The 23 Innocent People Executed
Vadik
The 23 Innocent People Who Died
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/death/23executed.html
(From Michael L. Radelet, Hugo Adam Bedau, and Constance Putnam, In Spite of
Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases. Boston: Northeastern
University Press, 1992, and Bedau and Radelet, "Miscarriages of Justice in
Potentially Capital Cases," Stanford Law Review 40:21-179 (1987))
"Thanks to Modern Politics 23 Innocent People Have been Removed from the
Living." They are:
1. Adams, James. Florida. Adams was convicted of first-degree murder,
sentenced to death, and executed in 1984. A witness identified Adams as
driving the car away from the victim's home shortly after the crime. This
witness, however, was driving a large truck in the direction opposite to
that of Adams' car, and it was later discovered that this witness was angry
with Adams for allegedly dating his wife. A second witness the day after the
crime stated that the fleeing person was positively not Adams. A hair sample
found clutched in the victim's hand, which in all likelihood had come from
the assailant, did not match Adams' hair.
2. Anderson, William Henry. Florida Anderson was convicted of the rape of a
white woman, sentenced to death, and executed in 1945 without an appeal
having been made. The victim had not resisted, screamed, or used an
available pistol to resist Anderson's advances. Anderson and the victim had
been consensually intimate for several months before rape charges were
filed.
3. Applegate, Everett. New York. Applegate was convicted, with Francis Q.
Creighton, of the murder of Applegate's wife; both were sentenced to death
in 1936. Creighton had been tried and acquitted on two separate occasions
for similar murders a dozen years before she met Applegate. In this case,
she killed the victim (by arsenic poisoning) at Applegate's instigation.
"Virtually no evidence against Applegate existed beyond Mrs. Creighton's
unsupported word." Governor Herbert Lehman, who had doubts about Applegat's
guilt, requested the prosecutor's support for clemency for Applegate; it was
not forthcoming, and clemency was denied.
4. Bambrick, Thomas. New York. Bambrick was convicted of murder, and
sentenced to death. Evidence was later discovered that convinced Warden
Thomas Mott Osbourne and the prison chaplain that another man had committed
the crime. Osbourne commented "It is almost as certain that Bambrick is
innocent as that the sun will rise tomorrow."
5-6. Becker, Charles and Frank ("Dago") Cirofici. New York. Becker and
Cirofici were convicted of murder; Cirofici was executed in 1914 and Becker
in 1915. The victim, Rosenthal, was a gambling house owner. He was convicted
largely on the testimony of gamblers and ex-convicts in the glare of
extensive newspaper publicity about police corruption. Former Sing Sing
warden, Thomas Mott Osbourne, who knew the closet friends of the gunmen,
stated that these friends all agreed Cirofici had nothing to do with the
murder and was not even present when it occurred. Warden Osbourne also
believed that Becker was not guilty.
7. Collins, Roosevelt. Alabama. Collins was convicted of rape, sentenced to
death, and executed in 1937. Collins testified that the victim the "victim"
had consented, which caused a near-riot in the courtroom. The all-white jury
deliberated for only four minutes. Subsequent interviews with several jurors
revealed that although they believed the act was consensual, they also
thought Collins deserved to death simply for "messin' around" with a white
woman. Even the judge, off the record, admitted his belief that Collins was
telling the truth. "An innocent man went to his death."
8. Dawson, Sie. Florida. Dawson was convicted of first-degree murder and
sentenced to death. The conviction by an all-white male jury was based on a
confession obtained from Dawson after he had spent more then a week in
custody without the assistance of counsel and on an accusation by the
victim's husband. Dawson had an I.Q. of 64. At trial, Dawson repudiated his
confession, claiming it was given only because "the white officers told him
to say he killed Mrs. Clayton or they'd give him to "the mob' outside."
There were no eyewitnesses and the circumstantial evidence was slight and
inconclusive.
9. Garner, Vance. Alabama. With Jack Hunter and Will Johnson, Garner was
convicted of murder and sentenced to death. No appeals were undertaken.
Garner had maintained his complete innocence, while Hunter admitted his own
guilt and absolved both Garner and Johnson. Johnson's sentence was later
commuted to life, but Garner was executed in 1905.
10-11. Grezchowiak, Stephen and Max Rybarczyk. New York. Grezchowiak and
Rybarczyk were both convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death.
Co-defendant Alexander Bogdanoff insisted that neither Grezchowiak nor
Rybarczyk had been involved in the crime, and that each had been mistakenly
identified by the eyewitnesses. He refused, however, to reveal the names of
his true accomplices. In their final words, they maintained their innocence,
and Bogdanoff again declared that the two were innocent.
12. Hauptmann, Bruno Richard. New Jersey. Hauptmann was convicted of
felony-murder-burglary, sentenced to death, and executed in 1936. He was
infamous as the ransom-kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby. Although Governor
Hoffman believed that Hauptmann was framed, he chose not to halt the
execution. There is no doubt that the conviction rested in part on corrupt
prosecutorial practices, suppression of evidence, intimidation of witnesses,
prejured testimony, and Hauptmann's prior record.
13. Hill, Joe. Utah. Hill was convicted and sentenced to death for the
murder of two storekeepers. The prosecution was based on sketchy
circumstantial evidence and was in part the result of collusion between the
prosecution and the trial judge in an atmosphere of anti-union hostility.
Despite several appeals from President Woodrow Wilson to the Utah
authorities for a reprieve, Hill was denied a new trial. Hill appears to
have been an innocent victim of "politics, finance and organized religion, a
powerful trinity"; his conviction and death are "one of the worst travesties
of justice in American labor history."
14. Lamble, Harold. New Jersey. Lamble was convicted and sentenced to death.
After the execution, Governor Edward Edwards refused requests to appoint a
special counsel to investigate the case, despite what the New York Times
called a "rather widespread fear that perhaps" Lamble was innocent. Lamble's
attorney was disbarred for mishandling the defense.
15. Mays, Maurice F. Tennessee. Mays was convicted of murder in the killing
of a white woman and sentenced to death. Mays' conviction rested on the
testimony of a police officer who had disliked him for years and on the
testimony of an eyewitness who never got a clear look at the killer. On
appeal, the conviction was reversed because the judge, rather than the jury,
had fixed the penalty at death. Mays was retried, reconvicted, and
resentenced to death. In 1922, Mays was executed, still maintaining his
innocence. In 1926, the real killer confessed in a written statement that
revealed she was a white woman who had dressed up as a black man to kill the
woman with whom her husband was having an affair.
16. McGee, Willie. Mississippi. McGee was convicted of the rape of a white
woman and sentenced to death by an all-white jury that deliberated for only
two and a half minutes. the chief evidence against him was a coerced
confession that he gave after being held incommunicado for thirty-two days
after his arrest; the victim's husband and her two children, asleep in the
next room, never heard any commotion from the alleged attack. The victim had
been consorting with McGee for four years and was angry at his efforts to
terminate their relationship. Nonetheless, local blacks were too intimidated
to give this evidence in court, and local whites felt the woman's consent
was impossible or irrelevant. McGee was executed in 1951.
17-18. Sacco, Nicola, and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Massachusetts. Sacco and
Vanzetti were convicted of murder in the course of armed robbery, sentenced
to death, and executed in 1927. Their case is probably the most
controversial death penalty case in this century. They were arrested and
tired in an atmosphere dominated by "the Red Scare" of the early 1920s. In
1925, another man also under the death sentence in Massachusetts confessed
to the crime. Extensive investigation of the confession convinced many that
he was, indeed, telling the truth. In 1926, the trial judge denied motions
for a retrial based on the confession. In 1977, on the occasion of the
fiftieth anniversary of the executions, Governor Dukakis signed a carefully
worded proclamation intended to remove "any stigma and disgrace" from their
names.
19. Sanders, Albert. Alabama. Sanders was convicted with Fisher Brooks of
murder and sentenced to death. Though he had nothing to gain by helping
Sanders, Brooks testified at Sander's trial that Sanders was innocent.
Another fellow prisoner testified that he had heard Sanders confess,
however, and both Brooks and Sanders were executed in 1918. In a statement
from the scaffold, Brooks again insisted on Sanders' innocence.
20. Sberna, Charles. New York. Sberna was convicted of first-degree murder
of a police officer. His codefendant, Salvatore Gati, testified at the trial
that Sberna was innocent. Gati also said the head of the New York Homicide
Bureau had told him that he knew Sberna was innocent, and would clear his
name if Gati would reveal the name of his real accomplices. Gati refused to
do this. Sberna and Gati were both wrongfully executed in 1938. The prison
chaplain said of Sberna, "This is the first time I've ever been positive
that an innocent man was going to the chair."
21. Shumway, R. Mead. Nebraska. Shumway was convicted of the first-degree
murder of his employer's wife on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to
death. One juror, the only one to hold out against the death penalty, told
his friends he "had not slept well any night since the trial." He later left
a note in which he expressed "great worry at the trial," and he then killed
himself. In 1910, the victim's husband confessed on his deathbed that he had
murdered his wife.
22. Tucker, Charles Louis. Massachusetts. Tucker was convicted of
first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1905. More than 100,000
Massachusetts residents signed petitions on behalf of clemency. Among those
convinced of his innocence was the county medical examiner and a clergyman
who said a witness had told him she perjured herself at the original trial.
Tucker was nonetheless executed in 1906.
23. Wing, George Chew. New York. Wing was convicted of first-degree murder
(after a 30-minute trial) and sentenced to death. While he was in prison
awaiting execution, Wing convinced several observers that he had been
falsely identified by eyewitnesses and that perjured testimony had been used
against him. Warden Lewis Lawes also questioned his guilt, but Wing was
nonetheless executed in 1937.
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/death/23executed.html
--
cucycln
They have no legal bounds, only raising questions no facts.
"Vadik" <va...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:MrFU9.8005$3X5....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Vadik
Cuc, if you click on the link, it will lead you directly to the fact sheets
about every individual out of 23 executed, their "MOs", "crimes" and
profiles,,,
"cucycln" <cuc...@bwr.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:4hGU9.240235$C8.7...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
chris
RockyMtnAl
case was 19 years ago. I'd also note that this was the only cited case in the
past 50 years. Not a bad record, in my opinion.
Vadik, did your ACLU friends really have to go back as far as the turn of the
last century to find these cases?
Why isn't the ACLU going after automobiles? After all, how many innocent
people are killed by those each year?
>> The 23 Innocent People Who Died
>1984
>1945
>1936
>1914
>1915.
>1937
>1905.
>1936. (Bruno Hauptman innocent? Methinks thou shouldst review the evidence,
my friend)
>1922,
>1951
>1927
>1918
>1918
>1938.
>1938.
>1910,
>1905
>1937
Harry K
> Why did this require 3 seperate post threads?
And why would -anyone- put forth this study against the death penalty?
This study was badly flawed and has been refuted repeatedly over the
years. Basically, the entire study is a laughing stock. Go to
alt.activism.death-penalty for details.
Harry K
Vadik
killed by representatives of your government?
I merely gave an example of it to cuc's questioning possibility of execution
of the innocent,,, And here is the answer to a question: HAVE INNOCENT
DEFENDANTS REALLY BEEN EXECUTED?
http://www.againstdp.org/exinno.html
In 1985, when we released the first draft of our research on erroneous
convictions in capital cases,36 the reaction by the Reagan Administration
took us by surprise. Then-Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who in
California in 1967 (with then-Governor Ronald Reagan) presided over the next
to last pre-Furman37 execution in America,38 ordered the Justice Department
to prepare an immediate response.39 We had evidently hit a sore spot in the
Administration's support of the death penalty; neither before nor since has
the Attorney General's office taken such an interest in academic research on
the death penalty.40 The government's response was not, as one might naively
have hoped, to [*pg 114] confirm or disconfirm our findings by throwing its
resources behind a more comprehensive study of the problem. We carried out
our initial research over four years on a budget of $9,000; it is anyone's
guess what could have been discovered if the vast resources of the Justice
Department had been available for more extensive research into the 350 cases
we studied, much less any of the thousands of cases still waiting to be
reexamined. Instead, the Attorney General's Office designed its response
solely to discredit our work and by implication to insulate the death
penalty from the charge that even in our society, with all the legal
protections afforded the accused or convicted or sentenced capital
defendant, there is still an undeniable risk of executing the innocent. As
events would prove, the government's hostile reaction to our work was far
different from that of other informed observers.41
The Justice Department's response focused on ten of the twenty-three cases
about which we declared our belief that the executed defendant was innocent.
Our critics did little more than rehash the case for the prosecution,
because they thought, or wanted their readers to believe, that we had denied
or forgotten that these defendants had been found guilty in court "beyond a
reasonable doubt." Our judgment to the contrary was explained as the result
of our careless methodology and excessive anti-death penalty zeal. As
recently as 1994, the conservative magazine National Review recycled the
views of our critics.42
Some of the nation's leading judges have given our work more positive
attention. For example, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun used our
research to support (in part) his decision to abandon any further tinkering
with "the machinery of death," as he called it, in the futile hope to make
the administration of the death penalty in our society fair and efficient.43
And, in 1998, the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, Gerald Kogan,
pointed to our work as one reason why he had decided to urge Florida
lawmakers to abandon the death penalty.44
We should mention in passing that despite not having demonstrated any lack
of integrity or reliability in our research, the Justice Department's
critique of that work has been very effective. The critique is frequently
cited by those who support executions, though they give no evidence of
having actually read the critique, much less of having read our law review
article, our reply to our critics, or our book. Perhaps this is another
example of the complacency that surrounds the public's attitude toward the
death penalty and issues of fact on which that attitude ought to depend.
[*pg 115]
Again and again, our critics point out that no responsible official in any
of the nation's capital jurisdictions has ever admitted to executing an
innocent person in this century, a point we were the first to make on the
basis of our extensive research into the question.45 Obviously, the
government's failure or refusal to acknowledge that an innocent defendant
has been executed is hardly evidence that none has been executed.
Getting the state to concede that it has convicted (let alone executed) an
innocent defendant is clearly no easy matter. Once an innocent person is
convicted, it is almost impossible to get that conviction reversed on
grounds of the accused's innocence.46 Even when prisoners do get released,
usually the prosecutor or some other state official will continue to insist
publicly that they really are guilty. The Jacobs-Tafero case powerfully and
painfully illustrates this point.
In May 1990, Jesse Tafero was executed in Florida. His case gained notoriety
because the electric chair malfunctioned and his head caught on fire before
he died.47 Two years later, Jesse's co-defendant, Sonia Jacobs, who had been
convicted and sentenced to death on exactly the same evidence that sent
Tafero to his death, was released after a U.S. Court of Appeals concluded
that her conviction was based on prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory
evidence and perjury by a prosecution witness (who was the real killer).48
Jacobs now lives in Los Angeles, and in early 1996, a television movie of
her case was aired.49 But Tafero is dead. Had he been alive, the evidence
that led to Jacobs's release would have led to his release, too.
Did Jacobs's vindication and release cause any Florida official to admit the
error in convicting Tafero, much less to apologize on behalf of the state,
or even to express second thoughts about Tafero's execution? No. To be sure,
a few newspaper articles pointed out the error,50 but no politician,
prosecutor, judge, or ex-juror involved in the case has so far made any
public comment on Tafero's fate in light of Jacobs's vindication. Tafero's
mother, living impoverished in Pennsylvania, does not have the resources to
mount a campaign to clear her son's name. His attorneys have long since
moved on to other cases.
So, given that we cannot point to admission of erroneous executions by
government officials involved in the cases we have studied, on what grounds
can we confidently infer that innocent defendants have been executed? Apart
[*pg 116] from rare cases like Tafero-Jacobs (where one codefendant is
executed before the other codefendant is exonerated), there are at least
three kinds of evidence that we believe ought to convince any reasonable
person that innocent defendants have been executed: close calls, calculation
of the odds, and the role of "Lady Luck."51
A. Close Calls
Between 1972 and the end of 1996, sixty-eight death row inmates in the
nation were released because of doubts about their guilt.52 These releases
do not prove that the system works, as some defenders of the death penalty
would argue. Representative Bill McCollum, for example, one of our
executioners' best friends in Congress, was "encouraged" by the findings,
claiming that the sixty-eight errors in twenty-five years "shows that the
system is working quite well."53 Contrary to such political spin, however,
our research indicates that if "the system worked," the defendants would be
dead. In virtually all of these cases, the defendants were released only
after an expensive and exhausting uphill struggle, unsupported by public
funds or public officials, and almost always fiercely resisted by the
prosecution and ignored by those with the power to commute a death sentence.
Some of these prisoners, now free, came within a few days of being executed.
Randall Adams, sentenced to death in Texas in 1977 and exonerated in 1989,
came to within one week of his execution.54 Andrew Mitchell, sentenced to
death in Texas in 1981, came within five days of death by lethal injection
before being vindicated in 1993.55 Two half-brothers in Florida, William
Jent and Ernest Miller, came within sixteen hours of being executed before
they were released from prison in 1988.56 More such cases have been cited
elsewhere.57
Today, there are more than three thousand prisoners on America's death
rows.58 As things stand, it would be preposterous to believe that all the
innocent death row defendants have been identified and exonerated. If the
history of the last twenty years is any guide to the future, an average of
three death row inmates per year will continue to be vindicated and
released. How many [*pg 117] equally innocent death row inmates will be
unsuccessful in obtaining relief is impossible to know, but the number most
certainly is not zero.
B. Calculation of the Odds
Assume we execute two death row inmates, each of whom we believe is guilty
"beyond a reasonable doubt" on the evidence. Let belief in guilt "beyond a
reasonable doubt" mean that we are ninety percent confident of guilt, and
that our belief in both these cases is correct. Nevertheless we are not (and
rarely could be) 100% certain, and so, on these assumptions, we are
implicitly accepting a ten percent error rate even when we are ninety
percent confident. However, because the odds of error are multiplicative,
the probability that any two death row prisoners chosen at random are guilty
is not ninety percent (0.9), but only eighty-one percent (0.9 x 0.9). Thus,
the probability that all 3,000 death row inmates today are guilty, even if
we are ninety percent confident of guilt in each case, is minuscule.
To put this another way, if we executed 100 inmates and we were ninety-five
percent certain of guilt in each case, we would be implicitly accepting a
five percent error rate; in being willing to execute all 100, we are in
effect willing to execute five out of the hundred who might be innocent
(even though, of course, we do not know which five are innocent, or whether
more or any are). If our perceptions on the odds of error are accurate
reflections of the real occurrences of error, the number of innocent persons
legally executed is quite high -- and much higher than our admittedly
selective and incomplete research into identifiable cases suggests.
C. The Role of "Lady Luck"
In the heat of their attack on our claim that some two dozen of the several
hundred cases we studied involved the execution of the innocent, the Justice
Department simply ignored the vast majority of cases where we claim an
innocent person was convicted of a capital offense but was not executed.59
In effect, their silence tacitly concedes that our judgment is correct in
more than ninety percent of all the cases and wrong in fewer than ten
percent. Why these critics think that small percent matters they have yet to
explain. What they conveniently overlook are scores of cases in which they
do not -- and could not reasonably -- dispute our claims, namely, that
innocent persons have been convicted and sentenced to death, and that
innocent prisoners who were not executed would have been, or might have
been, executed except for extraordinary good fortune.
Consider some of the ways good fortune smiled on the innocent death row
prisoner. Some of the cases we cite involve a defendant whose release was
owing to the timely discovery of a hitherto unknown eyewitness (for example,
[*pg 118] the case of Jerry Banks60). What if that witness had not stepped
forward? In other cases we cite, the true culprit confessed in time to save
the innocent prisoner (for example, the case of James Foster61). What if the
true culprit had kept silent about his involvement? In still other cases,
vindication depended on a dedicated journalist who took up the cause and
established that the convicted defendant is really innocent (for example,
the case of Freddie Pitts and Wilbert Lee62). What if no journalist had
developed a timely interest in the case? In 1993, Kirk Bloodsworth was freed
from death row in Maryland when technology not widely available at the time
of his trial (DNA testing) proved his innocence.63 What if this technology
had not been developed for another decade, or semen on the body of the
victim had not been preserved, or the victim had not been raped as well as
murdered? Under any of these conditions, Bloodsworth would not have been
exonerated.
In one way or another, virtually every case in which death row inmates are
able to prove their innocence is a story of exceptional luck. Only when we
realize how lucky the exonerated death row defendants have been can we
realize how easy it is for fatal mistakes to go undetected. The more such
cases are discovered the greater the likelihood there are other cases so far
undetected -- and that some of these cases involve the execution of the
innocent. Just because boats filled with illegal drugs are regularly
intercepted by the police near our shores, it does not follow that all boats
carrying such drugs have been intercepted.
Some of those who are guilty of criminal homicide but factually innocent of
capital murder end up on death row because of a politically ambitious
prosecutor, a lazy or angry jury, incompetent or over-worked defense
counsel, or just bad luck.29 Others are on death row not out of
arbitrariness, but because of systematic bias and discrimination. In
Florida30 and in several other states,31 taking into account all the
relevant facts, those who kill whites are between three and four times more
likely to end up on death row as are those who kill blacks.32 In short, the
race of the victim is a strong predictor of which defendants end up on death
row, and explains why some who are innocent of capital murder are
nonetheless sentenced to death.
Sentencing defendants to death who are innocent of capital murder -- or
innocent of any homicide -- is especially risky in states where the trial
judge has the authority to disregard the jury's sentence recommendation, as
in Alabama, Delaware, Florida, and Indiana. After interviewing fifty-four
jurors from a dozen Florida capital juries (including the jury that judged
Ernest Dobbert), [*pg 112] William Geimer and Jonathan Amsterdam concluded,
"The existence of some degree of doubt about the guilt of the accused was
the most often recurring explanatory factor in the life [imprisonment]
recommendation cases studied."33 Clearly, even when jurors believe that
certain defendants are "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," lingering doubts
often remain about whether the defendant is guilty of a capital crime, and
those doubts understandably make the jurors reluctant to recommend the
extreme penalty.
F. Innocent Victims in the Death Row Inmate's Family
No discussion of innocence and the death penalty can be complete without
considering how the death penalty affects the inmate's family.
Consider for a moment why some Americans want the death penalty rather than
life imprisonment. They argue that the inmate does not suffer enough if
punished only by life imprisonment. What is it about the death penalty that
makes the inmate suffer more than if he had been sentenced instead to a long
term of imprisonment? In many cases, the primary pain felt by men facing
execution is seeing what their plight and their anticipated execution does
to their families. Life in prison is a miserable life; the inmate knows that
even if he were to leave death row via commutation of his sentence, he would
be resentenced to life without possibility of parole and would die in
prison. Given the widespread availability of life-without-parole sentences,
almost all of those sentenced to death, absent the death penalty, will still
die in prison. Being executed would end the pain of imprisonment sooner
rather than later.
But the pain felt by the inmate anticipating execution is often overshadowed
by the pain that innocent family members experience in anticipating the
death of their loved one. Their pain arises out of their helplessness, the
scorn directed at them, and what they endure immediately prior to, during,
and after the execution itself.34 Families of death row inmates are often
indigent and almost always powerless to resist public and political outcries
aimed at their incarcerated loved one. While the inmate's suffering is
terminated at the instant of death, that of the family members goes on, from
the moment they learn the death sentence has been carried out through the
years of living with the memories and second-guesses. Arguably, the only
thing worse than being executed is to see a member of your family executed.
Sentimental though this may seem to some, we make this point in the context
of discussing the execution of the innocent for the following reason. Today,
the main rationale generally given for retaining the death penalty is retri-
[*pg 113] bution.35 Retribution gives us the simplest and most direct
argument for the death penalty: Execute murderers because they deserve it.
However, the death penalty inflicts its harm not with a laser but with a
shotgun, injuring the guilty and the innocent alike. In ways very unlike
prison sentences, the death penalty creates an ever-widening circle of
victims. And many of those caught in the circle as it widens do not deserve
it. Obviously, families of homicide victims do not deserve their pain
either, but the discussion about the death penalty is foremost a discussion
of how much misery society should deliberately inflict in the future, not
about the misery that has already been inflicted in the past (and is
therefore unretractable) by the offender.
"RockyMtnAl" <rocky...@aol.comkillspam> wrote in message
news:20030113224853...@mb-cl.aol.com...
Vadik
"RockyMtnAl" <rocky...@aol.comkillspam> wrote in message
news:20030113224853...@mb-cl.aol.com...
cited
> case was 19 years ago. I'd also note that this was the only cited case in
the
> past 50 years. Not a bad record, in my opinion.
You need more? here's more,,,
Innocence Found on Death Row
http://weeklywire.com/ww/08-04-97/slc_cb_b.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
By Christopher Smart
During the past 25 years, 69 people who had been sentenced to death in the
United States were eventually found to be innocent and released from their
death-row prison cells.
"The current emphasis on faster executions, less resources for the defense
and an expansion in the number of death cases mean that the execution of
innocent people is inevitable," says a new report "Innocence and the Death
Penalty."
Since 1973, about 6,000 people have been sentenced to death in this
country. At that rate, more than one of every 100 death-row inmates awaiting
execution is innocent.
Death penalty opponents are calling the report the best evidence yet that
executions do not further justice. The report was compiled by the
Washington, D.C.-based Death Penalty Information Center.
"The danger that innocent people will be executed because of errors in the
criminal justice system is getting worse," the report states.
Many who were condemned to die but who were cleared before they were
executed did not find freedom through the normal appeals process, the report
contends. "Many of these cases were discovered as a result of new scientific
techniques, investigations by journalists and the dedicated work of expert
attorneys not available to the typical death-row inmate."
The report does not include cases of innocent people who have been executed.
Two researchers, Prof. Hugo Bedau and Prof. Michael Radelet, have reported
that at least 23 innocent people have been executed in the United States
during this century.
"This shows an increasing level of carelessness with which the death penalty
is being imposed," said Diane Rust-Tierney, director of the Capital
Punishment Project for the national office of the American Civil Liberties
Union.
She credits cavalier prosecutors as well as the lack of oversight by the
federal courts that has been further diminished by the Effective Death
Penalty Act shepherded through Congress last year by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch,
among others.
"If we, as a society, have become so impatient that we don't even care if we
have the right person, I think we ought to recognize that it is at the cost
of our own morality," Rust-Tierney said.
The report may be the best argument against the death penalty," said Carol
Gnade, executive director of the Utah affiliate of the American Civil
Liberties Union.
The criminal justice system is not perfect, Gnade explained. "What this
report shows is that we should never trust the finality of whether a person
is guilty or innocent."
But the number of people on death row across the United States continues to
climb and is now estimated at 3,000.
"... The death penalty has become even more political as legislators,
prosecutors and even judges promote the death penalty in their campaigns,"
the report notes.
But the increased rate of finding innocent people who have been sentenced to
death is a clear sign that the criminal justice system is fallible,
according to the report. Errors, however, can not be remedied after a person
is executed
http://weeklywire.com/ww/08-04-97/slc_cb_b.html
cucycln
just ignore you! He's MO
"Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:751f8d35.03011...@posting.google.com...
chris
Way to concentrate on one miniscule area of his concerns and ignore the
really big issues.
<bravo>
Harry K
> "RockyMtnAl" <rocky...@aol.comkillspam> wrote in message
> news:20030113224853...@mb-cl.aol.com...
> > Let's see...23 allegedly innocent people executed...and the most recently
> cited
> > case was 19 years ago. I'd also note that this was the only cited case in
> the
> > past 50 years. Not a bad record, in my opinion.
>
> You need more? here's more,,,
>
> Innocence Found on Death Row
> http://weeklywire.com/ww/08-04-97/slc_cb_b.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> By Christopher Smart
>
> During the past 25 years, 69 people who had been sentenced to death in the
> United States were eventually found to be innocent and released from their
> death-row prison cells.
>
that one also research it on the alt.activism.death-penalty forum.
The problem with the study is it assumed that all that were released
were -factually- innocent, i.e., didn't do the crime. The truth was
that most (if not all) of the cases were released due to flaws in the
legal work that is, the preponderance of evidence was that they -did-
do the crime but weren't properly convicted.
Harry K
barb
>Why isn't the ACLU going after
>automobiles? After all, how many
>innocent people are killed by those each
>year?
What about the killer booze? Our govt has a hand in booze? And if we
want to talk about a killer, what about sex....wars and bombs...
WE ARE A BUNCH OF FUCKING ANIMALS.
barb
Vadik
> that one also research it on the alt.activism.death-penalty forum.
> The problem with the study is it assumed that all that were released
> were -factually- innocent, i.e., didn't do the crime. The truth was
> that most (if not all) of the cases were released due to flaws in the
> legal work that is, the preponderance of evidence was that they -did-
> do the crime but weren't properly convicted.
>
>
Harry, since killing a person became illegal world-wide with the adoption of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ALL of the executions, regardless
of how they were administered and ordered, were illegal for the past 55
years,,, Just as exploitation of the slave labor of prisoners,,, Is it clear
to you now??? "Innocent", or "not innocent",,, The fact that most of the
murder crimes weren't resolved, which means that murderers walked away from
their crimes with impunity, is a different story,,,
cucycln
Rights, and then it's illegal for all to have the executions. What if that
country didn't subscribe to it? I don't think that the world in all said we
all like that idea and subscribe to the UDof HR. So what then, you impose
your feelings on people who disagree with you and prosecute them for
something they don't agree with you?
If I'm correct then that is about as big of Bullshit I've ever heard.
I will not add anymore to this discussion until you correct me or tell me
what is up? (With some proof please)
>
Vadik
>
>
>
> I don't think that the world in all said we
> all like that idea and subscribe to the UDof HR.
>
>
>
>
>
This is the problem with you, cuc, that you don't think,,, The fact is EVERY
country is subscribed to the UDHR,,, And since US was one of the initiators
UN Organization when this document was invented, Eleanor Roosevelt was the
one who drafted original version of the UDHR, it should at least be honoring
and publicizing it the most,,, Moreover, I think US is not only ready for
full abolition of the Incarceration Industry, it will also benefit it the
most while delivering more rights and freedoms to its People, it will compel
them to be more responsible not only toward other individuals, but also to
the environment,,,
cucycln
Please show me where it says EVERY country. Especially since a lot countries
have come about and some disappeared since the 1040's. Russia being one! Now
we have several countries.
I think I expose you to the US public as you sit in Canada and call the
kettle back as you sit in the black pan!
And if so why is it that Iraq, and half the Middle East is a UN member and
you say nothing about their prisons. You are focused on the US and you sit
in Canada. You should be taking on the whole world, EVERY country etc. But
that's your MO hypocrisy
>
>
joe
well said Barb !
"barb" <critt...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14737-3E2...@storefull-2316.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Vadik
Your obvious ignorance is calling for a speedy reeducation, just like any
criminal's would, Mr. Cop, or should I say PO,,,?
cucycln
So re-education does mean compliance does it. Or acceptance to what is
stated in you UDHR. So not EVERYONE is in favour or bound by it.
Therefore it's out dated and either should be trashed (which it has been) or
rewritten and all the members or the entire world would have to agree to it.
I don't think that would happen enlighten of what is happening in the Middle
East.
Enough, enough I'm out of here
chris
"Vadik" wrote in message ...
>This is the problem with you, cuc, that you don't think,,, The fact is
EVERY
>country is subscribed to the UDHR,,, And since US was one of the initiators
>UN Organization when this document was invented, Eleanor Roosevelt was
Vadik, not EVERY COUNTRY belongs to the UN. Not EVERY COUNTRY has
subscribed to the UDHR, as there are still afew countries in the world that
are governed by dictators. Such dictators are not going to sign accords
that would make them legally accountable for their transgressions. Not only
that, but there are other countries who have changed borders and regimes
recently, this would make any subscription to the UDHR invalid once the
former regime collapses.
This fact, makes your statement inaccurate.
You need to research your claims more thoroughly before posting them.
Vadik
>
>
> Vadik, not EVERY COUNTRY belongs to the UN. Not EVERY COUNTRY has
> subscribed to the UDHR, as there are still afew countries in the world
that
> are governed by dictators. Such dictators are not going to sign accords
> that would make them legally accountable for their transgressions. Not
only
> that, but there are other countries who have changed borders and regimes
> recently, this would make any subscription to the UDHR invalid once the
> former regime collapses.
>
> This fact, makes your statement inaccurate.
>
> You need to research your claims more thoroughly before posting them.
OK then, since you said few countries do not subscribe to the UDHR, could
you please name them?
Wouldn't it be easy for you just to list a few names? Dictators and even
monarchs have rarely been held accountable for their rulings, but even then,
according to the UDHR, they unlikely to be suffering the way their subjects
are suffering to this days,,,
And BTW, while you are listing those countries, could you please also
mention others that changed their borders?
RockyMtnAl
>> one who drafted original version of the UDHR, it
Excuse me, Vadik...my memory must be failing me. Exactly when was Eleanor
Roosevelt elected to office?
chris
All I'd need is one to refute your statement that EVERY COUNTRY subscribed
to it.
I'd also add any country that is not a member of the UN is also unlikely to
have subscribed to the UDHR, unless they were forced into doing so, which
would invalidate their subscription, correct?
All of the nations which made up the former USSR minus Russia would have
changed their regime and thus boundary status after the dissolution of the
USSR. The others I cannot recall at this moment.
My point is that your statement is inaccurate. I do not need to do your
research for you, nor will I do so. I have sufficiently proven that your
statement that EVERY COUNTRY subscribes to the UDHR is inaccurate, and quite
frankly, it is ludicrous for you to make a statement you can assume for your
very self to be inaccurate. I suggest, again, that you stick to doing what
you do best, posting other people's findings.
Vadik
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Enough, enough I'm out of here
>
>
And stay out,,, I hope this is your last response to my posts, since you are
supposedly not seeying them anymore,,,
Vadik
fabricated "facts",,,
http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html if you'll check this link you will
see Afghanistan very first on the list of members of UNO, which joined
before the UDHR was invented and unanimously adopted by all members at that
time,,, Remaining of the world's countries eventually joined UN, with
unquestionable adaptation of the UDHR,,, Therefore if Human rights are being
violated anywhere those acts are definitely in conflict of the UDHR and
should not be practiced,,,
Obviously US People were deceived all this time and their ignorance (about
UDHR) was brutally exploited by rulers through perpetuation of the
Incarceration Industry, only to benefit their wealthy cronies ,,,
I was born if former USSR and I still travel there every now and then, at
least once in two years,,, But I'm yet to see any borders changed there, or
"new" countries created,,, Because all of 15 states of fUSSR were created
and became officially independent between years 1918 and early 1920s',,,
I don't know any sources of your "information" but from now on you should
provide a link to them,,,
"chris" <rruf...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Qb5V9.46133$n47.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Vadik
"RockyMtnAl" <rocky...@aol.comkillspam> wrote in message
> > Eleanor Roosevelt was the one who
> > drafted original version of the UDHR
>
> Roosevelt elected to office?
What "election" and which "office" are you talking about? Could you clip the
part where I was mentioning anything related to "office"? May be it isn't
only your memory that;s failing you, because it's quite possible that your
hard drive is also malfunctioning? I think you should check the whole
computer for that matter,,, Why won't you consult the expert before you do
anything real stupid,,,?
Wasn't Eleanor US citizen, just like her hubby, who also was a president of
the USA? I think they together met with WW2 victor on his backyard, when
world was in need of standards for individuals' rights,,,
cucycln
Please show me where in that it says I'm denied that right. Show proof
please and name the states.
See how stupid that sounds. Because that's what you sound like Vadik from
your Canadian home.
I have to back up the guy that you need professional help and that your hard
drive is messed up.
I thought that you were just some guy with a cause, but no you are really
crazy. Thank god that your in Canada and you can use their health system. Oh
you might have to wait a couple years in line, but it's available to you.
"Vadik" <va...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:_T5V9.8389$3X5....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
cucycln
cucycln
chris
"Vadik" wrote in message
>And stay out,,, I hope this is your last response to my posts, since you
are
>supposedly not seeying them anymore,,,
Don't tell people what to do Vadiot.
chris
ago when the US invaded Afghanistan? Guess what resulted....Afghanistan now
has a NEW GOVERNMENT. I don't think the Taliban signed the original UDHR,
as they were also a subsequent regime change, so that's ATLEAST TWO changes
of government since the document was accepted in Afghanistan.
But I guess I must be lying, huh Vadiot? I must have made all of this up.
What a fucking loser you are. Do you not watch TV? The news?
You don't know where I might have heard that there were changes when the
USSR dissolved? Again, you are ignorant of basic international history of
which over 1/3rd of the entire world is privy. Before the USSR dissolved,
the entire Soviet Union was a collective mass of nations, since the
collapse, they broke away from the Soviet Union, and have become their own
nations.
Provide a link....hmmm...how about you look at any map of Eurasia from
before the fall of the USSR, and then look at a current one. All the
territory that formerly said USSR or Soviet Union, now has a bunch of other
nations present. You travel to these countries, yet you don't know anything
about their breaking away from the USSR?
Are you retarded?
Vadik
being compulsive liar?
"cucycln" <cuc...@bwr.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:vX9V9.240907$C8.7...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Vadik
"chris" <rruf...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1VcV9.51019$n47.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> Hey, Vadiot, pssst...
Nothing substantial, but a pile of usual crap with no links provided,,,
Chris the imbecile, I assume you did not learn when you had the opportunity,
what you were suppose to learn, when you went to school, eh?
OK, then it is on my shoulders now, since it hurts to see someone so
ignorant as you are,,, I will tell you every detail of your delusion, but
you have to promise me to be patient,,, You know, as they say, the world
wasn't created in one day,,, It took me few decades of learning, and that
KNOWLEDGE can be easily found on the Internet,,, But since you did not
follow my advise to support your "facts" (which most likely sucked out of
the penis), I will have to provide the links myself,,,
CIA for now, Imbecile,,,
Vadik
attempting to say something meaningful about the "office"?
"cucycln" <cuc...@bwr.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:jY9V9.240908$C8.7...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
cucycln
> What "truth" are you talking about, imbecile? The one I proved that you
are
> being compulsive liar?
>
>
please prove where I lied! You are asking for proof and so am I. So big
boy... Prove that I lied or you are the biggest imbecile and hypocrite that
ever graced the friendly keys of the Internet.
So come up with it! I'm waiting.
Maybe you could come to California and join the new and improved and
expanded Death Row! And that's by a Democratic Governor. Like the difference
between Demo and Reps means anything to a Canadian who likes to fix
everybody else's problems and ignore his own!
Vadik
want, though you are quite annoying at times,,, It's just that you
"threatened" to killfile me and even told that I'm already being filtered
about 24 hours ago, but never stopped reading my posts,,, So, I have to
assume that you lied,,, OK?
"cucycln" <cuc...@bwr.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:fW9V9.240906$C8.7...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Vadik
equal with everyone else and have the same rights,,, It just they have a
tendency to be easily offended whenever they've pointed out their lies and
become stubbornly aggressive against attempts of being strengthened out by
others on the net, expressing obvious antagonism towards opponents to their
opinion,,,
"chris" <rruf...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IIcV9.50847$n47.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
cucycln
> But of course you are, Cuc,,,, Please say whatever you want and anytime
you
> want, though you are quite annoying at times,,, It's just that you
> "threatened" to killfile me and even told that I'm already being filtered
> about 24 hours ago, but never stopped reading my posts,,, So, I have to
> assume that you lied,,, OK?
I was tired but you know you're so much fun to play with. With all the snow
I just guess I'm bored. Did I lie? No I just changed my mind. If that's all
you can find that I lied well should I be on death row. Esp. when you took
upon yourself to be moderator and tell me not to come back. Who gave you a
badge?
I think I'll be sometimes and when I get sick of you I will stay away. I see
you got enough to contend with anyway.
But you are real enjoyable to play with. I think of you as a play buddy...HA
chris
"Vadik" wrote in message ...
>attempting to say something meaningful about the "office"?
mast?
>-)
chris
"Vadik" wrote in message ...
>being compulsive liar?
Vadiot, even if your statement could be proven, which it cannot due to his
freedoms to decide what he wants to do on his own terms, not yours, proof
would only constitute one lie or set of lies.
How does that make one a compulsive liar?
Your statements betray you as a compulsive idiot.
chris
"Vadik" wrote in message <_dhV9.8471$3X5....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
>
>
>"chris" <rruf...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:1VcV9.51019$n47.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Hey, Vadiot, pssst...
>
>Nothing substantial, but a pile of usual crap with no links provided,,,
>
Are you saying that others do not know my statements to be true, or are you
the only person allowed to make posts?
>Chris the imbecile, I assume you did not learn when you had the
opportunity,
>what you were suppose to learn, when you went to school, eh?
I learned enough to know not to suggest that prisoners who want to be free
cannot simply wait until the guards leave and "walk away". In what school
did you learn that idea, Vadiot?
>OK, then it is on my shoulders now, since it hurts to see someone so
>ignorant as you are,,, I will tell you every detail of your delusion, but
>you have to promise me to be patient,,, You know, as they say, the world
>wasn't created in one day,,, It took me few decades of learning, and that
Are you saying that it took you "decades" to learn that you could search the
internet for information? You have got to be the dumbest stump-brained
buffoon I've ever heard of.
>KNOWLEDGE can be easily found on the Internet,,, But since you did not
>follow my advise to support your "facts" (which most likely sucked out of
>the penis), I will have to provide the links myself,,,
You provided no links yourself, which makes you a liar, for all to see.
>CIA for now, Imbecile,,,
CIA? Don't say Ciao if you can't spell it, Vadiot.
Vadik
often confuse the two of you, Cuc,,,
But weren't you the one who said I was placed in your killfile? Then you
attempted to lie that you responded to others' post, while directly
answering to mine,,, And about the fUSSR's states (or any others, for that
matter) changing their borders, while "acquire" (new?) independence,,,
You see, officially they were suppose to be independent not only "recently",
but from the day ONE of their official status of independence, which is
about 80 years ago, when they were created,,, Some of the "republics", which
are other than 15, are autonomous districts of those republics,,, Chechnia,
for instance, was INVENTED in February 1921 (same time with creation of
State of Gruzia) as autonomous district of Russian Federation (RSSFR-first
seceded and most powerful of 15 states of the fUSSR), only to favor groups
of refugees of Arab ethnicities, who were supposedly benefit from gained
geographical, but partial independence,,, Other than this fact, Chechnia
don't have any historical claim for its political independence, just like
most of the US states,,,
So, other than your outright lie, this fact has really NOTING to do
unquestionable validity of the UNO and its most powerful document in the
world, known in and adopted in all languages and in every country on
earth,,,
"cucycln" <cuc...@bwr.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:OwhV9.241059$C8.7...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
cucycln
that is fact! Show me your source of information, and please don't site the
ACLU...that isn't fact but propaganda!
Having fun yet?news:hBiV9.8510$3X5....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Vadik
> Now that you spouted off and wrote all that invalidate crap. Show me where
> that is fact! Show me your source of information, and please don't site
the
> ACLU...that isn't fact but propaganda!
Saying that ACLU has no fact but propaganda is the same "because I told you
so" proof,,, Could you support your claim any other way than this?
And since you asked me to show you the FACT, could you please specify one
(or one by one, of you need more) since I know that there is infinity of
them out there on the Internet,,, But I like to search through, so I will
find for you, if you unable to do it on your own,,,
Vadik
This gives me input on the areas of likely errors typos ,,,news:1kiV9.53292$n47.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Vadik
>
>
> I think of you as a play buddy...HA
>
>
>
>
Reciprocally,
Vadik
>
>
>
> You provided no links yourself, which makes you a liar, for all to see.
>
> >CIA for now, Imbecile,,,
>
> CIA? Don't say Ciao
>
>
Sorry, but I did say ciao,,, I guess one cannot fully trust spellchecker,
eh?
I did not lie, and I will send you links right after I'll brows the web,,,
I'm still reading forums, Chris,,, I asked you to be patient, didn't I? But
since you know how to find on your own, please feel free to do it, because I
did not count on my promise holding you from it,,,
Ciao,,
Vadik
>
>
>
> Your statements betray you as a compulsive idiot.
>
>
You cna can be right on this, Cris, but I found for you a good site, where
you can start on political borders of former Russia from about 200 years ago
to all of teh today's its CIS borders, which haven't changed for last 80
years,,,
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_commonwealth.html
So, when you finish stadying the borders, we could switch to legal and
political issues, including teh validity of UN and its documents,,, OK?
Vadik
similar to US states,,, All other 14 states of CIS have the same divisions
of their Federal power,,,
http://map.rin.ru/index_e.html
"Vadik" <va...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:0UkV9.8544$3X5....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
RockyMtnAl
first draft of the UDHR, that implies official US government action. It does
not.
chris
statement that EVERY COUNTRY subscribes to the UDHR?
Providing links for irrelevant topics really has no purpose.
Vadik
"RockyMtnAl" <rocky...@aol.comkillspam> wrote in message
> Vadik, you seem to be claiming that since Eleanor Rooselvelt helped with
the
> first draft of the UDHR, that implies official US government action. It
does
> not.
>
She was active member in league of Nations, which became Uniten Nations
Organisation,,, Then she was working on that draft in that capacity,,, US
was among the members of UN when UDHR was adopted unanimously,,, Here is a
link to a story about historical deliberation on its drafting process:
http://www.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/udhr/preamble_section_8/drafting
_history.html
NOW, THEREFORE, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Proclaims this Universal Declaration
of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all
nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society,
keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and
education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal
and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member
States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their
jurisdiction.
Drafting History
The Third Committee changed the title of the document from the International
Declaration of Human Rights to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
order to emphasize that the Declaration was directed to common people and
not to the states or governments that represented them. During the drafting
process this goal was underlined when a Chinese proposal to add the word
"peoples" before the word "nations" as part of the British and Lebanese
proposal to proclaim the Declaration as "a common standard of achievement
for all nations" was accepted. In addition, the Egyptian delegation proposed
that the words "both among Member States themselves and among the peoples of
territories under their jurisdiction" be added in order to include all
peoples living under colonial rule.
Interestingly, the issue of the legal nature of the Declaration did arise
during the deliberations of the Drafting Committee. At one point, Rene
Cassin proposed to begin the Proclamation in the same manner as the Charter,
but this proposal was dismissed by Eleanor Rooselvelt on the basis that "it
would be misleading to give it the form of an international treaty."(
Morsink, 321)
AKAmax
>
>Vadik, you seem to be claiming that since Eleanor Rooselvelt helped with the
>first draft of the UDHR, that implies official US government action. It does
>not.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me Mrs. Roosevelt was a delegate to the UN
FOR the USA at the time.
Anyone know?
And would that cast a light on the issue whether the USA was fond of this
Declaration on principle or politically correct at the time, etc. etc.??
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle
uh huh
Lots of Love
Don
AKA
MAX
http://members.aol.com/mywingsofanangel
OR
cucycln
have different by laws etc. So your Canadian sponsored UDHR has no power.
Better go back again and look Vadik.
You Like the whole Idea because some Canadian wrote the thing....Right?
"Vadik" <va...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:HiqV9.8664$3X5....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
cucycln
inside are different, therefore they are no bound to any UDHR.
Much like a new take over in a country. Which has happen a million times in
the world since 1940.
Get up to speed Vadik...
Vadik
> The league of Nations was a different org. that the United Nations. They
> have different by laws etc.
cite,,,
Vadik
> Also yes the borders of Russia proper are the same, but the countries est.
> inside are different, therefore they are no bound to any UDHR.
> Much like a new take over in a country. Which has happen a million times
in
> the world since 1940.
cite ,,,
cucycln
Any person with an IQ above a rock would know that. If you don't know that,
then you're just a lost cause. History of the world 101 or Middle school
would of taught you that. You're useless Vadik.
>
>
>
cucycln
> http://worldatwar.net/timeline/other/league18-46.html
go to that cite. I stand corrected most all the League of nations was
transferd to UN.
But take a look Vadik.
Withdrawls from the League by country
1925-Costa Rica withdraws.
26-Brazil
37-El Savador, Italy
38 Chile, Venezuela
39. USSR ....is expelled for the League.
So there buddy boy... that means not "EVERYONE" belongs....
>
>
Vadik
>
>
>
>
> History of the world 101 or Middle school
> would of taught you that. You're useless Vadik.
>
>
Then you certainly should be able name one (of "millions"?) country that
changed its position toward UDHR, membership in UN, let alone changing its
borders in last half of the century,,,
Isn't your education and intelligence level expected to be higher than you
mentioned? If you cannot say it, just post a link to it,,,
Vadik
of UN members,,,
Ciao,
"cucycln" <cuc...@bwr.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:dDEV9.241551$C8.7...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Vadik
"AKAmax" <wingsof...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030115233556...@mb-df.aol.com...
> >From: rocky...@aol.comkillspam
>
> >
> >Vadik, you seem to be claiming that since Eleanor
> >Rooselvelt helped with the first draft of the UDHR,
> >that implies official US government action. It does not.
>
> I could be wrong, but it seems to me Mrs. Roosevelt
> was a delegate to the UN FOR the USA at the time.
>
> Anyone know?
>
> And would that cast a light on the issue whether the
> USA was fond of this Declaration
Of course it's not a "secret", Max, and everyone knows it,, ,, It's just
some people are playing "ignorant" sometimes,,,