Geez, what a headline.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/07/05/525405.html

Father's hanging tore family apart

Two sisters are reunited 53 years after their father was hanged in London.
PATRICK MALONEY, Free Press Reporter 2004-07-05 02:06:11

Fifty years have passed since a stray bullet killed a Londoner and sealed the
fate of the city's last hanged man, ripping two young sisters apart in the
process. Now a local historian, his website and two curious teenagers have
somehow pulled them back together.

Such is the story of Walter George Rowe, a story that has found an improbably
happy ending 53 years after his hanging in London.

"I didn't intend to rob that gas station or shoot anybody," Rowe, 29, said
after being condemned to hang in 1951 -- the last such punishment meted out in
the Forest City.

While Rowe was no murderer, he was a killer -- a small but accurate
distinction, given the events of Nov. 20, 1950. The day was filled with
small-time crime, but ended with Rowe firing a bullet through a closed door
inside a gas station at Hamilton Road and Adelaide Street, just as an
unsuspecting Clare Galbraith, 20, stood up in the next room.

Galbraith, shot in the stomach, died two days later. But when Rowe was put to
death the following June, the crime claimed two more victims: Rowe's daughters,
Georgina, 2, and one-year-old Judi.

* * *

Their mother was unable to care for both girls and Judi quickly was adopted by
a loving family in Hamilton, where Georgina and her mother settled.

The girls eventually learned of their father's fate, but did not know what had
become of the long-lost sister, despite going to rival high schools.

Judi, happy but curious, always wondered about her birth family.

Georgina, touched by tragedy and without any family once her mother died,
dreamed of the sister she couldn't remember.

The pair looked for each other for decades, but found nothing.

Until last month.

Christine Blenkhorn, a 19-year-old Fanshawe College student from Hamilton,
punched Walter George Rowe's name into an Internet search engine, as she had
often done, and found dotydocs.com, the website of London historian Chris Doty.
He had recently posted the stories of Rowe and other local hangings.

That same week, a 17-year-old high schooler in Portland, Ore. named Samara
entered the same name and found the same site.

Blenkhorn e-mailed Doty June 6 asking for further information on Rowe, noting
the dead man was the birth father of her mother, Judi.

At her daughter Samara's behest, Georgina Rowe e-mailed Doty from Portland June
15, looking for any information on her father and long-lost sister.

Taken aback, Doty re-read the e-mails. Could it be these two missives -- sent
within nine days of each other -- were from the sisters pulled apart five
decades earlier?

"I got confused," Doty said. "I asked Georgina, 'Have you ever heard of
Christine Blenkhorn?' and she said 'No.' I said, 'Well, you better contact her
because she's your niece.'

"This is definitely the best thing that's ever come out of my website."

Within hours, Georgina phoned her long-lost sister Judi in Hamilton.

"It's a miracle," Georgina said last week. "You don't know the number of times
I've typed my dad's name to see if there's anything there.

"My whole life, it's been a dream. I have no blood family and now I do."

Judi, who was stunned when Christine showed her Georgina's first e-mail, is in
much the same state of shock and celebration.

While she has four children, a husband and a loving adoptive family, Judi has
always wondered about her sister.

"When you don't know what your roots are, there's always something loose," she
said.

"We seem alike. It seems like we know each other."

They e-mail daily, learning about each other's lives (Judi works in a Hamilton
hospital, Georgina in a Portland cafe). They share many of the same views,
especially on who has made their reunion possible.

Their web-savvy daughters and Doty are getting all the thanks.

"Give Doty all the credit. I wish I could thank him in person," Georgina said.
"Without the internet, this would have never happened."

* * *

That day in 1950 when he killed Clare Galbraith, Walter George Rowe was in a
strangely romantic mood.

With an associate, Rowe stole four guns from a Windsor home with a plan: He
would sell the weapons and head to Toronto to reconcile with his wife and two
baby girls.

The plan quickly unravelled.

The Windsor cabbie who drove Rowe to London, John Jolly, figured he wasn't
getting paid and threatened to call police. Rowe forced him into the Supertest
gas station -- where a Country Style doughnut shop now stands -- and the
gunshot, reportedly meant to scare Jolly, hit Galbraith.

Rowe's lawyer, Bill Poole, couldn't persuade several appellate courts to
overturn his client's death sentence.

How do you hang a man, Poole asked, over an unintentional shooting?

While Georgina always longed to find Judi, she was reluctant in case her sister
had been shielded from their father's story.

"I used to always imagine all these scenarios when I could meet her and not
tell her about our father, in case she didn't know.

"I was afraid to find her in case they'd raised Judi and not told her."

Georgina had a difficult life. Her mother died in a 1963 car crash. Georgina
left Hamilton for California at 16. Her husband died of emphysema in 1991,
leaving her with only one relative, her daughter Samara.

With last month's reunion, however, that's changed forever.

"I've got a family. I've got people to send Christmas cards to. It's just
amazing," Georgina said.

To Judi, finding Georgina is the final piece of a puzzle.

She offers a simple glimpse into how a killing and a hanging a half-century ago
have somehow led the two to a happy ending after a lifetime of wondering.

"It just feels so complete," Judi said. "I always wanted a sister."




-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

In article <20040705085010.04727.00000980@mb-m10.aol.com>,
lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote:
Geez, what a headline. http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/07/05/525405.html Father's hanging tore family apart Fifty years have passed since a stray bullet killed a Londoner and sealed the fate of the city's last hanged man, ripping two young sisters apart in the process. Now a local historian, his website and two curious teenagers have somehow pulled them back together. Such is the story of Walter George Rowe, a story that has found an improbably happy ending 53 years after his hanging in London. "I didn't intend to rob that gas station or shoot anybody," Rowe, 29, said after being condemned to hang in 1951 -- the last such punishment meted out in the Forest City. While Rowe was no murderer, he was a killer -- a small but accurate distinction, given the events of Nov. 20, 1950. The day was filled with small-time crime, but ended with Rowe firing a bullet through a closed door inside a gas station at Hamilton Road and Adelaide Street, just as an unsuspecting Clare Galbraith, 20, stood up in the next room. Galbraith, shot in the stomach, died two days later. But when Rowe was put to death the following June, the crime claimed two more victims: Rowe's daughters, Georgina, 2, and one-year-old Judi.




Turns out that Clare Galbraith is still dead, too.

As for the Rowe girls, too bad their daddy was a murderer (as well as a
killer). But that's what he was.





steve

Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message news:<swhite-2F4D9B.17124406072004@news.uchicago.edu>... In article <20040705085010.04727.00000980@mb-m10.aol.com>, lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote: Geez, what a headline. http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/07/05/525405.html Father's hanging tore family apart Fifty years have passed since a stray bullet killed a Londoner and sealed the fate of the city's last hanged man, ripping two young sisters apart in the process. Now a local historian, his website and two curious teenagers have somehow pulled them back together. Such is the story of Walter George Rowe, a story that has found an improbably happy ending 53 years after his hanging in London. "I didn't intend to rob that gas station or shoot anybody," Rowe, 29, said after being condemned to hang in 1951 -- the last such punishment meted out in the Forest City. While Rowe was no murderer, he was a killer -- a small but accurate distinction, given the events of Nov. 20, 1950. The day was filled with small-time crime, but ended with Rowe firing a bullet through a closed door inside a gas station at Hamilton Road and Adelaide Street, just as an unsuspecting Clare Galbraith, 20, stood up in the next room. Galbraith, shot in the stomach, died two days later. But when Rowe was put to death the following June, the crime claimed two more victims: Rowe's daughters, Georgina, 2, and one-year-old Judi. Turns out that Clare Galbraith is still dead, too. As for the Rowe girls, too bad their daddy was a murderer (as well as a killer). But that's what he was.

You are so wrong. (And so typically judgemental. Why am I not
surprised?) He killed a poor, unfortunate, innocent woman - BUT he was
not a murderer. By today's standards in England (and Ireland, and most
of the rest of the 'civilised world') he would have been convicted of
manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. He certainly would not have
been sentenced to death.

The "Rowe girls" as you call them, are not the daughters of a
murderer, but of a foolish young man who made a mistake, but who was
not given any opportunity to make restitution (except with his life)
and whose death *at least* heralded the end of the death penalty. Oh
yes, of course, I exaggerate - I should have qualified that and said
"...in most places".

This has a natural lead-in to what Austin Sarat said (When the State
Kills): the death penalty degrades the democratic spirit...

In the US one innocent person (at least) is executed for every seven.
I suppose - like GW Bush - you would rationalise that in some way.

Helen
steve

>Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: helicon@eircom.net (helicon)Date: 7/9/2004 7:06 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <a9c1bada.0407091706.529d8d94@posting.google.com>
In the US one innocent person (at least) is executed for every seven.I suppose - like GW Bush - you would rationalise that in some way.Helen

Sorry, Helen. Do you have proof to back that up? I don't mean conspiracy
websites, but actual factual statistics?

I don't mean by the convicted sentence being interpreted by Irish law, or
British law, or some Scandinavian country law.

In the US, different states hold different interpretations of the crimes that
constitute the death penalty.

I'm certainly not advocating the death penalty, but I'd really like to hear
your stats. Were the 1 in 7 suddenly exonerated after their deaths? Please,
I'd like to see the cases that back this up.

xoxoxo


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

In article <a9c1bada.0407091706.529d8d94@posting.google.com>,
helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:

Turns out that Clare Galbraith is still dead, too. As for the Rowe girls, too bad their daddy was a murderer (as well as a killer). But that's what he was. You are so wrong. (And so typically judgemental. Why am I not surprised?) He killed a poor, unfortunate, innocent woman - BUT he was not a murderer.


Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony --
unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder.

By today's standards in England (and Ireland, and most of the rest of the 'civilised world') he would have been convicted of manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. He certainly would not have been sentenced to death.


By today's standards in the U.S., where we're civilized AND just to
murder victims, he would have been convicted of third degree murder and
would have gotten 10 to 25 years in the slammer.

This has a natural lead-in to what Austin Sarat said (When the State Kills): the death penalty degrades the democratic spirit...


Sometimes it preserves the democratic spirit by removing those who would
knife the innocents.

In the US one innocent person (at least) is executed for every seven.


That's propaganda, not fact. I'm not surprised you quote it.




steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-787957.23455209072004@netnews.comcast.net... In article <a9c1bada.0407091706.529d8d94@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: Turns out that Clare Galbraith is still dead, too. As for the Rowe girls, too bad their daddy was a murderer (as well as a killer). But that's what he was. You are so wrong. (And so typically judgemental. Why am I not surprised?) He killed a poor, unfortunate, innocent woman - BUT he was not a murderer. Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony -- unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder.

Well big deal. Most killings, even felony killings don't end up in a death
sentence. By today's standards in England (and Ireland, and most of the rest of the 'civilised world') he would have been convicted of manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. He certainly would not have been sentenced to death. By today's standards in the U.S., where we're civilized AND just to murder victims, he would have been convicted of third degree murder and would have gotten 10 to 25 years in the slammer. This has a natural lead-in to what Austin Sarat said (When the State Kills): the death penalty degrades the democratic spirit... Sometimes it preserves the democratic spirit by removing those who would knife the innocents.

There is no such thing as an innocent. People are born in sin and die in
sin. It just takes some longer than others. In the US one innocent person (at least) is executed for every seven. That's propaganda, not fact. I'm not surprised you quote it.

I think that rate is off, but there are definitely plenty of people who are
innocent or at least guilty of lesser crimes. In the case that overturned
the old Ohio death penalty, Lockett v Ohio, 4 people wren involved in the
commission of the murder. The trigger man got a light sentence. Two 2 who
were least involved were both sentenced to death, a brother and his retarded
sister. In the case I worked in most heavily, Beeman v Ohio, we went back
to court pro se and won. The State of Ohio to this day refuses to publicly
acknowledge the defeat saying that no one has ever been convicted of capital
murder in Ohio and then been found cleared on appeal. Ashtabula County
even had the real confessed killer, but never moved on it since he
wasrumoured to be the son of a local police chief and he most defiitely was
a paid snitch.


Marley steve

>Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 7/9/2004 11:00 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <ZJKHc.224754$Gx4.146704@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
I think that rate is off, but there are definitely plenty of people who areinnocent or at least guilty of lesser crimes. In the case that overturnedthe old Ohio death penalty, Lockett v Ohio, 4 people wren involved in thecommission of the murder. The trigger man got a light sentence. Two 2 whowere least involved were both sentenced to death, a brother and his retardedsister. In the case I worked in most heavily, Beeman v Ohio, we went backto court pro se and won. The State of Ohio to this day refuses to publiclyacknowledge the defeat saying that no one has ever been convicted of capitalmurder in Ohio and then been found cleared on appeal. Ashtabula Countyeven had the real confessed killer, but never moved on it since hewasrumoured to be the son of a local police chief and he most defiitely wasa paid snitch.Marley

Hey, I'm not disputing that mistakes happen. I just want to see
cases/stats/facts before I'll believe it's 1 in 7.




-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040710010802.23916.00001471@mb-m28.aol.com...Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 7/9/2004 11:00 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <ZJKHc.224754$Gx4.146704@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>I think that rate is off, but there are definitely plenty of people who
areinnocent or at least guilty of lesser crimes. In the case that
overturnedthe old Ohio death penalty, Lockett v Ohio, 4 people wren involved in thecommission of the murder. The trigger man got a light sentence. Two 2
whowere least involved were both sentenced to death, a brother and his
retardedsister. In the case I worked in most heavily, Beeman v Ohio, we went
backto court pro se and won. The State of Ohio to this day refuses to
publiclyacknowledge the defeat saying that no one has ever been convicted of
capitalmurder in Ohio and then been found cleared on appeal. Ashtabula Countyeven had the real confessed killer, but never moved on it since hewasrumoured to be the son of a local police chief and he most defiitely
wasa paid snitch.Marley Hey, I'm not disputing that mistakes happen. I just want to see cases/stats/facts before I'll believe it's 1 in 7.

I wasn't arguing with you--I think the rate that Helen gave is way off. The
anti-death penalty movement in the US has been so feminized and
de-balled--like most reforms, that I don't know if it can recover.

Marley ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend
will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

>Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 7/9/2004 11:11 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <zUKHc.224799$Gx4.91193@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20040710010802.23916.00001471@mb-m28.aol.com...Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 7/9/2004 11:00 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <ZJKHc.224754$Gx4.146704@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>I think that rate is off, but there are definitely plenty of people whoareinnocent or at least guilty of lesser crimes. In the case thatoverturnedthe old Ohio death penalty, Lockett v Ohio, 4 people wren involved in thecommission of the murder. The trigger man got a light sentence. Two 2whowere least involved were both sentenced to death, a brother and hisretardedsister. In the case I worked in most heavily, Beeman v Ohio, we wentbackto court pro se and won. The State of Ohio to this day refuses topubliclyacknowledge the defeat saying that no one has ever been convicted ofcapitalmurder in Ohio and then been found cleared on appeal. Ashtabula Countyeven had the real confessed killer, but never moved on it since hewasrumoured to be the son of a local police chief and he most defiitelywasa paid snitch.Marley Hey, I'm not disputing that mistakes happen. I just want to see cases/stats/facts before I'll believe it's 1 in 7.I wasn't arguing with you--I think the rate that Helen gave is way off. Theanti-death penalty movement in the US has been so feminized andde-balled--like most reforms, that I don't know if it can recover.Marley

I agree. And I wasn't arguing with you either. LOL Hug? <snerk>


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040710012414.23916.00001474@mb-m28.aol.com...Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 7/9/2004 11:11 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <zUKHc.224799$Gx4.91193@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20040710010802.23916.00001471@mb-m28.aol.com... >Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apart >From: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net >Date: 7/9/2004 11:00 PM Mountain Standard Time >Message-id:
<ZJKHc.224754$Gx4.146704@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> > >I think that rate is off, but there are definitely plenty of people
whoare >innocent or at least guilty of lesser crimes. In the case thatoverturned >the old Ohio death penalty, Lockett v Ohio, 4 people wren involved in
the >commission of the murder. The trigger man got a light sentence. Two
2who >were least involved were both sentenced to death, a brother and hisretarded >sister. In the case I worked in most heavily, Beeman v Ohio, we wentback >to court pro se and won. The State of Ohio to this day refuses topublicly >acknowledge the defeat saying that no one has ever been convicted ofcapital >murder in Ohio and then been found cleared on appeal. Ashtabula
County >even had the real confessed killer, but never moved on it since he >wasrumoured to be the son of a local police chief and he most
defiitelywas >a paid snitch. > > >Marley Hey, I'm not disputing that mistakes happen. I just want to see cases/stats/facts before I'll believe it's 1 in 7.I wasn't arguing with you--I think the rate that Helen gave is way off.
Theanti-death penalty movement in the US has been so feminized andde-balled--like most reforms, that I don't know if it can recover.Marley I agree. And I wasn't arguing with you either. LOL Hug? <snerk>

Yes, Big Hugs for my Big Girl!

Marley ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend
will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040709234851.19192.00001471@mb-m06.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: helicon@eircom.net (helicon)Date: 7/9/2004 7:06 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <a9c1bada.0407091706.529d8d94@posting.google.com>In the US one innocent person (at least) is executed for every seven.I suppose - like GW Bush - you would rationalise that in some way.Helen Sorry, Helen. Do you have proof to back that up? I don't mean conspiracy websites, but actual factual statistics? I don't mean by the convicted sentence being interpreted by Irish law, or British law, or some Scandinavian country law. In the US, different states hold different interpretations of the crimes that constitute the death penalty. I'm certainly not advocating the death penalty, but I'd really like to hear your stats. Were the 1 in 7 suddenly exonerated after their deaths? Please, I'd like to see the cases that back this up.

Oops! You are absolutely correct of course, Marla. My abject apologies
to all. I should have said "vindicated" or "exonerated", NOT
"executed". I plead the lateness of the hour when posting, together
with a few glasses of Shiraz. :-)

The 'one in seven' refers to the people who had been convicted and
condemned, and who were on Death Row, but who had fortunately been
acquitted before they could be executed. It is highly likely that 'one
in seven' is a very conservative number, bearing in mind that many
people never have an opportunity to prove their innocence once they
are judged guilty. There is a racist and economic element that must be
considered, too.

When GW Bush was Governor of Texas he oversaw the state killing of 152
people. Between 1976 and 1998 Texas executed 167 people. The next
State in rank was Virgina, where they executed a 'mere' 60.

"The list of ways that the criminal justice system misfires could be
extended, but some numbers tell the most serious story: In the 24
years since the resumption of executions under Supreme Court
guidelines, about 620 have occurred, but 87 condemned persons - one
for every seven executed - had their convictions vacated by
exonerating evidence. In eight of these cases, and in many more
exonerations not involving death row, DNA evidence was conclusive.

One inescapable inference from these numbers is that some of the 620
persons executed were innocent. Which is why, after the exoneration of
13 prisoners on death row in Illinois since 1987, Governor George
Ryan, a Republican, has imposed a moratorium on executions."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/publications/evidenceiii/articles/will.htm

Another couple:

http://www.mikefarrell.org/Farrell/Reevalution.html

http://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/northwestern/spring99/convictions.htm

Once again, sorry for the mistake - but at least mine was correctable.
For those people whose innocence was discovered or admitted AFTER they
were executed, an 'oops moment' has a certain irretrievable finality
about it.

Helen


xoxoxo ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote I think that rate is off, but there are definitely plenty of people who are innocent or at least guilty of lesser crimes. In the case that overturned the old Ohio death penalty, Lockett v Ohio, 4 people wren involved in the commission of the murder. The trigger man got a light sentence. Two 2 who were least involved were both sentenced to death, a brother and his retarded sister. In the case I worked in most heavily, Beeman v Ohio, we went back to court pro se and won. The State of Ohio to this day refuses to publicly acknowledge the defeat saying that no one has ever been convicted of capital murder in Ohio and then been found cleared on appeal. Ashtabula County even had the real confessed killer, but never moved on it since he wasrumoured to be the son of a local police chief and he most defiitely was a paid snitch.


Here's my contribution to this debate: A link to CBS News...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/06/12/deathpenalty/main204759.shtml

(I've also posted excerpts from the text below for discussion
purposes.)

Rupa

"Death Penalty Mistakes The Rule

"WASHINGTON, June 12, 2000

""It's not one case, it's thousands of cases. It's not one state, it's
almost all of the states."
James Liebman, the study's lead author


"(CBS) A new study finds that legal mistakes are not the exception,
but the rule, in death-penalty cases nationwide, CBS News
Correspondent Bob McNamara reports.

"Columbia University researchers tracked all capital convictions from
1973 to 1995, nearly 5,800 cases. They found serious errors in 68
percent.

"Two-thirds of death penalty cases that were appealed were successful,
report researchers who contend the nation's capital punishment system
is "collapsing under the weight of its own mistakes."

"It's not one case, it's thousands of cases. It's not one state, it's
almost all of the states," says Columbia University law professor
James Liebman, the lead author of the study. "You're creating a very
high risk that some errors are going to get through the process."

"There are so many mistakes, the authors express grave doubt that the
appeals process can catch them all.

"The Columbia study said only 5 percent of the 5,760 death sentences
imposed from 1973 through 1995 were carried out.

"The study, written with Professor Jeffrey Fagan and graduate student
Valerie West, examined 4,578 death penalty cases in which at least one
round of appeals was completed. Of those cases, a state or federal
court threw out the conviction or death sentence in 68 percent of the
cases.

"Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center, a group
critical of how capital punishment is administered, said, "It's
amazing how many mistakes are being made...Those supporting the death
penalty might look at it and say this isn't getting us anywhere."

"Dudley Sharp of Justice for All, a Houston-based victims' rights
organization, said, "We all know that these cases get the closest
scrutiny imaginable...All systems can be improved and the death
penalty is certainly one of those systems." But, he added, there has
been no proof of an innocent person being executed in the past
century.

"The study said the rates of reversals varied widely from state to
state and among federal appellate circuits."

"Liebman said the 68 percent reversal rate appears to have come down
some since 1995. A second study to be released later this year is
expected to look at those numbers, as well as the reasons why death
penalty convictions are thrown out.

"The main reasons appear to be incompetent defense lawyering and
misconduct by prosecutors, the Columbia study said.

"Capital punishment resumed in 1977 afer a Supreme Court-imposed
moratorium, and 313 people were executed by the end of 1995. In recent
years, the Supreme Court and Congress have acted to speed up death
penalty reviews in federal courts, and there have been 642 executions
to date."

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote Hey, I'm not disputing that mistakes happen. I just want to see cases/stats/facts before I'll believe it's 1 in 7.
Here's another link to a CNN article about the same study, with
something of a rebuttal from a U of Utah prof.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/11/death.penalty/

Relevant excerpts below.

Rupa

Reportedly error-prone death penalty system contends with multiple
attacks
June 11, 2000

(CNN) -- The death penalty came under intense fire Sunday with the
release of a major legal study, the publication of a newspaper
investigation and a proposal that the American Medical Association
endorse a national moratorium on executions.

Serious errors occur in nearly 70 percent of all trials leading to the
death penalty, according to the study, which was conducted by New
York's Columbia University Law School and based on a review of 4,600
cases.

The Chicago Tribune, meanwhile, reported Sunday that "dozens" of
inmates have been put to death in Texas despite unreliable evidence,
representation by disbarred or suspended attorneys, and psychiatrists'
testimony deemed "questionable."

The Tribune investigation drew a response from Gov. George W. Bush,
who said he "strongly disagrees" with its findings.

"Physicians ask for moratorium
American Medical Association members are asking the organization to
endorse a national moratorium on executions until controversial
questions -- including the availability of DNA evidence -- are
resolved.

"The principle of 'Do No Harm' is clearly violated when defendants are
executed for crimes they did not commit," says the resolution drafted
by the American Association of Public Health Physicians.

"The resolution was prepared for the policy-making House of Delegates
of the AMA, which opened its annual meeting Sunday. It is to be
considered Monday by a committee, which could refer it to the 550 AMA
delegates for a vote later in the week or seek more review.

"The possibility exists that in several states innocent individuals
may be executed because medical technology will not be made available
in time to prevent their death," the resolution says.

"The resolution also asks the AMA to recommend to the National
Governors' Association that all executions be stopped "until questions
concerning DNA evidence, the quality of legal representation, and the
harmful impact to the judicial system when innocent defendants are
executed, are answered."

"Among other things, the Tribune's investigation of the 131 executions
in Texas during Bush's tenure found that defense attorneys for 40 of
the inmates presented just one witness or no evidence at all during
the trials' sentencing phase.

"Many defense attorneys also failed to present evidence of a
defendant's brain damage, low IQ or childhood abuse, the Tribune
reported. All are factors that officials in Illinois and many other
states consider in pleas to halt an execution.

"Defendants in about one-third of the Texas cases were represented at
trial or initial appeal by an attorney who had been or later was
disbarred, suspended or otherwise sanctioned, the report said."

"'Collapsing under weight of mistakes'
The Columbia University study -- headed by law school professor James
Leibman, an opponent of the death penalty -- looked at how capital
punishment has been administered nationwide in the last three decades.

"Leibman's researchers found serious errors -- suppressed evidence,
judges' mistakes, jury bias -- in 68 of every 100 cases, leading
Leibman to conclude that the U.S. death penalty system is "collapsing
under the weight of its own mistakes."

" "The incentives are to generate a lot of death sentences, even ones
that don't belong there, even ones that you have to cut corners to get
there and then let someone else worry about it over the next nine
years, 10 years to see what happens," Leibman said.

"Bad lawyers are to blame, study finds
Leibman said incompetent counsel is to blame for many of the errors
his study found in death-penalty cases.

" "Thirty-seven percent of all the error that is being found in this
system is because of lawyers that are so bad that you can actually
prove that the outcome probably would have been different if you had
had a better lawyer," he said.

"It's because of the large number of errors made that appeals in death
sentence cases can be stretched out, he said. Only 1 to 2 percent of
death-row inmates are executed in any year, he said."

"Leibman's study, "A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases,
1973-1995," was based on research into court records of the three
stages of review of capital cases before they reached executive level
-- state direct appeal, state post-conviction and federal habeas
corpus.

"Beth Wilkinson, one of the prosecutors who tried Timothy McVeigh and
Terry Nichols for the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, said the study
would help provide a factual rather than an emotional basis for the
debate on capital punishment.

" "Only 5 percent of the death sentences were actually implemented,
and I think that would be difficult to accept if you were a victim or
believe in the system because there is supposed to be some finality,"
said Wilkinson, who favors the death penalty in limited circumstances.

" "It tells me that we probably are putting too many people on trial
for death sentences, cases that shouldn't have been death cases from
the outset."

" No wrongful executions found
Utah's Cassell argued that the use of the term "error rates" was
counterintuitive.

" "I think most Americans would be interested in the error rate in the
sense of how many people are wrongfully convicted, and that can be
derived from the study," Cassell said. "Based on that data, the
death-penalty system is more than 99 percent accurate in that more
than 99 percent of the time the system identifies the proper person.
There is no claim that anyone has been wrongfully executed." "

"No definitive cases have been shown of innocent people executed, but
according to the Death Penalty Information Center public policy group,
87 people have been released from death row since 1973. Eight were
cleared by DNA evidence, and the rest for a variety of reasons, from
recanted testimony to evidence overlooked or withheld to inadequate
legal representation."

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-787957.23455209072004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <a9c1bada.0407091706.529d8d94@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: Turns out that Clare Galbraith is still dead, too. As for the Rowe girls, too bad their daddy was a murderer (as well as a killer). But that's what he was. You are so wrong. (And so typically judgemental. Why am I not surprised?) He killed a poor, unfortunate, innocent woman - BUT he was not a murderer. Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony -- unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder.

Here, it is not. There are legal variations on the theme. You know,
like (for Catholics) the difference between a venial sin and a mortal
sin? :-)
By today's standards in England (and Ireland, and most of the rest of the 'civilised world') he would have been convicted of manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. He certainly would not have been sentenced to death. By today's standards in the U.S., where we're civilized AND just to murder victims, he would have been convicted of third degree murder and would have gotten 10 to 25 years in the slammer.

Well in Ireland - and in the UK, and elsewhere in Europe - there are
always other factors to be taken into consideration - not least the
intention (to kill) and having full knowledge of the consequences of
the actions. In this particular case it is self-evident that the gun
was discharged - carelessly, yes - but because the (unseen) young
woman stood up at the wrong time, she 'took' the randomly fired
bullet, and died. By any standards of law (including dare I say in the
US?) that was not *murder* but manslaughter. Therefore it did not
merit the death penalty - IMVHO.

This has a natural lead-in to what Austin Sarat said (When the State Kills): the death penalty degrades the democratic spirit... Sometimes it preserves the democratic spirit by removing those who would knife the innocents.

He didn't "knife" anyone. He discharged a gun that accidentally killed
someone.
In the US one innocent person (at least) is executed for every seven. That's propaganda, not fact. I'm not surprised you quote it.

Well, Steve, I hope that by now you will have read my apology for that
error. It should have read "exonerated" instead of "executed". It was
a major mistake, I agree, but my mistake was easily rectified.

Whether innocent or guilty, once a death sentence has been carried
out, there IS no apology, no comeback that will do any good.

I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the
USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death
penalty to kill its OWN citizens. Then, when I think that most of
those who are killed in this way are poor and/or black - or from other
minorities - then I *really* have to wonder how it is that the Civil
Rights Movement has won so litle ground.

Helen
steve

helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote in message news:<a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-787957.23455209072004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <a9c1bada.0407091706.529d8d94@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: > Turns out that Clare Galbraith is still dead, too. > > As for the Rowe girls, too bad their daddy was a murderer (as well > as a killer). But that's what he was. You are so wrong. (And so typically judgemental. Why am I not surprised?) He killed a poor, unfortunate, innocent woman - BUT he was not a murderer. Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony -- unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder. Here, it is not. There are legal variations on the theme. You know, like (for Catholics) the difference between a venial sin and a mortal sin? :-) By today's standards in England (and Ireland, and most of the rest of the 'civilised world') he would have been convicted of manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. He certainly would not have been sentenced to death. By today's standards in the U.S., where we're civilized AND just to murder victims, he would have been convicted of third degree murder and would have gotten 10 to 25 years in the slammer. Well in Ireland - and in the UK, and elsewhere in Europe - there are always other factors to be taken into consideration - not least the intention (to kill) and having full knowledge of the consequences of the actions. In this particular case it is self-evident that the gun was discharged - carelessly, yes - but because the (unseen) young woman stood up at the wrong time, she 'took' the randomly fired bullet, and died. By any standards of law (including dare I say in the US?) that was not *murder* but manslaughter. Therefore it did not merit the death penalty - IMVHO. This has a natural lead-in to what Austin Sarat said (When the State Kills): the death penalty degrades the democratic spirit... Sometimes it preserves the democratic spirit by removing those who would knife the innocents. He didn't "knife" anyone. He discharged a gun that accidentally killed someone. In the US one innocent person (at least) is executed for every seven. That's propaganda, not fact. I'm not surprised you quote it. Well, Steve, I hope that by now you will have read my apology for that error. It should have read "exonerated" instead of "executed". It was a major mistake, I agree, but my mistake was easily rectified. Whether innocent or guilty, once a death sentence has been carried out, there IS no apology, no comeback that will do any good. I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death penalty to kill its OWN citizens. Then, when I think that most of those who are killed in this way are poor and/or black - or from other minorities - then I *really* have to wonder how it is that the Civil Rights Movement has won so litle ground. Helen steve

Ya know Helen, I have yet to see people writing in and bashing your
country the way that you see fit to bash ours. Maybe you and Jackie
have more in common than you might have thought. You live where you
live and are proud of it, great, yippee, bully for you and stay there!
I am sure if I took the time to pull up enough websites I'd find many
things about your dear old country that wouldn't sit well with us
USians. You do not live here and due to that I don't believe you vote
so step off.

>Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: aspensky@knology.net (Debbie)Date: 7/11/2004 9:19 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <4b23522a.0407111919.61f13d31@posting.google.com>
Ya know Helen, I have yet to see people writing in and bashing yourcountry the way that you see fit to bash ours. Maybe you and Jackiehave more in common than you might have thought. You live where youlive and are proud of it, great, yippee, bully for you and stay there! I am sure if I took the time to pull up enough websites I'd find manythings about your dear old country that wouldn't sit well with usUSians. You do not live here and due to that I don't believe you voteso step off.

Oh God, go watch the Magdelene Sisters movie, if you can bear to get through
it. It seems the Irish are more brutal on themselves than they are capable of
being on any other country.

I really missed Helen when she wasn't able to post. Since then, she never
posts here unless it's something political. I killfile those threads right
away. I only caught her because she was responding to an article I posted (but
not actually responding to the article) or to Lainie.

I still miss you Helen. What the heck has crawled up your butt lately?


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

In article <a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>,
helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:

Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony -- unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder. Here, it is not.


Here, it is.

Well in Ireland - and in the UK, and elsewhere in Europe - there are always other factors to be taken into consideration - not least the intention (to kill) and having full knowledge of the consequences of the actions. In this particular case it is self-evident that the gun was discharged - carelessly, yes - but because the (unseen) young woman stood up at the wrong time, she 'took' the randomly fired bullet, and died. By any standards of law (including dare I say in the US?) that was not *murder* but manslaughter. Therefore it did not merit the death penalty - IMVHO.\


Back then it did, that was the point then. Third degree murder here does
not get the DP.

He didn't "knife" anyone. He discharged a gun that accidentally killed someone.


At the minimum, he wantonly and recklessly discharged the weapon.

I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death penalty to kill its OWN citizens.


We find freedom precious enough that those who murder and take away
other people's freedom to live should pay the price for it. I don't
apologize for the DP.





steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-6DBF3C.22413411072004@netnews.comcast.net... In article <a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony -- unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder. Here, it is not. Here, it is. Well in Ireland - and in the UK, and elsewhere in Europe - there are always other factors to be taken into consideration - not least the intention (to kill) and having full knowledge of the consequences of the actions. In this particular case it is self-evident that the gun was discharged - carelessly, yes - but because the (unseen) young woman stood up at the wrong time, she 'took' the randomly fired bullet, and died. By any standards of law (including dare I say in the US?) that was not *murder* but manslaughter. Therefore it did not merit the death penalty - IMVHO.\ Back then it did, that was the point then. Third degree murder here does not get the DP. He didn't "knife" anyone. He discharged a gun that accidentally killed someone. At the minimum, he wantonly and recklessly discharged the weapon. I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death penalty to kill its OWN citizens. We find freedom precious enough that those who murder and take away other people's freedom to live should pay the price for it. I don't apologize for the DP. steve

I'd rather live on a street full of killers, than a street full of prison
guards. Wnna talk about the KKK at Lucasville?

Marley

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-6DBF3C.22413411072004@netnews.comcast.net... In article <a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:
I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death penalty to kill its OWN citizens. We find freedom precious enough that those who murder and take away other people's freedom to live should pay the price for it. I don't apologize for the DP.

Unless you can afford a good lawyer, of course. Justice falls impartially
like rain, but the rich can afford umbrellas.

Ron steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-6DBF3C.22413411072004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony -- unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder. Here, it is not. Here, it is.

And in Canada, where the offence took place, it was and, more or less,
still is (albeit, employing slightly different terminology).
Well in Ireland - and in the UK, and elsewhere in Europe - there are always other factors to be taken into consideration - not least the intention (to kill) and having full knowledge of the consequences of the actions. In this particular case it is self-evident that the gun was discharged - carelessly, yes - but because the (unseen) young woman stood up at the wrong time, she 'took' the randomly fired bullet, and died. By any standards of law (including dare I say in the US?) that was not *murder* but manslaughter. Therefore it did not merit the death penalty - IMVHO.\ Back then it did, that was the point then. Third degree murder here does not get the DP.

In 1951, when Rowe was executed, Canada maintained a distinction
between murder and manslaughter. The penalty for murder was death.
The penalty for manslaughter was incarceration. Rowe was found guilty
of murder on the basis of the fact that he used a weapon during a
flight from the commission of an offence. There was no distinction (I
believe) between 1st and 2nd degree murder as there now is and, as
such, he was sentenced to death.

I believe the particular offence for which Rowe was found guilty was
subsequently found to be unconstitutional--so, today, Rowe would not
have been found guilty of murder for the same reason. He may,
however, still have been found guilty of murder, not manslaughter. I
don't know much about criminal law but, as I understand it, the
Canadian criminal justice system doesn't get itself into knots over
the issue of intent in murder cases as do the UK and Irish justice
systems (at least, not for the distinction between murder and
manslaughter).
He didn't "knife" anyone. He discharged a gun that accidentally killed someone. At the minimum, he wantonly and recklessly discharged the weapon. I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death penalty to kill its OWN citizens. We find freedom precious enough that those who murder and take away other people's freedom to live should pay the price for it. I don't apologize for the DP.

Good God, I was worried for a minute there that I was agreeing with
Steve. Luckily, I see we can still disagree about the death penalty.
It's wrong. So there.

Incidentally, after reading the article, I was more taken by the
logical jump that suggested the girl's adoption was a result of Rowe's
execution (the writer's allegation that the crime claimed two more
victims when Rowe was put to death). That may have been the case.
However, it's certainly possible that the younger daughter may have
been put up for adoption, even if Rowe hadn't been executed. In which
case, this meeting would not have been facilitated the way it was. At
least the citizens of London would have been spared this heartwarming
piece of garbage.

Tom
steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-6DBF3C.22413411072004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: Well in Ireland - and in the UK, and elsewhere in Europe - there are always other factors to be taken into consideration - not least the intention (to kill) and having full knowledge of the consequences of the actions. In this particular case it is self-evident that the gun was discharged - carelessly, yes - but because the (unseen) young woman stood up at the wrong time, she 'took' the randomly fired bullet, and died. By any standards of law (including dare I say in the US?) that was not *murder* but manslaughter. Therefore it did not merit the death penalty - IMVHO.\ Back then it did, that was the point then. Third degree murder here does not get the DP.

Here it *used to*. Now we don't have the DP. Remember, this was the last guy
hung in London, Ontario, Canada.

Of course with my new MP, who knows? On principle, he disagrees with
the death penalty due to innocents being convicted, but he would make
exceptions for multiple murderers & terrorists. Yeah, that's a very
consistent position.

Hmph.

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:6boIc.236414$Gx4.71288@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:steve-6DBF3C.22413411072004@netnews.comcast.net... In article <a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: > Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony -- > unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder. Here, it is not. Here, it is. Well in Ireland - and in the UK, and elsewhere in Europe - there are always other factors to be taken into consideration - not least the intention (to kill) and having full knowledge of the consequences of the actions. In this particular case it is self-evident that the gun was discharged - carelessly, yes - but because the (unseen) young woman stood up at the wrong time, she 'took' the randomly fired bullet, and died. By any standards of law (including dare I say in the US?) that was not *murder* but manslaughter. Therefore it did not merit the death penalty - IMVHO.\ Back then it did, that was the point then. Third degree murder here does not get the DP. He didn't "knife" anyone. He discharged a gun that accidentally killed someone. At the minimum, he wantonly and recklessly discharged the weapon. I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death penalty to kill its OWN citizens. We find freedom precious enough that those who murder and take away other people's freedom to live should pay the price for it. I don't apologize for the DP. steve I'd rather live on a street full of killers, than a street full of prison guards.


My guess is you wouldn't be "living" there long ;)

Kathy 1

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040711233754.15985.00000948@mb-m21.aol.com...Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: aspensky@knology.net (Debbie)Date: 7/11/2004 9:19 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <4b23522a.0407111919.61f13d31@posting.google.com>Ya know Helen, I have yet to see people writing in and bashing yourcountry the way that you see fit to bash ours. Maybe you and Jackiehave more in common than you might have thought. You live where youlive and are proud of it, great, yippee, bully for you and stay there! I am sure if I took the time to pull up enough websites I'd find manythings about your dear old country that wouldn't sit well with usUSians. You do not live here and due to that I don't believe you voteso step off. Oh God, go watch the Magdelene Sisters movie, if you can bear to get
through it. It seems the Irish are more brutal on themselves than they are
capable of being on any other country. I really missed Helen when she wasn't able to post. Since then, she never posts here unless it's something political.

My thoughts exactly.


I killfile those threads right away. I only caught her because she was responding to an article I posted
(but not actually responding to the article) or to Lainie.

Just like with a nagging parent or spouse, one starts to tune out after so
much negativity and criticism. Anything of value is lost.

Kathy 1

aspensky@knology.net (Debbie) wrote in message news:<4b23522a.0407111919.61f13d31@posting.google.com>... helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote in message news:<a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-787957.23455209072004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <a9c1bada.0407091706.529d8d94@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:<snip>
I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death penalty to kill its OWN citizens. Then, when I think that most of those who are killed in this way are poor and/or black - or from other minorities - then I *really* have to wonder how it is that the Civil Rights Movement has won so litle ground.<snip> Ya know Helen, I have yet to see people writing in and bashing your country the way that you see fit to bash ours.

Our little country has been bashed repeatedly for 800+ years. Yours
has not.

America has always been very good to the Irish, and the Irish repaid
American generosity by helping to build your great country. There has
always
been a symbiotic bond between Ireland and the US. After 9/11 Ireland
was the
ONLY country to have a National Day of Mourning. *Everything* shut
down - shops, businesses, government offices... We were numb with
grief, in solidarity with you.

It was bad enough that *foreigners* could come onto your soil and kill
Americans (and Irish and all the others) Then we reflect that you are
still executing your own people - AND people from other countries,
including Mexico - when every other western industrialised country has
abolished capital punishment. It is so bizarre.

Ireland's last execution was in 1954, Canada's in 1962 and the UK's in
1964. If I comment on it, I am doing what I have done all my adult
life so far. I am an Equal Opportunities Campaigner :-) I marched for
Civil Rights, marched against apartheid, etc. (Even South Africa has
abolished capital punishment.)

Civil Rights were hard fought for in the US - and elsewhere - and yet
there
are disproportionate numbers of poor people and African Americans and
Hispanics on Death Row. Now why would that be?

Maybe you and Jackie have more in common than you might have thought. You live where you live and are proud of it, great, yippee, bully for you and stay there!

Why should I? My country is so tiny that we can't avoid looking - and
travelling - beyond our own horizons. Because we are not a military
threat to anyone, we feel we have the right to comment on those with
more power than we have. We feel that we have a duty to involve
ourselves (individually and collectively) in human rights matters and
peace-keeping, wherever it is, even if it makes us unpopular.
I am sure if I took the time to pull up enough websites I'd find many things about your dear old country that wouldn't sit well with us USians.

You better believe that, Debbie. We are outraged here at the moment,
reeling at the story of a 37-year-old mother of seven (one child is
autistic) who was jailed last week for failing to pay a fine - for not
having
a TV licence. Her 'debt' was seven years old, but her *real* crime was
that she is poor.

Just because I ***** about the use of the death penalty in the US -
and elsewhere - doesn't mean that I don't see (and write and *****
about) the flaws and injustices in our own society. Far from it.

You do not live here and due to that I don't believe you vote so step off.

You are quite correct, I don't vote in the US. (Many of your own
fellow
citizens did, in Florida, for all the good it did them, last time
out!) Tell me why a few words from me - a lone Irishwoman - should
upset you so much when I am simply commenting on the uncivilised
practice of capital punishment, or more correctly, state-sanctioned
murder.

Even if there is a possibility that only ONE person in FIFTY is
unjustly executed, imagine if that person was someone you knew and
loved. Imagine if it was you.

So feel aggrieved at me if you like, and I am sorry if you are
offended, but I call it as I see it - I believe it is necessary to
rock the boat sometimes.

Edumnd Burke, Irishman, was supposed to have said: "For evil to
prevail, all that is required is for good men to do nothing" - or
words to that effect. I joined Amnesty.

Helen

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040711233754.15985.00000948@mb-m21.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apart<snip>


By the way, Marla, a brother of mine has returned from three weeks in
the US. His first words to me on Sunday were: "Helen, *everything* you
have always said
about America and the Americans is absolutely true - and more. They
are a
**thousand** times more hospitable than we are - they would put us to
shame with
their generosity. They are open and friendly to a fault, and have a
great
sense of humour. They are *lovely* poeople, and *really, really* don't
deserve Bush."

You might recognise yourself in all of that praise, as his three weeks
were
spent in Colorado! He used Denver as his base but drove quite a lot.
His son
(15) was with him, and was wearing his beloved 'Plummer' football
jersey
when they arrived at the airport. A customs guy bellowed "hey
*Plummer*!" to
get his attention, and it really made his day - he's still talking
about it!

Helen
------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend
will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-6DBF3C.22413411072004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony -- unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder. Here, it is not. Here, it is. Well in Ireland - and in the UK, and elsewhere in Europe - there are always other factors to be taken into consideration - not least the intention (to kill) and having full knowledge of the consequences of the actions. In this particular case it is self-evident that the gun was discharged - carelessly, yes - but because the (unseen) young woman stood up at the wrong time, she 'took' the randomly fired bullet, and died. By any standards of law (including dare I say in the US?) that was not *murder* but manslaughter. Therefore it did not merit the death penalty - IMVHO.\ Back then it did, that was the point then. Third degree murder here does not get the DP.

Isn't it rather strange then, that that hanging was the last one in London -
all of 53 years ago? Don't you think that perhaps public opinion had some
bearing on abolishing capital punishment there, and elsewhere, *over half a
century ago*? Aren't your Death Rows an anachronism in a modern democracy?
He didn't "knife" anyone. He discharged a gun that accidentally killed someone. At the minimum, he wantonly and recklessly discharged the weapon.

The report said that the woman was killed by a "stray bullet".
I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death penalty to kill its OWN citizens. We find freedom precious enough that those who murder and take away other people's freedom to live should pay the price for it. I don't apologize for the DP.

Why does that not surprise me? For a doctor you are quite astoundingly
sanguine, in the old-fashioned meaning of the word. "Do no harm"? Yeah,
right.

Helen


steve

twgnow@yahoo.ca (Tom) wrote in message news:<56c6b3a.0407120920.36a0bc88@posting.google.com>... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-6DBF3C.22413411072004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: > Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony -- > unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder. Here, it is not. Here, it is. And in Canada, where the offence took place, it was and, more or less, still is (albeit, employing slightly different terminology).

Ohmigod. And there I was, so sure that it was London, *England* you were all
talking about. I'm a ninny. Just goes to show, doesn't it, that I'm
not half as smart as I think I am! Another apology due, I'm afraid.

Helen <g>rovelling.


Well in Ireland - and in the UK, and elsewhere in Europe - there are always other factors to be taken into consideration - not least the intention (to kill) and having full knowledge of the consequences of the actions. In this particular case it is self-evident that the gun was discharged - carelessly, yes - but because the (unseen) young woman stood up at the wrong time, she 'took' the randomly fired bullet, and died. By any standards of law (including dare I say in the US?) that was not *murder* but manslaughter. Therefore it did not merit the death penalty - IMVHO.\ Back then it did, that was the point then. Third degree murder here does not get the DP. In 1951, when Rowe was executed, Canada maintained a distinction between murder and manslaughter. The penalty for murder was death. The penalty for manslaughter was incarceration. Rowe was found guilty of murder on the basis of the fact that he used a weapon during a flight from the commission of an offence. There was no distinction (I believe) between 1st and 2nd degree murder as there now is and, as such, he was sentenced to death. I believe the particular offence for which Rowe was found guilty was subsequently found to be unconstitutional--so, today, Rowe would not have been found guilty of murder for the same reason. He may, however, still have been found guilty of murder, not manslaughter. I don't know much about criminal law but, as I understand it, the Canadian criminal justice system doesn't get itself into knots over the issue of intent in murder cases as do the UK and Irish justice systems (at least, not for the distinction between murder and manslaughter). He didn't "knife" anyone. He discharged a gun that accidentally killed someone. At the minimum, he wantonly and recklessly discharged the weapon. I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death penalty to kill its OWN citizens. We find freedom precious enough that those who murder and take away other people's freedom to live should pay the price for it. I don't apologize for the DP. Good God, I was worried for a minute there that I was agreeing with Steve. Luckily, I see we can still disagree about the death penalty. It's wrong. So there. Incidentally, after reading the article, I was more taken by the logical jump that suggested the girl's adoption was a result of Rowe's execution (the writer's allegation that the crime claimed two more victims when Rowe was put to death). That may have been the case. However, it's certainly possible that the younger daughter may have been put up for adoption, even if Rowe hadn't been executed. In which case, this meeting would not have been facilitated the way it was. At least the citizens of London would have been spared this heartwarming piece of garbage. Tom steve

>Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: helicon@eircom.net (helicon)Date: 7/13/2004 7:00 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <a9c1bada.0407130500.39b10f1c@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040711233754.15985.00000948@mb-m21.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apart<snip>By the way, Marla, a brother of mine has returned from three weeks inthe US. His first words to me on Sunday were: "Helen, *everything* youhave always saidabout America and the Americans is absolutely true - and more. Theyare a**thousand** times more hospitable than we are - they would put us toshame withtheir generosity. They are open and friendly to a fault, and have agreatsense of humour. They are *lovely* poeople, and *really, really* don'tdeserve Bush."You might recognise yourself in all of that praise, as his three weekswerespent in Colorado! He used Denver as his base but drove quite a lot.His son(15) was with him, and was wearing his beloved 'Plummer' footballjerseywhen they arrived at the airport. A customs guy bellowed "hey*Plummer*!" toget his attention, and it really made his day - he's still talkingabout it!Helen

Ahem. Why didn't he come and visit ME then? LOL


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

In article <a9c1bada.0407130503.6b9394b@posting.google.com>,
helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:

Isn't it rather strange then, that that hanging was the last one in London - all of 53 years ago? Don't you think that perhaps public opinion had some bearing on abolishing capital punishment there, and elsewhere, *over half a century ago*? Aren't your Death Rows an anachronism in a modern democracy?


No.

By the way, Helen, my hands generally get pretty sore from that much
wringing. Do you need some lotion?

We find freedom precious enough that those who murder and take away other people's freedom to live should pay the price for it. I don't apologize for the DP. Why does that not surprise me? For a doctor you are quite astoundingly sanguine, in the old-fashioned meaning of the word. "Do no harm"? Yeah, right.


You're an asshat in the old-fashioned meaning of the word. You and your
political ilk continue to cause harm for many. Shame.




steve

In article <56c6b3a.0407120920.36a0bc88@posting.google.com>,
twgnow@yahoo.ca (Tom) wrote:

Good God, I was worried for a minute there that I was agreeing with Steve.


There's still time!

Luckily, I see we can still disagree about the death penalty. It's wrong. So there.


We'll spare the denizens of alt.a another off-label debate, but I don't
have a moral problem with the DP.




steve

In article <a9c1bada.0407130441.25ae1fa9@posting.google.com>,
helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:
My country is so tiny that we can't avoid looking - and travelling - beyond our own horizons. Because we are not a military threat to anyone, we feel we have the right to comment on those with more power than we have. We feel that we have a duty to involve ourselves (individually and collectively) in human rights matters and peace-keeping, wherever it is, even if it makes us unpopular.


Call us after you set things right in Darfur.





steve

In article
<ZJKHc.224754$Gx4.146704@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Sometimes it preserves the democratic spirit by removing those who would knife the innocents. There is no such thing as an innocent. People are born in sin and die in sin. It just takes some longer than others.


You can't be both a Calvinist and an anarchist. It isn't possible.






steve

in article a9c1bada.0407130508.35f23e6@posting.google.com, helicon at
helicon@eircom.net wrote on 13/7/04 2:08 pm:
twgnow@yahoo.ca (Tom) wrote in message news:<56c6b3a.0407120920.36a0bc88@posting.google.com>...
Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-6DBF3C.22413411072004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:

>> Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony -->> unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder.

> Here, it is not.
Here, it is.

And in Canada, where the offence took place, it was and, more or less, still is (albeit, employing slightly different terminology).

Ohmigod. And there I was, so sure that it was London, *England* you were all talking about. I'm a ninny. Just goes to show, doesn't it, that I'm not half as smart as I think I am! Another apology due, I'm afraid. Helen <g>rovelling.

Very ashamed to say we still had the death penalty in England in to the
early 1960s. I can well remember James Hanratty's hanging being in the
news in 1962. Soon after that the death penalty was abolished in Great
Britain (except for high treason and arson in a navel dockyard, not exactly
every day crimes). It was repealed in every other civilised country in the
world around that time. You only need look at Derek Bentley's conviction
and death sentence in 1953 to see why we should have abandoned the death
penalty back then. Perhaps Americans who support retaining the death
penalty should stop to think why the murder rate in the United States is
six times that in Britain, seven times that in France, and five times that
in Sweden even though many states still have a death penalty. According to
Senator Russ Feingold, when Canada abolished the death penalty for murder,
the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975,
the year before abolition, to 2.41 in 1980 see
http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/columbia.html obviously it was hardly much
of a deterrent there and it's hardly much of a deterrent in those states in
the US where it remains in force. Perhaps it is because other nations have a
more equitable society that they have far fewer armed robberies leading to
fewer murders. Perhaps it is because the USA has such ridiculous firearms
legislation that is so easy to commit an armed robbery that turns into a
murder. But I don't guess much is going to change, particularly whilst you
still have such a prize arsehole in the White House who doesn't mind
executing people who are mentally retarded or who would have been under the
age of adult criminal responsibility when their crime was committed in most
jurisdictions.

Robin

"Steve White" <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message
news:swhite-D403B2.15392013072004@news.uchicago.edu... In article <ZJKHc.224754$Gx4.146704@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Sometimes it preserves the democratic spirit by removing those who would knife the innocents. There is no such thing as an innocent. People are born in sin and die in sin. It just takes some longer than others. You can't be both a Calvinist and an anarchist. It isn't possible. steve

Hey, I'm post-modern. I can't help it. I'm adopted. People are inerently
evil and should be avoided at all costs.

Marley

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:35:19 -0500, Steve White
<swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote:
In article <56c6b3a.0407120920.36a0bc88@posting.google.com>, twgnow@yahoo.ca (Tom) wrote: Good God, I was worried for a minute there that I was agreeing with Steve.There's still time! Luckily, I see we can still disagree about the death penalty. It's wrong. So there.We'll spare the denizens of alt.a another off-label debate, but I don'thave a moral problem with the DP.steve

It is interesting, though, that the death penalty appears to be an
issue where those alt.a posters living outside the US of A all agree.
I can't see it as anything other than barbaric and utterly without
merit.

Julia

helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote in message news:<a9c1bada.0407130441.25ae1fa9@posting.google.com>... aspensky@knology.net (Debbie) wrote in message news:<4b23522a.0407111919.61f13d31@posting.google.com>... helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote in message news:<a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-787957.23455209072004@netnews.comcast.net>... > In article <a9c1bada.0407091706.529d8d94@posting.google.com>, > helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: ><snip> I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death penalty to kill its OWN citizens. Then, when I think that most of those who are killed in this way are poor and/or black - or from other minorities - then I *really* have to wonder how it is that the Civil Rights Movement has won so litle ground.<snip> Ya know Helen, I have yet to see people writing in and bashing your country the way that you see fit to bash ours. Our little country has been bashed repeatedly for 800+ years. Yours has not. America has always been very good to the Irish, and the Irish repaid American generosity by helping to build your great country. There has always been a symbiotic bond between Ireland and the US. After 9/11 Ireland was the ONLY country to have a National Day of Mourning. *Everything* shut down - shops, businesses, government offices... We were numb with grief, in solidarity with you. It was bad enough that *foreigners* could come onto your soil and kill Americans (and Irish and all the others) Then we reflect that you are still executing your own people - AND people from other countries, including Mexico - when every other western industrialised country has abolished capital punishment. It is so bizarre. Ireland's last execution was in 1954, Canada's in 1962 and the UK's in 1964. If I comment on it, I am doing what I have done all my adult life so far. I am an Equal Opportunities Campaigner :-) I marched for Civil Rights, marched against apartheid, etc. (Even South Africa has abolished capital punishment.) Civil Rights were hard fought for in the US - and elsewhere - and yet there are disproportionate numbers of poor people and African Americans and Hispanics on Death Row. Now why would that be? Maybe you and Jackie have more in common than you might have thought. You live where you live and are proud of it, great, yippee, bully for you and stay there! Why should I? My country is so tiny that we can't avoid looking - and travelling - beyond our own horizons. Because we are not a military threat to anyone, we feel we have the right to comment on those with more power than we have. We feel that we have a duty to involve ourselves (individually and collectively) in human rights matters and peace-keeping, wherever it is, even if it makes us unpopular. I am sure if I took the time to pull up enough websites I'd find many things about your dear old country that wouldn't sit well with us USians. You better believe that, Debbie. We are outraged here at the moment, reeling at the story of a 37-year-old mother of seven (one child is autistic) who was jailed last week for failing to pay a fine - for not having a TV licence. Her 'debt' was seven years old, but her *real* crime was that she is poor. Just because I ***** about the use of the death penalty in the US - and elsewhere - doesn't mean that I don't see (and write and ***** about) the flaws and injustices in our own society. Far from it. You do not live here and due to that I don't believe you vote so step off. You are quite correct, I don't vote in the US. (Many of your own fellow citizens did, in Florida, for all the good it did them, last time out!) Tell me why a few words from me - a lone Irishwoman - should upset you so much when I am simply commenting on the uncivilised practice of capital punishment, or more correctly, state-sanctioned murder. Even if there is a possibility that only ONE person in FIFTY is unjustly executed, imagine if that person was someone you knew and loved. Imagine if it was you. So feel aggrieved at me if you like, and I am sorry if you are offended, but I call it as I see it - I believe it is necessary to rock the boat sometimes. Edumnd Burke, Irishman, was supposed to have said: "For evil to prevail, all that is required is for good men to do nothing" - or words to that effect. I joined Amnesty. Helen


Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I appreciate what
you wrote. BTW what is a t.v. license?

>Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: aspensky@knology.net (Debbie)Date: 7/13/2004 7:22 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <4b23522a.0407131722.76aca2d4@posting.google.com>helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote in messagenews:<a9c1bada.0407130441.25ae1fa9@posting.google.com>... aspensky@knology.net (Debbie) wrote in messagenews:<4b23522a.0407111919.61f13d31@posting.google.com>... helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote in messagenews:<a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>... > Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in messagenews:<steve-787957.23455209072004@netnews.comcast.net>... > > In article <a9c1bada.0407091706.529d8d94@posting.google.com>, > > helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: > ><snip> > I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the > USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death > penalty to kill its OWN citizens. Then, when I think that most of > those who are killed in this way are poor and/or black - or from other > minorities - then I *really* have to wonder how it is that the Civil > Rights Movement has won so litle ground.<snip> Ya know Helen, I have yet to see people writing in and bashing your country the way that you see fit to bash ours. Our little country has been bashed repeatedly for 800+ years. Yours has not. America has always been very good to the Irish, and the Irish repaid American generosity by helping to build your great country. There has always been a symbiotic bond between Ireland and the US. After 9/11 Ireland was the ONLY country to have a National Day of Mourning. *Everything* shut down - shops, businesses, government offices... We were numb with grief, in solidarity with you. It was bad enough that *foreigners* could come onto your soil and kill Americans (and Irish and all the others) Then we reflect that you are still executing your own people - AND people from other countries, including Mexico - when every other western industrialised country has abolished capital punishment. It is so bizarre. Ireland's last execution was in 1954, Canada's in 1962 and the UK's in 1964. If I comment on it, I am doing what I have done all my adult life so far. I am an Equal Opportunities Campaigner :-) I marched for Civil Rights, marched against apartheid, etc. (Even South Africa has abolished capital punishment.) Civil Rights were hard fought for in the US - and elsewhere - and yet there are disproportionate numbers of poor people and African Americans and Hispanics on Death Row. Now why would that be? Maybe you and Jackie have more in common than you might have thought. You live where you live and are proud of it, great, yippee, bully for you and stay there! Why should I? My country is so tiny that we can't avoid looking - and travelling - beyond our own horizons. Because we are not a military threat to anyone, we feel we have the right to comment on those with more power than we have. We feel that we have a duty to involve ourselves (individually and collectively) in human rights matters and peace-keeping, wherever it is, even if it makes us unpopular. I am sure if I took the time to pull up enough websites I'd find many things about your dear old country that wouldn't sit well with us USians. You better believe that, Debbie. We are outraged here at the moment, reeling at the story of a 37-year-old mother of seven (one child is autistic) who was jailed last week for failing to pay a fine - for not having a TV licence. Her 'debt' was seven years old, but her *real* crime was that she is poor. Just because I ***** about the use of the death penalty in the US - and elsewhere - doesn't mean that I don't see (and write and ***** about) the flaws and injustices in our own society. Far from it. You do not live here and due to that I don't believe you vote so step off. You are quite correct, I don't vote in the US. (Many of your own fellow citizens did, in Florida, for all the good it did them, last time out!) Tell me why a few words from me - a lone Irishwoman - should upset you so much when I am simply commenting on the uncivilised practice of capital punishment, or more correctly, state-sanctioned murder. Even if there is a possibility that only ONE person in FIFTY is unjustly executed, imagine if that person was someone you knew and loved. Imagine if it was you. So feel aggrieved at me if you like, and I am sorry if you are offended, but I call it as I see it - I believe it is necessary to rock the boat sometimes. Edumnd Burke, Irishman, was supposed to have said: "For evil to prevail, all that is required is for good men to do nothing" - or words to that effect. I joined Amnesty. HelenThanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I appreciate whatyou wrote. BTW what is a t.v. license?

I believe you have to pay a tax for owning a TV. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message news:<swhite-4677BC.15331813072004@news.uchicago.edu>... In article <a9c1bada.0407130503.6b9394b@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: Isn't it rather strange then, that that hanging was the last one in London - all of 53 years ago? Don't you think that perhaps public opinion had some bearing on abolishing capital punishment there, and elsewhere, *over half a century ago*? Aren't your Death Rows an anachronism in a modern democracy? No.

I suppose you would give the injections if asked?

By the way, Helen, my hands generally get pretty sore from that much wringing.

I am so sorry to hear it. You might consider giving them something
useful to do. Remember that old adage - "the devil makes work for idle
hands". You need to toughen them up a bit.
Do you need some lotion?

Hardly. Keep it, your needs are evidently much greater than mine. (By
the way do you mark one with an 'L' and the other with an 'R'?)

We find freedom precious enough that those who murder and take away other people's freedom to live should pay the price for it. I don't apologize for the DP. Why does that not surprise me? For a doctor you are quite astoundingly sanguine, in the old-fashioned meaning of the word. "Do no harm"? Yeah, right. You're an asshat in the old-fashioned meaning of the word. You and your political ilk continue to cause harm for many.

Elaborate, please.
Shame.

Yes it is - that you and *your* 'political ilk' have none.

Helen



steve

Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message news:<swhite-75D35A.15351913072004@news.uchicago.edu>... In article <56c6b3a.0407120920.36a0bc88@posting.google.com>, twgnow@yahoo.ca (Tom) wrote: Good God, I was worried for a minute there that I was agreeing with Steve. There's still time! Luckily, I see we can still disagree about the death penalty. It's wrong. So there. We'll spare the denizens of alt.a another off-label debate, but I don't have a moral problem with the DP.

Who knew? I suppose you would quite easily pull the lever or insert
the lines, etc., in the sure and certain knowledge that you were doing
His Imperial Lordship's work.

Helen
steve

Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message news:<swhite-C74425.15375513072004@news.uchicago.edu>... In article <a9c1bada.0407130441.25ae1fa9@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: My country is so tiny that we can't avoid looking - and travelling - beyond our own horizons. Because we are not a military threat to anyone, we feel we have the right to comment on those with more power than we have. We feel that we have a duty to involve ourselves (individually and collectively) in human rights matters and peace-keeping, wherever it is, even if it makes us unpopular. Call us after you set things right in Darfur.

We're working on it. What are YOU doing?

Helen
steve

Robin Harritt <zzzyest@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<BD1A1A9C.45012%zzzyest@harritt.net>... in article a9c1bada.0407130508.35f23e6@posting.google.com, helicon at helicon@eircom.net wrote on 13/7/04 2:08 pm: twgnow@yahoo.ca (Tom) wrote in message news:<56c6b3a.0407120920.36a0bc88@posting.google.com>... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-6DBF3C.22413411072004@netnews.comcast.net>...> In article <a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>,> helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:>>> Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony -->>> unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder.>> Here, it is not.> Here, it is. And in Canada, where the offence took place, it was and, more or less, still is (albeit, employing slightly different terminology). Ohmigod. And there I was, so sure that it was London, *England* you were all talking about. I'm a ninny. Just goes to show, doesn't it, that I'm not half as smart as I think I am! Another apology due, I'm afraid. Helen <g>rovelling. Very ashamed to say we still had the death penalty in England in to the early 1960s. I can well remember James Hanratty's hanging being in the news in 1962. Soon after that the death penalty was abolished in Great Britain (except for high treason and arson in a navel dockyard, not exactly every day crimes).

You must have very big navels in Great Britain. I don't think I could
dock anything in mine (other than some lint, I guess).

Tom

In article <a9c1bada.0407140441.36b1a2b4@posting.google.com>,
helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:

We'll spare the denizens of alt.a another off-label debate, but I don't have a moral problem with the DP. Who knew? I suppose you would quite easily pull the lever or insert the lines, etc., in the sure and certain knowledge that you were doing His Imperial Lordship's work.


Another horses *** comment from, well, a horse's ***. Just part of the
usual moral superior postering from a willy-nilly, weak-kneed Y'urp-peon.

Enjoy your irrelevance, Helen.





steve

Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
It is interesting, though, that the death penalty appears to be an issue where those alt.a posters living outside the US of A all agree. I can't see it as anything other than barbaric and utterly without merit. Julia

I do find it interesting. I've lived for the most part in societies
that do have the death penalty. I am not against it, though I do admit
that I'm concerned about the findings of the Innocence Project and
others like it, and also of the findings of the study about which I
posted.

So let's not talk about the US, let's talk about a hypothetical
country where these biases don't exist. If someone is dangerous to
society, if someone has killed other people, what is the point of
warehousing that person for life?

I don't see death as such an awful thing: everyone must die, sooner or
later, and blameless people who help other people as much as
blameworthy people who harm others. If someone has willfully killed
other people, why is it wrong for them to die?

Especially since life sentence without the possibility of parole
sounds pretty awful, too.

Rupa

in article e5619372.0407140849.121a95b9@posting.google.com, Rupa Bose at
rkbose@pacific.net.sg wrote on 14/7/04 5:49 pm:
Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message It is interesting, though, that the death penalty appears to be an issue where those alt.a posters living outside the US of A all agree. I can't see it as anything other than barbaric and utterly without merit. Julia I do find it interesting. I've lived for the most part in societies that do have the death penalty. I am not against it, though I do admit that I'm concerned about the findings of the Innocence Project and others like it, and also of the findings of the study about which I posted. So let's not talk about the US, let's talk about a hypothetical country where these biases don't exist. If someone is dangerous to society, if someone has killed other people, what is the point of warehousing that person for life? I don't see death as such an awful thing: everyone must die, sooner or later, and blameless people who help other people as much as blameworthy people who harm others. If someone has willfully killed other people, why is it wrong for them to die? Especially since life sentence without the possibility of parole sounds pretty awful, too. Rupa

I believe that those questions have been far answered more clearly than I
could ever hope to .

************************************************** ************************
"...An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the
privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a
rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization
which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death.
Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no
criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an
equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had
warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on
him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for
months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life..."

Albert Camus, 'Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion &
Death'.

************************************************** ************************

Robin

In article <BD1B2AEA.450A5%zzzyest@harritt.net>,
Robin Harritt <zzzyest@harritt.net> wrote:

I do find it interesting. I've lived for the most part in societies that do have the death penalty. I am not against it, though I do admit that I'm concerned about the findings of the Innocence Project and others like it, and also of the findings of the study about which I posted. So let's not talk about the US, let's talk about a hypothetical country where these biases don't exist. If someone is dangerous to society, if someone has killed other people, what is the point of warehousing that person for life? I don't see death as such an awful thing: everyone must die, sooner or later, and blameless people who help other people as much as blameworthy people who harm others. If someone has willfully killed other people, why is it wrong for them to die? Especially since life sentence without the possibility of parole sounds pretty awful, too. Rupa I believe that those questions have been far answered more clearly than I could ever hope to . ************************************************** ******************** "...An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death. Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life..." Albert Camus, 'Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death'.


Camus doesn't have a good answer.

The criminal takes a person's life violently and with little, if any,
warning, virtually no argument, and no appeal. The victim has little if
any chance to plead for mercy.

The state takes the criminal's life (in a democratic, just society)
after exhaustive review, by application of rule and law, with full
consideration of potential mitigation and mercy, and with a clear date
set in advance.

Camus is right: one can't compare the two; the monster is the criminal,
not the state.




steve

In article <e5619372.0407140849.121a95b9@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:

I do find it interesting. I've lived for the most part in societies that do have the death penalty. I am not against it, though I do admit that I'm concerned about the findings of the Innocence Project and others like it, and also of the findings of the study about which I posted.


The Innocence Project is a great concern, and if we're going to have the
DP, it has to be applied fairly and without bias. We've had a dozen or
so inmates released from death row in Illinois after evidence was
overturned. The answer is to ensure a proper defense bar for DP
candidates at trial, and the states have to be better at this.





steve

"Steve White" <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message
news:swhite-B4038B.16005214072004@news.uchicago.edu... In article <BD1B2AEA.450A5%zzzyest@harritt.net>, Robin Harritt <zzzyest@harritt.net> wrote: I do find it interesting. I've lived for the most part in societies that do have the death penalty. I am not against it, though I do admit that I'm concerned about the findings of the Innocence Project and others like it, and also of the findings of the study about which I posted. So let's not talk about the US, let's talk about a hypothetical country where these biases don't exist. If someone is dangerous to society, if someone has killed other people, what is the point of warehousing that person for life? I don't see death as such an awful thing: everyone must die, sooner or later, and blameless people who help other people as much as blameworthy people who harm others. If someone has willfully killed other people, why is it wrong for them to die? Especially since life sentence without the possibility of parole sounds pretty awful, too. Rupa I believe that those questions have been far answered more clearly than I could ever hope to . ************************************************** ******************** "...An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death. Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life..." Albert Camus, 'Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death'. Camus doesn't have a good answer. The criminal takes a person's life violently and with little, if any, warning, virtually no argument, and no appeal. The victim has little if any chance to plead for mercy.

And most people found guilty of murder plea down or are never charged with
capital murder with DP specs to start with. Why would that be? There were
more people murdered in Cleveland in one year when was with the Ohio
Coalition Against the Death Penalty than had been sentenced to death in the
State of Ohio for more than 4 years. There is rarely anyone with influence
or in organized crime on death row. Only the disemboweled, the poor, and
the stupid. The state takes the criminal's life (in a democratic, just society) after exhaustive review, by application of rule and law, with full consideration of potential mitigation and mercy, and with a clear date set in advance.

Yeah, right, Steve. Camus is right: one can't compare the two; the monster is the criminal, not the state.

As long as the state exists it will continue to kill since the state owns
it's inhabitants.

Marley> steve

On 14 Jul 2004 09:49:39 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message It is interesting, though, that the death penalty appears to be an issue where those alt.a posters living outside the US of A all agree. I can't see it as anything other than barbaric and utterly without merit. JuliaI do find it interesting. I've lived for the most part in societiesthat do have the death penalty. I am not against it, though I do admitthat I'm concerned about the findings of the Innocence Project andothers like it, and also of the findings of the study about which Iposted.So let's not talk about the US, let's talk about a hypotheticalcountry where these biases don't exist. If someone is dangerous tosociety, if someone has killed other people, what is the point ofwarehousing that person for life?

The point is that the alternative to warehousing that person for life
is unacceptable. I can see no value in capital punishment. It does
not make society safer, it doesn't act as a deterrent, it is flawed so
innocent people WILL be put to death... Even cost-wise it doesn't
make any sense. "Criminal justice process expenses, trial court
costs, appellate and post-conviction costs, and prison costs perhaps
including years served on death row awaiting execution... all told,
the extra costs per death penalty imposed in over a quarter million
dollars, and per execution exceeds $2 million. (Cavanagh 4) When you
compare this to the average costs for a twenty year prison term for
first degree murder (roughly $330 thousand), the cost of putting
someone away for life is a deal. Is it really worth the hassle and
money to kill a criminal, when we can put them away for life for less
money with a great deal more ease?"
Cavanagh, Suzanne, and David Teasley. Capital Punishment: A Brief
Overview. CRS Report For Congress 95-505GOV (1995)
http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc111.html

Warehousing that person for life will serve the purpose of protecting
society. I know in my country there are hideous people in our jail.
The men who abducted, tortured, raped and brutally murdered Anita
Cobby many years ago (if you ever get to see the film "The Boys"
starring David Wenham in the lead role, you start to get a feel for
the awfulness of that crime), the Belanglo State Forest serial killer
Ivan Milat, and Martin Bryant - the mass murderer who set a new world
record when he killed 35 men, women and children and wounded 22 others
in a shooting spree at Port Arthur, Tasmania on my birthday 8 years
ago, all sit mouldering in our jails.

How did our relatively small country respond to the dreadfulness of
that day as we listened to news reports coming from Port Arthur,
detailing the horror that had occurred - or when we saw news about
Walter Mikac whose wife and two small daughters had been chased and
then shot at point blank range by Bryant? The entire country was
horrified but the response was a decision that automatic and
semi-automatic weapons had no place in a civilised country. Our govt
initiated a national gun buy-back system which we all paid for with an
additional tax on our income for a year. And that actually DID
work...
"Gun buy-back scheme declared a success: The World Today - Thursday, 3
October , 2002 Reporter: Ian Townsend
Now to some good news on crime in our community. The Australian
Institute of Criminology has released a new study, which shows the
rate of gun-related murders and robberies has fallen sharply since
1996, and it appears to be due to the Government's massive buy-back of
weapons.
It's cost a lot of money but criminologists say it's saved many lives
and appears to have ended a spate of murderous shooting sprees. The
research is being presented at the Australian and New Zealand Society
of Criminology conference in Brisbane... In 1987 Julian Knight went
on a shooting spree in Melbourne's Hoddle Street, killing seven people
and injuring 19. After that there was a run of mass killings involving
firearms and it culminated in the Port Arthur massacre in 1996... But
the outrage after Port Arthur spurred the Government to embark on an
ambitious scheme to buy back automatic and semi-automatic rifles and
shotguns. In the following year Australians handed in more than half a
million guns.
And so what's happened since then? Well, there hasn't been a mass
killing in Australia where a gun was the murder weapon, and it's also
possible that it has reduced Australia's homicide rate."
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/s692576.htm
I don't see death as such an awful thing: everyone must die, sooner orlater, and blameless people who help other people as much asblameworthy people who harm others. If someone has willfully killedother people, why is it wrong for them to die?

There is nothing wrong with killers dying. There is everything wrong
with them being killed.
Especially since life sentence without the possibility of parolesounds pretty awful, too.

It does, but it still leaves the possibility open for correction of
miscarriages of justice, and it protects society from those criminals
who are incarcerated.

Julia
Rupa

>Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: aspensky@knology.net (Debbie)Date: 7/11/04 8:19 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <4b23522a.0407111919.61f13d31@posting.google.com>helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote in messagenews:<a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in messagenews:<steve-787957.23455209072004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <a9c1bada.0407091706.529d8d94@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: > > Turns out that Clare Galbraith is still dead, too. > > > > As for the Rowe girls, too bad their daddy was a murderer (as well > > as a killer). But that's what he was. > > You are so wrong. (And so typically judgemental. Why am I not > surprised?) He killed a poor, unfortunate, innocent woman - BUT he > was not a murderer. Sure he was: he killed a person during the commission of a felony -- unlawful discharge of a weapon. That's murder. Here, it is not. There are legal variations on the theme. You know, like (for Catholics) the difference between a venial sin and a mortal sin? :-) > By today's standards in England (and Ireland, and most of the rest of > the 'civilised world') he would have been convicted of manslaughter, > or involuntary manslaughter. He certainly would not have been > sentenced to death. By today's standards in the U.S., where we're civilized AND just to murder victims, he would have been convicted of third degree murder and would have gotten 10 to 25 years in the slammer. Well in Ireland - and in the UK, and elsewhere in Europe - there are always other factors to be taken into consideration - not least the intention (to kill) and having full knowledge of the consequences of the actions. In this particular case it is self-evident that the gun was discharged - carelessly, yes - but because the (unseen) young woman stood up at the wrong time, she 'took' the randomly fired bullet, and died. By any standards of law (including dare I say in the US?) that was not *murder* but manslaughter. Therefore it did not merit the death penalty - IMVHO. > This has a natural lead-in to what Austin Sarat said (When the State > Kills): the death penalty degrades the democratic spirit... Sometimes it preserves the democratic spirit by removing those who would knife the innocents. He didn't "knife" anyone. He discharged a gun that accidentally killed someone. > In the US one innocent person (at least) is executed for every seven. That's propaganda, not fact. I'm not surprised you quote it. Well, Steve, I hope that by now you will have read my apology for that error. It should have read "exonerated" instead of "executed". It was a major mistake, I agree, but my mistake was easily rectified. Whether innocent or guilty, once a death sentence has been carried out, there IS no apology, no comeback that will do any good. I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death penalty to kill its OWN citizens. Then, when I think that most of those who are killed in this way are poor and/or black - or from other minorities - then I *really* have to wonder how it is that the Civil Rights Movement has won so litle ground. Helen steveYa know Helen, I have yet to see people writing in and bashing yourcountry the way that you see fit to bash ours. Maybe you and Jackiehave more in common than you might have thought. You live where youlive and are proud of it, great, yippee, bully for you and stay there! I am sure if I took the time to pull up enough websites I'd find manythings about your dear old country that wouldn't sit well with usUSians. You do not live here and due to that I don't believe you voteso step off.

You know though, there are lots of Americans that feel as Helen does, and
because of our freedoms and liberty to speak out, why is this any different for
Helen? Do you think on USians should criticise their own?


Kathy

In article <a9c1bada.0407140443.5a300607@posting.google.com>,
helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:
Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message news:<swhite-C74425.15375513072004@news.uchicago.edu>... In article <a9c1bada.0407130441.25ae1fa9@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: My country is so tiny that we can't avoid looking - and travelling - beyond our own horizons. Because we are not a military threat to anyone, we feel we have the right to comment on those with more power than we have. We feel that we have a duty to involve ourselves (individually and collectively) in human rights matters and peace-keeping, wherever it is, even if it makes us unpopular. Call us after you set things right in Darfur. We're working on it. What are YOU doing?


My country has led the charge in the Sudan. It's brokered a decent peace
deal for the southern Sudanese -- horribly persecuted by the Arab north
-- and has pushed publicly and loudly for protection of the Furians. If
it weren't for the US it would be business as usual for the UN.

I don't recall Ireland doing a damned thing about it so far. Remind us.




steve

Robin Harritt <zzzyest@harritt.net> wrote I believe that those questions have been far answered more clearly than I could ever hope to . ************************************************** ************************ "...An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death. Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life..." Albert Camus, 'Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death'.

Thanks, Robin.

Camus perhaps had a more sheltered existence than the US public.

There are monsters here who have done precisely what Camus describes;
who have tortured their victims before murdering them; who have then
gone on to do this multiple times.

Camus's argument seems to suggest that to be humane, the death penalty
should be administered to an unknowing subject. Everyone would know
except the convicted person...this thought is even more mind-boggling.

Rupa

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote I believe you have to pay a tax for owning a TV. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Actually, it works quite well. They have something similar in
Singapore. I believe the proceeds of the tax go back to the
programming, and as a result, there are a lot fewer commercials.

India had a radio license, but I think it was eventually abolished
because radios became so ubiquitous that the thing became
unenforceable.

Rupa

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote I believe you have to pay a tax for owning a TV. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Actually, it works quite well. They have something similar in
Singapore. I believe the proceeds of the tax go back to the
programming, and as a result, there are a lot fewer commercials.

India had a radio license, but I think it was eventually abolished
because radios became so ubiquitous that the thing became
unenforceable.

Rupa

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote As long as the state exists it will continue to kill since the state owns it's inhabitants.

Actually, we were talking of the state's inhabitants killing each
other, giving rise to the need to do something to prevent it.
Assuming, of course, that we believe that that is part of the State's
job...

The State does have the right to kill its inhabitants, or at least to
place them in danger of death. Couldn't have an army otherwise.

We pay a price for civilization.

Rupa

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0407142252.7c8728bb@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote As long as the state exists it will continue to kill since the state
owns it's inhabitants. Actually, we were talking of the state's inhabitants killing each other, giving rise to the need to do something to prevent it. Assuming, of course, that we believe that that is part of the State's job...

I'm not convinced that it is. In historic non-statist cultures, infractions
are handled among the parties and families involved. The state should
involve itself in basic services such as road building. "Public safety" as
it exists today is just a moneymaker for the corporate state--whether the
state makes the money or not, it's masters do. The State does have the right to kill its inhabitants, or at least to place them in danger of death. Couldn't have an army otherwise. We pay a price for civilization. Rupa

I'm not so sure this is "civilization."

Marley

>Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 7/15/2004 12:47 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <e5619372.0407142247.59d53d7a@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote I believe you have to pay a tax for owning a TV. Makes you wonder, doesn'tit?Actually, it works quite well. They have something similar inSingapore. I believe the proceeds of the tax go back to theprogramming, and as a result, there are a lot fewer commercials.India had a radio license, but I think it was eventually abolishedbecause radios became so ubiquitous that the thing becameunenforceable.Rupa

Do you have to pay it yearly? How much does it cost? LOL


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

in article 20040715084640.05605.00001397@mb-m14.aol.com, LilMtnCbn at
lilmtncbn@aol.com wrote on 15/7/04 1:46 pm:
Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apart From: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) Date: 7/15/2004 12:47 AM Mountain Standard Time Message-id: <e5619372.0407142247.59d53d7a@posting.google.com> lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote I believe you have to pay a tax for owning a TV. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Actually, it works quite well. They have something similar in Singapore. I believe the proceeds of the tax go back to the programming, and as a result, there are a lot fewer commercials. India had a radio license, but I think it was eventually abolished because radios became so ubiquitous that the thing became unenforceable. Rupa Do you have to pay it yearly? How much does it cost? LOL

In Britain, my last one cost 116 GBPounds. Great value for money. Did you
never see that Monty Python sketch about the TV licence?

"I'd gladly sell my car and my house and all it's contents to help the BBC"

Robin

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0407142252.7c8728bb@posting.google.com>... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote As long as the state exists it will continue to kill since the state owns it's inhabitants. Actually, we were talking of the state's inhabitants killing each other, giving rise to the need to do something to prevent it.

It depends on what is meant by "prevent". Why not reduce it by
limiting access to guns - that would be a start, but then that would
get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people, wouldn't
it? They are rarely the ones who end up on Death Row, no matter what
they do.

"Prevent" by use of capital punishment? Well that is the ultimate
'final solution' - just get rid of the problem, kill them off.

Thou shall not kill, but if you do, we will kill you. Don't do as we
do, do as we say (or we'll kill you) and if we get it wrong sometimes,
it really doesn't matter, does it - we are bound to be right most of
the time. If we find we are wrong, too late, we can always give you a
posthumous pardon - for all the good that will do you. At least it
will show that we are, uh, *civilised* people who apologise when we
get things wrong.

(The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and others (minorities, Irish
in England) had a long, long wait for their freedom and apologies.
Luckily for them the lynch mobs didn't have their way, and capital
punishment had been abolished in England...)

Assuming, of course, that we believe that that is part of the State's job...

Why would anyone assume that - unless we agree that it is acceptable
that the State's laws are so barbaric that people can be kept caged
for ten or twenty years, and the manner of their death be planned down
to the last meal and last gasp? I am not saying that the US legal
system is uncivilised per se, but there are certainly some vestiges
left that have no place in a modern democratic society. IMHO.

Why is it (AFAIK, anyway)that *doctors* will not administer the lethal
injections in US prisons? Are they (generally) more civilised than the
judiciary?
The State does have the right to kill its inhabitants, or at least to place them in danger of death. Couldn't have an army otherwise. We pay a price for civilization.

Yes, Rupa, we do, at every level, and must continue to pay and do
whatever it takes to show that we are evolving, humane people, who
believe in the possibility of redemption. (I don't mean in the
religious sense, but that too, perhaps).

In my opinion, the state-sanctioned, judicial, calculated, vengeful
killing of a prisoner *for any reason* - can not by any standards be
called *civilised* in this day and age. It's simply barbaric, and
archaic.

Helen

Rupa

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0407142252.7c8728bb@posting.google.com>... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote As long as the state exists it will continue to kill since the state owns it's inhabitants. Actually, we were talking of the state's inhabitants killing each other, giving rise to the need to do something to prevent it. Assuming, of course, that we believe that that is part of the State's job...

If the State's goal is to prevent its inhabitants from killing each
other, permanently locking a murderer up in an effective prison is
just as capable of meeting that goal as murdering the murderer.

The role of the death penalty must be examined within the context of
sentencing in criminal cases generally. I would submit that there are
a number of factors involved with sentencing: general deterrence,
specific deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution. With respect to
general deterrence, as others have pointed out elsewhere on this
thread, there appears to be no compelling evidence of the general
deterrence value of the death penalty. It clearly works for specific
deterrence, since a dead murderer can't murder again. But, then
again, a murderer locked up for life in an effective prison can't
murder again either. If the latter works as well as the former, why
use the latter? The death penalty clearly does not assist with
rehabilitation. Thus, the only persuasive argument in favour of the
death penalty is based on the principle of retribution.

Retribution is obviously a fundamental function of any criminal
justice system. If it wasn't, a simple, heart-felt apology would
purge any criminal conduct. As it stands, even if an individual feels
genuine remorse for his actions, he will usually still be subjected to
some form of criminal sanction. Further, there are certainly examples
of murderers out there who deserve nothing less than a slow, painful
death. But . . . .

The act of executing someone is, by its very nature, the most final,
irreversible act imaginable. Given the massive, irreversible
consequences of execution, its use is fundamentally incompatible with
anything short of an infallible justice system. Such a system does
not exist. Period. If one is honest about supporting the death
penalty, one must implicitly (or explicitly) be comfortable with the
concept of state-sanctioned murder of innocent people.

As an aside, I see no defensible way in which someone who supports the
death penalty could oppose such things as the amputation of a thief's
hand (or other such "eye for an eye" type sanctions).

I think it was Julia who referred to the death penalty as barbaric. I
agree whole-heartedly.
The State does have the right to kill its inhabitants, or at least to place them in danger of death. Couldn't have an army otherwise.

I think that would very much depend on how you define the word,
"right." How does a state have "rights" vis-a-vis its citizens? I
would suggest that the very notion is unintelligible. A state has
power. It may choose to use its power to kill its inhabitants.
However, to speak of the state's exercise of any of its powers
vis-a-vis its citizens as a "right" robs the word of any meaning.
We pay a price for civilization.

It seems to me that the state-sanctioned murder of even one innocent
is too steep--especially if that one were me or one of my loved ones.
Luckily, I don't believe for a minute that that constitutes the price
of civilization.

Tom

In article <a9c1bada.0407150703.1130f957@posting.google.com>,
helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:

Actually, we were talking of the state's inhabitants killing each other, giving rise to the need to do something to prevent it. It depends on what is meant by "prevent". Why not reduce it by limiting access to guns - that would be a start, but then that would get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people, wouldn't it? They are rarely the ones who end up on Death Row, no matter what they do.


As in Switzerland? Every adult male has a rifle in his home in
Switzerland -- required by law since every male is a member of the Swiss
milita. Last time I checked, the Swiss weren't gunning each other down.

Conversely, the Brits have made a concerted effort to remove all guns in
their society. Coincidentally (or not), crime rates have been soaring.
Could it be that the criminals in British society have figured out that
their victims are defenseless?

But feel free to indulge your conspiracy theories, Helen [1], it seems
to be something that gets you going every day.



steve



[1] "get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people";
what wonderously purple prose!

In article <BD1BF1A2.450C4%zzzyest@harritt.net>,
Robin Harritt <zzzyest@harritt.net> wrote:
What would you expect in country that so jealously hangs on to a 'right' to bear arms, when the reasons and need for that right became obsolete at least a century ago.


Forgive me for saying this, but you don't understand the purpose of the
2nd amendment at all. Here it is:

"II. A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

It's the ultimate guarantee against a tyrannical government. Our
revolution was fresh in the minds of our Founders, who understood quite
well that an unarmed citizenry was one that could be forced to submit to
a dictator [1, 2]. Having fought one revolution, they were quite
prepared to fight another should a new American government overstep its
bounds.

Hence the statement in the 2nd amendment about the need for a
"well-regulated milita", which then and today is defined by our law as
the entire adult, law-abiding citizenry. It is that milita that
ultimately keeps the government in check and thus ensures that all other
rights of citizens are honored. That's just as true today as in 1787.

And that's why we have the amendment.

I point out that a number of the states, in their own constitutions,
have even more exacting statements about the rights of the people to own
firearms, and if one looks at the intent of the constitutional
committees that wrote those documents, you'll find the exact same
concerns.

We also don't put the word 'right' in BBC-style scare quotes when
talking about our Bill of Rights, and the rights contained therein.



steve



[1] In the grand scheme of things, of course, King George III was not
Saddam. Thank goodness!

[2] Helen should note that without firearms, there would have been no
Irish Free State.

In article
<ljuJc.257575$Gx4.138152@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Take a person's gun away, and you take away her freedom.


Marley gets the point of the second amendment.





steve

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:28:12 +0100, Robin wrote:
> I believe you have to pay a tax for owning a TV. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?>> Do you have to pay it yearly? How much does it cost? LOL In Britain, my last one cost 116 GBPounds. Great value for money. Did you never see that Monty Python sketch about the TV licence? "I'd gladly sell my car and my house and all it's contents to help the BBC"

It's fantastic value for money. Certainly nothing to laugh at. The BBC's
news-gathering and reporting alone is worth much more than a little over
two pounds a week, let alone the range of other services we receive from
them.

--
Neil
posting@jmage.org
For my direct email replace posting with my forename.

>Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: Neil Green posting@jmage.orgDate: 7/15/2004 12:25 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <pan.2004.07.15.18.25.44.132882@jmage.org>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:28:12 +0100, Robin wrote:>> I believe you have to pay a tax for owning a TV. Makes you wonder,doesn't> it?>>>> Do you have to pay it yearly? How much does it cost? LOL In Britain, my last one cost 116 GBPounds. Great value for money. Did you never see that Monty Python sketch about the TV licence? "I'd gladly sell my car and my house and all it's contents to help the BBC"It's fantastic value for money. Certainly nothing to laugh at. The BBC'snews-gathering and reporting alone is worth much more than a little overtwo pounds a week, let alone the range of other services we receive fromthem.--Neil

But is it a one-time tax, or ongoing? TIA.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

in article swhite-E62D68.13083415072004@news.uchicago.edu, Steve White at
swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this wrote on 15/7/04 7:08 pm:
In article <a9c1bada.0407150703.1130f957@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: Actually, we were talking of the state's inhabitants killing each other, giving rise to the need to do something to prevent it. It depends on what is meant by "prevent". Why not reduce it by limiting access to guns - that would be a start, but then that would get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people, wouldn't it? They are rarely the ones who end up on Death Row, no matter what they do. As in Switzerland? Every adult male has a rifle in his home in Switzerland -- required by law since every male is a member of the Swiss milita. Last time I checked, the Swiss weren't gunning each other down.

Last time I checked, the majority of firearms murders in the US were
committed with hand guns, Switzerland has a rate of handgun ownership of
about 12 percent of households the USA has 28 percent. Switzerland is far
less likely to allow a loony to own a gun than the USA, as its constitution
does not include a "right" to bear arms.
Conversely, the Brits have made a concerted effort to remove all guns in their society.

Not a very concerted effort, gun crime is the fastest growing area of crime
in the UK and illegal gun ownership (mostly "souvenir" weapons brought.
back from the Balkans and other conflicts by members of the British armed
forces) is at its highest ever.

Coincidentally (or not), crime rates have been soaring. Could it be that the criminals in British society have figured out that their victims are defenseless?

Crime rates in general in the UK have certainly not been soaring unless you
believe the propaganda put about the rightwing loony political parties
hoping to gain a few votes from aged loonies who think it would be a good
idea to bring back hanging.

But feel free to indulge your conspiracy theories, Helen [1], it seems to be something that gets you going every day.

I don't think the theory that reducing gun ownership might reduce the rate
of death by gun crime is uniquely Helens, even amongst this NG. steve [1] "get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people"; what wonderously purple prose!

I think Helen means that arsehole actor who used to be in cowboy films, and
played the voice of god a couple of times, runs the NRA or something like
that. Him and his rich chums.

Robin

in article swhite-04371B.13203715072004@news.uchicago.edu, Steve White at
swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this wrote on 15/7/04 7:20 pm:
In article <ljuJc.257575$Gx4.138152@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Take a person's gun away, and you take away her freedom. Marley gets the point of the second amendment.

Gave my last gun up a long time ago, when we left the farm (really should
hand in that box of cartridges in the sideboard). Can't say as I'm feeling
any less free since it became so much more difficult for a Brit to own a
gun legally (after Hungerford) even though it's now so much easier to own
one illegally.

Not so keen that cops locally now have to carry automatic weapons. But a
sign of the times I suppose, and they are protecting my freedom quite well
enough.

Robin

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:19:52 -0500, Steve White wrote:
Forgive me for saying this, but you don't understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment at all. Here it is: "II. A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It's the ultimate guarantee against a tyrannical government. Our revolution was fresh in the minds of our Founders, who understood quite well that an unarmed citizenry was one that could be forced to submit to a dictator [1, 2]. Having fought one revolution, they were quite prepared to fight another should a new American government overstep its bounds. Hence the statement in the 2nd amendment about the need for a "well-regulated milita", which then and today is defined by our law as the entire adult, law-abiding citizenry. It is that milita that ultimately keeps the government in check and thus ensures that all other rights of citizens are honored. That's just as true today as in 1787. And that's why we have the amendment. I point out that a number of the states, in their own constitutions, have even more exacting statements about the rights of the people to own firearms, and if one looks at the intent of the constitutional committees that wrote those documents, you'll find the exact same concerns. We also don't put the word 'right' in BBC-style scare quotes when talking about our Bill of Rights, and the rights contained therein. steve [1] In the grand scheme of things, of course, King George III was not Saddam. Thank goodness! [2] Helen should note that without firearms, there would have been no Irish Free State.

I trust you are aware of the only supreme court case ever have stood on
the second amendment. Or are you just glossing over that. I'll quote
directly form the ruling:

'In the absence of any evidence tending to show
that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less that
eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot
say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such
an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon
is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could
contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.)
154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress
power--"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such
Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,
reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and
the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation
and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and
applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in
contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent
of Congress. The sentiment at the time strongly disfavored standing
armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws
could be secured through the Militia--civilians primarily, soldiers on
occasion.'

This suggests in very strong terms that the right to bear arms is backed
up by a duty. It does not in any way imply that machines designed with the
sole purpose of killing people should be freely available to anyone wants
one. In order to have the right to bear arms you must be available "to
execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel
Invasions". That is radically different from having assault rifles
available to buy 24 hours a day. Perhaps _you_ ought to put the word right
in quotes until you learn that it also comes with duties.

-- Neil
posting@jmage.org
For my direct email replace posting with my forename.

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<ljuJc.257575$Gx4.138152@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Robin Harritt" <zzzyest@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BD1BF1A2.450C4%zzzyest@harritt.net... in article e5619372.0407142238.1713a787@posting.google.com, Rupa Bose at rkbose@pacific.net.sg wrote on 15/7/04 7:38 am: Robin Harritt <zzzyest@harritt.net> wrote>> I believe that those questions have been far answered more clearly than I> could ever hope to .>> ************************************************** ************************> "...An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the> privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a> rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization> which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death.> Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no> criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an> equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had> warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on> him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for> months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life...">> Albert Camus, 'Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion &> Death'.> Thanks, Robin. Camus perhaps had a more sheltered existence than the US public. In Oran and Algiers of the first half 20th century ? I hardly think so, I remember reading somewhere that Camus' first took against the death penalty after, as a child', seeing his father being violently ill, he having just witnessed a public execution. There are monsters here who have done precisely what Camus describes; who have tortured their victims before murdering them; who have then gone on to do this multiple times. There are in the UK , I'm sure there are in every country, not so prevalent as in the US perhaps, but what can you expect in a country, where the law says that is right to take a man's life after careful consideration. What would you expect in country that so jealously hangs on to a 'right' to bear arms, when the reasons and need for that right became obsolete at least a century ago. Well, there are plenty of reasons to bear arms in the US today--mainly self-protection from the current administration and its flunkies. Take a person's gun away, and you take away her freedom. Marley

I remember that!

"Power flows from the barrel of a gun."

Seriously, though, Marley, how would you use a gun to protect yourself
from the current administration and its flunkies?

Shoot the guy who asked to see your library records?

Fire at the police officer who asks you to step out of your car?

Pistol-whip the airport search staff?

Short of acquiring a few acres of land in the mountains, and defending
it like a fortress, how is a gun protection against any government, no
matter how you dislike them?

Rupa

in article 20040715144554.04762.00001389@mb-m10.aol.com, LilMtnCbn at
lilmtncbn@aol.com wrote on 15/7/04 7:45 pm:
Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apart From: Neil Green posting@jmage.org Date: 7/15/2004 12:25 PM Mountain Standard Time Message-id: <pan.2004.07.15.18.25.44.132882@jmage.org> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:28:12 +0100, Robin wrote:>>> I believe you have to pay a tax for owning a TV. Makes you wonder, doesn't>> it?>>>>>>> Do you have to pay it yearly? How much does it cost? LOL In Britain, my last one cost 116 GBPounds. Great value for money. Did you never see that Monty Python sketch about the TV licence? "I'd gladly sell my car and my house and all it's contents to help the BBC" It's fantastic value for money. Certainly nothing to laugh at. The BBC's news-gathering and reporting alone is worth much more than a little over two pounds a week, let alone the range of other services we receive from them. -- Neil But is it a one-time tax, or ongoing? TIA.

It has to be renewed yearly as long as there is a TV receiver on the
premises. I have to have a separate TV licence for the office. You get one
free if you are over 75 or someone who lives with you is.

Robin

"Steve White" <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message
news:swhite-04371B.13203715072004@news.uchicago.edu... In article <ljuJc.257575$Gx4.138152@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Take a person's gun away, and you take away her freedom. Marley gets the point of the second amendment. steve

We Do agree on some things!

Marley
Nobody ever raped a .38

"Robin" <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote in
message
news:BD1C95EC.45149%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.au to.deleted@harritt.net... in article swhite-04371B.13203715072004@news.uchicago.edu, Steve White at swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this wrote on 15/7/04 7:20 pm: In article <ljuJc.257575$Gx4.138152@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Take a person's gun away, and you take away her freedom. Marley gets the point of the second amendment. Gave my last gun up a long time ago, when we left the farm (really should hand in that box of cartridges in the sideboard). Can't say as I'm
feeling any less free since it became so much more difficult for a Brit to own a gun legally (after Hungerford) even though it's now so much easier to own one illegally.

Well there you go. You don't see the problems inherent in that situation?
An increase in illegal gun ownership stops gun crime how exactly? That old
saw about if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns comes to mind.

Not so keen that cops locally now have to carry automatic weapons. But a sign of the times I suppose, and they are protecting my freedom quite well enough.

They won't be protecting your safety when they are 10+ minutes away and an
armed intruder breaks into your home - you'll be dead before they get there.

Kathy 1

"Neil Green" <posting@jmage.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.15.19.19.00.335231@jmage.org... On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:19:52 -0500, Steve White wrote: Forgive me for saying this, but you don't understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment at all. Here it is: "II. A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It's the ultimate guarantee against a tyrannical government. Our revolution was fresh in the minds of our Founders, who understood quite well that an unarmed citizenry was one that could be forced to submit to a dictator [1, 2]. Having fought one revolution, they were quite prepared to fight another should a new American government overstep its bounds. Hence the statement in the 2nd amendment about the need for a "well-regulated milita", which then and today is defined by our law as the entire adult, law-abiding citizenry. It is that milita that ultimately keeps the government in check and thus ensures that all other rights of citizens are honored. That's just as true today as in 1787. And that's why we have the amendment. I point out that a number of the states, in their own constitutions, have even more exacting statements about the rights of the people to own firearms, and if one looks at the intent of the constitutional committees that wrote those documents, you'll find the exact same concerns. We also don't put the word 'right' in BBC-style scare quotes when talking about our Bill of Rights, and the rights contained therein. steve [1] In the grand scheme of things, of course, King George III was not Saddam. Thank goodness! [2] Helen should note that without firearms, there would have been no Irish Free State. I trust you are aware of the only supreme court case ever have stood on the second amendment. Or are you just glossing over that. I'll quote directly form the ruling: 'In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power--"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment at the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia--civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.' This suggests in very strong terms that the right to bear arms is backed up by a duty. It does not in any way imply that machines designed with the sole purpose of killing people should be freely available to anyone wants one. In order to have the right to bear arms you must be available "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". That is radically different from having assault rifles available to buy 24 hours a day. Perhaps _you_ ought to put the word right in quotes until you learn that it also comes with duties. -- Neil posting@jmage.org For my direct email replace posting with my forename.

Everyone should have the duty to protect oneself and one's family from not
only criminals, but cops and the government and Jeffrerson et al knew this.

Marley

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0407151134.2c3cafbb@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<ljuJc.257575$Gx4.138152@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Robin Harritt" <zzzyest@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BD1BF1A2.450C4%zzzyest@harritt.net... in article e5619372.0407142238.1713a787@posting.google.com, Rupa Bose
at rkbose@pacific.net.sg wrote on 15/7/04 7:38 am: > Robin Harritt <zzzyest@harritt.net> wrote >> >> I believe that those questions have been far answered more clearly than I >> could ever hope to . >> >>
************************************************** ************************ >> "...An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from
the >> privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds
to death a >> rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization >> which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than
death. >> Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no >> criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to
be an >> equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who
had >> warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on >> him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy
for >> months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life..." >> >> Albert Camus, 'Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion
& >> Death'. >> > > Thanks, Robin. > > Camus perhaps had a more sheltered existence than the US public. In Oran and Algiers of the first half 20th century ? I hardly think
so, I remember reading somewhere that Camus' first took against the death penalty after, as a child', seeing his father being violently ill, he having
just witnessed a public execution. > There are monsters here who have done precisely what Camus
describes; > who have tortured their victims before murdering them; who have then > gone on to do this multiple times. There are in the UK , I'm sure there are in every country, not so prevalent as in the US perhaps, but what can you expect in a country, where the
law says that is right to take a man's life after careful consideration.
What would you expect in country that so jealously hangs on to a 'right' to bear arms, when the reasons and need for that right became obsolete at
least a century ago. Well, there are plenty of reasons to bear arms in the US today--mainly self-protection from the current administration and its flunkies. Take
a person's gun away, and you take away her freedom. Marley I remember that! "Power flows from the barrel of a gun." Seriously, though, Marley, how would you use a gun to protect yourself from the current administration and its flunkies?

Mass resistance a la Vietnam and Iraq. We all hang together or we hang
separately. Shoot the guy who asked to see your library records?
Fire at the police officer who asks you to step out of your car? Pistol-whip the airport search staff?
Short of acquiring a few acres of land in the mountains, and defending it like a fortress, how is a gun protection against any government, no matter how you dislike them?

You can go down fighting. Waco and Ruby Ridge are examples of what an
out-of-control government can do to the individual.

Marley Rupa

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:16:43 +0000, Marley Greiner wrote: Everyone should have the duty to protect oneself and one's family from not only criminals, but cops and the government and Jeffrerson et al knew this.

Irrespective of how I feel about this statement, neither the text of the
second amendment nor the text of the ruling in the United States vs.
Miller suggests that any one has a "right to bear arms" for that purpose.
On the contrary they both describe limited circumstances in which the
members of an organized militia (who must be at the permanent call of
Congress) may keep arms. I draw your attention to the phrase from the
Supreme Court ruling: "The Militia which the States were expected to
maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were
forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress." Specifically the part
'... which the States were expected to maintain ...", this does not give
just anyone the right to have a weapon. Furthermore, the ruling suggested
limits on the kind of arms that are covered by the second amendment.

If you are genuinely so worried about protecting you and yours, perhaps
you could do something to reduce the number of guns in circulation. Why
not work towards banning the possession of a gun by anyone not a member of
a state organized militia?

--
Neil
posting@jmage.org
For my direct email replace posting with my forename.

"Neil Green" <posting@jmage.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.15.20.43.39.993345@jmage.org... On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:16:43 +0000, Marley Greiner wrote: Everyone should have the duty to protect oneself and one's family from
not only criminals, but cops and the government and Jeffrerson et al knew
this. Irrespective of how I feel about this statement, neither the text of the second amendment nor the text of the ruling in the United States vs. Miller suggests that any one has a "right to bear arms" for that purpose. On the contrary they both describe limited circumstances in which the members of an organized militia (who must be at the permanent call of Congress) may keep arms. I draw your attention to the phrase from the Supreme Court ruling: "The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress." Specifically the part '... which the States were expected to maintain ...", this does not give just anyone the right to have a weapon. Furthermore, the ruling suggested limits on the kind of arms that are covered by the second amendment. If you are genuinely so worried about protecting you and yours, perhaps you could do something to reduce the number of guns in circulation. Why not work towards banning the possession of a gun by anyone not a member of a state organized militia? -- Neil posting@jmage.org For my direct email replace posting with my forename.

Surely, you can't be serious? Do you not know who controls the STATE
organizatd militia, now known as the National Guard?

Marley

>Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: Robin z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n etDate: 7/15/2004 1:35 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id:<BD1C9AFE.4514D%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.de leted@harritt.net>in article 20040715144554.04762.00001389@mb-m10.aol.com, LilMtnCbn atlilmtncbn@aol.com wrote on 15/7/04 7:45 pm: Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apart From: Neil Green posting@jmage.org Date: 7/15/2004 12:25 PM Mountain Standard Time Message-id: <pan.2004.07.15.18.25.44.132882@jmage.org> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:28:12 +0100, Robin wrote:>>>> I believe you have to pay a tax for owning a TV. Makes you wonder, doesn't>>> it?>>>>>>>>>> Do you have to pay it yearly? How much does it cost? LOL>> In Britain, my last one cost 116 GBPounds. Great value for money. Didyou> never see that Monty Python sketch about the TV licence?>> "I'd gladly sell my car and my house and all it's contents to help theBBC"> It's fantastic value for money. Certainly nothing to laugh at. The BBC's news-gathering and reporting alone is worth much more than a little over two pounds a week, let alone the range of other services we receive from them. -- Neil But is it a one-time tax, or ongoing? TIA.It has to be renewed yearly as long as there is a TV receiver on thepremises. I have to have a separate TV licence for the office. You get onefree if you are over 75 or someone who lives with you is.Robin

What if you have more than one TV? Thanks!


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040714003344.19329.00001393@mb-m17.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: aspensky@knology.net (Debbie)Date: 7/13/2004 7:22 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <4b23522a.0407131722.76aca2d4@posting.google.com>helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote in messagenews:<a9c1bada.0407130441.25ae1fa9@posting.google.com>... aspensky@knology.net (Debbie) wrote in message news:<4b23522a.0407111919.61f13d31@posting.google.com>... > helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote in message news:<a9c1bada.0407111419.39f05d1@posting.google.com>... > > Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-787957.23455209072004@netnews.comcast.net>... > > > In article <a9c1bada.0407091706.529d8d94@posting.google.com>, > > > helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: > > > ><snip> > > I find it very peculiar that the greatest proponent of democracy - the > > USA - is the ONLY western industrialised nation to use the death > > penalty to kill its OWN citizens. Then, when I think that most of > > those who are killed in this way are poor and/or black - or from other > > minorities - then I *really* have to wonder how it is that the Civil > > Rights Movement has won so litle ground. ><snip> > > Ya know Helen, I have yet to see people writing in and bashing your > country the way that you see fit to bash ours. Our little country has been bashed repeatedly for 800+ years. Yours has not. America has always been very good to the Irish, and the Irish repaid American generosity by helping to build your great country. There has always been a symbiotic bond between Ireland and the US. After 9/11 Ireland was the ONLY country to have a National Day of Mourning. *Everything* shut down - shops, businesses, government offices... We were numb with grief, in solidarity with you. It was bad enough that *foreigners* could come onto your soil and kill Americans (and Irish and all the others) Then we reflect that you are still executing your own people - AND people from other countries, including Mexico - when every other western industrialised country has abolished capital punishment. It is so bizarre. Ireland's last execution was in 1954, Canada's in 1962 and the UK's in 1964. If I comment on it, I am doing what I have done all my adult life so far. I am an Equal Opportunities Campaigner :-) I marched for Civil Rights, marched against apartheid, etc. (Even South Africa has abolished capital punishment.) Civil Rights were hard fought for in the US - and elsewhere - and yet there are disproportionate numbers of poor people and African Americans and Hispanics on Death Row. Now why would that be? Maybe you and Jackie > have more in common than you might have thought. You live where you > live and are proud of it, great, yippee, bully for you and stay there! Why should I? My country is so tiny that we can't avoid looking - and travelling - beyond our own horizons. Because we are not a military threat to anyone, we feel we have the right to comment on those with more power than we have. We feel that we have a duty to involve ourselves (individually and collectively) in human rights matters and peace-keeping, wherever it is, even if it makes us unpopular. > I am sure if I took the time to pull up enough websites I'd find many > things about your dear old country that wouldn't sit well with us > USians. You better believe that, Debbie. We are outraged here at the moment, reeling at the story of a 37-year-old mother of seven (one child is autistic) who was jailed last week for failing to pay a fine - for not having a TV licence. Her 'debt' was seven years old, but her *real* crime was that she is poor. Just because I ***** about the use of the death penalty in the US - and elsewhere - doesn't mean that I don't see (and write and ***** about) the flaws and injustices in our own society. Far from it. You do not live here and due to that I don't believe you vote > so step off. You are quite correct, I don't vote in the US. (Many of your own fellow citizens did, in Florida, for all the good it did them, last time out!) Tell me why a few words from me - a lone Irishwoman - should upset you so much when I am simply commenting on the uncivilised practice of capital punishment, or more correctly, state-sanctioned murder. Even if there is a possibility that only ONE person in FIFTY is unjustly executed, imagine if that person was someone you knew and loved. Imagine if it was you. So feel aggrieved at me if you like, and I am sorry if you are offended, but I call it as I see it - I believe it is necessary to rock the boat sometimes. Edumnd Burke, Irishman, was supposed to have said: "For evil to prevail, all that is required is for good men to do nothing" - or words to that effect. I joined Amnesty. HelenThanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I appreciate whatyou wrote. BTW what is a t.v. license? I believe you have to pay a tax for owning a TV. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

Yep, now if they began taxing particular shows, like say the "Wiggles"
I'd be in helluva trouble.

in article 20040715172421.04588.00001429@mb-m10.aol.com, LilMtnCbn at
lilmtncbn@aol.com wrote on 15/7/04 10:24 pm:
Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apart From: Robin z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et Date: 7/15/2004 1:35 PM Mountain Standard Time Message-id: <BD1C9AFE.4514D%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.de leted@harritt.net> in article 20040715144554.04762.00001389@mb-m10.aol.com, LilMtnCbn at lilmtncbn@aol.com wrote on 15/7/04 7:45 pm:> Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apart> From: Neil Green posting@jmage.org> Date: 7/15/2004 12:25 PM Mountain Standard Time> Message-id: <pan.2004.07.15.18.25.44.132882@jmage.org>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:28:12 +0100, Robin wrote:>>>>>> I believe you have to pay a tax for owning a TV. Makes you wonder,> doesn't>>>> it?>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have to pay it yearly? How much does it cost? LOL>>>> In Britain, my last one cost 116 GBPounds. Great value for money. Did you>> never see that Monty Python sketch about the TV licence?>>>> "I'd gladly sell my car and my house and all it's contents to help the BBC">>>> It's fantastic value for money. Certainly nothing to laugh at. The BBC's> news-gathering and reporting alone is worth much more than a little over> two pounds a week, let alone the range of other services we receive from> them.>> --> Neil But is it a one-time tax, or ongoing? TIA. It has to be renewed yearly as long as there is a TV receiver on the premises. I have to have a separate TV licence for the office. You get one free if you are over 75 or someone who lives with you is. Robin What if you have more than one TV? Thanks!

You can operate as many TVs as you like on one premises on one licence as
long as they are all yours and you are not leasing or renting any part of
the property to another person who is using any of the TVs ( I think).

See part 4, Sections 363 to 368 of the Communications Act 2003. Which
replaced the licensing provisions made by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949,
as amended by the Broadcasting Act 1990.

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm

And explanatory notes thereto

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/en2003/2003en21.htm

Hope that helps to explain it, but see also

The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 Statutory
Instrument 2004 No. 692 Which came in to force 1st April 2004 and makes some
important changes and clarifies the situation regarding mobile homes and
touring caravans (trailers) and a lot of other issues.

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm

Then again of course if you intend to operate a TV in the Channel Islands
you should be aware of the The Communications (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Order
2004 Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 307

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040307.htm

Or

The Broadcasting and Communications (Jersey) Order 2004 Statutory Instrument
2004 No. 308

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040308.htm

And

The Communications (Jersey) Order 2003 Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 3197

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20033197.htm

Though I find it difficult to see how the latter three instruments affects
the licensing of television reception in the CI, as they do not appear to
refer to Sections 363 to 368 of the Act, the BBC Charter applies to the
Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, supposedly requiring viewers to pay the
same TV licence fee as UK viewers. But you'd have to give the Orders a
thorough reading for yourself to be certain should you be contemplating
operating a television in the Channel Islands. I'm afraid that I'm unable to
find anything to give us any guidance on the situation in Alderney and Sark
other than that contained in The Communications (Bailiwick of Guernsey)
Order 2003 so I assume they are governed by the laws of that bailiwick in
that respect. I've not been able to find any Order referring specifically to
the IoM so again I am unsure of the situation there, perhaps someone else
could enlighten us.

Robin

twgnow@yahoo.ca (Tom) wrote
With respect to general deterrence, as others have pointed out elsewhere on this thread, there appears to be no compelling evidence of the general deterrence value of the death penalty.

I agree. Murders that are horrible enough to result in a death penalty
are seldom rational acts with a cost-benefit analysis, even an
implicit one, preceding them.


It clearly works for specific deterrence, since a dead murderer can't murder again.

Yes.

But, then again, a murderer locked up for life in an effective prison can't murder again either. If the latter works as well as the former, why use the latter?

I think the question is, does it?

Prison authorities hate "life without the possibility of parole"
because the prisoner then has so little to lose that he (usually "he")
becomes a management problem. There are very few legitimate sanctions
that can be used against such a prisoner. Moreover, the fact that he
is locked up for life doesn't preclude his killing other prisoners or
guards, or of eventually getting out. Apparently "life" seldom means
for an actual lifetime.

The death penalty clearly does not assist with rehabilitation. Thus, the only persuasive argument in favour of the death penalty is based on the principle of retribution.

True. But I don't see retribution as the main function of the justice
system anyway. I was thinking of specific deterrence. Retribution is obviously a fundamental function of any criminal justice system. If it wasn't, a simple, heart-felt apology would purge any criminal conduct. As it stands, even if an individual feels genuine remorse for his actions, he will usually still be subjected to some form of criminal sanction.

This is because we have no way of knowing what genuine remorse is.
Come to that, even the remorseful may not know; they may feel
remorseful at the time, but absent a threat of penalty, they may
commit the same crime a second time. Of course, even with the threat
of penalty, many of them still do commit the same crime a second time.

But if one were God, and could see into a person's mind and future, no
punishment would be necessary for someone who was genuinely
remorseful.
The act of executing someone is, by its very nature, the most final, irreversible act imaginable. Given the massive, irreversible consequences of execution, its use is fundamentally incompatible with anything short of an infallible justice system. Such a system does not exist. Period. If one is honest about supporting the death penalty, one must implicitly (or explicitly) be comfortable with the concept of state-sanctioned murder of innocent people.

As one must do if one is comfortable with innocent people being sent
into battle where they have a fairly high risk of dying.
I think it was Julia who referred to the death penalty as barbaric. I agree whole-heartedly.

I respect your and Julia's views, but I don't agree.
"Barbaric" doesn't say anything to me, except that it is something
someone else does that sounds awful to me. Some Hindus find the
concept of eating cows barbaric...but it only means "Eating cows is,
in our culture, horrifying."

So in itself, it's not an argument.
I think that would very much depend on how you define the word, "right." How does a state have "rights" vis-a-vis its citizens? I would suggest that the very notion is unintelligible.

If you think of the State as empowered by its citizens, or consisting
of the citizens collectively, then it does sound odd. So I'd say that
what we really refer to is society: Whatever unit has the
responsibility to defend us from the Not-Us, and to take cognizance of
broken rules.

We pay a price for civilization. It seems to me that the state-sanctioned murder of even one innocent is too steep--especially if that one were me or one of my loved ones. Luckily, I don't believe for a minute that that constitutes the price of civilization.

What is murder?
One could define it as the intentional causing of death of one human
by another.

To that extent, an execution is murder; so then is the killing of a
soldier by another soldier.

One could also define it as the unlawful intentional causing of death
of one human by another.

Then both a legitimate execution and a kill on the battlefield are
excluded.

If an innocent person is killed, then it could be considered a murder;
or it could be considered an accidental death. The objective was to
kill not that specific individual, but rather whoever committed a
particular crime. If that was not the person executed, then his death
was unintentional.

Having said all that, and despite my having no philosophical objection
to the death penalty, I have to admit that the more I hear about the
failings of the legal system, the less comfortable I am with the
finality of the death penalty.

Rupa

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote But is it a one-time tax, or ongoing? TIA.

Annual. I'd gladly pay it to get BBC here!
I get BBC America, which is crappy by comparison.

Rupa

In article <pan.2004.07.15.19.19.00.335231@jmage.org>,
Neil Green <posting@jmage.org> wrote:
This suggests in very strong terms that the right to bear arms is backed up by a duty. It does not in any way imply that machines designed with the sole purpose of killing people should be freely available to anyone wants one. In order to have the right to bear arms you must be available "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". That is radically different from having assault rifles available to buy 24 hours a day. Perhaps _you_ ought to put the word right in quotes until you learn that it also comes with duties.


I don't dispute the responsibility that comes with firearm ownership --
the militia indeed is every adult, and that has a responsibility.

I think you're rather selectively quoting a single USSC case, but since
I don't have the inclination to puruse the web tonight I'm not going to
get into the technical legal issues. Government does have the right to
regulate some aspects of firearm ownership -- I can't own an M60 machine
gun, either, even if I want one (which I don't). But citizens have a
fundamental right to own firearms. That's what the Founders said, and
that's certainly what a fair majority of Americans believe today.

Of course, you're welcome to propose abolishing or amending the 2nd, if
you feel that way. Good luck,




steve

In article
<BD1C95EC.45149%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.de leted@harritt.net>,
Robin <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote:

Take a person's gun away, and you take away her freedom. Marley gets the point of the second amendment. Gave my last gun up a long time ago, when we left the farm (really should hand in that box of cartridges in the sideboard). Can't say as I'm feeling any less free since it became so much more difficult for a Brit to own a gun legally (after Hungerford) even though it's now so much easier to own one illegally.


Doesn't that statement rather vitiate your belief that gun control is
the best way to reduce gun-relate crime?

Here in the States, we have a looney right-wing organization that has
the voice of God as its spokesman, and they have a saying, something
along the lines of when gun ownership is criminal, only criminals will
own guns.

Not so keen that cops locally now have to carry automatic weapons. But a sign of the times I suppose, and they are protecting my freedom quite well enough.


From what I read in the Brit papers and hear from my Brit pals, the
crime rate is a real problem there. Could be wrong, but it seems like
it's getting out of control.




steve

In article <e5619372.0407151642.15b1ed97@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Prison authorities hate "life without the possibility of parole" because the prisoner then has so little to lose that he (usually "he") becomes a management problem. There are very few legitimate sanctions that can be used against such a prisoner. Moreover, the fact that he is locked up for life doesn't preclude his killing other prisoners or guards, or of eventually getting out. Apparently "life" seldom means for an actual lifetime.


There's always a softie on the parole board.

I recall reading a while back that the California Civil Liberties Union
once sued trying to get "life without parole" declared unconstitutional
because it was "cruel and unusual". I can't find it on the web right
now, so I suspect it got tossed, but it shows you the mentality of some
lawyers.

I think it was Julia who referred to the death penalty as barbaric. I agree whole-heartedly. I respect your and Julia's views, but I don't agree. "Barbaric" doesn't say anything to me, except that it is something someone else does that sounds awful to me. Some Hindus find the concept of eating cows barbaric...but it only means "Eating cows is, in our culture, horrifying."


I like the way you put that.

I disagree with Julia and Tom. I also recognize that there's no way they
and I will come to agreement unless one of us concedes, and that isn't
likely.




steve

in article steve-4A3A2C.21020815072004@netnews.comcast.net, Steve White at
steve@spam.me.never wrote on 16/7/04 3:02 am:
In article <BD1C95EC.45149%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.de leted@harritt.net>, Robin <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote:

> Take a person's gun away, and you take away her freedom.
Marley gets the point of the second amendment.

Gave my last gun up a long time ago, when we left the farm (really should hand in that box of cartridges in the sideboard). Can't say as I'm feeling any less free since it became so much more difficult for a Brit to own a gun legally (after Hungerford) even though it's now so much easier to own one illegally.

Doesn't that statement rather vitiate your belief that gun control is the best way to reduce gun-relate crime?

How do you think ordinary law abiding people having guns in the UK would
reduce our crime rate in any way? Gun crime here mostly consists of people
with guns shooting each other. I really don't think that I've lost any
freedoms by no longer being able to keep guns (that in my case were for pest
control and sport rather than personal protection).

The sudden massive increase in the risk of experiencing a terrorist attack
here as a result of the international irresponsibility of Blair &co has
resulted in police locally, being heavily armed. The fact that civilians
generally aren't expected to be seen carrying arms here means that when they
do, the police tend to shoot first ask questions later, even when the
supposed weapon turns out to be a chair leg in a sack as was recently the
case in one incident. How might *I* feel more free carrying a gun here?
Here in the States, we have a looney right-wing organization that has the voice of God as its spokesman, and they have a saying, something along the lines of when gun ownership is criminal, only criminals will own guns.

Yes but that's an organisation run by an arsehole for arseholes, isn't it?

Not so keen that cops locally now have to carry automatic weapons. But a sign of the times I suppose, and they are protecting my freedom quite well enough.

From what I read in the Brit papers

You'll have to stop reading those ridiculous rightwing arsewhipes like the
Daily Mail the Express and the Telegraph and subscribe to a decent English
newspaper like the Independent or Guardian.
and hear from my Brit pals, the crime rate is a real problem there. Could be wrong, but it seems like it's getting out of control.

Really? Where do they live? Brixton? Toxteth? The national crime rate here,
in reality, remains fairly static, the poor areas in the inner cities have
their problems like everywhere else. If I ever decide to take up crack
dealing for a living, then perhaps I'll also feel the need for a hand gun,
in the meantime I feel far safer without .

Robin

"Robin" <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote in
message
news:BD1D0C7C.4518F%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.au to.deleted@harritt.net... in article steve-4A3A2C.21020815072004@netnews.comcast.net, Steve White
at steve@spam.me.never wrote on 16/7/04 3:02 am: In article <BD1C95EC.45149%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.de leted@harritt.net>, Robin <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote:>> Take a person's gun away, and you take away her freedom.> Marley gets the point of the second amendment. Gave my last gun up a long time ago, when we left the farm (really should hand in that box of cartridges in the sideboard). Can't say as I'm feeling any less free since it became so much more difficult for a Brit to own a gun legally (after Hungerford) even though it's now so much easier to own one illegally. Doesn't that statement rather vitiate your belief that gun control is the best way to reduce gun-relate crime? How do you think ordinary law abiding people having guns in the UK would reduce our crime rate in any way? Gun crime here mostly consists of people with guns shooting each other. I really don't think that I've lost any freedoms by no longer being able to keep guns (that in my case were for
pest control and sport rather than personal protection).

You lost some very specific freedoms the day Tony Blair signed his pact with
Bush. It will only get worse. The sudden massive increase in the risk of experiencing a terrorist attack here as a result of the international irresponsibility of Blair &co has resulted in police locally, being heavily armed. The fact that civilians generally aren't expected to be seen carrying arms here means that when
they do, the police tend to shoot first ask questions later, even when the supposed weapon turns out to be a chair leg in a sack as was recently the case in one incident. How might *I* feel more free carrying a gun here?

You can shoot back.

Marley

in article UaIJc.99591$OB3.23347@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley
Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 16/7/04 4:44 am:
"Robin" <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote in message news:BD1D0C7C.4518F%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.au to.deleted@harritt.net... in article steve-4A3A2C.21020815072004@netnews.comcast.net, Steve White at steve@spam.me.never wrote on 16/7/04 3:02 am: In article <BD1C95EC.45149%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.de leted@harritt.net>, Robin <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote:

>>> Take a person's gun away, and you take away her freedom.

>> Marley gets the point of the second amendment.
> Gave my last gun up a long time ago, when we left the farm (really should> hand in that box of cartridges in the sideboard). Can't say as I'm feeling> any less free since it became so much more difficult for a Brit to own a> gun legally (after Hungerford) even though it's now so much easier to own> one illegally.
Doesn't that statement rather vitiate your belief that gun control is the best way to reduce gun-relate crime?
How do you think ordinary law abiding people having guns in the UK would reduce our crime rate in any way? Gun crime here mostly consists of people with guns shooting each other. I really don't think that I've lost any freedoms by no longer being able to keep guns (that in my case were for pest control and sport rather than personal protection).
You lost some very specific freedoms the day Tony Blair signed his pact with Bush. It will only get worse.

I guess if worse comes to worse I at least have the comfort of knowing our
armed forces have all signed a pledge of allegiance to Brenda rather than
Blush &Co and is mostly run by members of her family. Maybe there is some
sense in having a constitutional monarchy after all.

Robin

"Robin" <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote in
message
news:BD1D112C.45193%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.au to.deleted@harritt.net... in article UaIJc.99591$OB3.23347@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 16/7/04 4:44 am: "Robin" <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote in message
news:BD1D0C7C.4518F%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.au to.deleted@harritt.net...
in article steve-4A3A2C.21020815072004@netnews.comcast.net, Steve White at steve@spam.me.never wrote on 16/7/04 3:02 am:> In article> <BD1C95EC.45149%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.de leted@harritt.net>,
Robin> <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote:>>>> Take a person's gun away, and you take away her freedom.>>> Marley gets the point of the second amendment.>> Gave my last gun up a long time ago, when we left the farm (really
should>> hand in that box of cartridges in the sideboard). Can't say as I'm
feeling>> any less free since it became so much more difficult for a Brit to
own a>> gun legally (after Hungerford) even though it's now so much easier
to own>> one illegally.> Doesn't that statement rather vitiate your belief that gun control is
the> best way to reduce gun-relate crime? How do you think ordinary law abiding people having guns in the UK
would reduce our crime rate in any way? Gun crime here mostly consists of
people with guns shooting each other. I really don't think that I've lost any freedoms by no longer being able to keep guns (that in my case were for
pest control and sport rather than personal protection). You lost some very specific freedoms the day Tony Blair signed his pact
with Bush. It will only get worse. I guess if worse comes to worse I at least have the comfort of knowing our armed forces have all signed a pledge of allegiance to Brenda rather than Blush &Co and is mostly run by members of her family. Maybe there is some sense in having a constitutional monarchy after all. Robin

Yes. If the US had one, we'd not be in this mess today. I can't imagine
pledging allegiance to a failed rock musician with bad hair. By extention
do they owe alligence to any decendant of the Sophie? (even if she was
German).

Marley

In article
<BD1D0C7C.4518F%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.de leted@harritt.net>,
Robin <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote:

The sudden massive increase in the risk of experiencing a terrorist attack here as a result of the international irresponsibility of Blair &co has resulted in police locally, being heavily armed.


Um, no, the Butler report vindicates Mr. Blair (good thing you have him
as your PM, and I say that as a conservative). And arming the police has
little to do with British foreign policy, unless you count the rather
large number of Islamist immigrants who refuse to assimilate into your
society and who plan to bring down your country (and they do).

The fact that civilians generally aren't expected to be seen carrying arms here means that when they do, the police tend to shoot first ask questions later, even when the supposed weapon turns out to be a chair leg in a sack as was recently the case in one incident. How might *I* feel more free carrying a gun here?


Well first, there'd have to be a cultural change in expectations.

A story: when I was very young, my dad owned a gas station. Every
Thursday afternoon he'd take the weekly receipts to the bank. Now this
was important to us, this was the money that kept us fed. So he'd have
his assistant run the station for an hour or so, he'd gather the cash
from the strongbox he kept at the station (few credit card receipts
then), he'd strap a S&W .38 caliber pistol to his hip, and he'd go off
to the bank. The bank knew him of course, and he'd just walk in, go up
to the commercial accounts window, and deposit his money with the pistol
in plain view. Now times were different (and this was rural Virginia),
but Dad was real clear on one point -- no one, NO ONE, was going to rob
him of his weekly receipts without a fight. And he never had a problem.

Let's just say that he trusted himself more than he trusted a police
officer being handy when he might need one.

This sort of thing is not uncommon today away from our most urbanized
areas. A number of people carry a weapon, all because they recognize
that a police officer rarely is handy the exact moment you need one in a
potentially life-threatening situation. They may have special security
needs, they may have certain fears (rational or irrational, and who's to
judge?), they may just trust themselves more than they trust the police.

Here in the States, we have a looney right-wing organization that has the voice of God as its spokesman, and they have a saying, something along the lines of when gun ownership is criminal, only criminals will own guns. Yes but that's an organisation run by an arsehole for arseholes, isn't it?


Um, no, it's actually a very large organization filled with a real
cross-section of Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom are
decent, law-abiding folks.
From what I read in the Brit papers You'll have to stop reading those ridiculous rightwing arsewhipes like the Daily Mail the Express and the Telegraph and subscribe to a decent English newspaper like the Independent or Guardian.


I read the Guardian on line almost every day, thanks. I can tolerate
only small doses of the Independent: Robert Fisk is the epitomy of a
dishonest hack, and the other regular columnists aren't much better.



steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-D65D6E.23154015072004@netnews.comcast.net... In article <BD1D0C7C.4518F%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.de leted@harritt.net>, Robin <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote: Let's just say that he trusted himself more than he trusted a police officer being handy when he might need one. This sort of thing is not uncommon today away from our most urbanized areas. A number of people carry a weapon, all because they recognize that a police officer rarely is handy the exact moment you need one in a potentially life-threatening situation. They may have special security needs, they may have certain fears (rational or irrational, and who's to judge?), they may just trust themselves more than they trust the police.

If you don't have a gun rack in your pick-up you're not a man. Here in the States, we have a looney right-wing organization that has the voice of God as its spokesman, and they have a saying, something along the lines of when gun ownership is criminal, only criminals will own guns. Yes but that's an organisation run by an arsehole for arseholes, isn't it? Um, no, it's actually a very large organization filled with a real cross-section of Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom are decent, law-abiding folks.

Michael Moore belongs to the NRA. From what I read in the Brit papers You'll have to stop reading those ridiculous rightwing arsewhipes like the Daily Mail the Express and the Telegraph and subscribe to a decent English newspaper like the Independent or Guardian. I read the Guardian on line almost every day, thanks. I can tolerate only small doses of the Independent: Robert Fisk is the epitomy of a dishonest hack, and the other regular columnists aren't much better.

Try the Sun.

Marley steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote I disagree with Julia and Tom. I also recognize that there's no way they and I will come to agreement unless one of us concedes, and that isn't likely.

I think it's a cultural difference.

I personally don't find the death penalty any more horrifying than
war. However, I am beginning to have serious misgivings about the
implementation. If it gets to the point where the percentage of
innocent executees becomes significant, I think one would have to
wonder if the benefit of 'specific deterrence' (as Tom put it) was
worth the risk to the public.

I had similar thoughts on "hot pursuit" by police through the streets
of our city. Every so often, bystanders get killed in an
out-of-control car-chase as the police pursue someone who doesn't stop
when asked. One time, it was a family with three little kids in the
back seat; the police car went through a stop sign. With sirens and
lights, but they crashed nonetheless.

If a police car cannot pursue someone who flees, then what is the
point of a police stop? OTOH, how much risk should the public have to
bear?

There, I tend to come down on the No Hot Pursuit side of the scale.
Most often, the stops are for relatively trivial reasons. So the risk
is too high.

Rupa

helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote It depends on what is meant by "prevent". Why not reduce it by limiting access to guns - that would be a start, but then that would get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people, wouldn't it? They are rarely the ones who end up on Death Row, no matter what they do.

I believe a bare majority of Americans would like to limit access, but
a strong minority absolutely deplore the idea. And it's not just the
rich and powerful who support the 2nd amendment... "Prevent" by use of capital punishment? Well that is the ultimate 'final solution' - just get rid of the problem, kill them off.
I think if it were that simple, I would support the death penalty more
actively than I currently do. If we could kill off every murderer,
knowing for sure that he was a murderer (and absent extenuating
circumstances), I really wouldn't have a problem with it. Not for
retribution, not for deterrence, but because I think society's right
to be free of him exceeded his right to live.
Don't do as we do, do as we say (or we'll kill you)

But the State must always retain some rights that it cannot give to
individual citizens. The right to impose taxes, for instance. If
someone said, well, the State can impose taxes, so I will tax everyone
who passes my house...well, let's say that if he tried to enforce that
tax, he would likely find himself under arrest.


and if we get it wrong sometimes, it really doesn't matter, does it - we are bound to be right most of the time. If we find we are wrong, too late, we can always give you a posthumous pardon - for all the good that will do you. At least it will show that we are, uh, *civilised* people who apologise when we get things wrong.

I think this is a weakness of the death penalty specifically, but more
generally of the whole system. If the system is not working, such that
there is a high percentage of false convictions, there's already a
problem. You don't even have to kill a man. If a person goes to prison
at, say, 25, and is found to be wrongfully convicted at 50 -- into
what kind of situation is he released? And of course, if he dies
meanwhile, it is in effect no different from a death sentence.
(The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and others (minorities, Irish in England) had a long, long wait for their freedom and apologies. Luckily for them the lynch mobs didn't have their way, and capital punishment had been abolished in England...)

Political prisoners, perhaps?
Different situation, I would suggest.

Assuming, of course, that we believe that that is part of the State's job...
I was suggesting protecting its citizens from each other is part of
the State's job.
I am not saying that the US legal system is uncivilised per se, but there are certainly some vestiges left that have no place in a modern democratic society. IMHO. Why is it (AFAIK, anyway)that *doctors* will not administer the lethal injections in US prisons? Are they (generally) more civilised than the judiciary?

It's clear you find the death penalty disgusting.
I can see your viewpoint. I consider it marginal, but don't find it
more disgusting than many other deaths.
Yes, Rupa, we do, at every level, and must continue to pay and do whatever it takes to show that we are evolving, humane people, who believe in the possibility of redemption. (I don't mean in the religious sense, but that too, perhaps).

That may be the difference. I am not entirely convinced about the
redemption part of it in any but the religious sense. In other words,
I think someone who has killed deliberately and compulsively may not
be redeemable. If he is turned loose, it is in effect inflicting a
random death penalty on someone else.

I see where opponents of the death penalty would substitute life
sentences without parole -- but I don't know how practical that is. In my opinion, the state-sanctioned, judicial, calculated, vengeful killing of a prisoner *for any reason* - can not by any standards be called *civilised* in this day and age. It's simply barbaric, and archaic.

Rupa

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0407151642.15b1ed97@posting.google.com>... twgnow@yahoo.ca (Tom) wrote

- snip -
The act of executing someone is, by its very nature, the most final, irreversible act imaginable. Given the massive, irreversible consequences of execution, its use is fundamentally incompatible with anything short of an infallible justice system. Such a system does not exist. Period. If one is honest about supporting the death penalty, one must implicitly (or explicitly) be comfortable with the concept of state-sanctioned murder of innocent people. As one must do if one is comfortable with innocent people being sent into battle where they have a fairly high risk of dying.

I agree. But, I don't think it's relevant to the issue of the death
penalty.
I think it was Julia who referred to the death penalty as barbaric. I agree whole-heartedly. I respect your and Julia's views, but I don't agree. "Barbaric" doesn't say anything to me, except that it is something someone else does that sounds awful to me. Some Hindus find the concept of eating cows barbaric...but it only means "Eating cows is, in our culture, horrifying." So in itself, it's not an argument.

Yeah, I agree, and your point is well taken. I had originally started
writing a paragraph on _why_ I felt it was barbaric; however, I
realized that my post was already long and boring, so why make it more
so? But, at the risk of boring you now, let me give a little precis
of what I was thinking.

Let me start by stating my working definition of barbaric. I would
call anything barbaric that has no place in a modern, civilized
society. Really, I suppose antiquated more accurately describes what
I feel--but, barbaric sounds better!

That said, I believe that the concept of judicial infallibility is one
of the last remaining holdovers of the principle of the divine right
to govern. We all know that judges and juries make mistakes. But,
our system (and, by our, I am speaking primarily of the Canadian
system but, by extension, I think it really includes any common law
based system) is premised on the fiction that once you are found
guilty of a crime by a court of competent jurisdiction and have
exhausted any appeal rights you may have, you are guilty of that
crime. Don't get me wrong--the fiction is, to a certain extent,
necessary to maintain general order. The problem is that it really IS
a fiction. It may not have been a fiction when God Herself was so
deeply involved in human matters the She ordained a monarch as Her
representative on earth, or assisted in the adjudication of trials by
ordeal. But, I think She's tired of us a bit, and left mere humans to
sit in judgment of one another. In any particular case, the courts
probably got the answer right, and the person was guilty. But, I can
say with utter confidence, the courts have not got it right in every
case. I can say with almost equal confidence that, in the future,
courts will continue to get it wrong in some cases.

For that reason, any justice system that kills on the strength of such
an outdated fiction is, in my view, barbaric--well, to start
back-pedaling a bit, at the very least, antiquated.

- snip -
We pay a price for civilization. It seems to me that the state-sanctioned murder of even one innocent is too steep--especially if that one were me or one of my loved ones. Luckily, I don't believe for a minute that that constitutes the price of civilization. What is murder?

What? You're calling me on my over-the-top rhetoric? Although I'm
frequently guilty of such things, I don't think this is one of those
cases. But, then again, we do pay a price for civilization, don't we?
One could define it as the intentional causing of death of one human by another. To that extent, an execution is murder; so then is the killing of a soldier by another soldier. One could also define it as the unlawful intentional causing of death of one human by another. Then both a legitimate execution and a kill on the battlefield are excluded.

You are right that murder can be defined in different ways, depending
on the purpose. In Canada, murder has a very specific meaning in law.
That meaning is closer, although not identical to, your second
definition. However, in general parlance, I suspect that its meaning
is closer to your first definition than your second (but I don't
really know).
If an innocent person is killed, then it could be considered a murder; or it could be considered an accidental death. The objective was to kill not that specific individual, but rather whoever committed a particular crime. If that was not the person executed, then his death was unintentional.

Here, I don't think I could disagree more. How on earth can a death
that is the result of an intentional act be defined as "accidental?"
This is, with the greatest of respect, the most abhorrent sort of
rationalization imaginable. The accident was choosing the wrong
person. The death of that person, on the other hand, was no accident.
The objective, clearly and unequivocally, was to kill that specific
individual. The reason that the specific individual was chosen was
because we believed that he had committed a particular crime. His
death was (to use the same phrase again) clearly and unequivocally
intentional. It's not like we gave a lethal injection to X, but, for
some reason, Y died. That would be unintentional.
Having said all that, and despite my having no philosophical objection to the death penalty, I have to admit that the more I hear about the failings of the legal system, the less comfortable I am with the finality of the death penalty.

I suspect that you and I may agree more than this discussion
illustrates. I, too, don't really have a deep philosophical objection
to the death penalty (I won't go so far as to say that I have NO
philsophical objections). My objections are, I believe, more
practical than philosophical. Of course, I suppose my view that the
execution of one innocent is too many is a matter of philosophy, not
practicality.

Tom

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0407160103.20b348eb@posting.google.c om... helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote It depends on what is meant by "prevent". Why not reduce it by limiting access to guns - that would be a start, but then that would get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people, wouldn't it? They are rarely the ones who end up on Death Row, no matter what they do. I believe a bare majority of Americans would like to limit access,

Imo most rational Americans recognize that no-one needs
assault rifles and the like. We already do attempt to limit access to
"loonies" as Robin calls them ;)

but a strong minority absolutely deplore the idea.

I've come across a few of those and they drive me nuts there is no reasoning
with them. They think everybody is entitled to own as many AK47s as they
like. You want to see propaganda - watch some of the hunting/rifle sport
shows that are on lol

And it's not just the rich and powerful who support the 2nd amendment... "Prevent" by use of capital punishment? Well that is the ultimate 'final solution' - just get rid of the problem, kill them off. I think if it were that simple, I would support the death penalty more actively than I currently do. If we could kill off every murderer, knowing for sure that he was a murderer (and absent extenuating circumstances), I really wouldn't have a problem with it. Not for retribution, not for deterrence, but because I think society's right to be free of him exceeded his right to live. Don't do as we do, do as we say (or we'll kill you) But the State must always retain some rights that it cannot give to individual citizens. The right to impose taxes, for instance. If someone said, well, the State can impose taxes, so I will tax everyone who passes my house...well, let's say that if he tried to enforce that tax, he would likely find himself under arrest. and if we get it wrong sometimes, it really doesn't matter, does it - we are bound to be right most of the time. If we find we are wrong, too late, we can always give you a posthumous pardon - for all the good that will do you. At least it will show that we are, uh, *civilised* people who apologise when we get things wrong. I think this is a weakness of the death penalty specifically, but more generally of the whole system. If the system is not working, such that there is a high percentage of false convictions, there's already a problem. You don't even have to kill a man. If a person goes to prison at, say, 25, and is found to be wrongfully convicted at 50 -- into what kind of situation is he released? And of course, if he dies meanwhile, it is in effect no different from a death sentence.

A friend of mine (we hung around as teenagers) married a man out of state
and had twins. He went to prison for a rape he didn't commit. They
divorced, she remarried and divorced again. He was released from prison a
couple of years ago after a scandal with a forensic witness who's cases were
all reinvestigated (they were on GMA discussing the case) They recently
remarried and appear to be doing well. He missed out on his twins entire
childhood. I think that is probably the exception rather than the rule
though.

(The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and others (minorities, Irish in England) had a long, long wait for their freedom and apologies. Luckily for them the lynch mobs didn't have their way, and capital punishment had been abolished in England...) Political prisoners, perhaps? Different situation, I would suggest. Assuming, of course, that we believe that that is part of the State's job... I was suggesting protecting its citizens from each other is part of the State's job. I am not saying that the US legal system is uncivilised per se, but there are certainly some vestiges left that have no place in a modern democratic society. IMHO. Why is it (AFAIK, anyway)that *doctors* will not administer the lethal injections in US prisons? Are they (generally) more civilised than the judiciary? It's clear you find the death penalty disgusting. I can see your viewpoint. I consider it marginal, but don't find it more disgusting than many other deaths.


I'm ambivalent about it.

Yes, Rupa, we do, at every level, and must continue to pay and do whatever it takes to show that we are evolving, humane people, who believe in the possibility of redemption. (I don't mean in the religious sense, but that too, perhaps). That may be the difference. I am not entirely convinced about the redemption part of it in any but the religious sense. In other words, I think someone who has killed deliberately and compulsively may not be redeemable. If he is turned loose, it is in effect inflicting a random death penalty on someone else.


ITA!

I see where opponents of the death penalty would substitute life sentences without parole -- but I don't know how practical that is.

It might work in some smaller countries but not so sure how it would work
here.


Kathy 1

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-3BFA52.21065215072004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <e5619372.0407151642.15b1ed97@posting.google.com>, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: Prison authorities hate "life without the possibility of parole" because the prisoner then has so little to lose that he (usually "he") becomes a management problem. There are very few legitimate sanctions that can be used against such a prisoner. Moreover, the fact that he is locked up for life doesn't preclude his killing other prisoners or guards, or of eventually getting out. Apparently "life" seldom means for an actual lifetime. There's always a softie on the parole board. I recall reading a while back that the California Civil Liberties Union once sued trying to get "life without parole" declared unconstitutional because it was "cruel and unusual". I can't find it on the web right now, so I suspect it got tossed, but it shows you the mentality of some lawyers.

With respect, it shows the mentality of their clients, not necessarily
the mentality of the lawyers.
I think it was Julia who referred to the death penalty as barbaric. I agree whole-heartedly. I respect your and Julia's views, but I don't agree. "Barbaric" doesn't say anything to me, except that it is something someone else does that sounds awful to me. Some Hindus find the concept of eating cows barbaric...but it only means "Eating cows is, in our culture, horrifying." I like the way you put that.

So do I. I recognize that calling the death penalty barbaric without
explanation is simply an attempt to claim the moral high ground the
easy way.
I disagree with Julia and Tom. I also recognize that there's no way they and I will come to agreement unless one of us concedes, and that isn't likely.

I don't know. I don't necessarily write here to "win" any debates. I
simply find the process of debating these issues interesting. I also
find it more interesting on this group because, unlike a group
specifically dedicated to discussing the death penalty, the views
expressed here are more varied. Although I oppose the death penalty,
my opposition isn't on the basis of any deeply held moral or
philosophical beliefs. If you have a compelling argument in favour of
the death penalty, I might come to agree with you (or at least stop
thinking of you as a barbarian).

Tom

In article <e5619372.0407151643.436d77c8@posting.google.com>,
Rupa Bose <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote:lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote But is it a one-time tax, or ongoing? TIA.Annual. I'd gladly pay it to get BBC here!I get BBC America, which is crappy by comparison.Rupa


I would gladly pay for real BBC too, Rupa. BBC America is only a pale,
pale imitation of the real thing. As a matter of fact, the only thing
that convinced me to get digital cable was BBC America, and sheesh, what a
bust.

Linda
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote I would gladly pay for real BBC too, Rupa. BBC America is only a pale, pale imitation of the real thing. As a matter of fact, the only thing that convinced me to get digital cable was BBC America, and sheesh, what a bust. Linda

I went on a short holiday to London recently -- and spent half of it
watching TV and luxuriating in the newspapers!

Rupa

in article steve-D65D6E.23154015072004@netnews.comcast.net, Steve White at
steve@spam.me.never wrote on 16/7/04 5:15 am:
In article <BD1D0C7C.4518F%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.de leted@harritt.net>, Robin <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote: The sudden massive increase in the risk of experiencing a terrorist attack here as a result of the international irresponsibility of Blair &co has resulted in police locally, being heavily armed. Um, no, the Butler report vindicates Mr. Blair (good thing you have him as your PM, and I say that as a conservative). And arming the police has little to do with British foreign policy, unless you count the rather large number of Islamist immigrants who refuse to assimilate into your society and who plan to bring down your country (and they do). The fact that civilians generally aren't expected to be seen carrying arms here means that when they do, the police tend to shoot first ask questions later, even when the supposed weapon turns out to be a chair leg in a sack as was recently the case in one incident. How might *I* feel more free carrying a gun here? Well first, there'd have to be a cultural change in expectations. A story: when I was very young, my dad owned a gas station. Every Thursday afternoon he'd take the weekly receipts to the bank. Now this was important to us, this was the money that kept us fed. So he'd have his assistant run the station for an hour or so, he'd gather the cash from the strongbox he kept at the station (few credit card receipts then), he'd strap a S&W .38 caliber pistol to his hip, and he'd go off to the bank. The bank knew him of course, and he'd just walk in, go up to the commercial accounts window, and deposit his money with the pistol in plain view. Now times were different (and this was rural Virginia), but Dad was real clear on one point -- no one, NO ONE, was going to rob him of his weekly receipts without a fight. And he never had a problem. Let's just say that he trusted himself more than he trusted a police officer being handy when he might need one. This sort of thing is not uncommon today away from our most urbanized areas. A number of people carry a weapon, all because they recognize that a police officer rarely is handy the exact moment you need one in a potentially life-threatening situation. They may have special security needs, they may have certain fears (rational or irrational, and who's to judge?), they may just trust themselves more than they trust the police.

Yea but you have those life threatening situations because any loony or any
arsehole is allowed to have a gun as well as the responsible guy like your
father, if wasn't for the criminal or loony having such easy access to guns
people like your father wouldn't need them. And if a criminal has killed
once he'll kill again to try and avoid capture and the death penalty.

You live in a country where just about anyone can have a gun and you have
capital punishment in about 40 states. You want to persuade me that makes
you feel safer and gives you greater freedom. That's all an illusion, we
don¹t have guns we don¹t have the death penalty and we are still six times
less likely to be murdered here. Of the five murders in the five mile radius
of where I live in the last five or so years only one has involved a gun (a
12 gauge shot gun, which are still owned by many people in rural areas) and
that was in circumstances where it is difficult to see how the 80yo victim
would have been saved by having a gun.

Here in the States, we have a looney right-wing organization that has the voice of God as its spokesman, and they have a saying, something along the lines of when gun ownership is criminal, only criminals will own guns. Yes but that's an organisation run by an arsehole for arseholes, isn't it? Um, no, it's actually a very large organization filled with a real cross-section of Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom are decent, law-abiding folks. From what I read in the Brit papers You'll have to stop reading those ridiculous rightwing arsewhipes like the Daily Mail the Express and the Telegraph and subscribe to a decent English newspaper like the Independent or Guardian. I read the Guardian on line almost every day, thanks. I can tolerate only small doses of the Independent: Robert Fisk is the epitomy of a dishonest hack, and the other regular columnists aren't much better.

Yea I remember now, you're Julie Burchill fan.

Robin

in article pzIJc.99662$OB3.21144@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley
Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 16/7/04 5:11 am:
"Robin" <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote in message news:BD1D112C.45193%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.au to.deleted@harritt.net... in article UaIJc.99591$OB3.23347@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 16/7/04 4:44 am: "Robin" <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote in message news:BD1D0C7C.4518F%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.au to.deleted@harritt.net... in article steve-4A3A2C.21020815072004@netnews.comcast.net, Steve White at steve@spam.me.never wrote on 16/7/04 3:02 am:>> In article>> <BD1C95EC.45149%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.de leted@harritt.net>,>> Robin <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote:>>>>>>> Take a person's gun away, and you take away her freedom.>>>>>>>>> Marley gets the point of the second amendment.>>>>>>> Gave my last gun up a long time ago, when we left the farm (really>>> should hand in that box of cartridges in the sideboard). Can't say as>>> I'm feeling any less free since it became so much more difficult for a>>> Brit to own a gun legally (after Hungerford) even though it's now so>>> much easier to own one illegally.>>>>> Doesn't that statement rather vitiate your belief that gun control is the>> best way to reduce gun-relate crime?>>> How do you think ordinary law abiding people having guns in the UK would> reduce our crime rate in any way? Gun crime here mostly consists of people> with guns shooting each other. I really don't think that I've lost any> freedoms by no longer being able to keep guns (that in my case were for> pest control and sport rather than personal protection).> You lost some very specific freedoms the day Tony Blair signed his pact with Bush. It will only get worse. I guess if worse comes to worse I at least have the comfort of knowing our armed forces have all signed a pledge of allegiance to Brenda rather than Blush &Co and is mostly run by members of her family. Maybe there is some sense in having a constitutional monarchy after all. Robin Yes. If the US had one, we'd not be in this mess today. I can't imagine pledging allegiance to a failed rock musician with bad hair. By extention do they owe alligence to any decendant of the Sophie? (even if she was German). Marley

Don't know, I suppose the Battenbergs were, and Phil the Greek's a
Battenberg he's long retired from the Navy, therefore so is Charlie
Biggears. But I'd be more worried if they had to swear allegiance to Sophie
Mrs Prince Edward. But I don't believe she is Col in Chief of anything.

Robin

In article <56c6b3a.0407160525.6b2dcb39@posting.google.com>,
twgnow@yahoo.ca (Tom) wrote:

I recall reading a while back that the California Civil Liberties Union once sued trying to get "life without parole" declared unconstitutional because it was "cruel and unusual". I can't find it on the web right now, so I suspect it got tossed, but it shows you the mentality of some lawyers. With respect, it shows the mentality of their clients, not necessarily the mentality of the lawyers.


Um, the CCLU was the client. And lawyer.





steve

In article <pan.2004.07.15.18.25.44.132882@jmage.org>,
Neil Green <posting@jmage.org> wrote:

It's fantastic value for money. Certainly nothing to laugh at. The BBC's news-gathering and reporting alone is worth much more than a little over two pounds a week, let alone the range of other services we receive from them.


And if you don't agree, don't worry -- you have to pay anyway. Such a
deal!





steve

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:58:58 +0000, Steve White wrote:
In article <pan.2004.07.15.19.19.00.335231@jmage.org>, Neil Green <posting@jmage.org> wrote: I don't dispute the responsibility that comes with firearm ownership -- the militia indeed is every adult, and that has a responsibility. I think you're rather selectively quoting a single USSC case, but since I don't have the inclination to puruse the web tonight I'm not going to get into the technical legal issues. Government does have the right to regulate some aspects of firearm ownership -- I can't own an M60 machine gun, either, even if I want one (which I don't). But citizens have a fundamental right to own firearms. That's what the Founders said, and that's certainly what a fair majority of Americans believe today. Of course, you're welcome to propose abolishing or amending the 2nd, if you feel that way. Good luck,

I'm not selectively quoting anything, however I didn't make that clear in
my earlier post. I posted the full text of the only ruling ever by the
Supreme Court that stood solely on the second amendment. They seemed to
have a very clear idea of what that amendment did and did not allow.

--
Neil
posting@jmage.org
For my direct email replace posting with my forename.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:23:19 +0000, Marley Greiner wrote:
If you are genuinely so worried about protecting you and yours, perhaps you could do something to reduce the number of guns in circulation. Why not work towards banning the possession of a gun by anyone not a member of a state organized militia? Surely, you can't be serious? Do you not know who controls the STATE organizatd militia, now known as the National Guard?

I cannot be serious? Do you think having more guns available makes things
safer? Why not follow the UK model of a complete ban on handguns and
limited ownership of every other type of gun?

--
Neil
posting@jmage.org
For my direct email replace posting with my forename.

In article <pan.2004.07.16.20.25.00.504993@jmage.org>, Neil Green
<posting@jmage.org> writes:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:23:19 +0000, Marley Greiner wrote: If you are genuinely so worried about protecting you and yours, perhaps you could do something to reduce the number of guns in circulation. Why not work towards banning the possession of a gun by anyone not a member of a state organized militia? Surely, you can't be serious? Do you not know who controls the STATE organizatd militia, now known as the National Guard?I cannot be serious? Do you think having more guns available makes thingssafer? Why not follow the UK model of a complete ban on handguns andlimited ownership of every other type of gun?

There are a number of reasons we won't see handguns banned and ownership of
other guns limited, from the practical to the societal.

On the practical side, there probably are millions of handguns in circulation
with no record of who may own one. ( I bought my one and only handgun, a .22
target pistol, in a pawnshop 25 years ago. I sold it to a friend when I moved
to my present, urban location. It could have changed hands 5 times since then,
with no records. It was a well made gun that will last for decades if properly
cared for.) On the societal end, there is simply a long tradition of gun
ownership in the U.S., for personal protection (from man and beast), for
hunting a variety of game (requiring rifles and shotguns of various types), and
for more Freudian reasons, I'm sure. People don't give up their traditions
lightly, particularly when the ability to use a gun has become part of the
right of passage for some groups in our society. Enough people in the U.S. feel
strongly enough about this to make it unlikely that we will ever go where you
suggest.

I'll grant you that there are weapons on the street that are useless for
anything but killing another human being. But we've barely managed to pass laws
regulating those, much less taken them off the street.

J.







Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

In article <pan.2004.07.16.20.25.00.504993@jmage.org>,
Neil Green <posting@jmage.org> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:23:19 +0000, Marley Greiner wrote: If you are genuinely so worried about protecting you and yours, perhaps you could do something to reduce the number of guns in circulation. Why not work towards banning the possession of a gun by anyone not a member of a state organized militia? Surely, you can't be serious? Do you not know who controls the STATE organizatd militia, now known as the National Guard? I cannot be serious? Do you think having more guns available makes things safer?


Well yeah, pretty much. It's useful for the bad guys to be worrying
about who is, and isn't, packing heat.

Why not follow the UK model of a complete ban on handguns and limited ownership of every other type of gun?


As J explains in another post, it won't work for a variety of reasons.
He omitted one but I'll add it: most Americans simply don't buy your
line of reasoning. And they see a need to keep an eye on the state.




steve

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0407160103.20b348eb@posting.google.com>... helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote It depends on what is meant by "prevent". Why not reduce it by limiting access to guns - that would be a start, but then that would get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people, wouldn't it? They are rarely the ones who end up on Death Row, no matter what they do. I believe a bare majority of Americans would like to limit access, but a strong minority absolutely deplore the idea. And it's not just the rich and powerful who support the 2nd amendment... "Prevent" by use of capital punishment? Well that is the ultimate 'final solution' - just get rid of the problem, kill them off. I think if it were that simple, I would support the death penalty more actively than I currently do. If we could kill off every murderer, knowing for sure that he was a murderer (and absent extenuating circumstances), I really wouldn't have a problem with it.

What sort of 'murderer'? How could you ever be absolutely certain that
the individual was a cold-blooded killer? That there were no
mitigating circumstances? There seem to be many variations on the
theme of killing, including planned murder, reflex killing in the heat
of the moment, overkill in response to something, shooting an
'unloaded' gun, and so on and so forth.

Then we have the false testimony, the beatings, the false confessions
extracted under duress. It seems to me that killing someone for
(supposedly) killing someone leaves absolutely no leeway for eventual
proof of innocence.

These Old Testament punishments really have no place in a modern,
democratic society. How can anyone who supports the death penalty
point a finger at the equally archaic practises of an eye-for-an-eye,
dismemberment, beheading, and so on of some other countries.

An Irishman, a priest, Oliver Plunkett, was the last man to be hanged,
drawn and quartered in Tyburn, London, in 1681. It's great that the
English have moved on a bit from then, particularly in light of the
numbers of gross miscarriages of justice in regard to Irish people.
The former prisoners acknowledge that they would have been hanged for
their so-called crimes at any other time, with the fact of their
innocence being of little consequence to anyone, especially the Law
Lords.

Did you ever hear about Lord Denning's "appalling vista" speech?

" In 1980, the innocent Birmingham Six tried to sue the police from
their prison cells. Lord Denning said that if he accepted that the
police had beaten confessions out of them, the men would have to be
released. 'This,' he said as he threw out the case, 'is such an
appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say, "It
cannot be right these actions should go any further".'

In his retirement, the old brute mused that the campaign which freed
the Birmingham Six years later wouldn't have pummelled his and the
law's reputations if the men had been hanged on conviction, as they
would have been in the good old days. Judicial murder, he said, would
have 'satisfied the whole community'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/jilldando/story/0,7369,755104,00.html


Not for retribution, not for deterrence, but because I think society's right to be free of him exceeded his right to live. Don't do as we do, do as we say (or we'll kill you) But the State must always retain some rights that it cannot give to individual citizens. The right to impose taxes, for instance. If someone said, well, the State can impose taxes, so I will tax everyone who passes my house...well, let's say that if he tried to enforce that tax, he would likely find himself under arrest. and if we get it wrong sometimes, it really doesn't matter, does it - we are bound to be right most of the time. If we find we are wrong, too late, we can always give you a posthumous pardon - for all the good that will do you. At least it will show that we are, uh, *civilised* people who apologise when we get things wrong. I think this is a weakness of the death penalty specifically, but more generally of the whole system. If the system is not working, such that there is a high percentage of false convictions, there's already a problem. You don't even have to kill a man. If a person goes to prison at, say, 25, and is found to be wrongfully convicted at 50 -- into what kind of situation is he released? And of course, if he dies meanwhile, it is in effect no different from a death sentence. (The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and others (minorities, Irish in England) had a long, long wait for their freedom and apologies. Luckily for them the lynch mobs didn't have their way, and capital punishment had been abolished in England...) Political prisoners, perhaps? Different situation, I would suggest.

I don't know that they could be called "political prisoners". They
were simply innocent working-class men who had the misfortune to be
Irish in England when the bombs went off in Birmingham. They were poor
and Irish - the Muslims of the day. They were innocent people who were
'fitted up' for the murders of innocent people. They spent 16 years in
prison, and suffered all sorts of hardship, including regular
beatings. They would still be there only for the constant campaigns on
their behalf, and the relentless work done by Gareth Peirce,
solicitor. You can read about her here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3497942.stm Assuming, of course, that we believe that that is part of the State's job... I was suggesting protecting its citizens from each other is part of the State's job. I am not saying that the US legal system is uncivilised per se, but there are certainly some vestiges left that have no place in a modern democratic society. IMHO. Why is it (AFAIK, anyway)that *doctors* will not administer the lethal injections in US prisons? Are they (generally) more civilised than the judiciary? It's clear you find the death penalty disgusting. I can see your viewpoint. I consider it marginal, but don't find it more disgusting than many other deaths.

To me it is hypocritical for the state to find someone guilty of
murder and then - as punishment - to murder him. To plan it down to
the last detail, allowing for hope and withdrawing it over ten or
twenty years, and then - BANG -you're dead.

If you have time you might be interested to read the following - it's
in pdf format, and is quite long.

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/birmingham6/birmingham6.pdf
Yes, Rupa, we do, at every level, and must continue to pay and do whatever it takes to show that we are evolving, humane people, who believe in the possibility of redemption. (I don't mean in the religious sense, but that too, perhaps). That may be the difference. I am not entirely convinced about the redemption part of it in any but the religious sense.

Why not? Don't we all redeem ourselves as we mature, learn as we get
older, try and undo wrongs that we have done, or at the very least to
do enough 'good' to make up for what we have done. To me it is just
learning how to live in a civilised society.


In other words, I think someone who has killed deliberately and compulsively may not be redeemable. If he is turned loose, it is in effect inflicting a random death penalty on someone else.

The person who has killed "compulsively" may have done it as a result
of great wrong done to *him* in his past. Or he may simply be
clinically *mad* - in which case he should not be in an ordinary jail.
I don't know. I doubt that many killings are actually planned out in
fine detail in the way that I perceive judicial murder to be planned
and executed.
I see where opponents of the death penalty would substitute life sentences without parole -- but I don't know how practical that is.

Why ever not? In most (all?) other developed, industrialised
democracies, that is precisely what happens. At least 'life sentences'
are imposed, not sure about the addendum 'without parole'.

Helen

In my opinion, the state-sanctioned, judicial, calculated, vengeful killing of a prisoner *for any reason* - can not by any standards be called *civilised* in this day and age. It's simply barbaric, and archaic. Rupa

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:a9c1bada.0407170732.333a8968@posting.google.c om... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message
news:<e5619372.0407160103.20b348eb@posting.google.com>... helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote It depends on what is meant by "prevent". Why not reduce it by limiting access to guns - that would be a start, but then that would get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people, wouldn't it? They are rarely the ones who end up on Death Row, no matter what they do. I believe a bare majority of Americans would like to limit access, but a strong minority absolutely deplore the idea. And it's not just the rich and powerful who support the 2nd amendment... "Prevent" by use of capital punishment? Well that is the ultimate 'final solution' - just get rid of the problem, kill them off. I think if it were that simple, I would support the death penalty more actively than I currently do. If we could kill off every murderer, knowing for sure that he was a murderer (and absent extenuating circumstances), I really wouldn't have a problem with it. What sort of 'murderer'? How could you ever be absolutely certain that the individual was a cold-blooded killer?


I am absolutely certain that the guy (in our area) who got on his bike and
rode to a friend's house and shot his friend, his friend's mother, and his
friend's sister and brother is a cold blooded murder.

That there were no mitigating circumstances?


There are no possible "mitigating circumstances" that would erase the fact
that he was/is a cold-blooded murderer.
There seem to be many variations on the theme of killing, including planned murder, reflex killing in the heat of the moment, overkill in response to something, shooting an 'unloaded' gun, and so on and so forth.

So is it your contention that there *is* no such thing as a cold-blooded
murderer? Take the chance on "redemption" Helen and invite the man I
described earlier into your neighborhood - heck why not your home.
Then we have the false testimony, the beatings, the false confessions extracted under duress. It seems to me that killing someone for (supposedly) killing someone leaves absolutely no leeway for eventual proof of innocence. These Old Testament punishments really have no place in a modern, democratic society. How can anyone who supports the death penalty point a finger at the equally archaic practises of an eye-for-an-eye, dismemberment, beheading, and so on of some other countries. An Irishman, a priest, Oliver Plunkett, was the last man to be hanged, drawn and quartered in Tyburn, London, in 1681. It's great that the English have moved on a bit from then, particularly in light of the numbers of gross miscarriages of justice in regard to Irish people. The former prisoners acknowledge that they would have been hanged for their so-called crimes at any other time, with the fact of their innocence being of little consequence to anyone, especially the Law Lords. Did you ever hear about Lord Denning's "appalling vista" speech? " In 1980, the innocent Birmingham Six tried to sue the police from their prison cells. Lord Denning said that if he accepted that the police had beaten confessions out of them, the men would have to be released. 'This,' he said as he threw out the case, 'is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say, "It cannot be right these actions should go any further".' In his retirement, the old brute mused that the campaign which freed the Birmingham Six years later wouldn't have pummelled his and the law's reputations if the men had been hanged on conviction, as they would have been in the good old days. Judicial murder, he said, would have 'satisfied the whole community'. http://www.guardian.co.uk/jilldando/story/0,7369,755104,00.html Not for retribution, not for deterrence, but because I think society's right to be free of him exceeded his right to live. Don't do as we do, do as we say (or we'll kill you) But the State must always retain some rights that it cannot give to individual citizens. The right to impose taxes, for instance. If someone said, well, the State can impose taxes, so I will tax everyone who passes my house...well, let's say that if he tried to enforce that tax, he would likely find himself under arrest. and if we get it wrong sometimes, it really doesn't matter, does it - we are bound to be right most of the time. If we find we are wrong, too late, we can always give you a posthumous pardon - for all the good that will do you. At least it will show that we are, uh, *civilised* people who apologise when we get things wrong. I think this is a weakness of the death penalty specifically, but more generally of the whole system. If the system is not working, such that there is a high percentage of false convictions, there's already a problem. You don't even have to kill a man. If a person goes to prison at, say, 25, and is found to be wrongfully convicted at 50 -- into what kind of situation is he released? And of course, if he dies meanwhile, it is in effect no different from a death sentence. (The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and others (minorities, Irish in England) had a long, long wait for their freedom and apologies. Luckily for them the lynch mobs didn't have their way, and capital punishment had been abolished in England...) Political prisoners, perhaps? Different situation, I would suggest. I don't know that they could be called "political prisoners". They were simply innocent working-class men who had the misfortune to be Irish in England when the bombs went off in Birmingham. They were poor and Irish - the Muslims of the day. They were innocent people who were 'fitted up' for the murders of innocent people. They spent 16 years in prison, and suffered all sorts of hardship, including regular beatings. They would still be there only for the constant campaigns on their behalf, and the relentless work done by Gareth Peirce, solicitor. You can read about her here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3497942.stm Assuming, of course, that we believe that that is part of the State's > job... I was suggesting protecting its citizens from each other is part of the State's job. I am not saying that the US legal system is uncivilised per se, but there are certainly some vestiges left that have no place in a modern democratic society. IMHO. Why is it (AFAIK, anyway)that *doctors* will not administer the lethal injections in US prisons? Are they (generally) more civilised than the judiciary? It's clear you find the death penalty disgusting. I can see your viewpoint. I consider it marginal, but don't find it more disgusting than many other deaths. To me it is hypocritical for the state to find someone guilty of murder and then - as punishment - to murder him. To plan it down to the last detail, allowing for hope and withdrawing it over ten or twenty years, and then - BANG -you're dead. If you have time you might be interested to read the following - it's in pdf format, and is quite long. http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/birmingham6/birmingham6.pdf Yes, Rupa, we do, at every level, and must continue to pay and do whatever it takes to show that we are evolving, humane people, who believe in the possibility of redemption. (I don't mean in the religious sense, but that too, perhaps). That may be the difference. I am not entirely convinced about the redemption part of it in any but the religious sense. Why not? Don't we all redeem ourselves as we mature,

No we "all" don't - the same holds true of people who commit crimes. You
stretch the bounds of common sense when trying to equate redemption of
someone who has murdered with the redemption of someone who was 'immature'

learn as we get older, try and undo wrongs that we have done, or at the very least to do enough 'good' to make up for what we have done. To me it is just learning how to live in a civilised society.


In other words, I think someone who has killed deliberately and compulsively may not be redeemable. If he is turned loose, it is in effect inflicting a random death penalty on someone else. The person who has killed "compulsively" may have done it as a result of great wrong done to *him* in his past.


I'm sure that is of great comfort to his/her victims


Kathy 1

Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message news:<swhite-66BC68.14301516072004@news.uchicago.edu>... In article <56c6b3a.0407160525.6b2dcb39@posting.google.com>, twgnow@yahoo.ca (Tom) wrote: I recall reading a while back that the California Civil Liberties Union once sued trying to get "life without parole" declared unconstitutional because it was "cruel and unusual". I can't find it on the web right now, so I suspect it got tossed, but it shows you the mentality of some lawyers. With respect, it shows the mentality of their clients, not necessarily the mentality of the lawyers. Um, the CCLU was the client. And lawyer.

Um, last I heard, California still required the members of its bar to
be human. Go figure. If you're really interested, you could always
go to your local law library and read a primer on the lawyer's role as
advocate. It may help.

Tom

In article <steve-A8BBD6.19150916072004@netnews.comcast.net>, Steve White
<steve@spam.me.never> writes:
In article <pan.2004.07.16.20.25.00.504993@jmage.org>, Neil Green <posting@jmage.org> wrote: On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:23:19 +0000, Marley Greiner wrote:> If you are genuinely so worried about protecting you and yours,> perhaps you could do something to reduce the number of guns in> circulation. Why not work towards banning the possession of a gun> by anyone not a member of a state organized militia?> Surely, you can't be serious? Do you not know who controls the STATE organizatd militia, now known as the National Guard? I cannot be serious? Do you think having more guns available makes things safer?Well yeah, pretty much. It's useful for the bad guys to be worryingabout who is, and isn't, packing heat. Why not follow the UK model of a complete ban on handguns and limited ownership of every other type of gun?As J explains in another post, it won't work for a variety of reasons.He omitted one but I'll add it: most Americans simply don't buy yourline of reasoning. And they see a need to keep an eye on the state.steve

I'm not sure about most, Steve, but certainly enough to render it a political
impossibility at present and for some time to come.

J.





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

In article <56c6b3a.0407180625.12ef7d82@posting.google.com>,
twgnow@yahoo.ca (Tom) wrote:
Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message news:<swhite-66BC68.14301516072004@news.uchicago.edu>... In article <56c6b3a.0407160525.6b2dcb39@posting.google.com>, twgnow@yahoo.ca (Tom) wrote: > I recall reading a while back that the California Civil > Liberties Union once sued trying to get "life without parole" > declared unconstitutional because it was "cruel and unusual". I > can't find it on the web right now, so I suspect it got tossed, > but it shows you the mentality of some lawyers. > With respect, it shows the mentality of their clients, not necessarily the mentality of the lawyers. Um, the CCLU was the client. And lawyer. Um, last I heard, California still required the members of its bar to be human. Go figure. If you're really interested, you could always go to your local law library and read a primer on the lawyer's role as advocate. It may help. Tom

Ah, legal humor. I think you know what I meant.





steve

Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message news:<swhite-E62D68.13083415072004@news.uchicago.edu>... In article <a9c1bada.0407150703.1130f957@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: Actually, we were talking of the state's inhabitants killing each other, giving rise to the need to do something to prevent it. It depends on what is meant by "prevent". Why not reduce it by limiting access to guns - that would be a start, but then that would get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people, wouldn't it? They are rarely the ones who end up on Death Row, no matter what they do. As in Switzerland? Every adult male has a rifle in his home in Switzerland -- required by law since every male is a member of the Swiss milita. Last time I checked, the Swiss weren't gunning each other down.

Having lived in Switzerland for a couple of years I can only vouch for
the fact that the Swiss didn't seem to do very much other than go to
bed very early so that they could get up very early so that they got
in to work very early so that they could work hard and earn lots of
money. They never dared break the law - their police were armed, and
not averse to using their guns. Oh yeah, the trains *always* ran on
time...to get them to work early.

Then there was the militia. From age 18 until about 34 they did about
a year's training, in total, in the meantime keeping their rifles
under the bed.

I could have been wrong about all of that of course. Maybe they were
wild and enthusiastic about lots of things that I didn't know about -
they might have hidden *them* under the bed too, for all I knew.

<snip> [1] "get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people"; what wonderously purple prose!

I have said it to you before Steve - if you are going to criticise (or
even criticize) someone's writing, you might at least check your
spelling - it's w o n d r o u s l y easy to get it right - if you drop
the spite.

Have you never heard the expression "to get up someone's nose"? It
means to annoy or aggravate a person. I do it to you regularly. :-)

To curtail the vast fortunes that are made from the sale of arms and
ammo would most certainly "get up the noses" of a great many "very
powerful and rich people" - those who manufacture, import/export/sell
guns and ammo.

Helen

In article <a9c1bada.0407191749.29d2dee@posting.google.com>,
helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:

To curtail the vast fortunes that are made from the sale of arms and ammo would most certainly "get up the noses" of a great many "very powerful and rich people" - those who manufacture, import/export/sell guns and ammo.


Stop picking on the French -- the Russians are just as guilty.





steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-577A7F.23172219072004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <a9c1bada.0407191749.29d2dee@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: To curtail the vast fortunes that are made from the sale of arms and ammo would most certainly "get up the noses" of a great many "very powerful and rich people" - those who manufacture, import/export/sell guns and ammo. Stop picking on the French -- the Russians are just as guilty.

Tsk tsk, now don't be disingenuous Steve. Why would I even mention
such small fry when they could hardly compete with your own pantheon?
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, IBM, Alliant Tech
to name but a few of your manufacturers and providers of weapons of
every description, are very far ahead of the competitors. Unless you
know differently, of course.

By comparison I suppose, the small arms manufacture and sales in the
US fade into insignificance in the global scheme of things. However
gun business is gun business. I still say that too many rich and
powerful people have a vested interest in keeping the gun laws exactly
as they are - after all it's unlikely that many of *them* will ever
have to look into the barrel of a gun at the bank, or face the
possibility of their children being shot dead in their schools.

Helen


steve

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2lt9b1Fghe16U1@uni-berlin.de>... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:a9c1bada.0407170732.333a8968@posting.google.c om... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0407160103.20b348eb@posting.google.com>... helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote > > It depends on what is meant by "prevent". Why not reduce it by > limiting access to guns - that would be a start, but then that would > get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people, wouldn't > it? They are rarely the ones who end up on Death Row, no matter what > they do. I believe a bare majority of Americans would like to limit access, but a strong minority absolutely deplore the idea. And it's not just the rich and powerful who support the 2nd amendment... > > "Prevent" by use of capital punishment? Well that is the ultimate > 'final solution' - just get rid of the problem, kill them off. > I think if it were that simple, I would support the death penalty more actively than I currently do. If we could kill off every murderer, knowing for sure that he was a murderer (and absent extenuating circumstances), I really wouldn't have a problem with it. What sort of 'murderer'? How could you ever be absolutely certain that the individual was a cold-blooded killer? I am absolutely certain that the guy (in our area) who got on his bike and rode to a friend's house and shot his friend, his friend's mother, and his friend's sister and brother is a cold blooded murder. That there were no mitigating circumstances? There are no possible "mitigating circumstances" that would erase the fact that he was/is a cold-blooded murderer.

It doesn't sound very "cold-blooded" to me. Were they the actions of a
sane person? A "cold-blooded murderer" would more likely plan his evil
deed down to the last detail, particularly to ensure that he had an
alibi, so that the deed could not be attributed to him. He sounds more
like someone who was totally out of control, unbalanced.

There seem to be many variations on the theme of killing, including planned murder, reflex killing in the heat of the moment, overkill in response to something, shooting an 'unloaded' gun, and so on and so forth. So is it your contention that there *is* no such thing as a cold-blooded murderer?

Oh no Kathy, far from it. Dr Harold Shipman was a "cold-blooded
murderer". He was probably also mad - serially killing hundreds of his
patients was hardly the work of a sane person. The Washington Sniper
John Allen Muhamad was a "cold-blooded murderer". I don't know what
mitigating circumstances there could possibly be for such evil deeds,
except that he was a Gulf War veteran, a marksman trained to kill from
a distance.

Take the chance on "redemption" Helen and invite the man I described earlier into your neighborhood - heck why not your home.

Why would I do that, Kathy? Such a person is a danger to society and
has no place in it. Society must be protected from people like that.


<snip>
Why not? Don't we all redeem ourselves as we mature, No we "all" don't - the same holds true of people who commit crimes.

Most criminals are considered by society to have redeemed themselves
when they have served their sentence, or paid their fine, or have done
the community service.

You stretch the bounds of common sense when trying to equate redemption of someone who has murdered with the redemption of someone who was 'immature'

learn as we get older, try and undo wrongs that we have done, or at the very least to do enough 'good' to make up for what we have done. To me it is just learning how to live in a civilised society. In other words, I think someone who has killed deliberately and compulsively may not be redeemable. If he is turned loose, it is in effect inflicting a random death penalty on someone else. The person who has killed "compulsively" may have done it as a result of great wrong done to *him* in his past. I'm sure that is of great comfort to his/her victims

You might be surprised at how forgiving victims' families can be. Many
Irish people who lost loved ones in 9/11 marched against the war. They
were not looking for revenge - particularly a revenge that would
inflict similar agony on other innocent people.

In the case of most muder-victims' families here, they are just
relieved when the perpetrator has been caught and has been locked up.
They don't look for the return of the death penalty.

Helen
Kathy 1

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-D65D6E.23154015072004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <BD1D0C7C.4518F%z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.de leted@harritt.net>, Robin <z.anything.beging.with.z.is.auto.deleted@harritt.n et> wrote: The sudden massive increase in the risk of experiencing a terrorist attack here as a result of the international irresponsibility of Blair &co has resulted in police locally, being heavily armed. Um, no, the Butler report vindicates Mr. Blair (good thing you have him as your PM, and I say that as a conservative). And arming the police has little to do with British foreign policy, unless you count the rather large number of Islamist immigrants who refuse to assimilate into your society and who plan to bring down your country (and they do).

Your racism is showing again. There is a large home-grown Muslim
community in the UK. They practise their religion, and eat the foods
that appeal to them. They are educated alongside people of every other
nationality and religion. Are we to deduce that your idea of
assimilation would entail their giving up of *their* cultural and
religious practices and becoming more like the...hmmm...more like
whom? How could they choose?
The fact that civilians generally aren't expected to be seen carrying arms here means that when they do, the police tend to shoot first ask questions later, even when the supposed weapon turns out to be a chair leg in a sack as was recently the case in one incident. How might *I* feel more free carrying a gun here? Well first, there'd have to be a cultural change in expectations. A story: when I was very young, my dad owned a gas station.

A story: when I was young, my dad and his brother owned a gas station
and garage.

Every Thursday afternoon he'd take the weekly receipts to the bank.

Every Friday afternoon, after they had paid their employees, then
themselves (always less than their employees got) one of them would
take whatever cash that remained to the bank.

Now this was important to us, this was the money that kept us fed.

This was very important to us. This was the money that kept the
business ticking over.

So he'd have his assistant run the station for an hour or so, he'd gather the cash from the strongbox he kept at the station (few credit card receipts then), he'd strap a S&W .38 caliber pistol to his hip, and he'd go off to the bank.

This is where our stories diverge. My father, or his brother, would
distribute the notes around his pockets, and the loose cash in a bag,
get into his car and drive off to the bank.

The bank knew him of course, and he'd just walk in, go up to the commercial accounts window, and deposit his money

The bank knew them of course, and my dad (or his brother) would just
walk in, say hello to all and sundry, go to whatever counter was free
and deposit the money, take his stamped lodgement slip and say
farewell to all.

with the pistol in plain view.

Oh dear. No pistol for my dad. Never.

Now times were different (and this was rural Virginia),

Times were very different (and this was Dublin City)
but Dad was real clear on one point -- no one, NO ONE, was going to rob him of his weekly receipts without a fight. And he never had a problem.

My Dad was real clear on many points - whatever he had that could be
stolen was not worth the taking of a human life. And he never had a
problem.
Let's just say that he trusted himself more than he trusted a police officer being handy when he might need one.

My dad didn't feel the need for any of that. Why? Mainly because there
was NO GUN CULTURE.

Helen
This sort of thing is not uncommon today away from our most urbanized areas. A number of people carry a weapon, all because they recognize that a police officer rarely is handy the exact moment you need one in a potentially life-threatening situation. They may have special security needs, they may have certain fears (rational or irrational, and who's to judge?), they may just trust themselves more than they trust the police. Here in the States, we have a looney right-wing organization that has the voice of God as its spokesman, and they have a saying, something along the lines of when gun ownership is criminal, only criminals will own guns. Yes but that's an organisation run by an arsehole for arseholes, isn't it? Um, no, it's actually a very large organization filled with a real cross-section of Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom are decent, law-abiding folks. From what I read in the Brit papers You'll have to stop reading those ridiculous rightwing arsewhipes like the Daily Mail the Express and the Telegraph and subscribe to a decent English newspaper like the Independent or Guardian. I read the Guardian on line almost every day, thanks. I can tolerate only small doses of the Independent: Robert Fisk is the epitomy of a dishonest hack, and the other regular columnists aren't much better. steve

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040715144554.04762.00001389@mb-m10.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Father's hanging tore family apartFrom: Neil Green posting@jmage.orgDate: 7/15/2004 12:25 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <pan.2004.07.15.18.25.44.132882@jmage.org>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:28:12 +0100, Robin wrote:>>> I believe you have to pay a tax for owning a TV. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?>>>>>>> Do you have to pay it yearly? How much does it cost? LOL In Britain, my last one cost 116 GBPounds. Great value for money. Did you never see that Monty Python sketch about the TV licence? "I'd gladly sell my car and my house and all it's contents to help the BBC"It's fantastic value for money. Certainly nothing to laugh at. The BBC'snews-gathering and reporting alone is worth much more than a little overtwo pounds a week, let alone the range of other services we receive fromthem.--Neil But is it a one-time tax, or ongoing? TIA.

It's an annual licence to receive the TV signal to each household,
irrespective of how many tv sets there are. It helps to pay for
programmes - drama, films, talk shows, in-depth reporting including
sending journalists to trouble spots and wars around the world. It
means that we aren't inundated with "and now a word from our sponsor"
just as the axe is about to fall in a film, and no sponsor or
political party can dictate what may or may not be shown, even when it
is detrimental to those in power - *including* our leaders.

For about $100 a year, we receive four Irish stations - RTE1,
Network2, TV3 and TV4, but we also get (free of charge because of our
geographical position!) BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4. For another fee we
have satellite - SKY - so we have access to 'all the rest' in the
world including CBS (I watch it every 12.30 a.m. our time. I like Dan
Rather) and all the Fox crap (which I don't)

So Marla, it's a small price to pay for such an excellent service.
There *are* advertisements of course but they are limited so they are
not too intrusive.
Old-age pensioners or those on other pensions (widows, disability, for
example) don't pay for phones or tv licences.

Helen

------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cbgbf05g4fr68dcr3m0gqs5t0bu8u2dh2r@4ax.com>... On 14 Jul 2004 09:49:39 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message It is interesting, though, that the death penalty appears to be an issue where those alt.a posters living outside the US of A all agree. I can't see it as anything other than barbaric and utterly without merit. Julia<snip>

I don't see death as such an awful thing: everyone must die, sooner orlater, and blameless people who help other people as much asblameworthy people who harm others. If someone has willfully killedother people, why is it wrong for them to die? There is nothing wrong with killers dying. There is everything wrong with them being killed.

I agree, particularly when it it the judgement of an educated,
'civilised' person that it is right to kill someone who has killed,
and not only that, to note the time, place and method of execution,
and then expect someone else to carry it out. Nice and detached.
Especially since life sentence without the possibility of parolesounds pretty awful, too. It does, but it still leaves the possibility open for correction of miscarriages of justice, and it protects society from those criminals who are incarcerated.

As I have said before many groups of innocent Irish people (Birmingham
Six, Guildford Four - Annie Maguire, et.al) have been very relieved
that eventually miscarriages of justice against them in England were
overturned. Not too many years earlier and they would have been
executed. I have already posted about Lord Denning's utterly
disgraceful "appalling vista" speech. "Judicial murder" would have
satisfied the lynch mobs he said, and he and the law would have
escaped being "pummelled" for their bad decisions.

Why is it so difficult in the US to simply sentence someone to life
imprisonment for murder when in California (AFAIK - maybe I'm wrong)
people are regularly incarcerated for life (or a very long time) under
the Three Strikes rule, when their third offence might have been
stealing a pizza or smoking a joint? It seems disproportionate. I
suppose if you can jail someone for life for a relatively small crime,
then what else is left for *murder* - except judicial murder!

The prisons there must be crammed to the gunnels. Is it any wonder
that there is so much violence within - and murders too.

Helen
JuliaRupa

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:a9c1bada.0407200658.4366d2a2@posting.google.c om... "kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2lt9b1Fghe16U1@uni-berlin.de>... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:a9c1bada.0407170732.333a8968@posting.google.c om... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0407160103.20b348eb@posting.google.com>... > helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote > > > > It depends on what is meant by "prevent". Why not reduce it by > > limiting access to guns - that would be a start, but then that
would > > get up the nose of a lot of very powerful and rich people,
wouldn't > > it? They are rarely the ones who end up on Death Row, no matter
what > > they do. > > I believe a bare majority of Americans would like to limit access,
but > a strong minority absolutely deplore the idea. And it's not just the > rich and powerful who support the 2nd amendment... > > > > "Prevent" by use of capital punishment? Well that is the ultimate > > 'final solution' - just get rid of the problem, kill them off. > > > I think if it were that simple, I would support the death penalty
more > actively than I currently do. If we could kill off every murderer, > knowing for sure that he was a murderer (and absent extenuating > circumstances), I really wouldn't have a problem with it. What sort of 'murderer'? How could you ever be absolutely certain that the individual was a cold-blooded killer? I am absolutely certain that the guy (in our area) who got on his bike
and rode to a friend's house and shot his friend, his friend's mother, and
his friend's sister and brother is a cold blooded murder. That there were no mitigating circumstances? There are no possible "mitigating circumstances" that would erase the
fact that he was/is a cold-blooded murderer. It doesn't sound very "cold-blooded" to me.

That is a splitting of hairs, imo. "cold-blooded" can be interpeted
differently by different people.

Were they the actions of a sane person?


Do 'sane' people commit murder? Again that is open to one's own definition.


A "cold-blooded murderer" would more likely plan his evil deed down to the last detail, particularly to ensure that he had an alibi, so that the deed could not be attributed to him. He sounds more like someone who was totally out of control, unbalanced.
There seem to be many variations on the theme of killing, including planned murder, reflex killing in the heat of the moment, overkill in response to something, shooting an 'unloaded' gun, and so on and so forth. So is it your contention that there *is* no such thing as a cold-blooded murderer? Oh no Kathy, far from it. Dr Harold Shipman was a "cold-blooded murderer". He was probably also mad - serially killing hundreds of his patients was hardly the work of a sane person. The Washington Sniper John Allen Muhamad was a "cold-blooded murderer". I don't know what mitigating circumstances there could possibly be for such evil deeds, except that he was a Gulf War veteran, a marksman trained to kill from a distance.

In those cases I have no problem with the death penalty. I am more
abivalent were the evidence is not so clear-cut.

Take the chance on "redemption" Helen and invite the man I described earlier into your neighborhood - heck why not your home. Why would I do that, Kathy? Such a person is a danger to society and has no place in it. Society must be protected from people like that.

Ah but after he has served his sentence he is considered "redeemed'
according to you (I won't speak for 'society' as you do).

<snip> Why not? Don't we all redeem ourselves as we mature, No we "all" don't - the same holds true of people who commit crimes. Most criminals are considered by society to have redeemed themselves when they have served their sentence, or paid their fine, or have done the community service.

I think you will find a wide variety of opinions regarding that in
'society'.
You stretch the bounds of common sense when trying to equate redemption of someone who has murdered with the redemption of someone who was
'immature' learn as we get older, try and undo wrongs that we have done, or at the very least to do enough 'good' to make up for what we have done. To me it is just learning how to live in a civilised society. In other words, > I think someone who has killed deliberately and compulsively may not > be redeemable. If he is turned loose, it is in effect inflicting a > random death penalty on someone else. The person who has killed "compulsively" may have done it as a result of great wrong done to *him* in his past. I'm sure that is of great comfort to his/her victims You might be surprised at how forgiving victims' families can be. Many Irish people who lost loved ones in 9/11 marched against the war. They were not looking for revenge - particularly a revenge that would inflict similar agony on other innocent people.


I don't see that as being similiar. It might be different if we were
talking about the death penalty for Osama himself.

Kathy 1

In article <a9c1bada.0407200617.135f59aa@posting.google.com>,
helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:

Stop picking on the French -- the Russians are just as guilty. Why would I even mention such small fry when they could hardly compete with your own pantheon? Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, IBM, Alliant Tech to name but a few of your manufacturers and providers of weapons of every description, are very far ahead of the competitors. Unless you know differently, of course.


None of them sold arms to Saddam, of course, unlike the French, Russians
and Chinese.

I still say that too many rich and powerful people have a vested interest in keeping the gun laws exactly as they are - after all it's unlikely that many of *them* will ever have to look into the barrel of a gun at the bank, or face the possibility of their children being shot dead in their schools.


I still say that you're a clueless moonbat. The gun laws are as they are
because a substantial majority of the American people want them that
way. Unlike Europe, the elites here don't set the agenda.




steve

In article <a9c1bada.0407200724.58bedad5@posting.google.com>,
helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:

Um, no, the Butler report vindicates Mr. Blair (good thing you have him as your PM, and I say that as a conservative). And arming the police has little to do with British foreign policy, unless you count the rather large number of Islamist immigrants who refuse to assimilate into your society and who plan to bring down your country (and they do). Your racism is showing again. There is a large home-grown Muslim community in the UK. They practise their religion, and eat the foods that appeal to them. They are educated alongside people of every other nationality and religion. Are we to deduce that your idea of assimilation would entail their giving up of *their* cultural and religious practices and becoming more like the...hmmm...more like whom? How could they choose?


There's nothing wrong with good Muslim people who choose to assimilate
into their new country, or with native-born Muslims who are loyal to
their country. No question that one can be true to both faith and
country. Good people.

There is a major problem with people who use the laws of a country to
undermine it for the sake of jihad -- to overthrow the country for the
sake of a religious belief that requires blood. Your failure to
understand this illustrates YOUR racism.

My dad didn't feel the need for any of that. Why? Mainly because there was NO GUN CULTURE.


Other than the Provos, of course.




steve