[Vision2020] Deterrence, Costs and Benefits of Death Penalty
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Sat Oct 21 15:06:50 PDT 2006
Bruce et. al.
I am not bored by your post, nor do I think the subject improper for the
list. I don't buy the distinction some make about how to define a "local"
as opposed to "non-local" issue, when fundamental moral and political issues
are involved that should be of vital concern to everyone. Debate on the
issues surrounding the death penalty are of particular importance at this
point in time, given that basic principles of political rights that are
fundamental to the death penalty debate, are now under attack in pursuing
the "war on terror," habeas corpus especially. Habeas corpus was just
suspended by our government when Bush signed the Military Tribunal
legislation.
You touched many of the main points of argument in the death penalty debate,
and rather diplomatically, I thought, as you illuminated why many of the
pro-death penalty arguments are flawed or morally suspect.
I would like to add another argument to the debate on deterrence, which
turns the debate on the deterrent effect of life without parole vs. death on
its head, though I think the deterrence arguments for the death penalty to
be moot, considering the fundamental reason I think the death penalty should
not be law, which I will explain later.
A significant percentage of those committing the heinous crimes that result
in the death penalty care very little about anyones life, including their
own. Witness the cold blooded killing of innocents at Columbine High School
in Colorado, or the recent killings in the Amish school, where the killer(s)
killed themselves before they could be apprehended by law enforcement. I
could list many such cases of cold blooded murder followed by the suicide of
the murderer(s) to bolster this point, but the evidence is rather obvious.
The killers self imposed their own "death penalty!"
Which offers the most deterrent effect for murderers of this mentality, life
imprisonment or death?
I am suggesting that in a significant number of cases, guaranteed life
imprisonment on suicide watch, might be more of a deterrent than the death
penalty. The self imposed "death penalty" of many killers bolsters this
conclusion. They obviously would rather die.
But I really don't care if the death penalty is a deterrent, in the final
analysis of this issue. If we want to construct a society where the State
has the maximum power over its citizens to maximize deterrence for the
commission of crimes, there are numerous measures that could be instituted.
I won't make a list of these measures, but only say they fall under the
category of instituting a police State, or fascist State. I don't think
there is any way around the fact that a State that offers significant
freedom from government interference and regulation of individuals lives,
and protections against extreme abuses of State power, will allow a degree
of freedom where certain crimes may occur with more frequency, than in an
authoritarian State of one form or another. And granting the State the
power to execute its own citizens is certainly one of the most, if not the
most, extreme powers.
Perhaps Ben Franklin's famous truism applies here? "Those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither."
I do not trust giving the State the power to execute its own citizens based
on the fundamental principle of limiting State power to the minimum
necessary to carry out its critical functions, even if the death penalty has
a deterrent effect, or can be ethically or morally justified as "justice."
Life imprisonment without parole can protect the public from monsters
without the further extension of State power of the death penalty.
What I find astonishing is that many of those who are pro death penalty are
also those who harp on about the corruption of government, limiting
government power, reducing taxes, the inefficiency of government, the
overall bungling of public sector bureaucracies, the lack of wisdom in
general of allowing the government to sensibly regulate business or run
peoples lives...Then they turn around and insist that this same bungling
government of corruption, waste and fraud, should be empowered to justly
decide who lives or dies in the death chamber! An amazing contradiction of
reasoning!
Again, I don't trust the State with the power to execute (State sanctioned
murder, to my mind) its own citizens when they are jailed in secure custody,
even if it appears at a certain point in time that these executions are only
being applied without error to those most heinous criminals who deserve the
death penalty.
Need I list the examples from history where the death penalty has been
abused horribly by the State? Make your own list. The examples are
numerous and glaring. And need I point out that the moral and legal
justifications for the death penalty in the USA create a moral and legal
climate that is part of the reason we now see prisoners in US administered
or supervised custody being tortured to death as we prosecute the "war on
terror?"
Bruce's illumination of the errors of false confessions in enforcing the
death penalty clearly demonstrates the potential for abuse of the death
penalty by the State. And the "war on terror" has increased the potential
for this abuse. Our so called ally, Saudi Arabia, has an interesting
approach to confessions as they apply their death penalty. I heard an
interview, on KGO AM 810 khz radio, with William Sampson, who was jailed and
tortured by the Saudi's for years for crimes he did not commit. He was
handed pre-written confessions and tortured till he signed them. This poor
soul tried to figure out what to say or sign to get the torture to stop, but
it continued. Finally, in desperation to end his life of misery, he decided
to act in a manner that he thought would result in a swift execution, by
damming and insulting Islam, a capitol offence in Saudi Arabia. He was
released eventually, of course, but it seems a miracle he survived his
ordeal.
Link to his book on his ordeal:
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=61-0771079052-0
Synopses & Reviews **Publisher Comments: What was it that I did to survive?
Where did those ideas come from? Where did I find the resolve to enact them?
At the time of my release, I had no ready answers beyond that I did what
seemed natural and necessary. In looking back, I realize that the
peculiarities of my personality helped me to adopt strategies that allowed
for the reclamation of my identity and my integrity while in the hands of
barbarians. Yet what I did is neither remarkable nor courageous nor beyond
the capabilities of any person that finds himself in similar circumstances.
What I have come to believe is that there exists in all of us the potential
to stand and fight and reclaim.
-- William Sampson
On Sunday, December 17, 2000, Canadian engineer William Sampson stepped
outside his house in Riyadh only to be hauled into a car and beaten by two
Saudi men he didn't know. Within an hour, he was incarcerated in one of the
city's most notorious jails. Within two months, he was tortured into a
confession of responsibility for a wave of car bombings he did not commit.
Sometime in that first year, he was sentenced to death in a secret trial.
For two and a half years, Sampson was continually subjected to beatings and
torture, convinced his death was just around the corner. Inept diplomacy
failed him but human rights groups took up his cause and on August 8, 2003,
he was finally freed in a controversial prisoner exchange. It wasn't until
February 2005 that Sampson's name was officially cleared when a British
inquest exonerated him of the crimes.
------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On 10/20/06, Bruce and Jean Livingston <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
> I agree with you that harsh punishment has a deterrent effect. The
> question is how many people that are not deterred by the harsh punishment of
> life without parole ("LWOP") will actually be deterred by the further harsh
> punishment of being executed. I agree that there must be someone,
> somewhere, who might actually make the decision to murder based on the fact
> that only LWOP and not death was available, but I think that the statistical
> significance of the numbers of such people must be
> relatively insignificant. We "normal", generally law abiding types don't
> murder people primarily because it's wrong to take another's life.
> Secondarily, even if people might like to kill someone if they
> got extremely angry, they don't kill because they don't want to be
> incarcerated for the rest of their life. I don't think that people weigh
> death as opposed to life in prison, when deciding whether to kill or not.
> They restrain themselves over the thought of "harsh punishment," and I think
> few of us differentiate between the two. LWOP is so harsh, as opposed to
> wandering around free, that I don't believe that the additional harshness of
> death is a significant additional deterrent.
>
> I also agree that proving whether there is a deterrent effect or not must
> be very difficult. Many of the deterrence studies may well be the result of
> manipulating statistics to support a pre-ordained result fitting the
> author's bias.
>
> Theoretically, I understand your thought that even without a proven
> deterrence effect, some killers are just so vicious and evil, that death
> ought to be imposed. It is a natural reaction for many of us. You are
> essentially saying that the worst of the worst deserve it. If we are going
> to have a death penalty, who would argue with that? Hitler, McVeigh, the
> 9-11 terrorist assassins, and those you list in your post below would all
> seem to qualify.
>
> When you suggest that we ought to speed up the system for these "worst of
> the worst" and execute them quickly, that is where I have to argue against
> you, but not because I think that your desired result (speeding things up)
> is necesarily wrong. If we are to have the death penalty, it ought to be
> for the worst of the worst, and it ought to be implemented
> quickly. However, there is an undesired consequence of implementing policy
> to reach your desired result. I think your suggestion to speed things up
> cannot be implemented without a systemic change that will ensure that the
> innocent victims that we wrongly convict and place on death row erroneously
> will be executed, along with your more deserving, especially heinous
> killers. On balance, you may think it's more important to execute the
> heinous killer and a few innocent people, too. I would rather let the
> heinous killer rot in jail, sequestered from the free people outside the
> prison, and retain a better chance of showing that the wrongly convicted
> person in fact is innocent. As I stated in my earlier post, speeding up the
> process of executing people can only be done systemically, by withdrawing
> procedural protections. If you decrease the procedural protections in the
> appeal and habeas corpus process, then you decrease the ability to prove
> innocence for those who are wrongly convicted. The cost of speeding up the
> system is an increase in the likelihood of executing the already disturbing
> numbers of wrongly convicted people on death row.
>
> Some see the execution of the innocent in military terms, as "collateral
> damage." I have a very conservative uncle with a military background who
> sees it exactly that way. For him, executing the innocent is a "cost of
> doing business" in a country with the death penalty. I can't bring myself
> to that point. Setting aside the morality of the death penalty and assuming
> we should have one, I would rather let people rot in jail a while longer
> before execution, so that we are doing our best to provide an opportunity to
> exonerate the wrongly convicted and condemned. Cutting back on the right of
> habeas corpus to speed up the process has a significant cost to society in
> addition to the "benefit" of exacting retribution more quickly; it likely
> makes murderers of us all in the sense that we as a society are all killers
> when we execute someone, and speeding the process up will make it more
> likely that we execute an innocent person.
>
> Last, the main qualification of your support for quick execution seems to
> include a very restrictive additional requirement, and if that qualification
> were always reliable (or even nearly so), I would have more difficulty
> arguing against it. You include "confessed" in your string of adjectives
> describing particularly horrible killers for whom we should speed up the
> process. If confessions were always reliable, I would accept that. In any
> event, I commend you for your thoughtfulness on the topic, as it
> demonstrates a level of sophistication that often escapes the death penalty
> debate. I have not found a good means for always discerning when a
> confession is not true. There are a number of examples of "confessed"
> killers, condemned to death row, who subsequently have been exonerated.
> Earl Washington, from Virginia is a classic example. There's the rub for
> me.
>
> If anyone really cares about this issue enough to read about it some more,
> an excellent read is *Actual Innocence*, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld's
> book. The authors analyze the lessons learned from the cases in which
> exonerations have shown that our capital punishment, so-called "beyond a
> reasonable doubt," system has serious flaws. Among the reasons that the
> jury convicted someone wrongly are false confessions. The
> biggest contributor to wrongful convictions, by far, was mistaken eyewitness
> testimony. Erroneous forensic lab reports, police and prosecutorial
> misconduct, lying "snitch" witnesses, and bad lawyering were also common
> problems running through the exoneration cases. *False confessions
> occurred in 23% of the exonerations* that formed the basis of the *Actual
> Innocence* book. Remarkably, *mistaken eyewitness testimony occurred in
> 52%* of the cases.
> See the summary of *Actual innocence* here:
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=141
>
> The following link may also be interesting to those with an interest
> beyond this lengthy post.
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6
>
> Sorry if I am boring those who think this list ought to be limited to more
> local concerns. I believed in the death penalty, until appointed in 1989 to
> represent a man that I came to believe was innocent, notwithstanding my
> initial skepticism of his tale, not unlike Morgan Freeman's response to Tim
> Robbins in the great movie, the Shawshenk Redemption, that "sure, everone's
> innocent in here [in prison]." Having to tell my client that we had finally
> lost and that he was going to be executed in less than an hour, despite my
> belief in his innocence is not something that I would wish on anyone. And
> you know what? It was a lot worse for him.
>
> Bruce Livingston
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Cc:* Bruce and Jean Livingston <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 20, 2006 7:26 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
>
>
> Bruce, I am not currently arguing the deterrent effect of the death
> penalty with Joe. I am simply trying to figure where he comes by the notion
> that "A long life in prison is far worse than a short death" considering the
> seeming evidence to the contrary. Your input and expertise on this topic is
> much appreciated.
>
> As I have said before on this forum, I find it difficult to believe that
> no angry or disgruntled potential killer has been given pause in his actions
> by the thought of harsh punishment. I find it hard to envision the method by
> which you could prove this type of negative.
>
> Even if it were determined beyond all shadow of a doubt that there was no
> deterrent effect in the death penalty I would still be in favor of capital
> punishment for a very select few, Duncan being a prime example. Confessed,
> remorseless, multiple murdering deviants such as him (along with Malvo,
> Creech, Ridgeway, Rader, etc.) should be put down as expeditiously as
> possible for, among other reasons, the danger they present to prison guards
> and fellow prisoners to say nothing of the general population, should they
> manage to get loose. If the argument is brought up that it's cheaper to
> sentence these offenders to LWOP, I would suggest that perhaps the appeal
> and review process should be streamlined to hasten these vermin's passing.
> When wild animals wantonly kill a human we do not lock them up for the rest
> of their natural lives. We destroy them as quickly and humanely as possible.
> I do not believe that these types of killers should be shown any greater
> courtesy.
>
>
> gc
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Bruce and Jean Livingston <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>
> *To:* g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net> ; Joe Campbell<joekc at adelphia.net>
> *Cc:* vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:04 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
>
>
> Funny that I crossed in the mail with Gary on this one.
>
> Let me say that I do not disagree with Mr. Sharp on the huge number of
> folks, proportionately, who get sentenced to death and choose life in prison
> over death. I think that is an accurate statement, regardless of whether
> the real numbers may be 99 % or 95 %. I have known a number of convicted
> murderers who instructed their attorneys not to appeal the death sentence,
> but then reconsidered and sought to avoid the death sentence and not just
> the guilty verdict.
>
> However, I would question the logic that concludes that because people
> fear death and would choose LWOP over execution, (if they could), that
> therefore the death penalty has a significant deterrent effect. For the
> most part, I think that those thoughts about preferring LWOP to execution
> only occur after the person has been caught.
>
> Bruce Livingston
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net>
> *To:* Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net>
> *Cc:* vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:46 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
>
>
> Joe, thank you for the clarification. I will readily concede that the
> single statistic does not in and of itself totally support the conclusion. I
> obviously excerpted the quote from a larger work and, perhaps, should have
> excised the conclusion or included the entire argument. Either way, to throw
> Mr. Sharp under the bus as a charlatan because of my imprecision is to do
> him a serious disservice. A cursory look at his bio/CV reveals that he is
> indeed extremely knowledgeable in his field. This combined with the fact
> that you do not dispute the pertinent statistic causes me to disregard your
> charge on the appeal to authority fallacy.
>
> Mr. Sharp's scholarship and my lack of logical thinking aside, lets return
> to your original premise "A long life in prison is far worse than a short
> death." You've done a masterful job of tap dancing on my meager reasons for
> doubting your claim. Now how about you take on the more difficult task of
> providing some evidence to support why it is that you believe that 98.8%of inmates sentenced to death fight to remain alive if your contention is
> correct? What is it that you base your assertion on?
>
> gc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
> Cc: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>; "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
>
> > Dear Gary,
> >
> > Let me try to make the point more clearly.
> >
> > Your "expert" said: "Of the 7300 inmates sentenced to death since 1973,
> 85,
> > or 1.2% have waived remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not
> > waived appeals. The evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather
>
> > live on death row than die."
> >
> > Here is the argument:
> > 1. 98.8% of inmates sentenced to death since 1973 have not waived
> appeals.
> > 2. Therefore, murderers would rather live on death row than die.
> >
> > How exactly does (1) support (2)? This is an invalid argument since
> conclusion (2) makes speculative claims about the will to live of murderers
> whereas premise (1) merely reports the percentage of folks who have and have
> not waved appeals.
> >
> > The content of the conclusion is substantially different from the
> content of the premise. No social scientist worth his salt would be so bold
> as to draw such a speculative conclusion based on such unrelated "facts."
> Your "expert" is no expert at all. Thus, you are guilty of the fallacy of
> appeal to authority.
> >
> > Does this make sense now?
> >
> > --
> > Joe Campbell
> >
> > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> > =============
> > Well so much for the reasoned response. What I'm not finding in the
> usual
> > reply is anything to support your original contention. You seem to
> object to
> > any facts presented with no rational explanation. You style yourself an
> > expert and then present no expertise. You bluster and blather and
> attempt to
> > shift the discussion to different ground presumably because you find it
> > difficult, perhaps impossible to make your case. I guess I'll just have
> to
> > assume that you have nothing to back up your original assertion and that
>
> > this is the very best you can do. How surprising. I guess it's time to
> let
> > this sorry topic die. (after your disjointed, wounded, and yet strangely
>
> > self congratulatory, reply of course.)
> >
> > gc
> > From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> > To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
> > Cc: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>; "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com
> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Locksmith Crabtree! The recent cold has been getting me down,
> so
> > I much appreciate the large dose of hot air coming from your direction!
> >
> > I did not dispute the "facts" noted by your "expert." What I disputed
> was
> > his opinionated conclusion and the suggestion that it followed from the
> > "facts."
> >
> > Your "expert" said: "Of the 7300 inmates sentenced to death since 1973,
> 85,
> > or 1.2% have waived remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not
> > waived appeals. The evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather
>
> > live on death row than die."
> >
> > The facts do not support the conclusion; the inference is hogwash.
> Believe
> > me, for I'm an expert! As you noted, I teach logic in my day job! You
> seem
> > to be a bit selective in who you choose to lable "expert," though, so it
> is
> > doubtful that this will impress you. (The key factor appears to be that
> the
> > "expert" happens to agree with you.)
> >
> > Suppose I say that (1) Mike Rogers claims that Larry Craig cheats on his
>
> > wife and add that (2) Mike Rodges is an expert who supports his views
> with
> > "facts." Can I pass this off as evidence and argument, too?
> >
> > You need to tell me how it is that your "expert" gets to his conclusion
> from
> > the scant facts that you've presented. If you can do this, his expertise
>
> > won't matter, for I know a good argument when I see it. Moreover, you'll
>
> > have convinced me that your view IS supported by facts and inference. As
> it
> > is it appears to be based on the false assumption that all of our
> problems
> > will go away once we start killing more people.
> >
> > --
> > Joe Campbell
> >
> > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> > =============
> > Professor Campbell, let me see if I understand you correctly. You claim
> that
> > I have committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority and then
> provide
> > nothing to backup your assertion. I would think that to make your charge
>
> > stick you would have to A. Provide some evidence that Mr.Sharp is not
> > knowledgeable on the topic being discussed or B. (and more importantly)
>
> > that the statistics he cites are in error, Or C. That I am misapplying
> Mr.
> > Sharp's expertise or statistics. Quoting an person knowledgeable in the
> > field who is referencing verifiable statistics is NOT a logical fallacy.
>
> > (You actually teach logic? As your "day job?") It would seem that you've
>
> > achieved the enlightened state of "I'm right and facts be damned." With
>
> > that in mind, I guess I would enjoy seeing what you can come up with by
> way
> > of "neat quotes in favor of your position." I would hope that they might
>
> > contain a scrap of fact rather then the usual emotion and fallacious
> > statement that has been characteristic of your previous responses. What
> > empirical data or statistic can you provide to support your assertion
> that
> > "A long life in prison is far worse than a short death?" What pearl of
> > reason will you come up with to counter the pesky fact (in bold below)
> that,
> > statistically, murderers prefer to be behind bars rather then answering
> to
> > their Maker? I would have thought that as man who pridefully proclaims
> "I
> > am an expert about KNOWLEDGE." you should surely be able to set me
> straight
> > in short order. Instead all I'm seeing is fallacy followed by mistake.
> I
> > look forward to a reasoned response. Baring that, I guess I'll have to
> > settle for your usual reply.
> >
> > gc
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> > To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
> > Cc: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>; "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
> >
> >
> >> Sorry for not responding to your wonderful example of an appeal to
> >> authority earlier, Gary, but I've been busy with my day job.
> >>
> >> Here is my response: Your comments below commit the fallacy of appeal
> to
> >> authority. Do you really think that I can't find some neat quotes on
> the
> >> web in favor of my position?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Joe Campbell
> >>
> >> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> =============
> >> Actually Joe, if by empirical you meant "derived from or guided by
> >> experience or observation" I would have no choice but to disagree. I
> would
> >> think that just about everyone who has given even the most fleeting
> >> attention to the news for the last few years could cite five or more
> >> instances of murderers fighting to avoid the death penalty for every
> one
> >> that embraces that option. According to the folks at DPINFO.COM<http://dpinfo.com/>(death
> >> penalty information) what appears to be an unbiased clearinghouse for
> this
> >> type of information.
> >>
> >> "At every level of the criminal justice process, virtually all
> criminals
> >> do everything they can to lessen possible punishments. I estimate that
>
> >> less than 1% of all convicted capital murderers request a death
> sentence
> >> in the punishment phase of their trial. The apprehended criminals'
> desire
> >> for lesser punishments is overwhelming and unchallenged.
> >>
> >>Of the 7300 inmates sentenced to death since 1973, 85, or 1.2% have
> waived
> >>remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not waived appeals.
> The
> >>evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather live on death row
> than
> >>die. Why? The survival effect -- life is preferred over death and
> death
> >>is feared more than life. Even on death row, that is the rule."
> >>Dudley Sharp, Resource Director, Justice For All
> >>
> >> With this in mind, I would contend that your assertion that "It is not
> as
> >> if your view has any more empirical support than mine!" is, once again,
>
> >> wrong.
> >>
> >> gc
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> >> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
> >> Cc: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>; "vision2020" <
> vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:50 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
> >>
> >>
> >>> Gary,
> >>>
> >>> It is not as if your view has any more empirical support than mine!
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Joe Campbell
> >>>
> >>> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> =============
> >>> Reason #3: A long life in prison is far worse than a short death.
> >>>
> >>> If this is truly the case, why do you suppose so many vermin such as
> >>> Duncan
> >>> prefer/fight for the life sentence? For the most part this, is true of
>
> >>> all
> >>> convicted killers. What do you base your contention on? I can't
> imagine
> >>> that
> >>> it's even how you, personally, would feel should you ever be in a
> similar
> >>> circumstance. (not that you would, of course) This "long life in
> prison
> >>> is
> >>> worse than death." mantra seems to be bandied about as a truism with
> >>> precious little supporting evidence. In fact, most evidence points the
>
> >>> other
> >>> way.
> >>>
> >>> gc
> >>> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> >>> To: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>
> >>> Cc: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:33 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Pat,
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately, the fact is that you and I will pay more if he is
> >>>> (eventually) put to death. Yet another reason not to have the death
> >>>> penalty.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reason #3: .A long life in prison is far worse than a short death
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Joe Campbell
> >>>>
> >>>> ---- Pat Kraut <pkraut at moscow.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> =============
> >>>> But why do I have to pay for him to continue to have life in any
> form?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If we do discover a complete theory..of everything...we shall all,
> >>>> philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people,
> >>>> be able to take part in the discussion of why it is that we and the
> >>>> universe
> >>>> exist if we find the answer to that,
> >>>> it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason...for then we would
> >>>> know
> >>>> the mind of God.
> >>>> Stephen Hawking
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: <whayman at adelphia.net>
> >>>> To: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
> >>>> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >>>> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 3:09 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would agree with anyone that Duncan tests the limits much more than
>
> >>>> even
> >>>> more than Malvo in the DC area. What Duncan apparently did lies
> outside
> >>>> the
> >>>> human scope of sympathy. But even within this absolutely and
> >>>> disgustingly
> >>>> twisted psychopathic scenario, I still cannot advocate a penalty of
> >>>> death
> >>>> for anyone. Duncan included.
> >>>>
> >>>> Killing, as we all know, brings back no one. The argument of the
> death
> >>>> penalty as resolution and closure I find closer to vengeance than
> >>>> justice.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please don't take me wrong; I don't think rehab etc. is the issue in
> >>>> this
> >>>> case. I do hope that the rest of his life is spent anonymously and
> >>>> ignobly
> >>>> incarcerated.
> >>>>
> >>>> Warren Hayman
> >>>>
> >>>> =======================================================
> >>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >>>> =======================================================
> >>>>
> >>>> =======================================================
> >>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >>>> =======================================================
> >>>>
> >>>> =======================================================
> >>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >>>> =======================================================
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061021/2a88a7e2/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list