Flaws in utilitarian arguments for the death penalty
Euroguy
grounds. For utilitarians, punishment in general is justified only insofar
as it creates a greater balance of happiness vs. unhappiness. From the
utilitarian perspective, then, capital punishment is justified if it (1)
prevents the criminal from repeating his crime; or (2) deters crime by
discouraging would-be offenders. For, both of these contribute to a greater
balance of happiness in society.
There are several immediate problems with this line of reasoning. First, the
burden of proof is on the defender of capital punishment to show that the
same effects could not be accomplished with less severe punishment, such as
life imprisonment. This is especially pertinent since the goal of
utilitarianism is to reduce as much unhappiness as possible and this entails
imposing the least severe of two possible punishments when everything else
is equal. Italian political theorist Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) argues this
point in On Crimes and Punishment ("Dei delitti e delle penne", 1764), one
of the first systematic critiques of capital punishment from the utilitarian
point of view. According to Beccaria, capital punishment is not necessary to
deter, and long term imprisonment is a more powerful deterrent since
execution is transient.
A second and more basic problem with utilitarian defenses of capital
punishment involves the fact gathering process. Since the utilitarian is
making a factual claim about the beneficial social consequences of capital
punishment, then his claim should be backed by empirical evidence. In the
absence of such reliable empirical evidence, the utilitarian position must
be dismissed, as is the case with any unverified factual claim. "Empirical
evidence" in general is of two varieties: anecdotal evidence and scientific
evidence. Anecdotal evidence involves isolated observations which appear to
correlate two states of affairs, which, in this case, would be (a) capital
punishment, and (b) improved social conditions. Given the gravity of the
issue at stake with capital punishment, namely, people's lives, anecdotal
evidence is an insufficient ground for establishing a causal connection
between capital punishment and improved social conditions. Instead,
scientific studies are needed. Several studies have been conducted in the
past few decades regarding such a connection, but, unfortunately, the
methodology used on social questions of this nature is necessarily
imprecise. Ideally, a truly scientific study of the question would involve a
comparison between two otherwise identical societies in which capital
punishment was not used in the control group but was used in the test group.
The problem, though, is that it is a practical impossibility to isolate two
otherwise identical societies upon which to conduct the study. An almost
endless variety of differing factors in the respective groups will make the
results inconclusive. Not surprisingly, the recently conducted empirical
studies in fact draw conflicting conclusions. This basic problem in the fact
gathering process not only applies to the utilitarian defender of capital
punishment, but also to the utilitarian critic of capital punishment who
might, for example, argue that society benefits more from life imprisonment
sentences.
A third problem with utilitarian justifications of punishment, as pointed
out by contemporary political philosopher Adam Bedeau, concerns the ratio of
innocent lives saved per execution. Perhaps, in the best possible situation,
executing five of the most dangerous convicts will result in saving five
innocent lives in the future. As the number of executions increases,
however, the number of innocent lives saved will not increase
proportionally. Eventually, it may take one thousand additional executions
to save only one additional innocent life. So, eventually it must be
determined how many executions justify the saving of one innocent life.
This, though, is virtually impossible to determine, yet utilitarians need
this information to successfully calculate the overall social benefit of
capital punishment.
Finally, critics of capital punishment sometimes argue on utilitarian
grounds that the expense involving executions is substantially greater than
the cost of life imprisonment. The costs of appeals and legal counseling are
the principal expenses. Thus, the extra financial burden of capital
punishment contributes to a greater balance of unhappiness vs. happiness.
There are three problems with this argument. First, such financial
calculations typically do not take into account that much of the legal
counseling for death row inmates is pro bono which does not cost the
taxpayer. Second, even if this is a true description of the cost of capital
punishment in the United States and other developed countries, it is not
representative of the cost of criminal executions world wide. Indeed, one
might reasonably expect that in many developing countries executions are
substantially cheaper than life imprisonment costs. Assuming that critics of
capital punishment object to its practice in any country, this argument not
only lacks universal application, but might in fact be used as an argument
in favor of capital punishment in countries with less expensive appeals
processes. Finally, even if executing criminals is more costly than life
imprisonment, it is not immediately obvious that the extra expense either
contributes to a greater balance of social unhappiness or even tips the
balance towards unhappiness. Society may actually be pleased with, or at
least content with, the value it is getting for its capital punishment
dollar.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
As in his other arguments in the three posts he has
provided, none of the words contained in the posts
are ACTUALLY the words of euroguy, yet he has
neglected to provide an attribution to his comments.
One wonders if euroguy is not actually a 'talking
head,' having no REAL thoughts of his own. See
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/capitalp.htm
"Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c63e...@news1.meganetnews.com...
> Perhaps the most common defenses of capital punishment are on utilitarian
> grounds. For utilitarians, punishment in general is justified only insofar
> as it creates a greater balance of happiness vs. unhappiness. From the
> utilitarian perspective, then, capital punishment is justified if it (1)
> prevents the criminal from repeating his crime; or (2) deters crime by
> discouraging would-be offenders. For, both of these contribute to a greater
> balance of happiness in society.
>
> There are several immediate problems with this line of reasoning.
You mean, of course, that 'YOU' and your un-attributed source
see some immediate problems. No one can state FACTUALLY
that they exist. None the less, dipshit... you are simply
copying this from a known source. You have not demonstrated
ANY original thinking, as usual, but robotically offer the ideas
of others as your own, without providing attribution.
> First, the
> burden of proof is on the defender of capital punishment to show that the
> same effects could not be accomplished with less severe punishment, such as
> life imprisonment.
Exactly WHY would this be necessarily a 'burden' on the part
of society? If someone sees it as such, they must NECESSARILY
believe that life imprisonment is less severe punishment than
the DP. Can you PROVE that? Could Beccaria?
> This is especially pertinent since the goal of
> utilitarianism is to reduce as much unhappiness as possible and this entails
> imposing the least severe of two possible punishments when everything else
> is equal. Italian political theorist Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) argues this
> point in On Crimes and Punishment ("Dei delitti e delle penne", 1764), one
> of the first systematic critiques of capital punishment from the utilitarian
> point of view. According to Beccaria, capital punishment is not necessary to
> deter, and long term imprisonment is a more powerful deterrent since
> execution is transient.
>
To sum up Beccaria one should examine his entire concept
encapsulated in one small paragraph, in his 'On Crime and
Punishment,' defining the purpose for which he believes we
punish criminals --
"The end of punishment, therefore, is no other than to prevent
the criminal from doing further injury to society, and to prevent
others from committing the like offence. Such punishments,
therefore, and such a mode of inflicting them, ought to be
chosen, as will make the strongest and most lasting
impressions on the minds of others, with the least torment
to the body of the criminal."
With this common understanding at the time, that the end
of punishment for crimes was ONLY to prevent and deter, he
missed an important aspect -- that of society's expression of
outrage. The fact that members of society SEE that
society itself is concerned not only with preventing and
deterring criminals, but with RECOGNITION that such is a
necessary adjunct of society. We see ourselves as not
only 'punishing' those who commit crimes, presuming
prevention and deterrence, but as a 'responsible' society
AWARE of and recognizing the dangers from criminal
elements. In effect, Beccaria concentrates on what he
presumes are the ONLY EFFECTS of what we do, yet
rather ignores one of the more obvious PURPOSES of what
we do. Glossing it over with what he presumes are its
ONLY effects.
> A second and more basic problem with utilitarian defenses of capital
> punishment involves the fact gathering process. Since the utilitarian is
> making a factual claim about the beneficial social consequences of capital
> punishment, then his claim should be backed by empirical evidence. In the
> absence of such reliable empirical evidence, the utilitarian position must
> be dismissed, as is the case with any unverified factual claim. "Empirical
> evidence" in general is of two varieties: anecdotal evidence and scientific
> evidence. Anecdotal evidence involves isolated observations which appear to
> correlate two states of affairs, which, in this case, would be (a) capital
> punishment, and (b) improved social conditions. Given the gravity of the
> issue at stake with capital punishment, namely, people's lives, anecdotal
> evidence is an insufficient ground for establishing a causal connection
> between capital punishment and improved social conditions.
No one expects such a causal connection. Anyway I don't. There
is a causal connection between social conditions and violence in
a society. But to extend that premise to the belief that the DP
contributes to violence is absurd. I do not believe we execute
to IMPROVE social conditions. We execute BECAUSE violence
has been created FROM social conditions. Improve social
conditions and violence will be reduced, thus the necessity for
the DP will also be reduced. But, it's silly to presume that
eliminating the DP will IMPROVE social conditions. It only
provides an EXCUSE to commit violence if we presume that
the penalties we exact for crimes create social conditions
which cause violence. What the DP DOES DO is prevent a
proven murderer from murdering again. That is an ABSOLUTE
truism, regardless of other names that abolitionists wish to
attach. Further, incarcerating murderers with the general
population has an infecting effect on a prison population
already on the edge of the belief that criminality and violence
is acceptable as a means to an end, IMHO. Infecting those who
might even look up to murderers, because they committed the
ultimate crime in the eyes of those susceptible to such acts.
> Instead,
> scientific studies are needed. Several studies have been conducted in the
> past few decades regarding such a connection, but, unfortunately, the
> methodology used on social questions of this nature is necessarily
> imprecise. Ideally, a truly scientific study of the question would involve a
> comparison between two otherwise identical societies in which capital
> punishment was not used in the control group but was used in the test group.
> The problem, though, is that it is a practical impossibility to isolate two
> otherwise identical societies upon which to conduct the study. An almost
> endless variety of differing factors in the respective groups will make the
> results inconclusive. Not surprisingly, the recently conducted empirical
> studies in fact draw conflicting conclusions. This basic problem in the fact
> gathering process not only applies to the utilitarian defender of capital
> punishment, but also to the utilitarian critic of capital punishment who
> might, for example, argue that society benefits more from life imprisonment
> sentences.
>
In other words.. the 'fact gathering process' has no true value,
and can be argued both pro and con to the use of the DP. Big
surprise!
> A third problem with utilitarian justifications of punishment, as pointed
> out by contemporary political philosopher Adam Bedeau,
ROTFLMAO -- Bedeau (sic) - the 'contemporary political philosopher,'
unpossessed of an agenda. ROTFLMAO. You would think
that a URL citing him as a reference could at least get his name
spelled correctly. This clearly demonstrates that not much
ACTUAL thought went into 'the Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy' argument on 'Capital Punishment.'
> concerns the ratio of
> innocent lives saved per execution. Perhaps, in the best possible situation,
> executing five of the most dangerous convicts will result in saving five
> innocent lives in the future. As the number of executions increases,
> however, the number of innocent lives saved will not increase
> proportionally. Eventually, it may take one thousand additional executions
> to save only one additional innocent life. So, eventually it must be
> determined how many executions justify the saving of one innocent life.
That's absurd. It presumes there is 'equality' in the circumstances
and behavior of all murderers. Clearly, were that to be true, then
it would be necessary to execute NONE or execute ALL. There
would be NO evaluation of the murders and the murderers themselves.
We SHOULD execute those murderers who 'deserve it,' and are
almost positively certain to be recidivist. To presume that we
need to execution a thousand murderers to save one additional
life is nonsense, if we presume we have an ability to make any
value judgment whatsoever. This judgment process is what needs
to be examined and refined on a continual basis. The answer
to the last sentence is clearly that it may range from zero to
as many as we see necessary, if we presume execution of
that murderer can prevent a new murder from being committed.
We are not committed to preventing ALL new murders, since
we realize that is IMPOSSIBLE. Nor are we committed to
preventing ALL recidivist murders, since we realize that is
IMPOSSIBLE as well. We are concerned with the possibility
of the INDIVIDUAL murderer we examine in the process of
sentencing being 'the ONE' who will commit a new murder.
In addition to having shown he/she deserves execution.
> This, though, is virtually impossible to determine, yet utilitarians need
> this information to successfully calculate the overall social benefit of
> capital punishment.
>
????????????
> Finally, critics of capital punishment sometimes argue on utilitarian
> grounds that the expense involving executions is substantially greater than
> the cost of life imprisonment. The costs of appeals and legal counseling are
> the principal expenses. Thus, the extra financial burden of capital
> punishment contributes to a greater balance of unhappiness vs. happiness.
> There are three problems with this argument. First, such financial
> calculations typically do not take into account that much of the legal
> counseling for death row inmates is pro bono which does not cost the
> taxpayer. Second, even if this is a true description of the cost of capital
> punishment in the United States and other developed countries, it is not
> representative of the cost of criminal executions world wide. Indeed, one
> might reasonably expect that in many developing countries executions are
> substantially cheaper than life imprisonment costs. Assuming that critics of
> capital punishment object to its practice in any country, this argument not
> only lacks universal application, but might in fact be used as an argument
> in favor of capital punishment in countries with less expensive appeals
> processes. Finally, even if executing criminals is more costly than life
> imprisonment, it is not immediately obvious that the extra expense either
> contributes to a greater balance of social unhappiness or even tips the
> balance towards unhappiness. Society may actually be pleased with, or at
> least content with, the value it is getting for its capital punishment
> dollar.
>
How often are you going to repost this same rubbish... over and
over? Haven't you EVER had an original thought? And the last
comment from this hilarious source suggesting a cost/benefit
examination of the DP is stupidity personified. One might as
well suggest we do such a cost/benefit analysis on the entire
criminal justice system, since we realize that sending someone
to prison for 30 days is a LOT cheaper than sending them to
prison for 20 years. In fact, even HAVING a criminal justice
system has a certain cost. Perhaps we should eliminate that
as well.
STOP COPYING!!!! Think for YOURSELF.
PV
> Euro
Exador
[snipped PV rant]
Your argument of late seems to boil down to "that's your opinion and you
think we should all agree,and you can't tell me what to think". You
rarely rise above this sophomoric level any more PV. Please try, you're
capable of powerful debate when you put you're mind to it.
Cheers,
Craig
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna68bhr.4kp.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Fri, 08 Feb 2002 19:34:12 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> > PLAGIARIZE ALERT!!
>
> Euroguy's native language is not English, as far as I know. The person
> who wrote those articles, is a native English speaker, I think. It was
> obvious from the first paragraph that he didn't write them (only the Wise,
> learnèd in many tongues (such as I) are capable of writing in more than
> one language, 'sans faute'), and I'd be surprised if his intention were to
> deceive.
>
> However, I agree that he should have quoted his sources.
>
I think the point is we cannot EXCUSE entire posts (three
actually) which do not mention the hint of an attribution.
Even if the poster has the same agenda as we do, it obviously
demonstrates a great deal of deception. Do you believe
YOUR agenda is based on deception? euroguy has
trumpeted his language abilities here more than one would
assume is rational. And he has been irrational on more than
one occasion, while claiming a great deal of rationality and
independent thought. I can only assume he PRESUMED we
would believe it was him presenting an augment which HE
had constructed. Good grief... it was a 'clip and paste'
hatchet job. Admit it, and move on.
PV
> { snip typical PV 12-terabyte whopper }
Actually it was a responsible argument in reply to a plagerized
article.
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
> Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
>
John Rennie
> Le Fri, 08 Feb 2002 23:03:01 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> > PLAGIARIZE ALERT!!
>
> { snip }
>
> >> However, I agree that he should have quoted his sources.
>
> > I think the point is we cannot EXCUSE entire posts (three
> > actually) which do not mention the hint of an attribution.
> > Even if the poster has the same agenda as we do, it obviously
> > demonstrates a great deal of deception. Do you believe
> > YOUR agenda is based on deception?
>
> life. A quality, or a weakness. You decide.
Well it certainly isn't a strength.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> Actually it was a responsible argument in reply to a plagerized
> article.
Or even a plagiarised article.
Woohoo!
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
Euroguy
Your "discovery" is of little interest. I have been posting those articles
more than 10 times, and I did mention the source each time. Like Sharp, I do
recycle some postings I consider as interesting. It is the first time I send
this article in 3 parts - which, I think, are more manageable for everyone.
And, true enough, I omitted to copy the source on each of the postings.
When I copy articles, it is because I broadly subscribe their ideas and I
think they are very pertinent. I do write articles on my own, besides this,
and I repost them occasionally.
Whether I "plagiarize" or not is of little interest for everyone here. What
matters is the contribution brought to the debate. I wish you could at least
send interesting stuff, even from another source. This would prevent you
from launching hopeless personal attacks or giving uninteresting comments on
the Olympic Games opening ceremony.
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
??????:UKV88.28588$Gb1.6...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> PLAGIARIZE ALERT!!
>
> As in his other arguments in the three posts he has
> provided, none of the words contained in the posts
> are ACTUALLY the words of euroguy, yet he has
> neglected to provide an attribution to his comments.
> One wonders if euroguy is not actually a 'talking
> head,' having no REAL thoughts of his own. See
> http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/capitalp.htm
>
> "Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c63e...@news1.meganetnews.com...
> > Perhaps the most common defenses of capital punishment are on
utilitarian
> > grounds. For utilitarians, punishment in general is justified only
insofar
> > as it creates a greater balance of happiness vs. unhappiness. From the
> > utilitarian perspective, then, capital punishment is justified if it (1)
> > prevents the criminal from repeating his crime; or (2) deters crime by
> > discouraging would-be offenders. For, both of these contribute to a
greater
> > balance of happiness in society.
> >
> > There are several immediate problems with this line of reasoning.
>
> You mean, of course, that 'YOU' and your un-attributed source
> see some immediate problems.
(snipped: PV's nonsense)
Yes. the problems are just here below:
> > First, the
> > burden of proof is on the defender of capital punishment to show that
the
> > same effects could not be accomplished with less severe punishment, such
as
> > life imprisonment.
>
> Exactly WHY would this be necessarily a 'burden' on the part
> of society? If someone sees it as such, they must NECESSARILY
> believe that life imprisonment is less severe punishment than
> the DP. Can you PROVE that? Could Beccaria?
Stupid question. When you call anti-DPers "murderer-lovers", don't you make
the same reasoning?
Beccaria concentrates on prevention, which is the more important in
anti-crime policies. Now, if you want to bring the discussion on retribution
(the society's expression of outrage), I can make oppose you the same
argument: society's outrage can be expressed (maybe even more convincingly)
by life imprisonment.
Indeed. This is why the lines above say exactly the contrary: "making a
factual claim about the beneficial social consequences of capital
punishment."
Too bad, you don't seem to have grasped their meaning.
> I do not believe we execute
> to IMPROVE social conditions. We execute BECAUSE violence
> has been created FROM social conditions. Improve social
> conditions and violence will be reduced,
And executions do everything but contribute to improve social conditions.
Well-done, PV. Tell me then, what does the US government do to improve
social conditions?
thus the necessity for
> the DP will also be reduced. But, it's silly to presume that
> eliminating the DP will IMPROVE social conditions. It only
> provides an EXCUSE to commit violence if we presume that
> the penalties we exact for crimes create social conditions
> which cause violence. What the DP DOES DO is prevent a
> proven murderer from murdering again. That is an ABSOLUTE
> truism, regardless of other names that abolitionists wish to
> attach.
This is an absolute intellectual masturbation. You never know, looking at a
murderer, if he will commit another murder some day. Besides, many of the
executed are murderers who amended themselves and would most likely never
reoffend (for instance, this guy who became a poet in jail and has recently
been executed in California).
First-time murderers are much more numerous than reoffenders in the US death
row. This fact entails the credibility of your argument.
> Further, incarcerating murderers with the general
> population has an infecting effect on a prison population
Usually, murderers are incarcerated on special units so they are not in
contact with light offenders. The solution to your grave objection has been
found.
That means in particular that you can't bring any proof that society
benefits from executions because executed murderers would never reoffend.
> > A third problem with utilitarian justifications of punishment, as
pointed
> > out by contemporary political philosopher Adam Bedeau,
>
> ROTFLMAO -- Bedeau (sic) - the 'contemporary political philosopher,'
> unpossessed of an agenda. ROTFLMAO. You would think
> that a URL citing him as a reference could at least get his name
> spelled correctly. This clearly demonstrates that not much
> ACTUAL thought went into 'the Internet Encyclopedia of
> Philosophy' argument on 'Capital Punishment.'
>
> > concerns the ratio of
> > innocent lives saved per execution. Perhaps, in the best possible
situation,
> > executing five of the most dangerous convicts will result in saving five
> > innocent lives in the future. As the number of executions increases,
> > however, the number of innocent lives saved will not increase
> > proportionally. Eventually, it may take one thousand additional
executions
> > to save only one additional innocent life. So, eventually it must be
> > determined how many executions justify the saving of one innocent life.
>
> That's absurd.
Indeed. This reasoning of pro-DPers is absurd. People who say that
"executions save innocent lives" (Sharp, also President Bush) say something
absurd.
> It presumes there is 'equality' in the circumstances
> and behavior of all murderers. Clearly, were that to be true, then
> it would be necessary to execute NONE or execute ALL. There
> would be NO evaluation of the murders and the murderers themselves.
> We SHOULD execute those murderers who 'deserve it,' and are
> almost positively certain to be recidivist. To presume that we
> need to execution a thousand murderers to save one additional
> life is nonsense, if we presume we have an ability to make any
> value judgment whatsoever. This judgment process is what needs
> to be examined and refined on a continual basis. The answer
> to the last sentence is clearly that it may range from zero to
> as many as we see necessary, if we presume execution of
> that murderer can prevent a new murder from being committed.
> We are not committed to preventing ALL new murders, since
> we realize that is IMPOSSIBLE. Nor are we committed to
> preventing ALL recidivist murders, since we realize that is
> IMPOSSIBLE as well. We are concerned with the possibility
> of the INDIVIDUAL murderer we examine in the process of
> sentencing being 'the ONE' who will commit a new murder.
> In addition to having shown he/she deserves execution.
And by doing so you create an inequitable process of law, since murderer A
will not be executed while murderer B, whose murder was just as abhorrent,
will be.
YOUR objection is stupidity personified. In the present case, we are looking
at death penalty versus life imprisonment, both penalties very suitable
against murder. Prison for 30 days is not suitable against murder. When
making analogies, please try to make some that have sense.
> In fact, even HAVING a criminal justice
> system has a certain cost. Perhaps we should eliminate that
> as well.
Then you should evaluate if this suppression creates a greater benefit than
the cost implied by unpunished crimes. Some conclude it does. Maybe you do
too. I don't.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
> PV
>
> Your "discovery" is of little interest. I have been posting those articles
> more than 10 times, and I did mention the source each time.
Since I cannot believe you, having caught you in so many
lies in the past, I did a search on Google for your handle
in this group, with the subject containing "Flaws in."
Guess what? I find you posted the same shit one time
before, a few days ago, and did NOT attribute your comment
to anyone then, either. That was it... nada. So perhaps
you can state WHEN and WHERE you posted those
comments before where you attributed a source. Thank
you...
> Like Sharp, I do
> recycle some postings I consider as interesting. It is the first time I send
> this article in 3 parts - which, I think, are more manageable for everyone.
> And, true enough, I omitted to copy the source on each of the postings.
>
I think you'll find that Sharp attributes his sources 100%
of the time. Since posters here find little in Sharp's comments
that are not from independent sources.
> When I copy articles, it is because I broadly subscribe their ideas and I
> think they are very pertinent. I do write articles on my own, besides this,
> and I repost them occasionally.
>
That doesn't demonstrate that you can formulate an independent
and original thought... does it? That's essentially what Usenet
is about. I could post articles EVERY DAY of those who
murder. So what???
> Whether I "plagiarize" or not is of little interest for everyone here. What
> matters is the contribution brought to the debate. I wish you could at least
> send interesting stuff, even from another source. This would prevent you
> from launching hopeless personal attacks or giving uninteresting comments on
> the Olympic Games opening ceremony.
>
Don't be stupid. Whether you plagiarize or not, is of great
interest, because it demonstrates you do not have an
original thought in your head.
PV