Innocent Killers

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Gumby1618

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

>It seems that every killer on Death Row is in fact innocent... according
>to the anti-dpers.

Jig, I am an anti-dper, and I do not beleive that every person on the row
is innocent.
There are some cases where innocent people are on the row, that fact can
not be denied. The court system is not perfect, and I hope that one day you
will not be the unfortunate one to find that out.
Before I will defend a person on death row who claims they are innocent, I
do a lot of research. I read tons of paperwork from court transcripts, to
witness statements, to professional statements, and every item there is to
read that passes through the court system. I will not stand and say a
person is innocent until each and every paper is read and re-read again.
So when you say that according to the anti-dpers are concerned, maybe you
should limit that to a small some of the anti-dpers.
That would be like me saying that all pro-dpers are nothing but blood
suckers, just waiting to cheer when blood is spilled. And trust me you
would take offense that those words. But I don't say things like that,
because I know that not all pro-dprs are like that, just a small few of them.


Anthony Cranford

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to


JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> It seems that every killer on Death Row is in fact innocent... according
> to the anti-dpers.

Either you haven't been paying attention or your grasp on reality is
faulty.

{more rhetoric snipped}

--

Anthony Cranford
acranfor<at>dialnet<dot>net
--

JIGSAW1695

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

It seems that every killer on Death Row is in fact innocent... according
to the anti-dpers.

I don think there is one person awaiting his Big Day who hasnt claimed
that he was innocent.

What is wrong with this picture? Is the jury system including the police,
prosecutors and judges so bad that innocent muderers are convicted?

Are defense attorneys so incompotent that they cant defend an innocent man?

Are anti-Dpers so dogmatic that they see every killer as being framed?

Jigsaw


Norman F. Birnberg

unread,
Sep 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/4/97
to

Jigsaw and Rev. Kool would concur
that what is central to the anti-DPers
worldview is absolving killers of
responsibility for the crimes that
they've committed.
It is difficult to rally public support
for commuting a capital murderer's
death sentence or even freeing him
if he acknowledged that he indeed
did deliberately take away his victim's
life.
Jigsaw, Rev. Kool, and myself note
that the term "innocent killer" is just
the sort of oxymoronic irony to which
the anti-DP crowd appears oblivious.
And if a murderer killed an innocent
person, the death penalty is an ap-
propriate punishment that fits the
crime.
Come to think about it, in order to
deny that the death penalty is just
and deserved when murderers are
subject to it under the law, it is not
by chance that the anti-DPers are
never found alongside the families
of the victims. It would as Jigsaw
and Rev. Kool are also all too aware,
draw attention to the morality of the
death penalty.
'Course the anti-DPers must bring
themselves to believe murderers
are innocents done in by the system
to avoid having to address that issue.
Denial in the 90's is alive and well.
Norman

Norman F. Birnberg

Austin W. Spencer

unread,
Sep 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/5/97
to

For goodness sake man, type in lines of more than 20 characters! You’ll be
easier to read, and to post. For *my* posting convenience (my ISP has this
rule about submitting posts with more quotes than original material), I
have done so myself . . .

Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<5ulr0d$jgt$1...@newsd-5.alma.webtv.net>...


> Jigsaw and Rev. Kool would concur that what is central to the anti-DPers
> worldview is absolving killers of responsibility for the crimes that
> they've committed.

No one is *absolving* anyone of anything. We are all well aware of the
circumstances of many cases (some pros make it a point to fill the rest of
us in), and we mostly acknowledge that decisions of guilt were made in a
court of law and therefore carry the force of law. Antis simply disagree
with the death penalty, with some posters more or less impatient with the
process by which guilt is determined.

> It is difficult to rally public support for commuting a capital
murderer's
> death sentence or even freeing him if he acknowledged that he indeed
> did deliberately take away his victim's life.
> Jigsaw, Rev. Kool, and myself note that the term "innocent killer" is
just
> the sort of oxymoronic irony to which the anti-DP crowd appears
oblivious.

It *is* an oxymoron, but one that “the anti-DP crowd” never uses. It is
more likely to use “dead man walking.” But there is a world of difference
between them. I have rarely, if ever, seen a serious pro use your
combination of words.

> And if a murderer killed an innocent person, the death penalty is an ap-
> propriate punishment that fits the crime.
> Come to think about it, in order to deny that the death penalty is just
> and deserved when murderers are subject to it under the law, it is not
> by chance that the anti-DPers are never found alongside the families
> of the victims. It would as Jigsaw and Rev. Kool are also all too aware,
> draw attention to the morality of the death penalty.

Executions are closed ceremonies. Of course anti-DPers aren't found
alongside the families of the victims -- neither are most pros. And are you
saying that you *want* to be thrown in with Don Kool and Jigsaw1695? Even
among the pros on this newsgroup, that is hardly an honor.

> 'Course the anti-DPers must bring themselves to believe murderers
> are innocents done in by the system to avoid having to address that
issue.
> Denial in the 90's is alive and well.
> Norman

No less among hardcore pros than among antis IMHO.

> Norman F. Birnberg
>

Kent Anderson

unread,
Sep 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/6/97
to

It is true that the argument against the death penalty in an individual
case is stronger if there is evidence that the person is innocent and was
therefore wrongly convicted. That is because most, although not all,
people who favor the death penalty are still against murdering an innocent
man.

However, most people who oppose the death penalty are not stupid enough to
make a claim of innocence in every case. They realize that would be
absurd. In fact, in most cases there is no argument about factual guilt.
The argument usually centers on such things: as whether the person was
legally guilty (i.e. had the requisite mental state to make the killing a
crime), mitigating evidence that a jury did not hear, selective
prosecution, the arbitrary imposition of the death penalty, religious
convictions, and other factors.

The fact is that most of us who oppose the death penalty do it regardless
of the guilt or innocence of the person who is scheduled to be murdered by
the state. We believe that it is immoral. We believe that only God has
the right to decide who lives or dies. That does not mean that we claim
all convicted murderers are innocent; though some surely are.

We sympathize with both the victims of the condemned man (the actual
victim and the surviving friends and family) and the victims which the
state will create by murdering him. We simply feel that two wrongs do not
make a right.

I think most of us would favor the death penalty if it would bring back
the original victims. Unfortunately, it does not.

The only reason people opposed to the death penalty are not often seen
with the families of the original victims is because those families who
support the death penalty usually do not want us there. They fail to see
how we can be against the murder which the state plans to commit without
condoning the first murderer's actions.

It is also wrong to assume that all family members of murder victims are
in favor of the death penalty. Many are not. That is why organizations
such as Murder Victims' Families for Reconcialiation exist. Yet, often
prosecutors, the media, and others try to make family members who oppose
the death penalty feel as if they are bad people.

Unfortunately, many of these families do not get much press coverage. For
some reason, it does not seem to be quite as sensational a story when a
family's idea of justice does not include simple vengeance.

I will also note that the first murderer was not sentenced to death. God
did not kill Cain after he slew his brother Abel. Yet, few would argue
that God condoned Cain's action.

My Lord taught me to hate the sin, but love the sinner. That is not
always easy, but it is what I must strive for.

Kent Anderson

Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<5ulr0d$jgt$1...@newsd-5.alma.webtv.net>...
> Jigsaw and Rev. Kool would concur that what is central to the anti-DPers
> worldview is absolving killers of responsibility for the crimes that

they've committed. It is difficult to rally public support for commuting a


capital murderer's
> death sentence or even freeing him if he acknowledged that he indeed
> did deliberately take away his victim's life.

<snip>


> it is not by chance that the anti-DPers are never found alongside the
families
> of the victims. It would as Jigsaw and Rev. Kool are also all too aware,

> draw attention to the morality of the death penalty. 'Course the


anti-DPers must bring themselves to believe murderers are innocents done
in by the system to avoid having to address that issue.
>

> Norman F. Birnberg
>

Norman F. Birnberg

unread,
Sep 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/6/97
to

With due regard to Kent Anderson's
response to my post:
First, no innocent person has been
executed in this country in modern
times. The slight chance that an
innocent person might be executed
is not sufficient reason to drop the
death penalty, in view of the large
numbers of persons who have mur-
dered and would no doubt murder
again if they were ever released to
the outside, either by commutation
of their sentence, a bureaucratic
mistake in handling their prison
records, or escape either through
weakness in the prison security
system or the murder of a prison
guard. With the DP, recidivism on
the part of a capital murder is eli-
minated through execution of his
sentence.
Second, the judgment of the trial
jury that heard a DP case is usually
sound and in the absence of evi-
dence supporting a claim of factual
innocence where the defendant is
concerned, the appellate court's
duty is to uphold the decision made
by the trial jury.
Third, both the Jewish and Christian
religious tradition sanction the DP
as a punishment for murder. Gen.
9:6 in the former instructs man to
execute the murderer, as though
it foresaw the argument that only
God could take a human life and
stated no, this is man's responsi-
bility to see to it that the murderer,
having desecrated the image of
God by having murdered another
human being, thereby loses his
life.
In the latter, Paul in Romans 13
vests in the state the power to
wield the sword to "punish him
who doeth evil." Since murder
is the ultimate evil, Christian
religious thought has sanctioned
the morality of the DP as a
divinely-ordained punishment
for murder.
Fourth, it is wrong to allow the
murderer to continue to live out
his life after he has deliberately
taken another's life. The state
in ordaining the execution of
the murderer, is invoking the
grounds of justice in that the
life of a murdered person can
only be affirmed by punishing
the murderer to the fullest
possible extent, which is the
DP.
Finally, there is a moral dif-
ference in death in terms of
the murderer's conduct and
the state's conduct. The
murderer's conduct is against
the laws of God and man
like. The state's conduct is
in accordance with both in
putting the murderer to death.
Understanding this qualitative
difference is essential to
appreciating the moral charac-
ter of the DP and why most
victims' families support it.
Anderson invokes the Cain
story as an argument against
the DP. Upon closer examina-
tion, it does not hold water.
The reason Cain's life was
spared was that he didn't
intentionally murder his own
brother.
Had that intention been made
clear to God, the conclusion
of the tale would in all likeli-
hood have had a very different
ending.
I support the DP not because
human life isn't important to
me, but rather because every
innocent human life is very
precious and the only way to
give it meaning is to see to it
a murderer will not be allowed
to enjoy the very gift of life
that he stole from his victim.
Thus, if people refrained from
murdering innocent people in
cold blood, no one would ever
have to face being sentenced
to death. That is the only way
one can contemplate nullifica-
tion of the DP in the world in
which we live.
Norman

Norman F. Birnberg

Norman F. Birnberg

unread,
Sep 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/6/97
to

If Austin Spencer is right that anti-
DPers aren't absolving capital
murderers of anything, then why
are they looking for every means
in the book to prevent the state
from carrying out a sentence
after all, had been imposed in
accordance with due process of
law?
Murdered victims are already
"dead people buried." OTOH,
in this country, murderers wait
a long strech of time before
being executed. Hardly the
"dead man walking" scenario
Spencer paints.
Oh, I believe if executions were
publicly televised, it would have
a big effect on the murder rate.
Look at Saudi Arabia - public
executions, and virtual absence
of murders. No, this country
will never have a murder rate
as low as Saudi Arabia does,
but if executions were instaneous
and publicly broadcast, it would
be dramatically lower than the
bloodbath that is engulfing Ameri-
ca today.
Jigsaw 1695, Rev. Kool and myself
aren't in a date of denial as Spencer
has insinuated. We are aware that
murderers have taken an innocent
life and thus there is absolutely no
question in our minds that their fate
is deserved.
Happy to Clear Up Matters For You,
Norman

Norman F. Birnberg

Lord Clane

unread,
Sep 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/7/97
to

In article <19970903232...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
gumb...@aol.com (Gumby1618), in a dialog with jigsaw, writes:

Jigsaw


>>It seems that every killer on Death Row is in fact innocent... according
>>to the anti-dpers.

Gumby

Indeed, if gumby only works on behalf of death row clients he truly
believes to be innocent, that he is a hero, as far as I am concerned,
working to serve the highest ends of the law. I think that most death
penalty supporters would agree. The ones who generally deserve and receive
contempt are those who that believe that an injustice has occurred merely
because a factually guilty person has somehow lost out on some procedural
opportunity to beat the rap which a high priced defense team might have used.


Kent Anderson

unread,
Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97
to

Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<5urp2t$sr4$1...@newsd-5.alma.webtv.net>...
> If Austin Spencer is right that anti-DPers aren't absolving capital

murderers of anything, then why are they looking for every means in the
book to prevent the state
> from carrying out a sentence after all, had been imposed in accordance
with due process of law?

Because we believe the sentence was wrong.

> <snip>


> Oh, I believe if executions were publicly televised, it would have a big
effect on the murder rate. Look at Saudi Arabia - public executions, and
virtual absence of murders. No, this country will never have a murder rate
as low as Saudi Arabia does,
> but if executions were instaneous and publicly broadcast, it would be

dramatically lower than the bloodbath that is engulfing America today.

I am not against televising executions. It might help to desanitize the
process. However, I question your assumptions about the effect on the
crime rate.

Pickpockets were very active among the crowds at publich hangings in
England. This was in spite of the fact that the pickpockets would suffer
the same fate as the condemned man if they were caught. The absence of due
process, in many cases, did not seem to have any effect either.

Therefore, I suspect that the lower homicide rate in Saudi Arabia is due
to other cultural factors.

<snip>
> Norman F. Birnberg
>
Kent Anderson

P.S. Do you deliberately shove everything in your posts to the left side of
the page? It makes you look ridiculous and tempts one not to bother
reading what you have to say.


kdi...@erols.com

unread,
Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97
to

On Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:07:37 -0700, Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman
F. Birnberg) wrote:


Norman, please increase to line length in your posting preferances
to 60-70 charactors. When your lines are so short, they are hard to
read. A space between paragraphs would also be nice. I have edited
your post in this way in order to make it easier to read.

>With due regard to Kent Anderson'sresponse to my post:

>First, no innocent person has been executed in this country in modern
>times. The slight chance that an innocent person might be executed
>is not sufficient reason to drop the death penalty, in view of the large

>numbers of persons who have murdered and would no doubt murder


>again if they were ever released to the outside, either by commutation
>of their sentence, a bureaucratic mistake in handling their prison
>records, or escape either through weakness in the prison security
>system or the murder of a prison guard. With the DP, recidivism on

>the part of a capital murder is eliminated through execution of his
>sentence.

>Second, the judgment of the trial jury that heard a DP case is usually

>sound and in the absence of evidence supporting a claim of factual


>innocence where the defendant is concerned, the appellate court's
>duty is to uphold the decision made by the trial jury.

>Third, both the Jewish and Christian religious tradition sanction the DP
>as a punishment for murder. Gen. 9:6 in the former instructs man to
>execute the murderer, as though it foresaw the argument that only
>God could take a human life and stated no, this is man's responsi-
>bility to see to it that the murderer, having desecrated the image of
>God by having murdered another human being, thereby loses his
>life.

While Genesis 9:6 does support the DP, remember that the rest of
Genesis 9 condems animals that have killed man and the eating of flesh
that still contains blood. Also remember that the Lex Talonis (the
other place in the OT that would seem to support the DP) was given in
order to limit revenge. The OT also has many other limits on the DP
including cities of refuge, number of eyewitnesses required in order
to support a sentance of death and the fact that if a person repented
his crime, he was not to be put to death. Also consider
Proverbs 24:11-12 (NASB)
"Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
And those who are staggering to slaughter,
Oh hold them back.
"If you say, "See, we did not know this,"
Does He not considar it who weighs the hearts?
And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
And will He not render unto man according to his work?

>In the latter, Paul in Romans 13 vests in the state the power to
>wield the sword to "punish him who doeth evil." Since murder
>is the ultimate evil, Christian religious thought has sanctioned
>the morality of the DP as a divinely-ordained punishment
>for murder.

The sword that you mention in Romans 13:4 is a symbol of
magisterial office, kind of like a judges gavel. Not a weapon in the
sense that you are using it. Contextually Romans 13 also does not
really support the DP. Shortly before that verse is:
Romans 12:19-21 (NASB)(the end of the previous chapter)
"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath
of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the
Lord.
"BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE
HIM A DRINK, FOR IN DOING SO YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

This section certainly does not support the DP.

Following 13:4 there is an injunction to pay your taxes and obey the
rulers of the place in which you live. The beginning of 13 really
seems to be more about that rather then support of the DP

Also consider that nearly every major Protestant Christian
organization as well as the Roman Catholic Church have condemned the
death penalty. The Christian tradition that you have pointed to
really does not seem to be there.

>Fourth, it is wrong to allow the murderer to continue to live out
>his life after he has deliberately taken another's life. The state
>in ordaining the execution of the murderer, is invoking the
>grounds of justice in that the life of a murdered person can
>only be affirmed by punishing the murderer to the fullest
>possible extent, which is the DP.

>Finally, there is a moral difference in death in terms of


>the murderer's conduct and the state's conduct. The
>murderer's conduct is against the laws of God and man
>like. The state's conduct is in accordance with both in
>putting the murderer to death. Understanding this qualitative
>difference is essential to appreciating the moral charac-
>ter of the DP and why most victims' families support it.

In this case, so is the states. In every instance in scripture
where the DP could be applied where God had a direct word the persons
life was spared. The only exception would be the execution by
crucifixion of Jesus. He asked for forgiveness for his executors. If
they had been carrying out a proper action, would they need to be
forgiven for doing it? He also condemed Pilate for his actions.
Jesus really does not seem to be in favor of the DP here. If the
actions of the state were just then He would not have done those
things.

>Anderson invokes the Cain story as an argument against

>the DP. Upon closer examination, it does not hold water.


>The reason Cain's life was spared was that he didn't
>intentionally murder his own brother.


Genesis 4:8(NASB)
"Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in
the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.

Where in this passage do you see a lack of intent? Cain was
clearly angry in 5-7 and in 9 he reacts defiantly attempts to hide
whaqt he has done. Cain's life was spared because the Lord did not
wish to kill him, not because Abel's death was accidental.

>Had that intention been made clear to God, the conclusion

>of the tale would in all likelihood have had a very different
>ending.

God knows all mens intentions. I really do not think that you
intended to write this.

>I support the DP not because human life isn't important to
>me, but rather because every innocent human life is very
>precious and the only way to give it meaning is to see to it
>a murderer will not be allowed to enjoy the very gift of life
>that he stole from his victim. Thus, if people refrained from
>murdering innocent people in cold blood, no one would ever
>have to face being sentenced to death. That is the only way

>one can contemplate nullification of the DP in the world in


>which we live.
>
>Norman
>
>Norman F. Birnberg


Lastly Norman, I left the parts of your post that I have not
responded to unsnipped because others may wish to respond and I do not
want to put them throught the hassle of editing your post for
readibility. In the future, the parts of your post that I do not
respond to, I will snip in order to save bandwidth.


No Jesus, No Peace
Know Jesus, Know Peace
Kevin Dickover
<)))><

Kent Anderson

unread,
Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97
to

Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<5uro39$sps$1...@newsd-5.alma.webtv.net>...
> With due regard to Kent Anderson's response to my post: First, no

innocent person has been executed in this country in modern times.

If you limit modern times to the last couple of years, you may be right.
However, Bedau and Radelet (Execution of Innocence) have detailed over 300
cases in which innocent people were convicted of capital crimes since 1900.
23 of those men were executed. More cases are detailed in the recent post
by Mitchell Holman.
Another case which he did not mention is that of Roger Coleman. There was
strong evidence that another person committed the crime which he was
convicted of. However, he was executed because his attorneys filed a state
habeas petition three days late. The Hererra case has also shown us that
at least some Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court consider innoncence to be
irrelevant.

The slight chance that an innocent person might be executed is not
sufficient reason to drop the death penalty, in view of the large numbers

of persons who have mur-


dered and would no doubt murder again if they were ever released to the
outside, either by commutation of their sentence, a bureaucratic mistake in
handling their prison records, or escape either through weakness in the
prison security system or the murder of a prison guard.

First, many people would disagree with you. However, there is nothing I
can say which will change the mind of someone who condones the
execution/murder of innocent people. This is the same mindset that says
better that 100 innocent people are convicted than that one guilty person
goes free.

Second, murderers have a lower rate of recidivism than all other
criminals. Very few murderers ever commit another crime. Part of this is
no doubt due to the unique circumstances of their crime, in some cases,
which are unlikely to recur. Part of it is also due to the changes which
are often seen after long term incarceration. Some people do not change.
However, most men are not the same person ten or more years later that they
were when they went to prison or when they committed their crime.

With the DP, recidivism on the part of a capital murder is eliminated
through execution of his sentence.

Stating the obvious. However, support for the death penalty drops
dramatically when people are asked to compare it to life without parole.

> Second, the judgment of the trial jury that heard a DP case is usually
sound and in the absence of evidence supporting a claim of factual
innocence where the defendant is concerned, the appellate court's duty is
to uphold the decision made by the trial jury.

The problem is the system is not perfect. Juries do not always hear all
of the evidence or they hear false, or otherwise improper, evidence. (In
addition, it has been shown that death qualified juries are more likely to
convict.) Some appellate court's consider it their duty to uphold a trial
court's decision, in spite of evidence of innocence.

> Third, both the Jewish and Christian religious tradition sanction the DP
> as a punishment for murder. Gen. 9:6 in the former instructs man to
> execute the murderer, as though it foresaw the argument that only

> God could take a human life and stated no, this is man's responsibility


to see to it that the murderer, having desecrated the image of God by
having murdered another

> human being, thereby loses his life. In the latter, Paul in Romans 13


vests in the state the power to wield the sword to "punish him who doeth
evil." Since murder
> is the ultimate evil, Christian religious thought has sanctioned the
morality of the DP as a divinely-ordained punishment for murder.

The first statement is not universally true. Many Christian
denominations, including the Catholic, Episcopalian, and Evangelical
Lutheran Churches, oppose the death penalty. Modern Jewish theologians
have also interpreted the death penalty as being either unjustified or only
justified in extremely rare circumstances, such as Adolf Eichmann. Israel
does not have the death penalty for most murderers. Demanjuk was not even
sentenced to death.

Paul states, "avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for
it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans
12:19; see also Deutoronomy 32:35.)

Jesus teaches us to hate the sin, but love the sinner. It may be
impossible for any human power to change a person for the better. But,
with God all things are possible. It may be that God still has a plan for
that person. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness
of God is stronger than men." (1 Cor. 1:25.)

> Fourth, it is wrong to allow the murderer to continue to live out his
life after he has deliberately taken another's life. The state in ordaining
the execution of the murderer, is invoking the grounds of justice in that
the life of a murdered person can only be affirmed by punishing the
murderer to the fullest possible extent, which is the DP.

See above. In addition, murdering the murder gives the message that human
life is cheap; not that it is precious. All human life is sacred.

> Finally, there is a moral difference in death in terms of the murderer's
conduct and
> the state's conduct. The murderer's conduct is against the laws of God
and man
> like. The state's conduct is in accordance with both in putting the
murderer to death.

That is a matter of opinion. I believe that both the original murderer's
and the state's conduct is against the will of God. Many people share this
view.

> Understanding this qualitative difference is essential to appreciating

the moral character of the DP and why most victims' families support it.

I understand the very human desire for vengeance. I also understand that
it is difficult to get past that desire and be able to forgive. Our
society even seems to say that forgiveness is wrong. However, that does
not mean that we should not strive to overcome our more base instincts and
feelings.

> Anderson invokes the Cain story as an argument against the DP. Upon
closer examination, it does not hold water. The reason Cain's life was

spared was that he didn't intentionally murder his own brother. Had that


intention been made clear to God, the conclusion of the tale would in all
likelihood have had a very different ending.

ROFL. That is a unique interpretation of the story of Cain and Abel.

However, I will offer additional examples. The first one is a man who
ordered a man to be killed so that he could marry the man's wife.

The second example, is a man who hunted and persecuted people because of
their religion. This man once stood by and took responsibility when others
stoned a man to death. He later tried to ensure that others who professed
the same religion would also be put to death.

Most people would say that both of these people deserved to be executed.
However, God had other plans for them. The first man was King David. The
second man was Saint Paul.

> I support the DP not because human life isn't important to me, but rather
because every innocent human life is very precious and the only way to give
it meaning is to see to it a murderer will not be allowed to enjoy the very
gift of life that he stole from his victim.

Is that why you stated that you condone the execution of innocent people?

> Thus, if people refrained from murdering innocent people in cold blood,
no one would ever have to face being sentenced to death. That is the only
way one can contemplate nullification of the DP in the world in which we
live.

> Norman F. Birnberg
>
It would be wonderful if there were no murders. Obviously, I disagree
with the rest.

Kent Anderson

wa...@av3.enet.dec.com

unread,
Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97
to

In article <01bcbcf6$196ecdc0$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson" <Kent_Anderson@


2xtreme.net> writes:
|>Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote in article

[Big snip]

|>
|>The slight chance that an innocent person might be executed is not
|>sufficient reason to drop the death penalty, in view of the large numbers
|>of persons who have mur-
|>dered and would no doubt murder again if they were ever released to the
|>outside, either by commutation of their sentence, a bureaucratic mistake in
|>handling their prison records, or escape either through weakness in the
|>prison security system or the murder of a prison guard.
|>
|> First, many people would disagree with you. However, there is nothing I
|>can say which will change the mind of someone who condones the
|>execution/murder of innocent people. This is the same mindset that says
|>better that 100 innocent people are convicted than that one guilty person
|>goes free.
|>

Rubbish, or rather, useless hyperbole. No one would accept such a false
conviction rate, if for no other reason than it would result in all of us
being convicted of something. However no justice system will ever be perfect,
so unless you advocate abandoning any attempt to punish criminals you must
agree with the statement "better m innocent people convicted than n guilty
people go free" for some value of m:n. Of course the values of m and n might
well vary depending on the crime and and the punishment. For 2 year sentences
handed out for, say, burglary, I would guess that most people would say that
1:1 is too high, but 1:1,000 would be a price that the individuals who make
up society should pay. For LWOP sentences handed out for serial murderers
both the cost to society if a guilty man is freed and the magnitude of the
tragedy if an innocent man is imprisoned increase, so it is not obvious what
happens to the acceptable false conviction rate. You would presumably argue
that no value of m:n is acceptable if the punishment is death, i.e., that no
benefit to society accrues as a result of capital punishment that is worth
risking a single life for (as opposed to, say, commercial air travel, where
we are willing to accept the deaths of thousands of innocent people per year
to avoid having to walk). Cogent arguments could be made in that direction,
why don't you try to make them rather the waste bandwidth on idiocy like that
quoted above. I think that Mr. Birnberg is arguing (as Lord Clane has often
argued) that no prison system is perfect, and that heinous murderers who are
spared execution will occasionally escape and commit further murders, may be
released in error and do the same, and in any case can still kill others
within the prison in which they are housed. He argues that society would
then be wise, even ignoring any other postulated benefits of the death
penalty, to accept a false conviction rate such that the number of innocents
executed each year is less than the number who would have been killed by the
murderers in the absence of capital punishment. I find this argument
interesting. You seem to think it is flawed. What exactly do you think is
wrong with it? If you have a cogent argument to make then make it, if you
don't, then spare us this nonsense about how anyone who makes it automatically
argues that any false conviction rate is acceptable.

Dave Wark

P.S. Sorry about the tone, I guess I am feeling pedantic today and am getting
tired of having to wade through so many meaningless verbal fireworks to try
to find a real point. This is one of the most crucial points in the capital
punishment debate and deserves serious discussion.

mgcu...@connect.net

unread,
Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97
to

In article <01bcbcf7$563e51c0$LocalHost@kenta>,
"Kent Anderson" <Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
-----------------snip (Saudi Arabia & public executions)

> I am not against televising executions. It might help to desanitize the
> process. However, I question your assumptions about the effect on the
> crime rate.
>
> Pickpockets were very active among the crowds at publich hangings in
> England. This was in spite of the fact that the pickpockets would suffer
> the same fate as the condemned man if they were caught. The absence of due
> process, in many cases, did not seem to have any effect either.
>
> Therefore, I suspect that the lower homicide rate in Saudi Arabia is due
> to other cultural factors.

One of the cultural factors offered for Saudi Arabia's low murder rate is
homogeniety of religion; almost everyone is devoutly Muslim. Italy is
one of the most abolitionist of countries and also has homogeniety of
religion; almost everyone is Roman Catholic. Yet Italy's homicide rate
has been creeping steadily upwards over the last few decades or so. Last
I checked, it had reached about 7.6 per hundred thousand and was still
climbing. At that rate, they will soon overtake and pass the US.

Mike Cullinan
mgcu...@connect.net

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

AMason

unread,
Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97
to


Bryan Phinney <bphi...@atl.mindspring.com> wrote in article
(sniped lots of stuff I agree with)

> > LWOP with restitution. I still don't understand where the restitution
comes
> in, were they suggested forced labor? I might favor LWOP where forced
hard
> labor is applied involuntarily to the inmate in question, that forced
labor is
> unconstitutional rules this possibility out.

Have to correct you here, actualy forced or "slave" labor is allowed by the
constitution and I quote:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR A
CRIME(emphasis added) whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction." Article XIII US Constitution."

So you see forced labor is allowed by the constitution, however the problem
is that should you attempt to put forth such a punnishment the same
bleeding heart lib's who fight the dp ect (and I dont want to cover all
anti dper's with this only the ones to whom it applies) would have a fit !
However I would also support the droping of the dp under this condition
(and a few others).

Doug.


Norman F. Birnberg

unread,
Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97
to

Kent Anderson attributes the lower mur-
der rate in Saudi Arabia to cultural
factors.
I think he has overlooked that the fre-
quency of executions might have had
an effect.

I think publicly televising regular exe-
cutions of murderers would have an
appreciable effect upon the murder
rate.

The story that pickpockets witnessing
hanging in London didn't affect their
own behavior is interesting, but also
irrelevant to the discussion. Theft is
not the same as murder. What you
would be interested in finding out is
if the DP would deter someone who
planned to commit a murder.
And when murderers are executed,
it be logical to assume there would
be a drop in the murder rate: the
caveat being how frequent the exe-
cutions were.
Norman

Norman F. Birnberg

Norman F. Birnberg

unread,
Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97
to

Re Kent Anderson's response to my
last post:
No person sentenced to death in
modern times has ever been exe-
cuted after having demonstrated
a evidence of factual innocence.
And Roger Coleman did not prov-
ide evidence of factual innocence
that would have found weight with
either the prosecution or the courts.

In this country, we have due pro-
cess of law. It is highly unlikely
an innocent person would wind
up on Death Row. The danger
of prosecutorial misconduct or
judicial abuse of power can be
remedied by the presence of
procedural safeguards. All this
make retention of the DP justi-
fiable.

Some people change in prison,
some do not. Some murderers,
due to the inherent antisocial
nature of their personality, e.g,
serial killers, obviously cannot
be rehabilitated. These are the
prime candidates for the DP
and these are the poster children
for the DP itself.

If a Death Row inmate could
provide factual evidence of
innocence, an appellate court
would have a duty to reverse
the trial jury's decision. How-
ever, just claiming innocence,
which is what most persons
sentenced to death do, is not
the same as factual evidence
of innocence. Saying something
does not make it true.

There was once widespread
sanction for the DP, particularly
in the writings of the Church
Fathers. However, both modern
Christian and Jewish theologians
do not say the DP is immoral.
They just hold that it should be
imposed only in very rare circum-
stances.
The bloodbath of innocent people
in America today, OTOH, makes
the universal use of the DP man-
datory.

Executing a murderer is only justly
depriving him of what he deprived
his victim of: his life and it is a
punishment more than any other
we have, that as the maxim puts
it, "fits the crime."
Speaking of vengeance and forgive-
ness: on the grounds of justice alone,
leaving aside all other considerations,
why should a murderer be allowed
to retain his life after having deli-
berately taken his victim's life away.
Most people can see the unfairness
in allowing the murderer to continue
living and enjoying his life while his
victim can do none of those things.
So compassion too, is an argument
for the DP.

Your examples about King David and
Paul actually prove the point I made
about Cain: none of them intentionally
murdered another person. The point
in the Bible, if one reads it carefully,
is that the DP is reserved for those
who deliberately murder another human
being. Simple and straight.

The only point I agree with Anderson
upon is that it would be wonderful if
there were no murders. As long as
innocent people continue to be mur-
dered, we must have the DP to
protect ourselves from those who
have murdered.
I trust I've been clear where I stand.
Norman

Norman F. Birnberg

Norman F. Birnberg

unread,
Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97
to

Kevin Dickover's argument that the DP
was invalidated by the coming of the
NT, is not supported by the historical
record. Up to modern times, the Church
and the Christian world believed that
the DP was a morally legitimate punish-
ment to be inflicted upon evildoers.

I'm not all all on weak scriptural ground.
When the Bible insists that murderers
are to be punished with death, there
is no room for extra interpretation. It
is ironic Kevin chided me for allegedly
going beyond the meaning of a number
of OT and NT passages that I cited.
I was trying to give a reasonable read-
ing of what those passages meant. I'm
not a theologian and I suppose others
like Kevin see them differently, which
they are entitled to do, but I believe
all the same, that my interpretation is
as valid as theirs.

Again, Kevin missed the point of the
Cain saga, that he did not intention-
ally murder his own brother, which
is the reason he was spared the
death penalty. Gen 9:6 may be read
as a directive in cases in which one
human being murdered another human
being deliberately, and having as it
were, foreseen the argument that only
God could take life, emphatically re-
jected that argument. To the contrary,
the Bible teaches that it is man who
is to punish murderers.

A lot of Christians, BTW, do believe
in and support capital punishment
and they believe with good reason,
that it is given warrant by the Bible.
I suspect that, at least in this country,
with all due respect to Kevin Dickover,
his view is still very much a minority
opinion.

As long as innocent blood continues to
flow in rivers down the streets of Ameri-
ca, as I stated in my previous reply,
retaining the DP is a moral imperative.
Norman

Norman F. Birnberg

kdi...@erols.com

unread,
Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97
to

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997 19:51:07 -0700, Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman
F. Birnberg) wrote:


>Your examples about King David and
>Paul actually prove the point I made
>about Cain: none of them intentionally
>murdered another person. The point
>in the Bible, if one reads it carefully,
>is that the DP is reserved for those
>who deliberately murder another human
>being. Simple and straight.
>

Acts 7:56 and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of
Man standing on the right hand of God.
Acts 7:57 But they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their
ears, and rushed upon him with one accord;
Acts 7:58 and they cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the
witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named
Saul.
Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [the Lord], and
saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Acts 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay
not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell
asleep.
Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And there arose on
that day a great persecution against the church which was in
Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions
of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Acts 8:2 And devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation
over him.
Acts 8:3 But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house,
and dragging men and women committed them to prison.
...
Do the actions of Paul, then known as Saul seem unintentional here?
He was not the only killer but he did participate in a mass execution,
he did take the credit for that execxution as well.

mgcu...@connect.net

unread,
Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97
to

In article <01bcbcf6$196ecdc0$LocalHost@kenta>,

"Kent Anderson" <Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>
> Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote in article
> <5uro39$sps$1...@newsd-5.alma.webtv.net>...
> > With due regard to Kent Anderson's response to my post: First, no
> innocent person has been executed in this country in modern times.
>
> If you limit modern times to the last couple of years, you may be right.
> However, Bedau and Radelet (Execution of Innocence) have detailed over 300
> cases in which innocent people were convicted of capital crimes since 1900.
> 23 of those men were executed.

They researched some 300 executions, not 300 cases of wrongful
convictions. As far as the "23 innocents executed" it simply does not
have the weight of authenticity. B&R relied heavily on innuendo and
hearsay, and avoided evidence presented in trials, for example, this is
the gist of one case:

Grzechowiak, Stephen, and Max Rybarczyk (both white). 1929.
New York. Grzechowiak and Rybarczyk were both convicted of
felony murder and sentenced to death. Co-defendant Alexander
Bogdanoff insisted that neither Grzechowiak nor Rybarczyk had
been involved in the crime, and that each had been mistakenly
identified by the eyewitnesses. He refused, however, to reveal
the names of his true accomplices. Grzechowiak and Rybarczyk
executed in 1930, after their convictions were affirmed on
appeal. In their final words, they maintained their innocence,
and Bogdanoff again declared that the two were innocent.

So the sum total of evidence B&R present is that the defendants
proclaimed their innocence, and a co-defendant said they were
innocent--but he doesn't want to say who his "real" accomplices were--big
surprise!

B&R also claim that Bruno Hauptmann, the kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby,
was wrongfully executed. As they state,

"There is no doubt that the conviction rested in part
on corrupt prosecutorial practices, suppression of evidence,
intimidation of witnesses, perjured testimony, and Hauptmann's
prior record."

B&R just want us to take it on faith that those things they say about
the prosecution are true; they have nothing to support these statements.

> Another case which he did not mention is that of Roger Coleman. There was
> strong evidence that another person committed the crime which he was
> convicted of. However, he was executed because his attorneys filed a state
> habeas petition three days late. The Hererra case has also shown us that
> at least some Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court consider innoncence to be
> irrelevant.

The Hererra case is the biggest joke that the antis have tried to
incorporate into their propoganda. Actually, the truth is 180 degrees
opposite of that. Here, read for yourself instead of swallowing the crap
that is thrown out for the gullible:

" Consequently, the issue before [**50] us is not whether a State can
execute the innocent" (Hererra vs Collins, page 22).

Simply put, executive clemency would have been the proper avenue to
pursue if Hererra had any strong showing of innocence. What Hererra had
was a piece of garbage hearsay, a "deathbed confession" that was
remembered 8 years after the fact, conveniently, in the 11th hour of
appeals. On the basis of that garbage testimony, Hererra wanted a
conviction that was tight as a drum thrown out. It just doesn't work
that way.

Mike Cullinan
mgcu...@connect.net

-------------snip

kdi...@erols.com

unread,
Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97
to

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997 23:16:38 -0700, Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman
F. Birnberg) wrote:
< I'm not going to bother with editing his posts, we'll all have to
suffer>


>
>Kevin Dickover's argument that the DP
>was invalidated by the coming of the
>NT, is not supported by the historical
>record. Up to modern times, the Church
>and the Christian world believed that
>the DP was a morally legitimate punish-
>ment to be inflicted upon evildoers.
>

The Church and the Christian world also believed that women were
not to speak in church, slavery was an acceptable practice and that
black people were condemned by their skin color. All of these views
have been proved to be Scripturally inconsistant. An appeal to church
history and tradition is not the same as backing your views up with
Scripture. Please do so.

>I'm not all all on weak scriptural ground.
>When the Bible insists that murderers
>are to be punished with death, there
>is no room for extra interpretation. It
>is ironic Kevin chided me for allegedly
>going beyond the meaning of a number
>of OT and NT passages that I cited.
>I was trying to give a reasonable read-
>ing of what those passages meant. I'm
>not a theologian and I suppose others
>like Kevin see them differently, which
>they are entitled to do, but I believe
>all the same, that my interpretation is
>as valid as theirs.
>

I asked you to explain your thinking using Scripture to back it
up. You have not done so. Please do so.

>Again, Kevin missed the point of the
>Cain saga, that he did not intention-
>ally murder his own brother, which
>is the reason he was spared the
>death penalty. Gen 9:6 may be read
>as a directive in cases in which one
>human being murdered another human
>being deliberately, and having as it
>were, foreseen the argument that only
>God could take life, emphatically re-
>jected that argument. To the contrary,
>the Bible teaches that it is man who
>is to punish murderers.
>

How many times do you need to hear "Vengence is mine, I will
repay" before it sticks? Do I need to write it on a blackboard 100
times? 1000? And WHERE do you see Cain not intendidg to harm Abel?
Please explain your thinking here. Use Scripture to back it up.

>A lot of Christians, BTW, do believe
>in and support capital punishment
>and they believe with good reason,
>that it is given warrant by the Bible.
>I suspect that, at least in this country,
>with all due respect to Kevin Dickover,
>his view is still very much a minority
>opinion.
>

150 years ago my views of slavery would have been a minority
opinion. That does not change the correctness of them. Or does might
make right?

Rodney C. Fisher

unread,
Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97
to

On 7 Sep 1997 20:13:21 GMT, lord...@aol.com (Lord Clane) wrote:

>Indeed, if gumby only works on behalf of death row clients he truly
>believes to be innocent, that he is a hero, as far as I am concerned,
>working to serve the highest ends of the law. I think that most death
>penalty supporters would agree. The ones who generally deserve and receive
>contempt are those who that believe that an injustice has occurred merely
>because a factually guilty person has somehow lost out on some procedural
>opportunity to beat the rap which a high priced defense team might have used.
>

OK, this is my first post in this newsgroup, so I have my flame
retarding monitor on...

First, I am pro-DP. But I do have to disagree with part of your above
post. I guess it is really a definition of terms. If you mean to say
that someone is released because a motion is misfiled, or paperwork is
dated incorrectly...I am fully with you. If you meant to say that
someone (even a serial murder) is released because the police
illegally seized his property for evidence is a travesty of justice,
then I have to disagree. Or if you meant to say that it is
permissable for a prosecutor to deliberately withhold evidence that
could appear mitigating or even cast reasonable doubt, then I have to
disagree. I am glad Bundy met his maker earlier than he wished. I am
glad that McVeigh (after years of appeals...) will never be able to
hurt another human being. But I can not condone ANY misconduct of the
government...especially in a capital case. The constitutional rights
of the whole population far outweighs any justly deserved execution.

So I guess I would need to say that I respect not only the attorneys
who fight to save an innocent man, but also the attorneys who protect
our rights...no matter how despicable the client. I hate defending
the ACLU...they can really do some weird things...but I would sure
want them on my side if the government had violated my rights.

Rodney

wa...@av3.enet.dec.com

unread,
Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97
to

In article <01bcbe63$32be3fe0$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson" <Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> writes:
|>wa...@av3.enet.dec.com wrote in article <5v41a3$ige$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...

[start of discussion snipped to save space]

|> I think that Mr. Birnberg is arguing (as Lord Clane has
|>often
|>> argued) that no prison system is perfect, and that heinous murderers who
|>are
|>> spared execution will occasionally escape and commit further murders, may
|>be
|>> released in error and do the same, and in any case can still kill others
|>> within the prison in which they are housed. He argues that society would
|>> then be wise, even ignoring any other postulated benefits of the death
|>> penalty, to accept a false conviction rate such that the number of
|>innocents
|>> executed each year is less than the number who would have been killed by
|>the
|>> murderers in the absence of capital punishment. I find this argument
|>> interesting. You seem to think it is flawed. What exactly do you think
|>is
|>> wrong with it? If you have a cogent argument to make then make it, if
|>you
|>> don't, then spare us this nonsense about how anyone who makes it
|>automatically
|>> argues that any false conviction rate is acceptable.
|>>
|>> Dave Wark
|>

|> You are right, I did use hyperbole or satire. I have heard some radicals
|>say that such an error rate would be okay. However, I know that most
|>people would not accept it. I was simply reversing the common statement
|>that it is better that ten or 100 (depending on the source) guilty people
|>go free than that one innocent person is convicted. I did this as a
|>literary device; not a statement of literal truth.
|>
|> The biggest problem with their arguments, as stated above, is that when
|>the state commits murder, the form of the death penalty it is doing it on
|>behalf of all citizens. Therefore, a state which supposed to uphold and
|>protect life is forcing all of its citizens to play a part in eliminating
|>life.
|>
|> A murder by an individual or group of individuals is just as wrong.
|>However, it is solely the responsibility of those who planned and carried
|>out the act.
|>>
|>> <snip>
|>Kent Anderson
|>Illegitimi non carborundum
|>
|>

There is an interesting ancillary point here about the extent to which a
citizen of a democracy can really be held responsible for all the actions of
his or her government, but I want to try to keep to the point I was trying to
get at originally. Your new argument is simply stating that capital
punishment is morally wrong, and that a government has no right to take the
life of a criminal once he is safely in custody. Obviously a majority of
the citizens in most American states disagree, or this discussion would not
be necessary. I personally find it very hard to feel that it was morally
wrong to hang Adolf Eichmann, but that is a separate discussion (which I would
be happy to have separately), because it is also not the point I was trying to
address. I was trying to consider the question of the execution of the
factually innocent. The inevitability of this in any real-world justice
system that permits capital punishment is often used as one of the strongest
arguments against the death penalty. A counter-argument has been offered
that since innocents will be killed in either case (because in the absence of
capital punishment the unexecuted killers will, at some small rate, kill
again), it is best to operate so as to minimize the number of dead innocents
and execute killers who are guilty beyond a rational doubt (note that I do not
claim that this is what happens now, only that it is what proponents would
claim the system should be designed to achieve). I thought you were claiming
that this argument is flawed. I agree that it cannot, by itself, make an
immoral act into a moral one. However the argument that "We should not have
capital punishment because an innocent person may be killed" does not claim
that capital punishment is immoral, it claims that it is imprudent, and this
argument addresses that claim. In what way is it flawed?

Dave Wark

Kent Anderson

unread,
Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97
to

wa...@av3.enet.dec.com wrote in article <5v41a3$ige$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
>
> In article <01bcbcf6$196ecdc0$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson"
<Kent_Anderson@

> 2xtreme.net> writes:
> |>Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote in article
>
> [Big snip]
>
> <snip>
> |> ... there is nothing I can say which will change the mind of

someone who condones the execution/murder of innocent people. This is the
same mindset that says better that 100 innocent people are convicted than
that one guilty person
goes free.
> |>
> quoted above. I think that Mr. Birnberg is arguing (as Lord Clane has

Kent Anderson

unread,
Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97
to

Bryan Phinney <bphi...@atl.mindspring.com> wrote in article
<5v3g5d$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>...

> In article <01bcbcf6$196ecdc0$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson"
<Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
<snip>

>> The Hererra case has also shown us that
> >at least some Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court consider innoncence to
be
> >irrelevant.
>

> Again, this is false, the Supreme Court specifically addressed this
issue:
>
> "(d) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that, in a capital case, a
truly
> persuasive post-trial demonstration of "actual innocence" would render a
> defendant's execution unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief
if
> there were no state avenue open to process such a claim, Herrera's
showing of
> innocence falls far short of the threshold showing which would have to be
made
> in order to trigger relief."
>
> Herrera v. Collins
>
> While they stated that proving one's innocence would not automatically
trigger
> relief, they explicitly stated that the evidence presented would not
qualify
> to trigger relief in any case. That is because it was questionable
evidence
> at best.

You are wrong, although, the selective passages which you quoted seem to
support your position.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist strongly suggested that a
claim of innocence, without more, would never be a ground for federal
habeas relief. He stated that, "the existence merely of newly discovered
evidence relevant to the guilt of a state prisoner is not a ground for
relief on federal habeas corpus." (Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400
(1993).) He further stated that, "this body of our habeas jurisprudence
makes clear that a claim of `actual innocence' is not itself a
constiutional claim." (Id. at 404.) The court merely assumed, for the
sake of argument that it might be unconsitutional to execute an innocent
person so that it could address the merits of Herrera's claim of innocence.
(Id. at 417.)

Justices Scalia and Thomas flatly stated that a state could execute an
innocent person without violating the Constitution. (Id. at 427-429,
Scalia, J., concurring.)

Therefore, some justices certainly did state that it would not be
unconstitutional for a state to knowingly execute an innocent person.
>
<snip>


> > Second, murderers have a lower rate of recidivism than all other
> >criminals. Very few murderers ever commit another crime.
>

> Very few murderers qualify for the DP, in fact only about 1% of them end
up on
> Death Row. It is to be assumed that these are the very worst, thus the
rate
> of recidivism in these particular cases might be quite a bit higher.
Since
> serial killers would probably fall into this category, along with violent

> sexual predators, and career criminals, I suspect that the rate would be
much
> higher.

On the contrary, most first degree murderers qualify for the death
penalty. There are so many special circumstances, now, that a prosecutor
can seek the death penalty in almost all first degree murder cases. (This
is especially true in California where any first degree murder would fall
under the lying in wait special circumstance, as it has been interpreted by
the California Supreme Court.)

There are no major differences between "most" murderers on death row and
most other murderers, especially those that also had special circumstances
found true, but were sentenced to LWOP. It is often something akin to luck
of the draw whether someone gets the death penalty.

In many cases, different prosecutors would disagree about which cases
merit the death penalty. The variance is even more pronounced from county
to county. The identity of the victim will also make a difference. For
example, the state is more likely to seek the death penalty for the murder
of a prominent businessman than for the murder of a prostitute or gang
member. The race of the defendant and the victim also play a role in who
gets the death penalty.

The makeup of the jury is also important.

>
> > Part of this is
> >no doubt due to the unique circumstances of their crime, in some cases,
> >which are unlikely to recur. Part of it is also due to the changes
which
> >are often seen after long term incarceration. Some people do not
change.
> >However, most men are not the same person ten or more years later that
they
> >were when they went to prison or when they committed their crime.
>

> Some are worse.

Of course. There are exceptions to almost every rule. Such people would
merely be confined to their cell and solitary time in the exercise yard
until, if and when, they chose to conform to prison regulations. We do
that now with people who are not on death row.


>
> >With the DP, recidivism on the part of a capital murder is eliminated
> >through execution of his sentence.
> >
> > Stating the obvious. However, support for the death penalty
drops
> >dramatically when people are asked to compare it to life without parole.
>

> LWOP with restitution. I still don't understand where the restitution
comes
> in, were they suggested forced labor? I might favor LWOP where forced
hard
> labor is applied involuntarily to the inmate in question, that forced
labor is
> unconstitutional rules this possibility out.

I did not say anything about restitution in my previous post. However, in
most cases restitution would come from prison wages.

It is an open question whether forced labor is unconstitional, in all
circumstances. However, most inmates want to work because it gives them
something to do. They can also earn additional privileges by working. The
problem is usually that there are not enough jobs for all the inmates.
That is why there are always waiting lists for jobs and educational
opportunities in prison.


>
> >
> >> Second, the judgment of the trial jury that heard a DP case is usually
> >sound and in the absence of evidence supporting a claim of factual
> >innocence where the defendant is concerned, the appellate court's duty
is
> >to uphold the decision made by the trial jury.
> >
> > The problem is the system is not perfect. Juries do not always
hear
> > all
> >of the evidence or they hear false, or otherwise improper, evidence.
(In
> >addition, it has been shown that death qualified juries are more likely
to
> >convict.) Some appellate court's consider it their duty to uphold a
trial
> >court's decision, in spite of evidence of innocence.
>

> Of course, juries also fail to hear some of the evidence due to
protections
> due the defendant. So at least some of the evidence which might render a
more
> truthful verdict can be kept out because it favors the defendant. Why do
you
> not rail against this circumstance also? Is a guilty verdict against a
guilty
> defendant not as important as an acquittal for an innocent one?
>
> Lastly, some "evidence of innocence" is questionable at best, downright
false
> at worst and presented as gospel by the inmate in question. We are led
to
> believe (by the anti-DP machine) that all of this evidence is "proof of
> innocence" even though in many cases, if the full story were known, there

> would be no outrage (except perhaps for those that were duped) or support

> for the inmate in these cases. I can name at least 4 or 5 of these
off-hand
> so please explain what kind of evidence the appellate courts are
overlooking.
>
I was thinking, in particular, of the Lucas court's habit of labeling
everything harmless error. This led the California Supreme Court to have
the highest death penalty affirmance rate in the nation. We suddenly went
from a 100% reversal rate, under the Bird Court, to an almost 100%
affirmance rate under the Lucas court. Even states in the Deep South did
not have affirmance rates anywhere near as high as this.

With respect to evidence of innocence that was not presented at trial,
appellate courts often use procedural rules to avoid having to address this
evidence.

On the other hand, some appellate courts do the best job they are capable
of, with often inadequate resources.
> <...>
> Religious discussions snipped as immaterial

Perhaps, they are immaterial to you. However, they are not immaterial to
everyone. Justice can not operate as a machine. If it did, there would be
no justice.


>
> >> Understanding this qualitative difference is essential to appreciating
> >the moral character of the DP and why most victims' families support
it.
> >
> > I understand the very human desire for vengeance. I also
understand
> > that
> >it is difficult to get past that desire and be able to forgive. Our
> >society even seems to say that forgiveness is wrong. However, that does
> >not mean that we should not strive to overcome our more base instincts
and
> >feelings.
>

> Forgiveness does not equate to trust. Once you have committed an act
that
> violates the trust, even if you have paid a debt for such an act, you are
not
> automatically entitled to be trusted again. You must earn the trust of
> society. For some, this violation is of such an aggrieved nature that no

> amount of action will restore that trust. For such a person, it must be
> insured that he never has the chance to violate that trust again. We
have far
> too many examples where persons have been able to do so, even though they

> faced incarceration as a punishment. For such persons, the DP is the
only
> answer. Vengence has nothing to do with it, it is simply protecting
those
> that will face the actions of this person that has shown an inability to
> control his own actions.
>
I never said anything about trust. I certainly woud not immediately trust
someone who I thought was guilty of murder. I would have to be convinced
that the person had changed and was therefore now worthy of trust.

However, I do not believe imprisoning someone for the rest of his or her
natural life is an indication of trust.

The death penalty can not be separated from a desire for vengeance. It is
the ultimate weapon of vengeance. One can argue (wrongfully I believe)
that such vengeance is just. However, you can not separate the act from
the prime motive behind it.


> >
> > Most people would say that both of these people deserved to be
> > executed.
> >However, God had other plans for them. The first man was King David.
The
> >second man was Saint Paul.
>

> The bible is a story, nothing more. I rather doubt that Ted Bundy was on
his
> way to sainthood, even should he have avoided the DP. At any rate, would
you
> be so eager to help someone avoid the DP if I told you that you would be
held
> responsible for any acts that they managed to commit later in life? Even
if
> that person were to remain in prison, what if you would be held
responsible if
> that person attacked a guard or another inmate? Would you really be so
> anxious to stand up and vouch for his worth?
>
The Bible is an account of the history of the Jewish people. For many of
us, it also a divinely inspired account of the relationship between man and
God.

I too doubt that Ted Bundy was on his way to sainthood. However, only God
could have known that. I have never met anyone who could predict the
future with one hundred percent accuracy or say that actions we take today
might not change that future. In addition, Bundy is an extreme example.
He is not typical of most men who are sentenced to death.

The answer to your other question is yes. You could not make me believe
that I was responsible for the acts of another person unless I directed
those acts. However, if that was society's idea of a just trade, then I
would have to be willing to offer my life. It would not be an easy choice.
However, my Lord did no less when he died on the cross for me and all
sinners. Therefore, I must be willing to follow his example. In addition,
I do not know if I could live with myself if I was given the opportunity to
save a life and I refused. I can only pray that I would have the strength
to do the right thing if the situation ever arose.

>
> Bryan Phinney
> To fight Spam, Join CAUCE - http:\\www.cauce.org
> I report all fraud to IRS, FTC, NFIC, and USPS where appropriate.
> "The views expressed herein are the personal views and opinions of the
current user and are not made on behalf of his or her current employer."

Kent Anderson

unread,
Sep 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/12/97
to

wa...@av3.enet.dec.com wrote in article <5v8c73$drd$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...

>
>
>
> In article <01bcbe63$32be3fe0$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson"
<Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> writes:
> |>wa...@av3.enet.dec.com wrote in article <5v41a3$ige$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
>
> [start of discussion snipped to save space]
>
<snip>

>
> There is an interesting ancillary point here about the extent to which
a
> citizen of a democracy can really be held responsible for all the actions
of
> his or her government, but I want to try to keep to the point I was
trying to
> get at originally. Your new argument is simply stating that capital
> punishment is morally wrong, and that a government has no right to take
the
> life of a criminal once he is safely in custody. Obviously a majority of
> the citizens in most American states disagree, or this discussion would
not
> be necessary. I personally find it very hard to feel that it was morally
> wrong to hang Adolf Eichmann, but that is a separate discussion (which I
would
> be happy to have separately), because it is also not the point I was
trying to
> address. I was trying to consider the question of the execution of the
> factually innocent. The inevitability of this in any real-world justice
> system that permits capital punishment is often used as one of the
strongest
> arguments against the death penalty. A counter-argument has been offered

> that since innocents will be killed in either case (because in the
absence of


> capital punishment the unexecuted killers will, at some small rate, kill
> again), it is best to operate so as to minimize the number of dead
innocents
> and execute killers who are guilty beyond a rational doubt (note that I
do not
> claim that this is what happens now, only that it is what proponents
would
> claim the system should be designed to achieve). I thought you were
claiming
> that this argument is flawed. I agree that it cannot, by itself, make an
> immoral act into a moral one. However the argument that "We should not
have
> capital punishment because an innocent person may be killed" does not
claim
> that capital punishment is immoral, it claims that it is imprudent, and
this
> argument addresses that claim. In what way is it flawed?
>
> Dave Wark
>

One problem with the argument which you are citing is that there is
nothing to back it up. Very few murderers commit another murder while in
prison. This number can be reduced even further by adequate security
measures (i.e. don't put known enemies together, separate those whose
history suggests the likelihood of violence in prison from the general
population, etc.).

We do not know the numbers of innocent people who have been or will be
executed any more than we know which few convicted murderers will kill
someone in prison. Therefore, such an argument can only rely on
speculation.

It would be equally speculative to try to predict how many murderers would
commit another murder if they are ever released. In fact, the idea that a
person sentenced to LWOP will ever be released or escape is nothing more
than speculation. This is a very rare occurence.

Therefore, an argument centered around how many convicted murderers will
commit another murder, if they are not murdered by the state, versus how
many innocent people will be wrongfully convicted and executed, so long as
we retain the death penalty is not centered on logic. Instead, it is
centered on speculation and unprovable theories, on either side. The only
certainties are that some convicted murderers will find a way to kill again
and some innocent people will be executed. There is no evidence to support
any statements of percentages or total numbers. Such evidence will always
be limited to the situations we know about.

Kent Anderson

Austin W. Spencer

unread,
Sep 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/12/97
to

Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<5v5e06$edo$1...@newsd-5.alma.webtv.net>, once again forcing me to condense for
brevity...

> Kevin Dickover's argument that the DP was invalidated by the coming of the
> NT, is not supported by the historical record. Up to modern times, the Church
> and the Christian world believed that the DP was a morally legitimate punish-

> ment to be inflicted upon evildoers.

That was the opinion of the Church. It was not EXACTLY what the Bible said on
the matter, but rather an interpretation that might or might not have been
wrong (and also produced such querulous parochial disputes as how many angels
could dance on the head of a pin, just to lend a little more perspective).

[snip]

> Again, Kevin missed the point of the Cain saga, that he did not intention-
> ally murder his own brother, which is the reason he was spared the
> death penalty. Gen 9:6 may be read as a directive in cases in which one
> human being murdered another human being deliberately, and having as it
> were, foreseen the argument that only God could take life, emphatically re-
> jected that argument. To the contrary, the Bible teaches that it is man who
> is to punish murderers.

There are a few technical problems with this interpretation. For one thing, God
never “recommended,” much less enacted, DP for Cain. The Cain story also
attaches a motive to Cain. I also find it quite telling that Abel slew Cain in
Gen. 4:8 and was punished in Gen. 4:9-15, but DP as such is not even mentioned
until Gen. 9:6. In addition, it is ONLY Gen. 9:6 (and the few others you cite,
as far as I -- being no Bible scholar -- know) that support DP. All of your
quotes but Romans is OT, and even the Romans quote is taken out of context, as
was shown before you started posting (I don’t remember exactly how and by
whom).



> A lot of Christians, BTW, do believe in and support capital punishment
> and they believe with good reason, that it is given warrant by the Bible.
> I suspect that, at least in this country, with all due respect to Kevin
Dickover,
> his view is still very much a minority opinion.

Not that this necessarily has anything to do with independent thought, personal
religious study, evaluation of one’s own beliefs, or simple capitulation to the
majority opinion.



> As long as innocent blood continues to flow in rivers down the streets of
Ameri-
> ca, as I stated in my previous reply, retaining the DP is a moral imperative.

Could this get any more rhetorical? “As long as innocent blood continues to
flow in rivers down the streets of America.” Here’s a hint: while it is true
that murder is more pervasive in the United States than a lot of other places,
hyperbole gets you nowhere. As for your argument of moral imperative, you seem
to be arguing in favor of CHRISTIAN imperative more than MORAL imperative. In
which case, what bearing does any of this have on the actual building of U.S.
policy?

> Norman
>
> Norman F. Birnberg
>

--
Austin W. Spencer
http://www.public.asu.edu/~anselmos

wa...@av3.enet.dec.com

unread,
Sep 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/12/97
to


In article <01bcbf14$4f467540$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson" <Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> writes:
|>wa...@av3.enet.dec.com wrote in article <5v8c73$drd$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
|>>

[start of discussion snipped to save space]

|>> A counter-argument has been offered

I would not use the word "speculation", because that carries a connotation
of wild guesswork, I would prefer "estimation". One could, of course, work
just from those numbers which are certain, i.e., the number of individuals
executed who were later shown to be undeniably innocent vs. the number of
individuals sentenced to LWOP who later were shown beyond a rational doubt to
have subsequently committed another murder. I believe that these numbers are,
at least since the mid-70's, zero against zero. If you wish to completely
avoid what you call "speculation" that is all we have to work with and we have
to pronounce the whole argument a red herring. However society routinely uses
estimates when considering issues of life and death (for instance the number
of people who will likely be saved by a new aircraft safety device is compared
to the number who will likely be killed by its malfunctions). Why should this
situation be different? One would have to try to make a defensible estimate
of the rate of execution of innocents and compare it to the a defensible
estimate of the rate at which LWOP convicts will commit murder. I don't argue
that such estimates would be easy to produce, but there is nothing unique
about capital punishment in that respect.

|>
|> It would be equally speculative to try to predict how many murderers would
|>commit another murder if they are ever released. In fact, the idea that a
|>person sentenced to LWOP will ever be released or escape is nothing more
|>than speculation. This is a very rare occurence.
|>
|> Therefore, an argument centered around how many convicted murderers will
|>commit another murder, if they are not murdered by the state, versus how
|>many innocent people will be wrongfully convicted and executed, so long as
|>we retain the death penalty is not centered on logic.

Nonsense. An idea does not become illogical just because one cannot precisely
quantify its consequences. We know that cigarettes cause fatal diseases.
Just because I cannot name exactly who has been killed (and who will be
killed) by smoking does not make it illogical to assert that reducing smoking
will save lives.

|>Instead, it is
|>centered on speculation and unprovable theories, on either side. The only
|>certainties are that some convicted murderers will find a way to kill again
|>and some innocent people will be executed. There is no evidence to support
|>any statements of percentages or total numbers. Such evidence will always
|>be limited to the situations we know about.
|>
|>Kent Anderson
|>

As I said above one would have to (as in many situations) work from defensible
estimates of the relative frequencies. However let us assume you are correct
and there is no way to make any defensible estimate of the relative numbers.
If this invalidates the argument that we should execute killers to protect
their future victims why does it not equally invalidate the argument that we
should execute no one for fear of executing an innocent?

Dave Wark

Rev. Don Kool

unread,
Sep 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/12/97
to

Kent Anderson wrote:
> Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> ...

> > With due regard to Kent Anderson's response to my post: First, no
> innocent person has been executed in this country in modern times.

> If you limit modern times to the last couple of years, you may be right.
> However, Bedau and Radelet (Execution of Innocence)

[...fantasy snipped...]

"Bedau and Radelet"??? Thanks for the laugh! Their fatally
flawed "study" was even ridiculed by Bedau himself. In his own words,
"We didn't prove anything". All they presented were silly opinions
and much too much wishful thinking. If you want a through breakdown
as to where B&R's "study" meandered into straight comedy, simpy pick
up another copy of the same journal from a year later. Despite B&R's
sophmoric attempt at revisionist history, the fact remains that there
has not been even a single case of an "innocent man" being mistakenly
executed since the reintroduction of the just Death Penalty in the
late 1970's (i.e., in the modern Death Penalty era).

> The slight chance that an innocent person might be executed is not
> sufficient reason to drop the death penalty, in view of the large numbers

> of persons who have murdered and would no doubt murder again if they were

> ever released to the outside, either by commutation of their sentence, a
> bureaucratic mistake in handling their prison records, or escape either
> through weakness in the prison security system or the murder of a prison
> guard.

> First, many people would disagree with you.

Just as "many people" also hold the romantic and wishful notion
that Elvis is still alive.

> However, there is nothing I can say which will change the mind of
> someone who condones the execution/murder of innocent people.

Please let me know when you find such a person as the original
poster said no such thing. He merely stated that he accepted the
miniscule possibility that an accident could conceivably happen sometime
in the far off future.

> This is the same mindset that says better that 100 innocent people
> are convicted than that one guilty person goes free.

Sorry to disappoint you but no, it's not. It is the "same
mindset" that realizes an honest mistake is a vanishingly small though
still finite possibility. Nice try at building a strawman though.

> Second, murderers have a lower rate of recidivism than all other
> criminals.

You mean they only murder a *few* more people. How comforting.

> Very few murderers ever commit another crime. Part of this is
> no doubt due to the unique circumstances of their crime, in some cases,
> which are unlikely to recur. Part of it is also due to the changes which
> are often seen after long term incarceration. Some people do not change.
> However, most men are not the same person ten or more years later that they
> were when they went to prison or when they committed their crime.

> With the DP, recidivism on the part of a capital murder is eliminated
> through execution of his sentence.
>
> Stating the obvious. However, support for the death penalty drops
> dramatically when people are asked to compare it to life without parole.

Yes, too bad that, in reality, there is no such thing. A murderer
can always get out through any combination of executive privledge,
escape
or any number of other avenues.

> > Second, the judgment of the trial jury that heard a DP case is usually
> sound and in the absence of evidence supporting a claim of factual
> innocence where the defendant is concerned, the appellate court's duty is
> to uphold the decision made by the trial jury.

> The problem is the system is not perfect. Juries do not always hear all
> of the evidence or they hear false, or otherwise improper, evidence. (In
> addition, it has been shown that death qualified juries are more likely to
> convict.) Some appellate court's consider it their duty to uphold a trial
> court's decision, in spite of evidence of innocence.

Must be why so many Death Penalty cases are overturned on appeal.

[...lay attempts at theology snipped...]

> > Fourth, it is wrong to allow the murderer to continue to live out his
> life after he has deliberately taken another's life. The state in ordaining
> the execution of the murderer, is invoking the grounds of justice in that
> the life of a murdered person can only be affirmed by punishing the
> murderer to the fullest possible extent, which is the DP.

> See above. In addition, murdering the murder gives the message that human
> life is cheap; not that it is precious. All human life is sacred.

Since when was anyone promoting "murdering the murder [sic]"?
You should stop trying to put words into other people's mouths.
Desperate
grade school debating tactics like that merely point out the inherent
weakness of your own position. The convicted murderer receives a just
execution (generally after far too long of a delay).

> > Finally, there is a moral difference in death in terms of the murderer's
> conduct and
> > the state's conduct. The murderer's conduct is against the laws of God
> and man
> > like. The state's conduct is in accordance with both in putting the
> murderer to death.
>
> That is a matter of opinion. I believe that both the original murderer's
> and the state's conduct is against the will of God. Many people share this
> view.

A many people still believe that the Earth is flat. In both
cases those "people" are greviously in error.

> > Understanding this qualitative difference is essential to appreciating
> the moral character of the DP and why most victims' families support it.

> I understand the very human desire for vengeance. I also understand that
> it is difficult to get past that desire and be able to forgive. Our
> society even seems to say that forgiveness is wrong. However, that does
> not mean that we should not strive to overcome our more base instincts and
> feelings.

Where do you get "vengeance"? The just Death Penalty provides
Justice, not "vengeance". Do you consider life supposedly without
parole
to be "vengeance" as well?

[...lay theology snipped...]

> > I support the DP not because human life isn't important to me, but rather
> because every innocent human life is very precious and the only way to give
> it meaning is to see to it a murderer will not be allowed to enjoy the very
> gift of life that he stole from his victim.

> Is that why you stated that you condone the execution of innocent people?

More than likely it's probably why he *never* stated that.


Hope this helps,
Don


********************** My juice is sweet like Georgia peaches
* Rev. Don McDonald * Women suck it up like leeches
* Baltimore, MD * ---- FREAKNASTY
********************** "Da' Dip"
http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7

Douglas McDonald

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman F. Birnberg) wrote:

[...lay theology snipped...]

> How many times do you need to hear "Vengence is mine, I will
> repay" before it sticks? Do I need to write it on a blackboard 100
> times? 1000? And WHERE do you see Cain not intendidg to harm Abel?
> Please explain your thinking here. Use Scripture to back it up.

Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
from the very soil where it spilt. Jesus Fucking Christ; do you need
a house to fall on your or what?

Hope this helps,
Don

[...signature unavailable on foreign host...]

Douglas McDonald

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

Rodney C. Fisher wrote:
> On 7 Sep 1997 20:13:21 GMT, lord...@aol.com (Lord Clane) wrote:


> OK, this is my first post in this newsgroup, so I have my flame
> retarding monitor on...
>
> First, I am pro-DP.

[...snip...]

Welcome to the group. All sane voices are welcome here.
Be prepared to ignore those whose overinflated egos compell them
to fancy themselves 'wild eyed ancharists'. After all, this is
USENET. A forum where all the repressed geeks and nerds of the
world can sound off and posture without fear of the proverbial
sand being kicked in their faces.

Douglas McDonald

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

Kent Anderson wrote:
> Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote...

> > If Austin Spencer is right that anti-DPers aren't absolving capital
> > murderers of anything, then why are they looking for every means in the
> > book to prevent the state from carrying out a sentence after all, had
> > been imposed in accordance with due process of law?

> Because we believe the sentence was wrong.

Just as many of your brethren believed that the comet Hale-Bopp
was their vehicle to the stars. Your "beliefs", however bizarre, have
little bearing on the objective facts. Clearly the just Death Penalty
is the only appropriate and morally right sentence for the crime of
murder.

> > <snip>
> > Oh, I believe if executions were publicly televised, it would have a big
> effect on the murder rate. Look at Saudi Arabia - public executions, and
> virtual absence of murders. No, this country will never have a murder rate
> as low as Saudi Arabia does,
> > but if executions were instaneous and publicly broadcast, it would be
> dramatically lower than the bloodbath that is engulfing America today.

> I am not against televising executions. It might help to desanitize the


> process. However, I question your assumptions about the effect on the
> crime rate.

[...trite 'urban legend' snipped (the naiveté of the 'antis' never
ceases to amaze)...]

> Therefore, I suspect that the lower homicide rate in Saudi Arabia is due
> to other cultural factors.

Yes; "other cultural factors" like taking responsibility for your
actions
and paying for your crimes. How awful !!!


`[...pedantic, newbie style flames snipped...]

Hope this helps,
Don

[...sig unavailable on foreign host computer...]

kdi...@erols.com

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 07:55:02 -0400, Douglas McDonald
<brow...@annapolis.net> wrote:

>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>> Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman F. Birnberg) wrote:
>
> [...lay theology snipped...]
>
>> How many times do you need to hear "Vengence is mine, I will
>> repay" before it sticks? Do I need to write it on a blackboard 100

>> times? 1000? And WHERE do you see Cain not intending to harm Abel?


>> Please explain your thinking here. Use Scripture to back it up.
>
> Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
>wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
>from the very soil where it spilt.

And your point here is?.....

> Jesus Fucking Christ;

Yet another "unusual"phrase for a "ordained minister and everything"
to say. Alex, I'd like "Thing that you would never hear a real
minister say" for $100

>do you need
>a house to fall on your or what?
>

Don, perhaps you did not read my post. I cannot find a suggestion
in that passage that Cain *unintentionally* killed Abel. It seems to
me that the act of killing Abel was a deliberate and premeditated
murder. Norman repeatedly has said that the killing of Abel was an
accident. I have asked him to back this up with Scripture. He has
not. Neither have you. Please do so or admit that Cain is a
murderer. Then explain why God did not execute Cain for his actions.

John Spragge

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

On 11 Sep 1997 09:04:35 GMT, wa...@av3.enet.dec.com () wrote:


> A counter-argument has been offered
>that since innocents will be killed in either case (because in the absence of
>capital punishment the unexecuted killers will, at some small rate, kill
>again), it is best to operate so as to minimize the number of dead innocents
>and execute killers who are guilty beyond a rational doubt (note that I do not
>claim that this is what happens now, only that it is what proponents would
>claim the system should be designed to achieve). I thought you were claiming
>that this argument is flawed. I agree that it cannot, by itself, make an
>immoral act into a moral one. However the argument that "We should not have
>capital punishment because an innocent person may be killed" does not claim
>that capital punishment is immoral, it claims that it is imprudent, and this
>argument addresses that claim. In what way is it flawed?

It assumes that capital punishment influences the murder rate
(particularly the recidivist murder rate) only by eliminating some
proportion of murderers, and therefore the net effect of capital
punishment must reduce the murder rate (or at least the recidivist
murder rate) slightly. This doesn't work, because not all murderers
get executed, and indeed the US Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory
death sentences would violate the constitution. So in practise, in the
US., a few murderers (less than 1%)get executed, while all the rest
serve an average of 6 years. This leads to a recifivist murder rate
between 5% and 9% for the US.. In Canada, with no capital punishment
but mandatory long term incarceration for murder (a minimum of 25
years before regular parole for pre-meditated murder), we keep the
recidivist murder rate between 0% and 2%. In the US., with capital
punishment, one article estimates murderers on parole present more
than 100 times more danger to the public than the general population
(see Atlantic Monthly, Sept. 1997, page 75). In Canada, murderers on
parole actually commit fewer offences, on average, then members of the
general population.

It seems obvious, given these statistics, that capital punishment, as
practised in the US., has no good effect on the recidivist murder
rate.

J. G. Spragge ----------------------- standard disclaimers apply
Peace and long life ------ Live long and prosper

Dan Hogg

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

In article <5vbcn9$p...@camel4.mindspring.com>, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan Phinney) writes:

|> In article <01bcbf14$4f467540$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson" <Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
|>
|> > One problem with the argument which you are citing is that there is
|> >nothing to back it up. Very few murderers commit another murder while in
|> >prison. This number can be reduced even further by adequate security
|> >measures (i.e. don't put known enemies together, separate those whose
|> >history suggests the likelihood of violence in prison from the general
|> >population, etc.).
|>
|> However, it can never be ruled out. There is always a chance for an escape,
|> there is always the chance that a guard will be hurt or killed, or that
|> another inmate will be hurt or killed. In return, what reason is there to
|> keep this particular inmate alive to serve the rest of his life in prison. I
|> submit that considering that he/she will never be allowed to return to society
|> or even to offer any positive value to society dictates that he/she be
|> executed.

Phinney appears to be using the identical logic as those who object to the dp
on the basis of executing innocents. Ironic, since he regularly repudiates
such thinking...except when it's useful for his own argument.

The second question Phinney poses is a very slippery slope indeed. There are
many serving lifelong sentences who will have little opportunity to contribute
to society, but that is hardly a reason to execute them. Now that I think of
it, there are many people living in freedom who do not contribute to society
either. Hmm, let's skip over that one. Phinney, like most dp advocates look
only at the present. How about looking at the later lives of those who're on
life sentences. Look at the Manson girls - both who are still imprisoned have
gone on to help other inmates get on the right path. Both have helped inmates
learn to read. Within the strictures of their lives, both these women have
contributed more to the improvement of society than, say, many who post here. I
know of one former TX inmate who now works as a legal researcher. He was
illiterate when he received his life sentence, yet he taught himself to read
and taught himself the law. I'm aware of over 25 inmates who've had their
sentences overturned through his help. He was involved in the writs filed some
~30 years ago which resulted in TX employees having control over the institu-
tions rather than the inmate "building tenders" (aka prison dictators).
Deciding the worth of an individual to live or die on the sole basis of a
single act is the same "reasoning" used by abusive parents who shake a baby to
death because he wouldn't be quiet.

[...]

--
==========================================================================
Daniel Hogg | da...@lexis-nexis.com
LEXIS-NEXIS | dh...@erinet.com
Dayton, OH 45342 |
==========================================================================
There is no need to think outside the box...
when you don't build a box to begin with.

JIGSAW1695

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

Dan Hogg, or whatever his name is wrote:

>know of one former TX inmate who now works as a legal >researcher. He
was illiterate when he received his life sentence, >yet he taught himself
to read >and taught himself the law. I'm >aware of over 25 inmates who've
had their >sentences >overturned through his help. He was involved in the

writs filed >some 30 years ago which resulted in TX employees having
>control over the institutions rather than the inmate "building >enders"
(aka prison dictators).

First question: What was his name? we can look it up in a legal data base
and find out exactly what he did.

First Point. this guy got life so he probably killed someone and pled out
for life rather than face the possibility of the DP.

If he killed someone, no matter what he does, no matter how many people he
helps, no matter how many people he helped get out of prison, he can Never
repay society for the life he stolen from his victim

Jigsaw.

Douglas McDonald

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> Douglas McDonald <brow...@annapolis.net> wrote:
> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> >> Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman F. Birnberg) wrote:

> > [...lay theology snipped...]

> >> How many times do you need to hear "Vengence is mine, I will
> >> repay" before it sticks? Do I need to write it on a blackboard 100
> >> times? 1000? And WHERE do you see Cain not intending to harm Abel?
> >> Please explain your thinking here. Use Scripture to back it up.

> > Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
> >wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
> >from the very soil where it spilt.

> And your point here is?.....

Is that the victims' blood cries out from the soil for Justice.

> > Jesus Fucking Christ;

> Yet another "unusual"phrase for a "ordained minister and everything"
> to say. Alex, I'd like "Thing that you would never hear a real
> minister say" for $100

Actually that's just about how much money I just won betting
that you would be silly and off-topic enough to specifically address
that phrase.

> >do you need a house to fall on you or what?

> Don, perhaps you did not read my post. I cannot find a suggestion
> in that passage that Cain *unintentionally* killed Abel. It seems to
> me that the act of killing Abel was a deliberate and premeditated
> murder. Norman repeatedly has said that the killing of Abel was an
> accident. I have asked him to back this up with Scripture. He has
> not. Neither have you. Please do so or admit that Cain is a
> murderer. Then explain why God did not execute Cain for his actions.

This is not a forum for the discussion of theology. It is
a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
United States. If your intent is to engage in religious discussions,
then proper netequitte demands that you do it in newgroups dedicated
to those types of discussions.

wa...@av3.enet.dec.com

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

All of this may be true (although I assume that the 6 year figure must
include manslaughter and therefore would not apply to a discussion of
capital murder in any case) but it is not relevant to the point I was trying
to discuss. I think most proponents of the death penalty would agree that all
murderers should be given a stiff sentence, the question is what to do with
the very worst. So the comparison would be between a system where the worst,
say, 10% (or whatever percentage met the standards of heinousness set by the
community) of the murderers were given LWOP and a different system where the
same were executed. The above argument would claim that one could operate
the latter system so that the number of innocents executed would be less than
the number of innocents killed by the unexecuted in the former system.

|>
|>It seems obvious, given these statistics, that capital punishment, as
|>practised in the US., has no good effect on the recidivist murder
|>rate.

I don't see how you can say that given that you claim yourself that the
principle difference between the systems is the length of the sentence for
the average murderer. In any case I was making no specific claim about
the current system in the U.S., which I would agree looks like a total mess.
One problem with discussions on these newsgroups is that they ramble around
from point to point without ever addressing anything in adequate depth. I
can think of a number of good arguments against capital punishment in
practice, but such arguments are normally harder to demonstrate than arguments
in principle. If one has a good argument in principle one doesn't need to
worry about arguments in practice. So I persist. Is the principle "If we
have capital punishments innocents will be executed, in order to avoid the
death of innocents we should therefore abolish capital punishment." not
invalidated by the above argument? If not, why not? If it is, then perhaps
we should move on to another point.

Dave Wark

ed horlick

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

kdi...@erols.com wrote:

<big snip>

> All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God.
> The death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
> outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly

If you want to keep God in the discussion, maybe you can explain why
He allows 20,000+ innocent people to be butchered by murderers every
year, and that's just in the US. If His moral guidance prevented that
from happening, we would not even have to discuss the DP since there
would be no need for it.

Ed H.

ImNot911

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

When Cain killed Abel there were no human laws. God made up the laws as
he went along, sort of and OJT situation. Put yourself in God's shoes for
a moment. If he killed Cain who would take up the slack? There weren't
any extra humans at that time, and God had already lost Abel. Breeding
stock was low on earth. God knew he'd have eternity to punish Cain's sin,
so why kill him?


kdi...@erols.com

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:56:53 -0400, Douglas McDonald
<brow...@annapolis.net> wrote:

>
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>> Douglas McDonald <brow...@annapolis.net> wrote:
>> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>> >> Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman F. Birnberg) wrote:
>
>> > [...lay theology snipped...]
>
>> >> How many times do you need to hear "Vengence is mine, I will
>> >> repay" before it sticks? Do I need to write it on a blackboard 100
>> >> times? 1000? And WHERE do you see Cain not intending to harm Abel?
>> >> Please explain your thinking here. Use Scripture to back it up.
>
>> > Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
>> >wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
>> >from the very soil where it spilt.
>
>> And your point here is?.....
>
> Is that the victims' blood cries out from the soil for Justice.
>

And you consider the punishment that God leveled upon Cain to be
unjust? Think very carefully here Don.

<snip discussion of Don's foul language>


>> >do you need a house to fall on you or what?
>
>> Don, perhaps you did not read my post. I cannot find a suggestion
>> in that passage that Cain *unintentionally* killed Abel. It seems to
>> me that the act of killing Abel was a deliberate and premeditated
>> murder. Norman repeatedly has said that the killing of Abel was an
>> accident. I have asked him to back this up with Scripture. He has
>> not. Neither have you. Please do so or admit that Cain is a
>> murderer. Then explain why God did not execute Cain for his actions.
>
> This is not a forum for the discussion of theology. It is
>a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
>United States.

First,
You responded to the theological part of the post with a
Scriptural referance. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
Second,
This is alt.activism.death-penalty, not
alt.activism.pro-death-penalty. Do you know of a FAQ that says "It is


a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the

United States." If not, please stop saying so.

>If your intent is to engage in religious discussions,
>then proper netequitte demands that you do it in newgroups dedicated
>to those types of discussions.
>

All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God. The
death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly

kdi...@erols.com

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

I seriously doubt that the loss of "breeding stock" would be a
problem to great for God to overcome. Could a better reason for the
continuing of Cain's life be, God loves us and forgives us? That
would seem to be better supported by Scripture.

John Spragge

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:18:57 GMT, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan
Phinney) wrote:

>The only obvious thing about these statistics is that yet again someone has
>quoted statistical evidence as "proof" of the ineffectiveness of the DP
>without showing any causality between the DP and the difference in crime
>statistics.

The word "proof" nowhere appears in my posting. In fact, if you can
come up with any post, period, where I claimed to offer proof that
capital punishment has no effect, I will repudiate it and apologise
for it. I don't think I ever have made such a claim.

> Is it your contention that the only difference between Canada and
>the US is that the US has capital punishment? If not, then you have failed
>to address all of the other reasons that the recidivist rate for murderers in
>the US might be higher than the rate in Canada.

My posting mentions differences in the American and Canadian judicial
systems other than capital punishment. And I certainly don't claim
that our societies have no other differences. But if factors other
than the judicial system have more effect on the recidivist murder
rate, then I'd call that pretty strong evidence of a judicial system
with severe problems. Given the recidivist murder rate quoted here and
in other places (including the sources I quoted in my original), I'd
say at least some US justice systems appear to have those problems.
Which if any of these problems stem from capital punishment, I don't
know; but if capital punishment does make a positive differerence, no
evidence I have seen so far shows it.

I don't have to address any of these questions to make my point,
namely: the argument that capital punishment opponents must take moral
responsibility for those individuals we assume capital punishment
might have "saved" founders on the evidence (not proof) that capital
punishment does not, in fact, save lives, whether from first offenders
or from repeat offenders.

[ more on the possible existence of other factors that might affect ]
[ the recidivist murder rate snipped. ]

> If not, then you are guilty of quoting the
>same type of misleading and false statistics that we have seen so often in
>this forum.

Before you call my statistics "false", kindly come up with a scintilla
of counter-evidence. As for misleading: for the clear and limited
purpose for which I used them, my use of statistics does not mislead.

[ patronising nonsense snipped ]

ImNot911

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

I've found very little logic in arguments concerning God's love and
forgiveness. Consider IIKings,chap.2,verses 23-25. God sent two she-bears
out of the woods to tear apart 42 children for making fun of Elisha's bald
head. Who says
our laws must be dictated by anyone's interpretation of any religion's
sacred writings?
It's not reasonable for you to isolate and interpret one little
segment of the Bible as representative of God's word on the death penalty.
Bad debating tactic.

Douglas McDonald

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:

> >> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> >> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> >> >> Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman F. Birnberg) wrote:

> >> > [...lay theology snipped...]

> >> >> How many times do you need to hear "Vengence is mine, I will
> >> >> repay" before it sticks? Do I need to write it on a blackboard 100
> >> >> times? 1000? And WHERE do you see Cain not intending to harm Abel?
> >> >> Please explain your thinking here. Use Scripture to back it up.

> >> > Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
> >> >wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
> >> >from the very soil where it spilt.

> >> And your point here is?.....

> > Is that the victims' blood cries out from the soil for Justice.

> And you consider the punishment that God leveled upon Cain to be
> unjust? Think very carefully here Don.

I consider it an interesting allegory.



> <snip discussion of Don's foul language>

> >> >do you need a house to fall on you or what?

> >> Don, perhaps you did not read my post. I cannot find a suggestion
> >> in that passage that Cain *unintentionally* killed Abel. It seems to
> >> me that the act of killing Abel was a deliberate and premeditated
> >> murder. Norman repeatedly has said that the killing of Abel was an
> >> accident. I have asked him to back this up with Scripture. He has
> >> not. Neither have you. Please do so or admit that Cain is a
> >> murderer. Then explain why God did not execute Cain for his actions.

> > This is not a forum for the discussion of theology. It is
> >a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
> >United States.

> First,
> You responded to the theological part of the post with a
> Scriptural referance. You can not have your cake and eat it too.

I responded to the anti Death Penalty cabal's continued
illiteracy concerning the definition of the term "murder".

> Second,
> This is alt.activism.death-penalty, not
> alt.activism.pro-death-penalty. Do you know of a FAQ that says "It is
> a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
> United States." If not, please stop saying so.

This group is devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in
the United States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW).

> >If your intent is to engage in religious discussions,
> >then proper netequitte demands that you do it in newgroups dedicated
> >to those types of discussions.

> All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God. The
> death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
> outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly

To bring God into a discussion of proper penal policy
is what is "silly". The definition of "Justice" does not invoke
the Lord.

Douglas McDonald

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

Actually God is a fairly long lived individual (especially
in comparison to us mere mortals). He can afford to wait to
dispense his justice, we cannot. Justice delayed is Justice
denied.

Happy to have cleared things up for you,

mgcu...@connect.net

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

In article <341ddd4d...@news.erols.com>,

kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Sep 1997 15:19:51 GMT, imno...@aol.com (ImNot911) wrote:
>
> >
> >When Cain killed Abel there were no human laws. God made up the laws as
> >he went along, sort of and OJT situation. Put yourself in God's shoes for
> >a moment. If he killed Cain who would take up the slack? There weren't
> >any extra humans at that time, and God had already lost Abel. Breeding
> >stock was low on earth. God knew he'd have eternity to punish Cain's sin,
> >so why kill him?
>
> I seriously doubt that the loss of "breeding stock" would be a
> problem to great for God to overcome. Could a better reason for the
> continuing of Cain's life be, God loves us and forgives us?

There's not much rhyme or reason to Genesis. Until the murder of Abel,
no reference is made to any other humans but the two brothers and their
parents. Yet when Cain is banished to wander the earth, he complains
that "anyone" who meets him could kill him. Until then, there were only
supposed to be 4 people on the planet. Then Cain goes to the land of
Nod, finds a wife, and builds a city. Suddenly, there are people all
over the place!

> That
> would seem to be better supported by Scripture.

If the story of Cain and Abel is supposed to be a lesson in forgiveness
and leniency for murderers, then how do you account for the imposition of
the death penalty in Mosaic Law?

Mike Cullinan
mgcu...@connect.net

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Desmond Coughlan

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 22:11:19 -0600, mgcu...@connect.net wrote:

>> I am not against televising executions. It might help to desanitize the
>> process. However, I question your assumptions about the effect on the
>> crime rate.
>>

>> Pickpockets were very active among the crowds at publich hangings in
>> England. This was in spite of the fact that the pickpockets would suffer
>> the same fate as the condemned man if they were caught. The absence of due
>> process, in many cases, did not seem to have any effect either.


>>
>> Therefore, I suspect that the lower homicide rate in Saudi Arabia is due
>> to other cultural factors.

>One of the cultural factors offered for Saudi Arabia's low murder rate is
>homogeniety of religion; almost everyone is devoutly Muslim. Italy is
>one of the most abolitionist of countries and also has homogeniety of
>religion; almost everyone is Roman Catholic. Yet Italy's homicide rate
>has been creeping steadily upwards over the last few decades or so. Last
>I checked, it had reached about 7.6 per hundred thousand and was still
>climbing. At that rate, they will soon overtake and pass the US.

Part of that are the mafia killings, Mike.

Look at Ireland, which is also Roman Catholic, abolitionist, and has a
very low murder rate.
----
Desmond Coughlan |"We got loud guitars and big suspicions,
Remove "nospam_" from |Great big guns and small ambitions,
e-mail address. |And we still argue over who is God."
*******************************************
http://www.pratique.fr/~dcoughla/

kdi...@erols.com

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:20:44 -0700, ed horlick
<edho...@sprintmail.com> wrote:

>
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
><big snip>

>
>> All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God.
>> The death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
>> outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly
>

>If you want to keep God in the discussion, maybe you can explain why
>He allows 20,000+ innocent people to be butchered by murderers every
>year, and that's just in the US. If His moral guidance prevented that
>from happening, we would not even have to discuss the DP since there
>would be no need for it.
>
>Ed H.

Moral guidence would be different from direct intervention in human
affairs. Honestly, The Problem of Pain has been delt with many times
and in many places, do you really wish to go through it here?

kdi...@erols.com

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:40:56 -0400, Douglas McDonald
<brow...@annapolis.net> wrote:

>
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
>> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>> >> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:

>> >> > Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
>> >> >wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
>> >> >from the very soil where it spilt.
>
>> >> And your point here is?.....
>
>> > Is that the victims' blood cries out from the soil for Justice.
>
>> And you consider the punishment that God leveled upon Cain to be
>> unjust? Think very carefully here Don.
>
> I consider it an interesting allegory.
>

and so your point is?...


>> >> >do you need a house to fall on you or what?
>
>> >> Don, perhaps you did not read my post. I cannot find a suggestion
>> >> in that passage that Cain *unintentionally* killed Abel. It seems to
>> >> me that the act of killing Abel was a deliberate and premeditated
>> >> murder. Norman repeatedly has said that the killing of Abel was an
>> >> accident. I have asked him to back this up with Scripture. He has
>> >> not. Neither have you. Please do so or admit that Cain is a
>> >> murderer. Then explain why God did not execute Cain for his actions.
>
>> > This is not a forum for the discussion of theology. It is
>> >a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
>> >United States.
>
>> First,
>> You responded to the theological part of the post with a
>> Scriptural referance. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
>
> I responded to the anti Death Penalty cabal's continued
>illiteracy concerning the definition of the term "murder".
>

So you are saying that Cain did not murder Abel? What did Cain do
to Abel then?

>> Second,
>> This is alt.activism.death-penalty, not
>> alt.activism.pro-death-penalty. Do you know of a FAQ that says "It is
>> a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
>> United States." If not, please stop saying so.
>
> This group is devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in
>the United States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW).
>

Oh, I did not know that you were moderating this group, or is this
an example of "if I say it often enough, it's true"

>> >If your intent is to engage in religious discussions,
>> >then proper netequitte demands that you do it in newgroups dedicated
>> >to those types of discussions.
>

>> All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God. The
>> death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
>> outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly
>

> To bring God into a discussion of proper penal policy
>is what is "silly". The definition of "Justice" does not invoke
>the Lord.
>

"Alex, I'd like "Things that you would never hear a real minister
say for $200"

kdi...@erols.com

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 06:20:25 GMT, m...@guesswho.net (Donald) wrote:


>You are trying to apply logic while arguing with the single biggest
>asshole ever to grace the newsgroups.
>He will either ignore your argument or lie about it.
>I am sure you know this.
>Why continue?
>
first off I am not sure He deserves that honor even in this ng.
Desi has been surging ahead lately. The "rev" Steve Winter has
effectively ended alt.org.promisekeepers as a newsgroup. This one
manages to continue. Why do I continue? I do not know. Perhaps I
hope that he will one day get it. Or maybe I will shell out $30 for
agent and then he will be gone forever....

kdi...@erols.com

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:43:20 -0400, Douglas McDonald
<brow...@annapolis.net> wrote:
>
> Actually God is a fairly long lived individual (especially
>in comparison to us mere mortals). He can afford to wait to
>dispense his justice, we cannot. Justice delayed is Justice
>denied.
>

Lets try this again,

Romans 12:19 (NASB)
"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath
of God, for it is written, "VENGENCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the
Lord."

What part of this do you not understand?

kdi...@erols.com

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to