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: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:50:47 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.african.american

As quoted from <1arhcuINN6pi@news.aero.org> by helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman):

> In article <Bvo0wq.Hz1@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
> >As quoted from <HANS.92Oct5155640@ravn.iesd.auc.dk> by hans@iesd.auc.dk (Hans Huttel):
> >
> >> 
> >> In article <BvGM7p.G0p@NCoast.ORG> cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher
> >> Morton) writes:
> >> 
> >
> >Yes.  Of course why are YOU willing to take the risk of imprisoning an 
> >innocent man?  After all, he could be raped or even murdered in prison.  In
> >fact, the American Civil Liberties Union takes that position and opposes even
> >encarceration for most crimes.
> 
> This is unadulterated bullshit. The ACLU has never taken such a position and
> if you knew anything about the organization, you would be aware of this.
> But, of course, you take the typical right-wing view that the ACLU is in the
> business of 'coddling' criminals. The ACLU has only one agenda - the
> protection of everyone's civil liberties, including yours - even if you're
> a bloody fascist. They don't defend the person - they defend his (and your)
> rights. It makes no difference what your political persuasion or how
> despicable a creep you might be. It's interesting how you right wingers
> conveniently forget that the ACLU defended Ollie North (because his
> immunity for his congressional testimony was then ignored in order to
> prosecute him), and they defended the Nazis when they wanted to march in
> Skokie, Illinois (and the ACLU lost lots of 'fair-weather' members over
> that, like 30% of their membership).

From "A Primer on the ACLU" - "The Wall Street Journal", Monday, October 3,
1988:

'Few crimes should be punished by jail.

"A fine should always be the preferred form of the penalty," the ACLU says.
For those who do go to jail, "probation should be authorized by the legislature
in every case exceptions to the principal are not favored, and any exceptions,
if made, should be limited to the most serious offenses, such as murder or 
treason."  The group does not mention furloughs. (Policy 242, Criminal
Sentences.)'

Now, is this the policy of the ACLU or not?  I have provided relevant quotes 
and the specific policy citation.

> Remember, buddy, Miranda-Escobedo-Gideon applies to everyone, even
> you. The constitution doesn't say anything about these things only
> applying to the folks you consider as 'good' people. I don't like
> ax murderers, Richard Rodriguez, or Jeffery Dahmer any more than you
> do, but they've got the same rights you do and the ACLU will fight
> for them and you and me whenever civil liberties are being trampled.

What does any of that have to do with a desire not to imprison criminals?  All
of the cases you refer to concern the rights of the accused, NOT whether those
convicted should be imprisoned, which the ACLU obviously thinks they should
NOT.

> Sorry,  sometimes I really can't get off my soapbox. But someone had
> to say this.

It looks like your soapbox is missing a few slats.... :)

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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american