"Capital punishment adversary notes 'exonerations' of 102"
Mike
A leading death penalty opponent says that the number of exonerations
in capital cases this year is fueling support for the abolition of
capital punishment.
at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021227-485941.htm
Richard J
Only with abolitionists and those who do not care one way or the other.
Teflon
Peter Morris
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E0C823...@hotmail.com...
so you're saying that pr-dpers don't care about the danger to innocents?
Richard J
No. I'm saying that the number of 'innocents' actually released from
prison (102 or so) is not, and has never been proof that innocents have
been executed as claimed by many abolitionists. It is only proof that
some innocents have been released. It may be interpreted as proof there
is the possibility that an innocent has been executed or might be, but
that's it. It is not proof otherwise.
Teflon
Peter Morris
Richard, once again I am forced to point this fact out to you, as I have
done on a number of previous occasions. Many of those 102 innocent
people were saved by the direct intervention of DP opponents, and I
suspect that it was at least a contributary factor in all the rest. Without
DP opponents, all or most or some of them would have been executed.
The fact that you are able to say no proof of innocents exececuted is in
large part because dp opponents have prevented it. Fact. What this
shows is that if we cease to fight the DP, innocents WILL be executed.
Richard J
There is no incontrovertible proof of an innocent being executed in
modern times in the US. If you have such proof in the form of DNA, or
other evidence, feel free to disprove that statement.
Teflon
Peter Morris
> Peter Morris wrote:
> >
> > Richard, once again I am forced to point this fact out to you, as I have
> > done on a number of previous occasions. Many of those 102 innocent
> > people were saved by the direct intervention of DP opponents, and I
> > suspect that it was at least a contributary factor in all the rest.
Without
> > DP opponents, all or most or some of them would have been executed.
> > The fact that you are able to say no proof of innocents exececuted is in
> > large part because dp opponents have prevented it. Fact. What this
> > shows is that if we cease to fight the DP, innocents WILL be executed.
> >
> >
> > "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> replied
> There is no incontrovertible proof of an innocent being executed in
> modern times in the US. If you have such proof in the form of DNA, or
> other evidence, feel free to disprove that statement.
thus neatly ignoring the point I had made, and avoids giving an answer.
Richard J
I did not see a question in your statement. Yes, some have been helped
by outside sources. I do not believe that the proof of innocent
executions has been prevented. To assume that assumes that proponents
of the death penalty wish to kill innocents and continue its use at any
cost. That is simply not true, IMO. IMO, no one wishes to kill an
innocent for the sake of killing.
Have mistakes occurred in our justice system? Assuredly. Just as
mistakes occur in any justice system or, for that matter, any system
used by humans. Nothing is perfect when dealing with human endeavor.
Innocent people get convicted just as guilty people get acquitted
sometimes. Neither proves that an innocent has actually been executed,
or will be in the future. The fact that some innocents have been
released only gives us incontrovertible proof that some innocent people
have been convicted.
Teflon
Peter Morris
> Peter Morris wrote:
> > "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E0FA4CE...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >>Peter Morris wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Richard, once again I am forced to point this fact out to you, as I
have
> >>>done on a number of previous occasions. Many of those 102 innocent
> >>>people were saved by the direct intervention of DP opponents, and I
> >>>suspect that it was at least a contributary factor in all the rest.
> >>
> > Without
> >
> >>>DP opponents, all or most or some of them would have been executed.
> >>>The fact that you are able to say no proof of innocents exececuted is
in
> >>> large part because dp opponents have prevented it. Fact. What this
> >>>shows is that if we cease to fight the DP, innocents WILL be executed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> replied
> >>
> >
> >>There is no incontrovertible proof of an innocent being executed in
> >>modern times in the US. If you have such proof in the form of DNA, or
> >>other evidence, feel free to disprove that statement.
> >
> >
> > thus neatly ignoring the point I had made, and avoids giving an answer.
> >
> >
>
> I did not see a question in your statement.
I didn't ask a question, I raised a point. You ignored the point I raised.
You pretended that I had claimed innocents were executed- which I
didn't say- then asked for proof of what you *pretended* I had said,
rather than address what I really said.
> Yes, some have been helped
> by outside sources. I do not believe that the proof of innocent
> executions has been prevented.
That doesn't even make sense grammatically. What is it meant to mean?
> To assume that assumes that proponents
> of the death penalty wish to kill innocents and continue its use at any
> cost. That is simply not true, IMO. IMO, no one wishes to kill an
> innocent for the sake of killing.
But you deathies have certainly fought for the death of people who later
turned out to be innocent after all. The fact is that the antis have had to
fight hard to prevent you killing them. Without the antis to stop you,
they would certainly have been executed.
> Have mistakes occurred in our justice system? Assuredly. Just as
> mistakes occur in any justice system or, for that matter, any system
> used by humans. Nothing is perfect when dealing with human endeavor.
> Innocent people get convicted just as guilty people get acquitted
> sometimes. Neither proves that an innocent has actually been executed,
Please try to understand, Richard, this is very simple. I did not claim
that innocents have been executed. Stop pretending that I said that.
What I have said is that innocents have been saved through the efforts
of DP opponents. the fact that you are able to claim no proof of innocents
executed is BECAUSE of the efforts of antis. Antis have STOPPED you
from executing innocents.
> or will be in the future.
Do you really expect that the deathies will be any more competent in the
future than they have been in the past?
Benny Deeni
What about all the innocent people who have been murdered/raped/harmed
by convicted murderers who were NOT EXECUTED due to the efforts
of anti DP folks? There *is* undeniable proof that that has happened.
I guess YOU are responsible for all the victims that
Kenneth McDuff tortured/killed after he was NOT EXECUTED and
then released. I guess you should call yourself a "deathie", huh?
<rest snipped>
Richard J
Insert presented in place of prevented. My spell checker chose that and
I didn't catch it. My bad.
>
>
>>To assume that assumes that proponents
>>of the death penalty wish to kill innocents and continue its use at any
>>cost. That is simply not true, IMO. IMO, no one wishes to kill an
>>innocent for the sake of killing.
>
>
> But you deathies have certainly fought for the death of people who later
> turned out to be innocent after all. The fact is that the antis have had to
> fight hard to prevent you killing them. Without the antis to stop you,
> they would certainly have been executed.
We fight for the death of those we think guilty. I cannot think of a
situation where anyone fought to execute someone who was obviously innocent.
>
>
>>Have mistakes occurred in our justice system? Assuredly. Just as
>>mistakes occur in any justice system or, for that matter, any system
>>used by humans. Nothing is perfect when dealing with human endeavor.
>>Innocent people get convicted just as guilty people get acquitted
>>sometimes. Neither proves that an innocent has actually been executed,
>
>
> Please try to understand, Richard, this is very simple. I did not claim
> that innocents have been executed. Stop pretending that I said that.
No you didn't Peter. It is a natural conclusion of the argument you
present, however.
>
> What I have said is that innocents have been saved through the efforts
> of DP opponents. the fact that you are able to claim no proof of innocents
> executed is BECAUSE of the efforts of antis. Antis have STOPPED you
> from executing innocents.
In some instances, and in some instances there are others who are not
antis who stopped executions.
>
>
>>or will be in the future.
>
>
> Do you really expect that the deathies will be any more competent in the
> future than they have been in the past?
Yes. Methods of investigation and forensic science get better each day,
making even more accurate assessments of guilt possible.
Peter Morris
> >>To assume that assumes that proponents
> >>of the death penalty wish to kill innocents and continue its use at any
> >>cost. That is simply not true, IMO. IMO, no one wishes to kill an
> >>innocent for the sake of killing.
> >
> >
> > But you deathies have certainly fought for the death of people who later
> > turned out to be innocent after all. The fact is that the antis have had
to
> > fight hard to prevent you killing them. Without the antis to stop you,
> > they would certainly have been executed.
>
> We fight for the death of those we think guilty. I cannot think of a
> situation where anyone fought to execute someone who was obviously
innocent.
But the point is that you keep on turning out to be wrong in your
belief that they are guilty. You admit that you fight for their deaths.
Opponents fight to save their lives. And fortunately they have fought
better, harder, and more intelligently than you. By their efforts, your
fight to kill people you wrongly thought were guilty was foiled.
Had it been left to people like you, those who fought for their deaths
by your own admission, those people would have been killed.
>
> >
> >
> >>Have mistakes occurred in our justice system? Assuredly. Just as
> >>mistakes occur in any justice system or, for that matter, any system
> >>used by humans. Nothing is perfect when dealing with human endeavor.
> >>Innocent people get convicted just as guilty people get acquitted
> >>sometimes. Neither proves that an innocent has actually been executed,
> >
> >
> > Please try to understand, Richard, this is very simple. I did not claim
> > that innocents have been executed. Stop pretending that I said that.
>
> No you didn't Peter. It is a natural conclusion of the argument you
> present, however.
Bollocks. I specifically said I wasn't claiming proof of innocents
executed, after which you continued to ask for proof of innocents
executed, blatently ignoring the fact that I hadn't claimed that, and
meanwhile refusing to address the claims I did make.
> >
> > What I have said is that innocents have been saved through the efforts
> > of DP opponents. the fact that you are able to claim no proof of
innocents
> > executed is BECAUSE of the efforts of antis. Antis have STOPPED you
> > from executing innocents.
>
> In some instances, and in some instances there are others who are not
> antis who stopped executions.
Examples, please.
Peter Morris
"Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:75a18ce5.0212...@posting.google.com...
>
> What about all the innocent people who have been murdered/raped/harmed
> by convicted murderers who were NOT EXECUTED due to the efforts
> of anti DP folks? There *is* undeniable proof that that has happened.
> I guess YOU are responsible for all the victims that
> Kenneth McDuff tortured/killed after he was NOT EXECUTED and
> then released. I guess you should call yourself a "deathie", huh?
Far far fewer than the number of innocents saved.
Richard J
> "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E105482...@hotmail.com...
>
>
>>>>To assume that assumes that proponents
>>>>of the death penalty wish to kill innocents and continue its use at any
>>>>cost. That is simply not true, IMO. IMO, no one wishes to kill an
>>>>innocent for the sake of killing.
>>>
>>>
>>>But you deathies have certainly fought for the death of people who later
>>>turned out to be innocent after all. The fact is that the antis have had
>>
> to
>
>>>fight hard to prevent you killing them. Without the antis to stop you,
>>>they would certainly have been executed.
>>
>>We fight for the death of those we think guilty. I cannot think of a
>>situation where anyone fought to execute someone who was obviously
>
> innocent.
>
> But the point is that you keep on turning out to be wrong in your
> belief that they are guilty.
Not too often. Not nearly as often as you would like to believe. In
Texas, out of more than 230 released from Death Row, only three were
actually acquitted. The vast overwhelming majority simply had their
sentences reduced to life imprisonment. A few were reduced to lesser
sentences, eight had their convictions overturned and reverted to other
prior sentences, and a few, perhaps ten had their sentences reversed and
were not retried.
There have been two hundred and eighty nine executions in Texas since
1984. If my count is correct, two hundred and thirty have been released
from Death Row with three acquittals and sixteen overturned sentences
during that time. Four hundred and fifty-two remain currently on Death
Row in Livingston, Texas.
Since legally, anyone not convicted of any crime is innocent, those with
overturned sentences are not guilty of murder. On the other hand,
neither were they outright acquitted. Let's see here........ 3
acquittals divided by 991 either executed, awaiting execution, or with
sentences commuted to life for murder times 100% gives a figure of......
0.3%. That's right, an error rate of three tenths of one percent.
Three of every thousand. Those released and not retried total sixteen,
which equals 1.6% or three of every two hundred convicted. The last
group. Combine the two and not quite 2% of those convicted for murder
in Texas actually walk free from Death Row, two of every hundred.
Now I don't especially like that high a level of problems, but given
the fact that our whole jurisprudence system works on the assumption
that it is better to allow ten guilty men to walk free than convict one
innocent one, it isn't a horrible ratio.
You admit that you fight for their deaths.
No. I fight for the administration of the death penalty to those found
guilty. The moment they are proven innocent, I am glad ot fight for
their release.
> Opponents fight to save their lives. And fortunately they have fought
> better, harder, and more intelligently than you.
Not necessarily. We HAVE executed 289 in the last twenty or so years.
By their efforts, your
> fight to kill people you wrongly thought were guilty was foiled.
> Had it been left to people like you, those who fought for their deaths
> by your own admission, those people would have been killed.
But they were not.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Have mistakes occurred in our justice system? Assuredly. Just as
>>>>mistakes occur in any justice system or, for that matter, any system
>>>>used by humans. Nothing is perfect when dealing with human endeavor.
>>>>Innocent people get convicted just as guilty people get acquitted
>>>>sometimes. Neither proves that an innocent has actually been executed,
>>>
>>>
>>>Please try to understand, Richard, this is very simple. I did not claim
>>>that innocents have been executed. Stop pretending that I said that.
>>
>>No you didn't Peter. It is a natural conclusion of the argument you
>>present, however.
>
>
> Bollocks. I specifically said I wasn't claiming proof of innocents
> executed, after which you continued to ask for proof of innocents
> executed, blatently ignoring the fact that I hadn't claimed that, and
> meanwhile refusing to address the claims I did make.
Let me put it another way then. Do you, personally, believe there have
been innocents executed since 1982 in Texas?
>
>
>>>What I have said is that innocents have been saved through the efforts
>>>of DP opponents. the fact that you are able to claim no proof of
>>
> innocents
>
>>>executed is BECAUSE of the efforts of antis. Antis have STOPPED you
>>>from executing innocents.
>>
>>In some instances, and in some instances there are others who are not
>>antis who stopped executions.
>
>
>
> Examples, please.
>
>
>
George Bush, commutation of henry Lee Lucas' sentence ot life imprisonment.
As it says in the Bible, "Ask and ye shall receive, knock and the door
shall be opened unto you."
Teflon
Peter Morris
> Peter Morris wrote:
> > "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E105482...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> >>>>To assume that assumes that proponents
> >>>>of the death penalty wish to kill innocents and continue its use at
any
> >>>>cost. That is simply not true, IMO. IMO, no one wishes to kill an
> >>>>innocent for the sake of killing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>But you deathies have certainly fought for the death of people who
later
> >>>turned out to be innocent after all. The fact is that the antis have
had
> >>
> > to
> >
> >>>fight hard to prevent you killing them. Without the antis to stop you,
> >>>they would certainly have been executed.
> >>
> >>We fight for the death of those we think guilty. I cannot think of a
> >>situation where anyone fought to execute someone who was obviously
> >
> > innocent.
> >
> > But the point is that you keep on turning out to be wrong in your
> > belief that they are guilty.
>
> Not too often.
On the contrary, Richard, far too often.
> Not nearly as often as you would like to believe. In
> Texas, out of more than 230 released from Death Row, only three were
> actually acquitted.
Three errors is three too many.
And BTW, I was talking about America as a whole, not specifically
one state.
> The vast overwhelming majority simply had their
> sentences reduced to life imprisonment. A few were reduced to lesser
> sentences, eight had their convictions overturned and reverted to other
> prior sentences, and a few, perhaps ten had their sentences reversed and
> were not retried.
Has it occurred to you that some of those might classify as errors?
If someone commits 2nd degree murder and is convicted of capital
murder, that is an error, is it not? A serious one, IMO.
> There have been two hundred and eighty nine executions in Texas since
> 1984. If my count is correct, two hundred and thirty have been released
> from Death Row with three acquittals and sixteen overturned sentences
> during that time. Four hundred and fifty-two remain currently on Death
> Row in Livingston, Texas.
>
> Since legally, anyone not convicted of any crime is innocent, those with
> overturned sentences are not guilty of murder. On the other hand,
> neither were they outright acquitted. Let's see here........ 3
> acquittals divided by 991 either executed, awaiting execution,
See, here's a problem with your maths. You are assuming that
every single one of the ones 'awaiting execution' are guilty.
If you think of them instead as 'working through the appeals process'
and acknowledge the high probability that one or two are actually
innocent, you come to rather different conclusions.
> or with
> sentences commuted to life for murder times 100% gives a figure of......
> 0.3%. That's right, an error rate of three tenths of one percent.
> Three of every thousand. Those released and not retried total sixteen,
> which equals 1.6% or three of every two hundred convicted. The last
> group. Combine the two and not quite 2% of those convicted for murder
> in Texas actually walk free from Death Row, two of every hundred.
>
> Now I don't especially like that high a level of problems, but given
> the fact that our whole jurisprudence system works on the assumption
> that it is better to allow ten guilty men to walk free than convict one
> innocent one, it isn't a horrible ratio.
>
> You admit that you fight for their deaths.
>
> No. I fight for the administration of the death penalty to those found
> guilty. The moment they are proven innocent, I am glad ot fight for
> their release.
Except that it's always someone else that proves them innocent.
Always an anti, never a pro.
> > Opponents fight to save their lives. And fortunately they have fought
> > better, harder, and more intelligently than you.
>
> Not necessarily. We HAVE executed 289 in the last twenty or so years.
>
> By their efforts, your
> > fight to kill people you wrongly thought were guilty was foiled.
> > Had it been left to people like you, those who fought for their deaths
> > by your own admission, those people would have been killed.
>
> But they were not.
Because my lot foiled your lot's best efforts to kill them.
> >>>>Have mistakes occurred in our justice system? Assuredly. Just as
> >>>>mistakes occur in any justice system or, for that matter, any system
> >>>>used by humans. Nothing is perfect when dealing with human endeavor.
> >>>>Innocent people get convicted just as guilty people get acquitted
> >>>>sometimes. Neither proves that an innocent has actually been
executed,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Please try to understand, Richard, this is very simple. I did not claim
> >>>that innocents have been executed. Stop pretending that I said that.
> >>
> >>No you didn't Peter. It is a natural conclusion of the argument you
> >>present, however.
> >
> >
> > Bollocks. I specifically said I wasn't claiming proof of innocents
> > executed, after which you continued to ask for proof of innocents
> > executed, blatently ignoring the fact that I hadn't claimed that, and
> > meanwhile refusing to address the claims I did make.
>
> Let me put it another way then. Do you, personally, believe there have
> been innocents executed since 1982 in Texas?
I think it is more probable than not.
And if you ask me to provide conclusive proof, then you must
provide conclusive proof of innocents saved. If you quote statistics,
and speculate on the likelihood, without proof, then I an entitled to
do the same.
>
> >
> >
> >>>What I have said is that innocents have been saved through the efforts
> >>>of DP opponents. the fact that you are able to claim no proof of
innocents
> >>>executed is BECAUSE of the efforts of antis. Antis have STOPPED you
> >>>from executing innocents.
> >>
> >>In some instances, and in some instances there are others who are not
> >>antis who stopped executions.
> > Examples, please.
>
> George Bush, commutation of henry Lee Lucas' sentence ot life
imprisonment.
Details, please.
Are you saying that Lucas was an innocent? That is after all what I asked
for? I specifically stated INNOCENTS in my question. If Lucas isn't
innocent then he isn't an example of an innocent saved by the actions of a
pro-dper, is he?
Are you saying that Bush did this entirely on his own initative, without
pressure from anti-dpers? If he was responding to pressure from
anti-dpers, or based his actions on information supplied by anti-dpers
then this is an example of someone saved (at least in part) through the
action of anti-dpers,
> As it says in the Bible, "Ask and ye shall receive, knock and the door
> shall be opened unto you."
And yet I doubt you have given me what I asked for.
try again.
Benny Deeni
Hmmm, a one-line response without even an attempt to
back up your position with some facts. Looks like things
haven't changed much in AADP.
Richard J
I wonder of the 102 released how many were actually acquitted of the
charge of murder, and how many were in the category of having trials
overturned and not retried?
>
>
>> The vast overwhelming majority simply had their
>>sentences reduced to life imprisonment. A few were reduced to lesser
>>sentences, eight had their convictions overturned and reverted to other
>>prior sentences, and a few, perhaps ten had their sentences reversed and
>>were not retried.
>
>
> Has it occurred to you that some of those might classify as errors?
> If someone commits 2nd degree murder and is convicted of capital
> murder, that is an error, is it not? A serious one, IMO.
If you care to check for yourself, you will find the overwhelming
majority of those whose sentences were changed were changed to life
imprisonment, which IS NOT a second degree murder penalty. It is most
commonly given for felony murder. They are still murderers. No mistake
was made in the finding of guilt. There obviously were some mistakes,
In the court's opinion, as to the degree of murders, or the penalty
would not have been changed.
>
>
>
>>There have been two hundred and eighty nine executions in Texas since
>>1984. If my count is correct, two hundred and thirty have been released
>>from Death Row with three acquittals and sixteen overturned sentences
>>during that time. Four hundred and fifty-two remain currently on Death
>>Row in Livingston, Texas.
>>
>>Since legally, anyone not convicted of any crime is innocent, those with
>>overturned sentences are not guilty of murder. On the other hand,
>>neither were they outright acquitted. Let's see here........ 3
>>acquittals divided by 991 either executed, awaiting execution,
>
>
> See, here's a problem with your maths. You are assuming that
> every single one of the ones 'awaiting execution' are guilty.
> If you think of them instead as 'working through the appeals process'
> and acknowledge the high probability that one or two are actually
> innocent, you come to rather different conclusions.
Actually, again speaking legally, they are all guilty until otherwise
ruled, just as the nineteen or so released from death row who went free
are legally innocent.
>
>
>
>
>>or with
>>sentences commuted to life for murder times 100% gives a figure of......
>>0.3%. That's right, an error rate of three tenths of one percent.
>>Three of every thousand. Those released and not retried total sixteen,
>>which equals 1.6% or three of every two hundred convicted. The last
>>group. Combine the two and not quite 2% of those convicted for murder
>>in Texas actually walk free from Death Row, two of every hundred.
>>
>> Now I don't especially like that high a level of problems, but given
>>the fact that our whole jurisprudence system works on the assumption
>>that it is better to allow ten guilty men to walk free than convict one
>>innocent one, it isn't a horrible ratio.
>>
>> You admit that you fight for their deaths.
>>
>>No. I fight for the administration of the death penalty to those found
>>guilty. The moment they are proven innocent, I am glad ot fight for
>>their release.
>
>
> Except that it's always someone else that proves them innocent.
> Always an anti, never a pro.
Or lawyers, or investigators. Although I cannot say exactly which
cases, I am aware there have been some where prosecutors uncovered new
facts which came to light and which they presented to the defense after
the sentence was set. I cannot with certainty say that those who
uncovered evidence were anti death penalty, and quite frankly do not see
how it is accurate for you to say so either. Or are you personally
acquainted with those who discovered new evidence in each and every such
case?
>
>
>>>Opponents fight to save their lives. And fortunately they have fought
>>>better, harder, and more intelligently than you.
>>
>>Not necessarily. We HAVE executed 289 in the last twenty or so years.
>>
>>By their efforts, your
>>
>>>fight to kill people you wrongly thought were guilty was foiled.
>>>Had it been left to people like you, those who fought for their deaths
>>>by your own admission, those people would have been killed.
>>
>>But they were not.
>
>
> Because my lot foiled your lot's best efforts to kill them.
Can you unequivocally state each and every one of the 102 people
released from death row was released because of the efforts of anti
death penalty people, or is it possible there were others who might
believe in the death penalty but who also believe in justice who may
have contributed?
>
>
>>>>>>Have mistakes occurred in our justice system? Assuredly. Just as
>>>>>>mistakes occur in any justice system or, for that matter, any system
>>>>>>used by humans. Nothing is perfect when dealing with human endeavor.
>>>>>>Innocent people get convicted just as guilty people get acquitted
>>>>>>sometimes. Neither proves that an innocent has actually been
>>>>>
> executed,
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Please try to understand, Richard, this is very simple. I did not claim
>>>>>that innocents have been executed. Stop pretending that I said that.
>>>>
>>>>No you didn't Peter. It is a natural conclusion of the argument you
>>>>present, however.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bollocks. I specifically said I wasn't claiming proof of innocents
>>>executed, after which you continued to ask for proof of innocents
>>>executed, blatently ignoring the fact that I hadn't claimed that, and
>>>meanwhile refusing to address the claims I did make.
>>
>>Let me put it another way then. Do you, personally, believe there have
>>been innocents executed since 1982 in Texas?
>
>
> I think it is more probable than not.
>
> And if you ask me to provide conclusive proof, then you must
> provide conclusive proof of innocents saved. If you quote statistics,
> and speculate on the likelihood, without proof, then I an entitled to
> do the same.
I assume you mean innocents saved by people who support the death penalty?
>
>
>>>
>>>>>What I have said is that innocents have been saved through the efforts
>>>>>of DP opponents. the fact that you are able to claim no proof of
>>>>
> innocents
>
>>>>>executed is BECAUSE of the efforts of antis. Antis have STOPPED you
>>>>
>>>>>from executing innocents.
>>>>
>>>>In some instances, and in some instances there are others who are not
>>>>antis who stopped executions.
>>>
>
>>>Examples, please.
>>
>>George Bush, commutation of henry Lee Lucas' sentence ot life
>
> imprisonment.
>
> Details, please.
>
> Are you saying that Lucas was an innocent? That is after all what I asked
> for? I specifically stated INNOCENTS in my question. If Lucas isn't
> innocent then he isn't an example of an innocent saved by the actions of a
> pro-dper, is he?
>
> Are you saying that Bush did this entirely on his own initative, without
> pressure from anti-dpers? If he was responding to pressure from
> anti-dpers, or based his actions on information supplied by anti-dpers
> then this is an example of someone saved (at least in part) through the
> action of anti-dpers,
In this particular case, there was some question if Lucas actually
committed the particular murder he was tried for. That he committed
some of the murders for which he was accused, I personally have no
doubt, for in at least one case which I am personally aware of he was
able to give exact details about the murder unknown to any except the
investigators.
The question was, I believe, brought to Bush's attention first, by the
prosecuting attorney of that trial. You would have to ask Bush about
that to be sure. Lucas was one of the abolitionist 'poster boys' and
there was a lot of publicity both during and after the trial.
>
>
>
>>As it says in the Bible, "Ask and ye shall receive, knock and the door
>>shall be opened unto you."
>
>
> And yet I doubt you have given me what I asked for.
> try again.
>
>
>
No. Take what I offer or don't, but this is leading no where fast.
Teflon
Peter Morris
Can you name 102 murderers that were sentenced to death,
had their sentences commuted, and later murdered again?
If not, then my point stands.
Benny Deeni
> "Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:75a18ce5.02123...@posting.google.com...
> > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> news:<auq18b$hlh$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
> > > "Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > > news:75a18ce5.0212...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What about all the innocent people who have been murdered/raped/harmed
> > > > by convicted murderers who were NOT EXECUTED due to the efforts
> > > > of anti DP folks? There *is* undeniable proof that that has
> happened.
> > > > I guess YOU are responsible for all the victims that
> > > > Kenneth McDuff tortured/killed after he was NOT EXECUTED and
> > > > then released. I guess you should call yourself a "deathie", huh?
> > >
> > > Far far fewer than the number of innocents saved.
> >
> > Hmmm, a one-line response without even an attempt to
> > back up your position with some facts. Looks like things
> > haven't changed much in AADP.
>
> Can you name 102 murderers that were sentenced to death,
> had their sentences commuted, and later murdered again?
> If not, then my point stands.
Richard already pointed out the flaw in your reasoning, no need
to rehash that. These cases don't indicate that the person did not
commit the murder. What I find a bit disturbing (in a moral sense) is
that you seem to give equal value to a murderer's life than you do to that
of a truly innocent person who just happened to be in the wrong place
at the wrong time.
Reilly
> Peter Morris wrote:
> > What I have said is that innocents have been saved through the efforts
> > of DP opponents. the fact that you are able to claim no proof of
innocents
> > executed is BECAUSE of the efforts of antis. Antis have STOPPED you
> > from executing innocents.
>
> In some instances, and
[....remainder of transparent attempts to dodge the issue snipped....]
Well, that's settled. Point, game, set and match to Peter.
And while on the topic of judicial and police falliblity, Richard,
you should read about the case of Anthony Porter:
* spent 18 years on Illinois' death row before being exonerated
- thus negating the pros whinge about the appeals process
being too lengthy or 'frivolous'.
* was released due to evidence found by anti-dp professors and
students from North Western University.
- an example of Peter's point which you kept pretending not
to understand.
- also an example of the fallibility of law enforcement agencies
in what is a life-and-death situation.
* At one point, Porter came within 48 hours of execution
before receiving a stay.
- and before you claim that this is proof the "system works", you
should know the stay was granted due to questions about
Porter's mental competence, NOT innocence, even though
he WAS actually innocent. If Porter had been smarter, this
competency issue wouldn't have arisen and Porter would be
(drumroll!) an executed innocent man. Thankfully, this didn't
happen due to the efforts of antis.
The justice system utterly failed in this case.
Anti-dpers saved Anthony Porter.
And the system could easily fail again. An innocent could be executed any
day. It could - (though not definitely, and there is no certainly no
proof) - have happened already.
Peter Morris
No.
> no need
> to rehash that. These cases don't indicate that the person did not
> commit the murder.
In fact they do.
> What I find a bit disturbing (in a moral sense) is
> that you seem to give equal value to a murderer's life
The 102 cases I mentioned are not murderers.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:aur5sr$2dk$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Answer zero. ZERO INNOCENTS DEAD. Thus one only needs to name
ONE TRUE murderer sentenced to death, who had their sentence
commuted, and later murdered again, to tip the scale in respect to
THE INNOCENT DEAD. As the man said -- does the name McDuff
ring a bell? Now how many TRUE murderers will you 'trade' for the
one INNOCENT victim murdered?
In addition, your 'argument' is rather logically flawed, since the
retentionist is more concerned with those NOT sentenced to the
DP in their original sentences who murdered again. It is illogical
to try and balance 102 sentenced to death, but later having their
sentence overturned, against the necessity of providing ANOTHER
102 sentenced to death, who were TRUE murderers, but later had
their sentence overturned, who THEN committed another murder.
I can say that there are now on DR, 285 murderers who had ALREADY
committed murder, were released, and AGAIN committed murder.
See Table 9 in
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp00.pdf
So we are comparing 285 who were convicted of murder, were
released, and DID MURDER AGAIN, against 102 who were
convicted of murder, sentenced to death but were NOT executed.
Seems like 285 to zip to me.
PV
PS -- I don't know if this has been provided before, but the names and
history of those 102 sentenced to the DP, who were NOT executed,
after having been sentenced to the DP, can be found at
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoccases.html
I find very little information that efforts by abolitionists were directly
responsible for the overturn of their convictions. It seems that due
process was responsible in almost every case. Porter is the closest
example of efforts by those outside of the judicial process having an
effect.
Benny Deeni
One other thing that often gets (intentionally?) overlooked is the
background of the supposed innocents. Obviously no one wants to see
police
or prosecutorial corruption and/or incompetence, and if that happens
appropriate action should be taken against police/prosecotors. But it
seems
like in most of the cases where factual innocence is claimed,
the person convicted was a criminal even before the murder for which
he
was sentenced to death. IMO, that automatically means they bear at
least part
responsibility for their predicament. One good example is Rolando
Cruz.
Anti-DP folks try to use him as a poster boy for an innocent being
sentenced
to death. But according the reports I read, Cruz was a two-bit
criminal
who pretended to know something about a murder in a fraudulent attempt
to
collect reward money. In other words, he obstructed justice. This guy
was no choir boy who got plucked
from his living room while watching "The Waltons" and then framed for
murder.
And I can't find the source again, but I did read that Anthony Porter
was an armed robber. Again, I'm not excusing police/prosecutorial
incompetence/corruption, but if Porter was indeed an armed robber than
he bears some responsibility for his predicament.
On the other hand, McDuff's victim's were undeniably innocent, and
are in no way responsible for their own murders.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
natsa...@excite.com (Benny Deeni) wrote:
> One other thing that often gets (intentionally?) overlooked is the
> background of the supposed innocents.
That's because their prior record has nothing to do with their guilt or
innocence. It doesn't in a court of law for very good reason and I see
no reason why it should have any bearing on the question of their
innocence once they are on DR.
> Obviously no one wants to see
> police
> or prosecutorial corruption and/or incompetence, and if that happens
> appropriate action should be taken against police/prosecotors. But it
> seems
> like in most of the cases where factual innocence is claimed,
> the person convicted was a criminal even before the murder for which
> he
> was sentenced to death.
Which has precisely _nothing_ to do with the question of his/her guilt
or innocence for/of the murder for which he/she was sentenced to death.
> IMO, that automatically means they bear at
> least part
> responsibility for their predicament.
What a load of unmitigated piffle. If a person is erroneously convicted
of murder, how exactly do their prior convictions mean that they are
responsible for being incorrectly arrested, convicted and sentenced to
death? They are only responsible for what the _did_ do and not for what
they didn't. If they didn't commit capital murder then how can what
they _did_ do affect that simple, incontrovertible fact?
> One good example is Rolando
> Cruz.
> Anti-DP folks try to use him as a poster boy for an innocent being
> sentenced
> to death. But according the reports I read, Cruz was a two-bit
> criminal
> who pretended to know something about a murder in a fraudulent attempt
> to
> collect reward money. In other words, he obstructed justice.
Last I heard, obstruction of justice wasn't punishable by death.
> This guy
> was no choir boy who got plucked
> from his living room while watching "The Waltons" and then framed for
> murder.
Last I heard, being "no choir boy" wasn't punishable by death, either.
> And I can't find the source again, but I did read that Anthony Porter
> was an armed robber. Again, I'm not excusing police/prosecutorial
> incompetence/corruption, but if Porter was indeed an armed robber than
> he bears some responsibility for his predicament.
Sed above. This is patently and obviously a load of utter rubbish.
> On the other hand, McDuff's victim's were undeniably innocent, and
> are in no way responsible for their own murders.
...which is irrelevant to the question of innocents being sentenced to
death.
You can only be responsible for your own crimes. It is neither your
fault nor responsibility if you are erroneously convicted of a crime,
capital or otherwise.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Reilly
> And I can't find the source again, but I did read that
> Anthony Porter was an armed robber. Again, I'm not
> excusing police/prosecutorial incompetence/corruption,
> but if Porter was indeed an armed robber than he bears
> some responsibility for his predicament.
No Ed, he does not.
An armed robbery is an armed robbery, and a capital murder is a capital
murder. They have different penalties under the law for a very good reason.
Until Porter commits any crime that is DP-eligible, he bears precisely zero
responsibility for spending time on death row.
Benny Deeni
> In article <75a18ce5.0301...@posting.google.com>,
> natsa...@excite.com (Benny Deeni) wrote:
>
> > One other thing that often gets (intentionally?) overlooked is the
> > background of the supposed innocents.
>
> That's because their prior record has nothing to do with their guilt or
> innocence. It doesn't in a court of law for very good reason and I see
> no reason why it should have any bearing on the question of their
> innocence once they are on DR.
You're mis-stating what I am saying (as usual), so I'll be somewhat
brief. I am not saying "their prior record" should be allowed in a
court of law. I said
that these criminals, by definition, are obstructing justice by their
own free will. And that makes them at least partly responsible for
their
predicament. If they are indeed factually innocent of the murder in
question, they still shift focus from the real murderer. If someone
falesly,
but convincingly, claims to know details about a murder, and then he
is
put on death row, that's mostly his fault. Maybe Porter was a bit
less
responsible for his lengthy death row residence, but if he was indeed
a known armed robber he still bears some responsibility. He shifted
focus from the real murderer. These guys may not have committed the
murder for which they were committed, but ironically they deserve
much of the blame for what happened to them. Read my lips - I'm not
saying
THEY SHOULD BE EXECUTED for obstructing justice or for petty crimes.
I'm
saying that they shoulder responsibility for their predicaments, and
they shoulder responsibility for allowing the real murderers to escape
justice.
That's the chance one takes when one decides to live a criminal
lifestyle.
<rest snipped>
Peter Morris
> One other thing that often gets (intentionally?) overlooked is the
> background of the supposed innocents. Obviously no one wants to see
> police
> or prosecutorial corruption and/or incompetence, and if that happens
> appropriate action should be taken against police/prosecotors. But it
> seems
> like in most of the cases where factual innocence is claimed,
> the person convicted was a criminal even before the murder for which
> he
> was sentenced to death. IMO, that automatically means they bear at
> least part
> responsibility for their predicament.
So, you think that the victim of a wrongful execution is likely to
be a criminal, huh?
This is an opinion I see frequently stated from the supporters, and
I have never understood it. What exactly are you saying? Why should
it make a difference? Please tell me.
Then when you have told me WHY it makes a difference, consider this.
Many of the victims of recidivist murders are criminals themselves.
A lot of them are in-prison murders. Does this make a difference
to you? Do you apply the same logic to this as you apply to the
DP?
You say that the risk of execution is "the chance one takes when
one decides to live a criminal lifestyle". Do you also think that
risk of being murdered in prison by an unexecuted murderer
is also "the chance one takes when one decides to live a criminal
lifestyle." If not, why the difference?
> One good example is Rolando
> Cruz.
> Anti-DP folks try to use him as a poster boy for an innocent being
> sentenced
> to death. But according the reports I read, Cruz was a two-bit
> criminal
> who pretended to know something about a murder in a fraudulent attempt
> to
> collect reward money. In other words, he obstructed justice. This guy
> was no choir boy who got plucked
> from his living room while watching "The Waltons" and then framed for
> murder.
> And I can't find the source again, but I did read that Anthony Porter
> was an armed robber. Again, I'm not excusing police/prosecutorial
> incompetence/corruption, but if Porter was indeed an armed robber than
> he bears some responsibility for his predicament.
>
> On the other hand, McDuff's victim's were undeniably innocent, and
> are in no way responsible for their own murders.
And if they weren't? If they had been criminals, then what?
Would you havesaid that they were "responsible for their own murders"
in that case. Because many such victims ARE criminals.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:OisS9.28848$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
Please try to understand this very simple point. That is the number of
people SAVED by the influence of DP opponents, those who WOULD
have been killed, left up to people like you.
> Answer zero. ZERO INNOCENTS DEAD. Thus one only needs to name
> ONE TRUE murderer sentenced to death, who had their sentence
> commuted, and later murdered again, to tip the scale in respect to
> THE INNOCENT DEAD. As the man said -- does the name McDuff
> ring a bell?
The FACT, the solid FACT is that the Furman reforms saved far
more people than were killed by McDuff. At the time of Furman
there were SEVEN people on death row, who were later proved
innocent. 95 people convicted after Furman have been aquitted,
many of them as a result of protections that would not exist but for
Furman.
> Now how many TRUE murderers will you 'trade' for the
> one INNOCENT victim murdered?
>
> In addition, your 'argument' is rather logically flawed,
No, its logically correct.
> since the
> retentionist is more concerned with those NOT sentenced to the
> DP in their original sentences who murdered again. It is illogical
> to try and balance 102 sentenced to death, but later having their
> sentence overturned, against the necessity of providing ANOTHER
> 102 sentenced to death, who were TRUE murderers, but later had
> their sentence overturned, who THEN committed another murder.
> I can say that there are now on DR, 285 murderers who had ALREADY
> committed murder, were released, and AGAIN committed murder.
Was their first murder a potentially capital one? This is an important
point that you always miss. If their first murder WASN'T one for
which the DP might apply, then they have no relevence. If, for example
the first murder was 2nd degree then you can only use it IF you
say you support the DP for 2nd degree murder.
How many of the first murders would you have supported the DP for?
How many would you have executed the first time? Do you have
an answer for this?
In fact, if you want to avoid this type of thing, you have to extend
the DP to cover ALL homicides without exception. That is the
ONLY way in which you can prevent it. Is that what you want?
Do you favour a death penalty so wide in its scope that it would
have executed all 285 of these people the first time?
> See Table 9 in
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp00.pdf
> So we are comparing 285 who were convicted of murder, were
> released, and DID MURDER AGAIN, against 102 who were
> convicted of murder, sentenced to death but were NOT executed.
> Seems like 285 to zip to me.
Wrong. In the first place, the 102 is the number saved by
not executing. It makes no sense to say its zero because they
weren't executed, that's the whole point. 102 people have
had their lives saved.
In the second place, your figure of 285 is drawn from ALL
homicides over several decades, while the 102 are drawn from
the tiny proportion of death sentences.
So, in fact its 102 out of 3000 vs 285 out of several hundred
thousand.
> PV
>
> PS -- I don't know if this has been provided before, but the names and
> history of those 102 sentenced to the DP, who were NOT executed,
> after having been sentenced to the DP, can be found at
> http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoccases.html
> I find very little information that efforts by abolitionists were directly
> responsible for the overturn of their convictions.
Of course, that wasn't the claim I made. The claim I made, which
I stand by, was that DP opponents PREVENTED their executions.
> It seems that due
> process was responsible in almost every case.
And I say that this due process wouled not EXIST without the
influence of DP opponents. Much of the current due process came
into existence as a result of Furman. But the supporters of the DP
oppose such reforms - look at Benny's comments in this thread.
Left up to him they would not exist. He says the Furman reforms
that left McDuff alive is the fault of DP opponents. If he had his way
these protections would not exist
Then, once a due process protection exists, DP supporters
try to get it abolished. Look at how often Dudley protests at the
amount of protection proven murders get. the fact that some of
them are actually innocent doesn't bother him. JFA exists in order
to abolish DP protections that keep innocent people alive.
Every protection that exists, somebody somewhere is trying to
abolish it. DP opponents have to fight hard to keep these protections
in place.
> Porter is the closest
> example of efforts by those outside of the judicial process having an
> effect.
There are a few others. Randall Dale Adams springs to mind.
But for the most part, they are alive because DP opponents fought
off all attempts to kill them. DP opponents kept them alive long
enough for evidence of their innocence to emerge. Even if it was
a DP supporter that found the evidence (unlikely), the fact that they
are still alive is due to DP opponents.
A Planet Visitor
the same 'argument' from Peter in Mar 2002, where he again tried to
distort the meaning of Benny Deeni... see
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6nh9i%2434j%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
See my further remarks, below.
PV
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:avhoe7$3lj$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> "Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:75a18ce5.0301...@posting.google.com...
>
> > One other thing that often gets (intentionally?) overlooked is the
> > background of the supposed innocents. Obviously no one wants to see
> > police
> > or prosecutorial corruption and/or incompetence, and if that happens
> > appropriate action should be taken against police/prosecotors. But it
> > seems
> > like in most of the cases where factual innocence is claimed,
> > the person convicted was a criminal even before the murder for which
> > he
> > was sentenced to death. IMO, that automatically means they bear at
> > least part
> > responsibility for their predicament.
>
> So, you think that the victim of a wrongful execution is likely to
> be a criminal, huh?
>
> This is an opinion I see frequently stated from the supporters, and
> I have never understood it. What exactly are you saying? Why should
> it make a difference? Please tell me.
>
> Then when you have told me WHY it makes a difference, consider this.
> Many of the victims of recidivist murders are criminals themselves.
> A lot of them are in-prison murders. Does this make a difference
> to you? Do you apply the same logic to this as you apply to the
> DP?
>
But, Peter... YOU once 'claimed' that those in prison, are not really
'innocent' of being murdered. When speaking of those who were
murdered in prison by Furman commuted murderers. You stated
the 'difference' between those murdered who were criminals, and those
who were guards -- See your post --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
Your words --
"It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
criminals. The report does not specify what their crimes were, but it is
a reasonable speculation that they were also Furman-commuted criminals."
Actually, it is an absurd speculation - of the type you often indulge in -
considering the ratio of ALL prisoners to Furman commuted murderers in the
prison population. And continuing your comment --
"The report provides little evidence that convicted murderers prove any great
publiuc threat. Mostly they threaten each other. Executing hundreds of
criminals to save the lives of a small number of other criminals does not
make sense, to me."
Sure, why worry about the 'criminals in prison.' You obviously see a prisoner
as somewhat more 'deserving' of murder, than the 'ordinary citizen.' Assuming
why should we worry about those who are in prison, if they are the only ones
threatened by those murderers we do not execute.
When I responded to your post, pointing out that you appeared to
'value' prisoners as less than 'ordinary citizens,' that was your last 'contribution'
to that thread.
> You say that the risk of execution is "the chance one takes when
> one decides to live a criminal lifestyle". Do you also think that
> risk of being murdered in prison by an unexecuted murderer
> is also "the chance one takes when one decides to live a criminal
> lifestyle." If not, why the difference?
>
<clipped>
> And if they weren't? If they had been criminals, then what?
> Would you havesaid that they were "responsible for their own murders"
> in that case. Because many such victims ARE criminals.
>
That seems to have been your implication in the past. Your mood swings
seem to need some attention.
PV
Peter Morris
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:45phva...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:51:04 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
<avhoe7$3lj$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
> >> One other thing that often gets (intentionally?) overlooked is the
> >> background of the supposed innocents. Obviously no one wants to see
> >> police or prosecutorial corruption and/or incompetence, and if that
> >> happens appropriate action should be taken against police/prosecotors.
> >> But it seems like in most of the cases where factual innocence is
> >> claimed, the person convicted was a criminal even before the murder for
> >> which he was sentenced to death. IMO, that automatically means they
> >> bear at least part responsibility for their predicament.
>
> > So, you think that the victim of a wrongful execution is likely to be a
> > criminal, huh?
> >
> > This is an opinion I see frequently stated from the supporters, and I
> > have never understood it. What exactly are you saying? Why should it
make
> > a difference? Please tell me.
>
> fire'. It is a view that has been regularly espoused by Jigsaw. Namely,
> if the accused were innocent, he would never have been arrested, let alone
> put on trial.
No, it's an implication that somehow the error 'doesn't matter'
> Such views seem to characterise either a profound lack of
> faith in human nature, or else a pathological inability to accept that the
> justice system can make errors.
>
> > Then when you have told me WHY it makes a difference, consider this.
> > Many of the victims of recidivist murders are criminals themselves.
> > A lot of them are in-prison murders. Does this make a difference
> > to you? Do you apply the same logic to this as you apply to the
> > DP?
>
> A very good point, and one which gives the lie to the oft-stated claim by
> the Scum, that in-prison murders can only be prevented by capital
> punishment. Do they really want us to believe that they _care_ if
> murderers kill each other ? If murderers were only ever locked up with
> other murderers (thus ensuring that they would never be in contact with
> prisoners convicted of non-lethal offences), would deathies still think
> that in-gaol homicide should be a capital offence ? After all, wouldn't
> the illegal 'murderer' be doing the work of the legal murderer, i.e. the
> state ?
>
> I'd be interested in seeing figures as to how many victims of murder are
> themselves murderers.
I don't have exact figures, but information I do have may provide a
rough estimate.
At the time of Furman, there were about 600 criminals on death
row, about 80 had been sentenced to death for rape or armed
robbery, the rest were convicted of murder.After their death
senrences were overturned,
- Two prisonners killed two prison guards while in prison.
- Four prisoners murdered other prisoners while still in prison.
I can't find out who these victims were, but information
strongly suggests that the victims themselves were Furman-
commuted murderers.
- McDuff was released, and killed two other innocent victims.
Some other murders have been attributed to him, without proof.
- Another prisonner was released, and murdered a drug dealer
outside prison.
So the victims are 5 'criminals', ans 4 'innocents'
This contrasts to SEVEN of the Furman commutees who were later
proved innocent.
So, if the state had executed about 520 murderers, 75 rapists, 4 armed
robbers and 7 innocent people, it would have saved the lives of 4
innocent people and five criminals. Possibly, it may have saved 5,6,7 or 8
'innocents' (unproven), and possibly 4 of those criminals would have
been executed instead of murdered.
Note: I make no distinction between 'guilty' and 'innocent' victims.
The death of ANY human is a matter of deep regret to me, whatever
they may have done. But Benny DOES seem to make such a
distinction, and I provide this information for his benefit.
> I'd also be interested in what the deathies think
> the sentence should be for someone who kills a murderer, especially if the
> killing meets all the other criteria for 'heinousness' under the various
> capital statutes, thus making it 'death-eligible'.
I've seen PV's comments on murders that happened on death row,
where the victim was under sentence of death, and he apparently
supports executing death row prisonners in order to protect the lives
of other death row prisonners.
It makes as much sense as any other pro-dp argument.
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
> desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
> http: // www . zeouane . org
> http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> The more things change, the more they stay the same... essentially
> the same 'argument' from Peter in Mar 2002, where he again tried to
> distort the meaning of Benny Deeni... see
No distortion at all.
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6nh9i%2434j%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.
I pointed out a number of lies that you told.
You were just desperate to attach some disgusting meaning to
my words, to draw attention away from you being exposed as a liar.
> When speaking of those who were
> murdered in prison by Furman commuted murderers. You stated
> the 'difference' between those murdered who were criminals, and those
> who were guards -- See your post --
>
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.
net.uk
>
> Your words --
>
> "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
> criminals. The report does not specify what their crimes were, but it is
> a reasonable speculation that they were also Furman-commuted criminals."
Here we see PV's favorite tactic, the out ouf context quote.
In the above, I was pointing out two things, both in response to LIES
PV had told. PV's comment was that executing all the Furman murderers
would have 'saved' these 'innocent' people. He said that 'innocent'
people are so valuable that it is worth killing many 'guilty' people to
save one 'innocent'[ one.
In response to this, I pointed out two things.
First, it is unlikely that they would have been 'saved' at all.
Thelikelihood
is that they would have been executed.
Secondly, they are not 'innocent' PV's theory of how it is OK to
kill 'guilty' people to save 'innocent' ones doesn't work here, when the
people you save are just as guilty as the people you kill.
It was PV, not me, that made the distinction between 'guilty' and
'innocent'. He then deliberately lied, calling some of the 'guilty'
ones 'innocent' and some of the 'innocent' ones 'guilty'. Why did
he do this? because HE thinks that guilty ones deserve to be
murdered.
> Actually, it is an absurd speculation - of the type you often indulge in -
> considering the ratio of ALL prisoners to Furman commuted murderers in the
> prison population. And continuing your comment --
>
> "The report provides little evidence that convicted murderers prove any
great
> publiuc threat. Mostly they threaten each other. Executing hundreds of
> criminals to save the lives of a small number of other criminals does not
> make sense, to me."
>
> Sure, why worry about the 'criminals in prison.' You obviously see a
prisoner
> as somewhat more 'deserving' of murder, than the 'ordinary citizen.'
Assuming
> why should we worry about those who are in prison, if they are the only
ones
> threatened by those murderers we do not execute.
Don't attribute your opinions to me. You lied, I exposed your lies.
You lied because YOU think that criminals are 'more deserving of murder than
the ordinary citizen' Exposing you as a liar doesn't indicate agreement
with you.
> When I responded to your post, pointing out that you appeared to
> 'value' prisoners as less than 'ordinary citizens,' that was your last
'contribution'
> to that thread.
No, that's what YOU did. I disagreed.
> > You say that the risk of execution is "the chance one takes when
> > one decides to live a criminal lifestyle". Do you also think that
> > risk of being murdered in prison by an unexecuted murderer
> > is also "the chance one takes when one decides to live a criminal
> > lifestyle." If not, why the difference?
> >
> <clipped>
because you can't answer.
> > And if they weren't? If they had been criminals, then what?
> > Would you havesaid that they were "responsible for their own murders"
> > in that case. Because many such victims ARE criminals.
> >
> That seems to have been your implication in the past. Your mood swings
> seem to need some attention.
No, it was YOUR implication. I always disagreed with it.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:avhq11$a1q$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
to murder by the influence of DP opponents. McDuff is a striking example.
The counter-balance is quite apparent. What actually matters is the innocent
executed (which has never been verified), against the innocent murdered by
a TRUE murderer, having been convicted and yet released (which has been
verified over and over). I do not contend that means we must execute ALL
murderers. I DO contend it provides sufficient JUSTIFICATION to maintain the
DP, and work to improve the identification of those most likely to recommit
such murders. Obviously eliminating the DP will also eliminate any possibility
of the execution of an innocent. But there is no doubt, proven statistically,
that some we now would not execute would recommit murder, regardless of the
efforts we make to otherwise prevent them from doing so. desi, in fact, tried
very hard to avoid the implication of his (and your) 'philosophy' regarding the
DP. There is no question that you view the execution of an innocent by the
state, to be 'equivelent' to ten murders committed by previously proven
murderers. In other words, you would accept the possibility that ten new
innocent victims are murdered by those already convicted of murder, rather
than accept the possibility of the execution of one innocent by the state.
You are willing to 'gamble' ten innocent lives for one innocent life, simply
because you presume that the state has no right to make such choices.
Yet the state makes choices every day that contain the certainty that
a number of deaths of innocents will result from those choices. But
THAT doesn't bother you... only the execution of proven murderers seems
to bother you.
> > Answer zero. ZERO INNOCENTS DEAD. Thus one only needs to name
> > ONE TRUE murderer sentenced to death, who had their sentence
> > commuted, and later murdered again, to tip the scale in respect to
> > THE INNOCENT DEAD. As the man said -- does the name McDuff
> > ring a bell?
>
> The FACT, the solid FACT is that the Furman reforms saved far
> more people than were killed by McDuff. At the time of Furman
> there were SEVEN people on death row, who were later proved
> innocent. 95 people convicted after Furman have been aquitted,
> many of them as a result of protections that would not exist but for
> Furman.
>
commuted by Furman, and conveniently forgetting Robert Lee Massie.
Further, can you provide the NAMES of those seven that you speak of?
Since even in the Marquart-Sorenson study, it was 'claimed' -- quoting --
"However, four inmates on death row at the time of Furman were innocence
according to a study by Bedau and Radelet." This was their "Miscarriages
of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases." Overall, the Furman offenders
committed six killings in institutional settings, in addition to McDuff,
and Massie after release, and almost certainly Jerry Michael Ward, who
was also commuted by Furman, and subsequently paroled in 1984. He was
the number one suspect in two new cases, involving the the disappearance
of Connie Sue Cooke, and the murder of Brenda Maureen Hackett. But althought
police were on the verge of arresting him, Ward committed suicide in
a self-inflicted execution. Further, no one contests (certainly I don't - as it's
one of my basic principles) that capital MURDER should be the only crime
which PERMITS the DP, thus ALL rapists commuted under Furman were
certainly both reasonable and moral (IMHO). Nor were ANY rapists so
commuted ever convicted or involved in another murder.
> > Now how many TRUE murderers will you 'trade' for the
> > one INNOCENT victim murdered?
> >
> > In addition, your 'argument' is rather logically flawed,
>
> No, its logically correct.
>
Absolutely not. You are claiming I must make available the names
of 102 TRUE murderers, who were released and murdered AGAIN
to equal 102 later found not guilty which involved NO LOSS OF LIFE.
While you are asking me to PROVE 102 INNOCENT LIVES LOST.
It's total bullshit... and you know it.
> > since the
> > retentionist is more concerned with those NOT sentenced to the
> > DP in their original sentences who murdered again. It is illogical
> > to try and balance 102 sentenced to death, but later having their
> > sentence overturned, against the necessity of providing ANOTHER
> > 102 sentenced to death, who were TRUE murderers, but later had
> > their sentence overturned, who THEN committed another murder.
> > I can say that there are now on DR, 285 murderers who had ALREADY
> > committed murder, were released, and AGAIN committed murder.
>
> Was their first murder a potentially capital one? This is an important
> point that you always miss. If their first murder WASN'T one for
> which the DP might apply, then they have no relevence. If, for example
> the first murder was 2nd degree then you can only use it IF you
> say you support the DP for 2nd degree murder.
I can use anything I wish... if it involved a murderer, who was released, and
involved another murder. There are 285 just like that now sitting on DR.
Your presumption that 'some murders have no relevance' is disgusting
on the face of it. But it's one I've seen from you before... such as trying
to claim that murder of prisoners is somehow irrelevant... and 'needs to
be said.'
> How many of the first murders would you have supported the DP for?
> How many would you have executed the first time? Do you have
> an answer for this?
>
Once again -- I do not contend that means we must execute ALL
murderers. I DO contend it provides sufficient JUSTIFICATION to maintain the
DP, and work to improve the identification of those most likely to recommit
such murders. My list is not presented as an argument for the execution
of ALL murderers. It is an argument for the continuation of that penalty,
because of the obvious FACT that some murderers recommit murder.
> In fact, if you want to avoid this type of thing, you have to extend
> the DP to cover ALL homicides without exception. That is the
> ONLY way in which you can prevent it. Is that what you want?
>
That's an ignorant and absurd conclusion, since I do not contend that
it is possible to eliminate ALL recidivist murders. I do contend that
without the DP, recidist murders will increase dramatically in number.
That's proven by the fact of the many murderers not executed who
murder again. You cannot expect to claim that we only execute murderers
who would NEVER murder again, would you? Posters here expect to
claim that because I do not favor executing all murderers, my 'list'
is irrelevant. But that's totally false. My list demonstrates only that
proven and convicted murderers murder again if not sentenced to the
DP. It does not intend to support mandatory execution of all proven
murderers. It does intend to support the DP, as opposed to abolition
of that penalty.
> Do you favour a death penalty so wide in its scope that it would
> have executed all 285 of these people the first time?
>
No... I favor a death penalty that will now execute those 285, to insure
there is no 'third' opportunity. Would you support THAT? Or exactly
how many 'chances' would you give them?
> > See Table 9 in
> > http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp00.pdf
> > So we are comparing 285 who were convicted of murder, were
> > released, and DID MURDER AGAIN, against 102 who were
> > convicted of murder, sentenced to death but were NOT executed.
> > Seems like 285 to zip to me.
>
> Wrong. In the first place, the 102 is the number saved by
> not executing. It makes no sense to say its zero because they
> weren't executed, that's the whole point. 102 people have
> had their lives saved.
>
Umm.. that's also MY POINT. Those 'potential' victims that WOULD
HAVE been murdered, had we not executed those 820 murderers
that we have executed since Gregg. What about THAT 'number' saved
BY execution? Those victims are every bit as REAL as those you
claim were executed of those 102.
> In the second place, your figure of 285 is drawn from ALL
> homicides over several decades, while the 102 are drawn from
> the tiny proportion of death sentences.
>
> So, in fact its 102 out of 3000 vs 285 out of several hundred
> thousand.
Actually, the population on DR is always in flux, thus the 285 is
the number of those PRESENTLY on DR, and represents 7.9% of
all those on DR. It is logical to presume that as they are executed
they will be replaced by others who are repeat murderers. As
usual... your 'fuzzy' logic needs work.
>
>
>
> > PV
> >
> > PS -- I don't know if this has been provided before, but the names and
> > history of those 102 sentenced to the DP, who were NOT executed,
> > after having been sentenced to the DP, can be found at
> > http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoccases.html
> > I find very little information that efforts by abolitionists were directly
> > responsible for the overturn of their convictions.
>
> Of course, that wasn't the claim I made. The claim I made, which
> I stand by, was that DP opponents PREVENTED their executions.
>
Ah, you're always making some silly claim. This happens to be one
of your more silly ones. Are you presuming that DP opponents are
responsible for due process? Next you'll be calling yourself the 'second
coming.'
> > It seems that due
> > process was responsible in almost every case.
>
> And I say that this due process wouled not EXIST without the
> influence of DP opponents.
You can say it... but no one but an idiot would believe it. You are
contending that all abolitionists wish to eliminate due process, and
that's absurd. In fact, in arguments which abolitionists contend there
is 'brutalization' due to the long period of due process, there is the
obvious implication that they wish to eliminate such due process
as PART of the elimination of the DP. Rather consigning all murderers
now sentenced to the DP to L wop, with hardly any due process at
all... thus saving 'we taxpayers' all that money. I am quite happy, as
a retentionist, with the high overturn rate of the DP. I would be much more
concerned if it was equal to the turnover rate for traffic ticket convictions,
since I would find it to not be doing what it is expected to do.
> Much of the current due process came
> into existence as a result of Furman. But the supporters of the DP
> oppose such reforms - look at Benny's comments in this thread.
> Left up to him they would not exist. He says the Furman reforms
> that left McDuff alive is the fault of DP opponents. If he had his way
> these protections would not exist
>
There is no question that McDuff was a failure in respect to Furman.
I am not against Furman per se, since, in the long term, it forced
states to implement greater standards for the DP, and provided
the groundwork for Woodson, setting aside mandatory death sentences,
and Coker, setting aside the DP for rape. But I do believe that Furman
was applied too broadly... of course, IMHO. I have always wished that
the Supreme Court would act more decisively. Each step they take,
however, seems to be a step that I agree with, in more closely structuring
WHO we may execute, and elimination of those from DP consideration
that I fully agree should be eliminated from that consideration. I hope
that one day they will rule that clear prior intent is a necessary criteria
for execution, in addition to eliminating a number of other types of murders
from such a penalty. But do not try to convince me (or I believe a vast
number of Americans and the Supreme Court itself), that total abolition of
the DP is a 'good thing,' for the U.S. Europe and the EU, may of
course do whatever they wish, short of assuming they can decide
what is best for the U.S.
<rest of accusations against all retentionists clipped>
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:avi2jq$msb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
least five people (and probably more), AFTER his release.
1) Brenda Thompson - 1991.
2) Regenia Moore - 1991.
3) Colleen Reed - 1991.
4) Valencia Joshua - 1992.
5) Melissa Ann Northrup - 1992.
> - Another prisonner was released, and murdered a drug dealer
> outside prison.
Of course, you're forgetting Robert Lee Massie. See
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/massie703.htm
Massie was originally sentenced to death in 1965, but the sentence was
commuted to life by Furman in 1972. Massie was paroled in 1978 and
murdered a liquor store owner during an armed robbery 8 months later.
He was again sentenced to death.
And Jerry Michael Ward -- Originally sentenced to die in the electric chair,
for committing murder with malice in the rape and murder of a Houston
school girl. His sentence was commuted to life in prison when the U.S.
Supreme Court abolished the death penalty in 1972. He was subsequently
paroled in 1984. He was the number one suspect in two new cases,
involving the disappearance of Connie Sue Cooke, and the murder of
Brenda Maureen Hackett. But although police were on the verge of
arresting him, Ward committed suicide in a self-inflicted execution.
Why is it necessary for you to be so deceptive?
> So the victims are 5 'criminals', ans 4 'innocents'
>
Ah, yes... another 'beauty' from Peter. Those '5 criminals' certainly
'deserved' to be murdered. Didn't they? I can imagine you'd like to
pretend they don't even exist when you 'tote 'em up.'
> This contrasts to SEVEN of the Furman commutees who were later
> proved innocent.
>
Even Bedau (someone known to exaggerate) said four. What is your source?
> So, if the state had executed about 520 murderers, 75 rapists, 4 armed
> robbers and 7 innocent people, it would have saved the lives of 4
> innocent people and five criminals. Possibly, it may have saved 5,6,7 or 8
> 'innocents' (unproven), and possibly 4 of those criminals would have
> been executed instead of murdered.
>
> Note: I make no distinction between 'guilty' and 'innocent' victims.
ROTFLMAO. Of course you do. In fact you presume that 'criminals'
actually count 'less' than 'ordinary citizens.'
> The death of ANY human is a matter of deep regret to me, whatever
> they may have done. But Benny DOES seem to make such a
> distinction, and I provide this information for his benefit.
>
>
> > I'd also be interested in what the deathies think
> > the sentence should be for someone who kills a murderer, especially if the
> > killing meets all the other criteria for 'heinousness' under the various
> > capital statutes, thus making it 'death-eligible'.
>
> I've seen PV's comments on murders that happened on death row,
> where the victim was under sentence of death, and he apparently
> supports executing death row prisonners in order to protect the lives
> of other death row prisonners.
>
> It makes as much sense as any other pro-dp argument.
>
Holy shit!!! Firm confirmation that you SUPPORT MURDER! You
obviously don't consider one DR inmate murdering another DR
inmate as 'actual' murder. It just doesn't count as murder in your
book, thus you support it.
Sport... They are ON DR because they have already murdered. One
does not GET on DR without a conviction for murder, thus your
presumption of executing DR inmates BECAUSE we want to protect
the lives of OTHER DR inmates is absurd. We want to protect ALL
lives, even those on DR from MURDER. Apparently you feel they should
be permitted to murder each other, because 'they're going to be executed
anyway.' You become more irrational with every post.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:45phva...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:51:04 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article <avhoe7$3lj$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris
<no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
>
> I'd be interested in seeing figures as to how many victims of murder are
> themselves murderers.
I'm sure you would. So you could claim 'they don't count' as 'real' murders.
Peter is already quite big on that.
> I'd also be interested in what the deathies think
> the sentence should be for someone who kills a murderer, especially if the
> killing meets all the other criteria for 'heinousness' under the various
> capital statutes, thus making it 'death-eligible'.
Peter already made a fool of himself, quite some time ago, in the
execution of Ricky McGinn, where he compared the execution to
the murder of a drug dealer. Believing they both seemed similar
to him. You two should really consider trying to resurrect vaudeville.
PV
>
> { snip }
>
> --
> Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
|Spiritual Leader of the Universal
|Right to Life Church. (umm... get
|away from me -- you filthy black
|starving child in Africa) 'My church'
|isn't for you.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > So the victims are 5 'criminals', ans 4 'innocents'
> >
> Ah, yes... another 'beauty' from Peter. Those '5 criminals' certainly
> 'deserved' to be murdered. Didn't they? I can imagine you'd like to
> pretend they don't even exist when you 'tote 'em up.'
No, YOU have said that, I have always disagreed with your
directly stated opinion.
>
> Even Bedau (someone known to exaggerate) said four. What is your source?
Dudley Sharp. According to his review of the DPIC innocence
list SEVEN of the people on the list had their death sentences
overturned by Furman.
He makes no claim as to their guilt, the implication seems to
be that they don't count for some reason that he doesn't adequately
explain.
> > So, if the state had executed about 520 murderers, 75 rapists, 4 armed
> > robbers and 7 innocent people, it would have saved the lives of 4
> > innocent people and five criminals. Possibly, it may have saved 5,6,7 or
8
> > 'innocents' (unproven), and possibly 4 of those criminals would have
> > been executed instead of murdered.
> >
> > Note: I make no distinction between 'guilty' and 'innocent' victims.
>
> ROTFLMAO. Of course you do. In fact you presume that 'criminals'
> actually count 'less' than 'ordinary citizens.'
No, thats what YOU do, and it disgusts me.
> > The death of ANY human is a matter of deep regret to me, whatever
> > they may have done. But Benny DOES seem to make such a
> > distinction, and I provide this information for his benefit.
> >
> >
> > > I'd also be interested in what the deathies think
> > > the sentence should be for someone who kills a murderer, especially if
the
> > > killing meets all the other criteria for 'heinousness' under the
various
> > > capital statutes, thus making it 'death-eligible'.
> >
> > I've seen PV's comments on murders that happened on death row,
> > where the victim was under sentence of death, and he apparently
> > supports executing death row prisonners in order to protect the lives
> > of other death row prisonners.
> >
> > It makes as much sense as any other pro-dp argument.
> >
> Holy shit!!! Firm confirmation that you SUPPORT MURDER! You
> obviously don't consider one DR inmate murdering another DR
> inmate as 'actual' murder. It just doesn't count as murder in your
> book, thus you support it.
Yet another example of PV's reading comprehension difficulties.
I would love to see the chain of 'logic' that leads you to
that conclusion.
Go on, explain it.
You support the DP to save the lives of people you want dead.
I point out the silliness of this.
You claim that pointing out the silliness of your position means
that ' I support murder'
How can anyone think this? It's such a bizarre interpretation.
But that's nothing new from you, is it.
> Sport... They are ON DR because they have already murdered. One
> does not GET on DR without a conviction for murder, thus your
> presumption of executing DR inmates BECAUSE we want to protect
> the lives of OTHER DR inmates is absurd. We want to protect ALL
> lives, even those on DR from MURDER. Apparently you feel they should
> be permitted to murder each other, because 'they're going to be executed
> anyway.' You become more irrational with every post.
How strange, you accuse me of agreeing with you WHICH I DONT
and then you say that agreement with you is irrational.
You state that your own logic is 'irrational', then accuse me of thinking
the same as you. Very strange.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:45phva...@lievre.voute.net...
> > le Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:51:04 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
<avhoe7$3lj$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris
> <no...@m.please> a dit ...
> >
> <rest of nonsense clipped>
> >
> > I'd be interested in seeing figures as to how many victims of murder are
> > themselves murderers.
>
> I'm sure you would. So you could claim 'they don't count' as 'real'
murders.
> Peter is already quite big on that.
No, YOU are. I pointed out the hypocrisy of your position,
and you flip-flopped.
I have ALWAYS been opposed to all killings, of 'guilty' and
'innocent' alike, but YOU made the distinction.
YOU lied, claiming that some 'innocent' people were 'guilty'
and it was okay to kill them because they were 'guilty'. I
exposed your lies.
YOU lied, claiming that some 'guilty' people were 'innocent'
and that they should be protected, protection that YOU said
'guilty' people don't deserve. YOU said that 'guilty' people
deserve to be killed. That's what YOU said. I exposed
your lies.
The fact that I exposed your lies does not indicate agreement
with YOUR directly stated opinion that 'guilty' people
'deserve' to be killed.
It has always disgusted me.
STOP PRETENDING THAT I AGREE WITH YOU.
> > I'd also be interested in what the deathies think
> > the sentence should be for someone who kills a murderer, especially if
the
> > killing meets all the other criteria for 'heinousness' under the various
> > capital statutes, thus making it 'death-eligible'.
>
> Peter already made a fool of himself, quite some time ago, in the
> execution of Ricky McGinn, where he compared the execution to
> the murder of a drug dealer. Believing they both seemed similar
> to him. You two should really consider trying to resurrect vaudeville.
No, I made a fool of you. The way you desperately tried to
twist my words beyond recognition, the way you lied repeatedly
changing what I said made YOU a laughingstock.
NOBODY believed the lies you told, they were all disgusted
with you for lying.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:avi56t$ml6$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:9v%S9.96687$j8.24...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > The more things change, the more they stay the same... essentially
> > the same 'argument' from Peter in Mar 2002, where he again tried to
> > distort the meaning of Benny Deeni... see
>
> No distortion at all.
>
trying to distort the meaning.... in both cases. Looking at the text in
both threads there is a similarity that cannot be denied, and an attempt
at distortion on your part in both threads, IMHO.
Surely you jest. You are the one famous for lies, my friend. You
certainly have the showcase of the Furman commuted murderers
which demonstrates how easily you lie and distort. And you have
certainly 'claimed' that those in prison, are not 'guilty' of BEING
murdered. Even now, you would argue that they are somehow
'deserved' of being murdered, especially if they 'happened' to be
those who the Furman decision commuted from the DP.
> You were just desperate to attach some disgusting meaning to
> my words, to draw attention away from you being exposed as a liar.
>
Your meaning was quite clear... when you said 'It has to be said...'
Implying that it 'has to be said' that the victims murdered in prison
were prisoners, and thus 'not worth' as much as 'ordinary citizens' in
your mind. Your argument is 'why worry about the acts of murderers
when they are in prison, as long as they ONLY murder other prisoners?'
> > When speaking of those who were
> > murdered in prison by Furman commuted murderers. You stated
> > the 'difference' between those murdered who were criminals, and those
> > who were guards -- See your post --
> >
> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.
> net.uk
> >
> > Your words --
> >
> > "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
> > criminals. The report does not specify what their crimes were, but it is
> > a reasonable speculation that they were also Furman-commuted criminals."
>
> Here we see PV's favorite tactic, the out ouf context quote.
>
Oh, yeah... your 'favorite' excuse. Apparently you post nothing 'in context,'
thus everything you say is taken 'out of context.' But clearly, those were
your EXACT words. And unlike you, who takes the word 'might' and tries
to INVENT a meaning of 'hope' or 'wish' from that word, and tries to
distort 'contract' into 'contract killing,' your EXACT words are what you cannot
deny... thus your ONLY fallback is to lie, and claim they are 'out of
context.' I have NOT tried to change your words, as you tried with me...
they are yours to eat, sport. bon appétit...
> In the above, I was pointing out two things, both in response to LIES
> PV had told. PV's comment was that executing all the Furman murderers
> would have 'saved' these 'innocent' people. He said that 'innocent'
> people are so valuable that it is worth killing many 'guilty' people to
> save one 'innocent'[ one.
>
As well it is. Apparently you believe the contrary -- that it is worth murdering
many 'innocent' people,' to save one 'guilty' one from execution. Gee, that reminds
me slightly of your 'trolley problem' moral choice! The innocent are those who are
VICTIMS...regardless of the circumstances of their life... since NO ONE
DESERVES to be murdered. Not drug-dealers (as you presumed in McGinn),
and not even murderers on DR. But you seem to think that your reasonable
(but by any stretch of the imagination - unreasonable) speculation (and it IS
total speculation) that the victims of murder were Furman-commuted murderers,
so their murder was rather 'deserved.' I am certain in my mind, unless you can
prove to the contrary, that NONE of those four innocent victims of murder
were Furman-commuted murderers, given the ratio of those 300 some-odd
murderers compared to the total prison population they were returned to.
Nonetheless, even if they WERE, society had declared them PRISONERS
and they were NOT 'deserved' of murder, which you seem to believe was only
'God's retribution.' Only society can exact punishment. All other forms
are offenses against the person... regardless of that person. It is fundamental
to why we even create a society.
> In response to this, I pointed out two things.
>
> First, it is unlikely that they would have been 'saved' at all.
> Thelikelihood
> is that they would have been executed.
>
Umm... that was not POSSIBLE, even if they were Furman-commuted,
since the DP was no longer possible for their crimes. At worse, they
were doomed to spend the rest of their life in prison, unless they
somehow committed ANOTHER offense, after the DP was reinstated.
> Secondly, they are not 'innocent' PV's theory of how it is OK to
> kill 'guilty' people to save 'innocent' ones doesn't work here, when the
> people you save are just as guilty as the people you kill.
>
And THERE WE HAVE IT. Your clear statement that "they are
not innocent." Which, in four simple words, is your admission
that they somehow are 'guilty' of BEING murdered. Proving exactly
what I've been saying. Apparently you believe it is wrong for society
to execute murderers, but it is okay for murderers to murder 'guilty'
prisoners. I will recall those four words for you, OVER AND OVER.
While you can argue all you wish about 'out of context,' you angry,
spiteful little man. And if you presume that is an insult toward you...
you are perfectly correct.
> It was PV, not me, that made the distinction between 'guilty' and
> 'innocent'.
Another lie. I have NEVER made a distinction between 'guilty' and
'innocent,' being 'deserved' of BEING MURDERED. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40AU6.428633%24o9.67976595%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
From 9 June 2001 -- quoting my words - "NO person - any person - DESERVES
to be MURDERED. The fact is ALL murder is clearly murder. There is no
distinction at murder's lower level. Everyone is INNOCENT of DESERVING
to be murdered. Even Jeffrey Daumer."
And in a post to you, where you argued that the victim of Jarmarr Arnold
on DR probably 'deserved' to be murdered --- See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=_OrW6.1249%24_T2.82627%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
From 15 June 2001 -- quoting me in reply to your absurd conclusion --
"PV argues that 'no one' deserves to be murdered. Apparently
Peter disagrees with this. Go figure...."
And again to you, where you clearly implied that Furman-commuted
prisoners were NOT 'innocent' of being deserved of murder. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=n6PT7.119399%24oj3.20809890%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
From 18 Dec 2001 -- my words again in response to your absurd statement --
"EVERY murder victim is INNOCENT. No one DESERVES
to be murdered. And that's a fact. Now if you disagree
with that, then your argument, of course, is that SOME DO
deserve to be murdered because they are not innocent."
And again in a post to another post to you --- see
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6Wdf8.2221%241p6.522126%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
From 27 Feb 2002 -- my words again "Now, NO ONE, not even a
murderer sitting on DR DESERVES to be MURDERED by a fellow DR
murderer. as opposed to your belief that 'plenty of people *deserve*
to be killed, (Re:Abolitionist's Dictionary (revised edition), 2000-09-02
06:12:21 PST) where you wrote -- "I dont dispute that plenty of people
*deserve* to be killed. Only that if we give them "what they
deserve" then we become evil ourselves in the process.""
If one searches for 'deserves to be murdered,' under my handle, one
finds twenty-seven posts, in ALL of which I CONDEMN ANY murder...
of ANYONE. There is no such thing as 'guilty' of BEING murdered.
Since NO ONE 'deserves to be murdered.' You have a rather big 'moral'
problem here IMHO, with you believing that some DO deserve to be
murdered.
> He then deliberately lied, calling some of the 'guilty'
> ones 'innocent' and some of the 'innocent' ones 'guilty'. Why did
> he do this? because HE thinks that guilty ones deserve to be
> murdered.
>
Again.... there is NO HUMAN ON THIS PLANET that 'DESERVES' to
be murdered. You will find no words from me that refute that statement,
thus you are indulging in the lies we have become so accustomed to
seeing from you. Truly, in our early arguments I felt you were more
benign in your distortions and the way you changed much of your argument
as the dialog progressed... but your association with desi has turned you
into a full-fledged liar.
> > Actually, it is an absurd speculation - of the type you often indulge in -
> > considering the ratio of ALL prisoners to Furman commuted murderers in the
> > prison population. And continuing your comment --
> >
> > "The report provides little evidence that convicted murderers prove any
> great
> > publiuc threat. Mostly they threaten each other. Executing hundreds of
> > criminals to save the lives of a small number of other criminals does not
> > make sense, to me."
> >
> > Sure, why worry about the 'criminals in prison.' You obviously see a
> prisoner
> > as somewhat more 'deserving' of murder, than the 'ordinary citizen.'
> Assuming
> > why should we worry about those who are in prison, if they are the only
> ones
> > threatened by those murderers we do not execute.
>
> Don't attribute your opinions to me. You lied, I exposed your lies.
> You lied because YOU think that criminals are 'more deserving of murder than
> the ordinary citizen' Exposing you as a liar doesn't indicate agreement
> with you.
>
I am quoting YOUR WORDS... exactly. While you shout hysteric
denials. Clearly your argument throughout the Furman-commuted
prisoners argument has been that prisoners murdered by those
commuted, somehow deserved to be murdered, and thus 'didn't count,'
in a comparison between those you saw as having been found
not guilty in subsequent examinations, as reported by Bedau. Your
particular comment that "It has to be said..." proves that most
conclusively... otherwise, why would you claim that 'It has to be said...?'
You really expected that they should be ignored in consideration of
murders committed by Furman commuted murderers... and you still expect
they should be ignored. You have tried over and over to claim that they
were 'simply' the same ones who were to be executed anyway... and
since PV supports executions, PV must also support their murder. But
that's a LIE. It is YOU who supports their murder, in order to make a
'better' comparison between the 'innocents of Bedau,' and the murders
committed by Furman-commuted prisoners. I have always counted
those prisoners as 'innocents' murdered by Furman-commuted murderers.
> > When I responded to your post, pointing out that you appeared to
> > 'value' prisoners as less than 'ordinary citizens,' that was your last
> 'contribution'
> > to that thread.
>
> No, that's what YOU did. I disagreed.
>
No... you said "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
murders were criminals...." You thus tried to make it appear that they
were of 'lesser value' than 'ordinary citizens.' No way for you to get
out of this one... even claiming your miserable and pathetic excuse of
'out of context.'
>
> > > You say that the risk of execution is "the chance one takes when
> > > one decides to live a criminal lifestyle". Do you also think that
> > > risk of being murdered in prison by an unexecuted murderer
> > > is also "the chance one takes when one decides to live a criminal
> > > lifestyle." If not, why the difference?
> > >
> > <clipped>
>
> because you can't answer.
You fruitcake... because the question was addressed to Benny claiming
what HE said, not what I said. Your particular question is to HIM, not
me. Since I did not SAY the words you quote -- Benny did. Could
you possibly count to three, and see that your comment was three
posts ago, directed to Benny? I clipped it because it was not applicable
to any quote of mine. And related to YOUR dialog with Benny around
Rolando Cruz, which is not part of my concern. My concern is your
insistence that those four prisoners murdered in prison by Furman-
commuted murderers were 'guilty' of BEING murdered. And you've
confirmed that you believe "they are not innocent."
> > > And if they weren't? If they had been criminals, then what?
> > > Would you havesaid that they were "responsible for their own murders"
> > > in that case. Because many such victims ARE criminals.
> > >
> > That seems to have been your implication in the past. Your mood swings
> > seem to need some attention.
>
> No, it was YOUR implication. I always disagreed with it.
>
>
Where would that be? In the part above, where you said ""they are
not innocent"? Yes... that's it... I've always claimed they WERE
not guilty of BEING murdered, while you've argued that they ARE
guilty of BEING murdered.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:OisS9.28848$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> PV
>
> PS -- I don't know if this has been provided before, but the names and
> history of those 102 sentenced to the DP, who were NOT executed,
> after having been sentenced to the DP, can be found at
> http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoccases.html
> I find very little information that efforts by abolitionists were directly
> responsible for the overturn of their convictions. It seems that due
> process was responsible in almost every case. Porter is the closest
> example of efforts by those outside of the judicial process having an
> effect.
>
I had posted this information before. For the 'other side of the coin,' in
the views of those '102 innocents,' see
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DPIC.htm
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:avl3eq$4nv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:MjbT9.49560$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> > > So the victims are 5 'criminals', ans 4 'innocents'
> > >
> > Ah, yes... another 'beauty' from Peter. Those '5 criminals' certainly
> > 'deserved' to be murdered. Didn't they? I can imagine you'd like to
> > pretend they don't even exist when you 'tote 'em up.'
>
> No, YOU have said that, I have always disagreed with your
> directly stated opinion.
>
posts ago, in this same thread -- quoting YOU to desi when desi
asked how many victims of murder are themselves murderers you replied --
--------------------------------------
"I don't have exact figures, but information I do have may provide a
rough estimate.
At the time of Furman, there were about 600 criminals on death
row, about 80 had been sentenced to death for rape or armed
robbery, the rest were convicted of murder.After their death
senrences were overturned,
- Two prisonners killed two prison guards while in prison.
- Four prisoners murdered other prisoners while still in prison.
I can't find out who these victims were, but information
strongly suggests that the victims themselves were Furman-
commuted murderers.
- McDuff was released, and killed two other innocent victims.
Some other murders have been attributed to him, without proof.
- Another prisonner was released, and murdered a drug dealer
outside prison.
So the victims are 5 'criminals', ans 4 'innocents'
---------------------------------------------------------------
So you're a PROVEN liar, since you now deny your own words from
only two posts past. In addition to the proven flaws I've pointed out in
your 'toting up' of innocent victims of murder, who you would try to
show were 'not really innocent of BEING murdered.'
> > Even Bedau (someone known to exaggerate) said four. What is your source?
>
> Dudley Sharp. According to his review of the DPIC innocence
> list SEVEN of the people on the list had their death sentences
> overturned by Furman.
>
Not that I 'question' you, (ho ho ho) but given the fact you are a known liar,
could you be more specific as to the URL? And it rather contradicts the
number specifically mentioned in the Furman-Commuted Study itself.
> He makes no claim as to their guilt, the implication seems to
> be that they don't count for some reason that he doesn't adequately
> explain.
>
If he makes no claim to their guilt, that doesn't imply they were
'innocent.' Since their guilt was established in a court of law, unless
it was further determined they were legally not guilty. I fail to see
exactly what you mean here, or even the source you find identifies
those 'seven' you refer to.
>
> > > So, if the state had executed about 520 murderers, 75 rapists, 4 armed
> > > robbers and 7 innocent people, it would have saved the lives of 4
> > > innocent people and five criminals. Possibly, it may have saved 5,6,7 or
> 8
> > > 'innocents' (unproven), and possibly 4 of those criminals would have
> > > been executed instead of murdered.
> > >
> > > Note: I make no distinction between 'guilty' and 'innocent' victims.
> >
> > ROTFLMAO. Of course you do. In fact you presume that 'criminals'
> > actually count 'less' than 'ordinary citizens.'
>
> No, thats what YOU do, and it disgusts me.
>
Actually, your entire premise in this thread (and others) has been that
'prisoners' are 'different' from ordinary citizens in respect to 'counting
them' when they are murdered. From your EXACT words --
1) "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
criminals. The report does not specify what their crimes were, but it is
a reasonable speculation that they were also Furman-commuted criminals."
2) "So the victims are 5 'criminals', ans 4 'innocents'"
and the most damning words you posted in the previous post -
3) "Secondly, they are not 'innocent' PV's theory of how it is OK to
kill 'guilty' people to save 'innocent' ones doesn't work here, when the
people you save are just as guilty as the people you kill."
Each of those EXACT quotes of your words, completely demonstrate
that you view prisoners as 'different' from others who are murdered.
With the direct implication that they somehow deserved to BE
murdered. So go ahead, and tell me how I have 'taken you out of
context.' Because apparently you contend nothing you say can be
taken 'in context.'
> > > The death of ANY human is a matter of deep regret to me, whatever
> > > they may have done. But Benny DOES seem to make such a
> > > distinction, and I provide this information for his benefit.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I'd also be interested in what the deathies think
> > > > the sentence should be for someone who kills a murderer, especially if
> the
> > > > killing meets all the other criteria for 'heinousness' under the
> various
> > > > capital statutes, thus making it 'death-eligible'.
> > >
> > > I've seen PV's comments on murders that happened on death row,
> > > where the victim was under sentence of death, and he apparently
> > > supports executing death row prisonners in order to protect the lives
> > > of other death row prisonners.
> > >
> > > It makes as much sense as any other pro-dp argument.
> > >
> > Holy shit!!! Firm confirmation that you SUPPORT MURDER! You
> > obviously don't consider one DR inmate murdering another DR
> > inmate as 'actual' murder. It just doesn't count as murder in your
> > book, thus you support it.
>
> Yet another example of PV's reading comprehension difficulties.
> I would love to see the chain of 'logic' that leads you to
> that conclusion.
>
> Go on, explain it.
>
You claim that protecting the lives of other DR prisoners makes no
sense. Thus you support their murder if they are on DR, since
protecting them makes no sense to you. It seems you are of the
kind who believe we should take them all to a deserted island, and
let them sort themselves out by murdering each other. You simply
fail to see 'murder' if it involves a prisoner... they are 'immaterial' to
you, and their murders just don't 'count,' to you.
> You support the DP to save the lives of people you want dead.
>
I support the DP to save the lives of people. FULL STOP. You have
again tried to rewrite my words, implying the most crass lie you've
ever offered here. In respect to 'saving' the lives of those about to be
executed, I certainly support not permitting them to be murdered.
It is YOU who presumes they should be permitted to murder each
other, once they are placed on DR.
> I point out the silliness of this.
>
No... you point out that you don't CARE about those in prison who
are murdered. They are 'different' to you, in respect to being innocent
of BEING murdered. As far as you're concerned they may be murdered
as do not 'count' when weighing murders committed by murderers.
> You claim that pointing out the silliness of your position means
> that ' I support murder'
>
> How can anyone think this? It's such a bizarre interpretation.
> But that's nothing new from you, is it.
>
Given that you support the murder of prisoners... I can see how you
might find it bizarre to argue, as I do, that they are innocent of BEING
murdered.
> > Sport... They are ON DR because they have already murdered. One
> > does not GET on DR without a conviction for murder, thus your
> > presumption of executing DR inmates BECAUSE we want to protect
> > the lives of OTHER DR inmates is absurd. We want to protect ALL
> > lives, even those on DR from MURDER. Apparently you feel they should
> > be permitted to murder each other, because 'they're going to be executed
> > anyway.' You become more irrational with every post.
>
> How strange, you accuse me of agreeing with you WHICH I DONT
> and then you say that agreement with you is irrational.
>
What is not so strange is your propensity for lies and deceit. What I
demonstrate is YOUR presumption that they 'should be allowed to
murder each other, because they're going to be executed anyway.
That is not my view... nor will it ever be.
> You state that your own logic is 'irrational', then accuse me of thinking
> the same as you. Very strange.
>
I've stated that YOUR logic is 'irrational.' Apparently all you're doing is
agreeing with me that it is.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:avl3ug$5jq$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:MjbT9.49559$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
> news:45phva...@lievre.voute.net...
> > > le Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:51:04 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
> <avhoe7$3lj$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris
> > <no...@m.please> a dit ...
> > >
> > <rest of nonsense clipped>
> > >
> > > I'd be interested in seeing figures as to how many victims of murder are
> > > themselves murderers.
> >
> > I'm sure you would. So you could claim 'they don't count' as 'real'
> murders.
> > Peter is already quite big on that.
>
> No, YOU are. I pointed out the hypocrisy of your position,
> and you flip-flopped.
>
context.' There is no question from your postings that you do not CARE
if prisoners are murdered in prison by murderers. They DON'T COUNT
to you, and you've been very clear on that point... over and over.
To YOU, they are not 'innocent of BEING murdered.' You believe they
'rather deserve it.'
> I have ALWAYS been opposed to all killings, of 'guilty' and
> 'innocent' alike, but YOU made the distinction.
>
> YOU lied, claiming that some 'innocent' people were 'guilty'
> and it was okay to kill them because they were 'guilty'. I
> exposed your lies.
>
do so... since I always quote your EXACT words, while you always
make these spacious claims without the slightest foundation of
my words. I've never claimed that 'innocent' people were 'guilty,'
and in fact have argued that a 'legal' finding of 'not guilty,' is a
'factual' finding of 'not guilty.' Nor have I ever said it was okay to
kill 'innocent' people, which is your direct and sickening accusation,
you evil little man. On 27 different occasions, as reported by
Google, I have said that NO ONE deserves to be murdered.
> YOU lied, claiming that some 'guilty' people were 'innocent'
> and that they should be protected, protection that YOU said
> 'guilty' people don't deserve. YOU said that 'guilty' people
> deserve to be killed. That's what YOU said. I exposed
> your lies.
>
and now you claim I said 'guilty people were innocent.' You're a
total fruitcake. What I HAVE SAID is that NO ONE is 'guilty of
BEING murdered.' It is an impossible condition to impose, although
you do so quite readily, believing that those criminals in prison
DO 'deserve to be murdered.'
> The fact that I exposed your lies does not indicate agreement
> with YOUR directly stated opinion that 'guilty' people
> 'deserve' to be killed.
>
You've never agreed with me. And I state in an unqualified manner
that NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED. You not agreeing
with me is par for the course. Since you believe there are those that
DO DESERVE TO BE MURDERED.
> It has always disgusted me.
>
I can see how finding it wrong to murder prisoners in prison can disgust
you. Seeing as how you rather find nothing wrong with it.
> STOP PRETENDING THAT I AGREE WITH YOU.
>
But you don't. I contend that those in prison do not deserve to be
murdered. You contend they do.
>
> > > I'd also be interested in what the deathies think
> > > the sentence should be for someone who kills a murderer, especially if
> the
> > > killing meets all the other criteria for 'heinousness' under the various
> > > capital statutes, thus making it 'death-eligible'.
> >
> > Peter already made a fool of himself, quite some time ago, in the
> > execution of Ricky McGinn, where he compared the execution to
> > the murder of a drug dealer. Believing they both seemed similar
> > to him. You two should really consider trying to resurrect vaudeville.
>
> No, I made a fool of you. The way you desperately tried to
> twist my words beyond recognition, the way you lied repeatedly
> changing what I said made YOU a laughingstock.
>
Yeah, right... ho ho ho... you certainly DID try to compare the murder
of a drug dealer with the execution of McGinn.
> NOBODY believed the lies you told, they were all disgusted
> with you for lying.
>
Your entire post here, has done nothing to provide any proof of anything.
It is a litany of deceit, claiming I lie, while I have PROVEN with your
own words that YOU lie. I can imagine that you will respond to this
post by claiming that I lie... while STILL not providing any 'proof' while
the words I've quoted from you have clearly shown how you lie. Your
words --
1) "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
criminals. The report does not specify what their crimes were, but it is
a reasonable speculation that they were also Furman-commuted criminals."
2) "So the victims are 5 'criminals', ans 4 'innocents'"
and the most damning words you posted in the previous post -
3) "Secondly, they are not 'innocent' PV's theory of how it is OK to
kill 'guilty' people to save 'innocent' ones doesn't work here, when the
people you save are just as guilty as the people you kill."
PV
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: "Capital punishment adversary notes 'exonerations' of 102"
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 18:03:16 +0000
>
>le Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:51:04 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
><avhoe7$3lj$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
>>> One other thing that often gets (intentionally?) overlooked is the
>>> background of the supposed innocents. Obviously no one wants to see
>>> police or prosecutorial corruption and/or incompetence, and if that
>>> happens appropriate action should be taken against police/prosecotors.
>>> But it seems like in most of the cases where factual innocence is
>>> claimed, the person convicted was a criminal even before the murder for
>>> which he was sentenced to death. IMO, that automatically means they
>>> bear at least part responsibility for their predicament.
>
>> So, you think that the victim of a wrongful execution is likely to be a
>> criminal, huh?
>>
>> This is an opinion I see frequently stated from the supporters, and I
>> have never understood it. What exactly are you saying? Why should it make
>> a difference? Please tell me.
>
>Such a view can be accurately summed up by the phrase 'no smoke without
>fire'. It is a view that has been regularly espoused by Jigsaw. Namely,
>if the accused were innocent, he would never have been arrested, let alone
>put on trial. Such views seem to characterise either a profound lack of
>faith in human nature, or else a pathological inability to accept that the
>justice system can make errors.
>
>> Then when you have told me WHY it makes a difference, consider this.
>> Many of the victims of recidivist murders are criminals themselves.
>> A lot of them are in-prison murders. Does this make a difference
>> to you? Do you apply the same logic to this as you apply to the
>> DP?
>
>A very good point, and one which gives the lie to the oft-stated claim by
>the Scum, that in-prison murders can only be prevented by capital
>punishment. Do they really want us to believe that they _care_ if
>murderers kill each other ? If murderers were only ever locked up with
>other murderers (thus ensuring that they would never be in contact with
>prisoners convicted of non-lethal offences), would deathies still think
>that in-gaol homicide should be a capital offence ? After all, wouldn't
>the illegal 'murderer' be doing the work of the legal murderer, i.e. the
>state ?
>
>I'd be interested in seeing figures as to how many victims of murder are
>themselves murderers. I'd also be interested in what the deathies think
>the sentence should be for someone who kills a murderer, especially if the
>killing meets all the other criteria for 'heinousness' under the various
>capital statutes, thus making it 'death-eligible'.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.ems.psu.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!fu-berlin.de!u
ni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: "Capital punishment adversary notes 'exonerations' of 102"
>Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 18:03:16 +0000
>Lines: 54
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <45phva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <49b7f9aa.02122...@posting.google.com>
><3E0FA4CE...@hotmail.com> <auo9bn$3h1$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><3E0FCE51...@hotmail.com> <aupbo2$ci7$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><75a18ce5.0212...@posting.google.com>
><auq18b$hlh$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><75a18ce5.02123...@posting.google.com>
><aur5sr$2dk$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><OisS9.28848$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><75a18ce5.0301...@posting.google.com>
><avhoe7$3lj$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042049186 16592836 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction
in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived in Google. Please feel
free to use it to your advantage.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: "Capital punishment adversary notes 'exonerations' of 102"
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:58:20 +0000
>
>le Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:44:43 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
><avi2jq$msb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> A very good point, and one which gives the lie to the oft-stated claim by
>>> the Scum, that in-prison murders can only be prevented by capital
>>> punishment. Do they really want us to believe that they _care_ if
>>> murderers kill each other ? If murderers were only ever locked up with
>>> other murderers (thus ensuring that they would never be in contact with
>>> prisoners convicted of non-lethal offences), would deathies still think
>>> that in-gaol homicide should be a capital offence ? After all, wouldn't
>>> the illegal 'murderer' be doing the work of the legal murderer, i.e. the
>>> state ?
>>>
>>> I'd be interested in seeing figures as to how many victims of murder are
>>> themselves murderers.
>
>> I don't have exact figures, but information I do have may provide a
>> rough estimate.
>>
>> At the time of Furman, there were about 600 criminals on death
>> row, about 80 had been sentenced to death for rape or armed
>> robbery, the rest were convicted of murder.After their death
>> senrences were overturned,
>
>I posted on this a while back ...
>
>
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=slrn9r7hv9.2r
8a.desmond%40lievre.voute.net&lr=&hl=fr
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed2.newsreader.com!news
reader.com!newsfeed.hostname.nl!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-19
8-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: "Capital punishment adversary notes 'exonerations' of 102"
>Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:58:20 +0000
>Lines: 36
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <cd3iva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <49b7f9aa.02122...@posting.google.com>
><3E0FCE51...@hotmail.com> <aupbo2$ci7$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><75a18ce5.0212...@posting.google.com>
><auq18b$hlh$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><75a18ce5.02123...@posting.google.com>
><aur5sr$2dk$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><OisS9.28848$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><75a18ce5.0301...@posting.google.com>
><avhoe7$3lj$1...@helle.btinternet.com> <45phva...@lievre.voute.net>
><avi2jq$msb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042059896 16696758 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
Dolly Coughlan Jr
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: "Capital punishment adversary notes 'exonerations' of 102"
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>A very good point, and one which gives the lie to the oft-stated claim by
>the Scum, that in-prison murders can only be prevented by capital
>punishment. Do they really want us to believe that they _care_ if
>murderers kill each other ? If murderers were only ever locked up with
>other murderers (thus ensuring that they would never be in contact with
>prisoners convicted of non-lethal offences), would deathies still think
>that in-gaol homicide should be a capital offence ? After all, wouldn't
>the illegal 'murderer' be doing the work of the legal murderer, i.e. the
>state ?
>
>I'd be interested in seeing figures as to how many victims of murder are
>themselves murderers. I'd also be interested in what the deathies think
>the sentence should be for someone who kills a murderer, especially if the
>killing meets all the other criteria for 'heinousness' under the various
>capital statutes, thus making it 'death-eligible'.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.ems.psu.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!fu-berlin.de!u
ni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: "Capital punishment adversary notes 'exonerations' of 102"
>Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 18:03:16 +0000
>Lines: 54
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <45phva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <49b7f9aa.02122...@posting.google.com>
><3E0FA4CE...@hotmail.com> <auo9bn$3h1$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><3E0FCE51...@hotmail.com> <aupbo2$ci7$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><75a18ce5.0212...@posting.google.com>
><auq18b$hlh$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><75a18ce5.02123...@posting.google.com>
><aur5sr$2dk$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><OisS9.28848$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><75a18ce5.0301...@posting.google.com>
><avhoe7$3lj$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042049186 16592836 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
news:avl3ug$5jq$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > news:MjbT9.49559$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
> > news:45phva...@lievre.voute.net...
> > > > le Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:51:04 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
> > <avhoe7$3lj$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris
> > > <no...@m.please> a dit ...
> > > >
> > > <rest of nonsense clipped>
> > > >
> > > > I'd be interested in seeing figures as to how many victims of murder
are
> > > > themselves murderers.
> > >
> > > I'm sure you would. So you could claim 'they don't count' as 'real'
> > murders.
> > > Peter is already quite big on that.
> >
> > No, YOU are. I pointed out the hypocrisy of your position,
> > and you flip-flopped.
> >
> Throughout this entire thread, all you've done is lie, and claim 'out of
> context.' There is no question from your postings that you do not CARE
> if prisoners are murdered in prison by murderers.
That is a pure lie and you know it.
> They DON'T COUNT
> to you, and you've been very clear on that point... over and over.
> To YOU, they are not 'innocent of BEING murdered.' You believe they
> 'rather deserve it.'
In fact YOU said that, not me.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b0i45f$8np$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
out of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
It 'has to be said...' according to you that 'criminals' murdered in prison
rather 'deserved' being murdered, and thus 'didn't count' quite the same
as 'ordinary citizens.' You're a very sick man, Peter, my friend. You
need to distance yourself from the deadly evil which surrounds desi,
and enter the light... the light of reason... and not the hypocrisy of
desi. There's still hope for you, my friend. Divorce yourself from the
evil of desi, as so many other reasonable abolitionists have already
done... and enter the light of 'reasoned abolition,' which contains some
strong argument. Not enough to change my views at this time... but
certainly many that must be examined rather than ignored. desi is a
destructive force for abolition. Reasonable abolitionists already know
this. Get on the bandwagon and follow THEM... rather than the cart of
desi, that contains '666,' the sign of Satan, across its side panel.
Recognize the evil of desi for what it is... since it is often hidden behind the
deception of his presuming it is something else.
PV