Atheists and Capital Punishment
Gary Gnu
I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
for it or against it and why?
I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
names!
Gary, lucky atheist #21
--
--------------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Gary (WA #21) - g...@ari.net |"I think the Good Book is missing some pages."
"EVOLUTION" Teach your children | - Tori Amos
it is not a dirty word |!! Don't buy CDs at Wal-Mart !!
MindFlayer
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gary Gnu penned this in one fell
sweep: <66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>
>
>I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
>for it or against it and why?
>
>I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
>names!
Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a deterrent
to crime.
2) Protection of society. While capital punishment will certainly protect
society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
ways.
3) Reformation. Well, death certainly does not reform anyone.
4) Revenge. While revenge might be served by capital punishment, it is
illogical. As long as we take vengeance, why not rape the rapists and
torture the torturers?.. No, we are more civilized than that -- "eye for
an eye" is not considered justice by us.
Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
mind tells me not to.
--
************************************************************************
* MindFlayer alt.atheist #696 * Don't fuck with logic -- *
* http://www.cs.umass.edu/~danilche * you will lose. - Me *
************************************************************************
Cabrutus
Gary Gnu <g...@ari.net.spamthis> wrote in article
<66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>...
>
> I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
> for it or against it and why?
Undecided. I'd probably support it in some crimes because the alternative
is the expensive life-in-prison which always leaves a chance of escape. It
gets rid of the criminals permanently. It has not been shown to act as a
deterrant but neither has life in prison. So until something better comes
along, I'd probably support it in the worst crimes.
>
> I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
> names!
--
Cabrutus -- alt.atheism atheist #820
loc...@geocities.SPAM,.I.CAST.THEE.OUT.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587
"Novus Ordo Seclorum"
- The Founding Fathers of the USA
ACv1.0 DUR4 STR5 BIT3 ACT3 DEF4
DEB4 CON1 SLM2 XTN2 PUB2
>
>
> Gary, lucky atheist #21
>
> --
>
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
---
> Gary (WA #21) - g...@ari.net |"I think the Good Book is missing some
pages."
> "EVOLUTION" Teach your children | - Tori Amos
> it is not a dirty word |!! Don't buy CDs at Wal-Mart !!
>
--
Cabrutus -- alt.atheism atheist #820
loc...@geocities.SPAM,.I.CAST.THEE.OUT.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587
"Novus Ordo Seclorum"
- The Founding Fathers of the USA
ACv1.0 DUR4 STR5 BIT3 ACT3 DEF4
DEB4 CON1 SLM2 XTN2 PUB2
Michelle Malkin
g...@ari.net.spamthis (Gary Gnu) wrote:
>I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
>for it or against it and why?
>I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
>names!
>Gary, lucky atheist #21
>--
>--------------------------------+----------------------------------------------
>Gary (WA #21) - g...@ari.net |"I think the Good Book is missing some pages."
>"EVOLUTION" Teach your children | - Tori Amos
>it is not a dirty word |!! Don't buy CDs at Wal-Mart !!
Hi, Gary! Long time no hear from.
I'm making this a party thread, since it doesn't deal with atheism. I'm not sure
if you were around when the party thread first showed up. It covers any topic
not dealing with atheism both serious and funny.
I'm against capital punishment. Always have been, But, I think that the really
dangerous types (repeat murderers, rapists, torturers, child molesters) should
be sent somewhere that they can't get back from - like an island in the middle
of the ocean - and have their supplies dropped from the air. And, the men and
women should be totally separated - like separate islands - so that there are no
children. Cruel treatment? Yes. But, letting them run free in society or given a
chance to get back into society would be even worse. (Besides, what female
prisoner would want to be with guys like that anyway, no matter how bad she
was?)
Mickey
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
The bible must be seen in a cultural context. It didn't just
happen. These stories are retreads. But, tell a Christian that
-- No, No! What makes it doubly sad is that they hardly know
the book, much less its origins. -- Isaac Asimov
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Colin Montoya-Lewis
On 11 Dec 1997 05:22:33 GMT, "Cabrutus"
<loc...@REMOVETHIS.geocities.com> wrote:
>
>
>Gary Gnu <g...@ari.net.spamthis> wrote in article
><66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>...
>>
>> I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
>> for it or against it and why?
>
>Undecided. I'd probably support it in some crimes because the alternative
>is the expensive life-in-prison which always leaves a chance of escape. It
>gets rid of the criminals permanently. It has not been shown to act as a
>deterrant but neither has life in prison. So until something better comes
>along, I'd probably support it in the worst crimes.
I'm pretty much against it. It actually costs more to put someone to
death than to keep them in prison for a life sentence. Appeals are
costly. I think that the possibility of escape is real, but I can't
personally justify an eye for an eye. What really needs to happen, in
my opinion, is that we need to make life sentences actually life
sentences. And there needs to be a major revision of sentencing
guidelines. We need to toss "three strikes, you're out." And we need
to examine the justice of someone getting 20 years for possessing less
than a gram of cocaine, while someone who rapes or kills might get a
few years. Lastly, getting back to the D.P., the vast majority of
people on death row are black men. And yet, the population of the
country doesn't reflect this percentage. At the very least, I have
concerns about why we have this disproportion. I'm not confident
enough with our justice system to say that we can be sure enough to
put people to death.
-Colin
"I do whatever my Rice Krispies tell me to do..."
My real email address is: c o l i n m l @ r t 6 6 . c o m
Peter Walker
Gary Gnu (g...@ari.net.spamthis) wrote:
: I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
: for it or against it and why?
I'm against it, but that has nothing to do with my atheism.
I'm against it because I have a friend (not a close one, but a friend
nonetheless) doing 65 years for a murder he didn't commit.
Having personal experience with the fact that innocent men sometimes get
convicted for the most serious crimes, I am opposed to any form of
punishment beyond incarceration. If you incarcerate an innocent man, and
his innocence is later proven, you can hand him a fat "wrongful arrest"
settlement check and send him on his way. If you kill him, or mutilate
him in any way (chopping off hands for thievery, as in old Quranic
law, or castration, as some agitators are advocating for rapists), what
can you give the innocent guy wrongly convicted in compensation for his
death or mutilation?
The problem is that the best alternative, life without the possibility of
parole, is kept ineffectual by death penalty proponents. In Texas, it
doesn't exist at all. In PA, juries are not told that "life" means
"life without parole" in the hopes that they will fear parole of the criminal
and give him death instead.
I'm no bleeding heart. I think that in principle, there are some crimes that
deserve death. I also know our system of justice and the police, prosecutors,
and defense attorneys who run it are corrupt beyond repair, and that innocent
men do indeed to time for major crimes.
If there must be a death penalty to satisfy society's thirst for blood,
let's call life without parole "death by incarceration".
______________________________________________________________________________
|
Peter Wykoff Walker II A# 1031 | "He who wishes to succeed
Dept. of Space Physics, Rice University | in life must learn not to
| heed the Bird of Prophecy."
Comments, questions, and discussions |
welcome. | -Esigie, Oba of the African
Preaching, conversion attempts, and flames | Kingdom of Benin, c.1505-c.1550
will be deleted unread. +---------------------------------
e-mail: p...@spacsun.rice.edu Voice Mail: (281) 933-2446
Gregory Gyetko
MindFlayer wrote:
> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gary Gnu penned this in one fell
> sweep: <66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>
> >
> >I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
> >for it or against it and why?
> >
> >I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
> >names!
>
> Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
> 1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a
> deterrent to crime.
Shown by whom? All I've ever seen in poorly summarized stats on how murders
have risen since the adoption of death penalties in certain places in the
U.S. Are these measures of effectiveness or just measures of how seriously
crime is increasing in the U.S.?
> 2) Protection of society. While capital punishment will certainly protect
> society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
> ways.
If you didn't have that *ridiculously* drawn out appeal process, putting the
guy to death costs the price of a good rope or a shotgun
> 3) Reformation. Well, death certainly does not reform anyone.
Name one person who has gone on to murder after being capitally punished.
> 4) Revenge. While revenge might be served by capital punishment, it is
> illogical. As long as we take vengeance, why not rape the rapists and
> torture the torturers?.. No, we are more civilized than that -- "eye for
> an eye" is not considered justice by us.
An eye for eye mean that the punishment should fit the crime. Rapists,
sadists, serial murders ... put them to death. Yes, I believe in honour,
I believe in honouring the dead (I am an atheist, mind you). I believe in
revenge. Don't believe that crock about it being hollow.
> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
> capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
> mind tells me not to.
I don't have such a problem. When I hear about a guy (Paul Bernardo) who
captured little girls (12-15) and repeatedly raped them in his basement, then
killed them, chopped them up and encased the pieces in cement, I start to
think ... "That guy should die .. anyone have a broadsword."
The jury ought to at least have the option to put a guy like that to death -
but in Canada they don't.
Greg.
--
alt.atheism Atheist #911
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
so why waste my time?"
Don Antropos
min...@ix.netcom.com (MindFlayer) wrote:
>In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gary Gnu penned this in one fell
>sweep: <66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>
>>
>>I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
>>for it or against it and why?
>>
>>I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
>>names!
>
> Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
>1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a deterrent
> to crime.
>2) Protection of society. While capital punishment will certainly protect
> society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
> ways.
>3) Reformation. Well, death certainly does not reform anyone.
>4) Revenge. While revenge might be served by capital punishment, it is
> illogical. As long as we take vengeance, why not rape the rapists and
> torture the torturers?.. No, we are more civilized than that -- "eye for
> an eye" is not considered justice by us.
>
> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
>capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
>mind tells me not to.
I'm strong opposed to death penalty, mostly for the same reasons
MindFlayer gives. But I like to add some reasons:
5. Death penalty is irreversible. Sometimes we get the wrong guy.
6. If you consider murder a capital crime, can you commit murder as a
capital punishment? It's a paradox.
7. No crime can be horrible enough to justify death. But if you think
there is, where do you draw the line? There has been a time that
atheism was punishable by death. I don't think any nation still sees
it this way. And murder? Rape? How many people do you have to
slaughter, before you can get the death penalty? One? Ok, but then
it's quite obvious you can't kill this murderer for it too.
8. Death penalty is a violation of Human Rights. Maybe they don't
really mean anything, but I like to think it's good to try to uphold
them anyway.
9. DP is cruel and inhumane.
10. It is often misused by nations to eradicate opposition. In my
opinion, if a society can't deal with so-called undesirable elements,
it fails as a society.
----------------------------------------------------
Ketchup with Life!
Don Antropos
http://homepage.cistron.nl/~cydragon/alt.atheism/atheist.htm
nospam....@cistron.nl
----------------------------------------------------
Lance Allred
Gary Gnu wrote:
>
> I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
> for it or against it and why?
>
> I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
> names!
>
Gary,
I've been at an ethical crossroads about this for a long time. And I still
haven't resolved it:
For: In society, I (and everyone else) has made an unsaid pact to agree to
all the rules of the land, and to treat others as they'd have others treat
them. When you break those rules, you don't belong to society anymore. In
the case of large crimes, I see no problem with getting that person out of
society.
Against: However, I know that there are HUGE problems with out
"correctional" system. Like, it doesn't correct. Facts show that people on
Death Row are many times repeat offenders. Isn't there something wrong with
this? I suppose that in some cases, they really WANT to kill, but too many
times, these people could have been "corrected" early on, but we don't do
that. I honestly don't see jail time as solving anything. With or without
the death penalty, the rates for murder stay the saem; death is not a
deterrant for crime. Punishment like that works as well as grounding a
child, or after-school detention. It does not find the root of the problem.
There is a reason trouble-makers stay in trouble, and punishment alone does
not solve the problem. It only adds to it.
Whew! I said alot. But this is what I stuggle with. Any help???
Lance
--
Lance B. Allred
lbal...@ou.edu
"And the Lord Man created God from the very
stuff of his own being, and breathed into Him
the breath of life; thus the Living God came
to be."
--Adapted from Gen. 2:7
Christopher A. Lee
In article <66oum5$gkp$3...@joe.rice.edu> p...@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
>Gary Gnu (g...@ari.net.spamthis) wrote:
>
>: I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
>: for it or against it and why?
>
>
>I'm against it because I have a friend (not a close one, but a friend
>nonetheless) doing 65 years for a murder he didn't commit.
Well said. In Britain we no longer have (maybe I should say had because
I emigrated, they still don't have it) the death penalty except I think
for high treason and arson in Her Majesty's dockyards. There have been
several high profile IRA bombing cases where the pressure to find and
punish the perpetrators quickly led to the wrong people being imprisoned.
In at least one case the judge said that the (wrongly) convicted should
think themselves lucky there was no death penalty because otherwise they
would be shown no more mercy than their (alleged) victims. Thankfully
most of these miscarriages of justice have been set aside but it took
long campaigns by investigative (ie unpopular trouble makers)
journalists, unpopular (ie trouble making) MPs etc. when judges
didn't believe that confessions ever got beaten out of suspects etc.
And then there were cases like teh Alphon/Hanratty execution where the
wrong guy was hunf for a particularly brutal rape/murder. A couple
picked up a hitchhiker who kiled him and raped her. They hung the wrong
guy who died still protesting his innocence - which of course makes
things worse because having "proved" he did it, he shows no remorse.
They *did* give him a posthumous pardon when they hung the right guy -
which I'm sure was a great comfort to him.
>Having personal experience with the fact that innocent men sometimes get
>convicted for the most serious crimes, I am opposed to any form of
>punishment beyond incarceration. If you incarcerate an innocent man, and
>his innocence is later proven, you can hand him a fat "wrongful arrest"
>settlement check and send him on his way. If you kill him, or mutilate
>him in any way (chopping off hands for thievery, as in old Quranic
>law, or castration, as some agitators are advocating for rapists), what
>can you give the innocent guy wrongly convicted in compensation for his
>death or mutilation?
Exactly. It's too final.
>The problem is that the best alternative, life without the possibility of
>parole, is kept ineffectual by death penalty proponents. In Texas, it
>doesn't exist at all. In PA, juries are not told that "life" means
>"life without parole" in the hopes that they will fear parole of the criminal
>and give him death instead.
Long-term lifers (bombers, people who kill police etc) are in for a
minimum of 25 years before parole, in maximum security etc. Some have
been quoted as saying they'd rather have been topped.
>I'm no bleeding heart. I think that in principle, there are some crimes that
>deserve death. I also know our system of justice and the police, prosecutors,
>and defense attorneys who run it are corrupt beyond repair, and that innocent
>men do indeed to time for major crimes.
>
>If there must be a death penalty to satisfy society's thirst for blood,
>let's call life without parole "death by incarceration".
It's actually a worse punishment. But it does leave room for people
to be released and compensated if/when it can be proved they were
wrongly convicted.
Do they compensate for this in the US? In the UK it's done in a strange
way, they have to sue for it (the Chief Constable of the arresting police
force AFAIR). But they always accept an out of court settlement which
includes a "wthout admission of wronding/liability" clause - because
as soon as the offer is made it goes into court escrow and courts only
consider the monetary value and no apology/admission/etc. If the court's
award is equal to the escrow amount then the plaintiff has to pay all
the costs since the offer was made, including the police side's. It's
crazy but this happens in civil suits. Even if they if they sued to
get an apology out of it.
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Gary Gnu (g...@ari.net.spamthis) wrote:
: I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
: for it or against it and why?
As much as it pains me, I'm against it.
Being the individualist that I am, and knowing that it might very well
ultimately be better for society otherwise, I hold that it is better
that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.
--
***********************************************
Life is one crushing defeat after another
until you just wish Flanders was dead!
Homer J. Simpson
***********************************************
Keith Brannen
Gregory Gyetko wrote:
>
> MindFlayer wrote:
>
> > In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gary Gnu penned this in one fell
> > sweep: <66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>
> > >
> > >for it or against it and why?
> > >
> > >names!
> >
> > 1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a
> > deterrent to crime.
>
> have risen since the adoption of death penalties in certain places in the
> U.S. Are these measures of effectiveness or just measures of how seriously
> crime is increasing in the U.S.?
>
> > society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
> > ways.
>
> guy to death costs the price of a good rope or a shotgun
>
<snip>
> > Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
> > capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
> > mind tells me not to.
>
> I don't have such a problem. When I hear about a guy (Paul Bernardo) who
> captured little girls (12-15) and repeatedly raped them in his basement, then
> killed them, chopped them up and encased the pieces in cement, I start to
> think ... "That guy should die .. anyone have a broadsword."
>
> The jury ought to at least have the option to put a guy like that to death -
> but in Canada they don't.
>
And it's a good thing that we don't have the option
here in Canada. To cite two recent cases, Guy Paul Morin
and David Milgaard would have been hung for murders that
they didn't commit. David Milgaard spent 23 years in prison
before finally being exonerated.
Under you idea of quick punishment (removal of the appeals
process), neither one of these men would be alive.
As far as statistics go, Canada and Great Britain (for examples)
have an extremely low murder rate (per 100,000) compared
to the United States. In both Canada and Great Britain the
murder rate declined with the abolition of the death penalty.
Regardless of statistics, the main reason why the death
penalty is not a deterrent to murder is because murderers
do not logically weigh the factors of a murder before committing
it. They don't do a gain/loss study beforehand. As well, most
murderers do not think they will get caught.
I am strongly against the death penalty for the
reasons MindFlayer outlined, and those Don Antropos
amended to MindFlayer's post on another line in this
thread.
--
Keith Brannen
#713
(Remove REMOVE to reply.)
MindFlayer
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
fell sweep: <3490089...@nospam.newbridge.com>
>MindFlayer wrote:
>
>> Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
>> 1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a
>> deterrent to crime.
>
>Shown by whom? All I've ever seen in poorly summarized stats on how murders
>have risen since the adoption of death penalties in certain places in the
>U.S. Are these measures of effectiveness or just measures of how seriously
>crime is increasing in the U.S.?
And thus the null-hypothesis holds. All attempts to show that capital
punishment deters crime, failed.
>> 2) Protection of society. While capital punishment will certainly protect
>> society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
>> ways.
>
>If you didn't have that *ridiculously* drawn out appeal process, putting the
>guy to death costs the price of a good rope or a shotgun
I don't remember who said it, but it went something like: "it is better
to let ten guilty men walk than kill one innocent". The whole point is to
make sure that no innocent gets killed -- this is why the appeal process is
so ridiculously long.
>> 3) Reformation. Well, death certainly does not reform anyone.
>
>Name one person who has gone on to murder after being capitally punished.
No, you are speaking of protecting society. The point of reformation is
to make the criminal a normal citizen, NOT to merely protect the society
from him/her (a point covered under (2)).
>> 4) Revenge. While revenge might be served by capital punishment, it is
>> illogical. As long as we take vengeance, why not rape the rapists and
>> torture the torturers?.. No, we are more civilized than that -- "eye for
>> an eye" is not considered justice by us.
>
>An eye for eye mean that the punishment should fit the crime. Rapists,
>sadists, serial murders ... put them to death. Yes, I believe in honour,
>I believe in honouring the dead (I am an atheist, mind you). I believe in
>revenge. Don't believe that crock about it being hollow.
I may want revenge as well, but revenge IS hollow. Killing the killer
of your child will certainly give you a measure of satisfaction, but it
will not bring the child back. What do you accomplish by revenge, besides
satisfying YOUR SELFISH DESIRE TO LASH BACK AT ONE WHO HURT YOU?..
Revenge is ultimately a blatantly selfish act, and society should not
consider such acts, "justice".
>> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
>> capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
>> mind tells me not to.
>
>I don't have such a problem. When I hear about a guy (Paul Bernardo) who
>captured little girls (12-15) and repeatedly raped them in his basement, then
>killed them, chopped them up and encased the pieces in cement, I start to
>think ... "That guy should die .. anyone have a broadsword."
Yes, I think that too -- but I realize that that is my genetic
programming talking.
Don Antropos
Gregory Gyetko <ggy...@nospam.newbridge.com> wrote:
>MindFlayer wrote:
>
>> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gary Gnu penned this in one fell
>> sweep: <66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>
>> >
>> >I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
>> >for it or against it and why?
>> >
>> >I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
>> >names!
>>
>> Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
>> 1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a
>> deterrent to crime.
>
>Shown by whom? All I've ever seen in poorly summarized stats on how murders
>have risen since the adoption of death penalties in certain places in the
>U.S. Are these measures of effectiveness or just measures of how seriously
>crime is increasing in the U.S.?
Amnesty International has a lot of data on this. Also I think it's
quite understandable. In a state with death-penalty for murder one, a
murderer is far more likely to resist violently to arrest and kill at
least one or two more people. Just an example.
>
>> 2) Protection of society. While capital punishment will certainly protect
>> society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
>> ways.
>
>If you didn't have that *ridiculously* drawn out appeal process, putting the
>guy to death costs the price of a good rope or a shotgun
So you prefer lynching? Just get rid of the constitutional state? At
least that is what you're implying.
>
>> 3) Reformation. Well, death certainly does not reform anyone.
>
>Name one person who has gone on to murder after being capitally punished.
Name one person who became a better person after being capitally
punished.
>
>> 4) Revenge. While revenge might be served by capital punishment, it is
>> illogical. As long as we take vengeance, why not rape the rapists and
>> torture the torturers?.. No, we are more civilized than that -- "eye for
>> an eye" is not considered justice by us.
>
>An eye for eye mean that the punishment should fit the crime. Rapists,
>sadists, serial murders ... put them to death. Yes, I believe in honour,
>I believe in honouring the dead (I am an atheist, mind you). I believe in
>revenge. Don't believe that crock about it being hollow.
Revenge is plain barbarism to me and honour is a very outdated
concept, which by the way only has meaning to people who believe in
ancestor-spirits, gods and higher purposes to life.
>
>> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
>> capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
>> mind tells me not to.
>
>I don't have such a problem. When I hear about a guy (Paul Bernardo) who
>captured little girls (12-15) and repeatedly raped them in his basement, then
>killed them, chopped them up and encased the pieces in cement, I start to
>think ... "That guy should die .. anyone have a broadsword."
I understand that emotion very well. But at the same time it is very
clear to me that condemning for instance murder, also implies that I
cannot commit a murder. No matter how disturbed the criminal is, we
must not get screwed up by them ourselves.
>
>The jury ought to at least have the option to put a guy like that to death -
>but in Canada they don't.
Good for Canada.
----------------------------------------------------
I'm notokay, you're notokay - but, hey, that's okay
----------------------------------------------------
Gregory Gyetko
Keith Brannen wrote:
> Gregory Gyetko wrote:
> >
> > MindFlayer wrote:
> >
> > > In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gary Gnu penned this in one fell
> > > sweep: <66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>
> > > >
> > > >I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
> > > >for it or against it and why?
> > > >
> > > >I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
> > > >names!
> > >
> > > Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
> > > 1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a
> > > deterrent to crime.
> >
> > Shown by whom? All I've ever seen in poorly summarized stats on how murders
> > have risen since the adoption of death penalties in certain places in the
> > U.S. Are these measures of effectiveness or just measures of how seriously
> > crime is increasing in the U.S.?
> >
> > > 2) Protection of society. While capital punishment will certainly protect
> > > society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
> > > ways.
> >
> > If you didn't have that *ridiculously* drawn out appeal process, putting the
> > guy to death costs the price of a good rope or a shotgun
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
> > > capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
> > > mind tells me not to.
> >
> > I don't have such a problem. When I hear about a guy (Paul Bernardo) who
> > captured little girls (12-15) and repeatedly raped them in his basement, then
> > killed them, chopped them up and encased the pieces in cement, I start to
> > think ... "That guy should die .. anyone have a broadsword."
> >
> > The jury ought to at least have the option to put a guy like that to death -
> > but in Canada they don't.
> >
>
> And it's a good thing that we don't have the option
> here in Canada. To cite two recent cases, Guy Paul Morin
> and David Milgaard would have been hung for murders that
> they didn't commit. David Milgaard spent 23 years in prison
> before finally being exonerated.
Valid point. I forgot that I was arguing with people who have brains. OTOH, did
either of those people videotape themselves raping and otherwise abusing their
victims? (rhetorical - obviously not if they are innocent)
> Under you idea of quick punishment (removal of the appeals
> process), neither one of these men would be alive.
I was speaking of the American appeal process (which allows the convicted to
appeal to a judge in every one of the fifty states on technical grounds - the
worst example I heard was one where the execution documents were filled out with
someone's signature starting a half-inch to the left of the dotted lines) Indeed,
one of the dangers of accusations of rape is that the defendant is assumed guilty
until proven innocent.
I would not advocate removal of the entire appeal process, but once the conviction
is decided, get it over with.
> As far as statistics go, Canada and Great Britain (for examples)
> have an extremely low murder rate (per 100,000) compared
> to the United States. In both Canada and Great Britain the
> murder rate declined with the abolition of the death penalty.
Was unaware of that. Is there any explanation for this correlation (i.e. reasons
given that it's not an accident relating to other social factors?)
> Regardless of statistics, the main reason why the death
> penalty is not a deterrent to murder is because murderers
> do not logically weigh the factors of a murder before committing
> it. They don't do a gain/loss study beforehand. As well, most
> murderers do not think they will get caught.
My point isn't a matter of deterrence, nor of revenge(not that revenge is invalid
in and of itself). It's for the protection of society in cases where the
convicted is unreformable. What do you with the paedophile that you release time
and again, after 'reforming' him, who goes and abuses/molests again? What do you
do with a guy who does what Paul Bernardo does --- Answer: Put him in his own
cell, protected from the rest of the population at a hideous expense after an even
more expensive trial.
> I am strongly against the death penalty for the reasons MindFlayer outlined, and
> those Don Antropos amended to MindFlayer's post on another line in this thread.
The points you raised are extremely cogent and make me reconsider the issue, but I
still believe that there has to be a final way to rid ourselves of people like
this.
Claude Martins
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 16:04:43 GMT, nospam....@cistron.nl (Don
Antropos) wrote:
>min...@ix.netcom.com (MindFlayer) wrote:
>
>>In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gary Gnu penned this in one fell
>>sweep: <66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>
>>>
>>>I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
>>>for it or against it and why?
>>>
>>>I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
>>>names!
>>
>> Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
>>1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a deterrent
>> to crime.
>>2) Protection of society. While capital punishment will certainly protect
>> society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
>> ways.
>>3) Reformation. Well, death certainly does not reform anyone.
>>4) Revenge. While revenge might be served by capital punishment, it is
>> illogical. As long as we take vengeance, why not rape the rapists and
>> torture the torturers?.. No, we are more civilized than that -- "eye for
>> an eye" is not considered justice by us.
>>
>> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
>>capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
>>mind tells me not to.
>
>
>I'm strong opposed to death penalty, mostly for the same reasons
>MindFlayer gives. But I like to add some reasons:
>
>5. Death penalty is irreversible. Sometimes we get the wrong guy.
>6. If you consider murder a capital crime, can you commit murder as a
>capital punishment? It's a paradox.
>7. No crime can be horrible enough to justify death. But if you think
>there is, where do you draw the line? There has been a time that
>atheism was punishable by death. I don't think any nation still sees
>it this way. And murder? Rape? How many people do you have to
>slaughter, before you can get the death penalty? One? Ok, but then
>it's quite obvious you can't kill this murderer for it too.
>8. Death penalty is a violation of Human Rights. Maybe they don't
>really mean anything, but I like to think it's good to try to uphold
>them anyway.
>9. DP is cruel and inhumane.
>10. It is often misused by nations to eradicate opposition. In my
>opinion, if a society can't deal with so-called undesirable elements,
>it fails as a society.
Although it's considered bad netiquette to simply say, "I agree", I
feel Don and Mindflayer have pretty much summarized the reasons why
I'm against capital punishment, with the major point being #5:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent
suffer."
Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), English jurist. Commentaries on
the Laws of England, vol. 4, ch. 27 (1765-69).
And with the death penalty, there is no hope for the innocent man
wrongly executed.
- Claude.
--
Claude Martins, "Timberwolf", Dept of Comp Sci, York Univ, Ont, Canada
-= mailto:mar...@cs.yorku.ca && http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~martins/ =-
"Let me tell you something, my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing.
Hope can drive a man insane."
- Red, The Shawshank Redemption
Gregory Gyetko
MindFlayer wrote:
> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
> fell sweep: <3490089...@nospam.newbridge.com>
> >MindFlayer wrote:
> >
> >> Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
> >> 1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a
> >> deterrent to crime.
> >
> >Shown by whom? All I've ever seen in poorly summarized stats on how murders
> >have risen since the adoption of death penalties in certain places in the
> >U.S. Are these measures of effectiveness or just measures of how seriously
> >crime is increasing in the U.S.?
>
> And thus the null-hypothesis holds. All attempts to show that capital
> punishment deters crime, failed.
I guess it's time to decide whether the default is to have capital punishment or
to have incarceration for life. Ought we to default to that which is more
economically feasible? Or should the possibility of innocence or reformation
indicate the value of the person?
> >> 2) Protection of society. While capital punishment will certainly protect
> >> society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
> >> ways.
> >
> >If you didn't have that *ridiculously* drawn out appeal process, putting the
> >guy to death costs the price of a good rope or a shotgun
>
> I don't remember who said it, but it went something like: "it is better
> to let ten guilty men walk than kill one innocent". The whole point is to make
> sure that no innocent gets killed -- this is why the appeal process is so
> ridiculously long.
And how many innocents are you killing when you let a murderer back on the
streets? I remember another saying: "The good of the many outweighs the good of
the few." Yes, our justice system (Canada, U.S., whatever) needs a good kick as
far as getting the right guy. Especially when it comes to accusations of rape,
for which the onus is often on the defense to prove innocence instead of on the
crown to prove guilt.
> >> 3) Reformation. Well, death certainly does not reform anyone.
> >
> >Name one person who has gone on to murder after being capitally punished.
>
> No, you are speaking of protecting society. The point of reformation is
> to make the criminal a normal citizen, NOT to merely protect the society from
> him/her (a point covered under (2)).
I know, I was being sarcastic. I just have a thing against the whole soft-hearted
'reformation' thing. I mean, why would a criminal avoid a crime if the worst that
can happen to him is a couple of years with a cable tv, some nudie mags and some
nice 'reformation'. Now boot camp OTOH...
> >> 4) Revenge. While revenge might be served by capital punishment, it is
> >> illogical. As long as we take vengeance, why not rape the rapists and
> >> torture the torturers?.. No, we are more civilized than that -- "eye for
> >> an eye" is not considered justice by us.
> >
> >An eye for eye mean that the punishment should fit the crime. Rapists,
> >sadists, serial murders ... put them to death. Yes, I believe in honour,
> >I believe in honouring the dead (I am an atheist, mind you). I believe in
> >revenge. Don't believe that crock about it being hollow.
>
> I may want revenge as well, but revenge IS hollow. Killing the killer of
> your child will certainly give you a measure of satisfaction, but it will not
> bring the child back. What do you accomplish by revenge, besides
> satisfying YOUR SELFISH DESIRE TO LASH BACK AT ONE WHO HURT YOU?..
Yes, is there something wrong with that? When people maliciously hurt me or mine,
I hurt them back. Is that sadistic? No. I was raised Xtian, meaning that you
NEVER fight back, because that's wrong. I grew out of it. I feel that I gain a
better sense of ... call it dignity, or maybe pride ... because of this.
I'm not a bastard about it, but I refuse to accept certain types of bullshit.
> Revenge is ultimately a blatantly selfish act, and society should not
> consider such acts, "justice".
Oh, my, this could be quite the discussion. Why is it selfish to hurt those who
hurt me? Are you requiring that when someone causes me pain, I should be
satisfied with whatever the authorities do? Even when the criminal laughs,
knowing he will get off with little punishment (alright, this is more a comment on
the Canadian penal system)
Perhaps, as well, it is my experience with such people. The authorities have
always failed *me*. When the criminal comes back and laughs at you, and at his
punishment, you have to wonder ....
> >> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
> >> capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
> >> mind tells me not to.
> >
> >I don't have such a problem. When I hear about a guy (Paul Bernardo) who
> >captured little girls (12-15) and repeatedly raped them in his basement, then
> >killed them, chopped them up and encased the pieces in cement, I start to
> >think ... "That guy should die .. anyone have a broadsword."
>
> Yes, I think that too -- but I realize that that is my genetic
> programming talking.
You can call it programming and I understand the ethological perspective (kin
selection, group selection etc.)
I call it honour. I don't believe in spirits or heaven or any of that. But I do
believe in honour. I believe that people malicious enough to enjoy another's pain
should be dealt with permanently. Most economically feasible is the death penalty
(I'll even lend you the rope.)
raven1
Lance Allred wrote:
>
> Gary Gnu wrote:
> >
> > I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
> > for it or against it and why?
> >
> > I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
> > names!
> >
>
> Gary,
>
> I've been at an ethical crossroads about this for a long time. And I still
> haven't resolved it:
>
> For: In society, I (and everyone else) has made an unsaid pact to agree to
> all the rules of the land, and to treat others as they'd have others treat
> them. When you break those rules, you don't belong to society anymore. In
> the case of large crimes, I see no problem with getting that person out of
> society.
>
> Against: However, I know that there are HUGE problems with out
> "correctional" system. Like, it doesn't correct. Facts show that people on
> Death Row are many times repeat offenders. Isn't there something wrong with
> this? I suppose that in some cases, they really WANT to kill, but too many
> times, these people could have been "corrected" early on, but we don't do
> that. I honestly don't see jail time as solving anything. With or without
> the death penalty, the rates for murder stay the saem; death is not a
> deterrant for crime. Punishment like that works as well as grounding a
> child, or after-school detention. It does not find the root of the problem.
> There is a reason trouble-makers stay in trouble, and punishment alone does
> not solve the problem. It only adds to it.
>
> Whew! I said alot. But this is what I stuggle with. Any help???
The original question was directed towards atheists, so here's my take
on the subject:
I gave this a lot of thought a few years ago when my State (New York)
revived the Death Penalty. I finally came to the conclusion that I can't
suppport it for two reasons: first, it is generally disproportionately
applied; in the US a member of a minority group is statistically more
likely to receive the death penalty than a white person convicted of
the same offense (although this may correlate more to the economic
ability to hire effective legal representation than to race). Second, no
matter how carefully it is applied, sooner or later, an innocent person
or persons will wind up being executed.
Given those two circumstances, I cannot condone a law allowing the death
penalty, however richly I may think any individual criminal deserves it.
Just my $.02
>
> Lance
> --
> Lance B. Allred
> lbal...@ou.edu
>
> "And the Lord Man created God from the very
> stuff of his own being, and breathed into Him
> the breath of life; thus the Living God came
> to be."
> --Adapted from Gen. 2:7
--
If responding to a Usenet posting, please E-mail a copy, as my server
often misses posts.
"Sing, all you children - sing the song to turn the world around.
Love, all you children - sing for all the love that you have found."
--"Behind the Sky", The Kind
no...@nowhere.nospam
MindFlayer wrote:
>
> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
> fell sweep: <3490089...@nospam.newbridge.com>
> >MindFlayer wrote:
> >
> >> Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
> >> 1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a
> >> deterrent to crime.
> >
> >Shown by whom? All I've ever seen in poorly summarized stats on
> >how murders have risen since the adoption of death penalties in
> >certain places in the U.S. Are these measures of effectiveness or
> >just measures of how seriously crime is increasing in the U.S.?
>
> And thus the null-hypothesis holds. All attempts to show that
> capital punishment deters crime, failed.
You stated, "Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a
deterrent to crime." Which is not the same a failing to show
it was a deterrent to crime.
However I agree, it probably is not much of a deterrent.
[snip point 2]
> >> 3) Reformation. Well, death certainly does not reform anyone.
> >
> >Name one person who has gone on to murder after being capitally
> >punished.
>
> No, you are speaking of protecting society. The point of
> reformation is to make the criminal a normal citizen, NOT to merely
> protect the society from him/her (a point covered under (2)).
You have to balance reformation with society protection. I think
its pretty rare that someone on death row could be reformed. I
suppose humans could get better at reformation with time, but right
now I don't see is worth the time and money for your average
death row in mate. Unfortunatly killing them costs more than
keeping them alive because of the appeal process. (No, that is
not an argument to get rid of the appeal process.)
> >> 4) Revenge. While revenge might be served by capital punishment,
> >> it is illogical. As long as we take vengeance, why not rape
> >> the rapists and torture the torturers?.. No, we are more
> >> civilized than that -- "eye for an eye" is not considered
> >> justice by us.
> >
> >An eye for eye mean that the punishment should fit the crime.
> >Rapists, sadists, serial murders ... put them to death. Yes, I
> >believe in honour, I believe in honouring the dead (I am an atheist,
> >mind you). I believe in revenge. Don't believe that crock about
> >it being hollow.
>
> I may want revenge as well, but revenge IS hollow. Killing
> the killer of your child will certainly give you a measure of
> satisfaction, but it will not bring the child back. What do you
> accomplish by revenge, besides satisfying YOUR SELFISH DESIRE TO
> LASH BACK AT ONE WHO HURT YOU?..
> Revenge is ultimately a blatantly selfish act, and society
> should not consider such acts, "justice".
We've dipped into the realm of pure opinion here. Revenge is
hollow. Is not. Is too. I've seen reports of people that have
actually witnessed the execution of someone who murdered their
loved ones and the emotions go both ways. Some where horrified
and some felt justice was finally served.
> >> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not
> >> believe in capital punishment -- even though I might want to
> >> exact such on someone, my mind tells me not to.
> >
> >I don't have such a problem. When I hear about a guy (Paul
> >Bernardo) who captured little girls (12-15) and repeatedly raped
> >them in his basement, then killed them, chopped them up and
> >encased the pieces in cement, I start to think ... "That guy
> >should die .. anyone have a broadsword."
>
> Yes, I think that too -- but I realize that that is my
> genetic programming talking.
I don't mind helping along evolution. Sometimes, as in the case
above, capital punishment is too good. Lets face we could do
a lot worse than just kill someone.
MindFlayer
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
>MindFlayer wrote:
>
>> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
>> fell sweep: <3490089...@nospam.newbridge.com>
>
>> >have risen since the adoption of death penalties in certain places in the
>> >U.S. Are these measures of effectiveness or just measures of how seriously
>> >crime is increasing in the U.S.?
>>
>> And thus the null-hypothesis holds. All attempts to show that capital
>> punishment deters crime, failed.
>
>I guess it's time to decide whether the default is to have capital punishment or
>to have incarceration for life. Ought we to default to that which is more
>economically feasible? Or should the possibility of innocence or reformation
>indicate the value of the person?
Well, all I was pointing out was that, as far as we can tell, capital
punishment fails as a deterrent.
I am not sure if the question "what stand on capital punishment is
DEAFULT?" makes sense -- we are talkking normative "truths" here, and their
epistemological status is very different from facts.
>> >If you didn't have that *ridiculously* drawn out appeal process, putting the
>> >guy to death costs the price of a good rope or a shotgun
>>
>> I don't remember who said it, but it went something like: "it is better
>> to let ten guilty men walk than kill one innocent". The whole point is to make
>> sure that no innocent gets killed -- this is why the appeal process is so
>> ridiculously long.
>
>And how many innocents are you killing when you let a murderer back on the
>streets?
You are not killing them. You are POTENTIALLY killing them, but without
a good prior estimate of the body count, you can hardly be said to be
killing anyone by letting one who is POSSIBLY a killer, walk. Hindsight is
20/20, but we don't have it when we need it -- and the next-best thing is
to act upon what we KNOW NOW; and if we do NOT know that the guy is a
killer, we should let him go, in case he is innocent.
>> >Name one person who has gone on to murder after being capitally punished.
>>
>> No, you are speaking of protecting society. The point of reformation is
>> to make the criminal a normal citizen, NOT to merely protect the society from
>> him/her (a point covered under (2)).
>
>I know, I was being sarcastic. I just have a thing against the whole soft-hearted
>'reformation' thing. I mean, why would a criminal avoid a crime if the worst that
>can happen to him is a couple of years with a cable tv, some nudie mags and some
>nice 'reformation'. Now boot camp OTOH...
Again, you are thinking of justice as a deterrent. The point of
reformative justice is not to scare the criminals away from crime, but to
take all who are criminals and to turn them into good citizens.
>> >An eye for eye mean that the punishment should fit the crime. Rapists,
>> >sadists, serial murders ... put them to death. Yes, I believe in honour,
>> >I believe in honouring the dead (I am an atheist, mind you). I believe in
>> >revenge. Don't believe that crock about it being hollow.
>>
>> I may want revenge as well, but revenge IS hollow. Killing the killer of
>> your child will certainly give you a measure of satisfaction, but it will not
>> bring the child back. What do you accomplish by revenge, besides
>> satisfying YOUR SELFISH DESIRE TO LASH BACK AT ONE WHO HURT YOU?..
>
>Yes, is there something wrong with that?
Sorry, society is not in the business of making sure that you get to
satisfy all of your urges. While YOU may have no problem with revenge, YOU,
specifically, are not the one who designs and runs the justice system.
>When people maliciously hurt me or mine,
>I hurt them back. Is that sadistic?
Not necesarily -- just don't try to give your anger unwarranted
legitimacy by calling it "justice". That is what lynch mobs used to do, as
well -- soothe their concienses by calling their lynchings, "justice".
Vengeance may or may not be "wrong", but it is definetely not justice.
>No. I was raised Xtian, meaning that you
>NEVER fight back, because that's wrong. I grew out of it. I feel that I gain a
>better sense of ... call it dignity, or maybe pride ... because of this.
Oh, I don't believe in pacifism, either, I fight back -- but in
self-defense, not as revenge.
>I'm not a bastard about it, but I refuse to accept certain types of bullshit.
Of course; however, AFTER the "bullshit" is over, would you still feel
justified in walking up to a handcuffed and immobilized assailant, and
kicking the shit out of him?.. This is what you are proposing when you
advocate justice as revenge.
>> Revenge is ultimately a blatantly selfish act, and society should not
>> consider such acts, "justice".
>
>Oh, my, this could be quite the discussion. Why is it selfish to hurt those who
>hurt me?
It is selfish to hurt them AFTER THE FACT -- during the incident, you
are merely protecting yourself; afterwards, the personal danger to you is
gone, and you are acting merely to satisfy your urge to lash out.
>Are you requiring that when someone causes me pain, I should be
>satisfied with whatever the authorities do? Even when the criminal laughs,
>knowing he will get off with little punishment (alright, this is more a comment on
>the Canadian penal system)
>
>Perhaps, as well, it is my experience with such people. The authorities have
>always failed *me*. When the criminal comes back and laughs at you, and at his
>punishment, you have to wonder ....
Yes, so you feelings are hurt. Try to make sure that he gets a sterner
punishment, if you can -- but killing him is not an answer, IMO.
>> >> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
>> >> capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
>> >> mind tells me not to.
>> >
>> >I don't have such a problem. When I hear about a guy (Paul Bernardo) who
>> >captured little girls (12-15) and repeatedly raped them in his basement, then
>> >killed them, chopped them up and encased the pieces in cement, I start to
>> >think ... "That guy should die .. anyone have a broadsword."
>>
>> Yes, I think that too -- but I realize that that is my genetic
>> programming talking.
>
>You can call it programming and I understand the ethological perspective (kin
>selection, group selection etc.)
>
>I call it honour.
You call your anger, honor?.. I also don't think that honor is a passé
concept, but I certainly view it differently.
>I don't believe in spirits or heaven or any of that. But I do
>believe in honour. I believe that people malicious enough to enjoy another's pain
>should be dealt with permanently. Most economically feasible is the death penalty
>(I'll even lend you the rope.)
Of course, when do you stop?.. OK, let's lunch that guy who raped your
daughter. Then, let's lynch that guy who beat you; then, let's lynch the
mugger; then, let's lynch that guy who cut you off in traffic. Let's lynch
everyone! We can always ask YOU when is the right time to stop.
You cannot make the distinction that arbitrary -- you cannot kill
everyone who [maliciously] hurts you, for then we ALL would be dead; I am
positive that you, at one point or another, caused another suffering and
enjoyed it -- I had, too. Certainly, a serial killer is worse -- but WHERE
DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? How do you make sure that the line is not arbitrary,
that it is not where YOU think it should be?.. For if you are allowed to
decide when others deserve death, others have such right over you as well.
Another quote that I love, but i do not remember where it is from:
"Can you grant life?.. No?!. If so, do not be so quick to deal out death!"
Claude Martins
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:46:16 GMT, min...@ix.netcom.com (MindFlayer)
wrote:
[...]
> Another quote that I love, but i do not remember where it is from:
>"Can you grant life?.. No?!. If so, do not be so quick to deal out death!"
iirc, it was spoken by Gandalf after Frodo asked him why he didn't
kill Gollum.
Toby
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, MindFlayer wrote:
> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
> capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
> mind tells me not to.
If it were more cost effective, I might allow its use in some cases.
--
Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?
http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract/
Toby
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Claude Martins wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:46:16 GMT, min...@ix.netcom.com (MindFlayer)
> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Another quote that I love, but i do not remember where it is from:
> >"Can you grant life?.. No?!. If so, do not be so quick to deal out death!"
>
> iirc, it was spoken by Gandalf after Frodo asked him why he didn't
> kill Gollum.
Best as I can remember it:
"Deserves it! I daresay he does! Many who live deserve death. And some who
are dead deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so quick to
deal out death in judgment."
NMS
>Gary Gnu wrote:
>>
>> I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
>> for it or against it and why?
>>
I've gone back and forth on the question of the death penalty, largely
because I've served on juries and know how stupid they can be.
On the other hand, the notion of imprisonment as a penalty for murder has
always bothered me. If you put someone in jail for twenty years for drug
dealing and forty years for murder, what does that mean? That it's twice as
bad to kill somebody as it is to deal drugs?
To say that the penalty for killing should be the same as the penalty for
stealing, or assault, or rape, or fraud, only more so, is, in a way, saying
that murdering someone is like stealing from them, or assaulting them, or
defrauding them, only more so. But murder isn't the last link in a continuum
of crime that starts at jay walking and ends with multiple homicide.
I think that killing somebody is an altogether different thing from taking
somebody's property, or even violating their persons. To punish it in "kind"
with stealing and assaulting, makes a human life into a kind of property.
This man stole a car. This man stole the use of another man's arm. This man
stole somebody's life.
No. The life that is stolen can never be returned. It can never be replaced.
It is a unique, one-of-a-kind gone forever. There is nothing the murderer,
or anyone else can do to balance the books. A woman who is raped may find
the strength to heal. But a dead woman can't find anything. Because she's
gone.
And if the crime of murder is uniquely terrible, if it is, in essence, the
"ultimate crime" then it should warrant a uniquely terrible penalty. And I
certainly believe that the administration of "death" is a terrible thing.
And yet, I cannot say that I think that it is altogether unjustified.
NMS
Keith Brannen
Gregory Gyetko wrote:
>
> Keith Brannen wrote:
>
> > Gregory Gyetko wrote:
> > >
<snip>
> > > I don't have such a problem. When I hear about a guy (Paul Bernardo) who
> > > captured little girls (12-15) and repeatedly raped them in his basement, then
> > > killed them, chopped them up and encased the pieces in cement, I start to
> > > think ... "That guy should die .. anyone have a broadsword."
> > >
> > > The jury ought to at least have the option to put a guy like that to death -
> > > but in Canada they don't.
> >
> > And it's a good thing that we don't have the option
> > here in Canada. To cite two recent cases, Guy Paul Morin
> > and David Milgaard would have been hung for murders that
> > they didn't commit. David Milgaard spent 23 years in prison
> > before finally being exonerated.
>
> Valid point. I forgot that I was arguing with people who have brains. OTOH, did
> either of those people videotape themselves raping and otherwise abusing their
> victims? (rhetorical - obviously not if they are innocent)
Quite true. But in the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka case, which
of the two really did the killing (which was not on tape)?
I have my own personal suspicions about this, but it is only
speculation.
> > Under you idea of quick punishment (removal of the appeals
> > process), neither one of these men would be alive.
>
> I was speaking of the American appeal process (which allows the convicted to
> appeal to a judge in every one of the fifty states on technical grounds - the
> worst example I heard was one where the execution documents were filled out with
> someone's signature starting a half-inch to the left of the dotted lines) Indeed,
> one of the dangers of accusations of rape is that the defendant is assumed guilty
> until proven innocent.
When someone's life is at stake, the appeals will always go to the
full (and sometimes what appears to be ridiculous) extent that they
can, regardless of whether they are guilty or not.
That is why it is more expensive to have the death penalty in the
US than it is to incarcerate them for life. Whereas in Canada and
other countries without the death penalty, appeals are more based
on evidence rather than on technicalities like you mentioned.
> I would not advocate removal of the entire appeal process, but once the conviction
> is decided, get it over with.
As I said, David Milgaard was in jail for 23 years
before being exonerated. If he had been in the US, even
with all the appeals available there, he would have been
executed long ago.
> > As far as statistics go, Canada and Great Britain (for examples)
> > have an extremely low murder rate (per 100,000) compared
> > to the United States. In both Canada and Great Britain the
> > murder rate declined with the abolition of the death penalty.
>
> Was unaware of that. Is there any explanation for this correlation (i.e. reasons
> given that it's not an accident relating to other social factors?)
That (and the following paragraph) were to illustrate that
the death penalty does not act as a deterrence, because the
act of murder is not a logically thought out process. Social
and other factors play a very important part in murder. The
murder rate in Great Britain is under 2 per 100,000, Canada's
is under 3 per 100,000, whereas the US is 7.4 per 100,000.
> > Regardless of statistics, the main reason why the death
> > penalty is not a deterrent to murder is because murderers
> > do not logically weigh the factors of a murder before committing
> > it. They don't do a gain/loss study beforehand. As well, most
> > murderers do not think they will get caught.
>
> My point isn't a matter of deterrence, nor of revenge(not that revenge is invalid
> in and of itself). It's for the protection of society in cases where the
> convicted is unreformable. What do you with the paedophile that you release time
> and again, after 'reforming' him, who goes and abuses/molests again? What do you
> do with a guy who does what Paul Bernardo does --- Answer: Put him in his own
> cell, protected from the rest of the population at a hideous expense after an even
> more expensive trial.
>
> > I am strongly against the death penalty for the reasons MindFlayer outlined, and
> > those Don Antropos amended to MindFlayer's post on another line in this thread.
>
> The points you raised are extremely cogent and make me reconsider the issue, but I
> still believe that there has to be a final way to rid ourselves of people like
> this.
The "unreformable" you mention should NEVER be released from
prison, that is how society should remove people like that.
The majority of murderers are not the "unreformable";
they are spouses, family, friends, acquaintances, etc.,
and the most common circumstance (motive) was following
a quarrel or flash of anger.
Cost should not be a factor in considering punishment, it
is society's protection which is paramount. As I have said,
in the US at least, it is more costly to have the death penalty
and the appeals, than it is to incarcerate for life.
Shawn Burks
Gary Gnu wrote in message <66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>...
>
>I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
>for it or against it and why?
>
>I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
>names!
>
>
>Gary, lucky atheist #21
First I don’t think that atheism in itself would lead to a conclusion about
the death penalty other than the fact that most atheist are rational
thinkers and would come to the same logical conclusion about it as others.
To give my opinion, I am against the death penalty not because I think it
may not be justified in some cases but for practical reasons that it is not
workable.
The reasons are as such and have been given by others. One I do not have
the confidence in our justice system to believe that it is always right and
based on the premise as our system is that it would be better for a hundred
guilty men go free than for one innocent be punished. By that same token it
is better that a thousand guilty men live than for one innocent be killed.
After all death is very permanent I think that even most fundies could
accept that.
It is more expensive to kill a man than to keep him in jail and the threat
of escape really is not that great.
As an atheist there are a few special considerations that a theist would
not consider. First is that in an atheists eyes death is the end and
therefor not any real punishment at all after all the culprit simply ceases
to exist as a being. Where as life in prison gives the culprit lots of time
to consider and suffer mental anguish.
I am not against capital punishment because it is cruel, quite the opposite
I think punishment must be cruel and unusual after all if it were kind and
normal it is hardly punishment. Life in prison is worse than death. In the
end man is an animal and like any other animal desires freedom. So for those
who would say that only bleeding hearth are against the death penalty think
on that.
SkArcher
Don Antropos wrote:
<SNIP>
A friend of mine once argued that the death penalty should be used
instead of life imprisonment because it was cheaper. That arguement
lasted for several months, as i recall. I used all of the above
arguemnts and eventually won.
We never got around to discussing Euthenasia tho'. Any thoughts?
SkArcher
#593
Claude Martins
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 04:46:22 +0000, SkArcher
<SkAr...@Viking.Cafe.Breakfast> wrote:
>We never got around to discussing Euthenasia tho'. Any thoughts?
Good idea--start a separate thread on it.
no...@nowhere.nospam
MindFlayer wrote:
>
> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
[big snip]
> >You can call it programming and I understand the ethological
> >perspective (kin selection, group selection etc.)
> >
> >I call it honour.
>
> You call your anger, honor?..
Straw man. He didn't say anything about anger.
> I also don't think that honor
> is a passé concept, but I certainly view it differently.
> >I don't believe in spirits or heaven or any of that. But I do
> >believe in honour. I believe that people malicious enough to
> >enjoy another's pain should be dealt with permanently. Most
> >economically feasible is the death penalty
> >(I'll even lend you the rope.)
>
> Of course, when do you stop?.. OK, let's lunch that guy who
> raped your daughter.
Another strawman. He didn't say anything about lynching.
It could be implied from what he wrote about lending
a rope, but I really doubt he meant to bypass the legal system.
If that IS what he meant the he's stupid as there is to much
of a chance innocents will be killed in that manner.
> Then, let's lynch that guy who beat you; then, let's lynch the
> mugger; then, let's lynch that guy who cut you off in traffic.
> Let's lynch everyone! We can always ask YOU when is the right time
> to stop.
All of us together figure out when capital punishment can be
applied. Then 12 peers judge the evidence with lawyers arguing
both sides of the case.
> You cannot make the distinction that arbitrary -- you cannot
> kill everyone who [maliciously] hurts you, for then we ALL would be
> dead; I am positive that you, at one point or another, caused another
> suffering and enjoyed it -- I had, too. Certainly, a serial killer is
> worse -- but WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? How do you make sure that
> the line is not arbitrary, that it is not where YOU think it should
> be?..
Simple, make it a law.
> For if you are allowed to decide when others deserve death,
> others have such right over you as well.
Exactly.
> Another quote that I love, but i do not remember where it
> is from: "Can you grant life?.. No?!. If so, do not be so quick to
> deal out death!"
"An armed society is a polite society."
MindFlayer
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, no...@nowhere.NOSPAM penned this
in one fell sweep: <349142...@nowhere.NOSPAM>
>MindFlayer wrote:
>>
>> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
>
>[big snip]
>
>> >You can call it programming and I understand the ethological
>> >perspective (kin selection, group selection etc.)
>> >
>> >I call it honour.
>>
>> You call your anger, honor?..
>
<shrug> perhaps. I don't think so, though. he was basically calling
revenge -- an act of anger -- "honor".
>> >I don't believe in spirits or heaven or any of that. But I do
>> >believe in honour. I believe that people malicious enough to
>> >enjoy another's pain should be dealt with permanently. Most
>> >economically feasible is the death penalty
>> >(I'll even lend you the rope.)
>>
>> Of course, when do you stop?.. OK, let's lunch that guy who
>> raped your daughter.
>
>Another strawman. He didn't say anything about lynching.
>It could be implied from what he wrote about lending
>a rope, but I really doubt he meant to bypass the legal system.
<sigh> he was writing figuratively (lend a rope, bypass the lengthy
appeal process) -- and *I* was writing figuratively (lynch). I certainly do
not mean that he would want to lynch people LITERALLY.
>If that IS what he meant the he's stupid as there is to much
>of a chance innocents will be killed in that manner.
But what he is proposing -- cutting the appeal process for capital
punishment -- WILL net innocents that would have lived with the current
system.
>> Then, let's lynch that guy who beat you; then, let's lynch the
>> mugger; then, let's lynch that guy who cut you off in traffic.
>> Let's lynch everyone! We can always ask YOU when is the right time
>> to stop.
>
>All of us together figure out when capital punishment can be
>applied. Then 12 peers judge the evidence with lawyers arguing
>both sides of the case.
Yes, so the society is carrying out a revenge fantasy of one of its
members. The problem is that everyone will have different ideas of who
deserves death -- if we ask him, you, I, we will get different answers.
Inevitably, a set cutoff line for CP will be rather arbitrary, and will
reflect SOMEONE's sentiment -- but not others'. ANY CP cutoff line would be
problematic.
Also, society SHOULD NOT be in the business of carrying out its
members' revenge wishes -- else I would really like the society to punch
out that guy who blatantly cut me off... How come we, at worst, fine that
guy in traffic (instead of doing it MY way), but DO kill the perpetrator of
a serious crime, in accordance with the victims' wishes?..
Our entire legal system is built around the idea that we DON'T get to
have revenge -- instead, the criminal experiences incarceration and stuff.
How come then that, at one point, society suddenly starts serving
revenge?.. The victims' revenge wishes usually do not -- and SHOULD NOT --
have an effect on the punishment; consistency demands that we extend this
to even the most serious crimes. if that is so, society does not need to
institute capital punishment. That fact that we do have it speaks about how
far we are from barbarism, IMO.
>> You cannot make the distinction that arbitrary -- you cannot
>> kill everyone who [maliciously] hurts you, for then we ALL would be
>> dead; I am positive that you, at one point or another, caused another
>> suffering and enjoyed it -- I had, too. Certainly, a serial killer is
>> worse -- but WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? How do you make sure that
>> the line is not arbitrary, that it is not where YOU think it should
>> be?..
>
>Simple, make it a law.
That's the point -- WHOSE CP ideas will you codify?.. Also, WHY should
it be made a law, if society is not in the business of serving individuals'
vengeance?..
>> Another quote that I love, but i do not remember where it
>> is from: "Can you grant life?.. No?!. If so, do not be so quick to
>> deal out death!"
>
>"An armed society is a polite society."
But a society that still endorses hanging (Idaho does, I think, but I
could be wrong) is not a civilized society.
Gregory Gyetko
Don Antropos wrote:
> Gregory Gyetko <ggy...@nospam.newbridge.com> wrote:
>
> >MindFlayer wrote:
> >
> >> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gary Gnu penned this in one fell
> >> sweep: <66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>
> >> >
> >> >I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
> >> >for it or against it and why?
> >> >
> >> >I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
> >> >names!
> >>
> >> Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
> >> 1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a
> >> deterrent to crime.
> >
> >Shown by whom? All I've ever seen in poorly summarized stats on how murders
> >have risen since the adoption of death penalties in certain places in the
> >U.S. Are these measures of effectiveness or just measures of how seriously
> >crime is increasing in the U.S.?
>
> Amnesty International has a lot of data on this. Also I think it's
> quite understandable. In a state with death-penalty for murder one, a
> murderer is far more likely to resist violently to arrest and kill at
> least one or two more people. Just an example.
A good example. But once we've caught the guy, and we look at our records and
see his record of previous murders, what do we do with him?
> >> 2) Protection of society. While capital punishment will certainly protect
> >> society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
> >> ways.
> >
> >If you didn't have that *ridiculously* drawn out appeal process, putting the
> >guy to death costs the price of a good rope or a shotgun
>
> So you prefer lynching? Just get rid of the constitutional state? At
> least that is what you're implying.
No, I mean that the appeal process in the U.S. has some really long processes
which allow 49 or 50 appeals based on technicalities (like the execution form
being filled out with a signature slightly to the left of the dotted lines).
> >> 3) Reformation. Well, death certainly does not reform anyone.
> >
> >Name one person who has gone on to murder after being capitally punished.
>
> Name one person who became a better person after being capitally punished.
Jeffrey Dahmer, capitally punished(well, killed) by a fellow inmate, has not
molested, murdered or eaten a child since.
> >> 4) Revenge. While revenge might be served by capital punishment, it is
> >> illogical. As long as we take vengeance, why not rape the rapists and
> >> torture the torturers?.. No, we are more civilized than that -- "eye for
> >> an eye" is not considered justice by us.
> >
> >An eye for eye mean that the punishment should fit the crime. Rapists,
> >sadists, serial murders ... put them to death. Yes, I believe in honour,
> >I believe in honouring the dead (I am an atheist, mind you). I believe in
> >revenge. Don't believe that crock about it being hollow.
>
> Revenge is plain barbarism to me and honour is a very outdated
> concept, which by the way only has meaning to people who believe in
> ancestor-spirits, gods and higher purposes to life.
As atheists (okay, I'm only really speaking for myself) we get to choose how and
*why* we live our lives. I choose honour. I find it a satisfying moral code
which fits with my beliefs (not the other way around). When someone is made to
suffer indignity, honour means recompense. I suppose that you have a thing
against chivalry, too?
> >> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
> >> capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
> >> mind tells me not to.
> >
> >I don't have such a problem. When I hear about a guy (Paul Bernardo) who
> >captured little girls (12-15) and repeatedly raped them in his basement, then
> >killed them, chopped them up and encased the pieces in cement, I start to
> >think ... "That guy should die .. anyone have a broadsword."
>
> I understand that emotion very well. But at the same time it is very clear to
> me that condemning for instance murder, also implies that I cannot commit a
> murder. No matter how disturbed the criminal is, we must not get screwed up by
> them ourselves.
That's why it(capital punishment) has to be legalized for the courts to dish
out. Hang him, save us money. Make sure he can't do it ever again.
> >The jury ought to at least have the option to put a guy like that to death -
> >but in Canada they don't.
>
> Good for Canada.
Yeah, really. Maybe you'd think different if you'd heard the girl screaming on
the videotapes that the guy had made of himself raping her. Maybe you wouldn't
think different.
I remember being the kind of guy who said 'no, never, that's so inhumane' but
somewhere along the line I figured that such people are far too dangerous to be
let out ever again. At least for my peace of mind.
Gregory Gyetko
MindFlayer wrote:
> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
> fell sweep: <34906825...@nospam.newbridge.com>
> >MindFlayer wrote:
> >
> >> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
> >> fell sweep: <3490089...@nospam.newbridge.com>
> >
> >> >Shown by whom? All I've ever seen in poorly summarized stats on how murders
> >> >have risen since the adoption of death penalties in certain places in the
> >> >U.S. Are these measures of effectiveness or just measures of how seriously
> >> >crime is increasing in the U.S.?
> >>
> >> And thus the null-hypothesis holds. All attempts to show that capital
> >> punishment deters crime, failed.
> >
> >I guess it's time to decide whether the default is to have capital punishment or
> >to have incarceration for life. Ought we to default to that which is more
> >economically feasible? Or should the possibility of innocence or reformation
> >indicate the value of the person?
>
> Well, all I was pointing out was that, as far as we can tell, capital
> punishment fails as a deterrent.
> I am not sure if the question "what stand on capital punishment is
> DEAFULT?" makes sense -- we are talkking normative "truths" here, and their
> epistemological status is very different from facts.
^^^^^^^^^^ - too long of a word (Ack!) and I don't have a dictionary. But you're
right, capital punishment is not known for its deterrence. OTOH, the victims have
security.
> >> >If you didn't have that *ridiculously* drawn out appeal process, putting the
> >> >guy to death costs the price of a good rope or a shotgun
> >>
> >> I don't remember who said it, but it went something like: "it is better
> >> to let ten guilty men walk than kill one innocent". The whole point is to make
> >> sure that no innocent gets killed -- this is why the appeal process is so
> >> ridiculously long.
> >
> >And how many innocents are you killing when you let a murderer back on the
> >streets?
>
> You are not killing them. You are POTENTIALLY killing them, but without
> a good prior estimate of the body count, you can hardly be said to be
> killing anyone by letting one who is POSSIBLY a killer, walk. Hindsight is
> 20/20, but we don't have it when we need it -- and the next-best thing is
> to act upon what we KNOW NOW; and if we do NOT know that the guy is a
> killer, we should let him go, in case he is innocent.
I guess what I was commenting on was your ten-to-one ratio, which seems to be balanced
on a probability argument of sorts (Now that I write this, it seems a bit silly). But
if we let ten murderers go to save one man, all that it requires is that 10% of those
murderers strike again.
> >> >Name one person who has gone on to murder after being capitally punished.
> >>
> >> No, you are speaking of protecting society. The point of reformation is
> >> to make the criminal a normal citizen, NOT to merely protect the society from
> >> him/her (a point covered under (2)).
> >
> >I know, I was being sarcastic. I just have a thing against the whole soft-hearted
> >'reformation' thing. I mean, why would a criminal avoid a crime if the worst that
> >can happen to him is a couple of years with a cable tv, some nudie mags and some
> >nice 'reformation'. Now boot camp OTOH...
>
> Again, you are thinking of justice as a deterrent. The point of reformative
> justice is not to scare the criminals away from crime, but to take all who are
> criminals and to turn them into good citizens.
I know that that is the point of *reformative* justice. I find myself more in support
of *punitive* justice. Therefore, we're going to differ in opinion on this unto
infinity.
> >> >An eye for eye mean that the punishment should fit the crime. Rapists,
> >> >sadists, serial murders ... put them to death. Yes, I believe in honour,
> >> >I believe in honouring the dead (I am an atheist, mind you). I believe in
> >> >revenge. Don't believe that crock about it being hollow.
> >>
> >> I may want revenge as well, but revenge IS hollow. Killing the killer of
> >> your child will certainly give you a measure of satisfaction, but it will not
> >> bring the child back. What do you accomplish by revenge, besides
> >> satisfying YOUR SELFISH DESIRE TO LASH BACK AT ONE WHO HURT YOU?..
> >
> >Yes, is there something wrong with that?
>
> Sorry, society is not in the business of making sure that you get to satisfy
> all of your urges. While YOU may have no problem with revenge, YOU, specifically,
> are not the one who designs and runs the justice system.
Valid point. But where I have been made to suffer by another's malice, that one
should also have to suffer. It is my experience that this is the *only* way to make
repeat offenders understand what they have done. Otherwise, their victims continue to
seem like toys to them.
> >When people maliciously hurt me or mine,
> >I hurt them back. Is that sadistic?
>
> Not necesarily -- just don't try to give your anger unwarranted legitimacy
> by calling it "justice". That is what lynch mobs used to do, as well -- soothe their
> concienses by calling their lynchings, "justice".
I have never called it justice. That is a wholly different thing from revenge.
Revenge is making another understand your pain by turning it on him. Justice ... I
would have difficulty defining.
> Vengeance may or may not be "wrong", but it is definetely not justice.
Agreed. However, were justice to provide for revenge, I would take it.
> >No. I was raised Xtian, meaning that you
> >NEVER fight back, because that's wrong. I grew out of it. I feel that I gain a
> >better sense of ... call it dignity, or maybe pride ... because of this.
>
> Oh, I don't believe in pacifism, either, I fight back -- but in
> self-defense, not as revenge.
>
> >I'm not a bastard about it, but I refuse to accept certain types of bullshit.
>
> Of course; however, AFTER the "bullshit" is over, would you still feel
> justified in walking up to a handcuffed and immobilized assailant, and
> kicking the shit out of him?.. This is what you are proposing when you
> advocate justice as revenge.
That depends. How many times has he assaulted me? And been released with a slap on
the wrist only to assault me again? Must I wait for him time and again to sneak up
behind me and attack me again? There is a point, where, for my own safety, I'd have
to maim him in some way (or kill him).
I trust you see my point.
> >> Revenge is ultimately a blatantly selfish act, and society should not
> >> consider such acts, "justice".
> >
> >Oh, my, this could be quite the discussion. Why is it selfish to hurt those who
> >hurt me?
>
> It is selfish to hurt them AFTER THE FACT -- during the incident, you
> are merely protecting yourself; afterwards, the personal danger to you is
> gone, and you are acting merely to satisfy your urge to lash out.
See above. How many times would you accept the same person assaulting you before you
had to take measures beyond 'immediate self-defense'?
> >Are you requiring that when someone causes me pain, I should be
> >satisfied with whatever the authorities do? Even when the criminal laughs,
> >knowing he will get off with little punishment (alright, this is more a comment on
> >the Canadian penal system)
> >
> >Perhaps, as well, it is my experience with such people. The authorities have
> >always failed *me*. When the criminal comes back and laughs at you, and at his
> >punishment, you have to wonder ....
>
> Yes, so you feelings are hurt. Try to make sure that he gets a sterner
> punishment, if you can -- but killing him is not an answer, IMO.
>
> >> >> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
> >> >> capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
> >> >> mind tells me not to.
> >> >
> >> >I don't have such a problem. When I hear about a guy (Paul Bernardo) who
> >> >captured little girls (12-15) and repeatedly raped them in his basement, then
> >> >killed them, chopped them up and encased the pieces in cement, I start to
> >> >think ... "That guy should die .. anyone have a broadsword."
> >>
> >> Yes, I think that too -- but I realize that that is my genetic
> >> programming talking.
> >
> >You can call it programming and I understand the ethological perspective (kin
> >selection, group selection etc.)
> >
> >I call it honour.
>
> You call your anger, honor?.. I also don't think that honor is a passé
> concept, but I certainly view it differently.
No, anger can be used to preserve honour however. Almost anything, properly
channelled, can do so. Honour is one of those difficult to define things, like
justice. When someone is forced to endure indignity (e.g. rape), honour would demand
recompense.
> >I don't believe in spirits or heaven or any of that. But I do
> >believe in honour. I believe that people malicious enough to enjoy another's pain
> >should be dealt with permanently. Most economically feasible is the death penalty
> >(I'll even lend you the rope.)
>
> Of course, when do you stop?.. OK, let's lunch that guy who raped your
> daughter. Then, let's lynch that guy who beat you; then, let's lynch the
> mugger; then, let's lynch that guy who cut you off in traffic. Let's lynch
> everyone! We can always ask YOU when is the right time to stop.
The guy who raped my daughter would be in a great deal of trouble, although I'd give
the penal system a chance. The guy who beat me must be punished so that he will
*never* do it again (if reformation fails, then physical deterrent [e.g. lack of
mobility] are required). Thievery depends on whether assault was involved.
Cute. I understand the problem. I would hold capital punishment as a resort for the
courts should they find a person who is unreformable.
> You cannot make the distinction that arbitrary -- you cannot kill
> everyone who [maliciously] hurts you, for then we ALL would be dead;
I wasn't talking about capital punishment for all who hurt me, I was talking about
revenge for those. Let's not build strawmen, kay?
> I am positive that you, at one point or another, caused another suffering and
> enjoyed it -- I had, too. Certainly, a serial killer is worse -- but WHERE
> DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?
At people who are unable to understand/sympathize with their victims. At people who
will repeatedly offend.
> How do you make sure that the line is not arbitrary, that it is not where YOU think
> it should be?
Because I live in a democracy, where *I* am not in control of everyone.
> .. For if you are allowed to decide when others deserve death, others have such
> right over you as well.
That's why we have a court of law.
> Another quote that I love, but i do not remember where it is from:
> "Can you grant life?.. No?!. If so, do not be so quick to deal out death!"
Good points, all. And I noticed that you do admit that you have enjoyed hurting
others at one time or another for some reason or other. That's important, because
everyone has to come to terms with that little darkness inside them.
I guess my point in regards to capital punishment is this: When we have a man who
repeatedly rapes/kills, whom we have failed to reform, who will do nothing but rot
away in jail and cost us money (how many tens of thousands of dollars a year), why
keep him alive.
In regards to revenge, it is this: When authorities fail, after being given their
chance to protect you, it is "right" for you to hunt down the ones who have repeatedly
hurt you and exact revenge - as well as a pre-emptive attack against future assaults?
MindFlayer
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
fell sweep: <34914E45...@nospam.newbridge.com>
<snip>
>I remember being the kind of guy who said 'no, never, that's so inhumane' but
>somewhere along the line I figured that such people are far too dangerous to be
>let out ever again. At least for my peace of mind.
I agree -- some are. Locking them up for life without parole will also
make sure that they will never again do it.
MindFlayer
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
>MindFlayer wrote:
>
>> Well, all I was pointing out was that, as far as we can tell, capital
>> punishment fails as a deterrent.
>> I am not sure if the question "what stand on capital punishment is
>> DEAFULT?" makes sense -- we are talkking normative "truths" here, and their
>> epistemological status is very different from facts.
>
>^^^^^^^^^^ - too long of a word (Ack!) and I don't have a dictionary. But you're
>right, capital punishment is not known for its deterrence. OTOH, the victims have
>security.
"Epistemology" is the division of metaphysics which deals with theory
of knowledge -- "how we know stuff", basically. What I am saying is that we
can "know" that most ravens are black by observing them (fact), but we
cannot "know" what is the "right thing to do" (normative truth). Similarly,
we cannot "know" what is the RIGHT default stand on capital punichment.
>> You are not killing them. You are POTENTIALLY killing them, but without
>> a good prior estimate of the body count, you can hardly be said to be
>> killing anyone by letting one who is POSSIBLY a killer, walk. Hindsight is
>> 20/20, but we don't have it when we need it -- and the next-best thing is
>> to act upon what we KNOW NOW; and if we do NOT know that the guy is a
>> killer, we should let him go, in case he is innocent.
>
>I guess what I was commenting on was your ten-to-one ratio, which seems to be balanced
>on a probability argument of sorts (Now that I write this, it seems a bit silly). But
>if we let ten murderers go to save one man, all that it requires is that 10% of those
>murderers strike again.
I think the original comment was not on the probability, but on value
of innocense. "Innocent until proven guilty" reflect the same value system.
>> Sorry, society is not in the business of making sure that you get to satisfy
>> all of your urges. While YOU may have no problem with revenge, YOU, specifically,
>> are not the one who designs and runs the justice system.
>
>Valid point. But where I have been made to suffer by another's malice, that one
>should also have to suffer. It is my experience that this is the *only* way to make
>repeat offenders understand what they have done. Otherwise, their victims continue to
>seem like toys to them.
If you seek punitive justice, then make the punishments more severe.
Make it more than just a slap on the wrist, instead of trying to fix a
wrong with another wrong.
>> Vengeance may or may not be "wrong", but it is definetely not justice.
>
>Agreed. However, were justice to provide for revenge, I would take it.
Oh, I would want the same -- but if I was to design the law, I would
have made sure that justice does not serve revenge.
>> Of course; however, AFTER the "bullshit" is over, would you still feel
>> justified in walking up to a handcuffed and immobilized assailant, and
>> kicking the shit out of him?.. This is what you are proposing when you
>> advocate justice as revenge.
>
>That depends. How many times has he assaulted me? And been released with a slap on
>the wrist only to assault me again? Must I wait for him time and again to sneak up
>behind me and attack me again? There is a point, where, for my own safety, I'd have
>to maim him in some way (or kill him).
If it is that bad -- make sure that he is in for life without parole.
Killing him adds NOTHING to the equation, besides satisfying your anger.
>> It is selfish to hurt them AFTER THE FACT -- during the incident, you
>> are merely protecting yourself; afterwards, the personal danger to you is
>> gone, and you are acting merely to satisfy your urge to lash out.
>
>See above. How many times would you accept the same person assaulting you before you
>had to take measures beyond 'immediate self-defense'?
So you are pointing at one problem within the justice system as a
justification for another?.. yes, our justice system is far from perfect --
but adding CP to it will not improve anything.
>> >I don't believe in spirits or heaven or any of that. But I do
>> >believe in honour. I believe that people malicious enough to enjoy another's pain
>> >should be dealt with permanently. Most economically feasible is the death penalty
>> >(I'll even lend you the rope.)
>>
>> Of course, when do you stop?.. OK, let's lunch that guy who raped your
>> daughter. Then, let's lynch that guy who beat you; then, let's lynch the
>> mugger; then, let's lynch that guy who cut you off in traffic. Let's lynch
>> everyone! We can always ask YOU when is the right time to stop.
>
>The guy who raped my daughter would be in a great deal of trouble, although I'd give
>the penal system a chance. The guy who beat me must be punished so that he will
>*never* do it again (if reformation fails, then physical deterrent [e.g. lack of
>mobility] are required). Thievery depends on whether assault was involved.
>
>Cute. I understand the problem. I would hold capital punishment as a resort for the
>courts should they find a person who is unreformable.
Again, what is wrong with life without parole?..
>> I am positive that you, at one point or another, caused another suffering and
>> enjoyed it -- I had, too. Certainly, a serial killer is worse -- but WHERE
>> DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?
>
>At people who are unable to understand/sympathize with their victims. At people who
>will repeatedly offend.
Lock them up for life; put them through psychological treatment; etc.
there are OTHER options available, besides killing them.
>> Another quote that I love, but i do not remember where it is from:
>> "Can you grant life?.. No?!. If so, do not be so quick to deal out death!"
>
>Good points, all. And I noticed that you do admit that you have enjoyed hurting
>others at one time or another for some reason or other. That's important, because
>everyone has to come to terms with that little darkness inside them.
<shrug> I am not in the business of leading by sanctimonious example.
>I guess my point in regards to capital punishment is this: When we have a man who
>repeatedly rapes/kills, whom we have failed to reform, who will do nothing but rot
>away in jail and cost us money (how many tens of thousands of dollars a year), why
>keep him alive.
And my point is that capital punishment does NOTHING beyond what life
without parole would do (it is not cheaper, because we NEED the lengthy
appeal process in order to make sure that as few innocents as possible get
netted):
1) It is irreversible. A "life without parole" can always be revoked if one
is later found to have been innocent -- an imperfect solution, but
better than death.
2) We say that killing is wrong; however, if the state (which is subject to
the laws it imposes upon individuals) is ALLOWED to violate such a basic
rule, there is basic weakening of integrity going on. if a state can
kill in cold blood but individuals cannot, what will be the next thing
that a state can do that citizens cannot?.. There is a REASON why a
state is subject to its own laws, and this is it -- to prevent the state
from going into a slide down the slippery slope.
>In regards to revenge, it is this: When authorities fail, after being given their
>chance to protect you, it is "right" for you to hunt down the ones who have repeatedly
>hurt you and exact revenge - as well as a pre-emptive attack against future assaults?
Well, whether it is "right" or not, is a point to which I would
hesitate to give a definitive answer (partly because the "right" in this
area is a very, VERY ill-defined and ill-understood concept); however, we
are talking about capital punishment by the state here.
Gregory Gyetko
MindFlayer wrote:
> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
> fell sweep: <34914C59...@nospam.newbridge.com>
> >MindFlayer wrote:
> >
> >> Well, all I was pointing out was that, as far as we can tell, capital
> >> punishment fails as a deterrent.
> >> I am not sure if the question "what stand on capital punishment is
> >> DEAFULT?" makes sense -- we are talkking normative "truths" here, and their
> >> epistemological status is very different from facts.
> >
> >^^^^^^^^^^ - too long of a word (Ack!) and I don't have a dictionary. But you're
> >right, capital punishment is not known for its deterrence. OTOH, the victims have
> >security.
>
> "Epistemology" is the division of metaphysics which deals with theory
> of knowledge -- "how we know stuff", basically. What I am saying is that we
> can "know" that most ravens are black by observing them (fact), but we
> cannot "know" what is the "right thing to do" (normative truth). Similarly,
> we cannot "know" what is the RIGHT default stand on capital punichment.
Excellent.... Vocabulary++;
> >> You are not killing them. You are POTENTIALLY killing them, but without
> >> a good prior estimate of the body count, you can hardly be said to be
> >> killing anyone by letting one who is POSSIBLY a killer, walk. Hindsight is
> >> 20/20, but we don't have it when we need it -- and the next-best thing is
> >> to act upon what we KNOW NOW; and if we do NOT know that the guy is a
> >> killer, we should let him go, in case he is innocent.
> >
> >I guess what I was commenting on was your ten-to-one ratio, which seems to be balanced
> >on a probability argument of sorts (Now that I write this, it seems a bit silly). But
> >if we let ten murderers go to save one man, all that it requires is that 10% of those
> >murderers strike again.
>
> I think the original comment was not on the probability, but on value
> of innocense. "Innocent until proven guilty" reflect the same value system.
But the original comments did refer to either a ten-to-one or hundred-to-one ratio (I've
heard one of each on this thread) This seems to imply a weighting factor to the
presumption of innocence.
> >> Sorry, society is not in the business of making sure that you get to satisfy
> >> all of your urges. While YOU may have no problem with revenge, YOU, specifically,
> >> are not the one who designs and runs the justice system.
> >
> >Valid point. But where I have been made to suffer by another's malice, that one
> >should also have to suffer. It is my experience that this is the *only* way to make
> >repeat offenders understand what they have done. Otherwise, their victims continue to
> >seem like toys to them.
>
> If you seek punitive justice, then make the punishments more severe. Make it
> more than just a slap on the wrist, instead of trying to fix a wrong with another wrong.
Unfortunately, while your point is valid, 'another wrong' today means denying a prisoner
things like cable television, nice meals etc.
> >> Vengeance may or may not be "wrong", but it is definetely not justice.
> >
> >Agreed. However, were justice to provide for revenge, I would take it.
>
> Oh, I would want the same -- but if I was to design the law, I would have made
> sure that justice does not serve revenge.
True story. I remember hearing about this rapist in Pakistan. After his conviction, he
was sentenced to 99 lashes - ten of which were dispensed by the woman he had raped. At
the time, it seemed like justice to me ...
> >> Of course; however, AFTER the "bullshit" is over, would you still feel
> >> justified in walking up to a handcuffed and immobilized assailant, and
> >> kicking the shit out of him?.. This is what you are proposing when you
> >> advocate justice as revenge.
> >
> >That depends. How many times has he assaulted me? And been released with a slap on
> >the wrist only to assault me again? Must I wait for him time and again to sneak up
> >behind me and attack me again? There is a point, where, for my own safety, I'd have
> >to maim him in some way (or kill him).
>
> If it is that bad -- make sure that he is in for life without parole. Killing
> him adds NOTHING to the equation, besides satisfying your anger.
My anger, my piece of mind. I see your point. And I guess my last argument of CP over
infinite Parole was cost ... which doesn't work out.
> >> It is selfish to hurt them AFTER THE FACT -- during the incident, you
> >> are merely protecting yourself; afterwards, the personal danger to you is
> >> gone, and you are acting merely to satisfy your urge to lash out.
> >
> >See above. How many times would you accept the same person assaulting you before you
> >had to take measures beyond 'immediate self-defense'?
>
> So you are pointing at one problem within the justice system as a justification
> for another?.. yes, our justice system is far from perfect -- but adding CP to it will
> not improve anything.
I hate losing arguments, you know that, don't you?
> >> >I don't believe in spirits or heaven or any of that. But I do
> >> >believe in honour. I believe that people malicious enough to enjoy another's pain
> >> >should be dealt with permanently. Most economically feasible is the death penalty
> >> >(I'll even lend you the rope.)
> >>
> >> Of course, when do you stop?.. OK, let's lunch that guy who raped your
> >> daughter. Then, let's lynch that guy who beat you; then, let's lynch the
> >> mugger; then, let's lynch that guy who cut you off in traffic. Let's lynch
> >> everyone! We can always ask YOU when is the right time to stop.
> >
> >The guy who raped my daughter would be in a great deal of trouble, although I'd give
> >the penal system a chance. The guy who beat me must be punished so that he will
> >*never* do it again (if reformation fails, then physical deterrent [e.g. lack of
> >mobility] are required). Thievery depends on whether assault was involved.
> >
> >Cute. I understand the problem. I would hold capital punishment as a resort for the
> >courts should they find a person who is unreformable.
>
> Again, what is wrong with life without parole?..
The cost, which is not valid as the Americans have proven with their appeal process.
OTOH, the ease with which criminals live. In Canada, they get cable TV - *I* never had
cable TV until I moved out of my parents' house. They get all the cigarettes they want,
reasonable meals, outdoor exercise, conjugal visits. I would guess that the US has
similar problems.
> >> I am positive that you, at one point or another, caused another suffering and
> >> enjoyed it -- I had, too. Certainly, a serial killer is worse -- but WHERE
> >> DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?
> >
> >At people who are unable to understand/sympathize with their victims. At people who
> >will repeatedly offend.
>
> Lock them up for life; put them through psychological treatment; etc.
> there are OTHER options available, besides killing them.
True, and more economical ones.
> >> Another quote that I love, but i do not remember where it is from:
> >> "Can you grant life?.. No?!. If so, do not be so quick to deal out death!"
> >
> >Good points, all. And I noticed that you do admit that you have enjoyed hurting
> >others at one time or another for some reason or other. That's important, because
> >everyone has to come to terms with that little darkness inside them.
>
> <shrug> I am not in the business of leading by sanctimonious example.
That's one of the many good things about atheism.
> >I guess my point in regards to capital punishment is this: When we have a man who
> >repeatedly rapes/kills, whom we have failed to reform, who will do nothing but rot
> >away in jail and cost us money (how many tens of thousands of dollars a year), why
> >keep him alive.
>
> And my point is that capital punishment does NOTHING beyond what life
> without parole would do (it is not cheaper, because we NEED the lengthy
> appeal process in order to make sure that as few innocents as possible get
> netted):
> 1) It is irreversible. A "life without parole" can always be revoked if one
> is later found to have been innocent -- an imperfect solution, but
> better than death.
Probably the most potent argument.
> 2) We say that killing is wrong; however, if the state (which is subject to
> the laws it imposes upon individuals) is ALLOWED to violate such a basic
> rule, there is basic weakening of integrity going on. if a state can
> kill in cold blood but individuals cannot, what will be the next thing
> that a state can do that citizens cannot?.. There is a REASON why a
> state is subject to its own laws, and this is it -- to prevent the state
> from going into a slide down the slippery slope.
Ouch, there's a different POV. [thinks]So to maintain the dignity of the gov't [snicker],
we have to avoid allowing it to break laws while punishing. But then isn't incarceration
a form of kidnapping?
[snip]
I would guess, from reading back what I've written over the past coupla days, that most of
my beef is with the general shoddiness of the punitive half of our justice system. The
ability of a technique to reform a person, in my experience, is directly related to that
person's ability to sympathize with their victims. The present system seems to ... coddle
... criminals far too much. I saw capital punishment as a cure for this problem, where
more serious punitive measures would probably serve.
no...@nowhere.nospam
MindFlayer wrote:
>
> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, no...@nowhere.NOSPAM penned this
> in one fell sweep: <349142...@nowhere.NOSPAM>
> >MindFlayer wrote:
> But what he is proposing -- cutting the appeal process for
> capital punishment -- WILL net innocents that would have lived with
> the current system.
I can see certain cases where completly overwhelming evidence
should shorten the appeal process. _I_ would propose to shorten
it for all cases.
> >All of us together figure out when capital punishment can be
> >applied. Then 12 peers judge the evidence with lawyers arguing
> >both sides of the case.
>
> Yes, so the society is carrying out a revenge fantasy of
> one of its members.
You see it as revenge I see it as punishment.
> The problem is that everyone will have different
> ideas of who deserves death -- if we ask him, you, I, we will get
> different answers.
Thats why we have twelve jurors not one.
> Inevitably, a set cutoff line for CP will be
> rather arbitrary, and will reflect SOMEONE's sentiment -- but not
> others'. ANY CP cutoff line would be problematic.
The punishment for murder, rape, and selling drugs is arbitrary.
They generally reflect societies sentiments, but not exactly.
> Also, society SHOULD NOT be in the business of carrying
> out its members' revenge wishes -- else I would really like the
> society to punch out that guy who blatantly cut me off... How come
> we, at worst, fine that guy in traffic (instead of doing it MY way),
> but DO kill the perpetrator of a serious crime, in accordance with
> the victims' wishes?..
Well the victims are usually dead and the victims families often
speak against killing the perp. Obviously an inviduals wishes
have nothing to do with it (unless your in a postion of power,
usually an elected postion).
> Our entire legal system is built around the idea that we
> DON'T get to have revenge -- instead, the criminal experiences
> incarceration and stuff. How come then that, at one point, society
> suddenly starts serving revenge?..
I don't know. I don't call it revenge I call it punishment.
Why would I want revenge against Tim McVeigh? I didn't know
anyone killed or injured in the blast.
> The victims' revenge wishes
> usually do not -- and SHOULD NOT -- have an effect on the
> punishment; consistency demands that we extend this to even the
> most serious crimes. if that is so, society does not need to
> institute capital punishment. That fact that we do have it speaks
> about how far we are from barbarism, IMO.
[snipage]
> >> worse -- but WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? How do you make sure that
> >> the line is not arbitrary, that it is not where YOU think it should
> >> be?..
> >
> >Simple, make it a law.
>
> That's the point -- WHOSE CP ideas will you codify?..
The usual way, use democracy. Its not perfect but it seems
to be the best we have.
> Also, WHY should it be made a law, if society is not in the
> business of serving individuals' vengeance?..
Why do you think killing someone is revenge and vengeance
while locking them up for life is punishment?
Toby
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 no...@nowhere.NOSPAM wrote:
> MindFlayer wrote:
> > But what he is proposing -- cutting the appeal process for
> > capital punishment -- WILL net innocents that would have lived with
> > the current system.
>
> I can see certain cases where completly overwhelming evidence
> should shorten the appeal process. _I_ would propose to shorten
> it for all cases.
_I_ would propose to throw out this wasteful adversarial justice system
that we have now. That would shorten court time in general.
> > Yes, so the society is carrying out a revenge fantasy of
> > one of its members.
>
> You see it as revenge I see it as punishment.
The justice system should serve to prevent future crime. Revenge should
be, at most, tangential.
> > The problem is that everyone will have different
> > ideas of who deserves death -- if we ask him, you, I, we will get
> > different answers.
>
> Thats why we have twelve jurors not one.
Jury: Twelve people who determine which client has the better lawyer.
Don Antropos
Gregory Gyetko <ggy...@nospam.newbridge.com> wrote:
>Don Antropos wrote:
>
>> Gregory Gyetko <ggy...@nospam.newbridge.com> wrote:
>>
>> >MindFlayer wrote:
>> >
>> >> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gary Gnu penned this in one fell
>> >> sweep: <66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>
>> >> >
>> >> >I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
>> >> >for it or against it and why?
>> >> >
>> >> >I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
>> >> >names!
>> >>
>> >> Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
>> >> 1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a
>> >> deterrent to crime.
>> >
>> >Shown by whom? All I've ever seen in poorly summarized stats on how murders
>> >have risen since the adoption of death penalties in certain places in the
>> >U.S. Are these measures of effectiveness or just measures of how seriously
>> >crime is increasing in the U.S.?
>>
>> Amnesty International has a lot of data on this. Also I think it's
>> quite understandable. In a state with death-penalty for murder one, a
>> murderer is far more likely to resist violently to arrest and kill at
>> least one or two more people. Just an example.
>
>A good example. But once we've caught the guy, and we look at our records and
>see his record of previous murders, what do we do with him?
First of all, your example is way to simple. There is a reason why law
cases take so much time. There's a lot of study needed to take
everything into account: circumstances, background, etc. etc.
Secondly, even when it would be that simple, we still have to take
into account that we are dealing with a highly unadapted person,
probably a psychological case, probably someone we might consider ill.
In modern society you kill someone who is ill, unless the person wants
to because life has become filled with unbearable suffering. Than we
call it euthanasia. To get back at your question, we have at least to
try and rehabilitate that person and if that doesn't work, we'll
probably end up incarcerating him for life. Don't think he will come
off lightly then: I think life imprisonment is almost as bad as
capital punishment. Again for the same reason why we consider murder,
rape and molest as criminal.
>
>> >> 2) Protection of society. While capital punishment will certainly protect
>> >> society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
>> >> ways.
>> >
>> >If you didn't have that *ridiculously* drawn out appeal process, putting the
>> >guy to death costs the price of a good rope or a shotgun
>>
>> So you prefer lynching? Just get rid of the constitutional state? At
>> least that is what you're implying.
>
>No, I mean that the appeal process in the U.S. has some really long processes
>which allow 49 or 50 appeals based on technicalities (like the execution form
>being filled out with a signature slightly to the left of the dotted lines).
The malpractice of a justicial system may never result in an
enhancement of the penal-system!
>
>> >> 3) Reformation. Well, death certainly does not reform anyone.
>> >
>> >Name one person who has gone on to murder after being capitally punished.
>>
>> Name one person who became a better person after being capitally punished.
>
>Jeffrey Dahmer, capitally punished(well, killed) by a fellow inmate, has not
>molested, murdered or eaten a child since.
Yet, he was murdered.
>
>> >> 4) Revenge. While revenge might be served by capital punishment, it is
>> >> illogical. As long as we take vengeance, why not rape the rapists and
>> >> torture the torturers?.. No, we are more civilized than that -- "eye for
>> >> an eye" is not considered justice by us.
>> >
>> >An eye for eye mean that the punishment should fit the crime. Rapists,
>> >sadists, serial murders ... put them to death. Yes, I believe in honour,
>> >I believe in honouring the dead (I am an atheist, mind you). I believe in
>> >revenge. Don't believe that crock about it being hollow.
>>
>> Revenge is plain barbarism to me and honour is a very outdated
>> concept, which by the way only has meaning to people who believe in
>> ancestor-spirits, gods and higher purposes to life.
>
>As atheists (okay, I'm only really speaking for myself) we get to choose how and
>*why* we live our lives. I choose honour. I find it a satisfying moral code
>which fits with my beliefs (not the other way around). When someone is made to
>suffer indignity, honour means recompense. I suppose that you have a thing
>against chivalry, too?
Not per se, but I do think it's outdated. But I have to admit I also
use some vague moral concepts myself. I think of human dignity as an
important value to judge what is good or wrong.
>
>> >> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
>> >> capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
>> >> mind tells me not to.
>> >
>> >I don't have such a problem. When I hear about a guy (Paul Bernardo) who
>> >captured little girls (12-15) and repeatedly raped them in his basement, then
>> >killed them, chopped them up and encased the pieces in cement, I start to
>> >think ... "That guy should die .. anyone have a broadsword."
>>
>> I understand that emotion very well. But at the same time it is very clear to
>> me that condemning for instance murder, also implies that I cannot commit a
>> murder. No matter how disturbed the criminal is, we must not get screwed up by
>> them ourselves.
>
>That's why it(capital punishment) has to be legalized for the courts to dish
>out. Hang him, save us money. Make sure he can't do it ever again.
Huh? Your 'that's why' is in complete contradiction to what I said.
And money must never be a measure. It would make it very easy to get
rid of all sorts of unwanted costly elements in society, like old
people, people with an IQ below 60, aggressive people, artists,
lawyers, politicians, atheists and theists, .... need I go on?
>
>> >The jury ought to at least have the option to put a guy like that to death -
>> >but in Canada they don't.
>>
>> Good for Canada.
>
>Yeah, really. Maybe you'd think different if you'd heard the girl screaming on
>the videotapes that the guy had made of himself raping her. Maybe you wouldn't
>think different.
No I wouldn't think differently.
>
>I remember being the kind of guy who said 'no, never, that's so inhumane' but
>somewhere along the line I figured that such people are far too dangerous to be
>let out ever again. At least for my peace of mind.
Let me tell you, there is no insurance in life whatsoever. I agree
society has to protect itself, but not at all cost. The need of the
many does NOT outweigh the need of the few!!!
Don Antropos
Gregory Gyetko <ggy...@nospam.newbridge.com> wrote:
<snip>
>[snip]
>
>I would guess, from reading back what I've written over the past coupla days, that most of
>my beef is with the general shoddiness of the punitive half of our justice system. The
>ability of a technique to reform a person, in my experience, is directly related to that
>person's ability to sympathize with their victims. The present system seems to ... coddle
>... criminals far too much. I saw capital punishment as a cure for this problem, where
>more serious punitive measures would probably serve.
>
>
I don't really know how things are in Canada, but I think they are the
same here in the Netherlands. I used to think our system was too
friendly on criminals too, until I spoke to a lot of jailbirds and saw
a prison from the inside (as a guest, mind you). It convinced me: it
is hell to be inside and it doesn't matter how many colour tv's you
get. You're plain and simple a prisoner, completely at the mercy of
the system. At a whim your cell can be turned upside down and you get
stripped, as they call it, for nothing.
One former prisoner told me about his wife coming to visit, telling
about their little daughter being ill. After each visit you have to
strip and get checked inside out, no matter what mood your in. He
resisted and got two days solitary. When he yelled too loud, they
simply knocked him unconscious a couple of times. Later he complained
about his broken nose and got a 50 dollars indemnification. Just a
story of how things go.
By the way, those cells look pretty big on photo's. But they use
wide-angle lenses. Consider yourself being confined to a room 2 by 3
meters. Would you be able to stand that? I would only be able to cope
with it, when there was something to hope for. Life imprisonment would
most certainly cause me to commit suicide. Still I think this to be
the limit of how inhumane we as a modern society can get. One step
further and we lose everything we are trying to be. I still hold crime
mainly to be a failure of society, not of the individual alone.
Therion Ware
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:21:27 GMT, min...@ix.netcom.com (MindFlayer)
decided to say, in alt.atheism, using 70 valuable lines of text:
>In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
>fell sweep: <3490089...@nospam.newbridge.com>
>>MindFlayer wrote:
>>
>>> Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
>>> 1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a
>>> deterrent to crime.
>>
>>Shown by whom? All I've ever seen in poorly summarized stats on how murders
>>have risen since the adoption of death penalties in certain places in the
>>U.S. Are these measures of effectiveness or just measures of how seriously
>>crime is increasing in the U.S.?
>
>And thus the null-hypothesis holds. All attempts to show that capital
>punishment deters crime, failed.
Probably because nobody commits a crime thinking that they'll get
caught and punished for it.
>>> 2) Protection of society. While capital punishment will certainly protect
>>> society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
>>> ways.
>>
>>If you didn't have that *ridiculously* drawn out appeal process, putting the
>>guy to death costs the price of a good rope or a shotgun
>
>I don't remember who said it, but it went something like: "it is better
>to let ten guilty men walk than kill one innocent".
(Let me play devil's advocate here:)
But is it? If we cut the long appeals process and legislate so that
the death penalty is imposed for any premeditated violent crime
within, say, 7 days of sentence, with absolutely no exceptions there
is no doubt that we will kill some innocent people. But we will also
remove from society a large number of guilty ones, some of whom would
upon release from prison go on to commit further violent crimes. If
the number of convicted-but-innocent who would die is less than the
number of people who would be killed or injured by the released, then
we should bite the bullet and legislate in this fashion asap because
we will be saving lives.
(This suggested by the book "The truth machine" (a future history)
<http://www.truthmachine.com>. The authors "swift and sure" crime bill
runs like this:
1. First-time violent offenders, including juveniles, are sentenced to
privately run rehabilitation prisons or boot camps with rigorous
education programs. Prisoners include anyone convicted of weapons
possession crimes. A national standard is instituted for education and
rehabilitation of such prisoners. All prisons are equipped with
fitness facilities, libraries, and computers. Terms of incarceration
are slightly shorter than before, but inmates have to pass literacy
and mental competency tests to qualify for parole.
2. Registration of firearms and mandatory retina-printing and
DNA-recording of all firearm owners becomes national law. No convicted
violent criminals can ever legally own or carry any firearm. After a
30-day grace period, possession of any unregistered firearm becomes a
class-one felony, subject to severe penalties.
3. Free and instant treatment is offered on demand for drug addiction,
alcoholism, gambling addiction, and any treatable form of mental
illness. Concurrently the insanity defense for all violent crime is
abolished. Defenses based on childhood abuse or any plea other than
self-defense are virtually eliminated. This is known as the "No
Excuses Provision."
4. A federal mandate directs all states to increase health education
budgets to a new national standard (an average increase of about 55
percent) and to introduce weekly anti-drug, anti-violence, and
responsible parenting curricula in all public schools.
5. A series of Victims' Rights Laws is enacted, allowing victims or
their survivors to testify at sentencing hearings and to collect
monetary damages through the Internal Revenue Service as a percentage
surtax on criminals' lifetime earnings, without the expense of
attorneys or collection agencies. The surtax percentages are based on
the severity of the crime, but are formulated to avoid causing such
financial hardship as to force felons to commit further crimes
impelled by desperation.
6. Within federal guidelines, all able inmates are required to perform
suitable work as determined by prison operators. Inmates will, upon
release, receive 10 percent of fair market earnings from their work,
and 40 percent of earnings over and above the cost of their
incarceration. Motivated inmates can earn substantial income and
prison operators can profit and thereby lower bids for operating
contracts. The goal is to minimize the cost to society of warehousing
criminals, while also building prisoners' work ethic.
7. Swift and Sure cancels the privacy rights of inmates, implementing
24-hour audio-video monitoring of any areas accessible to prisoners,
with data stored digitally off-site for 10 years. Any racketeering or
serious crimes by inmates proven by video evidence becomes an
automatic capital offense. Thus inmates will never again run the
prisons.
8. Those convicted of violent crimes will be limited to one appeal,
heard and ruled upon within 65 days of trial verdict. A mandatory
death penalty is instituted for any second violent crime committed
after Swift and Sure became law (January 15, 2005). Execution will
take place immediately upon decision, with no exceptions granted under
any circumstances.
>The whole point is to
>make sure that no innocent gets killed -- this is why the appeal process is
>so ridiculously long.
---
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
- Pauline Reage
---- alternatively, buy some exquisite oriental rosewood furniture
<http://arachnos.supernews.com/rosewood/home.html>
MindFlayer
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
>MindFlayer wrote:
>
>> I think the original comment was not on the probability, but on value
>> of innocense. "Innocent until proven guilty" reflect the same value system.
>
>But the original comments did refer to either a ten-to-one or hundred-to-one ratio (I've
>heard one of each on this thread) This seems to imply a weighting factor to the
>presumption of innocence.
I always thought of it as a literary device...
<snip>
>> So you are pointing at one problem within the justice system as a justification
>> for another?.. yes, our justice system is far from perfect -- but adding CP to it will
>> not improve anything.
>
>I hate losing arguments, you know that, don't you?
<bows graciously> I take it you are anti-CP now?..
>> Again, what is wrong with life without parole?..
>
>The cost, which is not valid as the Americans have proven with their appeal process.
>OTOH, the ease with which criminals live. In Canada, they get cable TV - *I* never had
>cable TV until I moved out of my parents' house. They get all the cigarettes they want,
>reasonable meals, outdoor exercise, conjugal visits. I would guess that the US has
>similar problems.
It does -- many view it as a problem. I see it as a problem only in
terms of cost -- the freedom deprivation is punishment enough, and cable TV
does nothing to alleviate the effect of incarceration...
<snip>
>I would guess, from reading back what I've written over the past coupla days, that most of
>my beef is with the general shoddiness of the punitive half of our justice system. The
>ability of a technique to reform a person, in my experience, is directly related to that
>person's ability to sympathize with their victims. The present system seems to ... coddle
>... criminals far too much. I saw capital punishment as a cure for this problem, where
>more serious punitive measures would probably serve.
I think that the current system does not do well in terms of reforming
the criminals because no-one is really trying -- and because they are
released back into the same environment which bred them in the first place.
Our society is too concerned with punishment and not sufficiently concerned
with reformation, IMO... Remember, though -- "an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure"...
Kahuna Burger
little late to the discussion, but here's my two cents :
I had a chance to think about this a lot lately because mass was
considering a death penalty bill. it was a very heated and angry debate
with everyone accusing everyone else of being morally corrupt, evil,
against god, against the spirit of the constitution, stupid, racist, etc.
I read a lot of stupid arguments and occasionally a couple of reasonable
ones. and out of the jumble I realized a couple of things.
Emotionally, I am in support of the death penalty. I read the paper, I see
the things that people do, and I just don't see any need for them to
continue living. *BBBZZZZZTT* sorry, wronge answer, please exit this life,
you have no value here. I think everyone at some point feels that way
about someone.
In the theory of the perfect death penalty state, I am of mixed minds.
even if you established some rediculous level of proof and drawn out
appeals that even the US has not dreamed of, there are still the
philisophical issues to contend with. is it the right of a state to both
forbid and deal death? does DP constitute an attempt to make the state a
god with the power to deal life and death? which crimes get the DP? (the
Mass bill had a list of "special" 1st degree murder cases which would be
suitable for DP, but no matter how hard you work, the list will always
cover an incident which we believe should not be a DP canidate and exclude
one we think should.) I don't have answers for all of those kind of
questions, but luckily I don't need to yet, because...
In practice, I am completely opposed to DP. a lot of the reasons have been
gone over here, but my main one in this : Death will always be dealt
disporportionately to the underclass, the uneducated and the racial and
religious minorities. this is an unaviodable consequesnce of the jury
system. you see, no matter how the laws are written, it will always fall
to a jury to decide if a person is executed or not. if you try to make DP
automatic in some crimes, the jury will just weigh their opinion of death
in their guilty verdict. and no matter what the evidence or witnesses or
courtroom theatrics, a part of that decision will come down to one
question for each jury member : "do I identify with this person too much
to send them to the chair? or am I sufficiently distanced from them to
inflict this penalty?" even if all other arguments fail (and the questions
of cost, deterance and execution of innocents are also quite important to
me) I cannot support any system in which the question of life or death
falls in the end to whether 12 people can make emotional contact with the
defendant.
the death penalty bill here sailed to a narrow passage in both houses
mostly on the strength of public outrage over a brutal murder of a young
cambridge boy. the two houses had passed differnt bills, however, so they
had to be conferenced out and re-voted. on the second vote, one long time
DP supporter changed his vote and changed 81-79 to 80-80 in the house and
the bill failed due to stalemate. the rep who switched said that he was
swayed by the (percieved) injustice of the louise woodward "nanny trial"
verdict which, if it had been first degree instead of second would have
left her open for DP. I was glad he switched, but deep in my cynical mind,
I said to myself "great. we pass the death penalty based on the
realisation that pretty white people can be victims, and then back off
when we realise that a pretty white person could also be executed." it
solidified my opposition to realise the even many DP opponents were in the
grip of the same societal forces that make it impossible to admistister
justly.
one final note:
Claude Martins (mar...@cs.yorku.ca) wrote:
: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent
: suffer."
: Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), English jurist. Commentaries on
: the Laws of England, vol. 4, ch. 27 (1765-69).
: And with the death penalty, there is no hope for the innocent man
: wrongly executed.
I understand this argument as it applies to DP but do not support it as a
good foundation for law. the lives of potential victims have value too,
and I don't see it as a greater injustice for one person to be imprisoned
than 1 or 5 or 10 others to lose their lives. cast it in different terms.
would you agree so easily if he had stated the real consequences : "it is
better that 10 sets of children be sytematically abused, neglected or
raped than that one innocent parent be sent to jail for child abuse." is
it really?
the only way to assure that no innocents go to jail is not to send any of
the guilty either. we make all the accomedations we can to protect the
innocent, but the purpose of our criminal justice system is to protect
society and the imprisonment of the innocent it the hard price we pay for
protection from the guilty. its hard, but its life.
--
The Big Kahuna Burger a1 "... if cats looked like frogs, we'd
Loving partner of Charles a0 understand what nasty, brutal little
and adoring protector of #3 creatures they really are."
Film Series : The Cat. 7 -Terry Pratchett
Tom Goodwin
Michelle Malkin wrote:
> I'm making this a party thread, since it doesn't deal with atheism. I'm not sure
> if you were around when the party thread first showed up. It covers any topic
> not dealing with atheism both serious and funny.
>
> I'm against capital punishment. Always have been, But, I think that the really
> dangerous types (repeat murderers, rapists, torturers, child molesters) should
> be sent somewhere that they can't get back from - like an island in the middle
> of the ocean - and have their supplies dropped from the air.
Um, that was already made into a move. Unfortunately the name escapes me. Anyways,
the some of
the felons escape the island ;-)
> And, the men and
> women should be totally separated - like separate islands - so that there are no
> children. Cruel treatment? Yes. But, letting them run free in society or given a
> chance to get back into society would be even worse. (Besides, what female
> prisoner would want to be with guys like that anyway, no matter how bad she
> was?)
>
I think we should fry some of the people who are guilty of some of the heinous crimes
(and yes Iknow, it doesn't deter crime). However, our criminal justice is so screwey
that guilty people get off
and innocent people are on death row. Hence, capitial punishment should not be
allowed.
Peace,
Tom
--
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason,
I have never used any ohter, and I trust I never shall"
[Thomas Paine in the Age of Reason
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example
of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the
Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
[John Adams in a letter to Jefferson]
Michelle Malkin
Tom Goodwin <tmgoo...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Michelle Malkin wrote:
>> I'm making this a party thread, since it doesn't deal with atheism. I'm not sure
>> if you were around when the party thread first showed up. It covers any topic
>> not dealing with atheism both serious and funny.
>>
>> I'm against capital punishment. Always have been, But, I think that the really
>> dangerous types (repeat murderers, rapists, torturers, child molesters) should
>> be sent somewhere that they can't get back from - like an island in the middle
>> of the ocean - and have their supplies dropped from the air.
>Um, that was already made into a move. Unfortunately the name escapes me. Anyways,
>the some of
>the felons escape the island ;-)
If it is far enough away from another landmass and there is no means of
transportation outside of a rowboat, how would they escape? Where would they
escape to? And, very few would be able to get away at any one time and would be
quickly recaptured (how many people can one supply plane or 'copter carry?). I
still think it's a good idea.
I know that this isn't a new idea. "Twilight Zone" - the original series - had a
story about solitary criminals being sent to terraformed asteroids. I saw this
long before that movie was a glint in it's writer's eye. And, I don't like the
idea of solitary punishment, either. I say put all the rapists together, all the
multi-murderers together and all the serial killers together. That way, they can
keep each other company. Take that as you will.
>> women should be totally separated - like separate islands - so that there are no
>> children. Cruel treatment? Yes. But, letting them run free in society or given a
>> chance to get back into society would be even worse. (Besides, what female
>> prisoner would want to be with guys like that anyway, no matter how bad she
>> was?)
>>
>I think we should fry some of the people who are guilty of some of the heinous crimes
>(and yes Iknow, it doesn't deter crime). However, our criminal justice is so screwey
>that guilty people get off
>and innocent people are on death row. Hence, capitial punishment should not be
>allowed.
>Peace,
>Tom
>--
>"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason,
>I have never used any ohter, and I trust I never shall"
>[Thomas Paine in the Age of Reason
>"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example
>of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the
>Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
>[John Adams in a letter to Jefferson]
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
It is incredible that only idiots are absolutely sure of salvation.
- Robert Green Ingersoll
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Frank Schierenberg
>>> 1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a
>>> deterrent to crime.
That's true, because to most normal people it's inconceivable that
someone unconsciously suicidal will seek death intentionally. But such is
the case. There are many on death row who actively seek death but lack the
nerve or knowhow to do themselves in. Anyway its much more fun to die
notoriously famous right in the public's eye. To those people the
elimination of the death penalty is not at all welcome. But Christ loves
them anyways, can we do less?
amor vincit omnia
Frank the Fundy
an atheist who met Christ Jesus
Gully Foyle
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 16:04:43 GMT, nospam....@cistron.nl (Don
Antropos) wrote:
>min...@ix.netcom.com (MindFlayer) wrote:
>
>>In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gary Gnu penned this in one fell
>>sweep: <66ngah$1...@ari.ari.net>
>>>
>>>I was just wondering how atheists felt about Capital Punishment. Are you
>>>for it or against it and why?
>>>
>>>I haven't read this group for awhile, but its nice to see some familar
>>>names!
>>
>> Well, it depends on the purpose of the punishment.
>>1) Deterrent. Capital punishment has been shown to NOT work as a deterrent
>> to crime.
>>2) Protection of society. While capital punishment will certainly protect
>> society from the criminal, there are other, cheaper and more humane,
>> ways.
>>3) Reformation. Well, death certainly does not reform anyone.
>>4) Revenge. While revenge might be served by capital punishment, it is
>> illogical. As long as we take vengeance, why not rape the rapists and
>> torture the torturers?.. No, we are more civilized than that -- "eye for
>> an eye" is not considered justice by us.
>>
>> Well, I think it is pretty obvious by now that I do not believe in
>>capital punishment -- even though I might want to exact such on someone, my
>>mind tells me not to.
>
>
>I'm strong opposed to death penalty, mostly for the same reasons
>MindFlayer gives. But I like to add some reasons:
>
>5. Death penalty is irreversible. Sometimes we get the wrong guy.
>6. If you consider murder a capital crime, can you commit murder as a
>capital punishment? It's a paradox.
>7. No crime can be horrible enough to justify death. But if you think
>there is, where do you draw the line? There has been a time that
>atheism was punishable by death. I don't think any nation still sees
>it this way. And murder? Rape? How many people do you have to
>slaughter, before you can get the death penalty? One? Ok, but then
>it's quite obvious you can't kill this murderer for it too.
>8. Death penalty is a violation of Human Rights. Maybe they don't
>really mean anything, but I like to think it's good to try to uphold
>them anyway.
>9. DP is cruel and inhumane.
>10. It is often misused by nations to eradicate opposition. In my
>opinion, if a society can't deal with so-called undesirable elements,
>it fails as a society.
>
Even though I agree with others and often feel that certain
individuals should not be allowed to live. I'd only add one (for me)
overriding reason to be against the death penalty, apart from the
above very valid reasons: Who can be trusted to make these decisions,
who can be trusted to get it right (ie apply the process fairly and
without bias and actually sentence the right person), who can be
trusted to not abuse that power? Basically: can we put something like
this into the hands of the government, the power to kill its citizens?
XXIII
_________________________________________________________________
To email me remove the Z after the @ in my email address.
_________________________________________________________________
DEAD, adj. Done with the work of breathing; done
With all the world; the mad race run
Though to the end; the golden goal
Attained and found to be a hole!
Squatol Johnes
From the Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce
_________________________________________________________________
http://rabi.phys.columbia.edu/~matmat/html/devils.html
or for more quotes try:
http://www.math.unl.edu/~augustyn/godisdead.html
_________________________________________________________________
Don Antropos
four...@Zcryogen.com (Gully Foyle) wrote:
I agree this is the best and most important one of all, the classic
'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?'
Don Antropos
Wm James
The death penalty IS a deterrent to the criminal. Ted Bundy has been
deterred from ever killing again.
No punishment is reversible. You can pay someone for the time they
spent wrongfully in prison, but you can never give them back the time.
Therefore is we are to refrain from sentencing someone due to the
chance that we might be wrong, we can't punish anyone for anything.
I favor the death penalty, even for theft in cases of habitual
offenders. Some people simply cannot be allowed to live with the rest
of us, and there is no need to feed them for life. It's silly!
Death is too good for people who drive slow in the fast lane! :)
William R. James
MindFlayer
On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:31:02 GMT, sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
>The death penalty IS a deterrent to the criminal. Ted Bundy has been
>deterred from ever killing again.
he would have been deterred just as well by life without parole.
>No punishment is reversible. You can pay someone for the time they
>spent wrongfully in prison, but you can never give them back the time.
>Therefore is we are to refrain from sentencing someone due to the
>chance that we might be wrong, we can't punish anyone for anything.
But any OTHER punishment may be stopped half-way through, letting
the person to live THE REST of their life; capital punishment is a
one-shot deal.
>I favor the death penalty, even for theft in cases of habitual
>offenders. Some people simply cannot be allowed to live with the rest
>of us, and there is no need to feed them for life. It's silly!
I see. So you believe that it is proper to kill those who
inconvenience you... Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion,
but I would not be surprised if implementation of YOUR ideas would be
followed by someone deciding that YOU are inconvenient, and not
deserving of life.
Rob
sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
>The death penalty IS a deterrent to the criminal. Ted Bundy has been
>deterred from ever killing again.
Undeniably true, but I think the intended deterrent effect was to make
those contemplating murder think twice before doing it. Albert
Pierrepoint, modern Britain's most prolific hangman AFAIK, opined upon
his retirement that the deterrent effect of hanging was practically
zero. Capital punishment simply made it more worth the criminal's
while not to be found out.
>No punishment is reversible. You can pay someone for the time they
>spent wrongfully in prison, but you can never give them back the time.
>Therefore is we are to refrain from sentencing someone due to the
>chance that we might be wrong, we can't punish anyone for anything.
Yes, but surely death is more final, and less reversible, than
imprisonment.
>I favor the death penalty, even for theft in cases of habitual
>offenders.
Urrgh. Sounds like me twenty years ago. I used to be an ardent
supporter too, but not now. Part of what put me off was a growing
understanding of the methods of execution in use around the world, and
the increasing realization that painless, instantaneous death is so
much pie in the sky. Details on request.
>Some people simply cannot be allowed to live with the rest
>of us, and there is no need to feed them for life. It's silly!
Silly, but inevitable. The responsibility for dealing with miscreants
falls to society (ie all of us) because there is simply no-one else
around to do it. Therefore, like it or not, we have to deal with
murderers, rapists etc. in as civilized a way as possible. IMO
execution is not a civilized way. Unfortunately that means we are
stuck with the bastards - an idea which I don't like at all - but I'm
prepared to accept it, along with my share of the expense of keeping
them in prison.
>Death is too good for people who drive slow in the fast lane! :)
Agree absolutely 100 per cent. :)
--
Rob
rh...@netXXXcentral.co.uk
delete XXX to reply
Wm James
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:58:35 GMT, min...@ix.netcom.com (MindFlayer)
wrote:
|>On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:31:02 GMT, sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
|>
|>>The death penalty IS a deterrent to the criminal. Ted Bundy has been
|>>deterred from ever killing again.
|>
|> he would have been deterred just as well by life without parole.
Like Willy Horton? Or any of the vast number of criminals who have
either been released or escaped? "Without parole" doesn't necessarily
mean they never get out, and they still can and do kill in prison.
|>>No punishment is reversible. You can pay someone for the time they
|>>spent wrongfully in prison, but you can never give them back the time.
|>>Therefore is we are to refrain from sentencing someone due to the
|>>chance that we might be wrong, we can't punish anyone for anything.
|>
|> But any OTHER punishment may be stopped half-way through, letting
|>the person to live THE REST of their life; capital punishment is a
|>one-shot deal.
No pun intended, I assume? :)
You are advocating the position that justice should be denied on the
"just in case" proposition! For any justice system to work, we have
to assume that the convicted is guilty.
|>>I favor the death penalty, even for theft in cases of habitual
|>>offenders. Some people simply cannot be allowed to live with the rest
|>>of us, and there is no need to feed them for life. It's silly!
|>
|> I see. So you believe that it is proper to kill those who
|>inconvenience you... Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion,
|>but I would not be surprised if implementation of YOUR ideas would be
|>followed by someone deciding that YOU are inconvenient, and not
|>deserving of life.
Being killed is not an inconvenience. Not being able to live in
safety in not merely inconvenient either. If I prey on others
habitually then yes I should not be allowed to live in their society,
and no they should not be forced to feed me for life.
William R. James
Wm James
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 12:58:12 GMT, rh...@netXXXcentral.co.uk (Rob)
wrote:
|>sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
|>
|>>The death penalty IS a deterrent to the criminal. Ted Bundy has been
|>>deterred from ever killing again.
|>
|>Undeniably true, but I think the intended deterrent effect was to make
|>those contemplating murder think twice before doing it. Albert
|>Pierrepoint, modern Britain's most prolific hangman AFAIK, opined upon
|>his retirement that the deterrent effect of hanging was practically
|>zero. Capital punishment simply made it more worth the criminal's
|>while not to be found out.
True, but my point was that the deterrence to the individual is
enough.
I also think that if the death penalty was quicker and more certain,
and public it might have more of an effect. The inner city punks in
the gangs, for example, never see punishment. They see their buddies
get out before the ink is dry in their arrest record. If these punk
say their buddies hanged after the first shooting they might get the
message.
|>>No punishment is reversible. You can pay someone for the time they
|>>spent wrongfully in prison, but you can never give them back the time.
|>>Therefore is we are to refrain from sentencing someone due to the
|>>chance that we might be wrong, we can't punish anyone for anything.
|>
|>Yes, but surely death is more final, and less reversible, than
|>imprisonment.
More final is the point. No more problems with him!
|>>I favor the death penalty, even for theft in cases of habitual
|>>offenders.
|>
|>Urrgh. Sounds like me twenty years ago. I used to be an ardent
|>supporter too, but not now. Part of what put me off was a growing
|>understanding of the methods of execution in use around the world, and
|>the increasing realization that painless, instantaneous death is so
|>much pie in the sky. Details on request.
Personally, I don't care if they suffer. If not for the constitution I
wouldn't mind it if they were required to suffer at least as much as
their victims, but then I'm not that civilized. :)
|>>Some people simply cannot be allowed to live with the rest
|>>of us, and there is no need to feed them for life. It's silly!
|>
|>Silly, but inevitable. The responsibility for dealing with miscreants
|>falls to society (ie all of us) because there is simply no-one else
|>around to do it. Therefore, like it or not, we have to deal with
|>murderers, rapists etc. in as civilized a way as possible. IMO
|>execution is not a civilized way. Unfortunately that means we are
|>stuck with the bastards - an idea which I don't like at all - but I'm
|>prepared to accept it, along with my share of the expense of keeping
|>them in prison.
Well then let's make feeding them a registered charity with no tax
money. If they starve, then so be it!
|>>Death is too good for people who drive slow in the fast lane! :)
|>
|>Agree absolutely 100 per cent. :)
Can we come up with something worse than death for them? :)
William R. James
Wm James
Also:
Shouldn't the punishment for attempted murder and murder be the same?
The criminal has shown the same threat in both cases. In fact, if the
intended victim is left alive, one could argue that the criminal is
more likely to try again! After all he has shown a willingness to kill
someone who is still alive.
William R. James
Commandante Less-Then-Zero
sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
>The death penalty IS a deterrent to the criminal. Ted Bundy has been
>deterred from ever killing again.
So is life without parole.
In the states where the death penalty has been instituted, there has
not been any drop in violent crime.
>No punishment is reversible. You can pay someone for the time they
>spent wrongfully in prison, but you can never give them back the time.
>Therefore is we are to refrain from sentencing someone due to the
>chance that we might be wrong, we can't punish anyone for anything.
When has anyone ever been paid for time spent wrongfully in prison?
The point about the death penalty is that it's a pretty hard
punishment, and not to be assigned haphazardly.
Also, if you've ever seen the American criminal justice system at
work, you might not be so hasty to support the death penalty.
"An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth leaves us blind and
toothless."
____________________________________
|\<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>/|
|-> Commandante "Less-than-Zero" <-|
|/<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>\|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
a l t . a t h e i s t # 6 4 1
Christopher A. Lee
In article <687fi4$3e3$2...@excalibur.flash.net> mad.bomber...@midnight.net (Commandante "Less-Then-Zero") writes:
>sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
>
>
>>The death penalty IS a deterrent to the criminal. Ted Bundy has been
>>deterred from ever killing again.
>
>So is life without parole.
>
>In the states where the death penalty has been instituted, there has
>not been any drop in violent crime.
Most criminals don't think about getting caught. And those that do think
they won't and will get away with it. Which includes (if there is a death
penalty) killing witnesses etc).
>>No punishment is reversible. You can pay someone for the time they
>>spent wrongfully in prison, but you can never give them back the time.
>>Therefore is we are to refrain from sentencing someone due to the
>>chance that we might be wrong, we can't punish anyone for anything.
>
>When has anyone ever been paid for time spent wrongfully in prison?
>The point about the death penalty is that it's a pretty hard
Ask the low-level IRA guys who were sentenced to life imprisonment
in England for bombings they didn't do, and were comparatively recently
released because "the convictions were unsound". When they were tried,
the judge delivering the verdict said they should consider themselves
lucky Britain no longer had the death penalty because they would surely
have been executed.
They didn't get the money as official compensation. Instead they sued
the police force that beat the confessions out of them, the home office
for the incompetency of the forensic scientist etc. And they got an
out of court settlement - which always happens because that way the
authorities can get them to agree to a rider that the case is dropped
without any admission of wrong-doing.
>punishment, and not to be assigned haphazardly.
>
>Also, if you've ever seen the American criminal justice system at
>work, you might not be so hasty to support the death penalty.
>
>"An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth leaves us blind and
>toothless."
That was Ghandi.
Commandante Less-Then-Zero
chri...@netcom.com (Christopher A. Lee) wrote:
>>"An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth leaves us blind and
>>toothless."
>That was Ghandi.
Getting back on topic, now we see how stupid the bible is.
Wvz Gvzf
mad.bomber...@midnight.net (Commandante "Less-Then-Zero")
wrote >
>sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
>
>
>>The death penalty IS a deterrent to the criminal. Ted Bundy has been
>>deterred from ever killing again.
>
>So is life without parole.
LWP isn't a total deterrent, however. It is more rare now than in
times past, but prisoners occasionally escape and kill citizens.
Prisoners kill other prisoners. Prisoners kill prison guards.
Prisoners teach other, parolable prisoners how to kill.
If we spent the costs of incarceration more productively, perhaps by
improving a dangerous highway intersection or vaccinating a few the
first few hundred unvaccinated children we can find, we could actually
*buy* an innocent life or two.
The "hedonistic calculus" of innocent deaths seems to me to favor the
death penalty.
...,.,,
/666; ',
////; _~ -
(//'----0-~-0
;' . `` ~ \'
, ` ' , >
;;|\..(( -; -> You can call me weak, and you can call me atheist,
;|>- `..__) but don't call me a weak atheist. #140
Glenn Arnold
>
> |>sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
> |>
> |>>The death penalty IS a deterrent to the criminal. Ted Bundy has been
> |>>deterred from ever killing again.
> |>
> |>those contemplating murder think twice before doing it. Albert
> |>Pierrepoint, modern Britain's most prolific hangman AFAIK, opined upon
> |>his retirement that the deterrent effect of hanging was practically
> |>zero. Capital punishment simply made it more worth the criminal's
> |>while not to be found out.
>
> True, but my point was that the deterrence to the individual is
> enough.
>
> I also think that if the death penalty was quicker and more certain,
> and public it might have more of an effect. The inner city punks in
> the gangs, for example, never see punishment. They see their buddies
> get out before the ink is dry in their arrest record. If these punk
> say their buddies hanged after the first shooting they might get the
> message.
The inner city punks do indeed see punishment, very often capital, and
swift, with no appeal. Capital punishment also doesn't prevent people
from speeding or driving drunk either.
I believe that capital punishment should be voluntary. I'd bet that
there'd be alot more volunteers than you'd think. (remember the suicide
rate in prison is considered a "problem")
Glenn
tony...@post6.tele.dk
On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 17:48:51 -0500, Glenn Arnold <glenn...@zz.zz>
wrote:
snip
>The inner city punks do indeed see punishment, very often capital, and
>swift, with no appeal. Capital punishment also doesn't prevent people
>from speeding or driving drunk either.
>
>I believe that capital punishment should be voluntary. I'd bet that
>there'd be alot more volunteers than you'd think. (remember the suicide
>rate in prison is considered a "problem")
>
>Glenn
Punishment doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent. I do not know the
reason for the difference, but here the punishment, even for murder,
is rarely more than 3 or 4 years, and capital punishment doesn't
exist; and yet our murder rate is only a small fraction of what it is
in America. It is satisfying to punish, I agree, but it doesn't seem
to have any effect on crime rates.
Thomas P.
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Wm James (sp...@here.not) wrote:
: Shouldn't the punishment for attempted murder and murder be the same?
I think so.
I mean, what's the idea of letting the guy get off on a much lighter
sentence? So he can get it right the next time?
--
***********************************************
Life is one crushing defeat after another
until you just wish Flanders was dead!
Homer J. Simpson
***********************************************
Wm James
|>The inner city punks do indeed see punishment, very often capital, and
|>swift, with no appeal. Capital punishment also doesn't prevent people
|>from speeding or driving drunk either.
That's their lifestyle. Risk is not a problem for them because they
get away with it so much.
|>
|>I believe that capital punishment should be voluntary. I'd bet that
|>there'd be alot more volunteers than you'd think. (remember the suicide
|>rate in prison is considered a "problem")
|>
|>Glenn
I don't see it as a problem, but then I'm not the hangman! :)
William R. James
Wm James
|>sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
|>
|>
|>>The death penalty IS a deterrent to the criminal. Ted Bundy has been
|>>deterred from ever killing again.
|>
|>So is life without parole.
So who killed Jeffrey Dahmer? (not that I mind...)
|>In the states where the death penalty has been instituted, there has
|>not been any drop in violent crime.
There has been a drastic drop in repeat offending by the executed.
|>>No punishment is reversible. You can pay someone for the time they
|>>spent wrongfully in prison, but you can never give them back the time.
|>>Therefore is we are to refrain from sentencing someone due to the
|>>chance that we might be wrong, we can't punish anyone for anything.
|>
|>When has anyone ever been paid for time spent wrongfully in prison?
|>The point about the death penalty is that it's a pretty hard
|>punishment, and not to be assigned haphazardly.
|>
|>Also, if you've ever seen the American criminal justice system at
|>work, you might not be so hasty to support the death penalty.
I've seen it and don't like it. It's main function seem to be shaking
down citizens for "court costs" in the way of radar traps and such.
Keeping the criminals cost money so they get turned loose!
If you have a better system, let's hear it! Until then, however, I
say fry the scum and grab the next one.
|>"An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth leaves us blind and
|>toothless."
It leaves the criminal blind and toothless too! Anything less leaves
us handicapped and the criminal still armed.
William R. James
Wm James
On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 16:32:36 GMT, wsg...@obet.pbz (Wvz Gvzf) wrote:
|>mad.bomber...@midnight.net (Commandante "Less-Then-Zero")
|>wrote >
|>
|>>sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
|>>
|>>
|>>>The death penalty IS a deterrent to the criminal. Ted Bundy has been
|>>>deterred from ever killing again.
|>>
|>>So is life without parole.
|>
|>LWP isn't a total deterrent, however. It is more rare now than in
|>times past, but prisoners occasionally escape and kill citizens.
|>Prisoners kill other prisoners. Prisoners kill prison guards.
|>Prisoners teach other, parolable prisoners how to kill.
|>
|>If we spent the costs of incarceration more productively, perhaps by
|>improving a dangerous highway intersection or vaccinating a few the
|>first few hundred unvaccinated children we can find, we could actually
|>*buy* an innocent life or two.
Interesting note on that: earlier this year there was one death row
inmate that wanted to donate a kidney to his brother,but the courts
refused to allow it!
Talk about stupid! They should let them all (if not force them) to
donate all their organs.
William R. James
Wm James
On 30 Dec 1997 03:37:39 GMT, cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
|>Wm James (sp...@here.not) wrote:
|>
|>: Shouldn't the punishment for attempted murder and murder be the same?
|>
|>I think so.
|>
|>I mean, what's the idea of letting the guy get off on a much lighter
|>sentence? So he can get it right the next time?
There's a guy in a Mississippi jail for attempted murder of a judge.
He hired a witch doctor to put a death hex on him and tried to buy
some of the judges hair from his barber to do the spell.
Too bad stupidity doesn't get the death penalty.
William R. James
Glenn Arnold
Wm James wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 16:32:36 GMT, wsg...@obet.pbz (Wvz Gvzf) wrote:
>
> |>mad.bomber...@midnight.net (Commandante "Less-Then-Zero")
> |>wrote >
> |>
> |>>sp...@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
> |>>
> |>>
> |>>>The death penalty IS a deterrent to the criminal. Ted Bundy has been
> |>>>deterred from ever killing again.
> |>>
> |>>So is life without parole.
> |>
> |>LWP isn't a total deterrent, however. It is more rare now than in
> |>times past, but prisoners occasionally escape and kill citizens.
> |>Prisoners kill other prisoners. Prisoners kill prison guards.
> |>Prisoners teach other, parolable prisoners how to kill.
> |>
I happen to favor solitary confinement. According to "Papillon", it
makes prisoners wish there were a death penalty.
I'm definitely not in favor of "country club" incarceration. But I am in
favor of rehabilitative efforts. Part of that (as I see it) would be to
isolate them from each other, so they don't get any ideas. One of the
worst thing that happens in prison is that crime becomes "normal". After
all, "everybody" has done it. Perhaps there shouldn't be minimum or
medium security prisons for the "socially acceptable" prisoners. The
"less criminal" criminals might serve to dilute the hardening efect of
prison. Let Michael Milken hang out with some murderers, and they both
might learn something useful to society.
The problem with the death penalty, as it now stands, is that our basis
for justice allows the criminal to force us to pay the cost of appeals,
on the grounds that he might have been wrongly convicted. The legal cost
of a capital case frequently costs more than life incarceration.
> |>If we spent the costs of incarceration more productively, perhaps by
> |>improving a dangerous highway intersection or vaccinating a few the
> |>first few hundred unvaccinated children we can find, we could actually
> |>*buy* an innocent life or two.
>
> Interesting note on that: earlier this year there was one death row
> inmate that wanted to donate a kidney to his brother,but the courts
> refused to allow it!
Yeah, I thought that was stupid too.
>
> Talk about stupid! They should let them all (if not force them) to
> donate all their organs.
At the chicago museum of science and industry, there is (or was, 20+
years ago) a display of actual slices of a human body, taken from an
executed prisoner (maybe more than one), really neat stuff. I heard they
just did the same and made graphics of it available on the net. If
anyone knows the URL for it, let me know.
Glenn
Glenn Arnold
Wm James wrote:
>
> |>At the chicago museum of science and industry, there is (or was, 20+
> |>years ago) a display of actual slices of a human body, taken from an
> |>executed prisoner (maybe more than one), really neat stuff. I heard they
> |>just did the same and made graphics of it available on the net. If
> |>anyone knows the URL for it, let me know.
> |>
> |>Glenn
>
>
> They froze him in a jell, sliced him up and took and digitized photos.
>
> There was also a "Virtual Woman" who died from naturally. The slices
> were thinner and thus the resolution is better.
>
> They released a partial base for the net and shareware use, but the
> full system is only available to medical people and students and is
> quite expensive.
>
> William R. James
Thanks.
Glenn
Wm James
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Wm James (sp...@here.not) wrote:
: There's a guy in a Mississippi jail for attempted murder of a judge.
: He hired a witch doctor to put a death hex on him and tried to buy
: some of the judges hair from his barber to do the spell.
: Too bad stupidity doesn't get the death penalty.
Stupidity cannot be cured with monay, or through
education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not
a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But
stupidity is the only universal capital crime;
the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and
execution is carried out automatically and with-
out pity.
Robert A. Heinlein
The Grandmaster was, obvious;y talking about peopple who try to clean
loaded guns, tease bears, etc., but you get the drift. But in yor above
example, I see that the stupidity also applies to those who tried and
convicted the would-be "hexer".
Wm James
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 22:50:28 -0500, Glenn Arnold <glenn...@zz.zz>
wrote:
|>Thanks.
|>
|>Glenn
You're quite welcome.
If you find a copy on line, tell us where to download it!
William R. James
Wm James
|>The Grandmaster was, obvious;y talking about peopple who try to clean
|>loaded guns, tease bears, etc., but you get the drift. But in yor above
|>example, I see that the stupidity also applies to those who tried and
|>convicted the would-be "hexer".
While I agree that it's rather silly, he did "try" to kill the judge.
One could argue that it demonstrated a willingness to kill and that
when it failed he might have tried other means.
Sort of like when Squeaky From tried to shoot President Ford with an
unloaded pistol. I think she's still in jail for it.
William R. James
erikc
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 05:05:21 GMT
sp...@here.not (Wm James)
-- origin: alt.atheism:
>|On 30 Dec 1997 03:37:39 GMT, cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>|
>||>Wm James (sp...@here.not) wrote:
>||>
>||>: Shouldn't the punishment for attempted murder and murder be the same?
>||>
>||>I think so.
>||>
>||>I mean, what's the idea of letting the guy get off on a much lighter
>||>sentence? So he can get it right the next time?
>|
>|
>|He hired a witch doctor to put a death hex on him and tried to buy
>|some of the judges hair from his barber to do the spell.
>|
>|Too bad stupidity doesn't get the death penalty.
>|
Seems to me that the guy isn't in jail for being stupid, but for
wanting to kill the judge in the first place. The choice of intended
murder weapon, be it gun or witchcraft, is irrelevant. The *intent*
was there, along with action along those lines.
Erikc (WA #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
| "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Toby
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997, Wm James wrote:
> There's a guy in a Mississippi jail for attempted murder of a judge.
> He hired a witch doctor to put a death hex on him and tried to buy
> some of the judges hair from his barber to do the spell.
Erm....
> Too bad stupidity doesn't get the death penalty.
Are you thinking of the fellow acused, the fellows acusing him, or both?
--
Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?
http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract/
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
erikc (firewevr...@insync.net) wrote:
: >|There's a guy in a Mississippi jail for attempted murder of a judge.
: >|He hired a witch doctor to put a death hex on him and tried to buy
: >|some of the judges hair from his barber to do the spell.
: Seems to me that the guy isn't in jail for being stupid, but for
: wanting to kill the judge in the first place. The choice of intended
: murder weapon, be it gun or witchcraft, is irrelevant. The *intent*
: was there, along with action along those lines.
I strongly disagree. If My plot were to kill someone by means of my
powerful electro-magnets I've built in my garage that will affect the
sun's output so as to off someone by lethal radiation, is that on par
with missing with my high-powered scoped rifle, or should I be put under
psychiatric care?
erikc
On 3 Jan 1998 03:40:51 GMT
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
-- origin: alt.atheism:
>|erikc (firewevr...@insync.net) wrote:
>|
>|: >|There's a guy in a Mississippi jail for attempted murder of a judge.
>|: >|He hired a witch doctor to put a death hex on him and tried to buy
>|: >|some of the judges hair from his barber to do the spell.
>|
>|: Seems to me that the guy isn't in jail for being stupid, but for
>|: wanting to kill the judge in the first place. The choice of intended
>|: murder weapon, be it gun or witchcraft, is irrelevant. The *intent*
>|: was there, along with action along those lines.
>|
>|I strongly disagree. If My plot were to kill someone by means of my
>|powerful electro-magnets I've built in my garage that will affect the
>|sun's output so as to off someone by lethal radiation, is that on par
>|with missing with my high-powered scoped rifle, or should I be put under
>|psychiatric care?
Re: The judge incident: The guy who was imprisoned went to a brujo or
witch doctor or whatever it is they have there and solicited the
judges murder. Many Mississippi people are still primitive enough to
believe in all that voodoo shit and if you got enough of them on a
jury, they would convict.
Re: Mgnets in the garage: Probably good at least for a psychiatric
evaluation, or a scientific meeting with Boatwright.
Wm James
On Fri, 2 Jan 1998 13:44:50 -0800, Toby <tch...@sfu.ca> wrote:
|>On Tue, 30 Dec 1997, Wm James wrote:
|>
|>> There's a guy in a Mississippi jail for attempted murder of a judge.
|>> He hired a witch doctor to put a death hex on him and tried to buy
|>> some of the judges hair from his barber to do the spell.
|>
|>Erm....
|>
|>> Too bad stupidity doesn't get the death penalty.
|>
|>Are you thinking of the fellow acused, the fellows acusing him, or both?
Both. However the defendant did "try" to kill, therefore is something
of a threat.
William R. James