X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:32:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: On the death penalty once again ...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt348706@drew.edu>, "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
   writes:

> crossed my mind about the "what constitutes a crime?" question, and

the death penalty for one thing

> Last week, this fellow came to my house to repair windows, and, of
> course, I started a political argument with him after he said that
> the paramount goal in the US was "to restore order," even if that

I always thought we had a Revolution for liberty.  Liberty doesn't
seem to be a traditional value any more these days.

> from petit theft up to murder. THIS CLIMATE DID NOT DETER CRIME!!!

but the death penalty would in some cases?  take away deterrence and
you have retribution.  Is this a valid purpose of law? I don't think
so.

> rarely. I believe some individuals are not rehabilitable, and that

rehabilitable is not the the only point.  thou shall not kill those
who can be rehabilated isn't the statement we honor

> basically four crimes CAN deserve such a penalty. Armed robbery
> where victims are hurt or killed, rape "in the first degree,"

this list is somewhat random.  It's ok to kill someone for say
shooting a victim's leg but not blowing up his house?  What would you rather
suffer?  "hurt" seems so vague to be meaningless.  Rape is the product
of so many things that killing seems wanton; our society has so many
mixed messages about women that rape is almost inevitable.

> torture

this makes more sense

> advanced child abuse wherein the victim is permanently affected, and

child abuse is done by sick people, many victims of abuse themselves

> murder

this is again too vague.  Most murders are crimes of passion, others
have mitigating circumstances

> idea that ALL such crimes merit the death penalty, though most of the
> perpetrators ARE repeat offenders, and I believe a repeater is one
> of those I call "unredeemable."

others show studies that disagree. Repeater is again vague and really
leaving open the possibility of abuse, nor are all repeaters
"unredeemable".  They don't all deserve the mark of Cain.

>> such crimes. Life in prison may be more heinous, especially with no
> hope of parole, because then there are NO sanctions save a death
> penalty to stop such a criminal from repeating its crime INSIDE
> PRISON!

if these crimes are heinous, why not have a heinous punishment?
life is more valuable over liberty for many, after all as long as you
live, you have some liberty.  Who is going to be a victim if a crime
is done in jail?  someone you see as deserving to be killed anyway!
At any rate, I think most would take the risk of jail over death.

> presented. I do not agree with reversing "guilty" findings on
> technicalities that are NOT evidence-related, unless the judge is
> proven to have conducted the trial unfairly.

"unfair" includes competent counsel, in short supply for many on death
row. Besides evidence-related "technicalities" what do you think is a
"harmless error" as is the favored term?

> theft. I also believe white collar crime needs deeper levels of
> "punishment" than large fines and suspended sentences, but that's
> another debate.

yes.  Cheating people out of life savings is as bad as armed robbery
imho.

> We DO use prison for "punishment," not rehabilitation, anyone who
> tells you different doesn't understand how that system "really"
> works.

yes.  the drug problem shows how to make a mess of the justice system
by enforcement, not fighting the real problem of drug abuse.

> Lastly, I do not have a comprehensive solution to this deeply
> convoluted question of criminal justice, but I conclude "draconian"
> is not necessarily a good solution process. We may need the death
> penalty,

know we don't.

    -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU