HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:54:12 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:

}Well, to take it to the extreme, if revenge is OK, what's to stop the family
}of the executed inmate from extracting their own revenge?  Especially if "new"
}evidence shows that their family member was wrongfully executed?

I made it quite clear that I see nothing wrong with fulfilling one's
desire for revenge through LEGAL means.  I have never advocated going 
outside the law.  If a family such as you describe above has some sort
of LEGAL recourse, then they should go for it.

}As I grow older and older, I am finding it harder and harder to be against the
}death penalty.  My main concern though is those who have been wrongfully convicted
}(and then executed) for a crime they didn't commit.  I have not been able to
}lay this argument to rest as of yet.

I think the answer to this is to put better safeguards into the system.
In the case of the wrongfully convicted two men that you mentioned, it
was clear that there was gross negligence at nearly every stage of the
process (not to even mention the outright fraud).

--James Preston
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:17:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: fido.jj76t38
Distribution: ca
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <f55i02amccy.00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:

>I believe in the sanctity of INNOCENT lives.  When a person commits
>murder or rape or some other brutal act, he has shown that HE believes
>that life is cheap, and has thereby cheapened HIS OWN life.

What happens when the person accused still insists on his innocence.   What
is the value of his life then?

>  The person
>himself has set the value of his own life, and has set that value at
>nothing.  So when such a person is put to death, that's exactly what
>has been lost: nothing.


And when that person is put to death, everyone who agrees with it has set
the value for human life to nothing as well.  By your theory, capital 
punishment makes all life cheap.




Jeff
-FWA
From: lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: WILL THE GVT IMPLANT OUR CHILDREN?
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:02:53 GMT

Read on folks! The upper case comments are mine!
Samurai_Writer


----- Begin Included Message -----

From lpb Tue Apr 14 16:42:50 1992
Return-Path: <lpb>
Received: from florida.swdc.stratus.com by echidna.swdc.stratus.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
	id AA14252; Tue, 14 Apr 92 16:42:47 PDT
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 16:42:47 PDT
From: lpb (Len Bucuvalas)
Message-Id: <9204142342.AA14252@echidna.swdc.stratus.com>
To: lpb
Status: R

Article 93648 of talk.politics.misc:
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:56:53 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

}In article <2f3902iUcbw.00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:

}>For one thing, I believe that a quick death entails a lot less suffering
}>than spending the rest of your life in prison with no hope of getting out.
}>So I reject that part of your question.

}You need to read more about how people die when the "popular" methods of
}execution are used.  A recommended book _Operation Medicide_ by Jack
}Kevorkian discusses this.

}Do you realize that the reason the electric chair kills is because it 
}literally cooks the heart?

}This does not sound like any small amount of suffering...

Still much less suffering than an entire lifetime in prison.

Besides, all you're saying is that we need more humane ways of execution.
I have no problem with that.

--James Preston

Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:04:17 GMT

There seems to be a lot of discussion of what the initiative does.
Much of it disagrees with what I understand it does from a talk I 
heard last night. 

Has anyone typed in the initiatiative or at least the summary of it?

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 21:29:33 GMT

In article <57515@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
|
|I think that the biggest reason for the lack of deterence of the death
|penalty (or any other penalty, such as jail time) is that criminals
|are, in general, stupid.
|
|They think that, somehow, they will be the rare criminal who is not
|caught by the police.  They aren't and so they are.
|
|Threats such as jail or death only deter those who are smart enough to
|realize that they are not smart enough to outwit the police.  The
|dumb ones won't realize this, so won't be detered.
|
|							Tim Smith

They are dumb, in the same manner that people who drive faster than the
flow of traffic, make illegal lane changes, follow too close etc. on
our freeways, and thing that they CAN'T be killed in an accident, are
dumb.

I wonder if the percentage of the people who commit murder who are caught
is 100.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:49:06 GMT

In article <dgzjdvl.mzimmers@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>
>Life IS cheap, sadly.  Its cheapness is proven not only by murderers
>and assassins, but government leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Kennedy.
>EVERYBODY kills -- the government, armies, the police.  And we 
>ourselves, by taking another puff of tobacco, or another sip of liquor,
>-- 
>Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984


That is an interesting grouping of government leaders. Did you forget Bush,
Reagan, Ford, Nixon and all the rest back to George Washington? Or perhaps 
were you simply showing a little bit of bias.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:51:41 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <jj76t38@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>In article <f55i02amccy.00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:

>>I believe in the sanctity of INNOCENT lives.  When a person commits
>>murder or rape or some other brutal act, he has shown that HE believes
>>that life is cheap, and has thereby cheapened HIS OWN life.

>What happens when the person accused still insists on his innocence.   What
>is the value of his life then?

Well, to begin with, if just one person out of twelve (that have been
approved by his own defense counsel) has the slightest reasonable inkling
that he might be telling the truth, the death penalty is out the window.
Ditto if the jury recommendation is overturned by the judge.  Not to
mention the fact that the prosecution itself is quite selective about
pursuing the death penalty.  And there are always two levels of appeal.

>>  The person
>>himself has set the value of his own life, and has set that value at
>>nothing.  So when such a person is put to death, that's exactly what
>>has been lost: nothing.

>And when that person is put to death, everyone who agrees with it has set
>the value for human life to nothing as well.  By your theory, capital 
>punishment makes all life cheap.

Life IS cheap, sadly.  Its cheapness is proven not only by murderers
and assassins, but government leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Kennedy.
EVERYBODY kills -- the government, armies, the police.  And we 
ourselves, by taking another puff of tobacco, or another sip of liquor,
or just by not buckling our seatbelt, are sending a very clear message
that we aren't willing to take even the simplest of precautions to
prolong our own existances.  Very few people seem to have a realistic
perspective of just how precious life is, either for the individual or
for the aggregate.  Most of us just take our time here for granted.

-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman )
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:15:50 GMT


	In Japan, 96% of all students graduate from High School.  In the US
	71% do.  Every HS graduate in Japan has had an introduction to
	calculus, statistics.  In Japan, one studies hard to get into the
	best HS, and students may travel an hour on the subways and busses
	to get there every day.

	If you are the head of Sony, you can implement a new statistical
	quality control program, or introduce sophisticated new machinery
	knowing that the workers can be trained in the necessary techniques.

	If you are the head of GM, you know that you cannot introduce
	any new ideas requiring more education than an 8th grade reading level.
	You could not even think of introducing it to your college educated
	workforce because only a small %-age of them have had calculus and
	statistics.

	Which country will be making high wage, high value-added products
	enabling the tax collector to gather enough to support decent
	basic services to the populace?  If you think you are safe because
	you are college educated middle calss, look at South America, where
	police are corrupt because there's no tax base to pay them, hyper-
	inflation of 1000% is normal because printing money is the only
	way to pay for the social services demanded by the masses who have
	no decent jobs, and no way to get one.  The engineers, and doctors
	live in special compounds protected from the masses by armed guards.

	In a survey of two comparable cities (Minneapolis and Nagoya) the
	best HS in Minneapolis was worse than the worst HS in Nagoya, Japan.

	NY state had a system called the State Regents Exams that tested
	every subject (3rd yr Latin, American History, etc.) from Jnr HS
	through HS.  Any teacher that didn't get his/her kids to do well
	heard from the parents - fast!  The Catholic schools were eventually
	exempted from the test because they always did so well, there
	wasn't any point to testing them.  Catholic schools' class size
	up to the 8th grade was usually about 65-72.  Their phys. ed.
	dept. consisted of "get the softball bat from Sister Teresa",
	and their school lunch program consisted of a shady spot under
	the tree.  Parents brought sleeping bags to camp out in front
	of the 1st grade admission building because you could see the
	difference between 2nd graders in public and parochial schools 
	even in the same family - and not in favor of the public schools.

	School choice works, and so do state-wide testing systems.  They
	should go together.  You needn't care about the methods, but you
	should care about the results.

	- Michael

-- 
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in adapting the world to himself.  Therefore, all progress depends upon the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
	Disclaimer:  All views are solely my own & not the views of Acuson.
	<sun!sono!miklg>  or  [miklg@acuson.com]
Xref: sparky ca.politics:3322 ba.politics:2575 talk.politics.misc:17017
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: why bother? (MANY GOOD REASONS! - THATS WHY!!!)
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:13:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: igor.1992Apr7.001314.28601
Distribution: ca
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco

In article <t=ljnvk.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>    >You have this odd notion that freedom means that you have the
>    >right to completely control who you associate with and that
>    >being forced to compromise the slightest bit means that you
>    >live in a Fascist society.
>    >
>    >I've got news for you, Phil. People can't be trusted to move
>    >through intersections smoothly, so we have laws that insure
>    >accidents will be relatively rare. People can't be trusted
>    >not to rape or steal from each other, so there are laws
>    >against that. And people need to work and have a place to
>    >live, so we NEED laws to insure their availability.
>
>Well, people need food and love even more, so why are there no laws
>making sure that people get these items?
>
>Ensure their availability? By what person? Who is going to magically
>supply all these things "needed?? What if the person having these things
>(say, a farmer with food) doesn't want to supply them, or, doesn't
>want to supply them on anything other than mutually agreeable terms?

I'm talking about the right to EARN a job, earn the money needed to
live in an apartment, say; to earn the money needed to buy food (now
that ya mention it; thanks for the reminder, Phil :).  I'm not talking
about any kind of handouts here.

Basically, I feel that any company above a certain size should be required
to hire without regard to color/sex/sexual orientation/religion.  That
people should be allowed to buy any home they can afford or rent any
apartment.

>AGAIN AND AGAIN -- READ what I say, damn it! Freedom of Association.
>Voluntary. Non-coercion. And so on.

Don't worry, I'm quite familiar with the Libertarian line.  And I do
agree with a lot of it.  I just happen to count some things coercion
that you do not.

>Yet your argument has to use concepts like rape and stealing.
>
>You actually use as an argument against the general condition of
>freedom such concepts as coercion.
>
>I.e., what you seem to be saying is we can't have freedom because
>some people are coercive.
>
>Great. Stupid, but great in its stupidity.

Guess I've been reading too many of your posts... :v)

>Compromise? What compromise is needed? You seem to have a massive
>confusion between anrachy and freedom and State and Government.
>
>The only moral position is one of freedom to do what you want
>as long as you don't coerce another entity.

And if we can't agree on what constitutes "initiation of coercion"?

     don
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: why bother? (MANY GOOD REASONS! - THATS WHY!!!)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 08:14:24 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ca

In article <6Z8TiB3w164w@batpad.lgb.CA.US> mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor) writes:
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>> Overall, the difference between a most business and personal interactions
>> is is within the range of differences in personal reactions alone.
>
>Come again?
>
>This time, in the original English, please.


The "range" of "personal" interactions (the weird, the unusual,
the unbelievable) between human beings far transcends the range of
business transactions, indeed, business transactions are but a small
subset of the total human interactions possible.

people seem to get all bent about "business", seemingly on the basis of
"power" that a business supposedly has, yet, I have yet to hear a call
regulating Madonna's lifestyle -- consider all the power she has in
her "personal" interactions ...



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas x5363)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: CALI-FUR-NIA IS SEX-NEUROTIC
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:02:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: echidna.9204062302.AA00167

Is sex all you people discuss in ca.politics???? This is neurotic and 

		boooorrrrinnnngggg!

Can we discuss the politics behind all this? The whys and hows and can nots?
Xref: sparky ca.politics:3398 ca.general:472
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.general
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell President has NO E-Mail
Keywords: E-Mail PacBell Pacific Bell
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:51:10 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <t=sjx8c.owen@netcom.com> owen@netcom.com (Owen Delong) writes:
>Today, in the process of one of my (regular) calls to harrass Pacific
>Bell about ISDN for Residence Service, I managed to get the ISDN
>product manager.  When I asked him who at Pacific Bell was the best
>person to pressure on getting ISDN in my area, and in general, he
>referred me to Pacific Bell President Phil Quigley, and suggested that
>I write him a letter. 

   Myself I would settle for being able to place an ISDN BRI call
   between two different CO's without using those paired 56 KB ckts
   that Pac Bell is trying to pass off as ISDN.

   And if they mention BRITE one more time, I may make the evening
   news.  But if I can get a jury of Voice/Data managers, they
   wouldn't have a prayer of conviction.
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:53:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23267
Distribution: ca
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr2.233908.6460@morrow.stanford.edu>,
GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:

> My teaching is limited to the "how to be an instant fortran
> programmer in 6 easy lessons" variety, but that's not really the
> point.  Whether I'm choosing the teaching method or choosing the
> people who will chose the teaching method, I still feel that as the
> person paying the bill I have a right to do some choosing.

That's why we have school board elections.  You do vote for school board
candidates, don't you?

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 00:34:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.230911.14004@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com
(Don Baldwin) writes:
>Now in spite of everything I just said, there ARE cases where I
>would not mind seeing the criminal executed.  I remember a few
>years ago, when Laurence Singleton was released from prison,
>thinking that he was DEFINTELY someone who should be killed.  For
>someone like him or RAH, I would not decline to pull the switch.

As somebody's already pointed out, I was sloppy here:  Singleton
didn't commit murder.  However, he raped, mutilated and left his
victim to bleed to death...an instance in which I would consider
his acts equivalent to murder.

    don
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Noreiga
Date: 10 Apr 1992 04:57:29 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu
Originator: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU

So they convicted Noreiga of smuggling drugs.  I'm not surprised they
found him guilty, but the major question, which I haven't seen
discussed at all, is this:  by what authority are we trying a citizen
of a foreign country for crimes committed on foreign soil?  Has the
government explained this?  Why isn't it discussed in the news
articles about the trial?

	Wayne
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:33:00 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Mar31.185215.1093@morrow.stanford.edu>,
GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:

> I, as a non-parent, am being asked to pay for education because
> having an educated populace in general is to everyone's advantage.
> In other words, because education is in some sense a public good.
> But what if you feel that the best interest of your children
> requires that they be indoctrinated in creationism, white supremacy
> and anti-semetism?  Should I be be compelled to pay because you have
> their best interest at heart in choosing such an educational program
> for them?  Should you be denied the opportunity to so educate them
> if you are not demanding that anyone else pay for it?  You simply
> can not expect personal control while other people pick up the bill.
> That's why I have no confidence in the Chubb and Moe proposal.  They
> are asking for something that goes against the grain of human nature
> -- that people keep forking over their money while leaving other
> people completely free to decide how to spend it.

In other words your objection to vouchers is just the general objection to
collecting taxes and using constitutional-democratic procedures to decide how to
spend the money.  It isn't the most successful system you can *imagine*, but it
is the most successful system ever implemented (some might say the only
successful one).

With regard to public education in particular, it is this system that has given
Europe, North America, and parts of Asia such as Japan and Singapore educated
populations beyond the wildest dreams of other societies.

This democratic system, because it is also constitutional, denies people the
right to use public funds to teach creationism, racism and antisemitism.  That
is right and proper; if someone wants to have his children taught this sort of
ignorance, let him pay for it out of his own pocket -- it isn't a public good.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 16 Apr 1992 23:13:15 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <a5AH028AcevK00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
> ... because the murderer is not entitled to make that value
> judgement and act on it.  This is why we have laws and a legal system, 
> because that is how society as a whole makes that value judgement and
> acts on it.

Why is "the state" allowed to make this judgement?  Just because it's
legal, because it's written down in some book somewhere that it's okay
for the state to do it but not an individual, doesn't make it morally
right.

Besides, there is no mystical process by which "the state" makes this
judgement.  Twelve jurors and one judge, and then a few other appeals
judges and finally the governor are making the judgement.  They are
all human beings, with no more individual right to make that judgement
than a kid on the street whose best friend just got shot.  It doesn't
matter what the laws say -- they can't create rights where none exist
(or take them away when they do).

	Wayne