Indeed. Found Guility ...pop a 10cent round.

Simple and cost effective.

FN liberals mess up the process and spend millions.

Joe

In article ,
DSK wrote:
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?

Of course. I mean, who the f*ck knows.

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

He wasn't a threat any more. 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.

... 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.

I agree! I think there should be very few appeals. However, there
would be even fewer right now, if the DP were removed from the table.

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.

Sure. I know. That's why we have courts, lawyers, politicians, etc.

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.

... 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).

... 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.

Not much. There's always a slight chance of just about everything, but
I don't think it's much of a chance in reality. It would be
interesting to see some stats about something like that
happening.. I'm sure it has happened, but it's so rare.

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.

Scale is one of those important details. In the case of some things,
looking at the limiting cases doesn't really help.

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

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
Indeed. Found Guility ...pop a 10cent round.

Simple and cost effective.

FN liberals mess up the process and spend millions.

Joe

Heck, we don't even need trials. Just hang 'em when you suspect
someone's done something you don't like. It's a slippery slope, and
that's why we have courts of law.




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

... 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.


... 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.




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.

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.

DSK

"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?

Jonathan Ganz wrote:


I remember it also. Also that sill of when that girl was burned and
running down the street.

She's a Canadian citizen now and living in Toronto!

Cheers
Marty
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----

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.

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.

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


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


Without anesthesia... now *there's* a deterrent, and it
could also help recoup cost by making it a popular TV show.

Actually, using prisoners for medical purposes is on that
slippery slope. At the beginning, it's a good idea. But the
temptation to expand the boundaries would be very difficult
to resist.

DSK

I find it unsurprizing that I could not find Governor
Schwarzenegger's six page statement anywhere in the
press. Here it is at the State of California web site.

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/p..._Statement.pdf

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

The governor's decision was met without opposition from
Democratic Party leadership in California. Jesse Idiot
Jackson, Democratic extortionist was the one vocal critic.
Politicians maintained a deathly silence, showing that the
governor's decision was not only bi-partisan but overwhelmingly
supported by the populace.

The Gubernator noted that Williams dedicated his 1998 memoir,
Life in Prison, to "Nelson Mandela, Angela Davis, Malcolm X,
Assata Shakur, Geronimo Ji Jaga Pratt, Ramona Africa, John
Africa, Leonard Peltier, Dhoruba Al-Mujahid, George Jackson,
Mumia Abu-Jamal, and the countless other men, women and
youths who have to endure the hellish oppression of living behind
bars."

[Makes you wonder if he felt any compassion for people he had
killed.]

In his statement rejecting clemency, Schwarzenegger made
it a condition that the prisoner admit guilt: "Stanley Williams
insists he is innocent, and that he will not and should not apologize
or otherwise atone for the murders of the four victims in this case...
Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal
killings there can be no redemption."

Schwarzenegger singled out the mention of George Jackson,
the Black Panther and prison activist killed by prison guards in
1971, declaring, "the inclusion of George Jackson on this list
defies reason and is a significant indicator that Williams is not
reformed and that he still sees violence and lawlessness as a
legitimate means to address societal problems."