HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (System Administrator)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:03:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: pro-ambe.dh22281
Organization: ProLine [pro-amber]

In <abeals.703465948@melange>
abeals@autodesk.com (Andrew Scott Beals, KC6SSS) writes:

>Oh give it a rest.
>
>Harris killed two teen-aged girls in cold blood.
>
>It's too bad we can't kill him twice.
>--
They were boys not girls. I think the Gov' made the right choice. Let the
family and the state get the revenge they deserve. After the execution, lets
get about overhauling the system so it doesn't take 14 years to get this done.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ProLine:  rsopicki@pro-amber         |        System Administrator
Internet: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com |                of
UUCP:     crash!pro-amber!rsopicki   |             Pro-Amber
CIS:      75146.430@compuserve.com   |           619-460-9762
Xref: sparky ca.politics:3384 ba.politics:2616 talk.politics.misc:17474
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:09:51 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:

}Is "an eye for an eye" fair?  I don't feel that it is.  If you kill a
}killer, that makes you a killer also.  

I think you're looking at it too simplistically.  Do you honestly see
NO difference whatsoever between one who freely choses to kill an innocent,
and the proper laws of society being used to execute one who has so chosen?
Have we all been so indoctrinated by our parents who said, "I don't care
who started it" that we've lost all sight of that important distinction?

}I don't feel revenge is morally right.  

Why not?  I don't mean this as a rhetorical question; I'm really wondering
if you've thought this through enough to specify just what it is about
revenge that you think is morally wrong.

--James Preston

Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Is coercion bad? (Was Re: Sexual Orientation Discrimination...)
Organization: Space Systems/Loral
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 05:18:44 GMT

In article <4wLkiB2w164w@batpad.lgb.CA.US>, mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor) writes:
|> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> > I. Do. Not. Favor. Initiation. Of. Coercion. Period.
|> > 
|> > Get it?
|> 
|> I don't think that you get it.  Have you ever called the police
|> department?  Have you ever called emergency medical services?  Have
|> you ever used a public road?
|> 
|> Why do you use things you don't approve of?
|> 
|> > I do not repeat not, and never have, called for initiation of coercion
|> > to do any such thing such as supporting a police agency of any type.

Ronzone, you lying hyena.

Submitted for your approval:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article: 6084 of ba.politics
Xref: wdl1 ca.politics:12970 ba.politics:6084
From: pkr@ronco.wpd.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Freedom of Association
Date: 13 Jul 91 21:37:07 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Elvis Presley Memorial Institute of UFO Studies

[Some text deleted. -JHW.:.]

Now a lot of people have trouble with this oh-so-simple concept.

For them, BAD things MUST be prevented.

Now, when they talk about BAD things, those BAD things
fit in two categories.

Category A: The two (or more) individuals are uncoerced.
	    Buying a hamburger. Buying drugs. Engaging
	    in unusual sex acts with unusual partner-stereotypes.
	    Worshipping the "wrong" gods (or none at all!).
	    And so on.

Category B: Murder. Robbery. Rape. Assault. Kidnapping. Etc.

Now I agree that BAD things in Category B should be prevented.  And I
even see a role for a government here (just about the ONLY role
actually).

[Additional text deleted. -JHW.:.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I expect to be laughing so hard as to need medical attention by the time
I get through your article describing how government has a role
preventing murder, robbery, rape, assault, kidnapping, `etcetera'
and about how it can effectively play that role without initiating
coercion in any way.

-- 
James Woodyatt  Space Systems/Loral   Palo Alto, CA   bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com

``And when he dreamed his ears drooled thirty weight engine oil
He took personality tests and stapled them to his lower lip''
				    --Stan Ridgway,
				      `Jack Talked (Like A Man On Fire)'
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:00:19 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Apr15.235904.28209@cs.ucla.edu>, loving@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Loving) writes:
|> Umm, Robert Alton Harris used a pistol to murder (not just kill) two young
|> men.  Pistols of the type he used have been around for over 100 years now.  So
|> your statement about more efficient methods of killing is not really true or
|> relevant.  
|> 

One point to pick with you on this.  Yes, the technology for handguns has been around a long time.  Handguns themselves have been proliferating at a very high rate, possibly exponential.  There was a very interesting article in Scientific American a couple of months ago on just how many handguns there are in the US compared to other times in history.  Yes, 100yrs ago you could get a handgun, but, contrary to popular belief, not that many people carried them.  I can look up the article at home if you like.





Later,
George


-- 
Excuse me, could you scream just a little louder ??  I can't seem to hear
you.
Xref: sparky ca.politics:3330 ba.politics:2581 talk.politics.misc:17041
From: loving@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Loving)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:59:04 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department

In article <kumnhpINNu4@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>because even when capital punishment was more commonplace, there was still capital
>crimes.  I know, I know, "but there are more of them now".  Yup, only because
>the methods of killing are much more efficent.
>

Umm, Robert Alton Harris used a pistol to murder (not just kill) two young
men.  Pistols of the type he used have been around for over 100 years now.  So
your statement about more efficient methods of killing is not really true or
relevant.  

Also, other folks have been talking about "if killing is wrong, then killing
RAH is also wrong" etc.  The major point here (and the law notices it) is
there is

1)  Murder        - killing someone with prior intent
2)  Manslaughter  - killing someone through wrongful action without intent
3)  Homicide      - killing someone, sometimes entirely legal

#1 is what Harris did.
#2 is what Soon Ja Du did.  She did not intend to kill Latasha Harlan, but she
   acted in a wreckless manner and did things that resulted in Ms. Harlan's
   death.
#3 includes shooting the person with a knife who breaks into your abode in the
   middle of the night to cut your throat.

One could argue that since the state will kill Harris with intent, that it is
murder, but that same line of arguement would tell us that antibiotics are
genocide.  We do not execute people for manslaughter or for homicide, only
for certain subclasses of murder.  The punishment fits the crime and I will
shed no tears for Harris when/if he is executed.  I DO have some sympathy for
his victims though.


PS I welcome someone with greater knowledge of the fine points of what the
various classes of homicides are to further explain them.

Mike Loving
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:47:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.190716.22371@clipper.ingr.com>,
ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>June, June, June.

Al, Al, Al  :-)

>What you seem to be ignoring is that each child is unique, and
>each child/parent relationship is unique, and so it is impossible
>to establish through any kind of top down central planning which
>teaching or methods are appropriate for each child/parent.

Actually I tend to agree with you, so shouldn't I have some say in
by being able to direct my tax dollars to a school that fosters that
attitude rather than one that tries to force all students into the
same mold?  How do I know that all parents would make that same wise
choice.  Some parents today look at schools as baby-sitting
services.  These are not the kind of parents I want to help educate
their kids according to their values.

>Although it may be morally correct for the taxpayers to say how
>their money is spent, it simply doesnt work, as the sad story of
>public education bureaucrats trying to impose "effective education" from above
>has demonstrated.  60% of my local principal's time is spent filling
>out state forms to ensure that the taxpayers are getting their money's
>worth.

All this may be true but I don't see that it justifies denying me
the right to decide what schools deserve my support and which
don't.   I feel just as capable as the average parent in making such
a decision.

>Education decisions need to be made by the education consumers
>interacting with education entrepreneurs, not by central planners.
>Vouchers provide a bridge to get away from the central planning,
>and to get the entrepreneurialism, through stimulus of demand.

Tax credits involve no more central planning than vouchers; it's
just an issue of *who* gets to make the spending decisions --
taxpayers or parents.  However, I doubt that the educrats will let
go of central planning without a fight under either system.  They
will always view themselves as the guardians of the public welfare
who need to set at least some "minimal standards" that all schools
will have to meet to get into the game.

>Until and unless the PUEBS are reined in, entrepreneurialism in the
>public schools will be limited and haphazard, instead of the rule.
>If the public schools can become entrepreneurial, then fine.  If they
>cant, we need expand the private school system.

Fine, but what has this got to do with vouvher vs. tax credits?

>--Al Date

/June
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:40:41 GMT

In article <1548@tymix.Tymnet.COM>,
jdoskow@ichinen.Tymnet.COM (Jonathan Doskow) writes:
>>What on earth is the source of this information?
>>
>I'ld like to repeat the question Michael.  What is the source of this
>information.  As the debate on the "Parents Choice" intiative heats up,
>facts are likely to be bent somewhat.  Witness Ms. Genis' recent
>assertion that there was a voucher program in East Harlem.  I don't know
>what mechanism was used.  Perhaps parents were issued a piece of paper
>which they could take to the public shool of their choice.  The vouchers
>being proposed in CA are a different animal.

The Harlem system is properly classified as a voucher system, but it
was a voucher limited to schools certified as part of the public
system.  It did however include a mechanism for creating new schools
under that system so that students were not limited to the existing
schools in making their choice.  This was the major benefit of the
program, that it generated many new educational options for students
who in the past has been receiving substandard education not
suitable to their needs.

The California proposal, officially titled "The Parental Choice in
Education Initiative" actually goes out of it's way to avoid using
the word voucher and instead speaks of "scholarships".  That doesn't
make it any less a voucher proposal.  There probably are as many
variants that can be proposed on the idea of vouchers and tax
credits as there are variants on public education.  No I take that
back -- there are probably more variants than for public education
:-)

One of the problems with this discussion has been that we've been
mixing general discussion of the voucher concept (for which everyone
probably has a different starting model in mind) with the specific
terms of the initiative currently in circulation.  I don't think
anyone should assume that any particular model applies unless the
author says so.   I think most of the time we've been using the term
to mean a right granted to parents to enroll their children in a
other than one for which there are currently eligible under the
public school system.  Most people probably also use it to mean
"including private schools" because that is the intent of the
initiative.  Where there is ambiguity we should just ask people to
clarify what they mean rather than get on our high horses and
accuse each other of trickery and deception.

/June
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:53:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.185626.9093@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:

>There have been three points I've seen brought up in today's
>posts against the death penalty. Quickly summarized, they are
>that deterrence doesn't work, that the murderer should spend
>time contemplating the enormity of his or her crime and that 
>we shouldn't execute RAH (no, not Heinlein, he's already dead.) 
>because he suffers from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. 

Allow me to add another argument against the death penalty.  It is inherently
racist.

Allow me to explain.  Reports show that a black man who kills a white man
is 220 times more likely to get the death penalty than a white man who kills
a black man.  Juries are more likely to find a black man guilty of murder
and are also more likely to give the death penalty.

With all the injustices that are obvious in the american judicial system,
adding the possibility of executing someone who was potentially unfairly
tried is unacceptable.



Jeff
-FWA
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:45:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sl01fINN8sr
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <9f=b02USceIB00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>}> I don't believe in the vacuous maxim "human life is precious".  I think
>}> you have to look at the context of a particular life before you can
>}> decide whether it is "precious" or not.
>
>} Since when are you the arbiter of whether a life is precious or not?
>} What right do you have to make that decision?
>
> Did I say I was the arbiter?  Do you know what the clauses "I don't believe"
> and "I think" mean? It's my opinion, and I am as entitled to hold it and 
> express it as you are to do the same with your opinions.

Okay, I should have said "Why do you *think* or *believe* you or I
have such a right?"  I don't mean to attack you personally for saying
that such a decision must be made, but I want to challenge your
suggestion that any person or group of people can claim the right to
judge the value of somebody's life.

> I don't believe that revenge is destructive.  I think it serves a lot
> of constructive purposes to those who matter, the relatives of the
> innocent victims.

Does it serve a constructive purpose for them?  I don't know, since I
have never been in that position.  Even if it did help the family of
the victims, what if it were destructive to society as a whole (which
I believe).  What if the victim had no family or friends?  Then who
would be helped?

> A balance is not "required", but in my opinion, it is preferable.

I think trying to balance things will just lead to a feedback cycle,
where the more you try to stop killing by killing the killers, the
more killing you generate.  It's an unstable equilibrium.

	Wayne
Xref: sparky ca.politics:3428 ba.politics:2638 talk.politics.misc:17884
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: why bother? (MANY GOOD REASONS! - THATS WHY!!!)
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:36:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.s80n8INNn2p
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <!xtj-lg.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> 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.

Right!  Therefore, it is nonsense to say, "if you're going to regulate
business, why not regulate everything".  Business is a very small and
specialized subset of the things people do, and thus you can't apply
the same arguments against regulation to it that you would against
regulating one's personal life.

Or were you trying to make a different point?

	Wayne
Xref: sparky ca.politics:3315 talk.politics.misc:16994 ba.politics:2573
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Is coercion bad? (Was Re: Sexual Orientation Discrimination...)
Date: 6 Apr 1992 21:46:49 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <blnjphc.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> 1. Public roads. I can't avoid them. Indeed, if I tried to build a private
> road I would be placed in jail.

Really?  You mean to say that if you bought a bunch of land, put a
road on it, and charged people admission to drive on it, you would be
in violation of the law?  That's really amazing.  Could you tell us
about this strange law so that we can all write to our congresspeople
and protest it?

> 3. What does 911 have to do with things? Like, as in, get it, read slow,
> HAS A AN ARMED ROBBER EVER CALLED 911 TO ASSIST IN INITIATION OF
> COERCION? Duh, ....

Wow, you must be right because I have no idea what leads you to ask
such a bizarre question...

> 4. If in a free society, you wish to not buy police or fire services,
> then that is your right.

So, if you can't afford to buy it, then it's your right to get killed
or have your house burnt down.  I guess this must be the "kinder,
gentler nation" I keep hearing about...

	Wayne
From: jdoskow@ichinen.Tymnet.COM (Jonathan Doskow)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:56:04 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Apr16.210125.12216@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
>
>If you look back over my criteria for when I support this penalty, 
>no one who maintains his or her innocence of the crime would be 
>put to death.

A friend of mine (fellow AMC member) who worked for a rural police dept.
told me this story when I asked what he thought of (what's the fellows
name who cut that girls hands off?) claim to innocence.

In his area there was a brutal series of break-in/rapes.  Early one
morning the department got a call about another one and went immediately
to the scene.  There they found, in new-fallen snow, tire tracks leading
from the scene of the crime to a house five miles away.  The only man in
the house was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 12 years.  To this
day he maintains his innocence and vows to "get" my friend, although he
was not the arresting officer and was only one of the witnesses at the
trial.

I'm certainly sympathetic to the notion that capital punishment should
require an even higher standard of evidence than, "beyond a shadow of a
doubt," but I don't think you've adaquetly spelled it out.

+----------------------------------------+
Anger and none can heal it slides through the metal detector
Like a mole in a motel, slide in a slide projector.

Opinions expressed are those of the author.  jdoskow@Tymnet.COM
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Charles Turing's Untimely Death
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:30:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: Nitro.3kP9iB4w164w
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

> In article <2yF6iB3w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
> 
> >Don't waste your time. The same gay 'leaders' are programming
> >their robots to tell everyone that AIDS is mainly a straight
> >disease nowdays...... 
> >
> >They just forget to mention WHERE it is prevalent with straights.
> 
> 
> CDC reports out last friday show that the number 6 killer of adolescents
> is AIDS.  Current "most popular" high risk group?  Female teenagers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWA


I will  get and read that report.. I of course was referring to
the recent fad of claiming that it was 'mostly straights' - when
it takes considering the stats in certain backwards parts of
Africa to validate that statistic..

This of course is after an 'act-up' newsletter telling gays to do
just that.

-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Date: 17 Apr 92 21:36:30 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

In article <sn6e4INNglj@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
|
|I have explained why I think executions encourage murder.  They
|diminish people's respect for the sanctity of life, any life.  People
|see criminals being killed by the state, and the message this sends is
|that it is alright to get revenge on somebody who has wronged you.
|The idea that "only the state has this power" doesn't mean anything to
|the gang member who is pissed and feels that since the state can kill,
|he can go out and shoot the family of the guy who killed his buddy.

|
|	Wayne


Some time ago I read a report of a study that showed that for a period
after an execution the murder rate went up. This supports your conclusion.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer