From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty, for or against?
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:45:09 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.african.american

As quoted from <HANS.92Oct7152635@ravn.iesd.auc.dk> by hans@iesd.auc.dk (Hans Huttel):

> 
> In article <Bvq5FA.BoE@NCoast.ORG> cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher
> Morton) writes:
> 
> [ I wrote: ]
> >> Let me repeat my rhetorical question: Why shouldn't all criminals in
> >> the U.S. be executed ? Surely crime should be punished, and (by the
> >> quoted argument) killing a criminal will certainly prevent him/her
> >> from being raped or murdered in prison.
> >
> > For the same reason that you don't amputate to treat a paper cut.  It's a
> > complete nonsequitor.  Do you equate mass murder and check forgery?  Do you
> > consider Charles Manson and a homeless person who steals a pack of pimento
> > loaf moral equals?
> 
> Of course not. But a major argument for the death penalty seems to be
> that it prevents recidivism. Another argument for the death penalty is
> that imprisonment can be dangerous to the prisoner. Thus imposing the
> death penalty for any crime would eliminate these problem altogether.
> Nobody would dream of e.g. shoplifting or drunk driving if the
> consequences were fatal. 

You're talking deterrence again.  I never claimed deterrence, nor do I even
care.  My concern is with multiple murderers.  The multiple murderer who is
executed will NOT kill AGAIN.  HE is DETERRED.

> In certain countries such as Pakistan, petty theft is punishable with
> amputation of a hand. 

I'm neither Pakistani nor Muslim.  They're free to do what they want at home.

> >> (An aside: Denmark has a maximum security mental hospital for
> >> extremely dangerous criminal patients. Such people are kept in
> >> solitary confinement.)
> >
> > Isn't that cruel and unusual?  I'll bet the ACLU thinks so.
> 
> But... I have nothing whatsoever to do with the ACLU, which is a U.S.
> organization. Having little knowledge of what it stands for, I feel no
> urge to defend or attack it.

But you certainly seem to share a number of opinions.

> >> There are a number of mentally retarded people on death row in the
> >> U.S., some of them African-American. I would urge all netters to read
> >> the Amnesty International report on capital punishment in the U.S. for
> >> more details on this.
> >
> > And did they kill people in cold blood?
> 
> How do we know that these people actually killed anyone ? And even if
> we did, what would "in cold blood" mean if you were an illiterate
> 18-year old man with the intelligence of a 4-year old ? I cannot
> subscribe to the idea that "criminal = evil" (see below.) Of course
> that by no means implies that "criminal = good" in my vocabulary.

WITNESSES?  Other non-fatal victims?  Do you allow for proof AT ALL?  Your 
argument seems a nonsequitor.  WHY are some people CRIMINALS?  Perhaps because
they commit EVIL acts, called CRIMES?  You can't have it both ways.  You seem
willing to allow that a serial murderer could be a "good" person.  That's an
oxymoron UNLESS you don't think that murder is bad.

> >> But how do we know ? What constitutes absence of doubt ? For several
> >> years, virtually nobody in Britain had any doubts that the Guildford
> >> Four and the Birmingham Six were IRA terrorists. 
> >
> > Numerous eye witnesses?  Is there ANY doubt that Hennard shot up the Luby's
> > cafeteria in Killeen, Texas?  There's NO doubt that Alton Coleman went on a 
> > killing and child molestation spree across the midwest.  In fact there was
> > CONSIDERABLE doubt regarding the actions of the British police.
> 
> Certainly not initially - it took a full 15 years before the Guildford
> Four and the Birmingham Six were finally acquitted. In fact, the
> courts were extremely reluctant to reopen the cases. The government
> officially stated that there was no doubt whatsoever. The first appeal
> against the conviction of the Birmingham Six was rejected.

My understanding of the case is that there was ALWAYS considerable doubt.

> >> The death penalty can be used for political ends. Think of South
> >> Africa or China, just to name two modern-day examples. Of course this
> >> is almost always denied by the regimes who use this practice - the
> >> people on death row are... criminals.
> >
> > So can imprisonment.  Do you want to abolish that too?  What should the fines
> > for rape and murder be?
> 
> Nobody here is talking about fines - certainly not yours truly.
> Moreover, what has rape and murder got to do with dictatorships using
> the death penalty as an instrument of oppression ?

If you want to abolish the death penalty because it can be use for political
purposes, why not imprisonment too?  Haven't you ever heard of Andrei Sakharov
or Aung San Syuu Ki.

> >> To sum up: The death penalty is a quick fix that solves no problems.
> >
> > Wrong.  The death penalty is a PERMANENT fix to the problem of recidivism by
> > murderers.  Can you name an excuted murderer who has subsequently killed?
> 
> I did not make myself clear. The death penalty is a quick fix to a
> problem in society, namely crime. Does it make crime go away ? 

It's makes the CRIMINAL go away.  Care to dispute that?  And does ANYTHING make
crime "go away"?  Does that meant that imprisonment AND fines should be 
abolished?

> To be more precise:
> 
> Has the death penalty done anything to lower the crime rate in those
> parts of the world where it has been introduced ? Has the crime rate
> gone up in the parts of the world where it has been abolished ?

The answer is probably yes OR no to all questions, depending upon the 
particular society.

> >> If the penal system isn't fair and unprejudiced, innocent people will
> >> lose their lives. In a country with social inequalities, the death
> >> penalty will affect some groups of people disproportionately. It can
> >> be used _against_ these groups of people. Finally, the death penalty
> >> is irreversible. What good is aquittal once you are dead?
> >
> > So, it's ok to have a biased justice system so long as you don't have a death
> > penalty?
> >
> > What good is 20 life sentences to somebody who continues to kill?
> 
> I still haven't understood this. I admit to being a sentimental
> European, but: How can you kill people if you are behind bars ? (It
> doesn't happen here in Denmark.)

It happens a LOT in the US.  Everything from crude knives to submachineguns.
During one prison riot in Arizona, prisoners murdered each other with acetylene
torches.

> > Another good solution would be to recognize that some people are just BAD.
> > Sometimes they do things that deserve death.
> 
> The above sums up a opinion that Christopher Morton and all other
> proponents of the death penalty seem to share, namely that crime
> exists simply because people are _evil_. I strongly disagree with
> this. I believe that there is a better and more correct explanation:
> that crime is a the product of many different factors, among these
> problems in society such as social inequalities.

That is not an accurate statement of my views, even culled solely from this
group.  I said and reiterate that there are some people who are just EVIL.  You
may not want to admit this, but it is nevertheless true.  Of course you may be
able to rationalize the activities of a Klaus Barbie or a Charles Manson....

> When will we all realize that killing each other doesn't solve any
> problems ?

Never, since it isn't true.  What you are REALLY saying is that it doesn't 
solve ALL problems.  You haven't provided an alternative that does, and won't.
Killing a murderer stops him from killing again, ABSOLUTELY.  Once AGAIN, if 
you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.  Perhaps Clive Barker
can turn it into a novel....



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------