, then that money could be spent otherwise: feeding the hungry,
> healing the sick and so on. I know it´s morally questionable to set weaks
> groups up against one another in this way, but it´s how the world
> functions.
Haha, feeding the hungry with money saved by executions. It´s a joke, isn´t it? They
(America) should better stop their space missions, stop their wars, and give the saved
money to the hungry.
------------------------------------------
SAVE AN INNOCENT FROM DEATH ROW!
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3366/
------------------------------------------
Philipp Louis
Randy wrote:
>
> Philipp Louis <philip...@hotmail.com> wrote......
> > "Every human being has the right to live." (The Human Rights)
>
> Since I don't believe in the united nations, I don't understand this "human
> rights", after all, you lose all your rights as a human after you make the
> choice of taking another humans life. Your rights are guaranteed in the
> Bill of Rights.....Which has to do with due process of the law and nothing
> can be done before this to you......Pretty simple explanation, if you wish
> to read the full text, visit the Library of Congress, hey what the heck,
> their even on line.........
Randy, you don´t have to believe in the United Nations. But you have to accept their
laws, and their laws are called human rights. But even without the United Nations,
there is a natural law, a law of common sense, and it tells us that all forms of
killing are wrong. Only exception: self-defense
------------------------------------------
Philipp Louis
Don Kool wrote:
>
> Yes, LSWOP allows the murderer to keep exactly what they took
> from the victim; their life. This is morally unacceptable.
>
Don, stop talking about moral. You don´t know what moral is.
Aaron Varhola
db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charles Trew) wrote:
> However, while you may not be against locking someone up in an
>isolation cell, many anti-DP people in the U.S. do. They are against any
>kind of strict punishment.
Sorry, Charles, but I'm one of the people who are both against the death
penalty and for harsher punishment for violent criminals and those who
perpetrate crimes of fraud.
I believe that certainty of prison time is more important than the length
of the sentence, but still, first and second offenders' sentences are too
lenient. This is even more blatant in cases of fraud; embezzlers and con
men get very light sentences, in part because of drug offenders clogging
the courts and prisons.
I don't see increased sentences working, though. The same people who
scream for increased sentences and for the death penalty are also the same
ones screaming NIMBY when they unveil plans for building new prisons. A
case in point is the citizens in Wilsonville, Oregon, a Portland suburb.
Clackamas County, which Wilsonville is in, overwhelmingly supported
stricter sentencing guidelines when they were proposed in a ballot
initiative in 1994. Now, when the state wants to build a prison on state
land where a state mental hospital used to be, the residents are up in
arms.
Aaron Varhola | "The city of [Miami] was built on a stagnant
Portland, OR | swamp [100] years ago, and very little has
IFA Counsel | changed. It stank then, and it stinks now!"
YSFC #6 |-- Lisa Simpson, 7F02
Aaron Varhola
intp...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>Actually the cost of execution is small. It's the lawyers that cost the
>money. Ng's lawyer estimates he will make 25 million dollars on the case.
>It costs 80,000 dollars a year to keep a criminal in jail.
$25 million, loony? Even O.J. Simpson's lawyers didn't make a third of
that. Did you look that figure up, or did the voices in your head tell you
that?
Aaron
Erik Sontum
In article <329510...@hotmail.com>, Philipp Louis
<philip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Haha, feeding the hungry with money saved by executions. It´s a joke,
isn´t it? They
> (America) should better stop their space missions, stop their wars, and
give the saved
> money to the hungry.
Yeah, you´re right about the wars and the space missions... no argument
there. But that does not neccessarily exclude using money saved by imposing
the death penalty, as well, does it?
Dan Hogg
In article <19961116181...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, twi...@aol.com writes:
|> Phillip says there is no risk of a offender repeating crimes in jail.
|>
|> Rape, assault, extortion and murder are common crimes in prison.
I've been out of touch for a couple of weeks now and don't know what preceded
this but have a couple of comments. First, it is likely that Phillip's
comment is truer wrt murder than the other crimes Twifts listed. To claim that
there is no risk is untenable.
Twifts however lumps murder - the least frequently committed crime anywhere -
with rape, which is a very frequent crime and, to boot, while murderers rarely
reoffend, rapists often rape over and over again.
There are about 80 murders per year in the criminal justice system and about
23000 annually in the general population. The CJ population is about 3,000,000
and the US population is about 260,000,000. Here's the math:
80 / 3000000 = 0.00002 2 for each 100,000 population.
23000 / 260000000 = 0.00009 9 for each 100,000 population
Thus murder is less than 1/4 as frequent in prison as in the overall US
population. Twifts, this is hardly a "common crime in prison".
--
==========================================================================
Daniel Hogg | da...@lexis-nexis.com
LEXIS-NEXIS | dh...@erinet.com
Dayton, OH 45342 | This space intentionally left blank.
==========================================================================
Reckless levity and ideological nonconformity
Philipp Louis
Randy wrote:
>
> I could quote the bible here, but I won't, Just remember the words : "WITH
> DUE PROCESS", in other words, even if you look at the LWOP slavery, or the
> death penalty, they can not be applied without DUE PROCESS Of THE LAW......
> Same concept of human rights, but the ultimate punishment can be applied if
> found guilty of heinous crimes that society (meaning us) deems necessary.
> As far as common sense, society has the obligation to protect itself
> (self-defense), and executing the guilty is part of that protection. And
"Defense" or "Protection" is that sense means keeping a potential perpetrator from
committing a crime. Killing him afterwards is neither defense nor protection.
> if you want simple here, as long as a person does NOT murder another, the
> death penalty will not be needed, their choice......... BTW, I don't have
Their choice? What about the wrongful death sentences like the one of Mr. Carzell
Moore ===> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3366/ ? These people didn´t have a
choice...
> to live by any united nations laws unless the constitution of the United
> States of America and Pennsylvania are both changed to accept another
> governments as our leaders, which is highly unlikely (basically the
> treaties the US signs mean nothing, unless a majority of states accept
> it).......
That´s not the point. Even if you live in a country that doesn´t even know what the
United Nations are, you have a common sense that tells you that you may not kill a
human being. This is common-sense law, the U.N. just made it official.
*************************************************************
SAVE THE LIFE OF CARZELL MOORE, AN INNOCENT DEATH-ROW INMATE!
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3366/
*************************************************************
Philipp Louis
dustbunny wrote:
>
> Have I missed something, or have they set up a redemption center where you
> can turn in B-1 bombers for food?
> Since we now produce more food than ever before on a per acre basis, and
> since that production is directly attributable to new technologies,
> including satelite imaging, brought to you by the friendly folks at NASA,
> isn't stopping space missions in direct opposition to your goal?
> People go hungry & even starve because the government allows it. I defy you
> to cite a single famine in the last 500 years that was not directly
> attributable to politics. The World produces enough food to feed every
> single one of her inhabitants. Whether the governments of the world care
> enough to feed those people is another story entirely.
The famine in Africa, for example, is attributable to the European (= "white"
American) behavior in the time of colonialism.
Some of the things you say are true. But what about the wars? There is absolutely
nothing useful or even good about war.
Philipp Louis
Erik Sontum wrote:
>
> Yeah, you´re right about the wars and the space missions... no argument
> there. But that does not neccessarily exclude using money saved by imposing
> the death penalty, as well, does it?
The wars and space missions cost billions of dollars (if not even more). We can shit
on the few dollars allegedly "saved" by executions. (They´re "peanuts".)
Don Kool
Suzanne "Kensington Kidz" Martin wrote:
> Lucas Stults (LSTULT...@mediaform.com) wrote:
> : "Mr Desmond E. Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> : > Furthermore, I can't offhand recall reading anything here which
> : > advocated that convicted murderers (or any criminals for that matter) be
> : > let off unpunished.
> : Then you haven't been paying much attention, have you? Phillip has been
> : calling for the convicted murderer Carzell Moore to be "let off
> : unpunished." Max, Kidz, Kathy and John have all been calling for the
> : convicted murder Damien Echols to be "let off unpunished."
> Stultz as usual displays his problem with either a) reading comprehension
> or b) honesty (I'm not sure which). I have never called for Echols to be
> "let off unpunished," nor have I even asserted that he was innocent. What
> I HAVE said, for those who read on the 3rd grade level and above, is that
> there are serious reasons to question his conviction, and in his case
> especially the DP is highly inappropriate -- because of the flimsy nature
> of the evidence against him and the hysteria that continues to surround this
> case.
>
> Even those who support the DP, if their support is at all rational,
> should oppose its imposition in such a case.
Suzy, contrary to the accepted practice of the anti Death Penalty
cabal, I actually consulted the relevant legal documents in this case.
If you were to do the same (I won't go there), even you might be able to
make out the word "GUILTY" on them. You would also find that the word
"innocent' isn't on any of them. I apologize for burdening you with the
facts of the matter.
Hope this helps,
Don
Kensington Kidz
Mitchell Holman
}
} Suzy, contrary to the accepted practice of the anti Death Penalty
}cabal, I actually consulted the relevant legal documents in this case.
And what "legal documents" were those, Don?
Please check your usual response:
__"I don't have to tell you"
__"I won't do your homework for you"
__ "Proooove it" whine
__ "I have the proof right here, I just won't post it"
__ "I don't need proof to know I am right"
__ Other __________________(be original, Don)
Mitchell Holman
" Capital Punishment is the *only* punishment that does work perfectly."
Don McDonald, Nov 5, 1996
twi...@aol.com
Dan Hogg seems to fall into that bizarre category of persons who don't
believe that one murder isn't enough, using statistics to show how rare
murder is in prison. And Dan the CJ population is 1.6 million, not 3
million.
FYI 9-15% of those on death row had committed at least one murder prior to
that murder(s) which have currently put them on death row, Capital
Punishment 1994, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Dan, I of course agree that murder is an unlikely repeat crime. I just
happen to feel that one murder per criminal is enough and they should not
be given a second chance. Your statistical analysis, while inaccurate, is
relevant. Unlike you, I consider any repeat murderer to be hugely
relevant, regardless of the probability of reoffending. Murder is
completely intolerable. You are the perfect example of the problem that we
have in the US today, Americans seem to tolerate violent crime and murder
to the extent people like you complain that it is dishonest to lump high
statisticall recidavists like rapists with low recidavists like murderers.
The recidavism rates for both are completely intolerable. Criminals who
commit these crimes should not be given a second chance to destroy the
lives of the innocent. Period.
TWIFTS
Don Kool
> } Suzy, contrary to the accepted practice of the anti Death Penalty
> }cabal, I actually consulted the relevant legal documents in this case.
> And what "legal documents" were those, Don?
> Please check your usual response:
>
> __"I don't have to tell you"
Very true.
> __"I won't do your homework for you"
Why should I, you lazy bastard.
> __ "Proooove it" whine
I see you have your 'hot key' working properly.
> __ "I have the proof right here, I just won't post it"
I don't do data entry for your amusement.
> __ "I don't need proof to know I am right"
As usual, you don't make any sense. How about
"I don't need to post the proof to know I am right". That is very true.
> __ Other __________________(be original, Don)
Trial transcripts.
Brook Bakay
On 21 Nov 1996, Lucas Stults wrote:
> Then you haven't been paying much attention, have you? Phillip has been
> calling for the convicted murderer Carzell Moore to be "let off
> unpunished." Max, Kidz, Kathy and John have all been calling for the
> convicted murder Damien Echols to be "let off unpunished."
>
> You guys are *constantly* calling for convicted murderers to be "let off
> unpunished." In fact, where it not for the death penalty, you guys would
> be devoting your time and energy exclusively to the release of convicted
> killers.
I'll call for WRONGLY convicted murderers to be "let off unpunished".
But, then again, I supposed no one in the American justice system EVER
made a mistake, now did they?
> (I'm sure Kathy or some equally silly murderer-groupie is going to whine
> about how "innocent" their pet killer is. But that's exactly the point,
> isn't it? Des claimed that he's never seen anyone here advocate the
> release of a convicted murderer, but it happens all the time.)
"silly murderer-groupy" - nice shot. Good thing you are arguing from a
coldly rational, logical and unemotional perspective. What the HELL IS
your point? That no one ever has, or ever could be wrongly convicted?
That will be a tough one to defend....
Brook
> >
Don Kool
Phil Louis wrote:
> Don Kool wrote:
> > Yes, LSWOP allows the murderer to keep exactly what they took
> > from the victim; their life. This is morally unacceptable.
> Don, stop talking about moral. You don´t know what moral is.
I know all too well what "moral" is and your tireless campaigning
on the behalf of immoral proven murderers certainly isn't it.
Don Kool
Philipp "Adolf" Louis wrote:
> Randy wrote:
> > Philipp "Adolf" Louis <philip...@hotmail.com> wrote......
> > > "Every human being has the right to live." (The Human Rights)
> > Since I don't believe in the united nations, I don't understand this "human
> > rights", after all, you lose all your rights as a human after you make the
> > choice of taking another humans life. Your rights are guaranteed in the
> > Bill of Rights.....Which has to do with due process of the law and nothing
> > can be done before this to you......Pretty simple explanation, if you wish
> > to read the full text, visit the Library of Congress, hey what the heck,
> > their even on line.........
> Randy, you don´t have to believe in the United Nations. But you have to accept their
> laws,
Adolf, the "laws" of the United Nations have no force in a soverign
country. Better go back and hit the books, Son.
> and their laws are called human rights. But even without the United Nations,
> there is a natural law, a law of common sense, and it tells us that all forms of
> killing are wrong. Only exception: self-defense
Like Society using the just Death Penalty to defend itself against
murderers.
> SAVE AN INNOCENT FROM DEATH ROW!
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3366/
Another proven murderer. Why do you love these guys so much? They
must
remind you of your Fuhrer.
Randy
> Randy wrote:
> >
> > I could quote the bible here, but I won't, Just remember the words :
"WITH
> > DUE PROCESS", in other words, even if you look at the LWOP slavery, or
the
> > death penalty, they can not be applied without DUE PROCESS Of THE
LAW......
> > Same concept of human rights, but the ultimate punishment can be
applied if
> > found guilty of heinous crimes that society (meaning us) deems
necessary.
> > As far as common sense, society has the obligation to protect itself
> > (self-defense), and executing the guilty is part of that protection.
And
>
> "Defense" or "Protection" is that sense means keeping a potential
perpetrator from
> committing a crime. Killing him afterwards is neither defense nor
protection.
Gee, how many prisoners are murdered in prison each year, how many prison
guards
must be injured, how many times can they escape and murder again before we
say enough.... I don't want to chance one of these...
> > if you want simple here, as long as a person does NOT murder another,
the
> > death penalty will not be needed, their choice......... BTW, I don't
have
>
> Their choice? What about the wrongful death sentences like the one of Mr.
Carzell
> Moore ===> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3366/ ? These people
didn´t have a
> choice...
EVERYONE has a choice not to kill someone else....Time to go a little off
topic here,
If someone is robbing my house in the middle of the night, I have to make a
immediate
choice here, whether to kill them in self defense or I could shoot them in
the leg (or somewhere
else) that is not fatal, but in the way the laws are written, I will with
out a doubt kill
that individual in the name of self defense, I have made my choice based on
protection
of my family, both life, and financially.
Same thing if a drug dealer losses his corner, instead of pulling out his
sub machine gun, or
semiautomatic pistol and shooting the competition in a hail of lead, he
could move to another
street corner..... We all make tough choices throughout life.......
> > to live by any united nations laws unless the constitution of the
United
> > States of America and Pennsylvania are both changed to accept another
> > governments as our leaders, which is highly unlikely (basically the
> > treaties the US signs mean nothing, unless a majority of states accept
> > it).......
>
> That's not the point. Even if you live in a country that doesn't even
know what the
> United Nations are, you have a common sense that tells you that you may
not kill a
> human being. This is common-sense law, the U.N. just made it official.
Let's get off the u.n., I think I made my views very well know on them, I
know who and what they
are about well enough.... Common sense law, since our nations laws are
based on
Judo-Christian values you are correct, that is why we have the death
penalty in the first place,
this is only common sense.......
--Randy
Desmond Coughlan
In article <01bbdd3d$2a1b5b00$b442e0c7@ranlerch>, Randy
<ranl...@epix.net> writes
>Same thing if a drug dealer losses his corner, instead of pulling out his
>sub machine gun, or
>semiautomatic pistol and shooting the competition in a hail of lead,
Oh my God, spare us!!
"The Streets of San Francisco! A Quinn-Martin production! Starring . .
. Karl Marlden. Also starring . . . Michael Douglas. Tonight's
episode. . . 'Randy in Fantasy land".
--
Desmond Coughlan
Donald
In article <3299DD...@clark.net>, Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
>Phil Louis wrote:
>> Don Kool wrote:
>
>> > Yes, LSWOP allows the murderer to keep exactly what they took
>> > from the victim; their life. This is morally unacceptable.
>
>> Don, stop talking about moral. You don´t know what moral is.
>
> I know all too well what "moral" is and your tireless campaigning
>on the behalf of immoral proven murderers certainly isn't it.
>
> Don
>
>****************** Get your stinking paws off me,
>* Don McDonald * You damned, dirty ape !
>* Baltimore, MD * ---- Charleton Heston
>****************** "Planet of the Apes"
>http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
Perhaps you can tell me if posting a users home phone number in this group in
an attempt to provoke nutcases like yourself into harassing her is the act of
a moral man asswipe.
Hope this helps,
Donald
Elizabeth Dijksman
Philipp wrote
> > Randy, you don´t have to believe in the United Nations. But you have to
accept their
> > laws,
Don Kool wrote
>
> Adolf, the "laws" of the United Nations have no force in a soverign
> country. Better go back and hit the books, Son.
>
Philipp wrote
> > and their laws are called human rights. But even without the United
Nations,
> > there is a natural law, a law of common sense, and it tells us that all
forms of
> > killing are wrong. Only exception: self-defense
>
Don Kool wrote
> Like Society using the just Death Penalty to defend itself against
> murderers.
>
> > SAVE AN INNOCENT FROM DEATH ROW!
> > http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3366/
Don Kool wrote
>
> Another proven murderer. Why do you love these guys so much? They
> must
> remind you of your Fuhrer.
>
Mr. Kool
I have no idea how old you are but I am sure your IQ has the same number.
The only thing you do in this duscussion is sticking your feet so far up
your throat, that it cuts of the oxygen supply.
I know for sure that even the people that are pro DP can do without your
stupid and personal remarks. And don't give me that shit that my remaks are
personal. They are suppose to be personal.
Don Kool
> >> > Yes, LSWOP allows the murderer to keep exactly what they took
> >> > from the victim; their life. This is morally unacceptable.
> >> Don, stop talking about moral. You don´t know what moral is.
> > I know all too well what "moral" is and your tireless campaigning
> >on the behalf of immoral proven murderers certainly isn't it.
> Perhaps you can tell me if posting a users home phone number in this group in
> an attempt to provoke nutcases like yourself into harassing her is the act of
> a moral man asswipe.
Gary, you seem to be the only one thinking about harassing her.
How many times did you call her up and do heavy breathing on the phone?
Randy
Desmond Coughlan <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<7qG8scAz...@maudit.demon.co.uk>...
What's a matter Desmond You don't care for the dramatics, and he's praying
at the same time<G>
Gee, you're starting to talk like a Gordy with his head kicked in....
I hope they got everything straightened out with the old PC,
just remember one thing, computers SUCK!!!
(I'll probably be taking mine in for a hard drive problem this week, so
I may be off line for a day or at least a few hours after work).......
-- Randy
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <01bbe0a9$50d74280$4842e0c7@ranlerch>, Randy
<ranl...@epix.net> writes
>
>Gee, you're starting to talk like a Gordy with his head kicked in....
>
Hmm . . . I assume that you mean a 'Geordie'. A Geordie is someone from
Tyneside, which is an area in NE England. Not Scotland.
>I hope they got everything straightened out with the old PC,
>just remember one thing, computers SUCK!!!
Well, we're agreed on *one* thing, then. . . :-)
>(I'll probably be taking mine in for a hard drive problem this week, so
>I may be off line for a day or at least a few hours after work).......
Hurry back. . .
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
" . . . the moral right to live does not depend on any laws. Moral rights
are . . . absolutes: they may not be infringed, however great the advantages
of doing so."
"Causing Death and Saving Lifes"
Jonathan Glover.
S J Hodgson
Don Kool <old...@clark.net> writes:
[ snip! ]
> > Perhaps you can tell me if posting a users home phone number in this group in
> > an attempt to provoke nutcases like yourself into harassing her is the act of
> > a moral man asswipe.
>
> Gary, you seem to be the only one thinking about harassing her.
> How many times did you call her up and do heavy breathing on the phone?
I case anyopne didn't know, this is not the first tim that Don has posted
another user's phone number on this newsgroup. Whether he does it simply to
show off, or whether there is an ulterior motive, I don't know. And, to be
honest, I don't care.
But I don't think anyone is impressed by either that, or your accusing Gary of
being a phone pest, Don.
For everyone's sake, grow up.
Steve
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <1996Dec3.1...@leeds.ac.uk>, S J Hodgson
<csx...@scs.leeds.ac.uk> writes
>I case anyopne didn't know, this is not the first tim that Don has posted
>another user's phone number on this newsgroup. Whether he does it simply to
>show off, or whether there is an ulterior motive, I don't know. And, to be
>honest, I don't care.
>
Isn't that illegal? It certainly would be in Britain.
>But I don't think anyone is impressed by either that, or your accusing Gary of
>being a phone pest, Don.
Is *anyone* impressed with *anything* that Don 'Mad Dog' Kool does?
>
>For everyone's sake, grow up.
>
Now you're asking too much . . .
Ian Harris
>In article <1996Dec3.1...@leeds.ac.uk>, S J Hodgson
><csx...@scs.leeds.ac.uk> writes
>
>>I case anyopne didn't know, this is not the first tim that Don has posted
>>another user's phone number on this newsgroup. Whether he does it simply to
>>show off, or whether there is an ulterior motive, I don't know. And, to be
>>honest, I don't care.
>>
>
>Isn't that illegal? It certainly would be in Britain.
>
The number is in the public domain. All one need do is call directory
information or use one of the web-based sources such as Switchboard.
Ian Harris
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32a4d2a7...@news.alt.net>, Ian Harris
<iha...@alt.net> writes
>>
>>Isn't that illegal? It certainly would be in Britain.
>>
>The number is in the public domain. All one need do is call directory
>information or use one of the web-based sources such as Switchboard.
>
Here in Britain, we have numbers available by calling Directory
Enquiries (Information), but if a number is ex-directory (unlisted), and
someone obtains it without proper authorisation, then they could be
charged under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
Aside from that, publishing a number on the web might be considered a
Breach of the Peace.
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
http://www.maudit.demon.co.uk
"It is the deed that teaches, not the name we give it. Murder and capital
punishment are not opposites that cancel one another, but similars that breed
their kind."
George Bernard Shaw
Don Kool
Ian Harris wrote:
> "Mr Desmond E. Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >S J Hodgson <csx...@scs.leeds.ac.uk> writes
> >>I case anyopne didn't know, this is not the first tim that Don has posted
> >>another user's phone number on this newsgroup. Whether he does it simply to
> >>show off, or whether there is an ulterior motive, I don't know. And, to be
> >>honest, I don't care.
> >Isn't that illegal? It certainly would be in Britain.
> The number is in the public domain. All one need do is call directory
> information or use one of the web-based sources such as Switchboard.
Imagine that; a mature, informed voice of reason on this
newsgroup instead of the braying voices of children that seem to
have dominated it lately. What a welcome breath of fresh air.
Don Kool
> >I case anyopne didn't know, this is not the first tim that Don has posted
> >another user's phone number on this newsgroup. Whether he does it simply to
> >show off, or whether there is an ulterior motive, I don't know. And, to be
> >honest, I don't care.
> Isn't that illegal? It certainly would be in Britain.
Just another reason why America is "the land of the free" and
Britain isn't.
> >But I don't think anyone is impressed by either that, or your accusing Gary of
> >being a phone pest, Don.
> Is *anyone* impressed with *anything* that Don 'Mad Dog' Kool does?
Well there's this one scottish lad named Desi that can't get enough.
lord...@aol.com
In article <32966D...@hotmail.com>, Philipp Louis
<philip...@hotmail.com>, in a dialog with dustbunny, writes:
dustbunny
>> Have I missed something, or have they set up a redemption center where
you
>> can turn in B-1 bombers for food?
>> Since we now produce more food than ever before on a per acre basis,
and
>> since that production is directly attributable to new technologies,
>> including satelite imaging, brought to you by the friendly folks at
NASA,
>> isn't stopping space missions in direct opposition to your goal?
>> People go hungry & even starve because the government allows it. I defy
you
>> to cite a single famine in the last 500 years that was not directly
>> attributable to politics. The World produces enough food to feed every
>> single one of her inhabitants. Whether the governments of the world
care
>> enough to feed those people is another story entirely.
philipp_louis
>The famine in Africa, for example, is attributable to the European (=
"white"
>American) behavior in the time of colonialism.
Even if we presume that the political situation generations ago could have
such a delayed effect (noting that the current famines were preceeeded by
many years of plenty in many of these places), I do not believe that
America had any colonies at all in Africa, which makes the connection even
more remote. Can you suggest a mechanism? Personally, I find more
believable that famines are caused by a combination of lack of legal order
(analogous to what went on in Europe after the Fall of the Roman Empire)
and an economic system that controls agricultural prices, thereby
incentivizing people to leave the farm and move to the city.
>Some of the things you say are true. But what about the wars? There is
>absolutely nothing useful or even good about war.
Depends on who you ask. Talk to the natives of Guam, for example, about
their feelings vis-a-vis the liberation of the Marianas from the Japanese.
lord...@aol.com
In article <8482500...@maudit.demon.co.uk>, "Mr Desmond E. Coughlan"
<D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk>, in a dialog with Eric Sontum, writes:
Sontum
>>If one
>>could save some money by imposing a death penalty in favor of life-long
>>imprisonment, then that money could be spent otherwise: feeding the
hungry,
>>healing the sick and so on. I know it愀 morally questionable to set
weaks
>>groups up against one another in this way, but it愀 how the world
>>functions.
Coughlin
>I hate to spoil the party, Erik: but if you'd care to go to the
>following web page:
>
>http://www.essential.org/dpic/
>
>. . . you will see evidence that the death penalty costs a great deal
>more to administer than prison.
Sontum
>>2) I don愒 have any facts about the costs involved here,
Coughlin
>You do now. :-)
Sontum
>>but I cannot
>>imagine an execution costing more than a life-time sentence.
Coughlin
>A lot of people on this newsgroup can't imagine their government ever
>conspiring to pervert the course of justice, and to send innocent people
>to their deaths in the name of political expendiency, but it happens. A
>lot of people in Britain would have been aghast at the notion that their
>Government could indulge in political assassination, but that's exactly
>what it did shortly after the Falklands War.
>
>Personally, I find it hard to believe that sane, rational people can
>take a defenceless prisoner (irrespective of his crimes), strap him into
>a chair, and subject him to one of the most painful deaths imaginable.
>Yet, it happens.
I remember when a young acquaintance of mine was viewing a
quasi-documentary on the Second World War with me (I believe it was the
film, "The Last Ten Days") which included some footage of the Russians
figuratively blasting their way into Berlin. He asked me how the Russians
could do something so terrible to a defenseless city. They had few
weapons and little ammunition. The defenders were a motley, ragtag
group-- mostly kids and the elderly. Among other things, he said that "it
hardly seemed like a fair fight." He very much pitied the poor, weak
Germans who were being so badly and unfairly used. This attitude, of
course, was based on ignorance of what had been done for the previous four
years, to which the assault on Berlin was merely the final act.
Similarly, when we execute a murderer, making too much of his or her
"defenselessness" and powerless state AT THAT MOMENT ignores the fact
that, in a very real sense, that person figuratively "declared war" on
society by murdering one or more of its other members and that he or she
was brought to the final, sorry state by society "finishing" a fight that
the murderer started. I'll save my pity for the murderer's victims, thank
you... and save my moral condemnation for those who start such "fights"...
rather than those that finish them.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <19961206172...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
lord...@aol.com writes
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
Andy Katz
lord...@aol.com wrote:
>I remember when a young acquaintance of mine was viewing a
>quasi-documentary on the Second World War with me (I believe it was the
>film, "The Last Ten Days") which included some footage of the Russians
>figuratively blasting their way into Berlin. He asked me how the Russians
>could do something so terrible to a defenseless city. They had few
>weapons and little ammunition. The defenders were a motley, ragtag
>group-- mostly kids and the elderly. Among other things, he said that "it
>hardly seemed like a fair fight." He very much pitied the poor, weak
>Germans who were being so badly and unfairly used. This attitude, of
>course, was based on ignorance of what had been done for the previous four
>years, to which the assault on Berlin was merely the final act.
Asking how is indeed based on ignorance of Nazi atrocity, yet are we
not obligated, at the same time, to avoid letting our ethical
standards be dictated by the most ruthless of acts, rather than the
most moral behaviors? Don't the Soviets, in the final analysis, stand
to answer for their actions in their own rights, and not as mere
reflections of what had been done to them by a enemy who no longer
possessed much power to create harm?
>the murderer started. I'll save my pity for the murderer's victims, thank
I don't know if anyone's asking for pity, so much as asking whether
the final act is really necessary one.
>you... and save my moral condemnation for those who start such "fights"...
>rather than those that finish them.
The 'fight', such as it is, is finished well before the execution.
Andy Katz
__________________________________________
So sophisticated is my Net presence that I
now disdain sigs, ascii and even URLs....
a...@interport.net
a...@texas.net
andre...@aol.com
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
>Similarly, when we execute a murderer, making too much of his or her
>"defenselessness" and powerless state AT THAT MOMENT ignores the fact
>that, in a very real sense, that person figuratively "declared war" on
>society by murdering one or more of its other members and that he or she
>was brought to the final, sorry state by society "finishing" a fight that
>the murderer started. I'll save my pity for the murderer's victims, thank
>you... and save my moral condemnation for those who start such "fights"...
>rather than those that finish them.
Yes, I suppose that one could take that point of view. However, the
trend nowadays is surely away from vengeance, even in war. Otherwise,
surely the allies would have marched on Baghdad?
Once we defeat an enemy, if we continue with violence, just to 'teach
him a lesson', then we are no better than the person who began the cycle
of violence in the first place.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
>quasi-documentary on the Second World War with me (I believe it was the
>film, "The Last Ten Days") which included some footage of the Russians
>figuratively blasting their way into Berlin. He asked me how the Russians
>could do something so terrible to a defenseless city. They had few
>weapons and little ammunition. The defenders were a motley, ragtag
>group-- mostly kids and the elderly. Among other things, he said that "it
>hardly seemed like a fair fight." He very much pitied the poor, weak
>Germans who were being so badly and unfairly used. This attitude, of
>course, was based on ignorance of what had been done for the previous four
>years, to which the assault on Berlin was merely the final act.
>
>"defenselessness" and powerless state AT THAT MOMENT ignores the fact
>that, in a very real sense, that person figuratively "declared war" on
>society by murdering one or more of its other members and that he or she
>was brought to the final, sorry state by society "finishing" a fight that
>the murderer started. I'll save my pity for the murderer's victims, thank
>you... and save my moral condemnation for those who start such "fights"...
>rather than those that finish them.
>
>
--
Kensington Kidz
lord...@aol.com wrote:
: I remember when a young acquaintance of mine was viewing a
: quasi-documentary on the Second World War with me (I believe it was the
: film, "The Last Ten Days") which included some footage of the Russians
: figuratively blasting their way into Berlin. He asked me how the Russians
: could do something so terrible to a defenseless city. They had few
: weapons and little ammunition. The defenders were a motley, ragtag
: group-- mostly kids and the elderly. Among other things, he said that "it
: hardly seemed like a fair fight." He very much pitied the poor, weak
: Germans who were being so badly and unfairly used. This attitude, of
: course, was based on ignorance of what had been done for the previous four
: years, to which the assault on Berlin was merely the final act.
I think your young acquaintance had it right. One atrocity does not
justify another. Two wrongs don't make a right. What the Russians were
doing, taking the above description at face value, can only be justified
if one believes that revenge is a valid reason to take human life.
: Similarly, when we execute a murderer, making too much of his or her
: "defenselessness" and powerless state AT THAT MOMENT ignores the fact
: that, in a very real sense, that person figuratively "declared war" on
: society by murdering one or more of its other members and that he or she
: was brought to the final, sorry state by society "finishing" a fight that
: the murderer started. I'll save my pity for the murderer's victims, thank
: you... and save my moral condemnation for those who start such "fights"...
: rather than those that finish them.
I truly cannot find any validity in the argument that killing can be
justified by "he started it." But that, I suspect, is because I do not
see revenge as a valid reason for killing.
lord...@aol.com
In article <32a9d210...@news.interport.net>, a...@interport.net (Andy
Katz), in a dialog with Lord Clane, writes:
Clane
>>I remember when a young acquaintance of mine was viewing a
>>quasi-documentary on the Second World War with me (I believe it was the
>>film, "The Last Ten Days") which included some footage of the Russians
>>figuratively blasting their way into Berlin. He asked me how the
Russians
>>could do something so terrible to a defenseless city. They had few
>>weapons and little ammunition. The defenders were a motley, ragtag
>>group-- mostly kids and the elderly. Among other things, he said that
"it
>>hardly seemed like a fair fight." He very much pitied the poor, weak
>>Germans who were being so badly and unfairly used. This attitude, of
>>course, was based on ignorance of what had been done for the previous
four
>>years, to which the assault on Berlin was merely the final act.
Katz
>Asking how is indeed based on ignorance of Nazi atrocity, yet are we
>not obligated, at the same time, to avoid letting our ethical
>standards be dictated by the most ruthless of acts, rather than the
>most moral behaviors? Don't the Soviets, in the final analysis, stand
>to answer for their actions in their own rights, and not as mere
>reflections of what had been done to them by a enemy who no longer
>possessed much power to create harm?
I was merely pointing out that by focusing on the last ten days, and
ignoring the war that led up to it, one could get the impression of the
big, powerful Russians needlessly brutalizing the poor, defenseless
Germans. Focusing only on the moments surrounding the execution of a
murderer is analogous.
Clane
>>you... and save my moral condemnation for those who start such
"fights"...
>>rather than those that finish them.
Katz
>The 'fight', such as it is, is finished well before the execution.
Obviously not, since the execution is, in a very real sense, and by
definition, the final physical blow.
lord...@aol.com
In article <6VUz9FBt...@maudit.demon.co.uk>, "Mr Desmond E. Coughlan"
<D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk>, in a dialog with Lord Clane, writes:
Clane
>>Similarly, when we execute a murderer, making too much of his or her
>>"defenselessness" and powerless state AT THAT MOMENT ignores the fact
>>that, in a very real sense, that person figuratively "declared war" on
>>society by murdering one or more of its other members and that he or she
>>was brought to the final, sorry state by society "finishing" a fight
that
>>the murderer started. I'll save my pity for the murderer's victims,
thank
>>you... and save my moral condemnation for those who start such
"fights"...
>>rather than those that finish them.
Coughlin
>Yes, I suppose that one could take that point of view. However, the
>trend nowadays is surely away from vengeance, even in war. Otherwise,
>surely the allies would have marched on Baghdad?
Not at all. Bush had a variety of reasons not to march on Baghdad... the
most obvious being that he would have taken a lot of negative diplomatic
repurcussions from the Arab nations, and consequent negative publicity,
and seemed to believe (mistakenly) that, given the shock of what happened,
Hussein would be forced from power soon thereafter anyway.
Coughlin
>Once we defeat an enemy, if we continue with violence, just to 'teach
>him a lesson', then we are no better than the person who began the cycle
>of violence in the first place.
By this logic, Roosevelt and Churchill were as evil as Hitler, since they
probably could have obtained some sort of peace with Germany earlier. The
goal, however, was not to "teach Hitler a lesson"... it was to assure that
Germany's warmaking potential was utterly vanquished, and, in this vein,
there was no substitute for total victory. Analogously, there was no real
way to reliably "teach William Bundy a lesson". The only way to utterly
vanquish his proven murderous capability was to execute him. Borrowing,
for a moment, the language of war: total victory.
Charles Trew
(lord...@aol.com) writes:
>>Asking how is indeed based on ignorance of Nazi atrocity, yet are we
>>not obligated, at the same time, to avoid letting our ethical
>>standards be dictated by the most ruthless of acts, rather than the
>>most moral behaviors? Don't the Soviets, in the final analysis, stand
>>to answer for their actions in their own rights, and not as mere
>>reflections of what had been done to them by a enemy who no longer
>>possessed much power to create harm?
> I was merely pointing out that by focusing on the last ten days, and
> ignoring the war that led up to it, one could get the impression of the
> big, powerful Russians needlessly brutalizing the poor, defenseless
> Germans. Focusing only on the moments surrounding the execution of a
> murderer is analogous.
> Clane
>>>you... and save my moral condemnation for those who start such
> "fights"...
>>>rather than those that finish them.
> Katz
>>The 'fight', such as it is, is finished well before the execution.
> Obviously not, since the execution is, in a very real sense, and by
> definition, the final physical blow.
This is a very interesting discussion and reminded me of something.
Most organized armies drop propaganda leaflets before many major
operations to "psych out" the opposing forces.
In the case we are discussing, the Soviets did drop leaflets in Berlin.
Two of the most prominent were: "Death to the killers of women and
children," and "The Hour of Revenge has Arrived."
No surprise most Germans that could headed west and surrendered. The ones
that didn't were either killed or ended up in forced labor concentration
camps until the mid-fifties (if they didn't die before).
Having said that, until the Germans officially surrendered, which they
hadn't, the Soviets had every right to destroy whatever they could.
Similar arguments can be made for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <19961211191...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
lord...@aol.com writes
>
>I was merely pointing out that by focusing on the last ten days, and
>ignoring the war that led up to it, one could get the impression of the
>big, powerful Russians needlessly brutalizing the poor, defenseless
>Germans. Focusing only on the moments surrounding the execution of a
>murderer is analogous.
This is a tempting argument, but a dangerous road for us to go down.
The actions of the Russians (and I have no knowledge of this period of
history) were understandable, but wrong nonetheless.
After the Argentine surrender in the 1982 Falklands war, there were
allegations of summary executions of Argentine soldiers by members of
the British armed forces. Some public figures (right wingers,
predictably!) tried to make the issue go away: 'It was *war!!'
No, it wsn't war: the war was over. Once the Argentinians laid down
their weapons, they were prisoners, and by impilcation, under British
protection. Harming them wasn't 'war': it was murder, plain and simple.
The same applies to the Russians in Germany in 1945.
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
Mike Cullinan
In Article<58p2k6$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
<db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> write:
>
> No surprise most Germans that could headed west and surrendered. The
ones
> that didn't were either killed or ended up in forced labor
concentration
> camps until the mid-fifties (if they didn't die before).
Have you ever read Cornelius Ryan's _The_Last_Battle_? In the final
days of the European war, the Berliners were speculating apprehensively
about which front would get to Berlin first. They definitely did
not want the Russians to get there before the Allies, realizing
what their treatment would be at the hands of the Russians.
Many who could not leave Berlin and head west for one reason or
another had a contingency plan in case the Russians got to them
first. Those who could afford it got cyanide pills; those who
couldn't had to settle for a messier razor. They speculated
about whether it was best to cut across the veins of their
wrists or if it was more efficient to cut them lengthwise . . .
>
> Having said that, until the Germans officially surrendered, which they
> hadn't, the Soviets had every right to destroy whatever they could.
> Similar arguments can be made for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
According to Ryan's book, the first Russians to reach Berlin were
the elite regiments. They were more restrained. They didn't
mess with the civilians, but pressed on to seek contact with the
remaining eneemy. There was an anecdote in the book about a German
family who was relieved that the Russians they saw were not going
to rape or abuse them. The major warned them that the Russians who
would be bringing up the rear were pigs.