Invalid, Pointless and Irrelevant Arguments
St.George
of the perceived inadequacies of its' application in the United States today.
This is a wholly illogical line of attack. One cannot successfully attack a
principled and general argument using a pragmatic and specific line of attack.
Even a successful and unarguable rejection of the death penalty in the U.S.
today would do almost *nothing* to reject the principle of the death penalty
being justice for those convicted of murder, in general.
For instance, arguments against the DP in general based on the following, are
wholly irrelevant and invalid:
Specific contemporary U.S. injustices
The nature of 'due process'
Methods used
Comments on the political climate
Standards of evidence
Racial and other socio-economic biases inherent
etc. etc.
When an anti-DP argument is based upon one of these, it will evaporate if the
specific condition were to be, in practice, eliminated - while merely
requiring the modification of the use of the DP.
Anti-DP advocates, therefore, should only argue on premises such as these if
they are attacking the contemporary use of the U.S. DP SPECIFICALLY.
It is also true that posts containing this kind of argument are responded to,
by pro-DP advocates, almost by rote disagreement.
This leads to the regular 'defending of the indefensible' by pro-DP
individuals (which weakens their credibility in general) when it is *wholly*
unnecessary for them to do so to support their position.
Recently I posted about the 19-minute gassing carried out in Arizona, and was
responded to by several pro-DP advocates seeking to defend the actions of the
state. These arguments did precisely nothing to further their generalised
cause.
It would have been wholly consistent for them to state that this specific
instance was totally unacceptable, without weakening their broader case one
iota. Furthermore, a position similar to this would greatly enhance their
credibility, I suspect, in the eyes of those who consider themselves more
neutral on this topic.
Would the same individuals defend crucifixion or starvation if that was
Arizona's method?
IMHO, this NG will contain much better debate if arguments are clearly and
precisely stated, and are replied to in that vein only, e.g:
1) Discussions about the DP in the U.S. today (or even more specific)
*OR*
2) Discussions about the merits of the DP universally (any time or place)
St.George
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bill Funke
St.George wrote in message <7dqedn$9ca$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I often see posts on this NG attacking the death penalty *in general*
because
>of the perceived inadequacies of its' application in the United
States today.
>
>This is a wholly illogical line of attack. One cannot successfully
attack a
>principled and general argument using a pragmatic and specific line
of attack.
Not quite true--see below.
>Even a successful and unarguable rejection of the death penalty in
the U.S.
>today would do almost *nothing* to reject the principle of the death
penalty
>being justice for those convicted of murder, in general.
>
>For instance, arguments against the DP in general based on the
following, are
>wholly irrelevant and invalid:
>
>Specific contemporary U.S. injustices
>The nature of 'due process'
>Methods used
>Comments on the political climate
>Standards of evidence
>Racial and other socio-economic biases inherent
>
>etc. etc.
>
>When an anti-DP argument is based upon one of these, it will
evaporate if the
>specific condition were to be, in practice, eliminated - while merely
>requiring the modification of the use of the DP.
While my objection to the DP goes beyond the practical problems of
properly instituting it, I would see these practical problems as being
enough to discredit it by themselves. If one were to argue that the
DP would be OK if we cleared up these problematic practices, and then
saw that that was almost impossible, eliminating the DP would be the
next logical step.
Since it has been well established that there have been injustices in
the application of the DP, it would behoove its proponents to prove
both that the injustices can be reduced to an "acceptable" level and
that the DP has some special benefit that requires its institution.
Calm down, Sharp, Necro, et al. I am not extending this argument to
jail time, traffic fines, etc.--yet.
>Anti-DP advocates, therefore, should only argue on premises such as
these if
>they are attacking the contemporary use of the U.S. DP SPECIFICALLY.
Huh? I would presume the proper application of any method of justice
would be of universal concern.
Some of them would. Some have.
Charles Trew
St.George (bag...@my-dejanews.com) writes:
> Recently I posted about the 19-minute gassing carried out in Arizona, and was
> responded to by several pro-DP advocates seeking to defend the actions of the
> state. These arguments did precisely nothing to further their generalised
> cause.
>
> It would have been wholly consistent for them to state that this specific
> instance was totally unacceptable, without weakening their broader case one
> iota. Furthermore, a position similar to this would greatly enhance their
> credibility, I suspect, in the eyes of those who consider themselves more
> neutral on this topic.
>
> Would the same individuals defend crucifixion or starvation if that was
> Arizona's method?
I may have missed some posts but what I read was not a defense of
gassing. Rather two people pointed out that the German himself chose to be
gassed.
JIGSAW1695
From: db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charles Trew)
Date: 3/30/99 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <7dr8rp$f...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
St.George (bag...@my-dejanews.com) writes:
> Recently I posted about the 19-minute gassing carried out in Arizona, and was
> responded to by several pro-DP advocates seeking to defend the actions of the
> state. These arguments did precisely nothing to further their generalised
> cause.
===================================
Tell me about this "19 minute gassing".
Was the gas on for 19 minutes??
John G. Spragge
> I often see posts on this NG attacking the death penalty *in general* because
> of the perceived inadequacies of its' application in the United States today.
Those of us who primarily wish to ensure our own countries make
reasoned choices about penal sanctions refer to the American experience
because only the US has both an advanced Western industrial society
and capital punishments. Therefore, students of penal policy can point to
the US as an example, and extrapolate that if, say, those Canadians who
wish to see capital punishment reinstated got their wish, we would obtain
certain results, and face certain problems.
The data we have on both countries suggest the problems would far
outweigh any advantages we could hope to obtain.
> This is a wholly illogical line of attack. One cannot successfully attack a
> principled and general argument using a pragmatic and specific line of attack.
True; but I can concede the principle while arguing against a specific
practical instance of that principle.
Many abolitionists don't oppose capital punishment out of pure principle.
I don't oppose capital punishment in principle; I accept that if the state
can take away years from a person's life for a very bad act, then the
argument that they should have the right to take away all of it for a
truly ghastly act.
My objections to capital punishment rest on the specific and practical
problems: the difficulty of formulating and applying a consistent and
effective definition of "truly ghastly", the fallibility of courts anywhere,
the desirability of uniform sentences for murder (which capital
punishment makes impossible), and the lack of persuasively good
results from capital punishment.
> When an anti-DP argument is based upon one of these, it will evaporate if the
> specific condition were to be, in practice, eliminated - while merely
> requiring the modification of the use of the DP.
All right, how about this: on receipt of positive, generally accepted proof
that a specific form and implementation of capital punishment will
prevent crime, save innocent lives, and offers a guarantee against
any unjust convictions, I will accept it.
--
J. G. Spragge ------------------------ standard disclaimers apply
For essays on crime and punishment, politics, and network issues:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spragge
Natsam
Bill Funke wrote:
<snip>
> While my objection to the DP goes beyond the practical problems of
> properly instituting it, I would see these practical problems as being
> enough to discredit it by themselves. If one were to argue that the
> DP would be OK if we cleared up these problematic practices, and then
> saw that that was almost impossible, eliminating the DP would be the
> next logical step.
>
> Since it has been well established that there have been injustices in
> the application of the DP, it would behoove its proponents to prove
> both that the injustices can be reduced to an "acceptable" level and
> that the DP has some special benefit that requires its institution.
It would "behoove" you to realize that justice is the"special benefit" that "requires
its institution."
You may not agree that it is just, but that's your
opinion only.
It would also "behoove" DP opponents to prove
that the injustice of innocent people being murdered
by imprisoned (ie, not executed) murderers "can
be reduced to an 'acceptable' level."
BTW, what exactly is an "acceptable" level?
>
>
> Calm down, Sharp, Necro, et al. I am not extending this argument to
> jail time, traffic fines, etc.--yet.
Now this is ironic. You try to pre-empt others from"extending" your argument, but
you seem to have no
problem "extending" the pro-DP argument that execution
prevents murderers from murdering again. (ie, we might
as well start executing lesser criminals to prevent them
from murdering.)
Anyway, that you don't "extend" your argument to lesser
punishments exposes the flawed (and pointless) nature of
your argument. Basically what you are saying is that you think the
DP is too severe of a punishment. Obviously DP supporters
don't agree with that premise, so what's the point???
<rest snipped>
necromancier
wrote a lotta crap. Lets have a look at it:
>
>St.George wrote in message <7dqedn$9ca$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>I often see posts on this NG attacking the death penalty *in general*
>because
>>of the perceived inadequacies of its' application in the United
>States today.
>>
>>This is a wholly illogical line of attack. One cannot successfully
>attack a
>>principled and general argument using a pragmatic and specific line
>of attack.
>
>
>Not quite true--see below.
Of course.
>
>>Even a successful and unarguable rejection of the death penalty in
>the U.S.
>>today would do almost *nothing* to reject the principle of the death
>penalty
>>being justice for those convicted of murder, in general.
>>
>>For instance, arguments against the DP in general based on the
>following, are
>>wholly irrelevant and invalid:
>>
>>Specific contemporary U.S. injustices
>>The nature of 'due process'
>>Methods used
>>Comments on the political climate
>>Standards of evidence
>>Racial and other socio-economic biases inherent
>>
>>etc. etc.
>>
>>When an anti-DP argument is based upon one of these, it will
>evaporate if the
>>specific condition were to be, in practice, eliminated - while merely
>>requiring the modification of the use of the DP.
>
>
>While my objection to the DP goes beyond the practical problems of
>properly instituting it,
most of which arise from frivilous new evidence brought up by the anti
movement, none of these problems do you actually address.......
>I would see these practical problems as being
>enough to discredit it by themselves. If one were to argue that the
>DP would be OK if we cleared up these problematic practices, and then
>saw that that was almost impossible, eliminating the DP would be the
>next logical step.
Of course. Except that you don't lay any groundwork for why it is that
we should do this. Or what the problems as you perceive them are.
>
>Since it has been well established that there have been injustices in
>the application of the DP, it would behoove its proponents to prove
>both that the injustices can be reduced to an "acceptable" level and
>that the DP has some special benefit that requires its institution.
Your argument is spurious. First, that which you claim is not well
established. Most major studies (Bedau and Radelet come to mind here)
are discredited. So I can only wonder which you refer to.
Acceptable you've left undefined. So....in that spirit you've more or
less made nothing more than an open ended statement on the basis of
nothing.
Support it with a few facts.
>
>Calm down, Sharp, Necro, et al. I am not extending this argument to
>jail time, traffic fines, etc.--yet.
I am calm. I'm saying that you have to establish your criterion first.
No other country in the world provides the rights to criminals that we
do.
>
>>Anti-DP advocates, therefore, should only argue on premises such as
>these if
>>they are attacking the contemporary use of the U.S. DP SPECIFICALLY.
>
>
>Huh? I would presume the proper application of any method of justice
>would be of universal concern.
Not in France.
>>
>>It is also true that posts containing this kind of argument are
>responded to,
>>by pro-DP advocates, almost by rote disagreement.
>>
>>This leads to the regular 'defending of the indefensible' by pro-DP
>>individuals (which weakens their credibility in general) when it is
>*wholly*
>>unnecessary for them to do so to support their position.
>>
>>Recently I posted about the 19-minute gassing carried out in Arizona,
>and was
>>responded to by several pro-DP advocates seeking to defend the
>actions of the
>>state. These arguments did precisely nothing to further their
>generalised
>>cause.
>>
>>It would have been wholly consistent for them to state that this
>specific
>>instance was totally unacceptable, without weakening their broader
>case one
>>iota. Furthermore, a position similar to this would greatly enhance
>their
>>credibility, I suspect, in the eyes of those who consider themselves
>more
>>neutral on this topic.
>>
>>Would the same individuals defend crucifixion or starvation if that
>was
>>Arizona's method?
>
>
>Some of them would. Some have.
Arguing the excesses again.......I am always struck by the level of
concern for denying the murders humanity. And almost in the same
breath ignoring what the murderer actually did and it's lack of the
same.
>
>>IMHO, this NG will contain much better debate if arguments are
>clearly and
>>precisely stated, and are replied to in that vein only, e.g:
>>
>>1) Discussions about the DP in the U.S. today (or even more specific)
>>
>>*OR*
>>
>>2) Discussions about the merits of the DP universally (any time or
>place)
Naaaaaaah. It's only about DP in the US. Try and move it to some other
country and see how long you manage to keep it there.
necromancer
necromancier
<spr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>St.George wrote:
>
>> I often see posts on this NG attacking the death penalty *in general* because
>> of the perceived inadequacies of its' application in the United States today.
>
>Those of us who primarily wish to ensure our own countries make
>reasoned choices about penal sanctions refer to the American experience
>because only the US has both an advanced Western industrial society
>and capital punishments.
Of course. Japan, which of course could never qualify as being Western
or industrialized practices capital punishment. From the look of
things they pretty well have it down.
Mexico and Guatemala, when they find it inconvenient to deal with
indigenous persons, simply shoot them. Guess it's all in wether you
consider due process a requirement.
Brazil which is both industrialized and western has summary
executions, but again, it's wether or not you consider due process to
be a requirement. Either way, you would be just as dead. And they
would still be just as industrialized.
>Therefore, students of penal policy can point to
>the US as an example, and extrapolate that if, say, those Canadians who
>wish to see capital punishment reinstated got their wish, we would obtain
>certain results, and face certain problems.
Returning Canadians from abroad looking for work?
>
>The data we have on both countries suggest the problems would far
>outweigh any advantages we could hope to obtain.
Except for the fact that our crime rate in the US is now at its lowest
level in 25 years.
Except for the fact that our crime rate is actually LOWER than the UK,
where you are more likely (according to their criminalists) to be a
victim of a violent crime against persons.
>
>> This is a wholly illogical line of attack. One cannot successfully attack a
>> principled and general argument using a pragmatic and specific line of attack.
>
>True; but I can concede the principle while arguing against a specific
>practical instance of that principle.
>
>Many abolitionists don't oppose capital punishment out of pure principle.
>I don't oppose capital punishment in principle; I accept that if the state
>can take away years from a person's life for a very bad act, then the
>argument that they should have the right to take away all of it for a
>truly ghastly act.
>
>My objections to capital punishment rest on the specific and practical
>problems: the difficulty of formulating and applying a consistent and
>effective definition of "truly ghastly", the fallibility of courts anywhere,
>the desirability of uniform sentences for murder (which capital
>punishment makes impossible), and the lack of persuasively good
>results from capital punishment.
That's just funny as shit Johnny Spragge. Anti's bitched because DP
could be applied to damn near any 1st or 2nd degree charge and that it
didn't offer juries a choice.
Then....here you are....bitching because they get a choice.
You're pathetic. No matter how it was applied, you wouldn't like it.
Got your card yet?
>
>> When an anti-DP argument is based upon one of these, it will evaporate if the
>> specific condition were to be, in practice, eliminated - while merely
>> requiring the modification of the use of the DP.
>
>All right, how about this: on receipt of positive, generally accepted proof
>that a specific form and implementation of capital punishment will
>prevent crime, save innocent lives, and offers a guarantee against
>any unjust convictions, I will accept it.
As soon as you can guarantee a system that doesn't set guilty
murderers free I will worry about it.
necromancer
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> It would "behoove" you to realize that justice is the"special
> benefit" that "requires its institution."
> You may not agree that it is just, but that's your
> opinion only.
As is your 'opinion' that 'justice' requires its 'institution'.
[snip]
--
Desmond Coughlan |Restez zen ... Linux peut le faire
des...@cybercable.fr
[www site under construction]
Natsam
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
> Natsam <nats...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > It would "behoove" you to realize that justice is the"special
> > benefit" that "requires its institution."
> > You may not agree that it is just, but that's your
> > opinion only.
>
> As is your 'opinion' that 'justice' requires its 'institution'.
Man, Des, you are sharp! Now if you and many of your
fellow antis could distinguish your opinions
from objective facts, maybe there could be some
intelligent discussion in this ng. Considering that
the majority of my fellow countrymen agree with
my opinion, please explain why YOUR opinion
(that the DP should be abolished) should overrule
that.
Desmond Coughlan
> > > It would "behoove" you to realize that justice is the"special
> > > benefit" that "requires its institution."
> > > You may not agree that it is just, but that's your
> > > opinion only.
> > As is your 'opinion' that 'justice' requires its 'institution'.
> Man, Des, you are sharp!
Why, thank you. I'm European: it comes with the territory.
> Now if you and many of your
> fellow antis could distinguish your opinions
> from objective facts, maybe there could be some
> intelligent discussion in this ng.
Agreed. Fact: the death penalty is wrong. Opinion: the death penalty
is justice.
Now, we're getting somewhere ...
> Considering that
> the majority of my fellow countrymen agree with
> my opinion, please explain why YOUR opinion
> (that the DP should be abolished) should overrule
> that.
If the only criterion that a particular policy be considered 'just'
were that a majority agree with its implementation, then we would be
able to write off most of this century's atrocities as 'just',
including the Biggie ...
We can't. So when it comes down to it, it matters not a fuck that the
vast majority of Americans agree with the death penalty ('majority',
is in fact, misleading, because when the questions aren't rigged, the
majority are opposed to the death penalty), because the majority are
not necessarily (I'll explain that word to you later, Jigsaw)
empowered to violate human rights.
Bill Funke
under attack here.
Oh, well, "Romancing the Bone" playing in the background should put me
in the right frame of mind to answer this stuff.
necromancier wrote in message
<3765c5df....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>...
What the hell is this supposed to mean? Am I supposed to post the
transcript of the 60 Minutes piece on Rolando Cruz? I was replying to
St. George's point about inappropriate applications of the DP not
being a valid argument against it. Miscarriages have been amply
addressed in hundreds of postings in this NG, verdicts having been
overturned, and several indictments against police and prosecutors for
fabricating evidence. I'm not about to rehash all that here.
>
>>I would see these practical problems as being
>>enough to discredit it by themselves. If one were to argue that the
>>DP would be OK if we cleared up these problematic practices, and
then
>>saw that that was almost impossible, eliminating the DP would be the
>>next logical step.
>
>Of course. Except that you don't lay any groundwork for why it is
that
>we should do this. Or what the problems as you perceive them are.
I think I am quite clear here, although if you insist--I will rephrase
a few things.
IF your ONLY objection to the DP is that it is being carried out
improperly, then properly administering it will cancel that objection.
IF it is found to be IMPOSSIBLE to properly administer it, then that
objection cannot be cancelled.
I am not arguing here whether or not the DP is properly adminstered,
or what that proper administration should be. I am simply reposing
the question.
>>
>>Since it has been well established that there have been injustices
in
>>the application of the DP, it would behoove its proponents to prove
>>both that the injustices can be reduced to an "acceptable" level and
>>that the DP has some special benefit that requires its institution.
>
>
>Your argument is spurious. First, that which you claim is not well
>established. Most major studies (Bedau and Radelet come to mind here)
>are discredited. So I can only wonder which you refer to.
I guess I have to rehash all those posts, newspaper articles, TV shows
and statistics that show the DP being applied unevenly in various
jurisdictions nationwide, and the death row inmates who have been
released when it was found they were innocent.
Nah, it wouldn't make any difference anyway.
>
>Acceptable you've left undefined. So....in that spirit you've more or
>less made nothing more than an open ended statement on the basis of
>nothing.
I deliberately left "acceptable" undefined. Again, I was simply
reframing the question. My personal definition of "acceptable" would
be zero errors, but for the purposes of arguing whether or not errors
in DP prosecutions are a reason to stop it, whoever is arguing would
have to define it.
>
>Support it with a few facts.
I have no intention of supporting anything in this post. I am simply
redefining an argument that I find peripheral to my primary objection
to the DP. I'm not even arguing that argument here.
>>
>>Calm down, Sharp, Necro, et al. I am not extending this argument to
>>jail time, traffic fines, etc.--yet.
>
>I am calm. I'm saying that you have to establish your criterion
first.
>No other country in the world provides the rights to criminals that
we
>do.
Oh, bullshit--are you fully conversant with the rules of evidence and
the rights of the accused in every other country on earth, or are you
just pissed when you see someone walk here and assume in France or
Japan he wouldn't get away with it?
>>
>>>Anti-DP advocates, therefore, should only argue on premises such as
>>these if
>>>they are attacking the contemporary use of the U.S. DP
SPECIFICALLY.
>>
>>
>>Huh? I would presume the proper application of any method of
justice
>>would be of universal concern.
>
>Not in France.
Yeah, see a few websites and CNN reports on French silliness and
you're an expert
More bullshit! Is this boilerplate? I'm not arguing anything
here--just mentioning that some posters here seem to want bloodier
punishments, or at least say they do.
Bill Funke
Natsam wrote in message <3702E271...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>Bill Funke wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> While my objection to the DP goes beyond the practical problems of
being
>> enough to discredit it by themselves. If one were to argue that
the
>> DP would be OK if we cleared up these problematic practices, and
then
>> saw that that was almost impossible, eliminating the DP would be
the
>> next logical step.
>>
in
>> the application of the DP, it would behoove its proponents to prove
>> both that the injustices can be reduced to an "acceptable" level
and
>> that the DP has some special benefit that requires its institution.
>
benefit" that "requires
>its institution."
>opinion only.
I don't realize any such thing--if you want to argue that point, knock
yourself out. So far, you haven't explained why this "justice"
requires the DP, so that's your opinion.
>It would also "behoove" DP opponents to prove
>that the injustice of innocent people being murdered
>by imprisoned (ie, not executed) murderers "can
>be reduced to an 'acceptable' level."
Actually, the onus is more on you to prove that executions will reduce
murders.
I'll refrain from the inflammatory "legalized murder" talk, but an
execution is the taking of a life. Taking a life is serious business
under any circumstances, and it must be justified, if it can. Not
taking a life usually doesn't have to be justified.
>
>BTW, what exactly is an "acceptable" level?
I don't know. To my mind, an "acceptable" level is zero, but I put
the word "acceptable" in quotes because I was simply reframing St.
George's argument, and the word has to be defined by anyone taking up
that argument.
>
>>
>>
>> Calm down, Sharp, Necro, et al. I am not extending this argument
to
>> jail time, traffic fines, etc.--yet.
>
>Now this is ironic. You try to pre-empt others from"extending" your
argument, but
>you seem to have no
>problem "extending" the pro-DP argument that execution
>prevents murderers from murdering again. (ie, we might
>as well start executing lesser criminals to prevent them
>from murdering.)
Don't read too much into my statement--I'm ONLY referring to the DP
here. I am simply pleading that any DP arguments are not responded to
with spurious analogies like "jail is like kidnapping" etc.
>
>Anyway, that you don't "extend" your argument to lesser
>punishments exposes the flawed (and pointless) nature of
>your argument. Basically what you are saying is that you think the
>DP is too severe of a punishment. Obviously DP supporters
>don't agree with that premise, so what's the point???
You seem to have missed that little word "yet" at the end of my
sentence. I'd like to avoid discussion of non-capital crimes here,
but they do occasionally come up. Any criminal justice system has an
enormous mix of punishments, penalties, restitutions, rewards, etc.,
and we could get even more mired talking too much about them.
You want this NG to get even bigger by talking about the probity of
life for a pound of pot?
>
><rest snipped>
>
p@u.c
Natsam <nats...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
>> Natsam <nats...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > benefit" that "requires its institution."
>> > You may not agree that it is just, but that's your
>> > opinion only.
>>
>
>fellow antis could distinguish your opinions
>from objective facts, maybe there could be some
>the majority of my fellow countrymen agree with
>my opinion, please explain why YOUR opinion
>(that the DP should be abolished) should overrule
>that.
How exactly is his opinion "overruling" that of the (alleged) majority
of Americans who support the DP, Ed? Saying that the DP should be
abolished -- i.e., that the moral thing to do is abolish it -- is not
the same as saying that democracy should be suspended so that an
enlightened elite can put abolition into effect (let alone actually
doing so).
--
Patrick Crotty
e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
Natsam
Bill Funke wrote:
> Natsam wrote in message <3702E271...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> >
> >Bill Funke wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> While my objection to the DP goes beyond the practical problems of
> >> properly instituting it, I would see these practical problems as
> being
> >> enough to discredit it by themselves. If one were to argue that
> the
> >> DP would be OK if we cleared up these problematic practices, and
> then
> >> saw that that was almost impossible, eliminating the DP would be
> the
> >> next logical step.
> >>
> >> Since it has been well established that there have been injustices
> in
> >> the application of the DP, it would behoove its proponents to prove
> >> both that the injustices can be reduced to an "acceptable" level
> and
> >> that the DP has some special benefit that requires its institution.
> >
> >It would "behoove" you to realize that justice is the"special
> benefit" that "requires
> >its institution."
> >You may not agree that it is just, but that's your
> >opinion only.
>
> I don't realize any such thing--if you want to argue that point, knock
> yourself out. So far, you haven't explained why this "justice"
> requires the DP, so that's your opinion.
Very good. Yes, it is my opinion. It is my opinionthat death is the only punishment
that is severe enough
for certain heinous crimes. Very simple.
>
>
> >It would also "behoove" DP opponents to prove
> >that the injustice of innocent people being murdered
> >by imprisoned (ie, not executed) murderers "can
> >be reduced to an 'acceptable' level."
>
> Actually, the onus is more on you to prove that executions will reduce
> murders.
>
There is no such "onus", since the purpose ofexecutions is not to "reduce murders."
It is
to punish a criminal who committed a heinous
crime. And actually, it does reduce murders.
There have been documented cases of
imprisoned (ie, NOT executed) murderers
murdering again. Heck, even YOU attempt to
make fun of DP supporters' incapacitation argument
by saying if we wanted to prevent murders we
should extend the DP to lesser criminal and "potential"
murderers. You can't have it both ways, Bill.
Are you going to be another
anti who argues that dead murderers can murder
again?
And does imprisonment "reduce murders?"
> I'll refrain from the inflammatory "legalized murder" talk, but an
> execution is the taking of a life.
Thanks for pointing this out.
> Taking a life is serious business
> under any circumstances, and it must be justified, if it can.
It can be justified. See above.
> Not
> taking a life usually doesn't have to be justified.
Huh? You mean we can imprison andtorture people without justification???
Surely you are joking.
> >
> >BTW, what exactly is an "acceptable" level?
>
> I don't know. To my mind, an "acceptable" level is zero,
Exactly, so your argument is pointlesswhen presented to someone who
supports the death penalty.
So do you feel that life sentences should be abolishedbecause you don't agree that
someone should
be given that sentence "for a pound of pot?"
> >
> ><rest snipped>
> >
Natsam
p@u.c wrote:
> In article <37044085...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Natsam <nats...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Desmond Coughlan wrote:
> >
> >> Natsam <nats...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > It would "behoove" you to realize that justice is the"special
> >> > benefit" that "requires its institution."
> >> > You may not agree that it is just, but that's your
> >> > opinion only.
> >>
> >> As is your 'opinion' that 'justice' requires its 'institution'.
> >
> >Man, Des, you are sharp! Now if you and many of your
> >fellow antis could distinguish your opinions
> >from objective facts, maybe there could be some
> >intelligent discussion in this ng. Considering that
> >the majority of my fellow countrymen agree with
> >my opinion, please explain why YOUR opinion
> >(that the DP should be abolished) should overrule
> >that.
>
> How exactly is his opinion "overruling" that of the (alleged) majority
> of Americans who support the DP, Ed?
It's not. I simply asked him whyhe thinks it should.
> Saying that the DP should be
> abolished -- i.e., that the moral thing to do is abolish it -- is not
> the same as saying that democracy should be suspended so that an
> enlightened elite can put abolition into effect (let alone actually
> doing so).
Check out his latest response, Patrick.
If that's not the writing of an "enlightened
elite", I don't know what is.
Natsam
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
> Natsam <nats...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> > > > It would "behoove" you to realize that justice is the"special
> > > > benefit" that "requires its institution."
> > > > You may not agree that it is just, but that's your
> > > > opinion only.
>
> > > As is your 'opinion' that 'justice' requires its 'institution'.
>
> > Man, Des, you are sharp!
>
> Why, thank you. I'm European: it comes with the territory.
>
Hmmm, a "sharp European." Isn't thatan oxymoron, like "legalized murder?" :)
> > Now if you and many of your
> > fellow antis could distinguish your opinions
> > from objective facts, maybe there could be some
> > intelligent discussion in this ng.
>
> Agreed. Fact: the death penalty is wrong. Opinion: the death penalty
> is justice.
>
Can you offer some evidence toprove this "fact."
> Now, we're getting somewhere ...
>
> > Considering that
> > the majority of my fellow countrymen agree with
> > my opinion, please explain why YOUR opinion
> > (that the DP should be abolished) should overrule
> > that.
>
> If the only criterion that a particular policy be considered 'just'
> were that a majority agree with its implementation, then we would be
> able to write off most of this century's atrocities as 'just',
> including the Biggie ...
>
> We can't. So when it comes down to it, it matters not a fuck that the
> vast majority of Americans agree with the death penalty ('majority',
> is in fact, misleading, because when the questions aren't rigged, the
> majority are opposed to the death penalty), because the majority are
> not necessarily (I'll explain that word to you later, Jigsaw)
> empowered to violate human rights.
So clue me in, Desmond, now that you madeyour "just because the majority supports it"
spiel, what or who should determine if we have
the DP or not?
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan <dcou...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> Natsam <nats...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > > > It would "behoove" you to realize that justice is the"special
> > > > benefit" that "requires its institution."
> > > > You may not agree that it is just, but that's your
> > > > opinion only.
>
> > > As is your 'opinion' that 'justice' requires its 'institution'.
>
> > Man, Des, you are sharp!
>
> Why, thank you. I'm European: it comes with the territory.
Like "ethnic cleansing". :-(
> > Now if you and many of your
> > fellow antis could distinguish your opinions
> > from objective facts, maybe there could be some
> > intelligent discussion in this ng.
> Agreed. Fact: the death penalty is wrong. Opinion: the death penalty
> is justice.
>
> Now, we're getting somewhere ...
Yes, your inability to distinguish fantasy from reality should be
clear now even to those of us who haven't read your postings since
December 1997.
[...young Desi's foul-mouthed ranting snipped...]
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > > Man, Des, you are sharp!
> > Why, thank you. I'm European: it comes with the territory.
> Hmmm, a "sharp European." Isn't thatan oxymoron, like "legalized
> murder?"
Or like 'The United States'?
> > > Now if you and many of your
> > > fellow antis could distinguish your opinions
> > > from objective facts, maybe there could be some
> > > intelligent discussion in this ng.
> > Agreed. Fact: the death penalty is wrong. Opinion: the death penalty
> > is justice.
> Can you offer some evidence toprove this "fact."
Use DejaNews: I've been posting facts for nigh on four years.
[snip]
> So clue me in, Desmond, now that you madeyour "just because the
> majority supports it" spiel, what or who should determine if we have
> the DP or not?
Oh man, I'm too tired for this. My company insists on using NT, which
means that every time one of the things blue screens, they call me out
of bed at 04:00 in the morning.
Beddy byes ...
David Proctor
>Use DejaNews: I've been posting facts for nigh on four years.
Bwahahahahaaaaaaa
DaveP
necromancier
wrote:
>Jeez, I get home with a bag full of new porn videos and find out I'm
>under attack here.
ReallY? Does Ginger Lynn still make any of those? Or has she retired?
>
>Oh, well, "Romancing the Bone" playing in the background should put me
>in the right frame of mind to answer this stuff.
I prefer AC/DC "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" which goes rather well
with anything by Stephen King.
Of course.
>
>>
>>>I would see these practical problems as being
>>>enough to discredit it by themselves. If one were to argue that the
>>>DP would be OK if we cleared up these problematic practices, and
>then
>>>saw that that was almost impossible, eliminating the DP would be the
>>>next logical step.
>>
>>Of course. Except that you don't lay any groundwork for why it is
>that
>>we should do this. Or what the problems as you perceive them are.
>
>
>I think I am quite clear here, although if you insist--I will rephrase
>a few things.
Thank you.
>
>IF your ONLY objection to the DP is that it is being carried out
>improperly, then properly administering it will cancel that objection.
>IF it is found to be IMPOSSIBLE to properly administer it, then that
>objection cannot be cancelled.
That would be well and good, except for the fact that some people
would obect to its use under ANY circumstances. Are they truthful and
honest about it? Sometimes.
I would argue that under voir dire that a lot (a case in South
Carolina comes to mind here) of jurors and jurists lie about their
feelings on it.
>
>I am not arguing here whether or not the DP is properly adminstered,
>or what that proper administration should be. I am simply reposing
>the question.
Good question. As I said, the fundamental problem is when people
aren't honest about their agenda. I've seen a few judges that when
being considered for appointment said straight out that they supported
dp, then turned RIGHT around and overturned the same.
Judge Nixon is just such an example.
>
>>>
>>>Since it has been well established that there have been injustices
>in
>>>the application of the DP, it would behoove its proponents to prove
>>>both that the injustices can be reduced to an "acceptable" level and
>>>that the DP has some special benefit that requires its institution.
>>
>>
>>Your argument is spurious. First, that which you claim is not well
>>established. Most major studies (Bedau and Radelet come to mind here)
>>are discredited. So I can only wonder which you refer to.
>
>
>I guess I have to rehash all those posts, newspaper articles, TV shows
>and statistics that show the DP being applied unevenly in various
>jurisdictions nationwide, and the death row inmates who have been
>released when it was found they were innocent.
>
>Nah, it wouldn't make any difference anyway.
You're right. It wouldn't. Every anti' study I've seen so far,
including Bedau, which is not only oft cited but also just as
frequently discredited, has flaws in it you can drive a truck through.
>
>>
>>Acceptable you've left undefined. So....in that spirit you've more or
>>less made nothing more than an open ended statement on the basis of
>>nothing.
>
>
>I deliberately left "acceptable" undefined. Again, I was simply
>reframing the question. My personal definition of "acceptable" would
>be zero errors, but for the purposes of arguing whether or not errors
>in DP prosecutions are a reason to stop it, whoever is arguing would
>have to define it.
If we will apply anything human to a process the odds against zero
failures are astronomical. Even using modern (and credible) forensic
techniques, the problem it is lends itself to interpretation at times.
I will take that challenge. If we convicted last year 350 (as we did)
felonious murderers and sentenced them to death, and assuming a rate
of 1 percent error rate on conviction, that would leave three
convicted. Assuming the typical rate at which capital sentences is
overturned (five out of six) that would leave less than one convicted.
For the sake of argument we will assume that one stood the federal
process and was executed, you would have an effective rate of error of
less than 0.3 percent.
There.
That help?
>
>>
>>Support it with a few facts.
>
>
>I have no intention of supporting anything in this post. I am simply
>redefining an argument that I find peripheral to my primary objection
>to the DP. I'm not even arguing that argument here.
Funky, you're clearly kicking some serious ass here. Fact's clearly
aren't your strong suit either.
If you want to argue a moral issue or a philosophical one, that's
fine. But when you start debating it's accuracy on people who've
actually been convicted an executed it helps if you survey the
material.
Would you like to try a nice study by Dr. Ofshe and Leo?
>
>>>
>>>Calm down, Sharp, Necro, et al. I am not extending this argument to
>>>jail time, traffic fines, etc.--yet.
>>
>>I am calm. I'm saying that you have to establish your criterion
>first.
>>Not other country in the world provides the rights to criminals that
>we
>>do.
>
>
>Oh, bullshit--are you fully conversant with the rules of evidence and
>the rights of the accused in every other country on earth, or are you
>just pissed when you see someone walk here and assume in France or
>Japan he wouldn't get away with it?
I never claimed to know the rules of evidence in every country. But
when a frenchman comes here (as one did) and posts that an american in
France was denied counsel, denied access to representatives of his
government, was kept in prison for months before a trial, I think it
would lend itself to thinking they are excessive.
I take it you don't? We protect criminals FAR better than we protect
innocent people. Period.
Go ahead tiger. Prove me wrong. I know enough about the rules of
evidence in this country to pretty well prove my point.
>
>>>
>>>>Anti-DP advocates, therefore, should only argue on premises such as
>>>these if
>>>>they are attacking the contemporary use of the U.S. DP
>SPECIFICALLY.
>>>
>>>
>>>Huh? I would presume the proper application of any method of
>justice
>>>would be of universal concern.
>>
>>Not in France.
>
>
>Yeah, see a few websites and CNN reports on French silliness and
>you're an expert
Comes from watching too many Jerry Lewis movies. Will you forgive me?
I've done a bit more than just visit some websites buddy.
I spent the better part of ten years meeting new people in foreign
countries. Likely my passport has more mileage on it than your's does.
That doesn't even count my red passport that got turned in.
Ever get one of those?
Generally speaking, I don't use boiler plate a lot. I don't think that
the type of execution really does much in terms of it's purpose. At
least I've never argued that it would.
I must admit the prospect of beheading with a rusty ax or being fed to
a wood chipper would deter me more than going to sleep with drugs. But
that's just me, and since I don't commit murder I don't think it would
be a fair measure.
CBofGDALE
- - - -
Oh man, I'm too tired for this. My company insists on using NT, which means
that every time one of the things blue screens, they call me out of bed at
04:00 in the morning.
Beddy byes ...
- - -
This is what happens when the unemployment rate is high; exploitation of those
workers lucky enough to be employed. France and other European countries allow
this to be a permanent artifically caused problem. I have also heard that they
make it hard to have one's own business.
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan <dcou...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> Natsam <nats...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> [snip]
>
> > > > Man, Des, you are sharp!
>
> > > Why, thank you. I'm European: it comes with the territory.
>
> > Hmmm, a "sharp European." Isn't thatan oxymoron, like "legalized
> > murder?"
>
> Or like 'The United States'?
Actually "United States" is not an oxymoron my son. "Great
Britain" of course is.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Desmond Coughlan
>> Oh man, I'm too tired for this. My company insists on using NT, which means
>> that every time one of the things blue screens, they call me out of bed at
>> 04:00 in the morning.
>> Beddy byes ...
> This is what happens when the unemployment rate is high;
This has nothing to do with France's unemployment rate. This has to
do with the fact that I'm Chief NT Administrator for a reasonably
large French marketing company, based in 95, and so when there's a
problem with one of the servers (and NT is so badly written, that
problems are a daily occurence), my cellphone starts ringing.
> exploitation of those workers lucky enough to be employed. France
> and other European countries allow this to be a permanent
> artifically caused problem. I have also heard that they make it
> hard to have one's own business.
We get five weeks holiday a year. France has one of the highest
mininum wages in Europe: I think it's about 47 FFr. The government
also just introduced legislation to force companies to cut the working
week to 35 hours. Exploitation might happen in other countries (like
in the United States, where you get two days off for Christmas), but
in France, we are spoiled rotten by the social protection. Hence a
certain poster was frequently frustrated in his attempts to have me
fired: it's almost impossible to fire someone in France.
kirk...@ecn.ab.ca
: in France, we are spoiled rotten by the social protection. Hence a
: certain poster was frequently frustrated in his attempts to have me
: fired: it's almost impossible to fire someone in France.
Thanks Desmond, I have always wondered about your fascination with
France. Now I understand.
Kirk Erickson
necromancier
<nospam_...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
>cbof...@aol.com (CBofGDALE) writes:
>
>>> Oh man, I'm too tired for this. My company insists on using NT, which means
>>> that every time one of the things blue screens, they call me out of bed at
>>> 04:00 in the morning.
>>> Beddy byes ...
>
>> This is what happens when the unemployment rate is high;
>
>This has nothing to do with France's unemployment rate. This has to
>do with the fact that I'm Chief NT Administrator for a reasonably
>large French marketing company, based in 95, and so when there's a
>problem with one of the servers (and NT is so badly written, that
>problems are a daily occurence), my cellphone starts ringing.
Must be that wonderful plug n play (yeah right) in NT4.0 right?
Last time I checked 95 wasn't considered even remotely part of the NT
family. Is this a french thing?
We run NT on most of our new stuff because it's a little more air
tight. but if your concerned about it being airtight, why don't you
switch to UNIX?
>
>> exploitation of those workers lucky enough to be employed. France
>> and other European countries allow this to be a permanent
>> artifically caused problem. I have also heard that they make it
>> hard to have one's own business.
Maybe nationalizing the bank industry wasn't such a hot idea. Have
they found 20 new commissioners for EU yet?
>
>We get five weeks holiday a year. France has one of the highest
>mininum wages in Europe: I think it's about 47 FFr. The government
>also just introduced legislation to force companies to cut the working
>week to 35 hours. Exploitation might happen in other countries (like
>in the United States, where you get two days off for Christmas), but
We are trying to secularize all our holidays in light of the many
aetheists whose rights against religion are more strenuously observed.
>in France, we are spoiled rotten by the social protection. Hence a
>certain poster was frequently frustrated in his attempts to have me
>fired: it's almost impossible to fire someone in France.
Might acccount for the unemployment problem. Why hire somebody that
might be a fuckup? I wouldn't do it. I would rather run some other
poor bastard ragged then do that.
necromancer
Desmond Coughlan
> : in France, we are spoiled rotten by the social protection. Hence a
> : certain poster was frequently frustrated in his attempts to have me
> : fired: it's almost impossible to fire someone in France.
> Thanks Desmond, I have always wondered about your fascination with
> France. Now I understand.
It has a lot more to do with the food, fine wines, beautiful woman,
and wonderful scenery, than social protection, Kirk. That's an extra
perk.
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> >> This is what happens when the unemployment rate is high;
> >This has nothing to do with France's unemployment rate. This has to
> >do with the fact that I'm Chief NT Administrator for a reasonably
> >large French marketing company, based in 95, and so when there's a
> >problem with one of the servers (and NT is so badly written, that
> >problems are a daily occurence), my cellphone starts ringing.
> Must be that wonderful plug n play (yeah right) in NT4.0 right?
>
> Last time I checked 95 wasn't considered even remotely part of the NT
> family. Is this a french thing?
<smile>
My apologies: 95 is the department (i.e., the administrative region)
in which my company is based. All areas in France have postcodes
starting with the department number, followed by three more digits to
indicate where in that administrative region a place is. Paris is 75,
the Gironde is 33, Rhone-Alpes is 69, and so on, and in Lyon, Paris
and Marseille, there are two digits at the end, to indicate postal
area. Thus, my postcode is 75017.
95 is the Val d'Oise, to the north of Paris. In French, we usually
say, 'Je bosse dans le 95 ...'
Sorry: I should have been more specific.
Aside from that, when you consider it, Windows NT is really just 95
with full 32-bit code, and a more advanced network stack.
[snip]
> >in France, we are spoiled rotten by the social protection. Hence a
> >certain poster was frequently frustrated in his attempts to have me
> >fired: it's almost impossible to fire someone in France.
> Might acccount for the unemployment problem. Why hire somebody that
> might be a fuckup? I wouldn't do it. I would rather run some other
> poor bastard ragged then do that.
Well as I mentioned, unemployment is falling, but yes, depending on
your qualifications, it can be difficult. A CDI ('Contrat a Duree
Indeterminee'; forgive the lack of accents, but I'm in console mode) is
a permanent contract. Once you have that, you're protected. Being an
NT Admin, I get a CDI straight away.
Anyway, this is off-topic ... people will be comparing me to Don. If,
that is, I started waffling on about pit bull terriers, Netscape 4.0,
and other seemingly silly topics ...
Daniel F. Hogg
<3706ac7f....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>...
[...]
> >>Your argument is spurious. First, that which you claim is not well
> >>established. Most major studies (Bedau and Radelet come to mind here)
> >>are discredited. So I can only wonder which you refer to.
> >
> >
> >I guess I have to rehash all those posts, newspaper articles, TV shows
> >and statistics that show the DP being applied unevenly in various
> >jurisdictions nationwide, and the death row inmates who have been
> >released when it was found they were innocent.
> >
> >Nah, it wouldn't make any difference anyway.
>
> You're right. It wouldn't. Every anti' study I've seen so far,
> including Bedau, which is not only oft cited but also just as
> frequently discredited, has flaws in it you can drive a truck through.
I would love to know just how many "anti studies" necro* has actually read
that are included in his "every" statement above. I'd be surprised if they
exceeded 2. (Actually, zero, but I'm willing to give the benefit of
doubt.) And what are necro* qualifications for determining if the study
has been discredited? The breadth of knowledge shown by him and others of
his ilk is narrow and shallow, often ignorant of basic statistical
principles. On what basis does necro* discredit the Baldus studies?
McManus? While he's at it, perhaps he can tell us why the "pro" studies
are so wonderful and without flaw.
[...]
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan <dcou...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> cbof...@aol.com (CBofGDALE) writes:
> >> Oh man, I'm too tired for this. My company insists on using NT, which means
> >> that every time one of the things blue screens, they call me out of bed at
> >> 04:00 in the morning.
> >> Beddy byes ...
> > This is what happens when the unemployment rate is high;
[...young Desi's misplaced hero worship of himself snipped...]
> We get five weeks holiday a year. France has one of the highest
> mininum wages in Europe: I think it's about 47 FFr. The government
> also just introduced legislation to force companies to cut the working
> week to 35 hours. Exploitation might happen in other countries (like
> in the United States, where you get two days off for Christmas),
Who gets two whole days off for Christmas!
> but
> in France, we are spoiled rotten by the social protection.
That must be the source of the stench.
> Hence a
> certain poster was frequently frustrated in his attempts to have me
> fired:
"frustrated in his attempts"... must be why you're no longer with
either Scottish Power or Grolier as well as why you don't post from
work anymore. LOL!
> it's almost impossible to fire someone in France.
Just like in the former Soviet Union. We all know what a bastion
of efficient management that was.
Yours in Christ,
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan <dcou...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> kirk...@ecn.ab.ca () writes:
> > : in France, we are spoiled rotten by the social protection. Hence a
> > : certain poster was frequently frustrated in his attempts to have me
> > : fired: it's almost impossible to fire someone in France.
>
> > Thanks Desmond, I have always wondered about your fascination with
> > France. Now I understand.
>
> It has a lot more to do with the food, fine wines, beautiful woman,
> and wonderful scenery
Desi, try to keep up. The topic was france.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
necromancier
wrote:
>necromancier <abo...@themet.com> wrote in article
><3706ac7f....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>...
>> On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 02:52:14 -0500, "Bill Funke" <wf...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> >>Your argument is spurious. First, that which you claim is not well
>> >>established. Most major studies (Bedau and Radelet come to mind here)
>> >>are discredited. So I can only wonder which you refer to.
>> >
>> >
>> >I guess I have to rehash all those posts, newspaper articles, TV shows
>> >and statistics that show the DP being applied unevenly in various
>> >jurisdictions nationwide, and the death row inmates who have been
>> >released when it was found they were innocent.
>> >
>> >Nah, it wouldn't make any difference anyway.
>>
>> You're right. It wouldn't. Every anti' study I've seen so far,
>> including Bedau, which is not only oft cited but also just as
>> frequently discredited, has flaws in it you can drive a truck through.
>
>I would love to know just how many "anti studies" necro* has actually read
>that are included in his "every" statement above. I'd be surprised if they
>exceeded 2. (Actually, zero, but I'm willing to give the benefit of
>doubt.) And what are necro* qualifications for determining if the study
>has been discredited? The breadth of knowledge shown by him and others of
>his ilk is narrow and shallow, often ignorant of basic statistical
>principles. On what basis does necro* discredit the Baldus studies?
>McManus? While he's at it, perhaps he can tell us why the "pro" studies
>are so wonderful and without flaw.
One at a time. Let's start with Bedau and Radelet.
Bedau and Radelet because they didn't investigate the cases. Pure and
simple.
Paul Cassell, http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/cassell
in Journal of Criminology investigated the 30 odd cases that they
quoted as examples of wrongful execution.
Here is an excerpt of his authoritative commentary before the US House
Committee on Civil and Constitutional Rights:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
"In 1988 after extensive research, then-Assistant Attorney General
Stephen J. Markman and I published in the Stanford Law Review a
detailed rebuttal to the assertions of Bedau and Radelet. We agreed
with Bedau and Radelet that the execution of even one innocent person
would be a tragedy. But we concluded that "not only is the
Bedau-Radelet study severely flawed in critical respects, it wholly
fails to demonstrate an unacceptable risk of executing the innocent.
To the contrary, it confirms -- as convincingly as may be possible --
the view that the risk is too small to be a significant factor in the
debate over the death penalty."
http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/cassell/TESthousehearing.htm
___________________________________________________________________________________________
But, in the interests of being fair, do YOU think that somebody who is
proven wrong on 27 out of 30 cases is RIGHT?
Just want to clarify that. If you do, further argument is rather
pointless. If you admit that much, then you may admit (with my
blessings) that this study is discredited.
For my next example we will do Dr. Ofshe and Leo.
But first, answer that question as to wether you consider an errata of
27/30 sufficient to discredit. Then I will discredit another anti.
Thank you for this opportunity to prove you wrong. Do your part. Set a
standard for provenance and I will be only too delighted to help you
out.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Suzee had posted some other bullshit about wether or not the presence
or absence of death penalty caused an increase in assaults:
At least five federal prison officers have been killed since December
1982, and the inmates in at least three of the incidents were already
serving life sentences for murder. For example, in the federal
government's maximum security institution in Marion, Illinois, two
experienced correctional officers were murdered in separate incidents
on October 22, 1983. Officer Clutts died in an unprovoked, vicious
assault when stabbed approximately 40 times with a homemade knife by
inmate Thomas Silverstein. At the time, Silverstein was being
supervised by three correctional officers. Silverstein had already
murdered three inmates while in federal custody, for which he received
three life sentences.
What would the death penalty have done that life didn't? Officer
Clutts would still be alive.
Death Penalty would have saved this man's life.
Find a convenient way around that one. Rehabilitate this man. Tell me
all the wonderful things that will work to help him. Maybe the
Australian method would work and he could go find a couple teenage
girls and rape and murder them?
necromancer
p@u.c
necrophile wrote:
[necrophile's introductory sophistry snipped]
>______________________________________________________________________________________
>
>Suzee had posted some other bullshit about wether or not the presence
>or absence of death penalty caused an increase in assaults:
>
>At least five federal prison officers have been killed since December
>1982, and the inmates in at least three of the incidents were already
>serving life sentences for murder. For example, in the federal
>government's maximum security institution in Marion, Illinois, two
>experienced correctional officers were murdered in separate incidents
>on October 22, 1983. Officer Clutts died in an unprovoked, vicious
>assault when stabbed approximately 40 times with a homemade knife by
>inmate Thomas Silverstein. At the time, Silverstein was being
>supervised by three correctional officers. Silverstein had already
>murdered three inmates while in federal custody, for which he received
>three life sentences.
>
>
>
>What would the death penalty have done that life didn't? Officer
>Clutts would still be alive.
>
>Death Penalty would have saved this man's life.
>
>Find a convenient way around that one. Rehabilitate this man. Tell me
>all the wonderful things that will work to help him. Maybe the
>Australian method would work and he could go find a couple teenage
>girls and rape and murder them?
This anecdote has been posted at least a dozen times in my two years
here, always as a "refutation" of the claim that uncommuted LWOP
is effective in preventing future murders. It is also one of precisely
two such anecdotes I've seen that have been posted for this purpose.
(The other is the murder of Donna Payant, a prison guard, by the
convicted murderer Lemuel Green.)
The fact that (a) pros can't seem to find more anecdotes, let alone
statistics, showing that LWOP is less effective than the DP in preventing
murderers from murdering again and (b) the murder rate is 250% higher
on death row than among general-population inmates, and even higher than
the rate among lifers, seems to suggest that instances of LWOP inmates
killing while in prison are in fact relatively rare.
Daniel F. Hogg
> On 5 Apr 1999 12:33:48 GMT, "Daniel F. Hogg" <da...@lexis-nexis.com>
> wrote:
> >necromancier <abo...@themet.com> wrote in article
> ><3706ac7f....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>...
[...]
> >> You're right. It wouldn't. Every anti' study I've seen so far,
> >> including Bedau, which is not only oft cited but also just as
> >> frequently discredited, has flaws in it you can drive a truck through.
> >
> >I would love to know just how many "anti studies" necro* has actually
read
> >that are included in his "every" statement above. I'd be surprised if
they
> >exceeded 2. (Actually, zero, but I'm willing to give the benefit of
> >doubt.) And what are necro* qualifications for determining if the study
> >has been discredited? The breadth of knowledge shown by him and others
of
> >his ilk is narrow and shallow, often ignorant of basic statistical
> >principles. On what basis does necro* discredit the Baldus studies?
> >McManus? While he's at it, perhaps he can tell us why the "pro" studies
> >are so wonderful and without flaw.
>
> One at a time. Let's start with Bedau and Radelet.
Perhaps necro* missed it, but I asked about OTHER studies. Why does he
prefer to evade and to discuss only the narrowest POVs.
> Bedau and Radelet because they didn't investigate the cases. Pure and
> simple.
>
> Paul Cassell, http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/cassell
> in Journal of Criminology investigated the 30 odd cases that they
> quoted as examples of wrongful execution.
Just who is Paul Cassell, dp defender extraordinaire? A political
hack..er, appointee. Cassell and his fellow-traveller, Markman, were
assigned by then AG, Ed Meese to refute the B&R study. That was their
assignment - not to discern whether there was any truth to their
assertions, but simply to provide enough cover for dp advocates to claim
B&R were wrong. Instead of conducting an investigation into the cases,
they simply rehashed the original trial data. They never did an
independent investigation nor did they question whether the original trial
was tainted.
[...]
> But, in the interests of being fair, do YOU think that somebody who is
> proven wrong on 27 out of 30 cases is RIGHT?
Where does this 27/30 come from? What does it represent? What's your
point?
> Just want to clarify that. If you do, further argument is rather
> pointless. If you admit that much, then you may admit (with my
> blessings) that this study is discredited.
>
> For my next example we will do Dr. Ofshe and Leo.
>
> But first, answer that question as to wether you consider an errata of
> 27/30 sufficient to discredit. Then I will discredit another anti.
>
> Thank you for this opportunity to prove you wrong. Do your part. Set a
> standard for provenance and I will be only too delighted to help you
> out.
Thus far, necro* hasn't answered the question, but has merely restated his
belief that B&R was mistaken. Why won't he address the questions? To wit
-
- how many "anti studies" has necro* actually read?
- what are necro*'s qualifications for determining if the study has been
discredited?
- on what basis does necro* discredit the Baldus studies?
- can he can tell us why the "pro" studies are without flaw?
Necro* refers to "Every anti' study" but only can speak of one, and not
especially articulately, at that.
> Suzee had posted some other bullshit about wether or not the presence
> or absence of death penalty caused an increase in assaults:
>
> At least five federal prison officers have been killed since December
> 1982, and the inmates in at least three of the incidents were already
> serving life sentences for murder. For example, in the federal
> government's maximum security institution in Marion, Illinois, two
> experienced correctional officers were murdered in separate incidents
> on October 22, 1983. Officer Clutts died in an unprovoked, vicious
> assault when stabbed approximately 40 times with a homemade knife by
> inmate Thomas Silverstein. At the time, Silverstein was being
> supervised by three correctional officers. Silverstein had already
> murdered three inmates while in federal custody, for which he received
> three life sentences.
>
> What would the death penalty have done that life didn't? Officer
> Clutts would still be alive.
>
> Death Penalty would have saved this man's life.
>
> Find a convenient way around that one.
The same could have happened with a death row inmate before he was
executed. I'll bet Silverstein was an inmate for less time than some men
have spent on death row.
Just recently, one death row inmate in LA killed another death row inmate,
proving prison, even death row, is a dangerous place.
Let's look at necro's example above. First of all, assuming his info is
accurate, only 3 officers' deaths could have been impacted by having the dp
- 5 is tragic, but overstates the case. Necro* refers then to 3 officers
killed over a period of 17 years. However tragic and wrong, statistically,
they are probably safer than if they were on patrol as policemen. Finally,
what happened to checking an inmate for weapons? Here's an inmate who is a
3 time killer and the officers don't check him for weapons? What's wrong
with this picture? I see it - do you?
[...]
Sharpjfa
>From: "Daniel F. Hogg" <da...@lexis-nexis.com>
>Date: Tue, Apr 6, 1999 15:11 EDT
>Message-id: <01be8061$457ac790$8a230c8a@choggdf_nt>
Dan, This may help.
Indeed, Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Markman finds that
" . . . the Bedau-Radelet study is remarkable not (as retired Supreme Court
Judge
Harry Blackmun seems to believe) for demonstrating that mistakes involving the
death penalty are common, but rather for demonstrating how uncommon they are .
. . This study - the most thorough and painstaking analysis ever on the subject
-
fails to prove that a single such mistake has occurred in the United States
during
the twentieth century." Presumably, Bedau and Radelet would have selected the
most compelling 23 cases of the innocent executed to prove their proposition.
"Yet,
in each of these cases, where there is a record to review, there are
eyewitnesses,
confessions, physical evidence and circumstantial evidence in support of the
defendants’ guilt. Bedau has written elsewhere that It is ‘false sentimentality
to
argue that the death penalty ought to be abolished because of the abstract
possibility that an innocent person might be executed when the record fails to
disclose that such cases exist.’ . . . (T)he Bedau and Radelet study . . .
speaks
eloquently about the extraordinary rarity of error in capital punishment."
("Innocents on Death Row?", National Review, September 12, 1994).
Predictably, opponents and many in the media still continue to
inaccurately (fraudulently?) claim, even today*, in 1998, that this study has
proven that 23 "innocent" people have been executed, even though Bedau and
Radelet, the authors of that study, conceded - in 1988 - that neither they nor
any
previous researchers have proved that any of those executed was innocent. In
responding to Markmun and Cassell's refutation of their work, Bedau and Radelet
stated, "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed
defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (41, 1 Stanford Law
Review, 11/1988). In reviewing Bedau and Radelet's 1987 article, and subsequent
material, this " . . . never claimed that we had." statement seems more than a
bit
disingenuous.
sharpjfa
>
>[...]
>
>> But, in the interests of being fair, do YOU think that somebody who is
>> proven wrong on 27 out of 30 cases is RIGHT?
>
>Where does this 27/30 come from? What does it represent? What's your
>point?
>
>> Just want to clarify that. If you do, further argument is rather
>> pointless. If you admit that much, then you may admit (with my
>> blessings) that this study is discredited.
>>
>> For my next example we will do Dr. Ofshe and Leo.
>>
Uh ohhhh.
></PRE></HTML>
John G. Spragge
> in Journal of Criminology investigated the 30 odd cases that they
> quoted as examples of wrongful execution.
I think it would reflect the facts more acurately to say that Cassell and
Markman set out to rehabilitate the findings of the courts in these
cases. In many cases, the arguments of Cassell and Markaman's
start (and in a few end) by asserting the prestige and (presumed)
probity and credibility of the courts under discussion.
> But, in the interests of being fair, do YOU think that somebody who is
> proven wrong on 27 out of 30 cases is RIGHT?
Let's take a look at this "proof". In one case, Cassell and Markman
dismiss the fact that another person confessed to the murder by
quoting a claim by the woman's husband that she suffered from
mental instability at the time. That standard would certainly exclude,
say, the confession by Jesse Miskelly. I most absolutely consists of
an assertion from a deeply interested party reported by a very
biased source.
Randy Lerch has thoughtfull transcribed these cases and but them
on the web so we may make our own judgements. Please see:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8169/
> Thank you for this opportunity to prove you wrong. Do your part. Set a
> standard for provenance and I will be only too delighted to help you
> out.
I set a standard of facts which considers a statement by an interested party
(such as a husband) less than absolute and certain refutation of a confession
on a capital charge. And frankly, I think the rest of us do, too. Certainly,
if the case in question had ended with the woman executed on the basis of
her confession, I consider it unlikely that Cassell and Markman would have
accepted her husband's statement as the "proof" of an executed innocent.
[ on a murder in prison in 1983 ]
> Death Penalty would have saved this man's life.
Since the US had capital statutes, both state and federal, in 1983, I think we
can make the common sense observation that capital punishment didn't save
this man's life. In fact, capital punishment, as accepted by the US constitution,
has not had any discernable effect on the murder rates in the US, either in or
out of prison.
--
J. G. Spragge ------------------------ standard disclaimers apply
For essays on crime and punishment, politics, and network issues:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spragge
Bill Funke
Natsam wrote in message <37058633...@worldnet.att.net>...>> ><snip>
>> >It would also "behoove" DP opponents to prove
>> >that the injustice of innocent people being murdered
>> >by imprisoned (ie, not executed) murderers "can
>> >be reduced to an 'acceptable' level."
>> Actually, the onus is more on you to prove that executions will
reduce
>> murders.
>There is no such "onus", since the purpose ofexecutions is not to
"reduce murders."
>It is
>to punish a criminal who committed a heinous
>crime. And actually, it does reduce murders.
>There have been documented cases of
>imprisoned (ie, NOT executed) murderers
>murdering again. Heck, even YOU attempt to
>make fun of DP supporters' incapacitation argument
>by saying if we wanted to prevent murders we
>should extend the DP to lesser criminal and "potential"
>murderers. You can't have it both ways, Bill.
>Are you going to be another
>anti who argues that dead murderers can murder
>again?
>
>And does imprisonment "reduce murders?"
>
Ummm, you were the one who originally brought up the point of reducing
murders. I still don't feel like proving anything, mainly because I
haven't the slightest idea whether or not the DP has any influence in
the murder rate. If you think that the DP somehow reduces the murder
rate--prove it.
>> I'll refrain from the inflammatory "legalized murder" talk, but an
>> execution is the taking of a life.
>
>Thanks for pointing this out.
>
>> Taking a life is serious business
>> under any circumstances, and it must be justified, if it can.
>
>It can be justified. See above.
>
>> Not
>> taking a life usually doesn't have to be justified.
>
>Huh? You mean we can imprison andtorture people without
justification???
>Surely you are joking.
That's not what I meant. There was nothing to be read into that
statement. I simply said that you don't have to justify not killing
somebody. I know it's simplistic, but it's something that at least we
could agree on. What we do OTHER than not killing him is another
story.
>> >
>> >BTW, what exactly is an "acceptable" level?
>>
>> I don't know. To my mind, an "acceptable" level is zero,
>
>Exactly, so your argument is pointlesswhen presented to someone who
>supports the death penalty.
Well, as I was saying, I'm not really arguing anything here--just
restating the question. Even if I was arguing something, I was
talking about the acceptable level of error in convictions. If you
DON"T believe in the DP, the argument makes no sense, because you
don't want capital convictions at all. If you DO believe in the DP,
it is important to define just what level of error you are willing to
accept.
>> but I put
>> the word "acceptable" in quotes because I was simply reframing St.
>> George's argument, and the word has to be defined by anyone taking
up
>> that argument.
>> >> Calm down, Sharp, Necro, et al. I am not extending this
argument
>> to
>> >> jail time, traffic fines, etc.--yet.
>> >
I just happened to kind of throw that in. Where did you get the ide
that I wanted to abolish life sentences?
>> ><rest snipped>
>> >
>
>
>
Bill Funke
necromancier wrote in message
<3706ac7f....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>...
...
>>necromancier wrote in message
>><3765c5df....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>...
>>>On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:28:12 -0500, "Bill Funke"
>><wf...@mindspring.com>
>>>wrote a lotta crap. Lets have a look at it:
<massive snipping>
>>>>While my objection to the DP goes beyond the practical problems of
>>>>properly instituting it,
>>>most of which arise from frivilous new evidence brought up by the
>>anti
>>>movement, none of these problems do you actually address.......
>>What the hell is this supposed to mean? Am I supposed to post the
>>transcript of the 60 Minutes piece on Rolando Cruz? I was replying
to
>>St. George's point about inappropriate applications of the DP not
>>being a valid argument against it. Miscarriages have been amply
>>addressed in hundreds of postings in this NG, verdicts having been
>>overturned, and several indictments against police and prosecutors
for
>>fabricating evidence. I'm not about to rehash all that here.
>
>Of course.
Am I mistaken, or are you arrogantly insisting I waste my time on the
obvious, which you will ignore anyway?
>>>>I would see these practical problems as being
>>>>enough to discredit it by themselves. If one were to argue that
the
>>>>DP would be OK if we cleared up these problematic practices, and
>>then
>>>>saw that that was almost impossible, eliminating the DP would be
the
>>>>next logical step.
>>>
>>>Of course. Except that you don't lay any groundwork for why it is
>>that
>>>we should do this. Or what the problems as you perceive them are.
>>
>>
>>I think I am quite clear here, although if you insist--I will
rephrase
>>a few things.
>
>Thank you.
>>
>>IF your ONLY objection to the DP is that it is being carried out
>>improperly, then properly administering it will cancel that
objection.
>>IF it is found to be IMPOSSIBLE to properly administer it, then that
>>objection cannot be cancelled.
>
>That would be well and good, except for the fact that some people
>would obect to its use under ANY circumstances. Are they truthful and
>honest about it? Sometimes.
So what?
>I would argue that under voir dire that a lot (a case in South
>Carolina comes to mind here) of jurors and jurists lie about their
>feelings on it.
So what? What's your point here?
>>I am not arguing here whether or not the DP is properly adminstered,
>>or what that proper administration should be. I am simply reposing
>>the question.
>
>Good question. As I said, the fundamental problem is when people
>aren't honest about their agenda. I've seen a few judges that when
>being considered for appointment said straight out that they
supported
>dp, then turned RIGHT around and overturned the same.
>
>Judge Nixon is just such an example.
I don't know about Judge Nixon specifically, but many people, when put
into a position where their "theoretical" beliefs are put to the test,
come up with highly unexpected actions. I know of a number of judges
here who, when the specifics of a case come before them, rule as they
feel the law demands, not what they personally believe. Isn't that
what judges are SUPPOSED to do?
>>>>Since it has been well established that there have been injustices
>>in
>>>>the application of the DP, it would behoove its proponents to
prove
>>>>both that the injustices can be reduced to an "acceptable" level
and
>>>>that the DP has some special benefit that requires its
institution.
>>>
>>>Your argument is spurious. First, that which you claim is not well
>>>established. Most major studies (Bedau and Radelet come to mind
here)
>>>are discredited. So I can only wonder which you refer to.
>>
>>I guess I have to rehash all those posts, newspaper articles, TV
shows
>>and statistics that show the DP being applied unevenly in various
>>jurisdictions nationwide, and the death row inmates who have been
>>released when it was found they were innocent.
>>
>>Nah, it wouldn't make any difference anyway.
>
>You're right. It wouldn't. Every anti' study I've seen so far,
>including Bedau, which is not only oft cited but also just as
>frequently discredited, has flaws in it you can drive a truck
through.
Could it be dyslexia? I wasn't talking about studies!
Illinois has just released more prisoners from Death Row than they've
executed because of prosecutorial misconduct.
The DP is called entirely by prosecutorial discretion. With the
thousands of jurisdictions in this country, all of these guys are not
using identical guidelines, guaranteeing that the DP will not be
uniformly applied. Many rural jurisdictions are deliberately avoiding
the DP because they can't afford the cost of a DP trial and the
eventual appeals.
If you are indicted for a capital crime in this country, it is a
crapshoot whether or not you're going into a capital trial.
Not really. Your exercise is pointless, since you don't say how you
arrived at the 1% error rate. Even if that were somehow to be true,
are you saying that .3% error rate is acceptable, or what?
>>>Support it with a few facts.
>>
>>I have no intention of supporting anything in this post. I am
simply
>>redefining an argument that I find peripheral to my primary
objection
>>to the DP. I'm not even arguing that argument here.
>
>Funky, you're clearly kicking some serious ass here. Fact's clearly
>aren't your strong suit either.
>
>If you want to argue a moral issue or a philosophical one, that's
>fine. But when you start debating it's accuracy on people who've
>actually been convicted an executed it helps if you survey the
>material.
>Would you like to try a nice study by Dr. Ofshe and Leo?
With all of the recent publicity about problems in capital trials, I
don't think that a vast amount of research is necessary to admit that
there IS a problem. At this point, I am sure that there are legions
of researchers out there doing fresh studies on just what the problems
are. I'll wait until they are finished and see what they have to say.
>>>>Calm down, Sharp, Necro, et al. I am not extending this argument
to
>>>>jail time, traffic fines, etc.--yet.
>>>
>>>I am calm. I'm saying that you have to establish your criterion
>>first.
>>>Not other country in the world provides the rights to criminals
that
>>we
>>>do.
>>Oh, bullshit--are you fully conversant with the rules of evidence
and
>>the rights of the accused in every other country on earth, or are
you
>>just pissed when you see someone walk here and assume in France or
>>Japan he wouldn't get away with it?
>
>I never claimed to know the rules of evidence in every country. But
>when a frenchman comes here (as one did) and posts that an american
in
>France was denied counsel, denied access to representatives of his
>government, was kept in prison for months before a trial, I think it
>would lend itself to thinking they are excessive.
Yes, you take one person's posting of one person's side of an
anecdotal account of a perceived injustice, and then expand that to
condemn the entire French justice system. Thei system may suck, I
don't know, but I am not going to form an opinion on the basis of one
person's complaint.
>I take it you don't? We protect criminals FAR better than we protect
>innocent people. Period.
I suppose that's why so many of them are in jail or Death Row, huh?
>Go ahead tiger. Prove me wrong. I know enough about the rules of
>evidence in this country to pretty well prove my point.
Uh, the rules of evidence are there to protect US. Constitutional
protections against illegal searches, etc. There are no "criminal
rights"--there are rights of the accused that apply to everyone. It
just happens that criminals tend to invoke those rights more than the
rest of us. Duh!
Without those protections that you claim the criminals are enjoying,
the police would be allowed to to storm into YOUR house at any time,
accuse you of an unspecified crime, and try you in absentia.
Granted that we haven't done a great job of reducing criminality in
this country, but those criminals with all of those rights do tend to
be put away. Or are you about to argue that most arrests end in the
detainee walking?
>>>>>Anti-DP advocates, therefore, should only argue on premises such
as
>>>>these if
>>>>>they are attacking the contemporary use of the U.S. DP
>>SPECIFICALLY.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Huh? I would presume the proper application of any method of
>>justice
>>>>would be of universal concern.
>>>
>>>Not in France.
>>Yeah, see a few websites and CNN reports on French silliness and
>>you're an expert
>Comes from watching too many Jerry Lewis movies. Will you forgive me?
>I've done a bit more than just visit some websites buddy.
>I spent the better part of ten years meeting new people in foreign
>countries. Likely my passport has more mileage on it than your's
does.
>That doesn't even count my red passport that got turned in.
>
>Ever get one of those?
Ok, so you spent some time emptying the Ambassador's bedpan. You
still haven't shown any understanding whatsoever of France (among
other things).
<rest snipped>
suzanne burrows
>"Daniel F. Hogg" <da...@lexis-nexis.com> wrote:
[...]
>Suzee had posted some other bullshit about wether or not the
>presence or absence of death penalty caused an increase in
>assaults:
Hmm, could you be more specific about this "bullshit"?
[...]
>Find a convenient way around that one. Rehabilitate this man.
>Tell me all the wonderful things that will work to help him. Maybe
>the Australian method would work and he could go find a couple
>teenage girls and rape and murder them?
What are you referring to?
Suzanne
>necromancer
necromancier
>In article <372e8be9....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>,
>necrophile wrote:
>[necrophile's introductory sophistry snipped]
>>______________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>Suzee had posted some other bullshit about wether or not the presence
>>or absence of death penalty caused an increase in assaults:
>>
>>At least five federal prison officers have been killed since December
>>1982, and the inmates in at least three of the incidents were already
>>serving life sentences for murder. For example, in the federal
>>government's maximum security institution in Marion, Illinois, two
>>experienced correctional officers were murdered in separate incidents
>>on October 22, 1983. Officer Clutts died in an unprovoked, vicious
>>assault when stabbed approximately 40 times with a homemade knife by
>>inmate Thomas Silverstein. At the time, Silverstein was being
>>supervised by three correctional officers. Silverstein had already
>>murdered three inmates while in federal custody, for which he received
>>three life sentences.
>>
>>
>>
>>What would the death penalty have done that life didn't? Officer
>>Clutts would still be alive.
>>
>>Death Penalty would have saved this man's life.
>>
>>Find a convenient way around that one. Rehabilitate this man. Tell me
>>all the wonderful things that will work to help him. Maybe the
>>Australian method would work and he could go find a couple teenage
>>girls and rape and murder them?
>
>This anecdote has been posted at least a dozen times in my two years
>here, always as a "refutation" of the claim that uncommuted LWOP
>is effective in preventing future murders. It is also one of precisely
>two such anecdotes I've seen that have been posted for this purpose.
>(The other is the murder of Donna Payant, a prison guard, by the
>convicted murderer Lemuel Green.)
>
>The fact that (a) pros can't seem to find more anecdotes, let alone
>statistics, showing that LWOP is less effective than the DP in preventing
Here asshole. Take three. Their small. The last one is a local, just
for me.
Officer Hoffman was murdered by prisoner Clay Fountain. Fountain
managed to slip off his handcuffs and stab one of the three officers
escorting him back to his cell. The other two officers rushed in. One
of these officers was injured and the other, Officer Hoffman, was
killed attempting to protect his fallen comrade. Following this
unprovoked, brutal stabbing, inmate Fountain waved his arms in a
victory expression as he walked down the cell ranges in front of other
inmates. This inmate was serving a life sentence for the murder of a
staff sergeant while in the United States Marines. He had repeatedly
engaged in extremely violent acts, including the murders
of inmates in 1979, 1981, and 1982. He was serving three life
sentences at the time he murdered Officer Fountain.
Some killers are also paroled, only to kill again. For instance, Eddie
Simon Wein was sentenced to death in Los Angeles Superior Court in
1957. Instead of being executed, he was released from prison in 1975
to live in West Los Angeles. Within months, he began to attack and
kill women in the area. Fortunately for other potential victims, his
apprehension was swift. He was convicted in 1976 of first degree
murder on one woman, attempted murder of another, and numerous sexual
offenses. The woman who was killed by Wein and the women who were
scarred by him for life would not have been victims if Wein had been
executed as originally decreed. Here the death penalty would have
saved an innocent life
To wit: One Dywane Odom. Escaped from county lock up. Originally
sentenced to die in Mississippi for commiting murder in 1978, he
walked out of county (he was a trustee in the kitchen). Surfaced in
Memphis 6 weeks later, but not before raping and murdering a 70 year
old woman.
If executed, Deee wayne would not have been able to commit the crime.
One of the failures of anti's is they don't know what the hell their
talking about and NEVER check their facts.
That makes <<< Four>>>. Need more Patty O'Crotch rocket?
necromancer- always a pleasure to kick your ass Patty. Come back when
you know something. I can see graduate school isn't doing anything for
you that it didn't do for me.
Daniel F. Hogg
<19990406160213...@ng06.aol.com>...
Apparently Sharp suffers from the same attention deficit disorder that
necro* does. No one was asked to defend or attack B&R or M&C - the
question was about OTHER studies. It's remarkable that neither necro* nor
Sharp addresses those, choosing instead, to harp on B&R.
[...]
> "Yet,
> in each of these cases, where there is a record to review, there are
> eyewitnesses,
> confessions, physical evidence and circumstantial evidence in support of
the
> defendants’ guilt.
This is the crux of the M&C analysis - that there is evidence to lend
credibility to the jury verdict. M&C's problem is that that was a given.
I believe it was Cassell who admitted that they did not bother with
extra-trial information to prove their assertion.
Bedau has written elsewhere that It is ‘false sentimentality
> to
> argue that the death penalty ought to be abolished because of the
abstract
> possibility that an innocent person might be executed when the record
fails to
> disclose that such cases exist.’
Free clue: Bedau speaks only for himself and his work. Merely because we
share some opinions is not grounds to conclude we share others. So called
"abstract possibilities" have a peculiar way of becoming reality.
[...]
Bedau and Radelet
> stated, "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed
> defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (41, 1 Stanford
Law
> Review, 11/1988). In reviewing Bedau and Radelet's 1987 article, and
subsequent
> material, this " . . . never claimed that we had." statement seems more
than a
> bit
> disingenuous.
Sharp needs to re-read B&R's Stanford article. B&R never stated their goal
or the outcome of their study proved to a legal standard that the men were
innocent. Sharp is often anxious to accuse others of dishonesty yet he
ducks the hard questions and issues put to him. Seems more than a bit
disingenuous to me.
[...]
p@u.c
necrophile wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:22:02 GMT, p@u.c wrote:
>>This anecdote has been posted at least a dozen times in my two years
>>here, always as a "refutation" of the claim that uncommuted LWOP
>>is effective in preventing future murders. It is also one of precisely
>>two such anecdotes I've seen that have been posted for this purpose.
>>(The other is the murder of Donna Payant, a prison guard, by the
>>convicted murderer Lemuel Green.)
>>
>>The fact that (a) pros can't seem to find more anecdotes, let alone
>>statistics, showing that LWOP is less effective than the DP in preventing
>
>
>Here asshole.
Such class.
>Take three. Their
The word is "they're." Do try to correct this particular misspelling
in the future, and maybe you'll look like something other than a
poorly-educated backwoods hick with a chip on his shoulder.
>small. The last one is a local, just
>for me.
>
>Officer Hoffman was murdered by prisoner Clay Fountain. Fountain
>managed to slip off his handcuffs and stab one of the three officers
>escorting him back to his cell. The other two officers rushed in. One
>of these officers was injured and the other, Officer Hoffman, was
>killed attempting to protect his fallen comrade. Following this
>unprovoked, brutal stabbing, inmate Fountain waved his arms in a
>victory expression as he walked down the cell ranges in front of other
>inmates. This inmate was serving a life sentence for the murder of a
>staff sergeant while in the United States Marines. He had repeatedly
>engaged in extremely violent acts, including the murders
>of inmates in 1979, 1981, and 1982. He was serving three life
>sentences at the time he murdered Officer Fountain.
Was he serving life, or life without parole? What were the circumstances
of his imprisonment? Was he in a medium-security facility or in a
super-maxi institution like the one they have in Florence, Colorado?
I seem to recall that both Silverstein and Fountain's murders were
committed in Marion, and it was a *result* of those crimes that Marion
adopted its "permanent lockdown" system of today.
>Some killers are also paroled,
Not if they're serving LWOP. That was, you know, the topic of this
discussion?
>only to kill again. For instance, Eddie
>Simon Wein was sentenced to death in Los Angeles Superior Court in
>1957. Instead of being executed, he was released from prison in 1975
>to live in West Los Angeles. Within months, he began to attack and
>kill women in the area. Fortunately for other potential victims, his
>apprehension was swift. He was convicted in 1976 of first degree
>murder on one woman, attempted murder of another, and numerous sexual
>offenses. The woman who was killed by Wein and the women who were
>scarred by him for life would not have been victims if Wein had been
>executed as originally decreed. Here the death penalty would have
>saved an innocent life
Really? Wasn't he *sentenced* to death in the first place? Why
was his original sentence overturned? Why did he get parole?
In any case, he wasn't serving LWOP, so this "example" is irrelevant.
If anything, it would seem to argue that giving people the *death
penalty*, because of the time delay between passage of sentence and
actual execution, is not effective in preventing future murders.
>To wit: One Dywane Odom. Escaped from county lock up. Originally
>sentenced to die in Mississippi for commiting murder in 1978, he
>walked out of county (he was a trustee in the kitchen).
"County"? As in, county jail? What in the hell was he doing as a
trustee in the kitchen of a county jail if he had been sentenced to die
-- in which case he would be on death row at Mississippi's state
penitentiary? Even if he were serving LWOP, he wouldn't be doing so
in a country jail.
In any case, he wasn't serving LWOP (as far as I can tell from your
vague sketch), so this "example" is irrelevant.
>Surfaced in
>Memphis 6 weeks later, but not before raping and murdering a 70 year
>old woman.
>
>If executed, Deee wayne would not have been able to commit the crime.
If imprisoned in a maximum-security state facility with no chance
of parole, he almost certainly would not have been able to commit the
crime either.
>One of the failures of anti's is they don't know what the hell their
>talking about and NEVER check their facts.
Perhaps *you* should have, since my original thesis was that LWOP is
not any less effective than the DP in preventing future murders. You've
now provided three rather hard-to-follow cases, at least in two of which
the prisoner was clearly not serving LWOP. Therefore, you've (true to
form) contributed very little of relevance or use.
>That makes <<< Four>>>. Need more Patty O'Crotch rocket?
That makes << Two >> at the very most.
>necromancer- always a pleasure to kick your ass Patty.
A pleasure you have yet to experience, my son.
>Come back when
>you know something. I can see graduate school isn't doing anything for
>you that it didn't do for me.
I've got enough trouble believing that you even graduated high school,
let alone have a graduate degree. (Was that before or after you
were a superspy in the CIA, btw?)
[rest deleted -- mostly statistics I posted about the murder rates
on death row, which necrophile of course avoided answering]
Sharpjfa
>From: "Daniel F. Hogg" <da...@lexis-nexis.com>
>Message-id: <01be8113$f2ec80a0$8a230c8a@choggdf_nt>
Call and ask him. His website is at
http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/cassell
>
> Bedau has written elsewhere that It is ‘false sentimentality
>> to
>> argue that the death penalty ought to be abolished because of the
>abstract
>> possibility that an innocent person might be executed when the record
>fails to
>> disclose that such cases exist.’
>
>Free clue: Bedau speaks only for himself and his work. Merely because we
>share some opinions is not grounds to conclude we share others. So called
>"abstract possibilities" have a peculiar way of becoming reality.
>
>[...]
>
> Bedau and Radelet
>> stated, "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed
>
>> defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (41, 1 Stanford
>Law
>> Review, 11/1988). In reviewing Bedau and Radelet's 1987 article, and
>subsequent
>> material, this " . . . never claimed that we had." statement seems more
>than a
>> bit
>> disingenuous.
>
>Sharp needs to re-read B&R's Stanford article. B&R never stated their goal
>or the outcome of their study proved to a legal standard that the men were
>innocent.
Although you and I agree on this, I believe their presentation is very much
geared toward an innocence conclusion. You may disagree. It is not attention
deficit as your juvenile accusation concludes, but a difference of opinion. The
overwhelming dishonesty of the anti-death penalty movement constantly refers to
the B & R study as proof of the 23 "innocent" executed, even though as both
Hogg and I, both pro-dp, have shown thatthis is entirely false.
>Sharp is often anxious to accuse others of dishonesty yet he
>ducks the hard questions and issues put to him. Seems more than a bit
>disingenuous to me.
Not at all disengenuous. I genuinely believe that B & R wanted that
interpretation of their work.
sharpjfa
>
>[...]
>
></PRE></HTML>
necromancier
wrote:
No problem. If DeeWayne Odom had been executed instead of given life
(after reversal) in prison 77 year old Mina Johnson would have lived
our her days and died a natural death rather then being raped and
murdered.
That would have lowered the rate for Memphis at least 1/100th that
year. There. That help?
necromancer
>>> >> Calm down, Sharp, Necro, et al. I am not extending this
>argument
>>> to
>>> >> jail time, traffic fines, etc.--yet.
>>> >
necromancier
wrote:
>
I tend to really take a long view before I completely ignore somebody.
I might ignore somebody here soon, but I promise I won't ignore you
for a while. Fair?
>
>>>>>I would see these practical problems as being
>>>>>enough to discredit it by themselves. If one were to argue that
>the
>>>>>DP would be OK if we cleared up these problematic practices, and
>>>then
>>>>>saw that that was almost impossible, eliminating the DP would be
>the
>>>>>next logical step.
>>>>
>>>>Of course. Except that you don't lay any groundwork for why it is
>>>that
>>>>we should do this. Or what the problems as you perceive them are.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think I am quite clear here, although if you insist--I will
>rephrase
>>>a few things.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>>
>>>IF your ONLY objection to the DP is that it is being carried out
>>>improperly, then properly administering it will cancel that
>objection.
>>>IF it is found to be IMPOSSIBLE to properly administer it, then that
>>>objection cannot be cancelled.
>>
>>That would be well and good, except for the fact that some people
>>would obect to its use under ANY circumstances. Are they truthful and
>>honest about it? Sometimes.
>
>
>So what?
So you have no problem with jurors or witnesses lying their ass off?
So you completely and wholeheartedly think that this trial of the
prosecutors and investigators in Illinois should be dismissed.
Right? Just trying to establish a frame of reference.
>
>>I would argue that under voir dire that a lot (a case in South
>>Carolina comes to mind here) of jurors and jurists lie about their
>>feelings on it.
>
>
>So what? What's your point here?
So lying is okay, in your book right? Wether defense or prosecution?
Or just defense? Or just juries?
Let's get that part straight before I go forward.
>
>>>I am not arguing here whether or not the DP is properly adminstered,
>>>or what that proper administration should be. I am simply reposing
>>>the question.
>>
>>Good question. As I said, the fundamental problem is when people
>>aren't honest about their agenda. I've seen a few judges that when
>>being considered for appointment said straight out that they
>supported
>>dp, then turned RIGHT around and overturned the same.
>>
>>Judge Nixon is just such an example.
>
>
>I don't know about Judge Nixon specifically, but many people, when put
>into a position where their "theoretical" beliefs are put to the test,
>come up with highly unexpected actions. I know of a number of judges
>here who, when the specifics of a case come before them, rule as they
>feel the law demands, not what they personally believe. Isn't that
>what judges are SUPPOSED to do?
Uphold the law is what judges are supposed to do. If DP is
unconstitutional it CLEARLY isn't the province of a lame ass district
judge with his head up his ass.
I would say that overturning every single death penalty case that
comes before him is a pretty good example of blatant disregard for the
people.
>
>>>>>Since it has been well established that there have been injustices
>>>in
>>>>>the application of the DP, it would behoove its proponents to
>prove
>>>>>both that the injustices can be reduced to an "acceptable" level
>and
>>>>>that the DP has some special benefit that requires its
>institution.
>>>>
>>>>Your argument is spurious. First, that which you claim is not well
>>>>established. Most major studies (Bedau and Radelet come to mind
>here)
>>>>are discredited. So I can only wonder which you refer to.
>>>
>>>I guess I have to rehash all those posts, newspaper articles, TV
>shows
>>>and statistics that show the DP being applied unevenly in various
>>>jurisdictions nationwide, and the death row inmates who have been
>>>released when it was found they were innocent.
>>>
>>>Nah, it wouldn't make any difference anyway.
>>
>>You're right. It wouldn't. Every anti' study I've seen so far,
>>including Bedau, which is not only oft cited but also just as
>>frequently discredited, has flaws in it you can drive a truck
>through.
>
>
>Could it be dyslexia? I wasn't talking about studies!
A released innocent isn't always the best proof you could find of a
system not working. But that's just me.
>
>Illinois has just released more prisoners from Death Row than they've
>executed because of prosecutorial misconduct.
You mean the kind of prosecutorial misconduct alleged by Johnny "white
devil" Cochrane?
>
>The DP is called entirely by prosecutorial discretion. With the
That is a lie. In some states the victims family is allowed to decide.
In Tennessee and specifically Memphis I know this to be the case.
>thousands of jurisdictions in this country, all of these guys are not
>using identical guidelines, guaranteeing that the DP will not be
>uniformly applied. Many rural jurisdictions are deliberately avoiding
>the DP because they can't afford the cost of a DP trial and the
>eventual appeals.
Fallout from Furman. This too shall pass. With the closure of DPIC
resources I expect the price will drop considerably.
>
>If you are indicted for a capital crime in this country, it is a
>crapshoot whether or not you're going into a capital trial.
The jury charge is the same more or less for every capital trial. The
only difference is how their findings are implemented.
I chose it arbitrarily. This theoretical bullshit don't cut it. And
yes, if the error rate WAS .3 percent I could live with that a lot
better than I could murders being released to murder again.
Still no facts on your part. Is there a problem?
>
>>>>Support it with a few facts.
>>>
>>>I have no intention of supporting anything in this post. I am
>simply
>>>redefining an argument that I find peripheral to my primary
>objection
>>>to the DP. I'm not even arguing that argument here.
>>
>>Funky, you're clearly kicking some serious ass here. Fact's clearly
>>aren't your strong suit either.
See above.
>
>>
>>If you want to argue a moral issue or a philosophical one, that's
>>fine. But when you start debating it's accuracy on people who've
>>actually been convicted an executed it helps if you survey the
>>material.
>
>
>>Would you like to try a nice study by Dr. Ofshe and Leo?
>
>
>With all of the recent publicity about problems in capital trials, I
>don't think that a vast amount of research is necessary to admit that
>there IS a problem. At this point, I am sure that there are legions
>of researchers out there doing fresh studies on just what the problems
>are. I'll wait until they are finished and see what they have to say.
I've seen so much bullshit from defense that it just floors me. Among
the worst I would say is Alan Dershowitz. The guy if fucking pathetic.
It grieves me that any credible academic institution would have him on
their staff.
How about a non-existent persons complaint? You're ready to argue a
system that MIGHT make mistakes but hedge on a quantity. You seem
ready to scrap an entire system on the basis of perhaps ONE? wrongul
execution?
Why am I not as entitled to my bias against France on the basis of ONE
case?
Just checking.....
>
>>I take it you don't? We protect criminals FAR better than we protect
>>innocent people. Period.
>
>
>I suppose that's why so many of them are in jail or Death Row, huh?
One in six actually make it to death row (of those sentenced by trial
courts), up to six percent of the ones that are released will murder
again.
Nationally life sentences are about 7 years. Think about it. Somebody
could shoot you dead for a stick of gum, and be out in 7 years. And
odds are....they have been in before, were released before, and will
commit that act again.
It happens. A lot.
>
>>Go ahead tiger. Prove me wrong. I know enough about the rules of
>>evidence in this country to pretty well prove my point.
>
>
>Uh, the rules of evidence are there to protect US. Constitutional
>protections against illegal searches, etc. There are no "criminal
>rights"--there are rights of the accused that apply to everyone. It
>just happens that criminals tend to invoke those rights more than the
>rest of us. Duh!
Well....you're just too quick for me. I was going to give you a quick
lesson on the fallout from Miranda....but it appears to be over you're
head.
>
>Without those protections that you claim the criminals are enjoying,
>the police would be allowed to to storm into YOUR house at any time,
>accuse you of an unspecified crime, and try you in absentia.
Okay, you MADE me do this, find me a constitutional guarantee for
Miranda.
Don't bother with the 5th amendment. That hasn't got shit to do with
it. Find me something in their that SAYS that law enforcement officers
are obliged to advise you of your rights.
That should take you forever. It isn't in there.
As I said, we protect criminals rights pretty well I think.
>
>Granted that we haven't done a great job of reducing criminality in
>this country, but those criminals with all of those rights do tend to
>be put away. Or are you about to argue that most arrests end in the
>detainee walking?
Although that would be a pretty accurate statement (and yes I have
facts to back it up) my intent was to say that we do protect criminals
at the expense of law abiding citizens.
>
>>>>>>Anti-DP advocates, therefore, should only argue on premises such
>as
>>>>>these if
>>>>>>they are attacking the contemporary use of the U.S. DP
>>>SPECIFICALLY.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Huh? I would presume the proper application of any method of
>>>justice
>>>>>would be of universal concern.
>>>>
>>>>Not in France.
>
>>>Yeah, see a few websites and CNN reports on French silliness and
>>>you're an expert
>
>>Comes from watching too many Jerry Lewis movies. Will you forgive me?
>>I've done a bit more than just visit some websites buddy.
>
>>I spent the better part of ten years meeting new people in foreign
>>countries. Likely my passport has more mileage on it than your's
>does.
>>That doesn't even count my red passport that got turned in.
>>
>>Ever get one of those?
>
>
>Ok, so you spent some time emptying the Ambassador's bedpan. You
>still haven't shown any understanding whatsoever of France (among
>other things).
Like I said to Frizz I don't see much point in a language that only 70
mil speak. Though I will admit learning a much less used language but
that was a personal thing.
If you've read my comments on the State Department you would already
know I don't have much love for them.
necromancer
>
>
><rest snipped>
>
necromancer
CBofGDALE
in France, we are spoiled rotten by the social protection.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - snip,snip,paste- - - - - - - -
We could have these things too, and no death penalty too, if our government
weren't importing the third world's population here by the cargo plane load at
break-neck speed. France should take a look and see what will happen to them if
they continue to do the same thing.
Daniel F. Hogg
> In article <3728038c...@news.ot.centuryinter.net>,
> necrophile wrote:
> >On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:22:02 GMT, p@u.c wrote:
[...]
> >One of the failures of anti's is they don't know what the hell their
> >talking about and NEVER check their facts.
>
> Perhaps *you* should have, since my original thesis was that LWOP is
> not any less effective than the DP in preventing future murders.
The McManus study actually addresses this point. BTW, McManus is a
pro-dp'er, so one would think his conclusions might find support in that
group.
McManus found that adding 30 months (2.5 years) to the median sentence
produced the identical deterrent effect as executions.
[...]
Daniel F. Hogg
[...]
> Okay, you MADE me do this, find me a constitutional guarantee for
> Miranda.
>
> Don't bother with the 5th amendment. That hasn't got shit to do with
> it. Find me something in their that SAYS that law enforcement officers
> are obliged to advise you of your rights.
Aside from the fact that more learned minds than necro*s determined that
advising prisoners of their rights was constitutional, let's just address
whether or not it is the morally right thing to do to advise prisoners of
their rights. What sort of society does necro* want in which police can
arbitrarily arrest someone and not let them know that they have the *right*
not to incriminate themselves, that they have the *right* to an attorney
and that they have the *right* to know what the charges against them are?
Looking around the world, we see that those countries who don't guarantee
the civil rights of all their citizens are less desirable societies in
which to live.
Necro* - what is wrong with advising prisoners of their rights?
BTW, have you read your second study yet?
[...]
p@u.c
>> necrophile wrote:
>> >On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:22:02 GMT, p@u.c wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> >talking about and NEVER check their facts.
>>
>> Perhaps *you* should have, since my original thesis was that LWOP is
>> not any less effective than the DP in preventing future murders.
>
>pro-dp'er, so one would think his conclusions might find support in that
>group.
>
>McManus found that adding 30 months (2.5 years) to the median sentence
>produced the identical deterrent effect as executions.
I'd be interested in seeing this study, Dan -- do you have a journal
reference or a URL for it?
Thanks,
Daniel F. Hogg
> In article <01be81dd$e5805160$8a230c8a@choggdf_nt>,
> Daniel F. Hogg <da...@lexis-nexis.com> wrote:
> >p@u.c wrote in article <F9u5J...@midway.uchicago.edu>...
> >> necrophile wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:22:02 GMT, p@u.c wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> >talking about and NEVER check their facts.
> >>
> >> Perhaps *you* should have, since my original thesis was that LWOP is
> >> not any less effective than the DP in preventing future murders.
> >
> >pro-dp'er, so one would think his conclusions might find support in that
> >group.
> >
> >McManus found that adding 30 months (2.5 years) to the median sentence
> >produced the identical deterrent effect as executions.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing this study, Dan -- do you have a journal
> reference or a URL for it?
No URL - you'll have to use the library. Journal of Political Economy,
1985. Vol 93, # 2, beginning on page 417.
Rev. Don Kool
necromancier wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > <Automatic Reply>
> >
> >moderator wrote:
> Any bets on if he does his Jack Nicholson impression?
I never bet on a sure thing.
Hope this helps,
Steven W. Smith
>
What?
No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! Say it ain't so, Joe! Say it ain't so!
If you will crosspost to my e-mail, then I'll read your posting.
To communicate, please use: swsmith<AT>camino.delmar.edu
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Steven W. Smith
OK, Howie, Baby! Way to go!!!
Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har!!!
The NNTP headers look real good!
SWS
Natsam
Bill Funke wrote:
Please re-read what I said above.
If I said anything inaccurate or
anything that is unclear,let me know.
>
>
> >> I'll refrain from the inflammatory "legalized murder" talk, but an
> >> execution is the taking of a life.
> >
> >Thanks for pointing this out.
> >
> >> Taking a life is serious business
> >> under any circumstances, and it must be justified, if it can.
> >
> >It can be justified. See above.
> >
> >> Not
> >> taking a life usually doesn't have to be justified.
> >
> >Huh? You mean we can imprison andtorture people without
> justification???
> >Surely you are joking.
>
> That's not what I meant. There was nothing to be read into that
> statement. I simply said that you don't have to justify not killing
> somebody. I know it's simplistic, but it's something that at least we
> could agree on.
No, I don't agree with your rhetoric.
I keep chasing you around, Bill, but
you don't really seem to have a
point. What exactly is your point?
Execution can be justified. Just
because you don't like the justification,
means very little, other than that
you have a different opinion. You
have an opinion. I have a different opinion.That's all.
> What we do OTHER than not killing him is another
> story.
>
> >> >
> >> >BTW, what exactly is an "acceptable" level?
> >>
> >> I don't know. To my mind, an "acceptable" level is zero,
> >
> >Exactly, so your argument is pointlesswhen presented to someone who
> >supports the death penalty.
>
> Well, as I was saying, I'm not really arguing anything here--just
> restating the question. Even if I was arguing something, I was
> talking about the acceptable level of error in convictions.
Obviously, minimizing the number of
"errors" is in everyone's best interest.
But you avoid discussing the consequences
of NOT executing brutal murderers.
Let me "restate" something as well, since
you didn't address it above:
What is the "acceptable level" of
recidivist murders we allow by
not executing murderers?
Do you not consider that relevant?
Are you only concerned about
innocents being executed, and not
about innocents who are murdered
by recidivist murderers?
> If you
> DON"T believe in the DP, the argument makes no sense, because you
> don't want capital convictions at all. If you DO believe in the DP,
> it is important to define just what level of error you are willing to
> accept.
Depends on what you mean by
errors. A "wrongful conviction"
that was intentionally obtained
by a corrupt prosecutor or police force
is not really an error, but it is
murder, attempted murder, and/or
conspiracy, etc.
These are already illegal acts.
Bottom line is that there is no
credible evidence an innocent
person has been executed in the last
20 or so years. I think that's
pretty good, especially in light
of the fact that living, breathing
murderes can and sometimes do
murder again.
I'll be happy to dig up some
references on recidivism ifyou like.
>
>
> >> but I put
> >> the word "acceptable" in quotes because I was simply reframing St.
> >> George's argument, and the word has to be defined by anyone taking
> up
> >> that argument.
>
> >> >> Calm down, Sharp, Necro, et al. I am not extending this
> argument
> >> to
> >> >> jail time, traffic fines, etc.--yet.
> >> >
I guess I'm simply trying to figure outwhat your point is (ie, why you "kind of threw
that in.")
Steven W. Smith
Steven W. Smith <sws...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> In article <7eln1b$lfm$1...@news1.cableinet.co.uk>,
> "Steven W. Smith" <sws...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.
Howard:
You get the last laugh here, sir!
************************** Important Announcement *********************** I,
Steven W. Smith, do hereby and forevermore acknowledge that I have been
out-heckled by AiTCh. I humbly bow to Mr. AiTCh's superior heckling powers
and promise NEVER to snipe at his postings again. I sincerely beg for mercy
(on behalf of everyone in the NG.)
**********************************************************************
OK. So let's let the "Moderator" die. It was a giggle. The good thing
about being able to laugh at yourself is that you're guaranteed to spend most
of your life in an amused state.
I get the impression that no one else is amused by our nonsense. I get the
impression that it's getting REAL old real fast. Let's pull the plug on it,
OK?
Dr. Steven W. Smith
Dept of Computer Science
Del Mar College
Corpus Christi, TX
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
If you will crosspost to my e-mail, then I'll read your posting.
To communicate, please use: swsmith<AT>camino.delmar.edu
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Daniel F. Hogg
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Help! I've fallen and I can't reach my rhetoric
> >From: "Daniel F. Hogg" <da...@lexis-nexis.com>
> >Date: Wed, Apr 7, 1999 12:30 EDT
> >Message-id: <01be8113$f2ec80a0$8a230c8a@choggdf_nt>
> >
> >Sharpjfa <shar...@aol.com> wrote in article
> ><19990406160213...@ng06.aol.com>...
> >> >Subject: Re: Help! I've fallen and I can't reach my rhetoric
> >> >From: "Daniel F. Hogg" <da...@lexis-nexis.com>
> >> >Date: Tue, Apr 6, 1999 15:11 EDT
> >> >Message-id: <01be8061$457ac790$8a230c8a@choggdf_nt>
> >> >
> >> >necromancier <abo...@themet.com> wrote in article
> >> ><372e8be9....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>...
> >> >> On 5 Apr 1999 12:33:48 GMT, "Daniel F. Hogg" <da...@lexis-nexis.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >necromancier <abo...@themet.com> wrote in article
> >> >> ><3706ac7f....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>...
[...]
On what basis does necro* discredit the Baldus studies?
> >> >> >McManus? While he's at it, perhaps he can tell us why the "pro"
> >studies
> >> >> >are so wonderful and without flaw.
> >> >>
> >> >> One at a time. Let's start with Bedau and Radelet.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps necro* missed it, but I asked about OTHER studies. Why does
he
> >> >prefer to evade and to discuss only the narrowest POVs.
[...]
> >> Dan, This may help.
> >>
> >> Indeed, Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Markman finds that
> >>
> >> " . . . the Bedau-Radelet study
> >
> >Apparently Sharp suffers from the same attention deficit disorder that
> >necro* does. No one was asked to defend or attack B&R or M&C - the
> >question was about OTHER studies. It's remarkable that neither necro*
nor
> >Sharp addresses those, choosing instead, to harp on B&R.
[...]
> >Sharp needs to re-read B&R's Stanford article. B&R never stated their
goal
> >or the outcome of their study proved to a legal standard that the men
were
> >innocent.
>
> Although you and I agree on this, I believe their presentation is very
much
> geared toward an innocence conclusion. You may disagree. It is not
attention
> deficit as your juvenile accusation concludes, but a difference of
opinion.
Ah, but the A.D.D. remark had to do with necro* and you not responding to
the request to discuss OTHER studies. (I conveniently didn't snip those
sequences and left them above for your reference.) Quite clearly, both of
you are avoiding discussing such. So, if you can concentrate and remember
long enough to do so, I invite you to actually talk about other studies.
You might also address the other question - why do you consider the pro
studies to be so terrific?
BTW, I'm flattered that you continue to rip off my use of language. I
suppose since you post, re-post and re-re-re-re-re-post the same canned
commentary, that you need all the help you can get. :-)
The
> overwhelming dishonesty of the anti-death penalty movement constantly
refers to
> the B & R study as proof of the 23 "innocent" executed, even though as
both
> Hogg and I, both pro-dp, have shown thatthis is entirely false.
I don't think B&R proved any innocents were executed (though Sacco and
Vanzetti were quite arguably innocent) however they did raise significant
questions about a number of cases which have never been refuted. The
example of labor leader Joe Hill is one which M&C dismiss using
approximately the same logic as our own Jigsaw - that because a jury
decided a case a certain way, that decision must have been the right one.
Nevertheless, B&R show good reason to doubt the evidence adduced at trial.
> >Sharp is often anxious to accuse others of dishonesty yet he
> >ducks the hard questions and issues put to him. Seems more than a bit
> >disingenuous to me.
>
> Not at all disengenuous. I genuinely believe that B & R wanted that
> interpretation of their work.
OK - unwittingly disingenuous.
Incidentally, if B&R wanted their work misinterpreted, why do they make
clear that they neither set out to nor proved the innocence of any of those
in their study?
Sharpjfa
>From: "Daniel F. Hogg" <da...@lexis-nexis.com>
>Message-id: <01be836b$cbf76500$8a230c8a@choggdf_nt>
>> >From: "Daniel F. Hogg" <da...@lexis-nexis.com>
>> >Date: Wed, Apr 7, 1999 12:30 EDT
>> >Message-id: <01be8113$f2ec80a0$8a230c8a@choggdf_nt>
>> >
>> >Sharpjfa <shar...@aol.com> wrote in article
>> ><19990406160213...@ng06.aol.com>...
>> >> >Subject: Re: Help! I've fallen and I can't reach my rhetoric
>> >> >From: "Daniel F. Hogg" <da...@lexis-nexis.com>
>> >> >Date: Tue, Apr 6, 1999 15:11 EDT
>> >> >Message-id: <01be8061$457ac790$8a230c8a@choggdf_nt>
>> >> >
>> >> >necromancier <abo...@themet.com> wrote in article
>> >> ><372e8be9....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>...
>> >> >> On 5 Apr 1999 12:33:48 GMT, "Daniel F. Hogg" <da...@lexis-nexis.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >necromancier <abo...@themet.com> wrote in article
>> >> >> ><3706ac7f....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>...
>
>I don't think B&R proved any innocents were executed (though Sacco and
>Vanzetti were quite arguably innocent) however they did raise significant
>questions about a number of cases which have never been refuted.
B & R of course specifically considered Sacco and Vanzetti. I believe that in
an early version of their study which may be at Harvard library actually
includes Sacco and Vanzetti, but they felt that such inclusion would not be
supportable.
> The
>example of labor leader Joe Hill is one which M&C dismiss using
>approximately the same logic as our own Jigsaw - that because a jury
>decided a case a certain way, that decision must have been the right one.
>Nevertheless, B&R show good reason to doubt the evidence adduced at trial.
>
>> >Sharp is often anxious to accuse others of dishonesty yet he
>> >ducks the hard questions and issues put to him. Seems more than a bit
>> >disingenuous to me.
>>
>> Not at all disengenuous. I genuinely believe that B & R wanted that
>> interpretation of their work.
>
>OK - unwittingly disingenuous.
>
>Incidentally, if B&R wanted their work misinterpreted, why do they make
>clear that they neither set out to nor proved the innocence of any of those
>in their study?
It is very much like you saying that you do not intend to be dishonest.
sharpjfa
>
></PRE></HTML>
John G. Spragge
> But you avoid discussing the consequences
> of NOT executing brutal murderers.
If you compare the experience of the United States to Canada, it
appears that the "consequences" of eliminating capital punishment
may well include a reduction in the number of "brutal murders".
> What is the "acceptable level" of
> recidivist murders we allow by
> not executing murderers?
Please post some evidence you "allow" recidivist murder by
"not executing murderers". Not the tired old no-brainer that
dead people don't do it again (duh), but the actual results.
What really happens to the number of innocent people who
get killed when you abolish (or reinstate) capital punishment.
What actual effect can (or can't) you show capital punishment
has on the actual recidivist murder rate? You know, the one in
the real world?
Because if (as I suggest the Canadian and American experience
clearly shows) capital punishment doesn't really reduce recidivist
murder, I really don't care if it "works" in some utopia where
every killer gets caught and quickly strung up. Fantasize all you
want, but don't pretend your whimsy has anything to do with
saving the lives of real victims.
> Are you only concerned about
> innocents being executed, and not
> about innocents who are murdered
> by recidivist murderers?
Ed, would it take too much out of you to either (a) post some real
facts, such as an example of a real life jurisdiction which actually
reduced the recidivist murder rate using capital punishment, or
(b) stop dragging every fact or idea Suzanne Burrows writes
under a microscope while airily posting the same ideas over and
over, without dealing with the mountain of evidence against them.
Daniel Hogg
news:19990410132629...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
I don;t suppose you have any proof that they considered that case, do you?
Your use of the phrase "of course" suggests you do - how about posting it?
I suspect B&R stayed away from certain cases, not because their "would not
be supportable" but because the cases themselves were too politically
charged. They also stayed away from the Rosenberg case although there is
good evidence that at least one of them was innocent. Sacco & Vanzetti
received posthumous pardons, indicative of a recognition of their innocence.
>
> > The
> >example of labor leader Joe Hill is one which M&C dismiss using
> >approximately the same logic as our own Jigsaw - that because a jury
> >decided a case a certain way, that decision must have been the right one.
> >Nevertheless, B&R show good reason to doubt the evidence adduced at
trial.
> >
> >> >Sharp is often anxious to accuse others of dishonesty yet he
> >> >ducks the hard questions and issues put to him. Seems more than a bit
> >> >disingenuous to me.
> >>
> >> Not at all disengenuous. I genuinely believe that B & R wanted that
> >> interpretation of their work.
> >
> >OK - unwittingly disingenuous.
And still ducking discussion of other studies. I really wonder just how
much knowledge the vociferous pros have and just how much is puffery. We
know in Sharp's case that most of his writings are puffery.
> >Incidentally, if B&R wanted their work misinterpreted, why do they make
> >clear that they neither set out to nor proved the innocence of any of
those
> >in their study?
>
> It is very much like you saying that you do not intend to be dishonest.
And I am not. You should be ashamed of yourself constantly hurling such
accusations. You apparently have so little to contribute that you must
accuse others of dishonesty and constantly repeat the same canned drivel
that you wrote while still in diapers.
necromancier
<nats...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
On the subject of recidivism and death row, according to BJS of those
299 prisoners states received on death row, 9 percent had previously
been convicted of homicide.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp96.pdf
necromancer
necromancier
<spr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>Natsam wrote:
>
>> But you avoid discussing the consequences
>> of NOT executing brutal murderers.
>
>If you compare the experience of the United States to Canada, it
>appears that the "consequences" of eliminating capital punishment
>may well include a reduction in the number of "brutal murders".
Except of course that Canada and the United State are only similar in
language.
>
>> What is the "acceptable level" of
>> recidivist murders we allow by
>> not executing murderers?
>
>Please post some evidence you "allow" recidivist murder by
>"not executing murderers". Not the tired old no-brainer that
>dead people don't do it again (duh), but the actual results.
Not a problem. According to BJS 9 percent of those handed up to death
row had previously been convicted of a homicide. If we allow for the
almost 60 percent closure rate on homicide we could easily have a 12
percent recidivism rate.
Let's say that we released all 3300 DP prisoners. It would be safe to
predict the murders of at least 390+ americans that would otherwise
live.
There.
That help?
>What really happens to the number of innocent people who
>get killed when you abolish (or reinstate) capital punishment.
They get buried and the murderer spends about 4-7 years in prison then
gets out and kills another one.
>What actual effect can (or can't) you show capital punishment
>has on the actual recidivist murder rate? You know, the one in
>the real world?
One dead prisoner=no more murders. How basic can it get? In short at
least a nine percent reduction on the 2 percent that actually get
sentenced to death.
>
>Because if (as I suggest the Canadian and American experience
>clearly shows) capital punishment doesn't really reduce recidivist
>murder, I really don't care if it "works" in some utopia where
>every killer gets caught and quickly strung up. Fantasize all you
>want, but don't pretend your whimsy has anything to do with
>saving the lives of real victims.
Utopia? You mean in the land of lemonade springs and free health care?
Just don't expect quality surgical procedures in a timely manner or
the emergency room to be open (or for that matter a hospital) when you
get there?
Yeah Buddy, sounds like utopia to me.
>
>> Are you only concerned about
>> innocents being executed, and not
>> about innocents who are murdered
>> by recidivist murderers?
>
>Ed, would it take too much out of you to either (a) post some real
>facts, such as an example of a real life jurisdiction which actually
Johnny Spragge is real big on facts. Like fishing knives and docks.
>reduced the recidivist murder rate using capital punishment, or
>(b) stop dragging every fact or idea Suzanne Burrows writes
That's Burro's, kinda like a mule.
>under a microscope while airily posting the same ideas over and
>over, without dealing with the mountain of evidence against them.
Of course.
necromancer
John G. Spragge
> predict the murders of at least 390+ americans that would otherwise
> live.
Releasing the worst 1% of killers back to the streets wouldn't make
a whole lot of sense. If you can find anyone opposed to capital
punishment who supports that, I'll agree with you they've made a
serious mistake.
In fact, the people who most recently released a killer from death
row tend to support capital punishment fervently. To wit, the state
of Texas. They let Kenneth McDuff go, and six more people found
a death sentence rather lacking as a crime prevention measure.
> One dead prisoner=no more murders. How basic can it get? In short at
> least a nine percent reduction on the 2 percent that actually get
> sentenced to death.
By your standards, you'd save at least 297 lives by preventing the
murderers on death row from reoffending; something a prison sentence
could do as well as a death sentence, and more efficiently. On the
other hand, you have, at a conservative estimate, about 360,000
killers, on parole, released, uncaught, or in jail. If these killers do it
again at the rate quoted in the 1983 BJS recidivism census (6.6%),
this means 23,760 more innocent people will die.
Reducing that recidivist murder rate closer to Canada's (0 for
first degree murderers paroled, 0.15% for first degree murder
if you count escapes, maybe between .5% and 1% in total,
would save the lives of about 20,000 Americans, about 60
times as many as you could save by executing all the death
row inmates (which, of course, won't happen, anyway).
Rev. Don Kool
"John G. Spragge" wrote:
>
> Natsam wrote:
>
> > But you avoid discussing the consequences
> > of NOT executing brutal murderers.
>
> If you compare the experience of the United States to Canada,
You will be off-topic.
Sharpjfa
>Date: 4/10/99 11:11 PM EST
>Message-id: <7f3ljo$1nu$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>
I meant the "of course" as an indication that anyone reviewing such cases would
look at Sacco and Vanzetti.
Regarding citation:
Bedau & Radelet, Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases
(1st draft, Oct. 1985) (on file at Harvard Law School Library).
>
>I suspect B&R stayed away from certain cases, not because their "would not
>be supportable" but because the cases themselves were too politically
>charged.
Right. I know how fearful Beadau and Radeleyare of politically charged cases.
Scared jackrabbits those two. Hogg, how rediculous.
> They also stayed away from the Rosenberg case although there is
>good evidence that at least one of them was innocent.
Nope, no such evidence.
> Sacco & Vanzetti
>received posthumous pardons, indicative of a recognition of their innocence.
Didn't their pardon specifically not claim innocence?
>
>>
>> > The
>> >example of labor leader Joe Hill is one which M&C dismiss using
>> >approximately the same logic as our own Jigsaw - that because a jury
>> >decided a case a certain way, that decision must have been the right one.
>> >Nevertheless, B&R show good reason to doubt the evidence adduced at
>trial.
>> >
>> >> >Sharp is often anxious to accuse others of dishonesty yet he
>> >> >ducks the hard questions and issues put to him. Seems more than a bit
>> >> >disingenuous to me.
>> >>
>> >> Not at all disengenuous. I genuinely believe that B & R wanted that
>> >> interpretation of their work.
>> >
>> >OK - unwittingly disingenuous.
>
>And still ducking discussion of other studies. I really wonder just how
>much knowledge the vociferous pros have and just how much is puffery. We
>know in Sharp's case that most of his writings are puffery.
I am honored that you have read them. And such criticism from you enhances
their credibility.
>
>> >Incidentally, if B&R wanted their work misinterpreted, why do they make
>> >clear that they neither set out to nor proved the innocence of any of
>those
>> >in their study?
>>
>> It is very much like you saying that you do not intend to be dishonest.
>
>And I am not. You should be ashamed of yourself constantly hurling such
>accusations. You apparently have so little to contribute that you must
>accuse others of dishonesty and constantly repeat the same canned drivel
>that you wrote while still in diapers.
You are most kind.
sharpjfa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>