Conference back40::soapbox

    
    Is that all he did?? Stick up both middle fingers and blew a kiss??
    
    Pshaw!!! The most that should happen is for us to give him 3 squares a
    day for the rest of his life...
    
    Maybe he can even make a nice prono flick like Speck did...
    

 Z   I wish there is someone who would have the mercy to put him out of
 Z   everyone's misery, you know. This man needs to be dead, not in
 Z   prison, not anyway else but in hell.
    
    By our standards, yes.  I think part of our problem is his
    understanding of jurisunprudence in this country.  He knows he will be
    on death row for a good ten plus years and has every possibility
    of escaping this demise.
    
    I overheard my neighbor on the phone here just stating he did get the
    death penalty.  Apparently he didn't get what he wanted this time.
    
    -Jack

    .2
    
    Wrong, I think he got exactly what he wanted.  This man was a career
    criminal.  He functioned better behind bars then in society and
    probably loathed society for letting him out of prison.  
    
    I felt from the very beginning that his crime of kidnapping and killing
    Polly Klass was deliberate to get caught and put back in the slammer. 
    Perhaps even the death penalty.  I really believe he wanted this and
    when his attorney tried to get mercy for him, he took matters into his
    own two fingers.
    
    Nancy

    re: .1
    
    My ma mentioned to me that whole Speck porno thing.  Unbelievable.
    Talk about sick.

    I dunno what the State of California does to dispatch vermin, but 
    perhaps boiling in oil would be appropriate. Drawing and quartering
    would be a tad messy...
    
    

    He will wind up in a cell next to Charlie Manson. And they can chat
    about the good ol days of.... 
    
    Certainly his acts of defiance will be his last great act, in his own
    little mindless mind.
    
    

    
    California uses lethal injection. They used to use the gas chamber,and
    perhaps they still do. I don't think to many states use the electric
    chair anymore. Florida, and Louisiana are two that come to mind.

    It's not my call but if it were I would either opt for:
    
    Death by lethal injection or have something like what happened
    to Jeffery Dommer(sp?) acidentally occur in jail - death by
    broom stick?

    Georgia still plugs in it's condemned convicts.
    
    What I want to know is:
    
    How did this POS get the opportunity to get put back into society?
    Now the big deal is registering sex offenders.  When they move into
    the community, they have to report with the sheriff, and the school
    board.
    
    HEY, WAIT A MINUTE... I though sex offenders and people who molest
    children should be put in the GD slammer and kept there until their
    doo-dad falls off.  Therefore this reporting/tracking of sex offenders
    is a non-issue.
    
    MadMike

    .9
    
    He has never killed before.  Only stalked, molested and rape and he's
    never done it with children.

    Very well then.  A rapist should spend at least 15 years in the
    slammer though.  Especially one with a rap sheet as long as this
    one supposedly is.  This piece of garbage shouldn't have been out
    of prison.  

    Ohh...but you don't understand!  Ya see, Governor Dukakis, the
    Massachusetts legislature, Mrs. Swartz, and other countless social
    workers in the 1970's told us that he was a victim of
    circumstances...he was a product of his environment...and since these 
    wonderful guiding lights are omnicsient in such matters, we had no
    choice but to believe them.  
    
    
    (Insert most meeley mouth, wimpy voice you could possibly imagine
    here...)
    
    
    We were duped....sorry.

> A rapist should spend at least 15 years in the slammer though.

???

Mike? Is that you?

A rapist should be executed. If the state hasn't the ballz to do that,
then the rapist should minimally be imprisoned for life without chance
of parole.

15 years is hardly a "reasonable and just" punishment for rape.

    .13
    
    Life imprisonment without opportunity for parole is an utterly
    insufficient substitute for capital punishment.  A lifer has plenty of
    opportunity to injure or kill other inmates (who might be nonviolent
    first-timers) or guards.  As recently demonstrated in the Colony of
    Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, a lifer can even escape and,
    until caught, wreak incalculable human damage.  That the recent escape
    in said colony ended without anyone's being killed or maimed was mere
    good fortune.
    
    Capital punishment is the ONLY way to ensure that society is forever
    safe from a violent criminal.

>    Capital punishment is the ONLY way to ensure that society is forever
>    safe from a violent criminal.

It'd prolly lower the recidivism rate, too.

However, they gotta do something about how long it takes. 

re: .14, Dick

Well, as you know, you won't get any argument from me. However, as I
stated in .13, for those states with insufficient gonads to put these bastards
to death, at least make some _attempt_ to keep them away from society 
_permanently_, rather than considering some ridiculous limited sentence.
It's rather unfair to the rest of the world to give a slap on the wrist
to someone who is then free to leave your jurisdiction and practice his
violence elsewhere.

    As a society we are too self-centered and short-sighted to do anything
    but apply band-aids to the crime problem.
    
    As for this criminal, I would bet that both his (a) sociopathology / 
    lack of conscience / lack of connection to other human beings and (b)
    his tendency toward violence, perhaps commingled with sexual deviance,
    were both "discoverable", perhaps even well-known and well-documented
    long before he kidnapped and murdered Polly Klaas.
    
    

  What the heck does any of this have to do with "gonads"?  Like it's
  so brave to execute someone.  

    anyone see "prime time" last night?  it was about a man
    who was executed in louisiana.  they interviewed him and
    the warden right up to the time he was executed.  the 
    warden's words, "it one thing to believe in capital punishment,
    it's another thing to do it".  after all, it's not like putting
    a dog to sleep.

>    ...  after all, it's not like putting
>    a dog to sleep.

That's right. 

Dog's are usually pretty nice as a species. It's obviously easier to fry
a scum bag.

TTom

    >> What the heck does any of this have to do with "gonads"?  Like it's
    >> so brave to execute someone.
    
    i think he means, like oph (can i call you that?) said, it's one thing
    to believe in it, it's another to actually do it.  i think it's a
    politically correct thing.  some might not follow thru because his/her
    voters don't like it, etc...
    
    i hope someone does fry this guy...
    
    

    
    Oph, I missed that show, but I meant to watch it. It looked like
    it would be very good. while I am in favor of capital punishment,
    I doubt I could honestly pull the switch. fwiw.

    Actually it does take courage to make the decision to execute someone
    for their crime.  It also takes faith, faith in oneself and the
    punishment as being just.
    
    If at anytime revenge is the motivation behind execution you've crossed
    the line of punishment to murder.

> Like it's so brave to execute someone.  

So then why did the Louisiana warden cry in his beer over the "inhumanity"
of his responsibility?

Most states without a sufficiently far reaching capital punishment program
lack same because either the majority of voters or the majority of the
legislators think that there's too much "risk" of "killing the innocent"
or that it's "inhumane" to take the life of a scum bag. That doesn't
exactly spell "taking a firm and determined stand" to me. And, again,
no, I don't care if some innocents get wasted along the way, including
yours truly.

>no, I don't care if some innocents get wasted along the way, including
>yours truly.

Yeah, but I bet you'll sing a diff'rent tune when it happens to you...

You'll lose.

>  <<< Note 742.21 by GAVEL::JANDROW "i think, therefore i have a headache" >>>

>  i think it's a
>  politically correct thing.  some might not follow thru because his/her
>  voters don't like it, etc...

	So if someone were in a position of influencing the number of
	executions that occur, let's say, and the majority of his
	voters were not in favor of capital punishment, would you prefer
	that he ignore the will of his constituents to satsify his own
	(macho or otherwise) agenda?

Nancy, I'm curious as to why it would become murder
if revenge was the motive.

Please explain...

    antonio was convicted of murder.  there were two murders in two
    separate incidents.  antonio was with two different crime partners
    during each incident.  the other two men claimed antonio was the
    shooter in both incidents, pleaded down, and after ridiculously short 
    stays in prison, walked.  antonio claimed that he was not the shooter in
    either incident, but that he was present during both murders.
    
    who the hell do you believe?  how are you sure that you are putting
    the right person to death?
    

    742.14
    the trouble with this sentiment is that you MUST be POSITIVE every
    single time you put a man to death that that man is GUILTY. of course
    that is impossible. but last time i brought this argument up in here
    somebody suggested that to kill a few innocents for the good of the
    many was "OK".
    Peter

	The idea that an unwillingness to execute people is necessarily
	representative of a lack of courage or an inability to take a
	firm stand is poppycock, imo.

	

    LANDO::OLIVER_B
    
    >>who the hell do you believe?
    
     Man, it's so simple I am surprised you missed it.
    
     Kill them all, let "God" sort them out.
    
    				Derek.
    
    

    
      Of course, Lady Di, you are logically correct - it would take
     courage only if there were some risk to yourself.  But, being a
     lady, you just hain't got the sheer masculine rush that comes
     every time Clint Eastwood wastes some punk.  It is even worth
     sitting through the wooden dialogue and yet another car chase.
    
      bb

    |Kill them all, let "God" sort them out.
    
    i love radio talk show answers.

  .33  ;>  yar, well.	
	   btw, i love clint eastwood movies, but i'll admit it's
	   not just 'cuz he's wasting people left and right.

    >The idea that an unwillingness to execute people is necessarily
    >representative of a lack of courage or an inability to take a firm
    >stand is poppycock, imo.
    
    And arguing from the mere stance of "opposites" is more poppycock. 
    Crimoney, Di, you are smarter than that.
    
    Nobody said that an unwillingness = courage or that a willingness =
    courage.  The attitude behind the decision can be cowardice in either
    case and it can be courage in either case.
    
    
    
    

    Why would revenge be murder in the case of capital punishment?
    
    Revenge, imo, is retaliation with rage.  A decision should never be
    enveloped in emotionalism, especially that of rage, for we humans make
    too many errors in our judgements with this element present.
    
    The violence demonstrated in revenge both emotionally and in the action
    reeks of the same violence that probably killed to begin with, thus
    becoming murder.

>    <<< Note 742.36 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

    Maybe you didn't read .24.
    
    
    

sorry Nancy, i don't believe the act, based on revenge, qualifies it
as violent in and of itself.

or at the very least, not any more violent than capital punishment
for other reasons.

>    the trouble with this sentiment is that you MUST be POSITIVE every
>    single time you put a man to death that that man is GUILTY.

Sez who?

>    somebody suggested that to kill a few innocents for the good of the
>    many was "OK".

Yes - and I said it again just a few replies back in case you weren't paying
attention. Far better than the possibility of the violent criminal being 
given the opportunity to repeat his crime. Far, far, better. Fer crissakes
people die everyday for senseless reasons. If a few more did while we had the
ability ensure that many of the truly guilty never got the chance to play
into that equation ever again, you can bet your boots it would be worth it,
imo. But, no, instead society sets the stage for the violent repeat offender
to do it again, and again, and again, and again....

I'm sick and tired of it. You show me the plan to ensure that no one commits
two or more violent crimes, along with the proof of the plan, and I'll quit
screaming for their blood. Deal?

>    who the hell do you believe?  how are you sure that you are putting
>    the right person to death?

Either Antonio is extremely stupid, or Antonio's lawyers are extremely 
stupid, if Antonio was tried and convicted of murder twice, yet he is 
actually innocent.

Waste him.

    The guy is guilty. I think the jury is smart enough to sentence him to
    lethal injection. And, now you know the rest of the story.........

    >antonio was convicted of murder.  there were two murders in two
    >separate incidents.  antonio was with two different crime partners
    >during each incident.  the other two men claimed antonio was the
    >shooter in both incidents, pleaded down, and after ridiculously short 
    >stays in prison, walked.  antonio claimed that he was not the shooter in
    >either incident, but that he was present during both murders.
    
     So there was no physical evidence in the case? What was the nature of
    the direct testimony by the other participants? By the defendant? Why
    were deals struck with the other participants? A little information,
    like a little knowledge, is dangerous.

    antonio did not strike me as the brightest of men.  he had
    been in prison more than out for most of his life.  he  
    abused drugs.  he was a petty thief.  
    
    the other two got off.  and he's dead.  hurray for justice.
    
    antonio should be serving a life sentence.  along with the
    other two.

    re: .41
    
    There is a point in this.  If I were a juror, I'd have a bit of
    a problem with the idea that the "eyewitness" accounts came from
    somewhat, umm shall we say biased, individuals.  Somehow the
    phrases "criminal" and "honest, truthful testimony" just don't
    come together for me.  Put them all in prison together for the
    same period of time or I suppose, kill them all if you believe
    in that sort of thing.  But to have one walk, one do 4 years and
    the other one die seems just a tad ridiculous.  
    
    The fact that innocent people have been executed in the past says
    that the system does indeed make mistakes.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    .43
    
    all good questions.  it was an hour-long show, the emphasis
    being on death row and the process of execution.  the specifics 
    you are interested in were not covered in depth.  i've given all
    the info i recall.  perhaps someone else who saw the show can
    give more.   

    re: Note 742.13 by MOLAR::DELBALSO
    
    Key word "at least".  I don't want to say I'm gun-shy, but you
    need to consider "rape".  Date rape, real rape (whatever that is),
    bad bad rape, just a little bit "raped" (the old get 'em drunk and
    do the nasty).  Seriously, I can't see wiring up someone to 220
    for date rape.  It would depend on the specific case, but with
    sending someone to the slammer for AT LEAST 15 years (when only 8 is 
    done for MURDER these days)... that outta get them the hell away from
    society for a while.
    
    Next thing to "fix" is parole.  15 years means 15 years.  I'm not
    too comfortable with who is a "criminal" these days.  Especially when
    it's too easy for someone to yell "RAPE" and get you locked up.
    
    MadMike

    
      220 ?  Check yer voltmeter....
    
      bb

    I WAS PAYING ATTN.
    my note was written before yours!
    how does one counter an arguement where the other suggests that
    innocent people should be killed along with the guilty. I don't have
    the time nor the inclination to debate such a thing.
    Peter

    
    re: .44
    
    >the other two got off.  and he's dead.  hurray for justice.
    
    >antonio should be serving a life sentence.  along with the
    >other two.
    
    They should all fry for participating in the death of an innocent human
    being...
    
     But, we've been around this block once before... eh?

    220, 221, whatever it takes.

>			Date rape, real rape (whatever that is),
>    bad bad rape, just a little bit "raped" (the old get 'em drunk and
>    do the nasty).  Seriously, I can't see wiring up someone to 220
>    for date rape.

Huh?

"No" always means "No".

If the case in court determines that "No" was said, and thus rape
occurred, then I don't give a chite what "kind" of rape it was. If a
rape decision is handed down where the facts don't warrant it, that's
another matter.

Any guy (or woman) who can't mind his manners sufficiently to understand "No"
deserves what he gets.

 Z   Revenge, imo, is retaliation with rage.  A decision should never be
 Z   enveloped in emotionalism, especially that of rage, for we humans
 Z   make too many errors in our judgements with this element present.
    
    Nancy, just so you will know from an Old Testament perspective, when
    one has committed murder, he is guilty of two murders before God...his
    victim, and himself.
    
    Paraphrased..."If one shall take the life of another, he shall surely
    be put to death.  HIS BLOOD SHALL BE ON HIS OWN HANDS."  I capitalized
    to make the point that the executioner is exonerrated from any blood
    guilt.  As you are aware, Israel had quite a few capitol crimes under
    the law of God...and it was frequent that justice was carried out.
    
    One might surmize from this that capital punishment could be part of
    the Judeo Christian ethic, since our form of government was founded on
    many of our governmental practices.
    
    -Jack 

    Spelling police...
    
    I think it is exhonerated.
    
    

re:                     <<< Note 742.49 by CSLALL::PLEVINE >>>

>    I WAS PAYING ATTN.
>    my note was written before yours!

I beg to differ with you, squire.


================================================================================
Note 742.24           Polly Klaas verdict: Fry the sucker!              24 of 52
MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"             12 lines  20-JUN-1996 13:07
                 -< Life is cheap. Ask any violent criminal. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>exactly spell "taking a firm and determined stand" to me. And, again,
>no, I don't care if some innocents get wasted along the way, including
>yours truly.




================================================================================
Note 742.30           Polly Klaas verdict: Fry the sucker!              30 of 52
CSLALL::PLEVINE                                       7 lines  20-JUN-1996 13:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    that is impossible. but last time i brought this argument up in here
>    somebody suggested that to kill a few innocents for the good of the
>    many was "OK".

  .52  So some guy gets drunk and forces himself on his girlfriend.
       Terrible thing to have happen, yesiree, there's no doubt about it.
       But, so, 15 years in prison isn't punishment enough for that?
       Death is the only fair retribution?  What the hell?

    .50
    
    si, si, senor.

    >all good questions.  it was an hour-long show, the emphasis
    >being on death row and the process of execution.  the specifics 
    >you are interested in were not covered in depth.
    
     Figures. They always leave out the important stuff to give things the
    slant they want to give. It's entirely possible that, given the
    evidence, this was the best outcome the prosecution could have hoped
    for. And it's entirely possible that a miscarriage of justice occurred.
    
     As far as I'm concerned, if they were all equally involved, they
    should have all been executed. Enough is enough. There's no good reason
    to provide 3 squares, medical coverage and 24x7 housing for people who
    have shown themselves to be incapable of peaceably functioning in
    society.

>       But, so, 15 years in prison isn't punishment enough for that?

Not in my opinion. Probably not in the opinion of a lot of those
girlfriends, either.

>       Death is the only fair retribution?  What the hell?

We've done this dozens of times, of course, but what the hell's one more, 
I s'pose...

He has committed a violent crime. Death is a fitting punishment for those
who would commit violence on others. Besides the crime, I'm concerned
with the perpetrators predisposition to commit same. Wasting the perp 
also eliminates the predisposition.

There is something radically wrong with people who would commit violent
acts. Even moreso if they would do so under the influence, since it's
clear that they have even _LESS_ ability to control themselves than
do normal, mentally-healthy people. We show no signs of having any means
of "correcting" their deviant behavior. Eliminate it, then, I say.

    
    .54
    
    exonerated = freed from blame
    
    exxonerated = filled up gas tank
    

    
> If the case in court determines that "No" was said, and thus rape
> occurred, then I don't give a chite what "kind" of rape it was. If a
> rape decision is handed down where the facts don't warrant it, that's
> another matter.

    I believe for the two people involved there is little ever doubt about
    whether a rape occurred or not.   A man drags a women into the pushes with
    her with physical evidence is easier to convict and makes the death
    penalty less of an issue as a juror.   Now if I am on a jury of a date
    rape case and it is a "he said / he said" it gets tougher; if the
    penalty is the death penalty it is a lot tougher to convict IMO.  (I do
    not believe that many jurors are able to separate guilty/not-guilty
    deliberations from the potential penalty)
    
    Greg
     

>    exonerated = freed from blame

exonerated = Censored internet web page.

    
    Oh, that's good.  The definition, that is.
    

>  (I do not believe that many jurors are able to separate guilty/not-guilty
>    deliberations from the potential penalty)

I agree that this is a problem, Greg.

  This is such a hoot - someone who thinks people should be executed
  for getting into bar fights complaining about the judgment shown
  by some jurors.  Aaagagagag.

    exonerrated = made a political blunder

>  This is such a hoot - someone who thinks people should be executed
>  for getting into bar fights complaining about the judgment shown
>  by some jurors.  Aaagagagag.

Who was complaining about their judgement? I was simply agreeing that
there exists a problem insofar as they may temper their verdicts due
to their knowledge of the sentence.

  .67  er, and tempering one's verdict involves no judgment?  i see.

>  .67  er, and tempering one's verdict involves no judgment?  i see.

Well, certainly, but it wasn't a "complaint" about their judgement.

If the decision of verdict and the decision of sentence could somehow
be separated, the problem wouldn't be such. I recognize "the problem".

  .69  Okay, how about this? - It's a hoot that you consider that a problem,
       given your execute-'em-and-ask-questions-later approach to "justice".

>  .69  Okay, how about this? - It's a hoot that you consider that a problem,
>       given your execute-'em-and-ask-questions-later approach to "justice".

Why a hoot? Seems pretty consistent to me. You eliminate the problem by 
separating the two decisions (verdict and sentence), which is as it should
be. The jury's function is to determine guilt or innocence, not to make
that decision based on what the risk to the defendent might be. So let
the jury decide, oblivious to the fate of the defendent, and decide upon
the sentence via other means. In many venues this is done with two separate,
consecutive juries.

And mine is not an "execute-'em-and-ask-questions-later approach to justice".
Nowhere have I ever suggested that captial punishment should be meted out
on either the non-violent, or those who haven't yet been found guilty in
a court of law by a jury of their peers. That hardly reeks of "ask-questions-
later".

    how about a repeat rape offender gets castrated, spends 20 years in
    jail, then does community service in Clinton's Administration...
    
    sounds fair to me
    :-)

    I'm for castration.

    Well, you have nothing to lose eh? Alright for you!

    .74
    
    :-), yup not even my masculine side. 

It sounds like it shouldn't be too difficult to find volunteers to wield a 
couple of bricks to perform the necessary.

\C

    
    <------ a knife works better. hth

    
    Rapists...
    
    1st offense - chemical castration
    
    2nd offense - physical castration
    
    Viola!!! No 3rd offense!!!

>    2nd offense - physical castration
>    
>    Viola!!! No 3rd offense!!!

Sorry Charlie!  Castration doesn't mean he can't rape.

    
    Well... I guess (technically) you're correct.... although I can't think
    of any compelling reason why he might want to do so...
    
    
     And please, I understand that rape is not about sex, so spare me...
    

    
    Polly's dad has stated he will insist on being present when
    they execute her killer.
    
    Too bad he has to wait so damn long. 10 years maybe at the
    earliest.
    
    sorry system of justice.
    
    

    What a great string ...Lots of pros and cons'...Pardon the pun...
    
    To execut or not execute...Personally I am in favor of "putting down".
    
    But some of the things that do come mind, are:
    
    Cost: ( pending state )
    
    $31,000 per anum per    VS  $2,500 per child in our education system.
    
    Rehab: ( pending state )
    
    In Colorado, 22% DO NOT commit another felony...We have a 78%
    recidivism..Which proves that "penalty" has been taken out of the
    word Penal...
                     So, out of 100 crimanals convicted on their first 
    offense...78 will be repeat offenders..
    
    Proof:  Does the convicted has complete proof of crime that he or she 
    committed it?
    .. Meaning, No possibility of any doubt..  If any doubt, then no 
    capital punishment...If no doubt, I say "drop the pill". 
    
    Court Cost:
    
    Way to much to try an appeal..allow 1 appeal w/in 1 year or so..Then
    Katie bar the door..Walk'em into the "white lite".
    
    
    Good reading..Keep it up..
    
    Sin-te-da

    The weekly alternative press newspaper for the silicon valley, the
    Metro, had a cartoon on Richard Allen Davis' flipping the bird to
    the Klaas family.  It showed him strapped to a table, arms strapped
    out, middle fingers extended, while a technician hooks him up to a vat
    marked "Lethal injection" with attachments on both middle fingers,
    murmuring to "just hold that a little longer, there."
    
    They're ordinarily a flaming liberal anti-establishment sort of 
    rag, but every so often their populist streak comes out in the 
    open.  Californians support the death penalty, and everybody that 
    knows the circumstances of this kidnapping-murder and trial wants 
    Davis exterminated.
    
    DougO

    He should be executed in the same manner he killed his victim.  Torture
    should be met with torture.  I think there would be less crime if this
    were true.
    
    Dennis

    I am always confused by those who oppose capital punishment and instead
    support sentencing someone to prison with no parole.  What are these
    people thinking?  If you send someone away for the rest of their life,
    then all you've done is sentenced them to death by natural causes. 
    this person will never be free and will die in prison.  Some serious
    hair splitting going on.  these people would rather see someone die,
    eventually, but not in a timely manner for the crime they commited.
    
    Also, someone with no hope of parole is really free to terrorize any
    inmate or prison official with no worry about any subsequent
    punishment.
    
    I really don't understand these people.
    

    
    	
    	I myself would much rather be cooked than live in prison for the
    rest of my life. Something about being continuously raped that doesn't
    sit well with me. Plus I'd want my family to get on with their life.
    Can't be much of a father/husband from the other side of a steel cage.
    
    
    jim

I understand the point you make, and it is a darn fine one at that, but...

DNA evidence has recently allowed some wrongs to be righted.  Someone
wrongly given a life sentence....

Aw, you fill in the rest.  Still, I'll take the rest of your point under
advisement...

    
    
    	
>DNA evidence has recently allowed some wrongs to be righted.  Someone
>wrongly given a life sentence....
    
    
    	No one ever said there wouldn't be mistakes.
    
    jim

    .85
    
    > this person will never be free and will die in prison.
    
    Unless he escapes.  Escaped no-parole lifers can be counted on the
    fingers of very few hands, but do you want to be there when (not if)
    such an animal gets out and decides to kill again?  Do you want to
    expose your children to that risk?

I guess the 'Box conservatives are upset with the recent release of a man
incorrectly held for 16 years, right?  I mean, if we had just offed him
way back when his wife "suddenly remembered" that her husband had attacked
her and killed her unborn baby, we wouldn't have to wipe the egg from our
collective faces.

I can just hear "them" now:

    "How much more incontrovertable do you want??  His wife testified
    against him!!  How much more deserving of death can one be??  At
    least this will help the wife bring closure to her loss."

At least he only got "15-to-Life", so we can give him back part of
what was wrongly taken from him.

\john

    
    
    Just as bad a "knee-jerk" as the rest of us...
    

>              <<< Note 742.90 by ALPHAZ::HARNEY "John A Harney" >>>

Yes. By all means. Never execute anyone because we have here a shining example
of salvation taking place right before our very eyes. Makes sense to me.

NOT!

    .90
    
    I don't suppose "for the greater good" means anything, does it?  Which
    is better in the final analysis, offing one innocent person or, by not
    offing one guilty person, allowing that person to off two innocents?
    
    If we go by your thinking, the society-permitted deaths of two innocent
    people are better than the society-caused death of one innocent person.
    
    Nobody ever said we'd never make mistakes, but I consider it a greater
    mistake to risk freeing a recidivistic murderer than to take the
    statistically remote risk of erroneously putting an innocent person to
    death for a crime that that person did not commit.  And permit me to
    remind you that I have stared a murder-one charge in the face; I am not
    entirely na�ve in this matter.

>I guess the 'Box conservatives are upset with the recent release of a man
>incorrectly held for 16 years, right?  I mean, if we had just offed him


 Please provide the relevant data around this event. What evidence was it that
 got him released? What evidence was he convicted on (in addition to his wifes
 accusations)?

 Doug.

    re: .94
    
    DougO, I'll give you what I remember of the newspaper article. 
    Basically, the man left his house and returned to find a man in a van
    leaving his driveway.  Upon entering his house, he found his wife
    gravely wounded.  She was rushed to the hospital where their baby was
    delivered dead.  At some point in the investigation, his wife
    'remembered' that her husband was the one who attacked her.  The
    article did not mention what other evidence there was.  He was found
    guilty and sentenced to 15-life.
    
    Recent DNA testing of the evidence showed that the husband was not the
    attacker and another criminal has confessed.
    
    That's all I remember.
    
    Bob

    Whoops.  One more thing.  Apparently the criminal who confessed owned a
    van during the time of the attack.
    
    Bob

    > re: .94
    >
    > DougO, 
    
    .94 was written by Doug Fyfe.
    
    DougO

    There was more evidence than that.  The two of them had violently
    argued prior to him leaving.  The interesting thing for me was seeing
    that the guy who really attacked her was black and her husband was
    white.  Most likely what she remembered was their argument.
    
    I don't believe the new dude confessed though.  At least that wasn't
    reported here.
    
    Nancy

    Has the makings of a Perry Mason show!

    Does not.

  Apparantly he didn't put up a fight during his arrest, I seem to recall
 reading.



 Jim

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Life in Prison (a cruel joke on the victims).
    
    This weekend on "American Justice" they showed the video tape made
    in 1988 of Richard Speck (the killer/rapist that killed 8 nurses
    and others).
    
    He was sentenced to death, but commuted to life with ongoing
    parole hearings. 
    
    The taped showed how he had a good time in prison. He took
    hormones and grew breasts. He was shown snorting cocaine
    with his lover (another inmate)., while sitting around in his blue panties.
    The tape also showed him flashing $100 bills. Censored although
    mentioned were pornographic acts with his lover recorded on the
    tape.
    
    By the time he died (1991, not sure). All the relatives of the 8
    nurses were long dead. Tortured by the parole hearings. 
    
    Thank God they never saw this tape.
    
    Considered one of the toughest prisons (sure it is).
    
    So much of " the sentence of life in prison".
    
  

    .92 is rich.
    
    peter

	Dick is wealthy?

    Peter
    

    
    
    >Dick is wealthy?
    
    He may that, too.... but mostly he's correct in many things...
    

    Dick is not wealthy.

    Which is not to say he is not a rich man.

    Of course not.  He has cronies.

>    Of course not.  He has cronies.

	antibiotics can work wonders for that, richard.

    Diane, you drive right over her and clean the broccoli salad off my
    screen!

    re: .97
    
    Whooops.  Sorry DougO.
    
    Bob

Sorry DougO?

    Re .92:
    
    > I don't suppose "for the greater good" means anything, does it?  Which
    > is better in the final analysis, offing one innocent person or, by not
    > offing one guilty person, allowing that person to off two innocents?

    The latter is better.  It is not ethical to kill an innocent person. 
    It is ethical to fail to save two innocent people.  Human lives are not
    numbers.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >Human lives are not numbers.
    
     So saving more lives is not better than saving less lives? An
    interesting perspective.

    Re .115:
    
    You don't have a choice of saving lives versus saving lives.  The
    choice is to kill or not to kill.  If you kill an innocent person, you
    have committed murder.  Failing to save two people is a tragedy, but it
    is not unethical and can be prevented in other ways.  Murder is wrong.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

re: .115 (MarkL)

If saving the maximum number of lives is the "bottom line", why don't
we have cars built with a maximum speed of 10MPH, with bumpers as
large as mattresses, helmets, etc??

I don't understand what's so hard to see.  We use the death penalty
SO SELDOM, it's simply misleading to call it a deterrent in any way.
Additionally, to somehow claim that offing an innocent person will
make it safer for the average person on the street seems to be so
convoluted and backwards I have to really wonder if you've thought
this whole thing through.  Free clue: It's the innocent "person on
the street" the state will have just whacked...

I know, I know, you (all) talk about "that's why we have appeals";
aren't you (Mark) one of those interested in restricting/reducing the
appeals available to one found "guilty"?

It's simple.  Eliminate state-sponsored killing of innocent people.

\john

    >If you kill an innocent person, you have committed murder.  
    
     Incorrect. Murder is a legal term. The killing of a human being may or
    may not be murder depending on the circumstances surrounding the
    killing. You assert that the killing of a human being who is innocent
    of the crimes with which s/he had been charged and duly convicted by a
    jury of their peers is murder. That is an assertion, not a fact.
    
     The killing of a human being who has been duly charged and convicted
    of a crime and sentenced to die is not murder. (An assertion-
    supporting argument to follow.)
    
     A person who kills in self-defense is not guilty of murder, even if
    the person was mistaken in the belief that he was acting in
    self-defense. Take the example of the guy in (Texas? Louisiana?) who
    shot and killed a japanese exchange student in the mistaken belief the
    boy intended to harm him. The man was not guilty of murder even though
    he was mistaken in his belief that the boy meant him harm. So it is
    with society when society executes the wrong person for a crime.
    Society is acting in self-defense when it permanently removes a person
    from itself by execution. If society has erred and has convicted the
    wrong person of a crime, an execution based upon that is analogous to
    the "imperfect self-defense" example given above. Society is not guilty
    of murder. Society places its trust in the justice system to provide a
    just verdict. Once the verdict is handed down, the convict has a number
    of opportunities to escape punishment via the appeals process. If
    through the trial and subsequent appeals process a person remains
    convicted, there is reasonable suspicion that the person is in fact
    guilty. Thus society cannot be guilty of murder in that person's
    execution- society would only be guilty of murder if it were known
    that the person were innocent and the person were killed anyway.

Sort of a double standard for self defense.

If a battered wife waits until hubby is asleep before she blows him away,
it's generally not considered self defense.

If a state waits until someone's securely locked down in an institution
before they zap him, it is considered self defense.

AFAIK, self defense applies mainly when the person is actively coming at
you.

    re: Note 742.52 by MOLAR::DELBALSO 
    
    }"No" always means "No".
    
    So jack-o-matic, you go out friday night, get a lot hammered and pick up
    this little lady and go back to your place and play doodling
    bedsprings...  Come to find out, she's only 16 and you got some
    serious problems right about now.  That's statutory RAPE.  She
    consented, but the state was in the sack with you too, and they
    call that rape.  And by your definition, rape is rape and means
    E-X-E-C-U-T-I-O-N. 
    
    Gawd damn yer harsh.
    
    If death was the penalty for rape, I'll bet a jury would have a
    hard time convicting someone for statutory RAPE.  You best hope
    the little girl doesn't get a hair across her bumm and say
    "I told him no".  (gasp/shock/horrors/aws**t/you-bi**h)
    
    MadMike

    .118
    
    |If society has erred and has convicted the
    |wrong person of a crime, an execution based upon that is analogous
    |to the "imperfect self-defense" example given above.
    
    this is a bit of a stretch, imo.  the state cannot be looked
    upon as an individual. the state is not practicing "self-defense"
    when it executes a person.  the state is not reacting to a real
    or perceived danger to its existence when it administers a 
    lethal injection.  
    
    the state is acting out of retribution and revenge and the present
    political atmosphere.
    

    Well if there's no danger, why don't we simply admonish convicted
    murderers to cut it out and send them on their merry way?

    because they deserve to be punished.  it doesn't
    necessarily follow that the state has the right
    to execute them.

    >because they deserve to be punished.
    
     You mean the state has the right to "act out of retribution and 
    revenge and the present political atmosphere" after all?

       \You mean the state has the right to "act out of retribution and 
       \ revenge and the present political atmosphere" after all?
    
       i was talking about state-sanctioned executions.  do you 
       honestly think that i do not favor jail sentences for 
       convicted criminals?  particularly convicted murderers?
    

    Re .118:
    
    > Incorrect. Murder is a legal term.
    
    "Murder" is also an ethical term.  Further, you know the intent of my
    words, that I mean it is wrong to kill an innocent person.  We are not
    discussing what is or is not legal, so there is no reason to put a
    legal interpretation on the words.
    
    > . . . society would only be guilty of murder if it were known that
    > the person were innocent and the person were killed anyway.
    
    Texas versus Herrera.   
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >i was talking about state-sanctioned executions.  
    
    Spending the rest of your life in jail is a punishment. Being executed
    is a punishment. Sometimes the former is an appropriate punishment, and
    sometimes the latter. Now you don't agree with this; you believe that
    the latter is never justifiable, thus you attempt to politicize the
    discussion by chattering about "political atmosphere" etc. That really
    doesn't change the nature of the discussion, though.
    
    Execution is a punishment which has its shortcomings. Then again, so
    does life imprisonment. It is a personal opinion as to which punishment
    has the greater extent of shortcomings, but the simple fact is one is
    no less "retribution and revenge" and political than the other. 

    do you remember the '70s?  don't you know that "capital
    punishment" can be a political issue, just like anything
    else?  capital punishment became bad, bad, bad in the 
    liberal 70's.  it goes in and out of fashion, mark, and
    i wasn't merely chattering about the political atmosphere.  
    it _does_ have something to do with it.  maybe you're too
    young to remember.

    Ah,
    
    But I do go in for real retribution.  Life imprisonment, with some sort
    of labor in the monument business for people who kill or destroy
    others intentionally.  
    
    I like creative punishments for those who rip others off and have the
    wherewithal to have avoided it.  Making Leona Helmsley work in a soup
    kitchen and having a wing of her hotel leased to the homeless for a
    year would have been an alternative to jail I would have favored.  
    
    Similarly making those preachers who were caught with their fingers in
    the cookie jars could have had something done in the same way.  
    
    don't get me started on the junk-bond people, there must be a creative
    way to get them to pay back their millions of ill-gotten gains as well.  
    
    meg

    
     re, .126 - I dispute this.  "Murder" means "wrongful killing".
     The ethical judgement has occurred BEFORE you use the word.
    
     So, of course, murder is unethical.  I agree.  But you have not shown
     that the killing of an innocent person is either murder or unethical.
    
     And while I think going postal is usually inadvisable, I'm unwilling
     to leap to the sweeping conclusion you have without considering
     pathological cases.  In fact, I think there are cases where the
     ONLY ethical response might be to kill an innocent person.
    
      bb

    Re .130;
    
    > I dispute this.  "Murder" means "wrongful killing".
    
    Try not to dispute and agree at the same time.
    
     The ethical judgement has occurred BEFORE you use the word.

    > But you have not shown that the killing of an innocent person is
    > . . . unethical.
    
    Duh.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    .131
    
    >> But you have not shown that the killing of an innocent person is
    >> . . . unethical.
    >
    > Duh.
    
    What a clever way to avoid answering.

    In Texas versus Herrera, the United States Supreme Court decided it was
    legal to kill a human being even though there was proof that person was
    innocent.  On May 12, 1993, Leonel Torres Herrera was murdered by
    Texas.
    
    	http://www.abolition-now.com
    
    
    Herrera's last words were "I am innocent, innocent, innocent.  Make no
    mistake about this.  I owe society nothing.  I am an innocent man and
    something very wrong is taking place tonight."
    
    	http://www.theelectricchair.com/lastword.htm
        
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

I dunno.

I always kinda liked to think that our society would operate at a higher
moral and ethical standard than the criminals it's trying to punish. 
Crawling into the gutter with the criminals and operating at their level
only legitimizes the original offense.

Capital punishment just shows that the biggest kid on the block can get
away with murder.

All of this would be entirely moot if we'd paid some real attention to
figuring out WHY people want to kill, followed by figuring out some way of
preventing new people from wanting to kill.  We don't know if it's possible
only because it's never really been seriously pursued.  

Then again, it seems that our society is just as titilated by the thought
of killing as the so called "criminals."  No one wants to change anything;
everyone just wants to get the last bullet in.

    Re .132, .130:
    
    What a stupid suggestion to make.  To me, the wrongness if the killing
    of an innocent is an axiom, and I will not argue it.  If you will, then
    you have my utter contempt.
    
    
    				-- edp
    

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

      When did "wrong" and "unethical" become synonymous?

    
      edp - I WELCOME your utter contempt.
    
      Harry Truman was a great man to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima,
     even though he had no idea how many thousands he killed, or how
     many of them were innocent.  He ended the war.
    
      Spare me your childish sanctimonious absolutism.  If you want to
     have an adult discussion, find common ground and use logic from
     there.
    
      Your axiom I reject totally.  It is worthless.  bb
    

    .134
    
    > Capital punishment just shows that the biggest kid on the block can get
    > away with murder.
    
    Wrong.  Capital punishment shows that a group of people forming a
    society have decided that it is better to destroy a criminal than to
    permit said criminal to prey on them until it dies of natural causes.
    To keep a recidivistic violent criminal in prison is to permit that
    criminal to continue to prey on society, albeit only as a parasite
    rather than as an active predator.  But predators are wily, and they
    can sometimes escape even "inescapable" traps.

    > If a battered wife waits until hubby is asleep before she blows 
    > him away, it's generally not considered self defense.
    
    You must not be reading mennotes these days.  Someone insisted 
    that this was normal court procedure in there, less than two weeks
    ago.  I wrote my first note in there in months to disagree.  
    
    DougO

No, not reading Mennotes.  If it's changed, I'm enlightened to hear it.

    .89
    
    I think you may have misunderstood my note.  I was not in any way
    condoning or agreeiong with the "life without parole" crowd.  I was
    wondering why they believe it is acceptable to sentence a individual to
    a long, slow death in prison for a heinous crime, at the cost to the
    very taxpayers this person victimized, than have an effective capital
    punishment system of justice.
    
    For all of those who raise the spectre of the "innocent" person being
    executed, there is a similar question.  If we should never execute a
    criminal because why may execute an "innocent", then what's the sense
    of prison at all?  Using this logic you could never incarcerate anyone.
    If an innocent person is ent to jail, just what happens to this person? 
    First, you lose your job, income and probably assets.  If you have a
    family they lose just about everything too.  Now, once your in prison
    all sorts of bads things happen, up to and including death.
    
    So if you're afraid that the wrong person could be executed, I am very
    concerned that thewrong person could be in prison, which to me could
    potentially be worse.
    
    So if you say no executions because we might get the wrong person, then
    no prison because we might get the wrong person.
    

    Put some piano wire around his neck.  Make him stand on a chair.
    Slam his doo-dad with a 10 pound sledge hammer, shoot him in the knees.
    Set up a kitchen timer at 5 minutes.  Tick tock....  when the timer
    goes ding... kick out the chair.
    
    Of course, this would be nationally televised.

    > Mennotes.  If it's changed,
    
    worse than it ever was.
    
    DougO

    Currently in order to avoid killing innocent people it costs a
    horrendous amount of money in appeals.  In fact, it is cheaper to keep 
    person in prison for life than to pay for all the appeals in death
    sentences.  Now some would say we should cut off the appeals, but I
    can't see executing several innocents a year to save the bucks.  
    
    Make 'em pay in prison.
    
    meg

re: .141

And we'll continue to get nowhere, because you don't WANT to be
reasonable.  The choices are NOT "have executions or don't have
any punishment."  That's stupid.  That's not what anybody here
is arguing.  If you think anybody here is arguing this, you're
stupid, too.

Beef up prisons.  Have inmates (help) support themselves while
in prison.  Fix the court system that lets rapists out to make
room for a doobie-smoker.  Just don't kill people, because you
WILL make mistakes.  And we will be able to let some innocent
people go from prison, with apologies and some restitution.
Because our system isn't perfect.

But to say, "our system isn't perfect, so get used to it" without
doing everything possible to minimize damage when it IS wrong,
is immoral and unjust.  No two ways about it, no ifs, ands or buts.

\john

re: .92 (Binder)

>    And permit me to
>    remind you that I have stared a murder-one charge in the face; I am not
>    entirely na�ve in this matter.

I bet you'd be singing a different tune if your wife started "remembering"
that you were the trigger-man.  I'll settle for "mostly na�ve," no problem.

\john

>    the state is acting out of retribution and revenge and the present
>    political atmosphere.

Sorry, but, wrong.

As I and others have stated in here numerous times -

	The purpose of capital punishment is not retribution nor revenge,
	The purpose of capital punishment is to prevent the violent criminal
	from ever having the opportunity to commit violent crime again, and
	to permanently remove them and their deviant behavior from society.

	I do not want revenge or retribution. I only want to prevent further
	violence upon innocents.

All other approaches allow the scumbags to do it again, and again, and again,
and again, ....

    You should see the crowd I run around with.
    -ss_whose friends like little girls_

         Whoa, hold the phone. Are you saying that anyone who picks up a 16
    year old by mistake (?) ought to be executed? Mr. Delbalso, I agree
    with your opinions most of the time, but in this instance I feel that
    you have gone too far.

         As for you, SS, you should know that there is a big difference
    between "young" and "little". 

>    So jack-o-matic, you go out friday night, get a lot hammered and pick up
>    this little lady and go back to your place and play doodling
>    bedsprings...  Come to find out, she's only 16 and you got some
>    serious problems right about now.  That's statutory RAPE.  She
>    consented, but the state was in the sack with you too, and they
>    call that rape.  And by your definition, rape is rape and means
>    E-X-E-C-U-T-I-O-N. 

???


What the <R.O.>, MadMike????

1) I don't "get hammered"
2) I don't "pick up little ladies"
3) I don't take same "back to my place" for nuthin
4) Ergo this is all kinda immaterial.

What kind of lowlife scumbags do those sorts of things? Nobody I hang with.
And, as far as I'm concerned, any miserable bastard that would do so ought
to damn well be wasted. Geeziz freakin kreist, Mike - do you mean to tell me
that I got to the ripe old age of 48 without sinking to that sort of crap 
and I'm somehow "abnormal"???

If you want to justify that sort of crap, crawl up some other tree, OK?

Maybe I misjudged your values.

    I know, you like 'em all, Ed.
    -ss

>         Whoa, hold the phone. Are you saying that anyone who picks up a 16
>    year old by mistake (?) ought to be executed?

By mistake???????????

How the hell do you pull that off?

How the hell do you "pick up" anything that isn't likely to be of legal age?
_WHY_ the hell would anybody _pickup_ _ANYTHING_????

You guys are amazing. What sort of barns did you grow up in?

Am I somehow an old-fashioned fart because I think that it's inappropriate 
(not to mention cheap, stupid, dangerous, pointless and boring) to have sex 
before having established a meaningful relationship?

Pardon me, but the idea of "picking up" someone, especially someone who
might be underage, and getting involved in a situation that could be risky
(legally) just doesn't fit in my world.

    re .153
    I'm only mortal.  However, I am in a monogomous(sp) relationship
    presently, and have been for more than a year now.  But there was a
    time, and may be another, when I would "pick up" as many women as
    possible. And I don't think it's an age thing because my grandpa told
    me alot of stories when he was in the Navy. But if you could ask him,
    God rest his soul, he would tell ya to "do it like a doggie any chance
    ya get".
    -ss

    I think sex must come before a meaningful relationship. Who in their
    right mind would want to marry(or commit to) a woman without gittin'
    it first? You have make sure the sex is good before you get serious.
    Otherwise you`ll find yourself unhappy, cheating, masturbating all the 
    time, and just plain miserable. Maybe it`s just me, I am still pretty
    young. But still, sex before a relationship is like hearing a CD before 
    you buy it - you can`t go wrong.
    

         Mr. Delbaso, I think you are overreacting here. The point I was
    trying to make is that I believe execution is a rather harsh penalty
    for someone who picks up a willing 16 year old. If you want to know how
    to "pick up" someone who is not of legal age - it really isn't very
    hard. There's sure to be a few underagers at any nightclub or bar on a
    crowded weekend night. If security was tighter at these
    establishments, "mistakes" would not happen. 
    
         - But if you purposely want to make a "mistake", try flashing a
    lot of money and acting like you're a lawyer or something. Also, try
    driving the nicest car you can get your hands on. A cell phone doesn't
    hurt, either. 

Well, Sammy, iffen you were to ask me (which you didn't), I'd say your
grampy had a pretty cheap attitude toward life. And if you share his view,
I'd say you're in the same boat.

What the hell's the point of that?

re:           <<< Note 742.155 by MFGFIN::EPPERSON "puff, puff, pass" >>>

>    I think sex must come before a meaningful relationship. Who in their
>    right mind would want to marry(or commit to) a woman without gittin'
>    it first? 

Who's talking about "marrying" or "commitment"? You can have a meaningful
relationship without either one. But you do need to know something about
the other person before jumping in the sack, I think. "Something", in my
estimation, would include age, background, health, etc. Kinda disallows
shacking up with a 15 year old "by mistake", I'd think.

    I think it's too presumptuious to pass judgements based on one comment. 
    Why do you deny your primal urges? You were a virgin until marriage?
    And why do you insist on calling me Sammy?
    -ss

         I strongly disagree that the continual pursuit of easy sex gives
    you a "cheap" attitude toward life. If anything, it gives you self
    esteem and confidence. Staying too long with one person is kind of like
    keeping your car after it is all broken down and worn out. I usually
    try and make sure that whoever I happen to be with is out of my house
    by lunchtime. 
    

re:                    <<< Note 742.156 by THEMAX::E_WALKER >>>

Well, I wasn't looking for "advice", Ed. I was just questioning the wisdom
(or lack thereof) of such actions.

If you don't think screwing a 16-year old is an offence worthy of execution,
ask her father,

And if you still think it's "an honest mistake", I still question your values 
and principles.

    re .158
    
    So just what kind of standards are right?  How well do ya gotta know
    someone to sleep with them.  In Ed's case, it may only take a few beers
    to "get to know someone" enough to sleep with them.  It seems like you
    have some sort of moral cut off point if you don't think abstinence
    before marriage, but sex is okay if you know 'em well enough.
    -ss
    

>    And why do you insist on calling me Sammy?
>    -ss

Cuz I thought that wuz yer name.

I'll be glad to call you somethingelse if I wuz wrong.

Just go ahead and enlighten me.

         "Values and principles"?!? BWAAAA-HA-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
    

    Personally, I could have great sex with a perfect stranger - have a
    wonderfull time - and never speak a word. But, I don`t talk much 
    anyway.

         I'm supposed to be Sammy. Some clown looked me up on ELF a few
    months back and discovered that my middle name was Samuel. 

    Who in the hell is Polly anyway? 

    re .163
    
    I've been called worse. I don't mind Sammy, I was just curious why you
    keep calling me that. My name is Steve, but whatever is fine.
    -ss

         Dunno. We all just jumped in and started discussing Mr. Delbalso's
    obsession with 16 year old prostitutes. Not that that's a bad thing. 

    Delbalso: (shakes head in disgust)

>         I strongly disagree that the continual pursuit of easy sex gives
>    you a "cheap" attitude toward life. If anything, it gives you self
>    esteem and confidence.

Yeahwell, Send me a postcard after you've spent 10 or 15 years with one partner
with that kind of attitude, willya?

Look - you're obviously more than free to live that way, and I'm not going
to find fault with it. But where's the permanence if you care to establish 
a family, for example? Surely you're free to not do so. But a lifetime of
playing interrupted grabass ain't all the rewarding to most folks after
they reach age 35 or so.

    Let's just say our views of long term commitment may be a little-let's
    say premature.
    -ss

    I should have about 12 years of grabbing ass left then. Got to enjoy
    it while I still have the energy. Before I know it I`ll be all old
    and intellectually impotent. 
    

         You spent 10 or 15 years with someone who had that attitude? No
    wonder you're bitter, Mr. Delbalso. As for the family part - I believe
    that in an overpopulated world, having children is a crime against
    humanity. 

    Sorry Delbalso, I didn`t realize you`ve had a trying relationship.
    Some women should be burned at the stake. I think most of us men can 
    agree on that.

         Wait a minute...Delbalso, Delbalso... didn't we see that name in
    the "singles" conference? 

>    So just what kind of standards are right?  How well do ya gotta know
>    someone to sleep with them.  In Ed's case, it may only take a few beers
>    to "get to know someone" enough to sleep with them.

Well, let's just say that if Ed wants to jump in the sack after a few beers 
with some babe, Ed's principles and values are a lot lower than mine.

What the hell do I know about anyone after "a few beers"? I'd be lucky to
know their name, much less their medical/personal/etc. history.

Ever get seriously involved with someone only to find out, months into
the relationship, that they were mentally unstable? That happens to you
about once and you start to think very seriously about getting casually
yet intimately involved with anyone prior to having a good sense of their 
wellbeing.

         I got involved with someone who was mentally unstable once. She
    beat me up. It was cool. 

re:         <<< Note 742.172 by THEMAX::SMITH_S "smeller's the feller" >>>

No doubt.

    Sometimes I think my girlfriend is a little off her rocker.  She walks
    and talks in her sleep quite frequently.
    -ss

    The only thing I have to worry about is getting the poontang before 
    she finds out that I`m mentally unstable.

>                    <<< Note 742.174 by THEMAX::E_WALKER >>>

'tain't bitterness, and doesn't have all that much to do with personal
experience - more with observation.

         Hey, SS, she's not really walking in her sleep. She only makes it
    look that way when you catch her sneaking out the window. Next time you
    think she's sleepwalking, why don't you check to see if my truck is
    parked in your front yard? How did you think those tracks got on your
    lawn?

Well, as they say, guys -

Polly Klaas Verdict: Fry the sucker, People, Polly Klaas Verdict: Fry the 
sucker!

         I agree 100%, Mr. Delbalso. I wasn't really trying to get on your
    case. If taken in context, this conversation has been hilarious. In
    reality, I don't go stalking the bars looking for underage victems. I
    actually have very high moral standards. You're a good sport for
    putting up with all this. But the people who see this tomorrow are
    going to think us THEMAX'ers are a bunch of lunatics. 

>                         -< Delbalso - American Hero >-

Well, no doubt Noter Wannoor will have a problem with this, though.

    Goodnight.

         Oh, and by the way, I'm sorry about those pink flamingos. I was
    swerving trying to avoid your flower-beds. You really should try and
    keep your yard better lit. 

>         Oh, and by the way, I'm sorry about those pink flamingos. I was
>    swerving trying to avoid your flower-beds. You really should try and
>    keep your yard better lit. 


:^) :^) :^)


Visit my homepage someday

	http:://www.mv.com/ipusers/delbalso/

And take the link to "my timberframe home in the New Hampshire woods" 
(approx.).

Check out the images (especially the first and last). I think you'll see 
why the yard isn't better lit.

:^) :^) :^) 

>I always kinda liked to think that our society would operate at a higher
>moral and ethical standard than the criminals it's trying to punish. 
    
     And you find that executing someone who has been tried and convicted of
    a heinous crime by a jury of their peers, when the entire burden has
    been on the prosecution, and this person has tried all manner of appeal
    and lost to be the "moral and ethical equivalent" of some criminal
    raping and murdering a child (for example)?
    
     Well I don't.
    
>Crawling into the gutter with the criminals and operating at their level
>only legitimizes the original offense.
    
     Nonsense. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING "legitimizes" the raping and
    murdering a child (for example). Not economic disadvantage, not "a bad
    childhood", not the Mets beating the Red Sox in the World Series, not
    full blown psychosis.
    
>Capital punishment just shows that the biggest kid on the block can get
>away with murder.
    
     Baloney. It shows that the sheep have fangs of their own. Sorry if it
    makes us imperfect prey.
    
>All of this would be entirely moot if we'd paid some real attention to
>figuring out WHY people want to kill, followed by figuring out some way of
>preventing new people from wanting to kill.  
    
     Why don't you ask Polly Klaas' killer why he wanted to kill her. I'd
    bet it's because, following his sexual assault on her person, he
    decided that the best witnesses are incapable of testifying at a trial.
    Thus we could have _possibly_ prevented him from killing her if we
    legalized the abduction and sexual assault of prepubescent girls.
    
     Now I'm sure that's not what you mean, but in fact it doesn't
    matter. The simple fact is no matter what the rules are, somebody
    somewhere is going to break them (by killing somebody else.) And you
    have to be prepared to deal with it at whatever level that sort of
    thing exists. You can't solve the violence problem. All that can be
    done is to contain it to some degree.
    
>Then again, it seems that our society is just as titilated by the thought
>of killing as the so called "criminals."  
    
     I think your assessment is way off. 
    
>No one wants to change anything; everyone just wants to get the last bullet in.
    
     This is another case where you're either misanalyzing the situation
    or merely engaging in rhetorical sport. I'm not sure which, but either
    way such words aren't worth much.

    Re .136:
    
    > When did "wrong" and "unethical" become synonymous?

    Nobody said they were.  The meanings overlap; figure out the correct
    interpretation from context.
    
    
    Re .137:
                                                                 u
    > Harry Truman was a great man to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima, ...
    
    It takes no courage to give orders, and there is no greatness in
    ordering the death of thousands.  Particularly when it was not
    necessary.
    
    > Spare me your childish sanctimonious absolutism.
    
    No.  Spare me your disgusting lack of concern for human life.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
              

    Re .138:
    
    > Capital punishment shows that a group of people forming a
    > society have decided that it is better to destroy a criminal than to
    > permit said criminal to prey on them until it dies of natural causes.

    It MIGHT show that IF capital punishment were used to "destroy"
    criminals.  But it is not.  It is used as a political weapon -- used
    racially and to kill innocents.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .150:
    
    > Are you saying that anyone who picks up a 16 year old by mistake (?)
    > ought to be executed?
    
    16 is legal in New Hampshire.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>Am I somehow an old-fashioned fart because I think that it's inappropriate 
>(not to mention cheap, stupid, dangerous, pointless and boring) to have sex 
>before having established a meaningful relationship?



Well, I guess I'm an old fashioned fart too, Jack.




Jim

>    I think sex must come before a meaningful relationship. Who in their
>    right mind would want to marry(or commit to) a woman without gittin'
>    it first? You have make sure the sex is good before you get serious.
>    Otherwise you`ll find yourself unhappy, cheating, masturbating all the 
>    time, and just plain miserable. Maybe it`s just me, I am still pretty
>    young. But still, sex before a relationship is like hearing a CD before 
>    you buy it - you can`t go wrong.
 

     Ah, a graduate of MTV university..




Jim   

    Re .190:                                    
    
    >  And you find that executing someone who has been tried and convicted of
    > a heinous crime by a jury of their peers, . . .
    
    People are not tried by juries of their peers, generally.
    
    > . . . when the entire burden has been on the prosecution, . . .
    
    The prosecution does not have the entire burden.  The prosecution has
    the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- and doing so
    following the rules of the court.  Prosecutors often have difficulty
    following these rules.  Follow the references I gave yesterday; you
    will find a case where the prosecution withheld evidence -- evidence
    they created.  Although the accused had numerous witnesses to testify
    he was at a picnic at the time of the murder, the prosecution coerced
    three people into testifying that the accused was the murderer.  Each
    of the prosecution witnesses received some consideration from the state
    in exchange for their testimony.
    
    In that case, the accused escaped death because a volunteer lawyer
    turned over a tape of one of the prosecution witnesses to hear what the
    prosecution did not tell them about:  The witness complaining that he
    was being coerced into testifying about what was not so.
    
    > . . . and this person has tried all manner of appeal . . .
    
    All manner of appeal?  Do you know what manner of appeal is NOT allowed
    by the government?  The appeal of actual innocence.  If PROOF of your
    innocence is found 31 days after your conviction in Texas, the state
    will murder you anyway.
    
    There are no ethics behind such an act.  There is no balancing act of
    numbers.  There is no social good.  There is no justice.  There is no
    retribution.  It is an innocent person put to death by the state in
    full knowledge of his innocence, for no reason other than to satisfy
    bloodlust, political goals, and prosecutors' careers.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >All manner of appeal?  Do you know what manner of appeal is NOT allowed
    >by the government?  The appeal of actual innocence.  If PROOF of your
    >innocence is found 31 days after your conviction in Texas, the state
    >will murder you anyway.
    
     That is easily remedied. Change the law.

    Re .197:
    
    > That is easily remedied. Change the law.

    What makes you think that is easy?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

.190:

I don't for a minute think that what happened to Ms. Klaas was legitimate. 
Nor do I believe that our society jumping up and shouting "What you did is
so wrong that we're going to do it, too!"  If it ain't ok for that creep to
do those things, it ain't ok for us to do it, either.

I know you'll never agree with me on this, and I don't even ask you to, but
I do think it's about time our society grew up just a bit and thought about
true crime prevention, true recidivism prevention, true rehabilitation, and
truly trying to make things safer than just the current childish "Well, if
you hit me, I'll hit you back" rhetoric.

And yes, I am engaging in rhetorical sport.  What amazes me is that you
don't seem to realize that you're doing the same.  Nothing wrong with that,
and I'm sure the words from both of us are worth about the same.  This
whole effing conference is about rhetorical sport, which is what makes it
so much fun for most of us.  You didn't really think you were going to
change anyone's mind, did you?

    re: Note 742.148 by MOLAR::DELBALSO
    
    Relax jack, I'm just playing devils advocate here.  I think when you
    think of executing someone, you need to look at each specific case.
    You can't just say "the penalty for blah is death".  What are the
    circumstances?  This matters.  Another example:  The penalty for
    murder is DEATH.  Well, what about justifiable homicide?  Under your
    theory and the law, it's murder and warrants death if convicted.  Well,
    what if the murderee was smashing the persons head in with a pipe when
    he was snuffed?  The details matter.
          
    I still think that davis fellow should be hung by piano wire.
    
    MadMike

    re: Note 742.199 by BULEAN::BANKS
    
    } Nor do I believe that our society jumping up and shouting "What you
    } did is so wrong that we're going to do it, too!"  If it ain't ok for
    } that creep to do those things, it ain't ok for us to do it, either.
    
    We're not going to rape and strangle the creep.  We're gonna 
    electrocute him, or stick him with a needle.  Not because we're
    "gonna do it too", or for revenge, or to show that we're tought
    guys.
    
    We do it because this fellow has proven he can't function in society.
    He is a danger to society if not dealt with.  If he is destroyed,
    he'll never be able to commit another crime.  I think this is where
    the "protection" or "self-defense" crap comes in.  Call it what
    you want, but if the guy is gone permanently, he can't ever commit
    another crime on unsuspecting citizens.  
    
    MadMike
    Cruel but Fair.  :^)

>I don't for a minute think that what happened to Ms. Klaas was legitimate. 
    
    Nor can it be legitimized, so spare me the drivel about how executing
    the AH who murdered her does so, ok?
    
>Nor do I believe that our society jumping up and shouting "What you did is
>so wrong that we're going to do it, too!"  If it ain't ok for that creep to
>do those things, it ain't ok for us to do it, either.
    
     Where we apparently don't see eye to eye is where you equate the
    vicious crime he perpetrated upon her to a society choosing to punish
    the most extreme criminals by ending their lives. It's not the same, no
    matter how many times you claim it is, no matter how many
    bumper-sticker-esque ways you try to put it.
    

>I know you'll never agree with me on this, and I don't even ask you to, but
>I do think it's about time our society grew up just a bit and thought about
>true crime prevention, true recidivism prevention, true rehabilitation, and
>truly trying to make things safer 
    
     I do agree with that. However, I believe that capital punishment has a
    role to play.
    
>You didn't really think you were going to change anyone's mind, did you?
    
     Stranger things have happened.
    
     My point was that there are arguments designed to put forth a premise
    and to support that premise based on a subset of truth, logic, and
    facts, and there are arguments intended to divert attention from those
    things by inflaming emotions and inspiring ratholes, etc. I found some
    of your "arguments" to be less of the persuasive type and more of the
    inflammatory type- which can be fun, to be sure. But sometimes what I'm
    looking for is an intense discussion with another person with a working
    brain, and that kind of stuff is distracting at best. That's all. :-)
    
     Since you seemed concerned about society's culpability when it comes
    to executing convicted sociopaths, when culpability do you consider
    society to have when a convicted sociopath is not executed and he
    continues to commit mayhem even while behind bars? Incarceration is
    clearly of limited value in preventing further violent crimes by
    predators- perhaps the best that can be said is that the pool of
    prospective victims is reduced.
    
     To take an extreme and well known example, the sociopathic wunderkind
    Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered while serving a life sentence by other
    inmates (presumably.) He was murdered in a most vicious manner.
    Presumably his killer(s) was being similarly detained to prevent the
    commission of crimes. And despite this incarceration, this person was
    able to commit murder. This is a big shortcoming of the "incarceration
    for life" "solution". Now it may be argued that Dahmer deserved to die-
    in fact I would happily advance that argument. He did not, however,
    deserve to be murdered in the very sick manner in which he was killed.
    The criminals who perpetrated that act behaved improperly, and deserved
    to be punished. And yet you have already tied the hands of society as
    they have already been punished to the greatest possible extent allowed
    (by your beliefs.) So exactly what is to dissuade them from doing it
    again to someone decidedly less "deserving" of such treatment than
    Dahmer? There is no deterrent.
    
     I know some prison guards, some of whom are subject to some pretty
    scary situations with some exceptionally nasty and violent individuals.
    Precisely what purpose is being served when someone who is "in for
    life" kills such a guard?
    
     You like to characterize the "pro capital punishment" camp as being
    "childish." I could not disagree more. The decision to take a life,
    even of the most savage criminal, is not easy. It is difficult
    medicine, even for supporters. It's far, far easier IMO to throw up
    one's hands and say "I can't condone it because it might be a mistake."
    Even if everything is done by the book and everyone has every reason to
    believe someone is the actual perpetrator, if someone is wrongly
    executed their is blood on our collective hands. And that is a weighty
    matter. It's quite frankly much easier (for me, at least) to eschew
    capital punishment knowing that "even if we screw up, we can always
    just let them out" if we simply send them to prison. Except what about
    the rapes perpetrated upon the wrongly convicted man at the hands of
    bad criminals also spared from death? What about the repeated
    batteries? Our hands are bloody from those as well. What if the wrongly
    convicted could not handle the pressure and committed suicide? How
    clean are society's hands then? Alas, even the "safe" solutions aren't
    quite safe.
    
     The Doctah 

     \It is an innocent person put to death by the state in
     \full knowledge of his innocence, for no reason other than to
     \satisfy bloodlust, political goals, and prosecutors' careers.
    
     very much like the case described in the movie, "The Thin Blue
     Line".  luckily, though, that man won his final appeal.  
    

    >All manner of appeal?  Do you know what manner of appeal is NOT allowed
    >by the government?  The appeal of actual innocence.  If PROOF of your
    >innocence is found 31 days after your conviction in Texas, the state
    >will murder you anyway.
    
     By the same token, they will keep you in jail for life (if that was
    your sentence) if you don't get your proof in in time. Does that make
    you feel any better?
    
     Change the law.

 Z   THEMAX::EPPERSON "puff, puff, pass"                   2 lines 
 Z   25-JUN-1996 01:18
 Z   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Z       The only thing I have to worry about is getting the poontang before 
 Z       she finds out that I`m mentally unstable.
  
    Let me guess...you're either a security guard from a security agency or
    you work in the cafeteria...right?  You're low rent.
    
    As far as the old argument re: capital punishment, I still say a nice
    federally run prison in the deep deserts in Somalia would do wonders. 
    No escapees to worry about and low prison upkeep!

        /Let me guess...you're either a security guard from a security
        /agency or you work in the cafeteria...right?  You're low rent.
    
        not only low-rent, but probably very small.
    

    .144
    
    > Currently in order to avoid killing innocent people...
    > Make 'em pay in prison.
    
    So they can have an opportunity to escape and kill someone else?  No
    thanks.  I'd rather pay more, if necessary, and get rid of the beasts
    ONCE AND FOR ALL.

    .146
    
    > I bet you'd be singing a different tune...
    
    No, actually, I wouldn't.  One, count 'em ONE, cop didn't like the way
    it smelled with my name on it, and he made the forensic team search
    until they found physical evidence that exonerated me.

    .208
    
    then i don't see how you can be so strident about
    GETTING RID OF THE BEASTS ONCE AND FOR ALL.
    
    it seems so out of character, in a way.

    
    	re:  .160
    
    	Nice attitude.  I pity any woman who's stupid enough to
    	hook up with you.
    

    .209
    
    > then i don't see how you can be so strident...
    > it seems so out of character, in a way.
    
    Not at all.  It is precisely IN character.  I recognize that mistakes
    will be made.  The system prevents all but a tiny few such, and it
    could be improved to provide an even better assurance (e.g., fix the
    loophole that surfaced in Texas v. Herrara).
    
    Being consistent, as I am in this discussion, demands that I accept
    that circumstances could arise that I would find much to my permanent
    disadvantage.  I do so accept; it is ineluctably true that one cannot
    make an omelet without breaking eggs, to coin a hackneyed phrase, and
    the overall benefit to society from making POSITIVELY CERTAIN that
    violent criminals are PERMANENTLY REMOVED outweighs the possibility
    that I or another innocent might die by mistake.
    
    Consider an analogy with war; both military and civilian personnel die
    in order to produce a net benefit for society as a whole.

    Re .204:
    
    > Does that make you feel any better?
    
    Yes.  You've suggested changing the law, but that cannot help Herrera. 
    If he had been sentenced to life imprisonment, changing the law could
    help him.
    
    > Change the law.

    Have you dropped your assertion that changing the law is easy?  And
    what about the other things that would need to be changed:  Preventing
    racist verdicts.  Punishing prosecutors who withhold evidence or make
    witnesses lie.
    
    Still, as I wrote before, this is not a topic about what is legal and
    what is not.  I do not care if it is legal; killing an innocent person
    is wrong.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>      <<< Note 742.212 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>   killing an innocent person
>   is wrong.

	Yes, but is it unethical irrespective of how it came to pass?

    
    re: .191
    
    
    >> Harry Truman was a great man to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima, ...
    
    >It takes no courage to give orders,
    
     If you've been in this position, you may comment, if you haven't, shut
    the hell up.
    
    >and there is no greatness in ordering the death of thousands.  
    
     Where did Mr. Truman ever proclaim that what he did was "great"?
    
    
    >Particularly when it was not necessary.
    
    
     You, sir, are woefully ignorant of history and its context, and your
    ignorance is exacerbated by your "Monday-morning quarterbacking".

 <loud gasps from the audience..women and small children head for the exits>

  fear not - he's just using his "manly" traits.  tres macho, dontcha know.

<sigh of relief, as audience slowly, but cautiously, returns>

>							The penalty for
>    murder is DEATH.  Well, what about justifiable homicide?  Under your
>    theory and the law, it's murder and warrants death if convicted.  Well,
>    what if the murderee was smashing the persons head in with a pipe when
>    he was snuffed?

No. I've said a bahzillion times in here that self-defense should not be
considered a violent crime.

    
    re: .216
    
    >fear not - he's just using his "manly" traits.  tres macho, dontcha
    >know.
    
    
     Okay...
    
    
     <r.o.>!!!

    
    .... and a great myst came down from the heavens...... light fog with
    brilliant colors, and flashing lights....... a great hue and cry came
    up from the bowels of the Earth. " Enough!!! I wanted a Bud Light"

    
    
    <------
    
    >Enough!!! I wanted a Bud Light"
    
    Yech!!  Why not just sit under a panther and have him piss in your
    mouth???
    

    
    	Did Andy get too much Alaskan sun?
    
    	Tune in tomorrow for more details [or evidence].
    

    >Have you dropped your assertion that changing the law is easy?
    
     You know what changing the law entails. If the cause is as just as you
    assert, how can the law fail to be changed, except by the silence and
    tacit acceptance of the injustice by those that know better?
    
    >And what about the other things that would need to be changed:
    
     Anyone who's paid any attention in this or previous versions knows my
    answers to these questions. We've gone over these things time and
    again.
    
    >I do not care if it is legal; killing an innocent person is wrong.
    
     Who has disputed that?

 ZZ   >Particularly when it was not necessary.
    
    EDP, just as a small nit, you wouldn't have yours truly had not that
    decision been made.  Daddy was on a troop ship heading toward the
    Rising Sun.  Twould have been another high casualty rate.  He was part
    of the first wave!
    
    -Jack

    >Particularly when it was not necessary.
    
     Well, what's a few thousand men's lives when you have a moral
    absolutist position to fulfill?

    re: Note 742.218 by MOLAR::DELBALSO
    
    } No. I've said a bahzillion times in here that self-defense should not
    } be considered a violent crime.
    
    Of course.  Here is where we play word art and your "rape is rape" 
    falls apart.  Self defense could include killing someone.  Killing
    someone is a crime.  When you kill someone and it's justified, its
    not murder.  When you are wrong, it _is_ murder, now what degree of
    murder?  Most places will charge a person who has acted in self defense
    with murder.  They may or may not be indicted and tried.  In clear cut
    cases the charges are dismissed.  In some cases (Lousiana comes to
    mind) the person is tried and either aquited or convicted.
    
    Rape is not cookie cutter simple.  Especially when you attach the
    death penalty to it as punishment.  Where is the line?  I don't know
    if there are degrees of "rape".  1st degree, rape with malice, 4th
    degree (date rape).  Maybe the definition of rape is too broad?
    
    MadMike 

> Maybe the definition of rape is too broad?

I think not. It's really quite simple. "No" always means "no".

   .227  So, "no" means "no" and the circumstances don't matter?  
	 That's where the execute-'em-and-ask-questions-later part
	 comes in.  Just kill the guy, regardless of what led up
	 to the incident.  A rape occurred, so someone must die.
	 Beautiful stuff.  I never saw anybody so bloodthirsty in
	 all my life.

    What if the female wants to be dominated. Ya know ruffed up abit.
    -ss

>             <<< Note 742.228 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

So, please enlighten me as to the conditions under which "No" doesn't mean
"no".

    >What if the female wants to be dominated. Ya know ruffed up abit.
     
    
    Do you really think that normal human relationships would include this?
    
    

         Please take into consideration the fact that SS is referring to
    his girlfriend. She's into the rough stuff. She even likes electricity
    (!). You cannot compare this situation to a normal human relationship.
    In any other sense, such a comment would be inappropriate and
    inexcusable. 

    re .231
    
               Yes.

    You're too funny Ed.  
    

         That wasn't really a joke. Did you wonder why your electric bill
    went through the roof while you were on that vacation last month?
    Didn't you think it was kind of strange that every surge protector in
    your house was melted? And even if you didn't notice any of these
    things, didn't you wonder what that generator was doing in your
    garage?
    

         re.193
    
         Alright! For my July vacation, I'm off to New Hampshire! How far
    away is that from Atlantic City?

 Sorry...the state of NH is closed in July.





 

    now, now you must share
    

    >So, please enlighten me as to the conditions under which "No" doesn't
    >mean "no".
    
     How about when it becomes "no" after the fact? But that never happens.

>                   -< put an end to this pointless rathole >-

	No such luck and a feeble attempt, I might add. ;>

    >So, please enlighten me as to the conditions under which "No" doesn't
    >mean "no".
    
	Jack, I didn't say "no" doesn't mean "no".  That's not the issue.
	The point is that the extenuating circumstances of the rape, as
	MadMike said, should make a difference in the punishment
	meted out.  You'd like to off everyone regardless, it would seem.
	Sociopath drags housewife from car, takes her somewhere and rapes
	her - death penalty.  19-year old and girlfriend drink 5th of
	tequila, start messing around, she says "no", he ignores her -
	death penalty.  Guy picks up young girl in bar, she turns out
	to be under age, he gets charged with statutory rape - death penalty.
	All of these men deserve to die, is that right?

    
    <---- sounds like "old sparky" is going to get a workout.

    Re .214:
    
    > If you've been in this position, you may comment, if you haven't, shut
    > the hell up.

    No.  Freedom not only permits but requires that citizens comment.
    
    > Where did Mr. Truman ever proclaim that what he did was "great"?
    
    You quoted the statement that asserted Truman was great, so figure out
    for yourself how it fits into the discussion.
    
    >> Particularly when it was not necessary.
    >
    > You, sir, are woefully ignorant of history and its context, and your
    > ignorance is exacerbated by your "Monday-morning quarterbacking".
    
    The ignorance is yours -- as well as the gullibility to swallow
    whatever authority figures spoon-feed you.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .223:
    
    >> Have you dropped your assertion that changing the law is easy?
    >
    > You know what changing the law entails.
    
    That does not answer the question.  Have you or have you not dropped
    your assertion that changing the law is easy?
    
    > If the cause is as just as you assert, how can the law fail to be
    > changed, except by the silence and tacit acceptance of the injustice
    > by those that know better?
    
    How can it fail?  Human nature.  Selfishness.  Bloodthirst.  Vengeance. 
    Hatred.  All the ugly motivations that cause prosecutors to hide their
    shameful mistakes, politicians to aggrandize themselves by calling for
    killing, families to vent their grief on innocents.  Those who know
    better have not been silent, yet the disgrace continues.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    <pulling himself into a fox hole>

    C'mon out here Mark.  I just put a big batch of popcorn on the stove,
    have a couple of beach chairs set up and a cooler full of frosties. 
    Nothing better for watching the clash of the titans, IMO.  

    Re .225:
    
    > Well, what's a few thousand men's lives when you have a moral
    > absolutist position to fulfill?
    
    So for you the issue is a few thousand lives versus a moral position. 
    It is very illuminating that you include in the former a few thousand
    American lives -- but show no concern in the latter for the MANY
    thousand Japanese lives.
    
    Those men, women, and children, you just leave out.  They count for
    nothing, and the scale balances happily for your side.
    
    It is a vile, detestable attitude.  Undoubtedly it is a part of human
    nature throughout history to mistreat foreigners, but it is the animal
    part of human nature, without merit.
    
    I condemn the destruction of human life, the glorification of war, or
    the people who participate or support such destruction.  It is
    contemptible.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .224:
    
    > EDP, just as a small nit, you wouldn't have yours truly had not that
    > decision been made.  Daddy . . .
    
    Your father did nothing for me.  I granted no authority to kill to
    protect "mine", whatever you mean by that, and no person may make claim
    upon me for having protected "mine".
    
    > . . . was on a troop ship heading toward the Rising Sun.  Twould have
    > been another high casualty rate.  He was part of the first wave!
    
    The Japanese were ready to surrender.  The US bombed them to make a
    show.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    eric, if you detest the people who participate in war, you think the
    USA shouldn't have stepped in against Hitler? Or should we have looked
    the other way while he massacred 6 million Jews?

    
      I made the statement that Harry was great.  Harry is dead, and can
     make no statements.  When alive, he was proud of his order, and
     thought those who disagreed with it addlepated.  He said so.
    
      There is absolutely no possible way to prove what would have
     happened if Harry had not ordered the atomic bombs dropped.
     Very careful foreign historians, including Japanese, dispute this
     point to this day.  I bet they'll never reach a conclusion.
    
      For the sake of argument, suppose the Japanese would not have
     surrendered except through bombing or invasion, as I did in reaching
     my conclusion that Harry's decision was great.  That leaves three
     possibilities : bomb, invade, or remain at war indefinitely.
    
      If you believe that the costs/benefits of the other options had
     much higher ratios than bombing, then it requires that you conclude
     that moral considerations outweigh the practical interests of people.
     The moral basis for requiring invasion or interminable war as opposed
     to bombing, is that bombing results in more deaths among "innocents",
     non-combattants, people who have waged no war against you, but at the
     benefit of LESS deaths among your own soldiers and those of the enemy.
    
      I don't see it.  Suppose a bomb kills three innocent people, while an
     invasion results in death for one of your own soldiers, three of
     theirs, and one innocent person, a total of five, and similarly
     eventually for indefinite war.  Than Harry was great, 5 to 3.  Why
     not ?
    
      bb

    Re .249:

    > eric, if you detest the people who participate in war, you think the
    > USA shouldn't have stepped in against Hitler? Or should we have looked
    > the other way while he massacred 6 million Jews?

    The first phrase is NOT what I wrote, and that is NOT a logical
    conclusion from what I wrote.

    I did NOT write that I detest the people who participate in war.  If a
    person participate in a war out of necessity, that is regrettable but
    not unethical.  Stopping an assault or the genocide that Germany
    engaged in is honorable.  Bombing a country that is ready to surrender
    is detestable.     
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .250:
    
    > For the sake of argument, suppose the Japanese would not have
    > surrendered except through bombing or invasion, as I did in reaching
    > my conclusion that Harry's decision was great.
    
    If we assume that false hypothesis, then the decision is merely
    necessary.  It is not great.  There is no greatness in killing.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >It is very illuminating that you include in the former a few thousand
    >American lives -- but show no concern in the latter for the MANY
    >thousand Japanese lives.
    
     You lie. Why do you lie?
    
     I made no mention whatsoever of ethnicity of the lives. Any
    assumptions you make are at your own peril.
    
     You then proceed to soundly thrash an argument I did not make.
    An empty victory for you, but no loss for me.

    Eric,
    
    Something to consider:  The Japanese propaganda machine had turned
    the American solders into monsters in the eyes of some island
    inhabitants.  They were told they'd be eaten and stuff.  The best
    example of this is Okinawa, where MANY MANY civilians committed 
    suicide rather than risk being captured by the Americans.
    
    The Japanese would fanatically follow their emperor.  He was a God
    like figure to them.  When the bombs were used, the word to
    toss in the towel came from the emperors mouth and the people
    followed.  Had the US invaded, they'd be shooting regular soldiers,
    women, children and old folks.  Not to mention many of them would
    probably commit suicide.   Based on what happened in Okinawa,
    2 quick and devastating blasts most likely saved lives in the
    long run.  
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

    Re .248:
    
    >> It is very illuminating that you include in the former a few thousand
    >> American lives -- but show no concern in the latter for the MANY
    >> thousand Japanese lives.
    
    > I made no mention whatsoever of ethnicity of the lives. Any
    > assumptions you make are at your own peril.
    
    Now you are trying to cover up.  Indeed, you made no mention of the
    ethnicity, but you clearly indicated your concern in three ways:
    
    	You wrote of "a few thousand men's lives" -- You identified
    	the people by sex.  Clearly this does not include the women
    	or children who were bombed.
    
    	You identified the people by number -- a few thousand.  This
    	does not include the many thousands who were bombed.
    
    	You compared a few thousand lives in opposition to a moral
    	position against the bombing.  Those must be American lives,
    	as concern for Japanese lives would weigh in against the bombing.
    
    You made your vile position quite clear.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
    

    re: .242
    
    >No.  Freedom not only permits but requires that citizens comment.
    
    Even if those "comments" are ignorant and stupid, such as yours?
    Yes, then I agree...
    
    >> Where did Mr. Truman ever proclaim that what he did was "great"?
    
    >You quoted the statement that asserted Truman was great, so figure out
    >for yourself how it fits into the discussion.
    
    This from your .191
    
    "and there is no greatness in ordering the death of thousands."
    
    Who were you talking about???
    
    >The ignorance is yours -- 
    
    Please explain how...
    
    >as well as the gullibility to swallow
    >whatever authority figures spoon-feed you.
    
    
    And who spoon-feeds you your ignorance of history??
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    Brian, I will take that frosty now. oh, and pass the popcorn, please.

>	All of these men deserve to die, is that right?

I see virtually no difference between cases 1 and 2. "No" means "no". In
the second case, fifth of tequila or not, if the woman had sufficient
composure to say "no", then there's no excuse for the man to have had his
way with her. Fry him.

The third case is a different matter, I think. I'm not so sure that the
issue of statuary rape is valid in the case where a 15-year old girl
consents to sex and lies about her age. In this case, it isn't an issue
of "no" having been said, or force having been employed, but simply society 
having placed an artificial age limit on an activity. And, I'm not arguing 
the value or lack thereof of the limit. Simply stating that the circumstances 
are far different from the other two cases.

The issue with rape is that someone forces themself unwantedly upon another. 
The conditions of the situation (at gunpoint or under the influence) are
totally immaterial to the matter. The commission of force/violence is
the only thing that counts.

    One assumes you'd be equally sanguine in the following case.
    
    Female goes to a party and drinks. Male at the party, also drinking,
    picks her up and they end up doing the wild thing. Female wakes up the
    next morning, figures out it was not such a hot idea, and goes home.
    Sad thing is, she gets preggers, and rather than admit to her
    domineering father that she consented claims that she was purposely
    intoxicated by our male opportunist and it was therefore rape because
    she was not capable at that point of giving consent. In Jack's book
    this is rape and the guy gets offed. Bad system, Jack. In fact, in such
    a system getting ANY punishment whatsoever for rapes would be rare,
    because juries aren't stupid and will certainly weigh the potential
    consequences while determining the guilt or innocence of the verdict.
    Jack argues for a system in which jury nullification becomes the
    most prevalent outcome. Tr�s foolish, but it sure allows one to talk a
    good game.

    Okay Mark, here ya' go.  No butter on the corn though, trying to watch
    my weight.  Care for a koozee to keep the can cold?  <ppppssshshhhhh> 
    I have some plastic sheeting if you need it to keep from getting
    splattered as well.  

re:     <<< Note 742.259 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "plus je bois, mieux je chante" >>>

>In Jack's book this is rape and the guy gets offed.

Absolutely not. If I understood your scenario properly, this was not rape at
all. No refusals were issued. No force was employed. "After the fact rape"
isn't rape, in my book. I don't see any pressing reason for a jury to
find guilt of rape in this situation unless the guy was totally incapable 
of presenting his side of the story.

If we want to discuss "dumb decisions juries shouldn't make", I suppose we
can do that, but it would be rather off topic.

    The punishment for rape should be castration.  It's too easy just to
    kill him, publicly.  Make him live the rest of his life unable to do 
    his most favorite thing.  
    
    I would justify killing if is to avenge one's own blood.  I know if
    someone raped my (almost) 3 year old, I'd cut his **** off, stick it
    in his mouth, THEN kill him. 

    
    .262
    
    You have *read* Primal Fear, haven't you?

    Um, no.  Why do you ask?  8)

>Absolutely not. If I understood your scenario properly, this was not rape at
>all. No refusals were issued. No force was employed. 
    
     According to the current law, if a woman is unconscious and a man has
    sex with her, then he is guilty of rape. This, to me, is reasonable. In
    the scenario above, it is not at all unlikely that a man would be
    convicted. And your "all or nothing" approach means he gets death.
    Which is simply wrong. You can't use a hammer to do the job of a
    scalpel without making a nasty mess.

               \|/ ____ \|/
                @~/ ,. \~@
               /_( \__/ )_\ Polly Klass verdict: Fry the Sucker!, people,
               ~  \__U_/  ~ Polly Klass verdict: Fry the Sucker!

    'Pril:
    
    i'd have to agree w/u if someone touched my Sarah!

>        <<< Note 742.266 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>

	We're discussing in what cases people should be fried for
	rape (if at all).  That's not exactly way off topic, is it?

    Re .254:
    
    > Something to consider:  The Japanese propaganda machine had turned
    > the American solders into monsters in the eyes of some island
    > inhabitants.
    
    That is something not to consider.  It has no relevance to the decision
    to bomb.
    
    > The Japanese would fanatically follow their emperor.  He was a God
    > like figure to them.
    
    Japan was ready to surrender.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>	We're discussing in what cases people should be fried for
>	rape (if at all).  That's not exactly way off topic, is it?


  No, I suppose you're right..it must be all the hassles I have at Dunkin
  Donuts that is clouding my ability to reason.



 Jim

    
    re: .269
    
    >Japan was ready to surrender.
    
    Please point us to the applicable documents/history books/citations
    etc.
    
    
    Thanks ever so much....
    

    Re .256:
    
    Aw, did your poor hero-figure get tarnished?  Too bad.
    
    >     This from your .191
    >
    > "and there is no greatness in ordering the death of thousands."
    
    YOU quoted the original sentence in YOUR note .214, so how can you not
    know where it came from?  In .214, you quoted my note INCLUDING its
    quotation of .137, in which Bill Braucher wrote "Harry Truman was a
    great man . . ."
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>     According to the current law, if a woman is unconscious and a man has
>    sex with her, then he is guilty of rape. This, to me, is reasonable.

Unconscious? I'm sorry - I misunderstood your previous, then. I though she was
simply under the influence, but aware of her actions.

> And your "all or nothing" approach means he gets death.
> Which is simply wrong.

No. On the contrary, it's simply absolutely right if we agree that he committed
rape. Why is his rape any less heinous than any other? He forced himself without
consent. That differs not at all from the "more violent" incidences. Fry him.

>        <<< Note 742.258 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

	Well at least you're consistent in your mercilessness.  
	State of mind (under the influence) makes no difference when
	considering the fate of the perpetrator, either in the
	case of date rape or a bar fight.  

	Why is 15 years in prison not punishment enough for the 
	19-year old drunken kid? 

    Jack, wouldn't you rather humiliate the bastard and make him suffer by
    whacking off his peepee?  Why kill him and give him the easy way out?

    
      Well, I disagree that Japan was ready to surrender.
    
      I think they would not have surrendered.
    
      In fact, they almost didn't surrender AFTER the bombs.
    
      bb

>Unconscious? I'm sorry - I misunderstood your previous, then. I though she was
>simply under the influence, but aware of her actions.
    
    She was as aware/unaware as he was. But we're back to fuzzy lines. At
    some point in intoxication, one can no longer give informed consent,
    which point occurs prior to unconsciousness. According to the law, sex
    after this point is rape. Who's to say whether she was over the line or
    not? She claims she was, but perhaps this is motivated by her fear of
    the consequences with her father.
    
    >No. On the contrary, it's simply absolutely right if we agree that he 
    >committed rape. 
    
     There is no such agreement.
    
     Your inability or, perhaps, unwillingness to perceive circumstantial 
    differences may well facilitate your idea of just punishment, but by
    no means does it promote justice. Your idea is utterly wrongheaded, and
    were it to be adopted jury nullification would rule the land to the
    point that rapes would essentially be an unpunished crime in all but
    the most savage instances. That would be your legacy- far from being a
    boon to rape victims, you'd be a bane. And you're far too caught up in
    your own self-righteous crusade to see it. So be it. You've been shown.
    That you choose not to see is your problem.

    
    	Jack, I think you're confusing 2 issues here.  Doc seems to
    	have agreed with you that "sex while unconscious" is grounds
    	for a rape charge, but then he seemed to segue into the other
    	scenario a bit too quickly.
    
    	Girl becomes preganant and then claims "he MUST have gotten
    	me so drunk I passed out and then he did it while I was uncon-
    	scious".  And do you believe him or her?
    

>	Well at least you're consistent in your mercilessness.  

Yes, thankyou.

>	State of mind (under the influence) makes no difference when
>	considering the fate of the perpetrator, either in the
>	case of date rape or a bar fight.  

Correct. Nor should it. Violent crime is violent crime. I'm not interested
in "excuses".

>	Why is 15 years in prison not punishment enough for the 
>	19-year old drunken kid? 

Why should the fact that he was drunk and a 19-year old kid matter? Would you
let off a 40-year old sober guy who did the same thing?

As I've said many times, it's the propensity toward violence that needs
to be punished through elimination. I don't buy the bleeding-heart apologist
BS that someone should be "excused" or treated less harshly due to age or
state of mind. There are hundreds of millions of people walking the face of 
this earth who have been both young and drunk (sometimes at the same time, 
even, believe it or not) who have failed to commit crimes. So the excuse is 
of no value.

    Re .271:
    
    See:
    
    	topic 504
    
    	Altavista:  Hiroshima and surrender and Truman
    
    	http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/decision.html
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>    >No. On the contrary, it's simply absolutely right if we agree that he 
>    >committed rape. 
>     There is no such agreement.

Did you or did you not say that the law defines it as rape if sex is obtained
on the person of an unconscious woman by a man knowingly performing the act,
and that you agreed that the law was proper in that respect?

Then do you agree that this was rape, or don't you?

>        <<< Note 742.279 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Why should the fact that he was drunk and a 19-year old kid matter? 

	Because they are extenuating circumstances.  If one is not in
	one's right mind at the time of a crime, it does not follow
	that one necessarily represents a chronic threat to society.
	Being 19 makes it even less likely that there's an established
	pattern of behavior.  I don't know why that concept is so
	difficult.

>Would you let off a 40-year old sober guy who did the same thing?

	No.  I wouldn't let the 19-year old off either.  Being sentenced
	to 15 years in prison (which is the arbitrary sentence we've
	been using in this case) is not being "let off".  I just wouldn't
	send him to the gas chamber.  El grande difference.

    
    rough crowd lately, like sharks at feeding time.
    
    I could be wrong here, its happened before. I don't think di, or the
    doctah is going to convince Jack to swing the other way. In Jack's
    mind it is either black or white, no gray allowed. Sentence to be the
    same, regardless of extenuating circumstances. I think we should
    adjourn on the subject, personally. Keep chatting on the topic
    if you so desire.

>	Because they are extenuating circumstances.

Only in your opinion, though. I don't see the circumstances as extenuating
whatsoever. He had a choice to get drunk, or not, and he had a choice to
rape, or not, once he'd done so. No one "made him do" either. The fact that
he did has to do with his nature/propensities/personality/weaknesses/whatever.
It has to do with nothing that wasn't within his control.

>						 If one is not in
>	one's right mind at the time of a crime, it does not follow
>	that one necessarily represents a chronic threat to society.

"God bless him. He only gets that way when he's drunk."
???

Thanks anyway. I'll pass. Fry him.

>	Being 19 makes it even less likely that there's an established
>	pattern of behavior.

People who will commit violent crimes don't do so because they are
"young, foolish, footloose and fancy-free". They do it because they're
not mentally well balanced. Fry 'em

>	  I don't know why that concept is so difficult.

It's not a matter of it being difficult to grasp. It's a matter of simply
not buying it. Just as it's apparently difficult for you to see why it
is that I want the violent destroyed. Not put away for a short time so's
they can think about what they did - destroyed.

>	No.  I wouldn't let the 19-year old off either.  Being sentenced
>	to 15 years in prison (which is the arbitrary sentence we've
>	been using in this case) is not being "let off".

So, then, would you sentence/punish the 40-year old teetotaler differently?

>        <<< Note 742.284 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>He had a choice to get drunk, or not, and he had a choice to
>rape, or not, once he'd done so.

	Um, maybe you haven't heard that being drunk can impair one's
	faculties, including judgment.  I would have thought everyone
	knew that.  That would make it a circumstance that should be
	taken into consideration.

>The fact that
>he did has to do with his nature/propensities/personality/weaknesses/whatever.

	So people should be put to death for having weaknesses? 

>Just as it's apparently difficult for you to see why it
>is that I want the violent destroyed. Not put away for a short time so's
>they can think about what they did - destroyed.

	15 years is a short time?  Hoho.

>So, then, would you sentence/punish the 40-year old teetotaler differently?

	Perhaps.  That's the point - every case should be looked at
	separately and punishment doled out based on the circumstances.
	(What a concept.)

>             <<< Note 742.285 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

In general -

    C'mon, Di. I know you're a lot smarter than that.

>	Um, maybe you haven't heard that being drunk can impair one's
>	faculties, including judgment.

Duh!

How about his lack of juudgment in overimbibing to begin with? One would
think that that error in judgment occurred at least in part while he was
still sober, no? Not to mention which, although I will, yet again, hundreds
of millions of people have been simultaneously young and drunk, yet have
never raped. Therefore, being young and drunk is no excuse and does not
create "extenuating circumstances".

>	So people should be put to death for having weaknesses? 

Only when their "weaknesses" cause them to commit violent acts. But you knew
all of this.

>	15 years is a short time?  Hoho.

Well, I'd be willing to bet that anybody handed 15 years instead of trip
to ol' sparky would be lookin' for dat blue bird on deir shoulder, wouldn't
you? 

>	Perhaps.  That's the point - every case should be looked at
>	separately and punishment doled out based on the circumstances.

Well, obviously, I don't see this. The woman raped by the sober 40-year
old wasn't any "more" raped than was the woman raped by the 19-year old
drunk. The punishment should fit the crime, not the circumstances. The
crime is the same. If you don't believe me, just ask the victims.

    
    	I hate to do it, but I have to side with Jack and not Diane.
    
    	8^)
    
    	Being drunk is no excuse for committing a violent crime, and
    	even though Diane didn't actually say that she's almost imp-
    	lying it by saying that the punishment for same should be
    	different than the punishment for that crime when committed
    	by a non-drunk person.
    
    	Brian, how 'bout a parody of John Cougar's "Jack and Diane"
    	to fit this topic?  You're much better at this than I am.
    
    	8^)
    

    A part of the problem with the question of when does "no" not mean "no"
    is that that's a problem that's commonly evaluated in this way:
    
    NO == NO
    !NO == YES
    YES == YES
    
    Unfortunately, that evaluation is invalid.  Here's the right
    evaluation:
    
    NO == NO
    !YES == NO
    YES == YES
    
    Without explicit consent, it's rape.  And before you start arguing over
    what's explicit, such consent need not be verbal.  It can be a physical
    action or series of actions such as foreplay that leads to coitus
    without the intervention of an explicit negative.  Which means it's a
    VERY gray area, and the evaluation in questionable circumstances should
    ALWAYS be toward the negative.

    
    	If it were a gray area I don't think I'd want any part of it
    	anyways.  ICK!!
    

>    Japan was ready to surrender.
    
The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than either of the atomic bombs.
Japan did not surrender.  (p.s. why do people always complain how horrible it
was for the US to use the Bomb when the firebombing of Tokyo killed more
people?)

Hiroshima was nuked.  Japan did not surrender.

They didn't surrender until days after Nagasaki.

Also when one considers whether Truman did the right thing you have to consider
the knowledge the US intelligence had _at the time_.  If it was discovered
after the war Hirohito wrote in his diary on Aug 1, 1945 that he would
surrender but not until after August 20 to protect the honor of some holiday,
and this was unknown to US intelligence, an argument of "The US should never
have used the Bomb since Hirohito was going to surrender on Aug. 20 anyway"
is meaningless Monday morning quarterbacking.

Truman saw Okinawa where soldiers fought to their deaths after hopeless odds
rather than surrender to the Americans.  He was faced with an estimate that
a minimum of one million would die in the invasion of the Japanese main islands.
Mostly Japanese, and largely civilians. He felt that he would _save_ lives.

>        <<< Note 742.286 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>In general -

>    C'mon, Di. I know you're a lot smarter than that.

	Smarter than what?  I think that being drunk has the potential
	to affect one's judgment and actions.  If that makes me seem like a
	dolt, then so be it.  I think that the state of mind of a perpetrator
	of a crime is a factor that should be considered before sending him
	to the electric chair.  If that makes me seem like a dolt, then so
	be it.  I think that execution shouldn't be de rigueur for bar
	brawlers or date rapists.  If that makes me seem like a dolt, then
	so be it.  I welcome the moniker in that case.

>How about his lack of juudgment in overimbibing to begin with? 

	Oh, is that an offense that warrants the death penalty now, too?

>Well, I'd be willing to bet that anybody handed 15 years instead of trip
>to ol' sparky would be lookin' for dat blue bird on deir shoulder, wouldn't
>you? 

	No.  Not if his crime was date rape or getting into a fist fight.

>	Oh, is that an offense that warrants the death penalty now, too?

No. The point was that he exercised poor judgement while both sober and drunk.
But you knew that. Is it an "extenuating circumstance" that he decided to
get hammered?

>	No.  Not if his crime was date rape or getting into a fist fight.

Come again?

15 years is chicken feed compared to the death penalty in the eyes of many.
Obviously including yourself, or you wouldn't be so adamantly crusading
to save their worthless lives. Even if his crime was shoplifting, I'm
sure he'd be much happier with 15 years than the chair. He may not "think
it's fair", but I'm sure he'd welcome it in comparison to the alternative.

>        <<< Note 742.294 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Is it an "extenuating circumstance" that he decided to
>get hammered?

	No.  It's an extenuating circumstance that he _was_ hammered.

>15 years is chicken feed compared to the death penalty in the eyes of many.

	Chicken feed compared to the death penalty, but not chicken feed.
	You said someone serving 15 years would be looking for that
	bluebird on his shoulder.  I disagree.  Especially a bar brawler.
	"Ain't I lucky they didn't execute me for this."  Yeah, right.

    Re .291:
    
    > The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than either of the atomic
    > bombs. Japan did not surrender.
    
    That does not demonstrate Japan was not ready to surrender later.  The
    decision to surrender is not determined by the number of people killed
    in particular attacks.  It is a complex decision involving the
    condition of the countries, state of the war, politics, information, et
    cetera.  It matters not _why_ Japan might have been unwilling to
    surrender earlier.  What is relevant is the willingness to surrender at
    the time of the bombing.
    
    > (p.s. why do people always complain how horrible it was for the US to
    > use the Bomb when the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people?)
    
    Always?  What evidence do you have to show that is always the case?  I
    would expect some people to complain about killing human beings
    regardless, while others complain about the atomic bombings because
    they were unnecessary.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re: Diane
    
     Arguing about 64 bits of information with one who has a one bit
    capacity wastes and awful lot of bandwidth. Opt out.

<--  back a cuppla one or so

�    Japan was ready to surrender.
    
   -- edp

  o Is this from 20/20 hindsight?  I did not understand this to be a fact.

  o Ready to surrender and surrender are vastly different.  Ready to
    surrender could mean that after they killed another million or so
    Americans, then they would surrender.

kb

>	No.  It's an extenuating circumstance that he _was_ hammered.

And how did he get that way? Due to poor judgment while still sober?

    After the 2nd bomb and the cease fire, the Japanese AF attacked a
    photo recon B32 bomber (yes that is B32) that was taking pictures. 
    
    
    The Japanese saw 500+ B28 take 16+ sq miles of Tokyo out. They saw one
    plane take Hiroshima out. They are good at math...
    
    Steve

>        <<< Note 742.299 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>And how did he get that way? Due to poor judgment while still sober?

	Possibly.  Or while partially drunk.

> Or while partially drunk.

???

Is that like "a little pregnant"?

At some point in the space-time continuum with which we are familiar
he lost whatever inhibition he might have had to remain sober. In so
doing, he exercised poor judgement. The rest is history. I still don't
see the extenuating circumstances. Up until said point, he (presumably) had 
it within his power to remain sober and in control. Nobody "pushed him over 
the line". 

It's his fault.

    
      As Lady Di can testify, I know how inhibitions can get lost when
     one is shlossed.  Whether this mitigates is debatable...
    
      bb

>        <<< Note 742.303 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>> Or while partially drunk.

>???

>Is that like "a little pregnant"?

	No, it's not.  After a couple of drinks, judgment about how
	much _more_ to drink might change.  You see.  So it's difficult
	to say when the poor judgment with respect to sobriety might
	have started.

>Up until said point, he had it within
>his power to remain sober and in control. Nobody "pushed him over the line".
>It's his fault.

	I didn't say getting drunk wasn't his fault.  I said it might
	have impaired his judgment with respect to the other act, thus
	making it unclear that he really poses a chronic threat.  As
	compared to the sociopath who sets out to rape strangers, for
	instance.

    
>      As Lady Di can testify, I know how inhibitions can get lost when
>     one is shlossed.  Whether this mitigates is debatable...

	I do think it mitigates when we're talking about the
	death penalty here.  There's no way in hell that one night
	of lousy judgment and lack of control on the part of a drunken
	19-year old deserves the same punishment as a series of
	brutal rapes on the part of a sociopath.  That's just nuts.

    one bit, Di. one bit.

    parity?

 Excuse me, I need to head towards the lobby for more popcorn..anybody
 else want anything?

    
    	I'll take a Snickers bar, Jim.
    
    	And get 1 for yourself as well, unless of course there's only
    	1 there.
    

 Look, buster, I'm going to the lobby, *I'll* take the snickers bar.



 

    <snicker>

>	I didn't say getting drunk wasn't his fault.  I said it might
>	have impaired his judgment with respect to the other act, thus
>	making it unclear that he really poses a chronic threat.

Which gets us back to "God bless him. He only acts this way when he's drunk."

Look, obviously being under the influence can impair his judgement. The fact
remains that being under the influence doesn't cause every single person
who's ever had one too many to take sexual advantage of whomever they might
be with. On the contrary, the _VAST_ majority of people who have overimbibed
_DO_NOT_ commit crimes, violent or otherwise. I not only fail to see why
his state of impairment is relevant, I additionally suggest that his
violent actions while drunk were simply the more natural expression of
actions which he can, in some limited fashion only control while he is
sober. This is not a well person under consideration here, especially if
all it takes is a few drinks to get him to snap.

And this is not an indictment on drinking or those who overimbibe. It is
a judgment upon those who do so, then commit violence, and expect to not
be held fully accountable for their actions while in such a condition.

    I'll take some goobers.

    
    um, Jim, a cold Heinekin if you have time.

    
    	RE: .312
    
    	Knowing you, you'd probably gobble it in the lobby and come
    	back and tell me there were none left.
    
    	["Mmmm-hmmm-fff-mmm-sorry,-mhmfhfmhmh-none left."]
    

 Sorry..you want beer, you'll have to get it yourself.



 Jim

    
    	I think he asked for Heineken, not beer.
    

    
>    	Knowing you, you'd probably gobble it in the lobby and come
>    	back and tell me there were none left.
    
 
  I'd say I gave it to raq ;-)    

    re: Note 742.258 by MOLAR::DELBALSO
    
    You need to look real hard at who is a "criminal" then.
               
    Statutory rape is rape.  And rape is rape.  Unless zinging 15
    year old nymphos isn't a crime anymore, or unless a lot of things
    happen.  Like putting the male guy into a cage with the 15 year olds
    father and turning your back for a few minutes.  Then you'd want
    to change the definition of murder too.
    
    MadMike

    re: edp
    
    Ya, Japan was ready to surrender...
    
    "Hey... we're thinkin about.  We'll get back to ya.  Maybe today.
    Maybe next week".
    
    "Hey, ya, we're still thinking.  BTW: How bout some conditions.  Like
    you get off our backs".
    
    IMO: The bomb was a big help in convincing the Japanese that
    it was time to end the war, unconditionally.   What would a
    post war japan have been like?  You don't think King MacArthur could
    have waltzed into Tokyo like he did without some clout behind him.
    I'll also agree there was some showmanship involved.  From the
    US (west) to the USSR (east)... ha ha... don't even think of trying
    to get your way.  This situation was set up years before 1945.  Take
    a look at Patton for example, he practically had to be restrained from
    going after the soviets.
    
    MadMike

    well, I'm up to .286
    
    and jack is stuck talking about people getting liquered up and
    going haywire, and I can agree with you to a point.  Getting lit
    up isn't an excuse to go nuts.  I think getting raped in prison for
    15 years is ample time to think about what you've done.
    
    On the other hand, now consider someone who is mentally retarded.
    If we're going to stick with the "no excuses/no sympathy" mentality,
    what are you going to do?  One chance...then lock the person up.
    People like Davis still get an express, one way ticket downstairs
    where they'll have a pitchfork stuffed up their arse for the
    rest of eternity.
    
    The details matter.
    
    MadMike

    >>>I'd say I gave it to raq ;-)
    
    
    and i'd share it with you... :>
    

    RE: -1
    
    I have read that the reason Truman gave the final OK for the big bomb
    was the battle of Okinawa. The number of lives lost on both sides,
    the order was given by the japan to fight to the last man and no
    surrender. This was a battle to save the home land. The number of ships
    lost due to kamekazi (sp) attacks, Okinawa is close to the mainland and
    young (teens) pilots could fly out to the battle. The home front was
    organizing women, old men and teens to fight using every method. After
    5 years of war, everybody has had enough. My uncle was killed on
    Okinawa and I am reminded everytime this comes up in the paper or TV
    by my mother and my aunt.
    

Jim, raw... yer talking about a snicker's bar, right? :-)

 OK, back from the snack bar..Shawn, sorry..no thni..mnfkerth barth..who
 had the goobers?.



 

    {raises hand} 
    
    Thanks!

    
    	Grrr.
    
    	You've apparently got 1 heck of a set of goobers to post a
    	reply like that.  8^)
    

    
    Incoming!

    
    
    	heh heh....he said "goobers"....
    
    

    
    	RE: .330
    
    	[ducks]
    

    ???

    
    	Such an inquisitive lass you are today, April.
    

 Hey, quiet in front!

    
    	Come on down here and say that, if you've got the goobers.
    
    	8^)
    

 I gave 'em to 'pril

    No, *I've* got the goobers.  Mine! Mine! Mine!  And I ain't sharin'.

    
    	Hmmmm, we've got to compare pick-up lines.  Yours apparently
    	work better than mine.
    

 Son, I don't *need* pick up lines.





 Jim

well, to put this back onto the jubject, are we gonna fry those goobers?

    
    you play with them glen, not nuke em.

    Isn't goober uhm gomer's cousin?

    No you don't, you eat 'em!

    
    yes, 'pril, I suppose you do, sort of.

    Wait a minute!  Are we talking about the same thing?  I'm talking about
    chocolate covered peanuts.  Just what are *You* talking about??????

    
    	Fry her and get it over with, I say!!
    
    	Lying is bad, bad, bad!!
    

re:   <<< Note 742.321 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

Hey, read what I wrote, Mike. What I said was that I wasn't sure that the
law on statutory rape makes sense in the case of a consenting 15-year old
who lies about her age. That doesn't mean I don't understand that it's
still rape. It probably does mean that she ought to have her lying butt
in the slammer for a few years as well, though.

         Fry a perfectly good fifteen year old babe? What a terrible waste!
    What kind of a sicko are you? Is the fifteen year old liar much worse
    than the loser who tells her he's a lawyer or aerospace engineer? And
    then impresses her with his uncle's borrowed Firebird? I don't think so
    ... wait, I just condemned myself. Sorry, the old "foot in mouth" thing
    again. 

at least you're picking it up this time.....

    >As I've said many times, it's the propensity toward violence
    >that needs to be punished through elimination.
    
    Ach!  Now I see what Dr. Death Penalty is up to: he wants to
    do a little selective pruning to breed violence out of the
    human race.  Instead of breeding for racial characteristics
    he wants to breed for psychological characteristics.
    
    Interesting theory I suppose, but it's not going to work unless
    you find a way to kill 'em before they reach breeding age.
    You'll need to identify potential future felons and find some
    excuse to snuff 'em while they're still little children.
    
    Otherwise all you'll accomplish is to *increase* violence in
    society.
    
    Why?
    
    The death penalty for rape is hardly a new idea.  It has been
    proposed and rejected before for one obvious reason that seems
    to have escaped you:
    
    If it ever actually came to pass that this country gave the
    death penalty to everyone convicted of rape, then how many
    living rape victims do you think there would be left around
    to testify?
    
    Besides, in his own way our death penalty enthusiast is just as
    violent as the worst of those he wants the state to kill.  The
    only difference is that he wants someone else to do his killing
    for him so he can sit back and enjoy it, safe behind a protective
    screen of legality.
    
    Bet Dr. Death Penalty would have enjoyed the "games" involving
    lions in ancient Rome...
    

    
    	That's a good reason to revoke the death penalty for convicted
    	murderers, also.
    
    	After all, maybe that will ensure that there would be more liv-
    	ing murder victims around to testify.
    

>    he wants to breed for psychological characteristics.

Nice try, but no banana, Dick. People behave themselves, they get to keep
their skins. Pretty simple.

>    The death penalty for rape is hardly a new idea.  It has been
>    proposed and rejected before for one obvious reason that seems
>    to have escaped you:

That's an unproveable load of crap and you know it. I was reminded that
St. Thomas Moore tried to present this logic hundreds of years ago. It
wasn't proveable then, and isn't now. But it makes the BHL's feel better.

>    Besides, in his own way our death penalty enthusiast is just as
>    violent as the worst of those he wants the state to kill.

Yeah. Right. Meanwhile, the rest of the "keep-em-alive-at-our-expense-
at-all-costs" BHL's can sit there with the full burden of society's
continued violence on their shoulders, since they haven't a single
realistic plan to eliminate the violence by any other means. Their
very attitude is a clear and concise message to the violent criminal -
"You may go this far, and, sometimes, you may even go a bit farther."

I'm mighty goddam sick and tired of society being victimized by violent
scum while your ilk sits back and asks for more.

But, we've done all this before.

>        <<< Note 742.353 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>St. Thomas Moore tried to present this logic hundreds of years ago. It

	you mean Sir Thomas More, or is this someone else?

    So, Dr. Death Penalty, if you so strongly believe that stricter laws,
    more severe punishments, and the wider, swifter application of the 
    death penalty would make for a better, kinder, gentler society with
    less crime, then you should be able to prove your assertions easily 
    and simply:
    
    There are several places in the world today where the laws are
    stricter, punishments more severe, and the death penalty is handed out
    much more freely than here.  Would you be so kind as to pick one, your
    favorite perhaps, so we can all consider how much better a place it is 
    to live than the United States is?
    
    Thanks
    

    how about iran?!

    El Salvador where driving with a cerveza will get you non-cabeza pronto! 
    
    Saudi Arabia and friends, where the the world finals in head lopping
    will take place in the Fall of 1996.   
    
    Singapore, smoke dope and die!  
    
    

>	you mean Sir Thomas More, or is this someone else?

Could very well be - Gerald made reference to it first (that I saw) some
time ago, but I was then, and am still now, ignorant of the individual.

re:    <<< Note 742.355 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it?" >>>

Just because a society decides to to take a firm and severe approach to the 
treatment of violent crime is no reason that they must, by definition,
totally revert to oppression and lack of tolerance. Your "proof" isn't
worth the bits it took to convey the concept.

>Could very well be - Gerald made reference to it first (that I saw) some
>time ago, but I was then, and am still now, ignorant of the individual.

	For one thing, More was beheaded (ooh - sounds good, eh?) for not
	saying to Henry VIII - sure, go ahead and divorce the wench 
	(basically).
	He was the subject of "A Man for All Seasons".  

His name is spelled various ways, and he became a saint, so St. Thomas Moore
is probably just as good a variation as Sir Thomas More.

>  <<< Note 742.361 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>His name is spelled various ways

	??  You mean _he_ spelled it various ways?  That would be
	interesting.  I've never seen it spelled any way but More.
	The 'box is such a learning place.

I dunno how he spelled his name, but certainly in those days people were much
looser in spelling than they are these days.  Didn't Shakespeare spell his
name other than "Shakespeare?"

"More" is the correct spelling.

/john

    .363
    
    There are at least 52 documented spellings by William Shakespeare of
    his own surname, including Shakespeare, Shakespear, Shaksper, and even
    Shaxpr.

    
    fascinating. can I please have some more?

    
    That was Dickens.
    

    There ya go, Dr. Death Penalty, we have suggestions for Iran, 
    Saudi Arabia et al, El Salvador, Singapore ...
    
    Do any of them do it for you?
    
    >Just because a society decides to to take a firm and severe
    >approach to the treatment of violent crime is no reason that
    >they must, by definition, totally revert to oppression and
    >lack of tolerance.
    
    Well now isn't that a lovely theory!
    
    >Your "proof" isn't worth the bits it took to convey the concept.
    
    I'm not offering you any proof of anything.  I'm inviting you to
    offer proof that your ideas for a better society can actually
    work.
    
    So go ahead, Dr. Death Penalty, pick one -- tell us your
    favorite -- so we can all see how you define "nice place to live".
    

Z    >they must, by definition, totally revert to oppression and
Z        >lack of tolerance.
        
Z        Well now isn't that a lovely theory!
    
    It isn't a theory.  The two are mutually exclusive.  A country can be a
    democracy and still enforce strict accountability on perps who rape.  
    I would say most young men going on dates would walk on eggshells in
    the areas of protocol.
    
    -Jack

    People do not treat each other with respect and consideration because
    they live in fear of draconian punishments for not doing so.
    
    Just as respectful, supportive, helpful, tolerant, forgiving families
    produce children who treat other people with respect, consideration,
    tolerance, and forgiveness, governments must likewise lead by example.
    
    In fact governments DO lead by example.  And you can see the results
    wherever you look around the world and around your own neighborhood and
    around neighborhoods where you would rather not live.
    
    Dr. Death Penalty's prescription is no good.
    
    Instead, government must sow what it expects to reap.
    
    Dr. Death Penalty seems to be a Very Angry Man.  That's his problem. 
    The last thing we need in this country is a Very Angry Government.

    
    
>    People do not treat each other with respect and consideration because
>    they live in fear of draconian punishments for not doing so.
    
    	There are some people that need to be removed from society
    permanently. You cannot coddle hardened criminals and they absolutely
    will not treat you or anyone else with respect or consideration no
    matter how nice you are to them. 
    
    	There will be mistakes, there will be innocents that get caught up
    in this mess just as there are innocents in jail now (being raped and
    beaten daily). There is a price to pay for everything. 
    
>    In fact governments DO lead by example.  And you can see the results
>    wherever you look around the world and around your own neighborhood and
>    around neighborhoods where you would rather not live.
    
    	The neighborhoods I would rather not live in are the social
    experiments put forth by dogooders intent on giving everyone as many
    handouts as it takes to get them on their feet! The neighborhoods I
    like to live in are the ones where people watch out for each other, make
    their own living (not live on handouts from uncle sam), and where
    justice is swift and sure. I like living where people are not tolerant
    and forgiving when it comes to crime.
    
    	YMMV,
    
    	jim

    .371
    
    You are kidding with your last several notes aren't you?  Particularly this
    one.  Do you think that a kids' glove approach to violent criminals
    alone has any bearing on the behavior of citizens.  Please point out
    the countries that are exactly the same as America in it's approach and
    does not have capital punishment and has a lower crime rate.
    
    The countries that come to mind for me, have a completely different
    approach to morals, ethics and personal responibility as well as
    historical precedent.
    
    If you truly believe that coddling criminals then why is it that we
    have such a problem with repeat criminals.  Or penal system is probably
    one of the easist in the world in terms of first time criminals and
    provides numerous opportunities for criminals to make something of
    themselves.  If such is the case then why so many repeats.
    
    Also, just what is the appropriate punishment and justice for a serial
    murderer?  A person who would rape and murder helpless little children? 
    Old women?  Someone who would attack a family and rape and murder weach
    meber in turn, but one somehow survives to testify?  Just what do you
    think is appropriate punishment and justice for the criminal as well as
    the victim?
    
    We have eliminated any sense of moral outrage and moral expectations
    over the decades and now you believe eliminating capital punishment is
    the sure cure for violent criminals.
    
    Stop, you're killin' me!!
    

>    Dr. Death Penalty seems to be a Very Angry Man.

Got that right, Dick.

>  That's his problem. 

It may be a problem for you, but not for moi.

>    The last thing we need in this country is a Very Angry Government.

The Government doesn't need to be Very Angry, just Responsible. What a concept!

         re.371
    
         Government leading by example? When in the past four years has our
    government, under the current administration, ever set a good example?
    I don't know what magical happyland you just stepped out of, but I know
    I can see the results of corruption, incompetance, and greed in the
    city where I live. If we are going to establish a safe and productive
    society, we cannot depend on the government to set things right. The
    government of the United States no longer serves the needs of the
    common people. 

Coddling criminals?

I'd say this country is great at making criminals and stockpiling
criminals.  (Ref: traditional liberal shocking statistic about the US
having a higher percentage of incarcerated criminals than anyone else
conveniently put on that list.)

Spend some time in one of our overcrowded prisons and come back and talk
about coddling.  Not the black hole of Calcutta by any stretch, but not
coddling by any definition I know of.

- Me, I'm just p.o.ed at being made a criminal in the state of MA; it's
just waiting for Weld's signature...

 Z   - Me, I'm just p.o.ed at being made a criminal in the state of MA; it's
 Z   just waiting for Weld's signature...
    
    Okay...I'll bite.  How are you made a criminal?!

The new so called "assault weapon" ban.

I'd already be a criminal in CT (where the damn thing is manufactured),
except that I keep it at a friend's house in MA.  The new ban in MA does
grandfather in owners of existing hardware, but excludes people from out of
state (like me).

Thank you so much, MA and CT, for criminalizing my hobby (namely shooting
at pieces of paper with concentric circles on them).  I'll keep this in
mind the next time a vote comes around to criminalize some hobby that I'm
not personally interested in...

    
    Coddle eggs, not criminals.
    

    >Do you think that a kids' glove approach to violent criminals...
    
    >If you truly believe that coddling criminals then why ...
    
    Good example of confused illogical thinking based on TV sound
    bites and the inflammatory rhetoric of self-serving politicians
    and talk show idiots:
    
       Government being nice to ordinary citizens == coddling criminals
    
    If our governments (fed, state, local) all tried real hard to make
    the USofA the best place to live for everyone, then a whole lot of
    people would not become criminals in the first place.  That's what
    I'm talking about here.  We have more people behind bars per capita
    in this country than in almost any other country on earth because
    we manufacture more "criminals" than almost any other country in
    the world by virtue of passing more and more laws against more and
    more things, and by continually squeezing those who are less
    advantaged, both socially and economically.
    
    In the nicest places in the world of course there will still be
    violent criminals that will have to be dealt with, but there would
    be a lot fewer of them if we did things differently.
    
    >Government leading by example? When in the past four years has
    >our government, under the current administration, ever set a
    >good example?
    
    Exactly my point, except that I would say a lot more than 4 years.
    
    >Coddle eggs, not criminals.
    
    You're a good egg...:-)

    
    
    	And I say the reason we "manufacture" more criminals is not due to
    our hard-arse approach to crime, but due to our "save everyone"
    mentality. Maybe if we started requiring people to take care of
    themselves instead of trying to GIVE them a living, things might be
    different. If we make crime less profitable and more dangerous than
    clean living, maybe we'll make some progress. 
    
    
    jim

    .381
    
    > hard-arse approach to crime
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! <gasp>  Oh, good one, Jim!

The way I read it, I thought that sorta was Jim's point.

    Sorry, Jack, I just thought the juxtaposition of words was hilarious.

    Z    If our governments (fed, state, local) all tried real hard to make
    Z    the USofA the best place to live for everyone, then a whole lot of
    Z    people would not become criminals in the first place.  That's what
    Z    I'm talking about here.
    
    Crapola.  You will find many criminals come from affluent backgrounds. 
    People commit crime for alot more reasons other than poverty.
    
    -Jack

    
    	re: Dick
    
    	I figured you'd see the sarcasm dripping off that reply. :*)
    
    

	That we shouldn't coddle criminals is a no-brainer.  That we
	should execute anyone who gets in a bar brawl is a different 
	sort of no-brainer.

    
    
    	agreed. executing people for bar-brawling is silly. executing
    people for brutally murdering others is a good practice tho'.
    
    
    jim

    The US now has 3 out of every 100 american adults involved in the
    "justice system" on probation, parole, or in prison.  Most of these
    people were involved in non-violent crimes, such as possesion of
    controlled substances.  
    
    the three strikes law in California has been used to keep a person
    caught with a joint in prison in jail from 25-life, rather than getting
    the real hardcases taken out.  (40-odd percent of three strikes inmates
    are in for possession of controlled substances, and possesion of any
    portion of a substance in jail is considered a felony.)  
    
    I think we need to concentrate on getting the worst individuals off the
    streets and handle substance abuse as a health problem, rather than a
    law problem.
    
    meg

   .388  agreed.

    
    
    re: .389
    
    	agreed. Getting busted for having a joint or gram of coke or
    whatever is a fairly soft crime and should be treated as such (i.e. -
    community service or some such thing). Keep the hardcore idiots in
    jail. Let the junkies out.
    
    jim

Well Mr. Goodwin, your colors just showed. I have been following your
diatribes against Mr. Death Penalty with interest - your earlier notes were
pretty good, I thought. Mr. Jack certainly deserves all the ridicule he gets
on this one - he apparently feels more threatened my Mr. "I get surly after
a few drinks" Redneckerson  than Mr. "I've got a list of 1200 capital crimes"
DA. Totally OTL. And amazingly, continuously totally unapologetic.

> If our governments (fed, state, local) all tried real hard to make
> the USofA the best place to live for everyone, then a whole lot of
> people would not become criminals in the first place.  That's what

The classical liberal philosophy. Better yet, let's go to complete socialism.
Then everybody will be equal. No one will have any motivation whatsoever
to commit any violent crime. 

Crime happens. No one with sense wants to coddle hardened career criminals,
they should be put away forever. Address the punishment debate, and not ideas
about left/right philosophy.

    I'll see that and raise it.  We ought to decriminalize controlled 
    substances entirely.  This was a much nicer country before they 
    started the WoD 60 some years ago.
    
    >If we make crime less profitable and more dangerous than
    >clean living, maybe we'll make some progress.
    
    One of the most obvious ways to do that is to make "clean"
    living more profitable than crime.  And a nice side effect
    of *that* would be to make for a nicer place for everyone
    to live, including the 97% of people who are NOT criminals.
    
    I have no sympathy whatsoever for fat cats who have what they
    want out of life, so they feel free to kick everyone else off
    the ladder.  If you want people to choose "clean" living over
    crime, then it is up to YOU to do everything in your power to
    make sure "clean" living is a truly attractive alternative.
    
    I see very limited effort to do that in this country.  People
    would rather kill or incarcerate their fellows than try to
    help them.  Well, you reap what you sow, so you have no
    complaints coming if some of those you have been playing
    "survival of the fittest" with decide to play the game
    their way, and you turn out not to be quite so fit as you
    thought you were.
    
    Just remember one thing:  you can make a law and thereby create
    a "criminal" out of someone who "violates" your new law, but
    none of that matters if you don't have the power to enforce your
    law.  The government is slowly but surely losing its power
    advantage over its people -- technology is evening things out.
    
    Sooner or later people will have to go back to making a real
    effort to get along with each other instead of just passing laws
    and calling the cops whenever they are displeased with their
    neighbors, because the government just won't be able to help.
    
    Then perhaps we will see a real drop in "crime".

    >The classical liberal philosophy. Better yet, let's go to
    >complete socialism.  Then everybody will be equal. No one
    >will have any motivation whatsoever to commit any violent crime.
    
    All or nothing, eh?  Sounds like yet another far right extremist
    who sees anyone anywhere near the middle as a far left extremist.
    
    No, I have no love of socialism, communism or any other leftist
    ideologies.  I like the way our country is set up.  But the rules
    under which our country has been established in no way preclude
    helping *every* citizen to try to achieve his or her potential.
    
    As long as some of us just can't resist kicking the people we're
    holding down, then some of those folks are going to kick back
    when they get the chance.
    
    >Crime happens.
    
    Yes it does.  And we need to deal with it.  But a lot of crime is
    eminently preventable one way or another.  Why is it that we don't
    prevent it then?
    
    >No one with sense wants to coddle hardened career criminals,
    >they should be put away forever.
    
    No argument there.
    
    >Address the punishment debate, and not ideas about left/right
    >philosophy.
    
    Actually, this whole thread probably ought to be under "crime and
    punishment" instead of "Polly Klaas".  Certainly nothing I have
    said applies to Polly Klaas's killer.
    

    
    
    re: .393
    
    	You know, you reach from one side of the spectrum to the other in a
    single note. amazing.
    
>    One of the most obvious ways to do that is to make "clean"
>    living more profitable than crime.  
    
    	Bull-hockey! How are you going to make "clean" living more
    profitable to a 14yr old running base for $2K a day? How about the
    small time drug-dealer turning a couple hundred thousand dollars a
    year? You simply CANNOT make an honest days pay competitive with a
    dishonest days pay. The two are not even close to the same.
    
>    I have no sympathy whatsoever for fat cats who have what they
>    want out of life, so they feel free to kick everyone else off
>    the ladder.  If you want people to choose "clean" living over
>    crime, then it is up to YOU to do everything in your power to
>    make sure "clean" living is a truly attractive alternative.
    
    	This is rich. Somebody who works hard and amasses a good chunk of
    change is now a "fat cat" and deserves distain? Wealthy people are
    somehow lower forms of life because they think others should have to
    work for their money also? Get real. It is up to the INDIVIDUAL to
    choose clean living over crime. You commit crimes, you should be
    punished harshly. You can't make clean living any more attractive than
    it already is.
    
>Well, you reap what you sow, so you have no
>    complaints coming if some of those you have been playing
>    "survival of the fittest" with decide to play the game
>    their way, and you turn out not to be quite so fit as you
>    thought you were.
    
    	Guess what pal....that's what life is all about. Sometimes life
    deals you a cr*p hand. I don't expect anyone to hold my hand through
    life. Do you?
    
>    Just remember one thing:  you can make a law and thereby create
>    a "criminal" out of someone who "violates" your new law, but
>    none of that matters if you don't have the power to enforce your
>    law.  The government is slowly but surely losing its power
>    advantage over its people -- technology is evening things out.
    
    	The govt should never have a power advantage over the people in the
    first place!!! And since when have I said we should have more laws? I
    think we should have less laws, but those few laws we do have should be
    stringently enforced (i.e. - no more revolving door justice system). 
    
    	70% of crimes are committed by repeat offenders...doesn't that tell
    you something?
    
    jim
       

    .393
    
    You are incredible.  You think the the "fat cats" are responsible for
    the increase in crime and all we need to do is get even with those
    folks and everything will be just fine.  Well, I for one am working my
    butt off to get to be one of the fat cats so that I can enjoy the finer
    things in life and maybe retire a bit earlier than now seems likely. 
    Just because someone has it made is no wexcuse for anyone to comit
    crimes against anyone else.
    
    The truth of the crime problem is that we have a justice system that is
    more concerned with the criminal than with society and the victim.  In
    addition we have the "do-gooders" out there claiming that there are all
    sorts of reasons for people to be criminals and we have to take care of
    them.  Horse feathers!!!!  Since the beginning of the industrial
    revolution there have been many people who worked hard and lived on hte
    edge and others who made it.  The crime problem was much less 100 years
    ago, 70 years ago, 50 years ago, even 40 years ago.
    
    When the "enlightened" generation of the 60s, of which I am one,
    figured they had all the answers, and those answers were rooted
    in socialism and elimination of personal responsibility, we found the
    crime rate increasing.  It has next ot nothing to do with economic
    levels.
    
    Deal with the root cause of the the problem, permissiveness, not envy
    and you will begin to really address the problem.
    

    >Bull-hockey! How are you going to make "clean" living more
    >profitable to a 14yr old running base for $2K a day? How about the
    >small time drug-dealer turning a couple hundred thousand dollars a
    >year?
    
    You should read your own words.
    
    Here is how you do that:  You completely dismantle the War on Drugs,
    you completely decriminalize all controlled substances, you set up
    laws to control them in the same way alcohol is controlled, and then
    you set back and let the laws of economics do their thing.
    
    Absolutely nobody on the face of the earth is going to pay anyone
    else 2K a day or $200,000 a year for what can be bought in any
    liquor store cheaper than Iron City or Piels (if there is any
    such thing).
    
    THAT is ONE way you make "clean" living pay better than crime.
    

    
    
    	re: .397
    
    	yeah, but you and I both know the war on drugs will never end
    because it's too damn profitable for everyone involved (govt most
    definitely included). Ya gotta live in reality.
    
    
    jim

    I love it -- "permissiveness" is still the root of all evil.  As if all
    you have to do is smack people around enough, and everyone will be very
    nice and polite to everyone else all the time and follow all the rules,
    etc., etc., etc.  What a crock.
    
    It is really easy to understand:  People do whatever they perceive is
    in their best interests, and they do what YOU want them to do ONLY if
    they really want to.
    
    If you set up a social system where it is MUCH easier and more
    rewarding to lead a life of crime than to lead a "clean" life in
    competition with the likes of just about everyone here in the box, then
    what, exactly, do you expect people to choose?
    
    If we only treated our fellow mankind as we do our own kids, we might
    have a much more crime-free, cooperative society.  Of course the way
    *some* people treat their kids is directly responsible for adding to
    the crime rate... :-)
    

    Mr> Goodwin:
    
 Z   Here is how you do that:  You completely dismantle the War on Drugs,
 Z   you completely decriminalize all controlled substances, you set up
 Z   laws to control them in the same way alcohol is controlled, and
 Z   then you set back and let the laws of economics do their thing.
    
    I would agree to this in principle.  However, I also believe we should
    rebuild some of these gutted urban buildings, invite drug users in
    there and provide a good place for them to fry their brains out and
    die.
    
    -Jack

    >yeah, but you and I both know the war on drugs will never end
    >because it's too damn profitable for everyone involved (govt most
    >definitely included). Ya gotta live in reality.
    
    Unfortunately, I'm afraid you are right about that.  As long as there
    is such great profit in it, the government is not going to give it up.
    Unless, of course, we MAKE them give it up, but that would require
    votes to that effect, and a great deal of publicity to motivate the
    great mass of American voters.
    
    And equally unfortunately, that means that drug crime will be with us
    as long as drugs are illegal.  It's a cost of business that we have
    unwittingly accepted by virtue of our voting habits.
    

    >However, I also believe we should rebuild some of these gutted
    >urban buildings, invite drug users in there and provide a good
    >place for them to fry their brains out and die.
    
    Survival of the fittest applies to them too, yes?  :-)
    

Maybe that's what they're gonna do with MSO?

    .399
    
    > As if all you have to do is smack people around enough...
    
    Not at all.  Jack has NEVER said that, but I don't suppose responding
    to what he's actually saying would help your liberal agenda, would it?
    
    It is a historical fact that societies that make criminals pay severely
    and promptly for their crimes have less crime than those that do not. 
    Now I'm sure you and your bleeding-heart buddies could come up with a
    couple of dozen other factors that distingush the one type of society
    from the other, but I don't think those excuses are really meaningful.
    
    It is a historical fact that Delaware was the last of the United States
    to do away with promptly administered public flogging for misdemeanors. 
    It is also a fact that when Delaware did this, out of concern for the
    social "rights" of the perps, the misdemeanor rate in Delaware jumped
    SEVENFOLD, coming into par with the rates in the other states.  OF
    course, these facts are meaningless, since it's obvious that all the
    people who had been flogged were able to turn their lives around all on
    their own.
    
    It is a mathematical fact that putting a violent offender to death
    prevents that offender from committing another crime.  It is a
    statistical point that more than 6 out of every 10 violent crimes in
    this country are committed by repeaters.  Had these repeaters been put
    to death after their first escapades, the number of violent crimes
    would be less than half of what it is.  It is likely, however, that the
    number would be further reduced by the perception among potential
    offenders that their best interest, staying alive, is not well served
    by committing violent crimes.
    
    > If we only treated our fellow mankind as we do our own kids...
    
    ...shoving our kids out the door, or making them latchkey kids, so we
    can earn those five-figure combined incomes and have the Mercedes or
    Porsche and the swimming pool and the monster-screen teevee and the
    vacations in Jamaica?  That's how we'll have a better society?  How
    about instead of that we return to the concept of a single-income
    family and NOT having fancy toys - the one thing a parent can do to
    improve the television environment is to switch the damn thing off and
    spend time with the kids.  Sure, it's more work.  It's worth it.

    Ahhh...  how wonderful everything was back in the good old days!
    
    Yes?  :-)

>    Ahhh...  how wonderful everything was back in the good old days!

	Yes, before the Mac was invented.

    Yes -- darn that Johnny Appleseed anyway...  May he fry in heck!
    

    .405
    
    No, actually, it sucked.
    
    I didn't enjoy driving a second-hand POS car that was sold to me for a
    dollar after I'd been married for 10 months that so I'd be able to get
    to church.
    
    It wasn't my idea of fun not to be able to go out to movies.  Ever. 
    For the first couple of years of my married life.
    
    I didn't at all like being so indigent that I needed federal assistance
    to pay the rent when we moved into a bigger apartment so we'd have room
    for our second child about two years after we got married.
    
    I really would have liked to have a nice teevee, but until our kids
    were 4 and 2, we couldn't afford one.
    
    Mickey D's would have been fun every so often, but we couldn't afford
    to waste our money on frivolous food.  Wemade our own baby food so the
    budget would stretch further.
    
    Yeah, those were the days, all right.

    
    >I really would have liked to have a nice teevee, but until our kids
    >were 4 and 2, we couldn't afford one.
    
    
    	Is that because you'd finally had enough of them just laying
    	around the house, playing and eating and crapping diapers,
    	and made them go out and get jobs at the local sweat shop?
    

   uphill, both ways.

    .409
    
    What finally triggered the purchase of a decent teevee was Sesame
    Street, that bastion of liberalism.

    .410
    
    Who asked you?

See, Binder, you shoulda taken two more years of Latin.

    Yeah, then I could be amazingly unpretentious, too.

    .399
    
    I see you want to keep on your silly liberal soapbox of complaining
    about everyone else but the poor little criminal who has no choice but
    a life of crime because of all of us big, bad successful people,  I
    noticed you conveniently ignored the part of my note referencing the
    crime rates of 40, 50+ years ago.  Pray tell, just what was different
    then as opposed to now?  Once you figure that out and can honestly
    address it, then you start off down your liberal freeway again.
    
    In the future please state you agenda up front.  It eliminates a lot of
    useless notes getting to what your real agenda and philosophy is.
    
    .404
    
    I'm not sure if we agreed in the past but I certainly agree with your
    position in this entry.  It clearly identifys the what a responsible
    person does as opposed to the scum of society.
    
    Thanks for the entry.
    

    OK, things are mixed up enough.  Some of us are talking about crime and
    criminals in general and some are talking about serial sex murderers. 
    But nobody is recognizing a difference.
    
    There are many reasons why people commit crimes, and there are many
    kinds of crimes.  There are even many kinds of murders, from
    self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer or Polly Klaas's murderer.
    
    Some people who commet crimes are seriously broken and very likely
    can't be fixed.  They need to be kept away from the rest of society
    forever so they can't do any more harm.  No argument there.  And
    killing seriously defective people like that will obviously have no
    deterrent effect whatsoever on any other seriously defective people, so
    spare me the pro-death-penalty rhetoric.
    
    It is hard to imagine anyone who kills another person in the commission
    of a crime being able to be "fixed" so the rest of us will be safe
    having them in our midst.  So I'm not sure we should ever let these
    people out of prison again either, although we should continue to try
    to find ways to fix them because that would be a good thing for the
    rest of society if we could fix people like that.  We might even be
    able to prevent a few murders some day if we could find out how to fix
    these people.
    
    Then there are people who commit lesser crimes.  Unless someone is
    suggesting that a thief should get the death penalty or life in prison,
    then we are going to be seeing him/her back among us someday, and it
    would be nice if s/he no longer was motivated to steal things by then.
    This kind of criminal needs to be fixed, and WE need them to be fixed.
    The recidivism rate confirms this.
    
    And if we can prevent a large amount of crime from taking place by any
    means whatever, then our time, effort, and money would be well invested
    in doing so.  When you do a good job raising you kids to be good
    respectful, successful citizens, that is exactly what you are doing. 
    If some of our parents need help in raising their kids successfully,
    then we ought to give it to them.  It would be a far cheaper investment
    on the front end than the costs of crime later on.
    

    >noticed you conveniently ignored the part of my note referencing the
    >crime rates of 40, 50+ years ago.  Pray tell, just what was different
    
    I did mean to address that.  Was that the bit about the misdemeanor
    rate in Delaware going up 7x after they stopped putting people in
    stocks or whatever?
    
    I'm sure a comparison of life in Singapore with life in the US would
    yield similar results.  In fact I've read such a comparison several
    times.
    
    Now the question you need to answer is this:  Would you prefer to live
    in Singapore than in the US?
    
    I sure wouldn't.  When Thomas Jefferson was working on the Bill of
    Rights, he and others agreed that allowing people to have a lot of
    freedoms and rights would mean a higher level of crime.  They knew that
    going in, and they made the conscious decision that it was well worth
    the cost of a slightly higher crime rate to live in a free society
    rather than under an oppressive government.
    
    I agree with that sentiment.  If you can find a way to reduce crime
    without reducing freedoms, then by all means go for it.  But if you
    want to take away from all our freedoms in your attempts to reduce
    crime, then forget it.

    .417
    
    Two problems with your reply.  the first being that I do not recall in
    any writings by Thomas Jefferson or any of his contemporaries where
    they expected the crime rates to increase because of the individual
    freedoms the envisioned.  If you can find any historical evidence to
    support this, I would be most interested in reading it.
    
    Second you contend that eliminating or reducing freedoms in order to
    decrease crime would be unacceptable to you.  If this truly is your
    position, then I am pleased to see that you oppose the Brady bill and
    other such gun control measures.  All of these laws have been put
    forward in order to reduce crime.  They are, of course, directly
    opposed to the 2nd Ammendment which guarantees an individula the right
    to keep and bear arms.  Now I'm sure that someone is going to say that
    semi-automatic and automatic weapons would never have been supported by
    the FF, because they couldn't have foreseen the development of these
    weapons.  Unfortunately that line of reasoning does not fir with the
    thinking of those exact same people when it comes to other
    developments.  They contend that telephone conversations are protected
    by the Constituion even thought this development was never foreseen by
    the FF.  so if modern inventions are to be considered as being covered
    by the same document as the original inventions, then the same applies
    to all of the gun control measures being put forth today.  This would
    particularly apply to you since you oppose any laws that would reduce
    crime at the expoense of any freedom you presently have.
    

    >I do not recall in any writings by Thomas Jefferson ...
    >where they expected the crime rates to increase because
    >of the individual freedoms the envisioned.  If you can find ...
    
    I have a ca. 1954 Worldbook Encyclopedia in which there is a
    footnote in the bill of rights section that says Thomas Jefferson
    and company figured that the Bill of Rights provided protections
    to individual liberty that were so important to a free society
    that it was well worth putting up with a minimal level of crime
    that would be the inevitable result of such protections.  It was
    a conscious decision on their part.
    
    If I can find that volume, I'll bring it in and quote it exactly.
    
    In the same section, there is another footnote that Jefferson
    avidly supported the right to bear arms because, having just gotten
    past a bloody revolution in order to secure independence for America,
    he figured that Americans, even with their constitution and Bill of
    Rights, would have to fight more wars against their government in
    the future in order to maintain their freedom from tyranny.  He
    expected a revolution would be necessary maybe every 20 years or so.
    
    Outside of that one volume I have not seen these notes anywhere in
    encyclopedias.  Must not be politically correct anymore, maybe...
    
    >Second you contend that eliminating or reducing freedoms in order to
    >decrease crime would be unacceptable to you.
    
    Our freedoms have been impacted minimally by most common sense laws.
    It's like the old 80/20 rule.  20% of laws will get rid of 80% of
    crime.  But to make much impact on the other 20%, you would have to
    enact ever more harsh laws, and you would have to have ever stronger
    government.  It is just like the automatic board testers DEC uses in
    manufacturing.  They are good for about 85% bug-free production.
    Any higher than that, and the cost of testing goes up exponentially,
    quickly eroding any profit you hope to get by selling the boards.
    
    Same is true of our laws, police, prosecutors, justice system, and
    government in general.  The cost in individual liberties of trying
    to eliminate every little crime or every little criminal goes up
    exponentially, and in my opinion is definitely not worth the price.
    
    >If this truly is your position, then I am pleased to see that you
    >oppose the Brady bill and other such gun control measures.
    
    I do oppose those laws.  I believe the right to bear arms was an
    attempt to make sure that individual citizens have approximately
    the same amount of power as the government, at least if they should
    all choose to use it in concert with each other.  This means having
    the same weapons with which to defend their homes, property, and
    lives.  As government gets more sophisticated weapons, so should
    the American people have access to them as well.  As long as
    government behaves itself, it will have nothing to fear.  :-)
    
    There was an interesting chart published by the San Jose Mercury
    News a couple of years ago that showed how California's gun purchase
    waiting period has affected handgun crime in California.  It started
    years ago with a 24-hour waiting period, and has been increased in
    steps over the years to what it is today (a month? -- I forget).
    The chart showed California's handgun crime rate as compared with
    that of the nation in general.  There was no difference at any time,
    regardless of the length of the waiting period.  The law appeared to
    have no effect at all.  I'm also against any law that cannot be
    shown to have a net benefit to society.
    

    .419
    
    I would be very interested in the text of the footnote as I would like
    to find out where the footnoter ( is that a word?) got thtat
    information.  I have never seen any such reference before.  I would be
    interested in knowing if Jefferson and his contemporaries would accept
    a lack of vigorous prosecution of any crime that they thought might
    increase.
    
    My expectation is that the FF would have been very supportive of
    prosecution for anyone who violated the laws.  If this included capital
    punishment, I'm feel sure that they all would have supported it, unless
    religious convictions held otherwise.  There would not have been any
    Constitutional basis for opposing, just religious conviction.  since
    there must be a wall of separation between church and state, religious
    opposition would be inappropriate as a reason to oppose capital
    punishment.
    

re: .420 (ROCUSH)

>    I have never seen any such reference before.  I would be
>    interested in knowing if Jefferson and his contemporaries would accept
>    a lack of vigorous prosecution of any crime that they thought might
>    increase.
    
From .419 to .420 you get it mixed up??  There's nothing in .419 that
talks about "accepting a lack of vigorous prosecution" at all.  It
talks about anticipating a minimum amount of crime.

You'll paint anything with the soft-on-crime brush.  Why is that?
\john

    .421
    
    I'm not sure what your question is, but let me take a stap at answering
    your note.  I did not say that there was an indication they would not
    support vigorous prosecution.  My question was about who wrote the
    footnote and where they got that information.  My comment was a follow
    on to the other notes in the string.
    
    Simply put, the FF may have expected a "minimal" increase in crime, but
    they certainly expected a vigorous prosecution of those criminals.
    
    The point was around capital punishment and I would find it hard to
    believe that capital punishment was not an expected redress to
    appropriate crimes.
    
    I'm not sure that answers your question, but the note was part of the
    string, not a stand alone observation.  If you missed the preceding
    notes, then I understand your confusion.
    

re: .422 (ROCUSH)

Good lord.  I read all the notes, and have no idea how you you could be
so confused.  Just address what was written, or what was claimed was
written in the footnote.  Not hard, not complicated.

Free hint: lack of vigorous prosecution wasn't there.

Do you have so little ammunition that you must fabricate your opponent's
position?  Not a good sign.

\john

    
      Um, George Washington executed people.
    
      The language of the Constitution clearly refers to capital
     punishment in several places, although it states no rule about
     it.  For example, Amendment V, the double jeopardy clause, says
     "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be
     twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;"  To me, it seems to say
     ONCE put in jeopardy of life and limb is OK.  But that's just me.
    
      bb

>     ...put in jeopardy of life and limb...
                                 ^^^^^^^^

Does that mean the Saudi practice of cutting off the hands of thieves would
be constitutional?

    The Saudis don't have a constitution, so the point {ahem} is mute.

    
    	No, it refers to drawing and quartering.  But it only allows
    	the use of 1 horse.
    

    > use of 1 horse
    
    Does it say anything about ropes and strategically placed pulleys?

    
    	I knew there was a loophole in there somewhere.
    
    	You'd make a good lawyer, Binder.  You already speak their
    	language, too.
    

    
      Or, how about, "No person shall be denied life, liberty, or
     property, without due process of law."  Doesn't that imply that
     a person MAY be deprived of life, WITH due process ?
    
      bb

>          <<< Note 742.431 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>


    hey, that's a good one.

    .423
    
    First of all I have no lack of ammunition.  there are plenty of folks
    out there who just can't seem to help providing it.
    
    Let's see.  the argument was being put forth that capital punishment
    was wrong and there were several notes entered back and forth.  Then
    the note was entered that efferson expected increased crime by
    endorsing increased freedoms.  I then asked for clarification on that
    bit of new information.  the information was that it was contained in a
    footnote.  I asked for more information on that, but then added that I
    would be equally interested in seeing where there was a question on
    vigorous prosecution or curtailing the death penalty, thereby tying
    several notes and responses together.  See, it all ties together.
    
    As far as your point about me feeling that we are soft on crime, yes, I
    sure do believe that we are soft on crime because there are too many
    people who think an animal like the one who killed Polly Klass deserves
    to take one more breath than his victim did.  As long as there are
    people like that out there, who want to protect vile murderers, then I
    will be here opposing them and complaining about them being soft on
    crime.
    
    There, that should about cover it.  Once again tying several things
    together.
    

�     <<< Note 742.426 by SMURF::BINDER "Errabit quicquid errare potest." >>>

�    The Saudis don't have a constitution, so the point {ahem} is mute.
                                                                  ^^^^

   Is this a pun that whizzed right by me, or do you really mean  moot?

kb

    .434
    
    It's a subtle-as-a-brick (hence the {ahem}) tip o' the hat to someone a
    few weeks back who used the term incorrectly and got lambasted for it. 
    Obviously, your brick detector needs to have its sensitivity adjusted
    upward.

    
    .435
    
    what Dick really means, is that it went completely over your head
    and to get with the program. :-)

    Oh.   Nevermind :-}
kb

>                       -< Roseanne Roseannadanna (sp?) >-

You spelled it right, but it was Emily Litella who said "Never mind."

    Ya know....Emily....at first it was cute....
    
    Then it became blase and now it is obnoxious....
    
    We did survive before you came here....we can do without you....

    Here's another one.  A local teen ager was kidnapped at a shopping
    center, and fortunately was unharmed other than being sexually abused. 
    The person arrested and identified by the teen was just released form
    prison about 17 months ago.
    
    This guy was in prison twice.  The last time for sexual abuse,
    kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping and murder.  He was released after 15
    years.  This girl was just very lucky that she didn't end up dead.
    
    I suppose this guy should still be free to walk the streets or be
    provided with three hots and a cot for the rest of his life at the
    expense of the rest of society.
    
    People who think like this haven't a clue.
    

<Pensively_waits_for_defense_of_scumbag_to_be_voiced_by_likely_parties>

No defense for the scum.

Lock him up and throw away the key.

Fry him to spare the expense of keeping him forever?

- No reason that prison has to be easy time, especially those hopeless cases
  who truly deserve the worst. Less comfortable digs/conditions would surely
  cost a lot less. No TV, no weights, no GD lawsuits.

- My interest in not killing innocent victims of an error-prone criminal
  justice system remains. For those who advocate "when in doubt, off 'em all,
  let god sort 'em out", I would suggest that you value innocent life less
  than you value a few bucks, and IMO that says a lot about the values held
  by a society.

Life is cheap. Ask the scumbags.

I knew you were going to say that. You've said it before. 

"Life is cheap".

So, I guess you consider my life, and the lives of my loved ones cheap. 

I don't. Fortunately, it's not your decision  that the life of, for example,
my wife, is worth less than the importance of ridding society of barroom 
brawlers.

> Life is cheap. Ask the scumbags.

So if the scumbags say so, then we should all agree and act accordingly?
Your callousness is unbelievable.

Hint: Scumbags think and act on the idea that life is cheap. That's what
makes them scumbags.

Get a clue!!

>I knew you were going to say that. You've said it before. 

Ditto.

Presumably, if your wife, or any of your loved ones, keep their noses
clean, they have a lesser chance of being improperly convicted and
executed. Presumably, if you put forth the effort to see that responsible
and honest people are in positions of power and influence, whether that be 
the government, the judicial system, the law enforcement professions, or
the legal professions, the liklihood of your wife or another loved one
being improperly convicted or executed becomes even slimmer.

Instead, you prefer to give the scumbags a break. Because that's easier
than fixing the real problems which cause your nightmares. And as a result,
the scumbags laugh in your face and continue to victimize, me, my loved
ones, you, your wife, and anybody else they damn well please. And in the
mean time, there's really no impetus for anybody to fix anything.

Why is it, if you please, that my desire to see the convicted terminated,
carries less weight in your mind than your desire to allow them free reign 
to victimize others as they practice their recidivistic ways?

I'm replete with clues, thanks, Bruce.

    .444
    
    >> "Life is cheap".
    >
    > So, I guess you consider my life, and the lives of my loved ones cheap.
    
    You would guess wrong.
    
    Life, in and of itself, is indeed cheap.  An adult gerbil, which
    possesses life, is not valuable in the same way that an adult human is
    valuable.
    
    It is not a set of chemical processes (which we define scientifically
    as "life") that makes your specific biochemical engine or those of your
    loved ones valuable.  It is the quality of the self-aware perception
    that is achieved by the machine embodying that set of processes that is
    valuable.

>     <<< Note 742.446 by SMURF::BINDER "Errabit quicquid errare potest." >>>
    
>    It is not a set of chemical processes (which we define scientifically
>    as "life") that makes your specific biochemical engine or those of your
>    loved ones valuable.

	gee, i'll bet he didn't know that.

    .447
    
    You win.

You continue to attempt to justify your position based solely on the
recidivisism of the criminals in the name of protecting non-criminals from
crime, while subjecting those same people to a criminal justice  system of
an incredibly murderous nature. It's called throwing the baby out with the
bathwater, the tail wagging the dog, the definitive Procrustean Bed, etc. etc.
In spite of your rationalizations, your "life is cheap" attitude is obvious,
and is plainly at the heart of your philosophy (regardless of any gerbils -
chemical processes - self-aware perception analyses).

It might be meaningful to debate the pros and cons of the death penalty
with those who give thoughtful consideration to the "benefits" and costs,
re: the lives of innocent executees (is that a word?). But with you, while 
I imagine that you are probably a perfectly nice guy, I can only shake my
head in wonder and resignation.

> I'm replete with clues, thanks, Bruce.

Your stating it as a fact does not make it a fact. On this issue, you are
without a clue, *IMO*.

    .449
    
    Gee, can you come up with any more metaphors and literary allusions to
    "support" your position?
    
    Or did you use up your quota of free clues asking people where to find
    all these neat catchphrases?

> thoughtful consideration to the "benefits" and costs, re: the lives of 
> innocent executees 

I've heard it a million times. But each and everytime I bring up the lives
and well being of the innocent citizens victimized by the criminally violent
I get nothing but handwaving and more of the same. Meanwhile, nothing gets
done to more stringently execute the convicted, ergo no increase in
execution of innocents _is_ taking place _anyway_, at the cost of no increase
in the execution of the _guilty_, either, and the ensuing victimization of
society continues. You're goddam right it pisses me off! Everytime I
see an innocent person victimized like the ones we've been discussing
here, I can honestly conclude that I have the likes of you to thank for it,
as you're simply too damn soft to fix the problem. I'm sure the victims
are glad that you've got such strong convictions on the matter, as their
lifeblood drips away.

    Atlanta has been plagued by a serial rapist for quite some time.
    They finally caught the guy, convicted him and he's headed back
    to the slammer.
    
    Big surprise, he started his latest spree after being paroled for
    previous rape charges......
    
    

Which begs the question as to why they let him out in the first place.

    They probably let him out to make space for a dangerous, hardened
    first-time marijuana inhaler.

Kind of makes me weary of our country's "Tonto, Frankenstein and Tarzan"
morality:

"Marijuana BAD!"

    .442
    
    I don't think there are very many people who favor killing innocent
    people.  I think we need to insure that the mistakes that happen are
    truly an exception and eliminated if at all possible.
    
    In this case, as with Polly Klass, there is no mistake.  This guy was
    idenitified by the girl.  she identified his car, gave a clear
    identification of this guy, and picked him out of a line-up.  there is
    no mistake here.
    
    Please explain why in this case this guy should take one more breath? 
    He's a continual criminal, has murdered an innocent person, and this
    girl is lucky she didn't get killed.  His next victim might not be so
    lucky.  Why should he stay alive until he naturally dies?
    
    There is no excuse to oppose the death penalty in this case.
    

    "Didn't think you'd be sleeping with Vlad The Impaler?
     You shouldn't have become a first-time marijuana inhaler!"

    
      Well, OF COURSE we should consider cost/benefit, including
     people who get wrongly executed, people killed by people who
     would have been executed, etc.
    
      ALL policies result in deaths.  There is no escape, no guilt-free
     way to have a society.  It is a calculus, a problem of finding a
     minimum of cost, for a maximum of benefit.  But no matter where
     you find that point, and implement it, innocent people will die
     because the justice system is at that place instead of some other.
    
      bb

> Gee, can you come up with any more metaphors and literary allusions to
> "support" your position?
> Or did you use up your quota of free clues asking people where to find
> all these neat catchphrases?

What does this have to do with the issue? So I wax (sp?) absurdly profound
sometimes (not) :-}). Does this somehow invalidate legitimate concerns?

>  see an innocent person victimized like the ones we've been discussing

Apparently seeing an innocent person go to the chair bothers you less.

   herr braucher, the voice of reason.  it may be an obvious concept,
   but certainly seems to escape many.

>Apparently seeing an innocent person go to the chair bothers you less.

Absolutely. Simply, and purely, because it statistically happens far less
often than the other victimization which results from letting the criminally
violent continue to live. Aren't the deaths of fewer innocents better than
the deaths of more innocents? What you're after is the continuance of the
status quo, the deaths of more rather then few.

No thankyou, sir.

    Agree with LJ.  The rate of death on the street far exceeds the
    possibility of convicting the wrong person.  
    
    As a matter of odds, I am willing to take that chance.  Your way is
    obviously screwing everything up!

So what's the rate of murders perpetrated by people who are locked up for
life without parole?

Non answer.  Or are you claiming that the rate of execution of innocents is
zero?

This was the question:

So what's the rate of murders perpetrated by people who are locked up for
life without parole?


This was the answer:

non zero. What that means is that the answer is bigger than zero. It
happens.

TTom

"Non-zero" is not an answer to "what's the rate?," particularly when it's
obvious that it's non-zero.

.456

> Please explain why in this case this guy should take one more breath? 
> He's a continual criminal, has murdered an innocent person, and this
> girl is lucky she didn't get killed.  His next victim might not be so
> lucky.  Why should he stay alive until he naturally dies?
>  
> There is no excuse to oppose the death penalty in this case.

There are good arguments in favor of the death penalty, and perhaps this is
one. Guys like this are the real reason for the existence of the DP. In the 
cases where the crimes are horrific, and there in NO DOUBT about guilt, my
conviction wavers, I must admit.

Many such crimes occur, with varying degrees of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances. It is the unfortunate truth that some terrible crimes result
in no DP, with others of a less heinous nature do get the DP. Soft judges,
stupid juries, whatever. The DP is not applied evenly. If it could be 100%
even (for the extreme crimes - no minor assaults), and 100% correct in all
cases, I might feel OK about it.

But we all know that such perfection is not even remotely possible. Given my
feelings about the execution of innocents, I must therefore oppose the DP on
principle.

That does not mean I favor parole of violent repeat offenders, easy time in
the slammer, criminal rights over victim rights, etc. I would like to see
major prison reform, to make it truly something to be avoided, including
getting the petty drug offenders out of there. And if Joe Scumbag gets his
brains blown out by his intended victim, great. It's the methodical,
error-prone state machine which grinds up the not-guilty that I object to.

    .468
    
    > That does not mean I favor parole of violent repeat offenders, easy
    > time in the slammer, criminal rights over victim rights, etc.
    
    I would venture to say that there are more victims of violent crimes
    committed inside prisons than there are innocent persons who have been
    incarcerated.
    
    Until you can guarantee that a violent offender in the slammer is
    absolutely prevented for all time from inflicting himself on any other
    person in any way, all the way from making an unwilling weaker con into
    his "lover" up to murdering other cons or guards, your "prison reform"
    is so much hogwash.

    .468
    
    What is the difference in life inprison with no parole and the death
    penalty interms of an innocent person being involved?  You assume that
    the innocent person in prison for life will be released before he dies.
    
    A bit of an error of logic.
    

    
    	"Will be released" or "can be released"?
    
    	There's a difference.
    

    .471
    
    Doesn't really make a difference if the guy's dead.
    
    My position remains the same.  Everyone who advocates life in prison
    without parole is in favor of the death peanlty, they just want it to
    be done over a longer period of time.
    
    If an innocent guy gets killed in prison, he's just as dead.  If an
    innocent guy dies of natural causes, he's just as dead.
    
    You will never have a system that is 100% perfect and to insist that
    society accept an ever-increasing amount of crime because of BHL is
    indefensible.
    

    
    	If a mistake had been made, but discovered at a later date,
    	a "lifer" can be released.  A person who was fried in the
    	electric chair 10 years ago can not be released.
    

.470

> What is the difference in life inprison with no parole and the death
> penalty interms of an innocent person being involved?  You assume that

How can you ask this? If it were you falsely convicted and were facing either
life or execution, would you really ask "What is the difference"? As I said
in topic 44, do you think a inmate's family would agree that he is better
off dead? 

BTW, what's BHL? It's not related to BWL is it?

BHL=Bleeding Heart Liberal

Thanx. I thought so.

.472

> You will never have a system that is 100% perfect and to insist that
> society accept an ever-increasing amount of crime because of BHL is
> indefensible.

I take exception to the idea that:

1. because one opposes the death penalty, he/she is automatically a subscriber
   of BHLism. I lean towards libertarian views on most social issues, very
   strong on 2nd amendent, anti-fed-police, relatively conservative on fiscal
   issues. Heck, I even like nuclear power. And no one hates Clinton like I do. 
   (Well ... in the 'Box, ... I probably have serious competition. I guess I
   agree with Jack D. on two things. Never mind.) Because I don't like giving 
   the gov't the power to kill people, that makes me a BWL? Pullleeeezzze.

2. rejecting the DP equates to "insisting that society accept an
   ever-increasing amount of crime". The deterrent effect of the DP is very
   much debatable, and the DP as currently used removes an insignificant 
   number of scumbags. I don't accept the assumption that no DP = soft on
   crime.

Question: are there no-DP countries, e.g., in Europe, that are also known to
have tough criminal justice systems/tough prisons? How would the
inmate-on-inmate murder rate, etc. compare with ours? 

>that makes me a BWL? Pullleeeezzze.

Now I'm confused. What's a BWL?

>						It's the methodical,
>error-prone state machine which grinds up the not-guilty that I object to.

The approach to solving this problem has been proposed numerous times,
though you continue to ignore it. 

I do not accept as fact that it must be methodically error-prone. And as you
cannot prove that to be the case, you should at least have the decency to
prefix "methodical" with "mythical",

The voting populace can see to it that your nightmare never materializes,
regardless of your faith in that prospect. That you'd prefer to continue
to subject us all to the nightmare we've faced for decades is telling.

    There is no way to solve the problem of overzealous authorities under
    great pressure to catch the perp of a really offensive violent crime,
    who convict the wrong person.  The biggest problem with that is that
    an innocent person has his/her life ruined.  The 2nd biggest problem is
    that the *real* perp remains at large to commit more such crimes.
    
    The death penalty will not help solve that problem.  It will in fact
    help to cover up prosecutorial mistakes, and thereby add to the
    problem.
    
    And if we think we need the DP to prevent dangerous people from being
    released, then we have our heads up.  There are much easier ways to
    solve that problem more effectively.

> There are much easier ways to solve that problem more effectively.

[psssst! Don't tell anyone, but they're not working.]

     Z   The death penalty will not help solve that problem.  It will in fact
     Z   help to cover up prosecutorial mistakes, and thereby add to the
     Z   problem.
    
    Pssst....don't tell this one either but solving the problem is
    secondary to meting out justice...

    .474
    
    Apparently you missed my point.  Let me try again.  If a person is
    convicted of a crime incorrectly and is sentenced to life in prison
    without parole and dies in prison.  Afterwards it is found that he was
    innocent, it doesn't matter whether he was executed the next day or 5
    years later, he's still dead.  Refusing to use the death penalty when
    appropriate will do nothing in this instance.
    
    Also, insisting that a system be 100% perfect before using it is
    ridiculous.  Just about 100% of prison inamtes claim they are innocent. 
    since some of them may be right do we not incarcerate anyone because
    some might be innocent?
    
    There are way too many obvious cases i.e., Speck, Gacy, Dahmer, etc
    where the guilt of the person is not in question and there is no valid
    reason to allow these people to continue to exist.
    
    Some have claimed well just make prison tougher and that will solve the
    problem.  Well, first of all there are way too many BHLs that will
    oppose any effort to make prison tougher.  the next being, that unless
    you are going to allow daily torture of the Specks, Gacys, Dahmers of
    the world, prison will still be better than being dead.  these people
    can still see the sun rise, smell the fresh air, eat a meal.  There
    victims are rotting in the ground and in most cases got there in a very
    brutal fashion.
    
    You can rest assured that if I am ever wrongly accused and face the
    death panalty you can bet that I will be screaming from the rooftops. 
    that will, however, not change my opinion that Speck, Gacy, Dahmer et.
    al. should be executed.  If 10,000 Gacys die and I happen to go as an
    innocent, I personally will very unhappy, but all of the victims and
    future victims of those 10,000 will sleep better and our society will
    be safer.
    

    >>There are much easier ways to solve that problem more effectively.
    
    > [psssst! Don't tell anyone, but they're not working.]
    
    Of course they aren't, since they aren't being used.
    

>    Of course they aren't, since they aren't being used.

And why is that? Why aren't all of the BHL's opposed to the death penalty
doing their damnedest to see to it that every stop is pulled out in an
effort to keep capital punishment from becoming more prevalent?

    >Why aren't all...doing their damnedest ...
    
    Well, I am.

    >Pssst....don't tell this one either but solving the problem is
    >secondary to meting out justice...
    
    I understand that.  As long as *someone* fries, then everyone
    feels properly avenged.
    
    Maybe we should have official scapegoats who would fill in
    whenever they can't get a conviction.
    
    In addition to local, state, and federal elected officials that
    we now have we could add the office of "Scapegoat".  We could
    elect people to the office.  It would be kinda backwards from
    normal elections, where folks vote for whomever they like the
    best, and in this case people would nominate and vote for the
    candidates they *hate* the most.
    
    Service would be compulsory for a 4-year term, and any time
    during that term that a scapegoat is needed, the sitting
    Scapegoat would be taken for incarceration, beheading, torture,
    sparky, or whatever people deem appropriate.  S/he would have
    been legally declared to be a non-person, so we could do
    anything we want with 'em, and revenue from selling TV rights
    would add lots of $$ to the treasure, and pay off the nat'l
    debt while the national desire for revenge is fully satisfied.
    

It's not about "avenging".
   It's not about "avenging".
      It's not about "avenging".
         It's not about "avenging".
             It's not about "avenging".
			.
			   .
			      .

   .488  an interesting avenging angle.

These are dyer straits.

    >It's not about "avenging".
    
    Well that's good.  But if it's not about "avenging", then it must
    be about making the world safer by getting rid of the bad guy, and
    if that's the case then frying the wrong person (which you will 
    never know once he's fried) will only cover up the fact that the
    real perp is still out there.
    
    That's one of the 3 reasons I'm against the DP.

Round and round we go.

It's statistically the case that more often than not the guilty party
is convicted. If they are also executed there is zero probability that
they will commit violence again. The innocents convicted and executed
are "noise" in the system - statistically insignificant. Especially
in comparison to the number of innocents suffering at the hands of the guilty,
including the guilty that have second, third, fourth, and nth chances
to do it again.

Look - we ain't never going to agree on this, but I tell you what - if
and when one of mine is the victim of some violent scum, I'll be a knockin'
at your Kennebunk door lookin' for excuses.

    >Round and round we go.
    
    Hey, I thought it was my turn to lead!  You're steppin'
    on my feet! :-)
    
    >Look - we ain't never going to agree on this
    
    Maybe not, but in the meantime, while you're waiting to have the
    death penalty used more widely, why don't we just do something
    about keeping known violent offenders behind bars instead of
    letting them out to commit more violence?  Wouldn't that be
    better than nothing?
    

OK - you keep workin' on keeping them behind bars in such a manner that
they _CANNOT_ commit more violence upon anyone, and I'll keep workin'
on seeing to it that they're wasted. The difference being, of course,
that my method of prevent their further violent activities will be
the more successful one.

    I think there's a sheriff in Arizona who's saving his taxpayers about
    $100K per year simply by NOT serving coffee in his jails/prisons.
    
    

    >my method of prevent their further violent activities will be
    >the more successful one.
    
    Only if you can get people to use it more.  'Course that applies to my
    method as well.  You'd think folks would be willing to use at least one
    of those two methods, wouldn't ya?

    >I think there's a sheriff in Arizona who's saving his taxpayers about
    >$100K per year simply by NOT serving coffee in his jails/prisons.
    
    Maybe we should give 'em all the coffee, sugar, grease, fat, tobacco,
    alcohol, and drugs they want.  Everyone seems to think all those
    things'll kill you anyway...  :-)
    
    How about instead of olde sparkie we let everyone on death row have sex
    with an aids infected person.  It'd be a lot more fun for them, the
    time delay would be no longer than it would be for all their appeals
    anyway, and if it turned out they were wrongly convicted, well we'd
    just say we're sorry, but they're statistically insignificant.
    
    Hah!  See that, there's a happy solution to any problem if you just
    think about it long enough...

>    How about instead of olde sparkie we let everyone on death row have sex
>    with an aids infected person.  It'd be a lot more fun for them, the

I think they're already doing that, although I believe half the parties
involved wouldn't necessarily call it fun.

   Z     Well that's good.  But if it's not about "avenging", then it must
   Z     be about making the world safer by getting rid of the bad guy, and
   Z     if that's the case then frying the wrong person (which you will 
   Z     never know once he's fried) will only cover up the fact that the
   Z     real perp is still out there.
   
I see it as a statistics thing.  If three more people are definitely going
    to die on the streets of Dorchester vs. one out of every 500 people
    dying on the EChair as an innocent, I'd rather take a chance as a
    citizen of being mistakingly convicted.
    
    -Jack

    Fryers Club Snarfola

    first they shave the person's head and a portion of one
    leg, near the ankle.  then they apply something they call
    'electro-creme' to the person's head.
    
    when seated in the chair, they attach two electrodes to
    the top of the shaved head, and another one to his leg.
    
    2000 volts pass through the electrodes into the head.  the
    brain fries so that pain signals returning to the brain are
    not registered.  the body contracts, relaxes, contracts again.
    
    this is not barbaric?

    .501
    
    Who cares?  Are you saying that Gacy or Dahmer, et. al., need to be
    treated in a more humane fashion?
    

    
    	Right now I don't think Dahmer is too concerned about how he's
    	treated.
    

    >this is not barbaric?
    
     Relative to what? Puccini? The Mona Lisa? The Alpha chip? What they
    did to their victims?

    Z    2000 volts pass through the electrodes into the head.  the
    Z    brain fries so that pain signals returning to the brain are
    Z    not registered.  the body contracts, relaxes, contracts again.
    
    The sobering reality would hopefully deter somebody from carrying out
    their intent.  However, the mode of execution and its barbarism is not
    something of concern to me.
    
    -Jack

    the argument of relativity may work for you.  it
    doesn't for me.  countering an act of barbarity with
    another act of barbarity is senseless to me.  
     

>    The sobering reality would hopefully deter somebody from carrying out
>    their intent.  However, the mode of execution and its barbarism is not
>    something of concern to me.

Actually, probably not.  One really striking feature of sociopaths (other
than the fact that they're sociopaths) is their total inability to consider
the consequences of their actions.  They may be able to explain to you in
gruesome detail what an execution might be like, and why they wouldn't want
to have one, but it's not going to be the sort of thing going through their
minds when they're off doing something stupid.  Therein lies a large part
of the problem.

    
    	And the ones that do consider the consequences very probably
    	wouldn't even consider the fact that they will be caught.
    

    The real oddity here is that we could probably poke around in
    their frontal lobes and ensure that all they wanted to do for the rest
    of their lives was clean the john at McDonalds.  End of problem, no
    need to kill them.  For some reason society baulks at the one solution,
    but not at the other.

Bzzt!

Poking around with the pre-frontal lobes would create even more impulse
control problems.

Not sure where I'd start with psychosurgery, but I don't think it'd involve
disconnecting the one bit of self control they might have.

    Psychosurgery?  how crude.  If I wanted something that unreliable I'd
    just turn down the voltage to ECT levels and administer a few dozen
    er, treatments.  No, m'dear - a good long course of extreme behaviour
    modification, Clockwork Orange style.

re; barbarism... hey, if it takes one scumbag's life.

    What's wrong with barbarism?  I've gotten my hair cut many times!

    
    	Yeah, but look at it!!
    
    	NOW do you see why it should be illegal??
    

    Oh!  I see what you mean...
    
    Ban Barbarism!  All of 'em!
    
    	Barbara Walters, Barbarella, Barbie, Babar, Bar Bills, Bar Codes,
    	etc...
    
    Well, maybe not Barbarella.

	And lets not forget....





                                 barbapappas!

    Now ya got me, whodat?

	It was a cartoon that is on in the VERY early mornings at one time. It
was about these blobs that could change shape. 

    Ah.  Blobs that can change shape.  Lots of those around...  :-)

    <== Does everything have to be a Clinton note?

    <- it's the General Politico note. :-)

    
    oh well, it's been a while....
    
    I put in .0 way back when... anyway the update is we'll know
    whether he'll fry or not very soon, within days reportedly.
    
    All the sympaticos are done, y'know "he's not a bad guy", "he had
    a bad childhood", yada, yada, yada. The DA will have his summary
    next week I think. Learn something funny (interesting?) today:
    
    If the jury comes up with the death penalty, the judge could
    demote it to life; but NOT vice-versa (I think I got that in 
    the right order). Is this just a Calif. quirk?
    
    Well, noters... sayonara from me! This concludes my 7+ years
    with DEC/Digital. My best wishes to all.
    
    - Ashikin

    Bye Ashikin...you beloved thing you...

    
    CNN reports that the jury has recommended the death penalty for
    Richard Davis, convicted killer of Polly Klaas.
    
    

    I recommend he gets his bird finger sliced off, and THEN the needle.
    -ss

    .525
    
    First time I ever agreed with you.

    
    	I say we kill him, AND THEN we torture him!!
    

    Maybe he just had it real bad as a kid.  Let's not condemn him now. Is
    it really his fault?  As he was flipping off this cruel society, I
    could see the hurt in his face. He was scared.  Let's rehabilitate this
    man, and make the best out this mishap. He can't be that bad of a guy.
    Let's all just try get to know this poor person, and maybe we'll
    understand.
    -ss

    I say we hang him, then we kill him, and then we torture him!
    
    
    

    
    	Ahhhh ... another "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" fan!!
    

    Hmm, how about how they killed Wallace (the real way, not as gently as
    Mel got it in the movie).  Trouble is I cann't think of 4-5 places in
    the world that would accept the  portions.
    

    RE: Shawn, indeed that movie cracks me up every time I watch it.
    
    
    Mike