Time magazine

Won a prize IIRC, Same guy shot the picture of that little girl running
from a napalmed village.

Joe

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:48:45 -0000, "Donal"
said:

I don't believe that he was guilty.

Truly remarkable how after a jury of 12 sat and heard all the
evidence, and
decided he was guilty, and after who knows how many courts
reviewed every
element of the conviction, Donal sitting over in Ireland, never
having seen
or heard any of the evidence, can divine that the guy was
innocent. Are the
voices telling you, Donal?


"Donal sitting over in Ireland"

Right there is your 1st clue.

He's drunk as a skunk.

Scotty

In article ,
Donal wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article , Bart Senior .@. wrote:
The Terminator is living up to his name.

Bye Bye Tookie. This is long overdue.

http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=30668

It is and it isn't. I'm opposed to the DP, but I'm not that concerned
about Williams. He certainly deserves it.

I don't believe that he was guilty.

Fortunately, you weren't on the jury or the appeals court.

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

In article ,
Scotty wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
They see worse on TV, and in video games.

Mostly, they see make-believe on TV and most kids understand
the
difference.

When you were a kid, did you ever see someone killed in front
of you?


No. Do you remember when the news showed the guy getting shot in
the head in, I believe VN?
I can still picture it.

I remember it also. Also that sill of when that girl was burned and
running down the street. We used to watch Walter every night during
dinner when they added up the score.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:48:45 -0000, "Donal" said:

I don't believe that he was guilty.

Truly remarkable how after a jury of 12 sat and heard all the evidence,
and
decided he was guilty, and after who knows how many courts reviewed every
element of the conviction, Donal sitting over in Ireland,

I'm not sitting in Ireland.


never having seen
or heard any of the evidence, can divine that the guy was innocent.

I didn't "divine" anything.

I said that I didn't "believe" that the guy was guilty.

Are the
voices telling you, Donal?

Yes .... No ..... Sorry, I'm confused. Could you re-phrase your question,
please? This time, please try to make some sense.

Regards


Donal
--

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article , Bart Senior .@. wrote:
The Terminator is living up to his name.

Bye Bye Tookie. This is long overdue.

http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=30668

It is and it isn't. I'm opposed to the DP, but I'm not that concerned
about Williams. He certainly deserves it.

I don't believe that he was guilty.

Fortunately, you weren't on the jury or the appeals court.

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, according to a researcher at UCLA's
School of Law Enforcement (may not have that name quite right). 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, plus an assortment of innocent
bystanders.

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.

Max

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?


... 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?


... 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?

... plus an assortment of innocent
bystanders.


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


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.

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.

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!

Regards
Doug King

In article ,
DSK wrote:
just like nobody is in favor of abortion. It's a question of
rights vs gov't authority.

Depends on the person... oh wait, that's a detail. :-)

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.

I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone. There are worse things that are less expensive.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

Who cares now? Problem gone.

Joe

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?

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

... 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.



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.



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."

... 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.




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.

DSK