Bye Bye Tookie
 

Jon,

Please re-read my statement above.

It starts with "Found Guilty".

You snort a bunch of angle dust and blow away 4 people for a few
hundred dollars and are found guilty beyond a doubt then you need to
pay. 12 of his peers found him guilty beyound a doubt, yet the system
spends millions shuffeling papers and feeding the system. It's big
bucks to some.

We need to streamline the process.

The slippery slope now slides money into the lawyers,and judges
pockets.
Prision construction is big bucks to..Lots of room for greaseing palms.
And just like any govt process they pay 4 times the going rate.

Joe

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article ,
DSK wrote:
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
He wasn't a threat any more.

Disagree strongly.
There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no
unreformed murderers on death row.

True, but who's he going to murder locked away 23 hours a day?

Nope, just the opposite... it is a point in favor of
granting clemency, after all he can't write many positive
influence children's books from that great solitary cell in
the sky. But the man was, as far as can be proven, a
multiple murderer. Definnitely a threat to society IMHO.

He did do some good in prison. That's a fact. What he did prior to
prison should make it impossible for him to be released. He was not a
threat to society in prison.

But, that's the fun part. I think we should abolish the death penalty,
but not tell anyone. You go right up to execution time, they put the
hood on your face, but instead of dropping cyanide, drop Alka Seltzer
tablets. Now, that's cruel and unusual.


Better yet, hold alka-seltzer in one hand and cyanide in the
other and say 'guess which hand?'

Hahaha... ok.

Or when a person has committed at least one heinous crime
such that his very humanity is in doubt, and it is too great
a risk to let him continue to share our planet.

His humanity was never, should never be in doubt. I don't think there
have been that many murderers who have escaped from prison in recent
times.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article , Bart Senior .@. wrote:
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
The reason why the death penalty is so expensive is that it's the subject
of endless meaningless appeals. Meanwhile, health care for prisoners is
not a trivial expense for the state, either.

Auction off his organs. That would help recoup the expense
and might even help expedite the process.

Probably had AIDS or Hep. A very high percentage of prisoner do.



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article ,
Scotty wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in

I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose
to
execute someone.

Why not ask some of the survivors of a murder victim how they
feel about it?

No need. We all know they wanted him to die. That's not good enough in
a civilized society. "Vengence is mine saying the Lord" and all that.



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
Jon,

Please re-read my statement above.

It starts with "Found Guilty".

Yes, he was found guilty.

You snort a bunch of angle dust and blow away 4 people for a few
hundred dollars and are found guilty beyond a doubt then you need to
pay. 12 of his peers found him guilty beyound a doubt, yet the system
spends millions shuffeling papers and feeding the system. It's big
bucks to some.

He have paid with his life... for 40 more years.

We need to streamline the process.

The slippery slope now slides money into the lawyers,and judges
pockets.
Prision construction is big bucks to..Lots of room for greaseing palms.
And just like any govt process they pay 4 times the going rate.

True enough...


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article , Bart Senior .@. wrote:
Tookie should have had his organs should be
havested while he is still alive.

"DSK" wrote
have no problem with capital punishment, IMHO those guilty beyond doubt of
heinous crimes *should* be executed.

See previous comment.



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Scotty wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in

I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no
purpose
to
execute someone.

Why not ask some of the survivors of a murder victim how they
feel about it?

No need. We all know they wanted him to die.

i didn't know that.

That's not good enough in
a civilized society. "Vengence is mine saying the Lord" and all
that.


We're just speeding up the process a bit.

SV

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Jon,

The purpose served; Never, ever again will Tookie have the opportunity
to create a; REPEAT CRIME! Society has made sure of that! Thank you
Calif. Thank you Arnold.

A nasty job, but a job that needed to be done!

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Jon;

Where are you getting your information about "Tookie" not being a
problem in prison? I've heard he's been a Rapist and a damn bully with
his fellow prisioners? I don't know what's true but I'm glad he is died!

Ole Thom

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article ,
Thom Stewart wrote:
Jon;

Where are you getting your information about "Tookie" not being a
problem in prison? I've heard he's been a Rapist and a damn bully with
his fellow prisioners? I don't know what's true but I'm glad he is died!

Don't know. Who cares? He was in prison. He was not a threat to
society any more.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article ,
Thom Stewart wrote:
Jon,

The purpose served; Never, ever again will Tookie have the opportunity
to create a; REPEAT CRIME! Society has made sure of that! Thank you
Calif. Thank you Arnold.

A nasty job, but a job that needed to be done!

Society needs to protect those who are among the most wretched not
kill them.

It's certain not the Christian thing to do.




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article ,
Scotty wrote:
That's not good enough in
a civilized society. "Vengence is mine saying the Lord" and all
that.


We're just speeding up the process a bit.

Unfortunately, the net effect is to diminish us all.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Jon?

The same people that push "Christian Logic" at society are the people
that condemn "Nativity Scenes" in public places. I'm glad "Tookie" has
been put to death!

Ole Thom

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Maxprop wrote:
One of the cable/satellite news channels ran a piece on Tookie's life
today. During his involvement with the Crips, the continuing war between
them and the Bloods took over 20,000 lives

What???
That's crazy. That would mean he'd have to be responsible for every murder
in every major metropolitan area for several years. Can't anybody do math?

The explanation is that the Crips and Bloods didn't stay confined to LA.
There are chapters, if you want to call them that, in most of the major
cities throughout the country. And if you would bother to read my previous
paragraph, above, you'd see that I didn't imply that he was directly or
indirectly responsible for them all, rather he was involved with the gang
leadership during a period in which that many died. Before doing the math,
you might bother to read concisely.

... according to a researcher at UCLA's School of Law Enforcement (may
not have that name quite right).

Hmm, sounds like one of those pointy-headed scientist types working on a
gov't grant... don't you neo-cons usually dismiss this kind of stuff with
a laugh?

No. But we tend to dismiss cranks like you with a chuckle.



... While Tookie was convicted of four murders, it was estimated that he
was directly or indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths, mostly
young inner city black men between the ages of 12 and 22

Don't you neo-cons usually shrug this off as being no loss?

No. But believe what you wish. After all when you base your political
beliefs from left-wing hatemongering websites, such as moveon.org, it's not
likely anything I say is going to change your mind.


... plus an assortment of innocent bystanders.


Hey, as long as it's nobody you know personally, what's the diff?

Now that we've witnessed your mastery of cynicism, Doug, perhaps you'd care
to have a reasonable discussion.


Not guilty, eh? If he'd been on the jury, Jon, he'd have seen the
preponderance of evidence against Williams. That said, I'm not a fan of
capital punishment and would like to see it eliminated.


Nobody in their right mind is a "fan" of capital punishment, just like
nobody is in favor of abortion. It's a question of rights vs gov't
authority.

Personally, I think that if one believes that the state has no moral right
to capital punishment; then by logic, the state would also have no right
to wage war.

That doesn't surprise me. You tend to think in terms of black and white,
not shades in between. Reality is a far cry from philosophical mental
gymnastics. Fortunately those who opposed capital punishment in the first
half of the Twentieth Century were not intractable pacifists as well.
Rational men and women believe in the intrinsic right of individuals and
societies to defend themselves against aggressors. Incarceration of
criminals is a means of defending society against further criminal activity
from the convicted. Capital punishment is not necessary to achieve that
end. But waging war is and has been necessary to insure the continuation of
a society, or of individuals. Your presumption, above, is ridiculous.


If an individual has the right to defend his own life, his family, & his
property, then by all logic that right extends to use of deadly force at
the extreme. The state is nothing but a large group of citizens, therefor
the citizens have the right to endow that state with authority to use
deadly force (when in extremis) to protect them. In other words, I have no
problem with capital punishment, IMHO those guilty beyond doubt of heinous
crimes *should* be executed.

I would agree if capital punishment were the only method of insuring
security for that group of citizens. But it is not. A society of
thoughtful, reasonable citizens will use only that level of force necessary
to achieve its security.

However I have a big problem with the way the death penalty is currently
applied in this country. But hey, it's always detail detail detail!

That's my chief argument with capital punishment as it is applied
today--unfairly and with prejudice. However, subsequent to seeing that
piece on TV, I've learned that Stan "Tookie" Willaims, if granted clemency,
would have likely sought, and possibly received, another trial which could
have conceivably found him not guilty. The evidence against him, presented
properly or not, was preponderant and not circumstantial. Society will
benefit by his absence.

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

You almost got that right. The same people who push Christian Logic are the
people who are the most vocal to put someone to death, to intrude into
families in the name of family values, and to promote a war that was started
with no honest justification.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Jon?

The same people that push "Christian Logic" at society are the people
that condemn "Nativity Scenes" in public places. I'm glad "Tookie" has
been put to death!

Ole Thom

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice. The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity. There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

Miracle of miracles, Jon, we are in agreement.

War is a different matter, where the survival of the state (and the
people) is at stake.

Agreement again. Is the world nearing its end? g

However I have a big problem with the way the death penalty
is currently applied in this country. But hey, it's always
detail detail detail!

Perhaps that's why the Illinois governor suspended all such penalties
in his state?

Actually he did so for political capital, not from any particular moral or
ethical belief. Gov. Blago--I couldn't spell his full name on a bet without
looking it up--stated in a brief speech to an organization at the University
of Illinois that he personally believed in the concept of capital
punishment, but chose to honor the wishes of his constituency instead. It
may also have something to do with the prospect that he might end up in
prison someday himself. g He's up to his neck in scandal currently.

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Personally, I think that if one believes that the state has no moral
right to capital punishment; then by logic, the state would also have no
right to wage war.


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone.

???
Is this one of those 'meaning of life' type statements? Does it serve any
purpose to live in the first place?

Hardly. Jon made the statement, but I know precisely what he's saying.
There is no point in executing someone, because there are other means of
effectively removing the threat from society. It's a pragmatic argument,
not one of philosphy. You need to spend more time in the real world, Doug,
and less reading the writings of the Dalai Lama.

In any event, execution *definitely* serves a purpose. It removes a threat
& a waste of good oxygen.

But at what cost? Oxygen is free, as we breathe it, and it costs more to
keep a prisoner on death row for 15-20 years than it does to incarcerate him
for life.


... There are worse things that are less expensive.


The reason why the death penalty is so expensive is that it's the subject
of endless meaningless appeals. Meanwhile, health care for prisoners is
not a trivial expense for the state, either.

Cost analyses have fallen solidly in favor of life imprisonment in virtually
every study made on the issue. As for meaningless appeals, might some
reform of our legal system be in order? Anyone who voted for John Edwards
apparently must think not.




The state should be a reflection of the people contained in it, but
not an exact reflection. It should act in the best interest of as many
people as possible, but also act in the best interests of a small
group in certain circumstances.

Well, here's the problem. "The best interest of a small group in certain
circumstances" always opposes the best interest of certain other groups.
Some people are opposed to anybody owning a gun, others are opposed to
drunk driving, beer in cans, etc etc. Obviously not everybody gets their
own way all the time.

Thus the concept of majority rule. Solves myriad issues of such natures.

I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice.

That's OK, you don't have to be the one that throws the switch.


... The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity.

Now here's one of those problematic details: define "necessity."

Simple. Is death necessary (the only way) to insure that a criminal does
not have a recidivist opportunity? No.

... There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It puts the guards at risk, the person could escape,
a change of administration policy, or a paperwork mistake could release
them, etc etc.

There is no recidivism from the death penalty.

There is no recidivism from a properly run penal system fed by a
correctly-applied legal system. The problems (bifold) can be repaired
without killing anyone.


War is a different matter, where the survival of the state (and the
people) is at stake.


Pretty much equivalent cases, I'd say. The difference is a matter of
scale.

Preposterous. To equate a situation calling for war with that of removing
criminals from society is a childish exercise in pseudomorality.

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice. The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity. There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

Miracle of miracles, Jon, we are in agreement.

Me and Jeezus... we're pals. g

War is a different matter, where the survival of the state (and the
people) is at stake.

Agreement again. Is the world nearing its end? g

Shhhh....


However I have a big problem with the way the death penalty
is currently applied in this country. But hey, it's always
detail detail detail!

Perhaps that's why the Illinois governor suspended all such penalties
in his state?

Actually he did so for political capital, not from any particular moral or
ethical belief. Gov. Blago--I couldn't spell his full name on a bet
without looking it up--stated in a brief speech to an organization at the
University of Illinois that he personally believed in the concept of
capital punishment, but chose to honor the wishes of his constituency
instead. It may also have something to do with the prospect that he might
end up in prison someday himself. g He's up to his neck in scandal
currently.

I'm willing to accept the wrong motivation for doing the right thing.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

He wasn't a threat any more.

Correct, unless he obtained another trial. We all know how "celebrity"
murderers seem to find their way back onto the street in California.

In fact, he did some good while in
prison.

Perhaps, but in his particular case he might have done more good by being
executed. The message sent to the gangs was that one is indeed held to
account for his actions.

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Maxprop wrote:
One of the cable/satellite news channels ran a piece on Tookie's life
today. During his involvement with the Crips, the continuing war between
them and the Bloods took over 20,000 lives

What???
That's crazy. That would mean he'd have to be responsible for every
murder in every major metropolitan area for several years. Can't anybody
do math?

The explanation is that the Crips and Bloods didn't stay confined to LA.
There are chapters, if you want to call them that, in most of the major
cities throughout the country. And if you would bother to read my
previous paragraph, above, you'd see that I didn't imply that he was
directly or indirectly responsible for them all, rather he was involved
with the gang leadership during a period in which that many died. Before
doing the math, you might bother to read concisely.

... according to a researcher at UCLA's School of Law Enforcement (may
not have that name quite right).

Hmm, sounds like one of those pointy-headed scientist types working on a
gov't grant... don't you neo-cons usually dismiss this kind of stuff with
a laugh?

No. But we tend to dismiss cranks like you with a chuckle.



... While Tookie was convicted of four murders, it was estimated that he
was directly or indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths, mostly
young inner city black men between the ages of 12 and 22

Don't you neo-cons usually shrug this off as being no loss?

No. But believe what you wish. After all when you base your political
beliefs from left-wing hatemongering websites, such as moveon.org, it's
not likely anything I say is going to change your mind.


... plus an assortment of innocent bystanders.


Hey, as long as it's nobody you know personally, what's the diff?

Now that we've witnessed your mastery of cynicism, Doug, perhaps you'd
care to have a reasonable discussion.


Not guilty, eh? If he'd been on the jury, Jon, he'd have seen the
preponderance of evidence against Williams. That said, I'm not a fan of
capital punishment and would like to see it eliminated.


Nobody in their right mind is a "fan" of capital punishment, just like
nobody is in favor of abortion. It's a question of rights vs gov't
authority.

Personally, I think that if one believes that the state has no moral
right to capital punishment; then by logic, the state would also have no
right to wage war.

That doesn't surprise me. You tend to think in terms of black and white,
not shades in between. Reality is a far cry from philosophical mental
gymnastics. Fortunately those who opposed capital punishment in the first
half of the Twentieth Century were not intractable pacifists as well.
Rational men and women believe in the intrinsic right of individuals and
societies to defend themselves against aggressors. Incarceration of
criminals is a means of defending society against further criminal
activity from the convicted. Capital punishment is not necessary to
achieve that end. But waging war is and has been necessary to insure the
continuation of a society, or of individuals. Your presumption, above, is
ridiculous.


If an individual has the right to defend his own life, his family, & his
property, then by all logic that right extends to use of deadly force at
the extreme. The state is nothing but a large group of citizens, therefor
the citizens have the right to endow that state with authority to use
deadly force (when in extremis) to protect them. In other words, I have
no problem with capital punishment, IMHO those guilty beyond doubt of
heinous crimes *should* be executed.

I would agree if capital punishment were the only method of insuring
security for that group of citizens. But it is not. A society of
thoughtful, reasonable citizens will use only that level of force
necessary to achieve its security.

However I have a big problem with the way the death penalty is currently
applied in this country. But hey, it's always detail detail detail!

That's my chief argument with capital punishment as it is applied
today--unfairly and with prejudice. However, subsequent to seeing that
piece on TV, I've learned that Stan "Tookie" Willaims, if granted
clemency, would have likely sought, and possibly received, another trial
which could have conceivably found him not guilty. The evidence against
him, presented properly or not, was preponderant and not circumstantial.
Society will benefit by his absence.

Max

And, an even better argument... they didn't have capital punishment in Star
Trek. g


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
... I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone.


In any event, execution *definitely* serves a purpose. It removes a
threat & a waste of good oxygen.


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
He wasn't a threat any more.

Disagree strongly.
There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no unreformed murderers
on death row.

I don't think that was Jon's point. He was in prison, not on the streets,
ergo no longer a problem.

... In fact, he did some good while in
prison. While this in no way justifies or excuses he prior actions, it
does remove the "threat" concern from the table.

Nope, just the opposite... it is a point in favor of granting clemency,
after all he can't write many positive influence children's books from
that great solitary cell in the sky. But the man was, as far as can be
proven, a multiple murderer. Definnitely a threat to society IMHO.

Even behind bars? How so?

I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice.

That's OK, you don't have to be the one that throws the switch.


But, that's the fun part. I think we should abolish the death penalty,
but not tell anyone. You go right up to execution time, they put the
hood on your face, but instead of dropping cyanide, drop Alka Seltzer
tablets. Now, that's cruel and unusual.

Better yet, hold alka-seltzer in one hand and cyanide in the other and say
'guess which hand?'


... The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity.

Now here's one of those problematic details: define "necessity."


When the state faces utter destruction (we're talking about a
legitimate state of course).


Or when a person has committed at least one heinous crime such that his
very humanity is in doubt, and it is too great a risk to let him continue
to share our planet.

The irony of this is that serial murderers are seldom given the death
penalty, ostensibly in order to be able to pick their brains down the road
when new evidence of unforseen victims surfaces. But in reality there are
no Hannibal Lecters. Escape from maximum security prisons is exceedingly
rare--the stuff of great movies and books, but nothing of significance to
society in general. More people die each year from botulism poisioning than
from escaped murderers.


It would be the same with some people in my house or yard, same for the
whole planet. A problem removed is a problem solved.

Shoot first and sort through the bodies later?

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Jon;

Where are you getting your information about "Tookie" not being a
problem in prison? I've heard he's been a Rapist and a damn bully with
his fellow prisioners? I don't know what's true but I'm glad he is died!

Prison isn't Boy Scout camp, Thom. Why do you think prison guards and
administrators turn a blind side to such things? It may be illegal for
prison authorities to abuse prisoners, but when they do it to each other
it's just part of the perils of being convicted of criminal activity. Sucks
to be them, I guess.

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Thom Stewart wrote:
Jon,

The purpose served; Never, ever again will Tookie have the opportunity
to create a; REPEAT CRIME! Society has made sure of that! Thank you
Calif. Thank you Arnold.

A nasty job, but a job that needed to be done!

Society needs to protect those who are among the most wretched not
kill them.

It's certain not the Christian thing to do.

After retiring from his job, a man who was a prison guard at the
penitentiary where Jeffrey Dahmer was incarcerated told reporters that at
one of the meetings held to prepare the staff for Dahmer's arrival, the
warden commented that Dahmer would be dead inside of two years. Most
convicts have kids of their own and don't play nicely with "chicken hawks,"
or child molesters/murderers. It was the unofficial death penalty for ol'
Jeffrey.

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

One of the cable/satellite news channels ran a piece on Tookie's life
today. During his involvement with the Crips, the continuing war between
them and the Bloods took over 20,000 lives

What???
That's crazy. That would mean he'd have to be responsible for every murder
in every major metropolitan area for several years. Can't anybody do math?


Maxprop wrote:
The explanation is that the Crips and Bloods didn't stay confined to LA.
There are chapters, if you want to call them that, in most of the major
cities throughout the country.

Uh huh. And they're responsible for every single non-auto
death in all those cities for a decade or so?

... And if you would bother to read my previous
paragraph, above, you'd see that I didn't imply that he was directly or
indirectly responsible for them all, rather he was involved with the gang
leadership during a period in which that many died. Before doing the math,
you might bother to read concisely.

You might consider whether or not it makes any sense.
"Reading concisely" isn't the problem... your basic premise
is absurd.

20,000 deaths is a LOT. You might as well say Tookie was
responsible for giving people cancer.




Personally, I think that if one believes that the state has no moral right
to capital punishment; then by logic, the state would also have no right
to wage war.


.... Your presumption, above, is ridiculous.


You only say so because your own position cannot be
explained with simple facts & logic.

DSK

Bye Bye Tookie
 

He planned an escape. His plan involved killing
several guards. His "friends" ratted him out. The
evidence, the plan, was in his own handwriting.

I've also heard he was a rapist in prison.

NO redeeming characteristics, except for phoney
ones, IMHO, in an attempt to look like a reformed
man.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in .

He did do some good in prison. That's a fact. What he did prior to
prison should make it impossible for him to be released. He was not a
threat to society in prison.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Doesn't matter if he had redeeming characteristics or not. We are judged by
how we treat those who are the worst, not by how we treat those who are the
best.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
He planned an escape. His plan involved killing
several guards. His "friends" ratted him out. The
evidence, the plan, was in his own handwriting.

I've also heard he was a rapist in prison.

NO redeeming characteristics, except for phoney
ones, IMHO, in an attempt to look like a reformed
man.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in .

He did do some good in prison. That's a fact. What he did prior to
prison should make it impossible for him to be released. He was not a
threat to society in prison.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Nope, just the opposite... it is a point in favor of granting clemency,
after all he can't write many positive influence children's books from
that great solitary cell in the sky. But the man was, as far as can be
proven, a multiple murderer. Definnitely a threat to society IMHO.

Even behind bars? How so?

Well, you know what they say... you can't fully trust someone unless they've
been in jail. g

Bye Bye Tookie
 

And that happened... not sure if it was 2 years or not.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Thom Stewart wrote:
Jon,

The purpose served; Never, ever again will Tookie have the opportunity
to create a; REPEAT CRIME! Society has made sure of that! Thank you
Calif. Thank you Arnold.

A nasty job, but a job that needed to be done!

Society needs to protect those who are among the most wretched not
kill them.

It's certain not the Christian thing to do.

After retiring from his job, a man who was a prison guard at the
penitentiary where Jeffrey Dahmer was incarcerated told reporters that at
one of the meetings held to prepare the staff for Dahmer's arrival, the
warden commented that Dahmer would be dead inside of two years. Most
convicts have kids of their own and don't play nicely with "chicken
hawks," or child molesters/murderers. It was the unofficial death penalty
for ol' Jeffrey.

Max

OT: Tookie gets Nobel Prize was Bye Bye Tookie
 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...ck=1&cset=true

I heard he and Arafat are going to share it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
One of the cable/satellite news channels ran a piece on Tookie's life
today. During his involvement with the Crips, the continuing war between
them and the Bloods took over 20,000 lives

What???
That's crazy. That would mean he'd have to be responsible for every
murder in every major metropolitan area for several years. Can't anybody
do math?


Maxprop wrote:
The explanation is that the Crips and Bloods didn't stay confined to LA.
There are chapters, if you want to call them that, in most of the major
cities throughout the country.

Uh huh. And they're responsible for every single non-auto death in all
those cities for a decade or so?

... And if you would bother to read my previous paragraph, above, you'd
see that I didn't imply that he was directly or indirectly responsible
for them all, rather he was involved with the gang leadership during a
period in which that many died. Before doing the math, you might bother
to read concisely.

You might consider whether or not it makes any sense. "Reading concisely"
isn't the problem... your basic premise is absurd.

20,000 deaths is a LOT. You might as well say Tookie was responsible for
giving people cancer.




Personally, I think that if one believes that the state has no moral
right to capital punishment; then by logic, the state would also have no
right to wage war.


.... Your presumption, above, is ridiculous.


You only say so because your own position cannot be explained with simple
facts & logic.


My logic is fine, despite your disagreement. As for facts, I was merely
quoting what I'd seen on the piece about Tookie's life. Take it up with
those who produced it.

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice. The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity. There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

Miracle of miracles, Jon, we are in agreement.

Me and Jeezus... we're pals. g

War is a different matter, where the survival of the state (and the
people) is at stake.

Agreement again. Is the world nearing its end? g

Shhhh....


However I have a big problem with the way the death penalty
is currently applied in this country. But hey, it's always
detail detail detail!

Perhaps that's why the Illinois governor suspended all such penalties
in his state?

Actually he did so for political capital, not from any particular moral
or ethical belief. Gov. Blago--I couldn't spell his full name on a bet
without looking it up--stated in a brief speech to an organization at the
University of Illinois that he personally believed in the concept of
capital punishment, but chose to honor the wishes of his constituency
instead. It may also have something to do with the prospect that he
might end up in prison someday himself. g He's up to his neck in
scandal currently.

I'm willing to accept the wrong motivation for doing the right thing.

Same here. If someone wishes to give me a bundle of cash because they
believe me to be in need of it, so be it.

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Doesn't matter if he had redeeming characteristics or not. We are judged
by how we treat those who are the worst, not by how we treat those who are
the best.

Why Jon, that's nice. That's very Christian--are you training for the
priesthood or something? g

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

It's not just Christian... it's non-denominational.

You mean I have to *train*? Sheesh. Also, I'm not gay, so that sort of
excludes me right there. g

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Doesn't matter if he had redeeming characteristics or not. We are judged
by how we treat those who are the worst, not by how we treat those who
are the best.

Why Jon, that's nice. That's very Christian--are you training for the
priesthood or something? g

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Doesn't matter if he had redeeming characteristics or not. We are judged
by how we treat those who are the worst, not by how we treat those who
are the best.

Why Jon, that's nice. That's very Christian--are you training for the
priesthood or something? g

Max

It's not just Christian... it's non-denominational.

You mean I have to *train*? Sheesh. Also, I'm not gay, so that sort of
excludes me right there. g

I believe you only have to have a preference for young boys. :-o

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Max,

I thought our Prisons purpose was to reform. Not all are death row. If
we can't reform and we can't execute why are we providing free room and
broad for wrong doers. The ones being punished are the law abiding
citizen tax payers. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Ole Thom

Bye Bye Tookie
 

All pretense of reform was dropped many years ago. We can reform people if
we spent some time and money on the problem. However, instead, we're
spending our money elsewhere.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Max,

I thought our Prisons purpose was to reform. Not all are death row. If
we can't reform and we can't execute why are we providing free room and
broad for wrong doers. The ones being punished are the law abiding
citizen tax payers. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Ole Thom

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Errr... if you're a guy and you like young boys, I would think that would
qualify as being gay. But you seem to have some inside knowledge. g

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Doesn't matter if he had redeeming characteristics or not. We are
judged by how we treat those who are the worst, not by how we treat
those who are the best.

Why Jon, that's nice. That's very Christian--are you training for the
priesthood or something? g

Max

It's not just Christian... it's non-denominational.

You mean I have to *train*? Sheesh. Also, I'm not gay, so that sort of
excludes me right there. g

I believe you only have to have a preference for young boys. :-o

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

That would be me. My 13 year old niece
was raped and killed in a church.

Under the 1st amendment, executions should
be done in public. Sell advertising, and make
a Roman spectacle out of it. I think we can
make enough to pay for their keep and legal
expenses.

I vote for clearing out all the death row inmates
one per week until they are all gone, with a bonus
New Years Day spectacular were any surplus
killers can all be terminated. Or maybe that
would be better done at half-time during the
Superbowl.


"Scotty" wrote

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in

I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose
to
execute someone.

Why not ask some of the survivors of a murder victim how they
feel about it?

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Of course, that's terrible. However, killing someone else would not bring
back your niece. And, making it public would traumatize other kids.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
That would be me. My 13 year old niece
was raped and killed in a church.

Under the 1st amendment, executions should
be done in public. Sell advertising, and make
a Roman spectacle out of it. I think we can
make enough to pay for their keep and legal
expenses.

I vote for clearing out all the death row inmates
one per week until they are all gone, with a bonus
New Years Day spectacular were any surplus
killers can all be terminated. Or maybe that
would be better done at half-time during the
Superbowl.


"Scotty" wrote

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in

I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose
to
execute someone.

Why not ask some of the survivors of a murder victim how they
feel about it?

Bye Bye Tookie
 

For what it costs to keep someone in a federal prison, you could
send them to
Harvard for the same period of time. When they get out of Harvard, they
could
find a job that pays a lot more than being a punk crook or low level
drug
dealer..

Problem is most "punk crooks" wouldn't go to class and they'd be
breaking into the dorm rooms of the students who did. Get real.