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

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

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

"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

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

"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

"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

"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.

"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

"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