moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) (11/06/84)
Well, folks, I can understand people waiting outside a prison where a man or
woman is about to be executed and holding a vigil because they object to
capital punishment.
I can also understand people who would stand outside the same prison, also
holding vigil, to show their support of capital punishment (equal time &
all).
But the behaviour of a mob outside of the place where a man was executed in
North Carolina (I think -- I was just catching the end of the news -- please
correct me if I'm wrong about the location) makes me wonder about the state
of the state. People were cheering and celebrating the criminals execution,
chanting, and, in general, acting like it was homecoming. One woman even
held a giant paper-mache hyperdermic needle aloft (used to represent the
method of execution) like some kind of team penant.
Look, I understand the arguments for both sides of the capital punishment
issue. But actions like this would be, I think, repugnant to anyone, no
matter what their position. I could understand acceptance or even
satisfaction that the deed had been done -- but celebration? Gosh, I bet
these people would have LOVED the French Revolution or the gladiators! Bet
they can't wait for the next war! Whoops,on second thought, probably not;
they won't have spectator status.
What seperates the men from the apes?
The bars on the cage...
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
UUCP:
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \
{allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty
ARPA:
fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPAbch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/07/84)
In article <vax2.3> moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) writes: >Well, folks, I can understand people waiting outside a prison where a man or >woman is about to be executed and holding a vigil because they object to >capital punishment. > >I can also understand people who would stand outside the same prison, also >holding vigil, to show their support of capital punishment (equal time & >all). > >But the behaviour of a mob outside of the place where a man was executed in >North Carolina (I think -- I was just catching the end of the news -- please >correct me if I'm wrong about the location) makes me wonder about the state >of the state. People were cheering and celebrating the criminals execution, >chanting, and, in general, acting like it was homecoming. One woman even >held a giant paper-mache hyperdermic needle aloft (used to represent the >method of execution) like some kind of team penant. Yup. It was North Carolina all right. The saddest part is there is some possibility that Velma Barfield's sentence might have been commuted had it not been in the middle of this down-and-dirty Senate race we've just been through. Well, there's little these days to testify to the sanity of the general populace in N.C. I think we're just a little burnt out... -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (11/09/84)
For what it's worth, the crowd featuring the girl holding a large paper-mache needle aloft was in Texas, not North Carolina. David Rubin
jhull@spp2.UUCP (11/20/84)
In article <3@vax2.fluke.UUCP> moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) writes: >Well, folks, I can understand people waiting outside a prison where a man or >woman is about to be executed and holding a vigil because they object to >capital punishment. > >I can also understand people who would stand outside the same prison, also >holding vigil, to show their support of capital punishment (equal time & >all). > >People were cheering and celebrating the criminals execution, >chanting, and, in general, acting like it was homecoming. > >Bet they can't wait for the next war! > Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer > John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. I think they probably feel like they are already involved in a war. When the courts seem more concerned with technicalities than with guilt or innocence, when convicted criminals are released again and again to repeat their crimes, where does the law-abiding citizen turn for relief or protection. Couple that with the current atmosphere regarding firearms and personal responsibility for self-defense and it just might seem like a victory that the death penalty (NOT capital punishment - that is a null concept) is once again being applied. And we humans have always celebrated our victories. P.S. I am interested in hearing ANY alternatives to a death penalty that have a reasonable chance of working. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/22/84)
================
P.S. I am interested in hearing ANY alternatives to a death penalty
that have a reasonable chance of working.
================
I would be interested in any evidence to show that the death penalty
has a reasonable chance of working (i.e. reducing the probability
that I might be murdered, not reducing the probability that the
particular murderer would kill again).
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtorb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/26/84)
> I think they probably feel like they are already involved in a war. > When the courts seem more concerned with technicalities than with > guilt or innocence, when convicted criminals are released again and > again to repeat their crimes, where does the law-abiding citizen turn > for relief or protection. Couple that with the current atmosphere > regarding firearms and personal responsibility for self-defense and it > just might seem like a victory that the death penalty (NOT capital > punishment - that is a null concept) is once again being applied. > > jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull This is an old argument- because the accused rights have been granted protection under the Warren Court decisions that criminals right and left are being released due to "mere technicalities". However this is not true. Criminologists and students of the legal system have found that in fact only about one case in several thousand ever gets thrown out because of "technicalities". We should also remember that such "technicalities" as the requirement to have a search warrant, the right to legal counsel, the dismissal of illegally acquired evidence (such as that obtained by wiretaps) protects ALL of our rights and also protects us from the type of police state practiced by the Soviet Union and other countries where the noble rights proclaimed in their Constitution are regularly violated. While it is true that some criminals do go free because our system protects the rights of the accused, the precentage is miniscule and well-worth the protection to the innocent provided by such a system. If we truly wished to protect ourselves from rampant violence we would enact effective gun control laws. Rather than *protecting* themselves from criminal violence, gun owners are more likely to be killed by the family members and friends their weapons are supposed to protect than from unknown criminals. (Science 84 just had an interesting article on this issue) Personally I see no reason that policemen should have guns. They could accomplish the same objectives with tranquilizer guns --besides saving many innocent people killed by policement with guns ,tranquilizer guns would make policemen less hesitant to fire at fleeing suspects. Certainly it would be possible to develop such a device if our society put its mind to it. But our society's only approach to violence is to promote further violence rather than applying ourselves to creative ways to actually *prevent* violence. tim sevener whuxl!orb
baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (11/27/84)
> I would be interested in any evidence to show that the death penalty > has a reasonable chance of working (i.e. reducing the probability > that I might be murdered, not reducing the probability that the > particular murderer would kill again). > Martin Taylor As it happens, CBS radio reported within the last couple of weeks on a study done by some sociological academics somewhere Back East. They found a decrease in the incidence of violent crime in areas where death sentences were handed down and publicized, for a relatively short period (a week or so) after the sentencing. Now, the decrease was only about 8%, and it is interesting that public *sentencing* rather than public execution had the strongest correlation, but there you have it, if that's what matters. Baba
geb@cadre.UUCP (11/27/84)
Postulate: The death penalty reduces the chance that the killer will kill again. If: There is a finite chance that a killer let off without the death penalty will kill you. Then: The death penalty reduces the probability that you will be murdered. Q.E.D.
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (11/28/84)
My God, Sevener is certainly naive concerning criminal justice and the law. He tries to make the point that only a very few criminals are released to once again terrorize the local populace. Now I know that Sevener lives, or at least works in Monmouth County, N. J., less than 60 miles from the heart of Manhatten. There are newspapers published every day in this area and I wonder if Mr. Sevener has been reading any of them. Just for starters, the papers featured an incident that was going on over the past three months that tends to blow holes in Sevener's theory. The courts in New York City have a backlog of over 30,000 outstanding warrents for persons who have not bothered to show up in court, having been released from an earlier arrest. The incident involved the local powers that be trying to round up some of those wayward suspects. A scam was set up to intice some of them out of their lairs. This involved sending them letters to tell them they had won a prize and that a Limo would be around to take them to prize headquarters. You can guess where they ended up. There were several other amussing scams used, but the point is is that over 3000 of these characters were apprehended. Now, what happened next? Pay attention Sevener. According to the Manhatten and Bronx DAs offices, over 1500 of these people were back on the street within 24 hours. Within 48 hours, over 2200 were out on the street. Getting to the nitty grittty, the roundup was targeted at the worst offenders. That is, rapists, child molesters, murderers (yes they can get low bail in New York), repeat offenders, and others with serious crimes. All of these people had been let out of the justice net before. Many of them had committed further crimes while out, yet, here they are again, free to repeat their madness on society once again. Is this justice? Sure, the offenders may have been given a liberal dose of what passes for justice, they were detained for a couple of days. But, what about justice for those that have to endure the crimes being committed by these people? What kind of justice is it that puts these slim-balls back on the street to once more prey on the rest of us? Your wrong Sevener, the criminal justice system in this area is lacking in the ability to balance the rights of criminals with the rights of victims. The scales are too heavily weighted in favor of the criminal. I am not arguing the merits of the death penalty here, though I lean in that direction for certain cases. I am just saying that your naive understanding of what criminal justice is all about is enough to gag a maggot. By the way, Sevener, around 20 of those rounded up are from Monmouth County. Do you think you can sleep well knowing that there are some 20 odd people with serious crimes on their rap sheet prowling around the area? T. C. Wheeler
mark@uf-csv.UUCP (mark fishman [fac]) (11/29/84)
Not to put too fine a point on it, if there are n-1 murderers at large
(defined to be people who've demonstrated the capacity for murder)
rather than n, then your probability of being done in by one of them
is *ipso facto* reduced. Even stipulating (which you would, but I
don't), that capital punishment has an absolutely non-existent
deterrent effect.
This is the ONE issue on which I remain conservative. It strikes
me that criminal justice needs to be seen in the light of quality
control standards: type I versus type II errors. Currently, so few
violent humans are caught by the sieve, that your chances of being
murdered or otherwise harmed by one of them are MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE
greater than your chances of being harmed by judicial pursuit for a crime
you didn't commit. *Ideally*, the aggregate harm deriving from these
two sources should be minimized. Currently, the harm is so enormous
from the one source, that to carp on philosophical abstractions in
respect of the other is itself destructive. Now, this isn't to say
that I don't think society is in need of massive reform to reduce both
the economic need and the ingrained propensity to do violence, but
this won't happen in our lifetimes. For practical reasons, then, to
reduce my statistical exposure to harm (and yours), I would support
capital punishment (and would also tighten up on the jusdicial system),
much as I detest the concept in the abstract, morally.lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (11/29/84)
From: geb@cadre.UUCP: >Postulate: The death penalty reduces the chance that the >killer will kill again. > >If: There is a finite chance that a killer let off without >the death penalty will kill you. > >Then: The death penalty reduces the probability that you >will be murdered. > >Q.E.D. Postulate: Killing EVERYONE else reduces the chance that ANYONE will kill (afterwards). If: There is a finite chance that ANYONE will kill you. Then: Killing EVERYONE reduces the probability that you will be murdered. Q.E.D. Doesn't make it right, does it? -- larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk ARPA: lkk@mit-mc
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (11/29/84)
> Postulate: The death penalty reduces the chance that the > killer will kill again. > > If: There is a finite chance that a killer let off without > the death penalty will kill you. > > Then: The death penalty reduces the probability that you > will be murdered. > > Q.E.D. Let's try again: Postulate: The chance of being murdered is directly proportional to the violence of your society. If: Your society sanctions institutionalized violence Then: You live in a violent society Therefore: The death penalty increases your probability of being murdered. Q.E.D. OK, I admit it isn't a water-tight argument. But check the murder rates for societies that support institutional killing against those who don't. There is statistical support for this argument! I'm over-simplifying? Agreed. But consider the argument in 90@cadre. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/30/84)
In article <cadre.90> geb@cadre.UUCP writes:
Postulate: The death penalty reduces the chance that the
killer will kill again.
If: There is a finite chance that a killer let off without
the death penalty will kill you.
Then: The death penalty reduces the probability that you
will be murdered.
Q.E.D.
=============
Unfortunately, Q.E.D. translates to "Which was to be demonstrated",
and usually follows a mathematical proof. In this case, necessary
assumptions have not been stated. The "If:" part should have added:
"and the execution does not increase the probability that someone
else will kill you."
It is this postulate that is in question. A note has been posted to
me and to the net to the effect that for a week after the announcement
that someone was condemned to death the murder rate declined slightly.
This is evidence to support the subsidiary assumption. On the other
hand, there is also evidence to suggest that places that remove the
death penalty experience a reduction in the murder rate. That suggests
the opposite. If someone could post evidence about the long-term effects
of the death penalty on the murder rate, it would help this discussion.
A-priori arguments are nice, but don't often work in social behaviour.
A stronger a-priori argument says that people proved to have killed
more than once will be more likely than most to kill again. Such
people might well be executed with an overall reduction in the murder
rate. Often, however, the argument for restricted capital punishment
favours the death penalty for killing law officers but not for killing
ordinary citizens. Since some people who kill law officers are in some
way looking for a psychologically acceptable way to commit suicide, that
argument seems wrong. It could lead to more murders of law officers.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtjhull@spp2.UUCP (12/01/84)
In article <365@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) responds: >> I think they probably feel like they are already involved in a war. >> When the courts seem more concerned with technicalities than with >> guilt or innocence, when convicted criminals are released again and >> again to repeat their crimes, where does the law-abiding citizen turn >> for relief or protection. Couple that with the current atmosphere >> regarding firearms and personal responsibility for self-defense and it >> just might seem like a victory that the death penalty (NOT capital >> punishment - that is a null concept) is once again being applied. >> >> jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull > >This is an old argument- because the accused rights have been granted >protection under the Warren Court decisions that criminals right and >left are being released due to "mere technicalities". However this is >not true. Criminologists and students of the legal system have found that >in fact only about one case in several thousand ever gets thrown out >because of "technicalities". ... Perhaps I did not make my statement clearly. >>1. When the courts seem more concerned with technicalities than with >>guilt or innocence, ... I refer here to courts of criminal jurisdiction whose job it is to decide the guilt or innocence of persons accused of felonies, not appellate courts whose responsibility it is to ensure the correct workings of the judicial system. >>when convicted criminals are released again and >> again to repeat their crimes, ... I refer here primarily to parole boards, not the courts. >>where does the law-abiding citizen turn >> for relief or protection. ... The problem of vigilante law raises its ugly head when the "common man" feels his institutions are not providing the services he expects from them. >>Couple that with the current atmosphere >> regarding firearms and personal responsibility for self-defense >>... >If we truly wished to protect ourselves from rampant violence we would enact >effective gun control laws. This comment is typical of people who wish to remove the basic means of self-determination from the body politic (I don't know if Sevener is one of these or not) and will tell any story, true or not, to accomplish that goal. To repeat a simple truth, guns do not kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. (No? Really? You mean to tell me that hammer built that house? (:-) Reducing violence in our or any society requires an education process in which people learn that violence will not be accepted by their peers as a solution to differences of opinion. >Rather than *protecting* themselves from >criminal violence, gun owners are more likely to be killed by the family >members and friends their weapons are supposed to protect than from >unknown criminals. It is quite true that a high percentage of violence in America today is perpetrated by people who know each other. This is directly due to the learned attitude that violence is an acceptable solution to problems. It is also true that people were killing each other long before guns were invented. The only difference a gun makes is that, with a gun, a person who is physically smaller and weaker has a much better chance of winning a violent argument than without a gun. >Personally I see no reason that policemen should have guns. >They could accomplish the same objectives with tranquilizer guns --besides >saving many innocent people killed by policement with guns ,tranquilizer >guns would make policemen less hesitant to fire at fleeing suspects. Here, I almost agree with Tim. I very much wish our society would press on to the development and deployment of non-lethal sidearms for our police agencies. We should then require the police to carry & use those non-lethal sidearms. The reservation I have is that I donot want to limit our police to non-lethal weapons if they are required to oppose criminals who are shooting at them with lethal weapons. Most ramifications & implications of this are fairly obvious, including rational approaches to statutes and penalties for persons assaulting police officers with lethal weapons. >Certainly it would be possible to develop such a device if our society put >its mind to it. But our society's only approach to violence is to promote >further violence rather than applying ourselves to creative ways to actually >*prevent* violence. Here I am in complete agreement with Tim. I deplore violence as a solution to interpersonal problems. I abhor initiating violence for any reason. But I am willing to use violence to defend myself and my family if I see no other way to protect us. I am quite willing to allow Tim or anyone else to make a different choice; I do not require anyone else to use violence for any purpose at all. But I am not willing for anyone to take from me the means to defend myself and my family. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
geb@cadre.UUCP (12/01/84)
>From: geb@cadre.UUCP: >>Postulate: The death penalty reduces the chance that the >>killer will kill again. >> >>If: There is a finite chance that a killer let off without >>the death penalty will kill you. >> >>Then: The death penalty reduces the probability that you >>will be murdered. >> >>Q.E.D. >Postulate: Killing EVERYONE else reduces the chance that ANYONE will kill >(afterwards). > >If: There is a finite chance that ANYONE will kill you. > >Then: Killing EVERYONE reduces the probability that you will be murdered. > >Q.E.D. > >Doesn't make it right, does it? > >-- >larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) Of course that alone doesn't make it right, and I didn't say that it did! My posting was to respond to the person who said capital punishment doesn't reduce the probability of HIS being murdered. I was merely proving that it did. If you wish to argue whether the justice system has a right to use capital punishment, you have to use more than merely the statistical argument. By the statistical argument, you could argue for capital punishment for any crime, including theft (certainly it would reduce crime of all sorts)! Before invoking capital punishment, you should first establish the right to do so. A strong argument for doing so is that the criminal individual has already willfully taken someone else's life. You or I have the power to take someone else's life, but as we have not done so already, there is no justification for killing us. So I think that it would require more than just a probability that we would kill to justify such a harsh measure as execution. Obviously this is a complicated question and would take a very large posting to discuss all the pros and cons, and again, many people who agree and capital punishment use differing arguments, all of which aren't mutually accepted by all.
geb@cadre.UUCP (12/02/84)
The two posters who pointed out that my argument is false if the acts of execution cause more people to commit murder are correct, provided the fractional increase in the murder rate due to the executions exceeds the decrease due to recidivism. Some data on recidivism is available, (not being a sociologist, I am not aware of the proper references) but due to complex psychological factors, I doubt if it would be possible to find out for sure how many kill because of executions. I agree the death penalty only for killing police is improper, since why should police be valued above ordinary citizens. If anything, they go looking for trouble by nature of their job, and are a little like soldiers, but murder of an innocent is even more heinous. It may well attract suicides. Certainly cross-cultural data is not valid, since societies that ban the death penalty democratically usually have less violent cultures by nature (not cause-and-effect), while many countries with draconian death penalties for crimes much more minor than murder (China, USSR) have very low rates of murder (even if you don't wholly believe their own statistics). I suppose that I have to admit there is no way to "prove" such sociological arguments statistically. My "gut" feeling based on the fact that I have dealt with psychopaths a lot in a professional capacity (MD), is that there are a lot of people who will kill because they lack any form of conscience whatsoever (Gary Gilmore is a good example, and reading Mailer's book gives a good insight into what a psychopath is like, I think). Most psychopaths do not kill, of course, and part of the reason is that there is a severe punishment for it. (I define psychopath as someone who lacks a conscience, by the way). But killing wouldn't "bother" them if they could get away with it. Most people who have a strong conscience find it hard to believe that there exist people without one, but it is amazing how many there are. The smart ones almost never become murderers but instead politicians, lawyers, doctors, etc. and often get in trouble in other ways than murder. But a psychopath doesn't learn to kill by seeing that society approves of killing, he does it because he wants something that he can get by killing (robbing a 7-11, for example), or because he is just feeling mean and out of sorts. Of course, he may use murder as of form of suicide (a typical psychopathic thing to do), whereas a non-psychopath will usually only kill themselves (quite easy to do, if you really want to) unless especially deranged, the psychopath often wants to take a few with him. I have personally seen too many cases where a psychopath has killed once, been let off on parole, and then killed again (often let off again), and so I do favor the death penalty in these cases, but respect the reasons why moral people do not.
stumpf@homxa.UUCP (P.STUMPF) (12/04/84)
>Postulate: The death penalty reduces the chance that the >killer will kill again. > >If: There is a finite chance that a killer let off without >the death penalty will kill you. > >Then: The death penalty reduces the probability that you >will be murdered. > >Q.E.D. > Yes, there an applied death penalty will reduce the chance that the killer will kill again, but: A theory is that a killer (not yet incarcerated) may kill more, e.g., potential witnesses, to remain unconvicted of a crime carrying the death penalty. These are not my opinions, nor has my employer put forth a position.
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) (12/06/84)
Gee, when I started this discussion, I tried to stay away from the capitol
punishment arguement.... I just thought the people at the execution were
behaving abominally. Rather like giving birth to rabbits.
Blessed Me,
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
UUCP:
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \
{allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty
ARPA:
fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPAron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (12/07/84)
More statistics of unknown worth: It was announced yesterday that it costs over a million dollars to sentence some one to death in the state of Maryland. -Ron