LaGrande
HenFranz
I am planning to visit USA in the future,
but I don't want to put my feet on the ground,
where they practise death penalty.
Which states may I go ?
What's about Canada ?
Henning
Bill Van Dyk
No one has been executed in Canada for fifty years. Good
thing too-- in the last five years alone, three men who
would have been on death row in the U.S. were found innocent
through DNA analysis.
Anne
As Bill said, no one has been executed in Canada for decades. The law
was changed in the 1970s (IIRC), and the death penalty was eliminated as
a punishment under criminal law. However, the death penalty was retained
for one small category - members of the armed forces who were charged
with offences such as treason could be subjected to the death penalty.
No one was actually executed for treason but there was still a provision
for the death penalty in the law. Recently - within the last year, I
believe - the death penalty was eliminated for military offences as
well.
If I'm not mistaken, about 35+ of the 50 U.S. states have the death
penalty. Moreover, federal law provides for the death penalty for some
offences under federal law.
Pax,
Anne
>
> HenFranz wrote:
>
> > Please help me friends,
> > I am planning to visit USA in the future,
> > but I don't want to put my feet on the ground,
> > where they practise death penalty.
> > Which states may I go ?
> > What's about Canada ?
> >
> > Henning
>
HenFranz
I hoped to hear that about Canada !
I don't think, to react on something,
that's wrong with something that's wrong,
makes things right.
First they planned to execute with gas,
until some court found out, that is too cruel,
and they chose injection.
Henning
Dick
New Jersey and New York have neither had executions for some time. Please
come and see Linda and I -- New York City -- say the Chelsea Hotel? -- or
our home in Convent Station, New Jersey. My address sound peaceful enough??
Look forward to seeing you.
Dick
HenFranz wrote in message <19990303174756...@ng43.aol.com>...
Ania Nowakowska
bludgeoned to death by someone -
1) dick i thought you lived in germany - beats the HELL out of me how i
got that idea... i just decided in my head that you did and that was
that.
2) re. death penalty for murder (specifically serial offenders): two
wrongs dont make a right BUT after reading a LOT OF literature on the
topic of serial murder (especially by john douglas, head of fbi's
criminal profiling unit and people closely associated with dealing with
the guilty themselves), the raw brutality of what these people are
capable of, the lack of remorse is most cases, the pain and agony the
victims undergo, the legacy that their families are left with and have
to live with, i have changed my mind about the death penalty.
and the only thing that's a bummer about it, is that it's too 'QUICK' a
solution - the only redeeming factor about it all is that all those
years that those who ARE guilty are waiting for THE DAY, they have to
live with the thought of what is coming to them and thus they live out
their punishement.
let them suffer like they have made others suffer.
shame for those who redeem. few of them really do though.
ania
HenFranz
recently in a prizon in Arizona. At the age
of 19 they killed a man during a bank robbery. Now at the age of 36 they got
the
injection. OK, it's the all time wish of mankind
to play the role of god, to judge about
to live or to die. But we absolutely shouldn't,
and I hate this show, they use to practise
the last 14 days before the execution.
A nation that proclaims to be a good example
should stop this.
Henning
Anne
I've so often agreed with you - most recently on the subject of Tom
Robbins - and now, alas, we part company.
I'm opposed to the death penalty in all cases and without reservation.
People in this ng may not be all that keen to see a debate of the death
penalty here, so I'll just limit this to one point.
Bill has already mentioned that here in Canada three men who had been
convicted of first degree murder were exonerated on the basis of DNA
evidence. One man had served about 20 years in prison before he was
cleared. One of these men had been convicted of killing a little girl,
another of killing a young nurse, another of killing his mother. These
men would likely have been sentenced to death had the death penalty been
available.
If I'm not mistaken, there are about 4500 people on death row in the
United States. Every enterprise that is run by humans, including the
criminal justice system, is capable of error.
One of the prices that is paid in order to have the death penalty
available is that a certain number of entirely innocent people will be
put to death by their own government. If the error rate is 1%, that
means 45 innocent people will be killed. However, it is likely that the
error rate is much higher, since most of the people on death row are
poor, and many have ineffective counsel at trial.
Everyone I know who supports the death penalty has in mind which
criminals should (in that person's opinion) be executed.
So my question for supporters of the death penalty is this - where is
your personal tolerance level on this? Are you willing to accept the
violent deaths of 450 innocent people so that you can execute those
serial killers? Or perhaps 45 people?
There is no doubt in my mind that supporters of the death penalty want
only guilty people to be executed, but you must know that this is an
impossible standard to achieve. Mistakes will be made. And when a
mistake is made, an innocent person is subjected to that very methodical
and cold-blooded process of being put to death by what has been called
"the killing machine" - the government agencies that operate the death
penalty process.
Pax,
Anne
Dick
Anne wrote in message <36DE49...@yahoo.com>...
>Hi Ania,
>I've so often agreed with you - most recently on the subject of Tom
>Robbins - and now, alas, we part company.
>
>I'm opposed to the death penalty in all cases and without reservation.
As you both know -- you are full of it on Robbins! :-)
Agree totally with Anne on the death penalty.
How can a community, or a government, maintain that killing is wrong, and
then kill?
Dick
Michael
range of killers from paedophiles through hitmen to sex-attackers.
(BTW anyone who disagrees with me deserves to be shot)
Michael
Dick <rst...@att.net> wrote in article
<7bm1gs$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Valerie Shertzman
live, an 18 month girl was taken from her front yard, taken into the
hills and for three days (as far as the coroner could tell from the
remains and the killers diary) was repeatedly raped and had pieces of
her skin torn off with pliers, I suppose that got his jimmy up. Then
she died in excruciating pain and terror. Lethal injection for this
bastard is too quick and painless, I'd like to see him tortured for
three days then left to die. Ania this pushed me over the fence
especially as I was pregnant with my Ruth at that time.
Valerie
DrBecker
interred in maximum security. Fuck these people. I'm thinking a vial of
whatever it is we use for injections costs probably less than $100. Their
lives are not worth the few pennies a paycheck they cost me. Ha! As if
that's ALL they "cost." The fear and negativity generated by these
pseudo-humans cannot be expressed in dollars.
"They had a bad life... they are not sane... society drove them to it... "
Their stories may be sad, but they are who they are regardless of what made
them. And what they are is something this world would do much better
without. I vote we expand the scope of executeable crimes. And I feel this
way only because it's more likely to happen than my TRUE favorite option:
mandatory neutering of any violent criminal.
Ania Nowakowska wrote in message <36DD6E...@altavista.net>...
Mark Barker
Yes Maam. I'd tend to agree with you and Ania. Of course, if we could
truly put them away for the rest of their lives and make then earn their
keep, rather than so-called "rehabilitation" (where they watch cable
television, work out on the weight machines etc., all at the taxpayer's
expense), then I might not be for the death penalty. Also, until one of
these animals torture one of my family, I'm not sure I have a right to
deny that family their revenge if that's what they desire. Still, I'm
not sure I could flip the switch myself.
Mark
P.S.
It seems we are wading into political waters with this post. Although
the group has no limits on first amendment speech, I prefer "artistic",
rather than "political" posts. Politics can make tempers flare.
Mark Barker
Well said. I'm with you on the mandatory neutering, but only in the case
of rapists. Of course, if that were the case, Clinton would lose the
Presidential jewels from what Juanita says. I'm sorry. I just couldn't
refrain from that last comment.
Ania Nowakowska
>
> Let me tell you a little story. Some 16 years ago, very near where I
> live, an 18 month girl was taken from her front yard, taken into the
> hills and for three days (as far as the coroner could tell from the
> remains and the killers diary) was repeatedly raped and had pieces of
> her skin torn off with pliers, I suppose that got his jimmy up. Then
> she died in excruciating pain and terror. Lethal injection for this
> bastard is too quick and painless, I'd like to see him tortured for
> three days then left to die. Ania this pushed me over the fence
> especially as I was pregnant with my Ruth at that time.
>
> Valerie
Valerie, this is exactly my point, and thank you for not being afraid to
speak out!!
This has nothing to do with WANTING TO PLAY GOD. (i was brought up as a
strict catholic and though i do not agree with everything in catholicism
i deeply believe in christianity as a religion). but in instances such
as these there are no two ways about it.
how much longer are we going to play GOD in being all-forgiving and
all-loving??
we are only human.
ania
Ania Nowakowska
>
> Valerie Shertzman wrote:
> >
> > Let me tell you a little story. Some 16 years ago, very near where I
> > live, an 18 month girl was taken from her front yard, taken into the
> > hills and for three days (as far as the coroner could tell from the
> > remains and the killers diary) was repeatedly raped and had pieces of
> > her skin torn off with pliers, I suppose that got his jimmy up. Then
> > she died in excruciating pain and terror. Lethal injection for this
> > bastard is too quick and painless, I'd like to see him tortured for
> > three days then left to die. Ania this pushed me over the fence
> > especially as I was pregnant with my Ruth at that time.
> >
> > Valerie
>
> truly put them away for the rest of their lives and make then earn their
> keep, rather than so-called "rehabilitation" (where they watch cable
> television, work out on the weight machines etc., all at the taxpayer's
> expense), then I might not be for the death penalty. Also, until one of
> these animals torture one of my family, I'm not sure I have a right to
> deny that family their revenge if that's what they desire. Still, I'm
> not sure I could flip the switch myself.
> Mark
BINGO !!!
ania
Bill Van Dyk
> It costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000/yr. to have someone
> interred in maximum security. Fuck these people. I'm thinking a vial of
> whatever it is we use for injections costs probably less than $100. Their
> lives are not worth the few pennies a paycheck they cost me. Ha! As if
> that's ALL they "cost." The fear and negativity generated by these
> pseudo-humans cannot be expressed in dollars.
If nothing else would have, the tone of this debate is pretty convincing
evidence to me that people are capable of being led by their emotions rather
than by reason.
It was not just the fact that Guy Paul Morin was convicted of murdering a child,
and then exonerated by DNA that convinced me to oppose capital punishment. It
was the details of the criminal investigation-- how the police decided,
intuitively, that Morin, a neighbor of the missing girl, was a likely suspect...
because he was single and played the recorder. (!) Once they decided he was
their primary suspect, it was merely a matter of concealing contradictory
evidence and mustering testimony from jail-house informants. It all looked
quite convincing to at least one jury.
So, you read about this horrendous crime, this murder and rape of a young girl,
and you let your outrage pour forth, and the police tell you that this man, Guy
Paul Morin, did it. Listen to yourselves: you'd have him strung up before
anyone began to analyze how the police carried out their investigation, how the
informant was given a lighter sentence, how evidence showing that the
perpetrator probably smoked a different brand of cigarettes was
suppressed---- by demanding this revenge, by displaying this outrage you
contribute to the pressure the police feel to find somebody, anybody to blame.
What happened instead is, Morin served years and years in jail until new DNA
tests were able to prove conclusively that he was innocent. Reason prevailed.
The Morin case is not isolated. It seems that every few months, DNA testing (as
recently in Illinois) proves that the police, once again, were too eager to
gratify the public's passion for revenge.
More convinced than ever before....
And, out of respect for the topicality of the ng, this will be my only post on
this thread.
DrBecker
>DrBecker wrote:
>
>> It costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000/yr. to have someone
>> interred in maximum security. Fuck these people. I'm thinking a vial of
>> whatever it is we use for injections costs probably less than $100.
Their
>> lives are not worth the few pennies a paycheck they cost me. Ha! As if
>> that's ALL they "cost." The fear and negativity generated by these
>> pseudo-humans cannot be expressed in dollars.
>
>If nothing else would have, the tone of this debate is pretty convincing
>evidence to me that people are capable of being led by their emotions
rather
>than by reason.
Sure they are. And damn right I get emotional over this stuff. I hate
violence. I hate crime. Enough that I could condone... encourage... the
taking of lives of those who perpetuate violence. Is this contradictory?
Does it mean I cannot think for myself? Does it alienate me from reason? I
daresay "no" on all counts. As long as there are humans there will be
mistakes made and injustices done. Think of me what you will, but in the
cosmic scheme of things I think the accidental taking of an innocent life is
well worth the loss of untold innocent victims' lives. I'm not thinking in
terms of "revenge," or "compensation," but of reduction and prevention.
What kind of children do violent criminals raise? What kinds of businesses
do they support? What kinds of industries revolve around such people? Are
people enriched or diminished through contact with such people, direct or
indirect? How much do such people cost us, emotionally, financially,
spiritually? How many casual, rehabilitatable criminals become violent,
serious criminals when forced to share a jail with such people? Look at the
numbers. Do a little extrapolation. How long before we reach critical
mass?
I am not trying to start an argument, but I do wish to make one last ( :) )
comment. I honestly think that for every Guy Paul in recent history, I
could, with a little research, cite 25 cases of lives lost to repeat violent
offenders... when does the scale tip?
Mark Barker
>
> DrBecker wrote in message ...
> >It costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000/yr. to have someone
> >interred in maximum security. Fuck these people. I'm thinking a vial of
> >whatever it is we use for injections costs probably less than $100. Their
> >lives are not worth the few pennies a paycheck they cost me. Ha! As if
> >that's ALL they "cost." The fear and negativity generated by these
> >pseudo-humans cannot be expressed in dollars.
>
> debate here.
>
> However, IF one wants to use costs (I don't, DrB does) for Christ's sake
> look at the facts -- the costs in terms of court time, alone. are far higher
> to execute than they are to put in prison without parole AND feed and house
> for several lifetimes.
>
> But the real problem in my mind is that anyone feels they can judge other
> people as "pseudo-humans."
>
> It (execution) does not reduce crime, it doesn't protect others more than
> prison for life, it does not cost less in terms of taxpayer money -- it in
> fact costs more to execute ----- therefore
>
> I can only conclude that proponents feel satisfaction from revenge.
>
> Course, I like Tom Robbins.
>
> BTW -- am I the only one here who has read Still Life with Woodpecker, or
> Only Cowgirls Get the Blues???
>
> Dick
So it costs more to execute these evil ones, than it does to keep them
up for life at $60,000 per year?? Could you show me the statistics that
prove this statement? Even if it did cost more (which I vehemently
question), whose fault is that? Maybe the lawyers? Maybe the endless
appeals process?? I presume that is the reason, you would say. And whose
logic and judicial activism has caused that? It is sure not the
conservative element who prolongs the carrying out of capital
punishment, only to incur more and more cost to the taxpayer. Who then?
Maybe the liberal element?? Who is responsible, by your reasoning, for
the victims of those capital criminals who are released back into
society? Surely not the right wing fanatics who lobby to keep them
behind bars in the first place, or heaven forbid, capital punishment.
You are right, Dick. I want revenge. I also want dirty water and air. I
want to return to slavery. I want women and all minorities to be
subservient. I want homosexuals burned at the stake. I want to mandate
that everyone MUST believe as I do. I want the rich to get richer and
the poor, poorer. I'm just one of those meanspirited right wing
fanatics. I am actually a part of the vast right wing conspiracy that
set our President up for a perjury trap.
May the light of truth shine bright, even through the cloud cover.
Mark
StSquidgy
>Henning
>
>New Jersey and New York have neither had executions for some time. Please
>come and see Linda and I -- New York City -- say the Chelsea Hotel? -- or
>our home in Convent Station, New Jersey. My address sound peaceful enough??
>
>Look forward to seeing you.
>
>Dick
>
Yeah, Henning, if you go visit Dick and Linda, just think, you won't even need
to pack any clothes. Ha !
--Johanna
Ania Nowakowska
> Listen to yourselves: you'd have him strung up before
> anyone began to analyze how the police carried out their investigation, how the informant was given a lighter sentence, how evidence showing that the> perpetrator probably smoked a different brand of cigarettes was
> suppressed----
can't say that when you find 33 bodies buried under someone's house
though can you??
ania
Dick
Dick
squidgy
we invited YOU to come to the nudist camp
don't feel so free with everyone on the group :-)
DrBecker
this
>debate here.
Heh... you're probably correct, but hey- go count the number of on-topic
posts...
>However, IF one wants to use costs (I don't, DrB does) for Christ's sake
>look at the facts -- the costs in terms of court time, alone. are far
higher
>to execute than they are to put in prison without parole AND feed and house
>for several lifetimes.
A 30-year life sentence would cost around $1.8million, give or take a few.
Is the difference in court costs to prosecute a life sentence vs. a death
sentence really that great? I find it hard to believe, but it may be the
case; I honestly don't know. But either way, I stand by my "and it saves
money, too!" philosophy. I will maintain that the money saved in the long
run will make these court costs seem a dime in a bucket of quarters. I am
not a proponent of the status quo, but in executing ALL repeat violent
criminals. Mandatory. No temporary insanity, no societal blame, no
clinically insane. The court battle would be for innocent or guilty, not
innocent or guilty, then life or death. I would bet this would be a serious
aid in rehabilitating first-timers. I would also bet this would reduce
crime across the board... White-collar criminals could make financial
restitution (court costs included), first-time violent offenders could have
mandatory counceling and community service... my GOD! We could CLOSE the
jails! (I think jailing someone is barbaric and an offense against mankind,
not to mention completely ineffectual in its purpose). Imagine the savings!
>But the real problem in my mind is that anyone feels they can judge other
>people as "pseudo-humans."
Call me God, call me delusional, call me plain stupid. I agree with ol'
Abe- there are certain truths that ARE self-evident. One of these being,
you take away someone else's rights, you give up your own. You judge them
worthy of life, I judge them unworthy. Who is correct? We all judge
others, on every level, every day.
>It (execution) does not reduce crime, it doesn't protect others more than
>prison for life,
I think it would. It doesn't NOW, because it is done half-assed. As with
everything, political repercussions from vocal minority groups (read:
"voters") hamstring any real action, any real progress- just give a little
show here and there, careful to play both sides of the fence... (but that's
ANOTHER discussion... :) )
>I can only conclude that proponents feel satisfaction from revenge.
*sigh* Revenge? Really, no. It's not about revenge, it's about fixing
something that is truly broken.
>Course, I like Tom Robbins.
Uh... could you educate me, please? I do not know who this is...
And I will make this my last post on the topic. All one has to do, really,
is start quoting the Bible and I have nothing to say that could possible
convince anyone. Unless many others really wish to continue it... maybe via
e-mail? I sure do love me a good rollicking debate...
And I AM sorry if I've offended anyone here. Not being a "God and Jesus"
person, I have to go with what evolution gave me... free will and opinions.
StSquidgy
>2) re. death penalty for murder (specifically serial offenders): two
>wrongs dont make a right BUT after reading a LOT OF literature on the
>topic of serial murder (especially by john douglas, head of fbi's
>criminal profiling unit and people closely associated with dealing with
>the guilty themselves), the raw brutality of what these people are
>capable of, the lack of remorse is most cases, the pain and agony the
>victims undergo, the legacy that their families are left with and have
>to live with, i have changed my mind about the death penalty.
Ania--
Seemingly a reasoned argument you have there. But the law is one thing, and
equitable enforcement of the law is something else altogether.
Consider the case of the American serial killer Ted Kaczinski, known as the
Unabomber. He mailed bombs to individuals over an 18 year period, killing and
maiming dozens of
his victims. He was allowed to plead guilty and get a life sentence rather than
the death penalty. The reasoning behind this? His own brother and mother
finally realized he was the perpetrator, and turned him in. The prosecution
considered the negative precedent which might be set if he were executed,
namely, that in future cases, people might be deterred from turning in their
children or siblings, no matter how brutal their crimes, if the death penalty
was assured in such cases.
I am reminded also of the time I stood in line at a store in California and
noticed an oddly familiar face in line beside me....and realized he was Charles
Rothenberg, a lovely man who had gasolined and set his own six-year-old son
on fire during a custody dispute with the boy's mother.
The child lived, but was burned over 100% of his body, horribly disfigured.
Rothenberg was paroled after serving six years, but because he kept violating
his restraining order to stay away from his son, and also because he was so
remorseful he was under constant suicide watch, he was required to serve out
his parole in the company of a parole officer, who was never to let Rothenberg
out of his sight. So this nutcase was walking free on California streets, with
a parole officer in tow 24 hours/7 days a week, at a cost to the taxpayer of
around $200,000 annually. Go figure. Why wasn't this guy given the death
penalty--or even life without parole? Because he wasn't a threat to anyone
else---only his own child. And, oh yeah, his victim forgot to die.
And yesterday, I see in the news that a U.S. congressman has suggested the
death penalty for carjacking, even if no one is injured. Howcome? Because
carjacking has become so prevalent, and no other penalty, no matter how stiff,
seems to be deterring it, the congressman said. So we could have a situation in
which a murderer gets off on a technicality, while a carjacker gets lethal
injection-- and I'd be willing to bet more likely in cases in which the car is
new and expensive, or belongs to a prominent person.
So it seems to me the death penalty is ALWAYS applied capriciously. Some of
the most brutal premeditated criminals, often with multiple victims, are alive
and kicking for whatever harebrained (or perfectly logical) reason, while some
poor jerk whose gun went off during a convenience store robbery ends up dead
meat.
Thus, if the d.p. is to be applied at all, IMHO, it seems to me ( irony
intended) it should be applied in EVERY case in which one human being murders
--or even attempts to murder--another, or threatens violence, or puts another
in fear of violence. And it should be carried out speedily and without
exception; without ever giving any consideration to human emotion, fallibility,
legal technicalities; no possibility of appeal, pardon, remorse, rehabilitation
or reversal of sentence. And then once you head in that direction,of course,
you end up in Maoist China--with lovely, swift summary executions. The gavel
goes down, you're guilty (somebody has to be; might as well be Lucky You, to
keep the masses reassured that law and order reigns) and before the day is
over, you're in front of the firing squad....with minimal expense to the
taxpayer. Then we'll all be safe.
I wish there were an answer. And I'm sure the death penalty isn't it.
Bill Van Dyk
> You are right, Dick. I want revenge. I also want dirty water and air. I
> want to return to slavery. I want women and all minorities to be
> subservient. I want homosexuals burned at the stake. I want to mandate
> that everyone MUST believe as I do. I want the rich to get richer and
> the poor, poorer. I'm just one of those meanspirited right wing
> fanatics. I am actually a part of the vast right wing conspiracy that
> set our President up for a perjury trap.
> May the light of truth shine bright, even through the cloud cover.
> Mark
Mark, you don't need to debate with such a chip on your shoulders-- good grief.
Incidentally, some facts are disputable and some facts are not-- firstly, only
demagogues continue to argue that capital punishment reduces the murder rate.
Study after study after study have proven the contrary. Secondly, the idea that
murderers get light sentences and then go out and commit murders again---- that is
patently, absurdly false. The recidivism rate for murder is the lowest of any
felony, for good reason. The police almost never catch professional killers in the
first place, and, in the second place, most murders are crimes of passion.
So, Mark, can you name a single murderer who was convicted of murder, received a
light sentence, and then committed a second murder. How about it? Anybody? Al
Capone? Clyde Barrow? Sam Giancalana? Son of Sam? Richard Speck? Lee Harvey
Oswald? Clifford Olsen? Mark Lepine? Ted Bundy?
The fact is that not a single one the murders these men committed would have been
prevented by capital punishment, because none of them were every previously
convicted of murder. In fact, most of them were never convicted of any violent
offenses before they went on their sprees.
Well, I wasn't going to continue this debate, but some arguments should not be
allowed to stand unchallenged. I have more respect for people who just plain admit
that they like capital punishment because it makes things "even". At that point,
you can at least argue about whether and "eye for an eye" is the grandest vision of
justice our society is able to aspire to. I think that anyone who admires Ghandi
or Martin Luther King would think otherwise. But then, not everybody does.
StSquidgy
Oooops, me and my big mouth....say, wonder if I could get a book deal, and a
sitdown with Barbara Walters?
--StMonica I Mean Squidgy
Bill Van Dyk
> A 30-year life sentence would cost around $1.8million, give or take a few.
> Is the difference in court costs to prosecute a life sentence vs. a death
> sentence really that great? I find it hard to believe, but it may be the
> case; I honestly don't know. But either way, I stand by my "and it saves
It used to cost more to prosecute a capital case, to final execution, than life
imprisonment. I suspect that equation has changed since most states have
enacted new laws to speed up the process. Unfortunately, this also continues
two notable trends: the disproportionate number of blacks on death row,
especially for killing whites, and the likelihood of mistakes and pressure on
police to get a conviction, however inconvenient.
For me, cost is largely irrelevant.
Incidentally, has anybody ever noted which countries in the world still use
capital punishment?
U.S.
Libya
Iraq.
And a few others. All paragons of civilization and decency, I guess.
Bill Van Dyk
Uh huh-- the logic of this is really interesting. If you argue that capital punishment would have stopped Gacy, you are probably wrong. Gacy had no previous convictions for murder. He is typical of serial killers in
that he was caught only after he committed the crimes he is so reviled for. So what we're talking about is the satisfaction of seeing the ultimate punishment for a horrifying crime. That, at least, is a more reasonable
argument than "prevention".
StSquidgy
<snip>
>Call me God, call me delusional, call me plain stupid. I agree with ol'
>Abe- there are certain truths that ARE self-evident.
<snip>
> Not being a "God and Jesus"
>person, I have to go with what evolution gave me... free will and opinions.
Hmmmm....intriguing reasoning here.
Absolutely irresistable, in fact.
And in good- humored response, I will freely opine that evolution gave you your
genes, an opposable thumb, your ability to walk upright....the physical stuff
that makes up Dr. Becker. The free will, opinions, intangible star-stuff of
you-ness exists in, and originated from, the spiritual world, the world of
consciousness, where God hangs out.
And since the one must necessarily be causative of the other, then
consciousness (God) must have existed before the physical world, and must have
caused the physical world, in order for the physical world to exist and to
evolve. Otherwise, how could Dr. Becker physically exist, in order to have
opionions in him, and how else, then could his consciousness/free will/opinions
freely evolve?
Self-evident truth? Like you, I'm in favor of it. :-)
(And peace be with you)
--Johanna
DrBecker
StSquidgy wrote in message <19990305020637...@ng122.aol.com>...
Hmmm... so if God gave me my opinions and free will, or at least created
that which eventually lead to them, then they are inherently God-like?
God-created, God-caused, God-driven.
I TOLD you all I knew what the hell I was talking about. Make me dictator
for a year, I'll clean up your streets. God has spoken.
Mark Barker
BVD,
I can name one murderer immediately, and there are many more. Want to
wager that I can't do a little research and name more? Yes, the name is
Willie Horton. Of course, you and the other liberals will say that his
name was brought up a few years ago to scare the white community into
defeating Mr. Dukakas at the polls. You will continue to ignore the fact
that Mr. Dukakas paroled this killer (irregardless of his skin color)
and he immediately murdered again. BTW, in that particular instance,
capital punishment would have saved his next victim's life. Seems like
it would have been a deterent to me in that case, had it been applied.
It's funny. It was just last week that I heard a family member from the
black man that was dragged and tortured to death by three white animals
filled with hate and venom, give her feelings on the verdict of the
capital punishment that was rendered. She said that her family normally
oppose the death penalty, but in this particualr case, the act was so
heinous that she agreed with the verdict. It seems that some people
change their minds when one of their own innocent loved ones are
tortured and murdered. As I said, if this family wanted to forgive these
fiends and give them life imprisonment, I would be for that. The revenge
is not mine. It's for the family, if they want justice. Still, this lady
changed her mind about capital punishment when it happened to her loved
one. Therefore, I am totally in agreement with the verdict. The
difference is, I support capital punishment in all murder cases, female
and male, conservative and liberal, white and black. Murder is murder.
The thought process behind the murder is irrelevent,... of course, the
thought police might disagree with me on this.
One final story. A couple years ago some teenagers into the occult
kidnapped a family of Jehovah Witnesses just coming home from a retreat,
at a local rest stop here. They drove the family's car with them held
hostage to an abandon road. They robbed them and shot the father, the
mother, the little 6 year old girl in her mother's arms, and the little
two year old boy in his daddy's arms right through the eye. The parents
died instantly. The little girl died later that evening, and the little
boy somehow survived, after months in the hospital. I can't understand
how you can worry so much about civilization and decency, and defend
this type of riff raff and their brutal acts against the innocent. Maybe
if it happened to you, Bill, you would change your mind about capital
punishment like the lady I told you about. Ever considered that? BTW,
I'm glad you don't have a chip on your shoulder for Orrin Hatch, Ken
Starr, or any of those dreaded Republicans.
Sincerely,
Mark
Anne
>
> Incidentally, has anybody ever noted which countries in the world still use
> capital punishment?
> U.S.
> Libya
> Iraq.
>
> And a few others. All paragons of civilization and decency, I guess.
Amnesty International reports that executions recorded in 1997 include:
China 1644
Iran 143
Saudi Arabia 122
US 74
These four countries accounted for 84% of all executions recorded by
Amnesty International. Amnesty received reports of hundreds of
executions in Iraq but was unable to confirm most of the reports or to
give an exact figure.
Pax,
Anne
Anne
>I can't understand
> how you can worry so much about civilization and decency, and defend
> this type of riff raff and their brutal acts against the innocent.
Hello Mark,
Do you genuinely believe that people who are opposed to the death
penalty have this view because we condone violence against the innocent?
It might be helpful in this dialogue if we pause for a moment and
consider whether we understand what people on the other side of the
discussion are saying.
I believe that you made your position clear, that you support the death
penalty for everyone who is convicted of murder.
Of those who have expressed support for the use of the death penalty, it
seems to me that the general view is that some crimes are so egregious
that the killers deserve death. This has been expressed in terms of
"revenge" or "justice". (I use the quotes because I'm not sure which
term is preferred.) There were comments about the cost of imprisoning
convicted murderers for life. I don't recall if anyone has put forward
the deterrence argument.
Does this capture the sense of the argument that is being made in
support of the death penalty?
If not, I would like to know what I've missed.
And I would very much like to hear what you think the opponents of the
death penalty have been arguing. This takes me back to my first
question.
Pax,
Anne
Mark Barker
>
> Mark Barker wrote:
>
> >I can't understand
> > how you can worry so much about civilization and decency, and defend
> > this type of riff raff and their brutal acts against the innocent.
>
> Do you genuinely believe that people who are opposed to the death
> penalty have this view because we condone violence against the innocent?
>
> It might be helpful in this dialogue if we pause for a moment and
> consider whether we understand what people on the other side of the
> discussion are saying.
>
> I believe that you made your position clear, that you support the death
> penalty for everyone who is convicted of murder.
>
> Of those who have expressed support for the use of the death penalty, it
> seems to me that the general view is that some crimes are so egregious
> that the killers deserve death. This has been expressed in terms of
> "revenge" or "justice". (I use the quotes because I'm not sure which
> term is preferred.) There were comments about the cost of imprisoning
> convicted murderers for life. I don't recall if anyone has put forward
> the deterrence argument.
>
> Does this capture the sense of the argument that is being made in
> support of the death penalty?
>
> If not, I would like to know what I've missed.
>
> And I would very much like to hear what you think the opponents of the
> death penalty have been arguing. This takes me back to my first
> question.
>
> Pax,
> Anne
Anne,
No, I do not think death penalty opponents condone these acts against
the innocent. Sorry, if my words led you to believe that is my opinion.
Still, often the efforts made on the behalf of the capital criminal seem
to be at odds with those made on behalf of the victims. As I said, I
have had actual problems coming to terms with my exact feelings about
the death penalty. I've often asked myself, how I can support the death
penalty and not be willing to throw the switch myself. Sometimes I am
not sure I could not throw the switch if my loved one was the one who
had been tortured and murdered. My point is, where is the right of the
victim's family to justice? I only support capital punishment in the
case of first degree premeditated murder, when there is no doubt who
committed the crime.
Also, I believe in forgiveness,...even death bed conversions. If I did
not believe in God's forgiveness, then I would have no hope in my life
for myself or others. I forgive any and everyone who has ever asked for
my forgiveness. I am commanded to do this. Who am I to judge the heart
of man? Only God can do that. It is not a matter of forgiveness,.. but a
matter of the law determined by the vote of the people. Therefore, as I
said, it is not for the reason of revenge that I am a proponent of
capital punishment. I believe in the right of the victim to have his or
her revenge if that is what they consider to be a fair price to pay for
the person who murdered their family member. I could not vote to deny
the victim this right.
The cost to the taxpayer is not a big factor for me personally, though
I can understand the position of those to whom it is a factor. I guess,
that my heart goes out to the victim's family and I support their
wishes. For what it's worth, I believe every single human soul is
precious in God's eyes,...even the souls of the unborn. Let it be known
that I detest killing in any shape, form, or fashion. Still, I think in
the case of capital punishment, there is a price to pay for the taking
of another human being's life. I do not find that position at odds with
my Bible, and yes, I personally believe the Bible. I also respect other
religions and their beliefs, just as I can respect differing views on
the death penalty. Still I have my right to my opinion without being
called a revenge seeker, just as you have your right to your opinion
without me saying that you are consciously condoning these atrocious
murderers of the innocent. I never said that. I said the effect of the
death penalty opponent's views often tend to lend little support to the
victims of violent crime and the positions they hold,...or at least,
that's what I meant to say. I'll have to read back on my own words. I
haven't slept in going on 30 hours now, and my train of thought is
slipping.
I do appreciate the class you exhibited in the words you selected in
your reply to my post. There were no accusations of my motives, and I
thank you for that.
Peace,
Mark
laza...@my-dejanews.com
"DrBecker" <DrBe...@Erie.net> wrote:
> "They had a bad life... they are not sane... society drove them to it... "
> Their stories may be sad, but they are who they are regardless of what made
> them.
Yes we are who we are for millions of very good reasons.
Jack
"It is possible for a man to become so defiled
that even his own parents won't recognize him.
Just remember that if this happens to you that God
will always believe in your ability
to mend your ways."
Bob Dylan on the occasion of his receiving a
lifetime acheivment award at the Grammeys
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ja...@digimax.com
"Dick" <rst...@att.net> wrote:
> Course, I like Tom Robbins.
>
> BTW -- am I the only one here who has read Still Life with Woodpecker, or
> Only Cowgirls Get the Blues???
I would never pass on the opportunity to read a new Tom Robbins book. I think
he is wonderful. If I remember right "Still Life with Woodpecker" ends with
words to the effect of praising mystery and explaining that the reason we
enjoy love is that it brings us closer to mystery but what mystery is he
cannot comment on but leaves us with two things that he feels can be said it
is ALL part of it. and it is never too late to have a happy childhood
That to my mind is a wonderful way to end a book, and that guy makes me laugh
and I sometimes feel that he understands women better than most women.
Jack
Michael
understand why no-one showed any interest in my comment that I have
represented all types of murderers, (and therefore may perhaps have some
insight into a side of this subject that not all of you have). I did end
with a flippant comment (well, how uncharacteristic), so that disqualifies
me I guess. Another thought-not everyone seeks information or wider
knowledge on this topic but instead "enjoy" the opportunity to express deep
and gut feelings.
But I'll make an observation about Mark Barker's misgivings that he
couldn't throw the switch himself. (And I can be critical because he was
making this dreadful point against himself.) Don't worry Mark that is the
dumbest most illogical test. I want my dustbins (trashcans- my foreign
friends) emptied but I am not willing to do it myself. Similarly, toilets
cleaned, buses driven etc. How can the correctness or morality of an act
depend on the courage or willingness of any particular person to carry it
out. No danger of hypocrisy simply because we both desire something but
can't achieve it ourselves.
Repeating my view- no capital punishment in any circumstances ever. (And
believe me I can match every anecdote we have heard so far)
BTW another myth is the disproportionate "care" for accused as against the
victim. Easy cliche- what does it mean?
Michael
Susan
Dick wrote in message <7bnkvh$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>shhhhs
>
>squidgy
>
>we invited YOU to come to the nudist camp
A nudist camp in New Jersey? Surely not the same Sunshine Park I frequented
in the 70's.
Susan
HenFranz
The call for revenge, especially when your involved in a crime as a victim,
is absolute normal, and I can follow the rage of the relatives of murdered
people. And I think, me myself would be the first one to cry for revenge,
with all those features described before, if it happened to me.
But, mankind is more than the sum of the individuals.
Laws shouldn't be based on individual suffering.
Put the criminals in prison a whole life long,
and not like it is in Germany, where they are set free
after an expert witness says that the culprit is healed.
And even if we never reach some kind of state,
that sets us apart from wild animals,
it should be worth trying.
I started this topic, it was a momentary rage of myself
after watching the news, I thank you for your contributions,
I understand both sides, and I think I made clear my position.
This discussion will continue ,on other places, at other times ,
several executions later.
Henning
claire
Michael wrote:
> But I'll make an observation about Mark Barker's misgivings that he
> couldn't throw the switch himself. (And I can be critical because he was
> making this dreadful point against himself.) Don't worry Mark that is the
> dumbest most illogical test. I want my dustbins (trashcans- my foreign
> friends) emptied but I am not willing to do it myself. Similarly, toilets
> cleaned, buses driven etc. How can the correctness or morality of an act
> depend on the courage or willingness of any particular person to carry it
> out. No danger of hypocrisy simply because we both desire something but
> can't achieve it ourselves.
No, this is very different. The reason that you don't want to empty dustbins is
down to a personal choose of career, rather than the moral inability to conduct
such a task. There is nothing difficult about switching a switch (we can all
boil a kettle), it is the moral implication of the switch. i think that it
does say something real to you if you feel you want something, but cannot
morally go through with it yourself. i think that a lot of people who, for
example eat animals, would not be able to kill them in the slaughter houses
themselves. This does, for me, say much about the way they feel about the act
itself.
There is hypocrisy here and i understand why mark may has questioned himself.
claire
>
>
Paul Whitehead
<henf...@aol.com> writes
>Please help me friends,
>I am planning to visit USA in the future,
>but I don't want to put my feet on the ground,
>where they practise death penalty.
>Which states may I go ?
>What's about Canada ?
>
>Henning
Why, old bean, are you planning to snuff someone?
Paul
claire
HenFranz wrote:
i am intrigued why many people seem to want to stop discussions. i don't think
non-leonard based discussion should be given a curfew. this is surly to limit
oneself? leonard cohen will naturally always return. : )
claire
Michael
claire <cla...@ferialc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
<36E02A00...@ferialc.freeserve.co.uk>...
> Yes I agree. No time-limit necessary. But I just don't get the hypocrisy
bit at all. So we agree to...
>
>
>
>
>
Michael
claire <cla...@ferialc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
<36E0245C...@ferialc.freeserve.co.uk>...
> >The difficulty of throwing the switch is realizing what *you* have
achieved in this case. It is abhorrent, scary like perhaps slaughtering an
animal. But this is a kind of fear, extreme squeamishness. But what's wrong
with desiring a result, having the inhibitions I mentioned but being
content for someone else to do it for you. It's just an artificial test
that an action is not OK unless you can do it yourself. (BTW I've heard
that masturbation is OK but I wouldn't do it myself, I'd get someone to do
it for me of course)
Anyhow I have somehow got myself arguing in favor of those who approve of
execution.
You know the Stephen Lawrence case Claire. You do get a different view if
you meet one of the killers, (alleged). Maybe Gary Dobson was not part of
the group at all. But I represented him. I watched the covert video. I had
never seen all-consuming racism before. It was theses people's life. It
dominated every thought.
Something told me that Dobson at least amongst the group was reachable. (Of
course this is wholly irrelevant if the aim is just revenge). Then one day
I was with him and his parents and we saw the Lawrences walking outside
towards the court. Dobson's father said "who the fuck do they think they
are, a special law just for those bastards".
Unless their son was extraordinarily lucky by being born intelligent enough
to rise above this- what chance of escaping his family's disgusting
beliefs.
My point is not at all an argument clincher about the death penalty or
anything else but it does suggest there is a lot more than raw emotion to
consider here.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Bill Van Dyk
> With all you serious people posting on this very serious subject I
> understand why no-one showed any interest in my comment that I have
> represented all types of murderers, (and therefore may perhaps have some
> insight into a side of this subject that not all of you have). I did end
> with a flippant comment (well, how uncharacteristic), so that disqualifies
> me I guess. Another thought-not everyone seeks information or wider
> knowledge on this topic but instead "enjoy" the opportunity to express deep
> and gut feelings.
>
Well, I personally thought your post was excellent, but resisted referring to
it because someone else would undoubtedly relate a personal experience with a
victim of crime and come to the opposite conclusion-- and the number of
personal experiences being infinite, I didn't think it would lead to a
resolution one way or the other.
DrBecker
StSquidgy wrote in message <19990305192837...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...
>>From: "DrBecker" <DrBe...@Erie.net>
>
>>Hmmm... so if God gave me my opinions and free will, or at least created
>>that which eventually lead to them, then they are inherently God-like?
>
>
>>God-created, God-caused, God-driven.
>>I TOLD you all I knew what the hell I was talking about. Make me dictator
>>for a year, I'll clean up your streets. God has spoken.
>
>
>
Sure. Why the hell not. We can have all the "first-timers" out on road
crews doing something constructive (heh) for a change.
And you know the coolest part of being Grand Supreme Dictator? Hell... I
can think of ten easy...
Top Ten Reasons Why DrB Should Be Dictator of the USA:
10) God created, God-caused, God driven!
9) It's either him or another Bush!
8) He kills more murderers before 6AM than most countries do all day!
7) Dictators don't lie, rather BRAG about affairs with interns!
6) "I'm Your Man" a much cooler campaign song than that lame-O Fleetwood
Mac tune!
5) People stupid enough to install a diving board in a four-foot pool will
no longer be able to sue the
diving-board company for $36million when their child becomes a
quadraplegic after one dive!
4) Single non-homeowners without children who earn $30-$40,000 will no
longer pay a disproportionate
income tax to support other people's children and homes and any tax
cuts will be paid
proportionately as a refund to whomever actually PAID the taxes in
the first place!
3) Parents will be held responsible for their minor children's actions!
2) Anyone attempting to pass major legislation who utters the phrase, "it's
for the children," or its
equivalent, will be dragged through town by a horse!
And the Number One reason I should be dictator:
1) hey- Its all about the chicks, man!
>--Squidge
>
>
>
>
StSquidgy
>Hmmm... so if God gave me my opinions and free will, or at least created
>that which eventually lead to them, then they are inherently God-like?
Yup.You got it. In His Divine image.
>God-created, God-caused, God-driven.
>I TOLD you all I knew what the hell I was talking about. Make me dictator
>for a year, I'll clean up your streets. God has spoken.
Throw in a few pothole repairs, Doc, and you got yerself a deal.
--Squidge
Tom D
Massacre". I don't know ALL the EXACT details. But, the general facts
are: crazed teenager steals high powered guns from locked cabinet, and
goes on random shooting spree in a popular tourist spot, walking along
the street, killing, walking into a crowded cafe, killing wantonly,
willingly, indiscriminatley. I'm not sure of the total killed (I
believe around 30?), but no matter. If it was just one (and, arguably,
none at all), he was SEEN by numerous witnesses. There was NO DOUBT
whatsoever as to who did the killing. Countless people suffered, all
across the country, and even across the world I dare say, as a result
of this person's actions.
No excuse, No Justification. No possible explanation that would
'soften' or make acceptable his actions.
No argument.
No doubt.
In this case, I am in favour of execution. Yes, of killing that
person. For, let's call it for what it is.
In cases where there are no witnesses, and there is doubt, then I
disagree with killing that person - in matters of capital paunishment,
the 'level' of doubt should possibly be measured with more care.
But, that is not the point.
I didn't want to comment on this. There is no doubt a newsgroup
dedicated to this sort of stuff, and perhaps we should post there
instead.
There are any number of topics that we all have interests in and
opinions on, but we don't go into detail about in this ng.
Clearly emotions DO run high on this topic. And it is about the most
'popular' we have seen in the ng for some time. (but emotion simply
indicates a level of feeling on a topic, and does not necessarily,
though it may, preclude ones ability to judge and act coherently).
Like some others have said, this is my last post on this (I hope).
No, it's not a laughing matter. Its deadly serious. I, like all of
you, have given serious thought to my views on it, and am not shying
away from debate.
"Asking for trouble," Ania quipped. Yeah, I've been having trouble
keeping up with all these posts, some of which are, indeed, capital!
:o)
Now I have to go and eat. I'm so hungry I could eat the crutch out of
a low-flying duck!
TomD.
StSquidgy
<snip>
>Top Ten Reasons Why DrB Should Be Dictator of the USA:
<snip>
Snort ! Cackle ! Snorkle ! (and this is absolutely my last post on the
subject)
--Squidgy
Bill Van Dyk
> Top Ten Reasons Why DrB Should Be Dictator of the USA:
>
> 10) God created, God-caused, God driven!
> 9..
Cool fantasy.
Bill's ten first legislative initiatives on the day he becomes president:
1. Canadians are allowed to be president of the U.S.
2. All handguns must be turned in and replaced with chocolate guns.
3. Mocha chocolate guns will be outlawed, because chocolate doesn't kill
people; mocha kills people.
4. Uma Thurman, the new secretary of state, will be dispatched to Kosovo
immediately, with 400 cheerleaders armed with mocha guns.
5. To avoid unpleasant controversies, all inmates on death row are heretofore
on "life row". Because that's where they live. We take them out when we are
ready to run them through with a sabre on prime-time television.
6. Instead of 1 independent prosecutor, we will have 10,000. Within a few
weeks, everyone will discover that we are all liars and cheats and move on to
the next great thing.
7. Spamming will become a capital offense.
8. Microsoft will be split up into two companies: an applications company
headed by Matt Groening, and an operating system company headed by Linus
Torvald.
9. The national anthem will be replaced by "The Future", and will be song at
the beginning of each school day.
10. The World Wrestling Federation will be replaced with cheerleader
mudwrestling.
Michael
than the Future, (we could have done worse as well, have I ever mentioned
that I hate **** ** the ****). BTW it is not fair for you to mocha
chocolate- some people love it.
Bill Van Dyk <bva...@sentex.net> wrote in article
<36E0C802...@sentex.net>...
Michael
described the killer as "crazed". Certainly in our jurisdiction we have a
defence of Diminished Responsibility that reduces murder to manslaughter.
(And the law is passed by a government elected in a democracy). So it is
not enough that their are witnesses to the act, it is the state of mind as
well. Anyhow it is amusing that there can be some convictions where the
verdict is apparently Definitely Guilty and others where it is go to prison
for life but we accept that there may be some doubt- the implication of
your distinction.
Mark Barker
>
> StSquidgy wrote in message <19990305192837...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...
> >>From: "DrBecker" <DrBe...@Erie.net>
> >
> can think of ten easy...
>
>
> 10) God created, God-caused, God driven!
> 8) He kills more murderers before 6AM than most countries do all day!
> 7) Dictators don't lie, rather BRAG about affairs with interns!
> 6) "I'm Your Man" a much cooler campaign song than that lame-O Fleetwood
> Mac tune!
> 5) People stupid enough to install a diving board in a four-foot pool will
> no longer be able to sue the
> diving-board company for $36million when their child becomes a
> quadraplegic after one dive!
> 4) Single non-homeowners without children who earn $30-$40,000 will no
> longer pay a disproportionate
> income tax to support other people's children and homes and any tax
> cuts will be paid
> proportionately as a refund to whomever actually PAID the taxes in
> the first place!
> 3) Parents will be held responsible for their minor children's actions!
> 2) Anyone attempting to pass major legislation who utters the phrase, "it's
> for the children," or its
> equivalent, will be dragged through town by a horse!
>
> And the Number One reason I should be dictator:
>
> 1) hey- Its all about the chicks, man!
>
> >--Squidge
> >
> >
> >
> >
You got my vote.
claire
michael wrote
> But what's wrong
> with desiring a result, having the inhibitions I mentioned but being
> content for someone else to do it for you. It's just an artificial test
> that an action is not OK unless you can do it yourself.
ok, difference in opinion, i think it is a very real test.
>
>
> You know the Stephen Lawrence case Claire. You do get a different view if
> you meet one of the killers, (alleged).
what view? i neither posted for or against c. punishment. i'm sorry, i was a
little confused by your post but i do apprheciate you getting back to me.
claire
>
Michael
claire <cla...@ferialc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
<36E1995A...@ferialc.freeserve.co.uk>...
> Sure, I meant "one" not you personally!
regards,
Michael
> >
>
>
>
>
Tom D
Ha! Good try, you bastard. You almost got me! But I'm not getting into
this. :o)
I'd like to add more, but I have to go eat. I'm so hungry I could suck
the crutch out of an Aghan cameldriver through the seat of a cane
chair...
TomD(for definitely never let it be said I wasn't naive).
DrBecker
>> the first place!
>> 3) Parents will be held responsible for their minor children's actions!
>> 2) Anyone attempting to pass major legislation who utters the phrase,
"it's
>> for the children," or its
>> equivalent, will be dragged through town by a horse!
>>
>> And the Number One reason I should be dictator:
>>
>> 1) hey- Its all about the chicks, man!
>>
>> >
>
Cool. You want a cabinet post? You'd not have any power, or anything, but
you do get to wear a cool hat and pick your own interns. What do you say?
Bill Van Dyk
> >> 2) Anyone attempting to pass major legislation who utters the phrase,
> "it's for the children," or its equivalent, will be dragged through town by a
> horse!
>
> Cool. You want a cabinet post? You'd not have any power, or anything, but
> you do get to wear a cool hat and pick your own interns. What do you say?
I sometimes will overlook tastelessness if there's some genuine wit or
imagination involved, but, with all due respect, jokes about removing
protection against child abuse or neglect.......
Well, everyone's got a right to an opinion, and most readers here will pass
over this one lightly, but I wish to register my dissent on this one.
DrBecker
Bill Van Dyk wrote in message <36E2B216...@sentex.net>...
>DrBecker wrote:
>
>> >> 2) Anyone attempting to pass major legislation who utters the phrase,
>> "it's for the children," or its equivalent, will be dragged through town
by a
>> horse!
>
>I sometimes will overlook tastelessness if there's some genuine wit or
>imagination involved, but, with all due respect, jokes about removing
>protection against child abuse or neglect.......
>
>Well, everyone's got a right to an opinion, and most readers here will pass
>over this one lightly, but I wish to register my dissent on this one.
Geeze, Bill. I'm a TEACHER, for chrissake! (Not too mention the fact I am
extremely imaginative and witty- when you combine that with brilliant
intellect and dangerous good looks, I think I have a real shot in my
dictatorial bid). But to the point- I love kids. My degrees would enable
me to earn much more money in a much less HARD line of work should I have so
chosen. I spent time in inner-city Richmond, VA school system at a time
when it was ranked #3 in our nations Top 5 Murder Capitals in the USA list.
I now teach in rural PA. I have seen wonderful kids come from the worst
both scenarios have to offer. I have seen kids become monsters, again, from
both scenarios. I feel I have a pretty good handle on what the real
problems are. I feel I have a pretty good handle on better solutions. My
comment above was directed at the politicos who push campaign-friendly
legislation through the system on the platform, "It's for the kids."
Rarely, if ever, does this legislation benefit the kids who need it most.
Rarely, if ever, does this legislation do jack shit toward real change and
improvement. What it does is make people feel they are doing their part
"for the children." I voted for the guy who created and passes legislation
"for the children." See? I'm helping to fix the problem. I care. I'm
doing all I can. Next week I'm gonna go to the PTA meeting and yell at
these teachers for not raising my kid right. See how much I care? Hon,
where the hell's little Billy? I haven't seen him in almost two weeks, now.
Probably running around with that no-good Johnson kid... someone ought to do
something about these kids... Oh, well. If you see him tell him we'll take
away his driving privelages unless he straightens out. I gotta go to the
weekly neighborhood watch meeting. See ya.
My comment was not in any way meant as a "fuck the kids" message- more a
"fuck the politicians" message.
Governor Tom Ridge (get to know this name- he may be our (for those of us
residing in the States) next VP) of PA has mounted this massive educational
reform based on the advisement of a panel he appointed (not one of these
people has ever been a teacher or school system administrator, btw). His
administration is packed full of "for the children" type bandwagons. Most
of which ride directly into the schools. This is becoming increasingly
common. The legislation is so incredibly out of focus... but who gives a
rat's ass. It's "for the children," and therefore it will most likely pass.
I signed on as a teacher. What I will be is a parent to 135 kids a year. I
want to see legislation "for the parents." I want to see something that
will TRULY benefit children.
>
Mark Barker
Thank you, Dr. Becker. I like the way you think,.....got balls too. Yep,
you got my vote. Ever get any grief from some of those teachers' unions
because of your views? Very politically incorrect, you know!
Bill Van Dyk
> want to see legislation "for the parents." I want to see something that
> will TRULY benefit children.
>
> >
Can't disagree with that.
Dick
It's called Sky Farm
It's Been in Basking Ridge (commutable to New York City) for 65 years.
where was/is Sunshine Park?
Dick
Susan
>
>where was/is Sunshine Park?
>
>Dick
Forgive me, Dick; I was usually pretty loaded at the time--good for losing
inhabitions, lousy for memory. Seems like it was close to the shore in south
Jersey--maybe off Black Horse Pike. Or was it White Horse Pike? Sorry..it's
hopeless if it's directions you're after. However, there ARE things about
Sunshine Park that my memory rests lightly and fondly on...
Susan
DrBecker
>
>Thank you, Dr. Becker. I like the way you think,.....got balls too. Yep,
>you got my vote. Ever get any grief from some of those teachers' unions
>because of your views? Very politically incorrect, you know!
Gotta wait til I have tenure in this district before I get TOO vocal. Sad
to say, but as with any business, skill at the job is secondary (at best) in
importance toward a long and successful career... For the moment, I confine
my comments to the faculty lounge...
T-minus 15 months and counting... then I start speaking at PTA and
schoolboard meetings. :)
As an interesting footnote, the teacher's unions are more aligned with my
thinking than you might think. It's the upper admin (schoolboard &
superintendent), state, and federal folk who man the other trench. Elected
& appointed officials shouting "how high" to the loudest voice's "Jump!"
John Emmons
commits it...
John Emmons
Fuck these people...
Their lives are not worth the few pennies a paycheck they cost
me...
If nothing else would have, the tone of this debate is pretty
convincing
evidence to me that people are capable of being led by their
emotions rather than by reason...
>Sure they are. And damn right I get emotional over this stuff.
I hate
>violence. I hate crime. Enough that I could condone...
encourage... the
>taking of lives of those who perpetuate violence. Is this
contradictory?
>Does it mean I cannot think for myself? Does it alienate me
from reason? I
>daresay "no" on all counts. As long as there are humans there
will be
>mistakes made and injustices done. Think of me what you will,
but in the
>cosmic scheme of things I think the accidental taking of an
innocent life is
>well worth the loss of untold innocent victims' lives. I'm not
thinking in
>terms of "revenge," or "compensation," but of reduction and
prevention.
>What kind of children do violent criminals raise? What kinds of
businesses
>do they support? What kinds of industries revolve around such
people? Are
>people enriched or diminished through contact with such people,
direct or
>indirect? How much do such people cost us, emotionally,
financially,
>spiritually? How many casual, rehabilitatable criminals become
violent,
>serious criminals when forced to share a jail with such people?
Look at the
>numbers. Do a little extrapolation. How long before we reach
critical
>mass?
Valerie Shertzman
gone already?
Valerie