From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Death Penalty, for or against?
Date: 11 Oct 92 13:55:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: NCoast.BvyMo1.4C2
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: soc.culture.african.american
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <HANS.92Oct10140633@ravn.iesd.auc.dk> by hans@iesd.auc.dk (Hans Huttel):

> 
> In article <BvunAn.1FG@NCoast.ORG> cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher
> Morton) writes:
> 
> > I have understood your argument.  I just don't agree with it.  What
> > you refuse to accept is that some crimes HAVE no rational explanation.
> > What was Alton Coleman's "reason" for becoming a child
> > molestor/killer?  If somebody else has these "reasons", are they
> > entitled to become child killers too? 
> 
> Christopher Morton does not understand my argument at all. 

Oh yes I do.  I'm not sure that YOU do though.

> Firstly, it does not follow that if somebody cannot explain something
> then there exists no good explanation. For instance, mentally ill
> murderers may be unable to give a rational explanation of what the did
> - but a psychiatrist can: They are mentally ill. 

Then you are a strict behaviorist?  People NEVER do things for which there is
no rational explanation?  People NEVER do things because they just WANT to?

> Secondly, looking into the causes of crime certainly does not explain
> away the effects of crime or condone crime.

You seem to be advocating the former in an effort to avoid having to do 
something about the latter.

> > Your analysis (which hardly deserves the term) is simplistic in the extreme.
> > Most Black people do not kidnap children.  Most do not rape them.
> > Most do not kill them.  If you have statistical evidence to the
> > contrary, please post it. 
> 
> What I am trying to say is that the U.S. criminal system affects the
> African-American community disproportionately. For instance, there are
> more young African-American men in prison than in college. Does that
> mean that young Af-American men are evil ? A rhetorical question, to
> which the answer of course is: No! if I were to sketch an explanation,
> it would be based on the following two observations:

What you seem to have missed is that CRIME affects the African-American
community disproportionately.  WHO commits this crime?  It isn't Serbian 
irregulars.  I'll leave it to you to figure out who commits these crimes 
against A/As....

> - a large part of the African-American population is part of the class
>   of underprivileged (and oppressed) people in the U.S. Crime is more
>   common among the underprivileged.

Is an underprivileged rapist better than a well to do one?  Which social class
is his VICTIM likely to be from...?

> > Is allowing those who have killed before to kill again, REALLY punishment?
> 
> This is an absurd misrepresentation of my views. Nowhere have I said
> that I advocated murderers being allowed to kill again.

You have yet to propose a more effective way to prevent it.

> >>> 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.
> > 
> >> I certainly have. I am a member of Amnesty International. 
> 
> > Good, now answer the question.  Do their cases justify and abolition of 
> > imprisonment?
> 
> No. My point is not that we must abolish a method of punishment simply
> because an oppressive regime has used it. But among methods of
> punishment, the death penalty (and torture) are the absolute
> favourites among such regimes - to me, the death penalty carries the
> brutal stamp of oppression, of a society unwilling to deal with the
> actual problems.

And what kind of stamp does imprisonment carry?  Every heard of Vorkuta?  
Dachau?  The Lubyanka or Butyrki?  The Bastille?

> > Once AGAIN, you aren't REALLY saying that it doesn't solve ANY problem (you
> > certainly have dodged the murder recidivism issue), but rather that
> > it doesn't solve EVERY problem.  You have yet to produce any evidence
> > to support EITHER contention.  Instead you've merely repeated an
> > unsupported claim.  How about justifying it if you really think it's true?
> 
> It looks like I will have to say it again:
> 
> Of course the death penalty may solve a short-term problem, namely the
> existence of one particular human being. He or she will not commit
> another crime.

That's not a "short term problem".  THAT murderer will NEVER kill again, 
regardless of HOW long you observe.  Being an agnostic, I discount super-
natural factors.

> But does it solve any real problems ? If the death penalty really
> solved any problems, then why is it that we do not have it here in
> Denmark (or in most other countries in Europe, for that matter) ? And
> if the existence of the death penalty solves problems w.r.t. crime in
> the U.S., then why is the crime rate in the U.S. among the highest in
> the world ? My answer is that there are problems in U.S. society -
> problems of social inequalities, problems that cannot be solved by
> killing off the products of that system.

I suppose it depends upon whether you consider people killing again and again
a "real problem".  I DO.  Once AGAIN, you're not condemning the death penalty
for not solving ANY problem, you're condemning it for not solving EVERY 
problem.  Once AGAIN, you have yet to present any OTHER thing which will
solve ALL problems, be it imprisonment, social services, or a sacrifice to
Cthulhu.  I don't expect you ever will.

At one time most countries were monarchies and the US was a liberal democratic
republic.  Was the US wrong?  When most of Europe was a collection of National
Socialist fiefdoms, were we wrong not to be Nazis too?

> But there is more to the discussion. We are discussing ethics here.

Has it ocurred to you that there are MORE than one set of ethics?  These may
include mine, yours and Alton Coleman's.  The operative ones will be determined
by a combination of consensus and force, ultimately LETHAL force, EVEN in
Denmark.

> Because the death penalty is irreversible, and the legal system can be
> biased, corrupt or imperfect, innocent people are likely to die.  Is
> this acceptable ? My answer is no. Should we have the death penalty
> even though the legal system is imperfect (maybe even grossly so) ? My
> answer is no.

Many people say that imprisonment is irreversible.  Should it be abolished?
Is it ok to wrongly impose imprisonment with the SAME flawed justice system?
Why treat imprisonment, brutalization, rape, and murder with kid gloves that
you don't reserve for the death penalty?  Is the forger burnt in half with
a cutting torch during a prison riot LESS dead than the murderer who goes to
the electric chair?

> Why do I get the feeling that I am being dragged into a
> pseudointellectual word game ?

Because I don't think you really understand either of our arguments.


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

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