<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Gary, it has been a busy week for me, and I apologize for failing to
respond in a more timely way to your kind words about my former
client. I appreciate that very much.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I understand your feelings about Mr. Duncan, and the seeming strength of
the case against him. The difficulties in limiting the appeals process to
cases that seem certain are why I would not support diminishing the protections
of the appeals process in certain situations. It will probably be borne
out that the Duncan case is as strong as it seems, for the reasons that you set
forth. The difficulty in shortening the process is the test for what is
certain. You cite the confluence of an eyewitness, a confession, and DNA
in one case as a recipe for certainty. It seems certain in this case
that the eyewitness is not mistaken, but in 52% of the wrongful convictions
in "Actual Innocence" the eyewitness was mistaken. Similarly, 23% of the
"confessions" turned out to be "false confessions" in the same study. The
DNA certainly adds an element of surety, so long as the DNA is not planted
evidence that is the result of police or prosecutorial misconduct (or even
incompetence). Such misconduct is of course rare, (if a little less so in
Cook County Illinois, or Los Angeles County California), but in the cases where
the wrong person was convicted, such misconduct appears in 31% (by police) and
26% (by prosecutor) of the cases. (The numbers add up to more than
100% because frequently several of these factors occur in the same case).
The difficulty for me is not the horrible, high profile and seemingly certain
case you describe, but the cases that have the same kind of evidence
-- that are thought to be "certain" -- and yet turn out to be wrong.
I know of no way to shorten the process by definitions that do not include the
cases of the wrongly convicted. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But given your overall expressions of what you would do, i.e., the
circumstances in which others in this country and community would prefer to race
to execution but you would not, I will agree to disagree about Duncan and
commend you on your skepticism toward the death penalty in those other instances
-- where it is given in this country, but you would not.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To the rest of you, I give you George Will, who upon reading "Actual
Innocence" expressed grave reservations about the use of the death penalty
in this country and asked why those who berate government as inefficient and
incompetent are so trusting in the use of government to execute
citizens. After all, Will noted, "Conservatives, especially,
should draw this lesson from the book: Capital punishment, like the rest of the
criminal justice system, is a government program, so skepticism is in order."
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bruce Livingston</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">Bruce and Jean Livingston</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 20, 2006 5:21 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: Deterrence, Costs and Benefits of Death
Penalty</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bruce,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think that we are scarily close to being in
agreement on this depressing topic. You write "<FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>you may think it's more important to execute the heinous killer and
a few innocent people, too." <FONT face=Arial size=2>Nothing could be
further from the truth. What I would argue for is to see the death penalty
handed down ONLY in the cases such as I described. I do not believe that the
DP should ever be given in a case where the only evidence is an eye witness or
"a fingerprint and a hair." As an example, I think that it's ludicrous that
Scott Peterson was given a capital sentence, based on the understanding I was
given of the case from the sensational coverage presented on the tube. Some of
the examples given at the DPIC links that you provided were equally mind
boggling.</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This having been said, In cases such as Duncan's
where you have evidence far "beyond all reasonable doubt," an expedited death
is, to me, desirable. In this case we have not only a confession but eye
witnesses, extensive forensic evidence, a long, sordid criminal history
and if I'm not mistaken, DNA. Add to this his computer diaries and if a case
like this doesn't qualify for the potassium chloride express I can't
imagine any that would. Years of appeals and review in a case such as this one
is, to my mind, uncalled for and does not represent justice.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As I wrap up this lame run down of my chaotic
thoughts on this topic, I'd like to say I'm sorry about your former client. In
a profession such as yours I imagine that this is the sort of thing that goes
a long way toward washing away whatever pleasure you receive from
cases with more benign outcomes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>gc</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">Bruce and Jean Livingston</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jampot@adelphia.net
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 20, 2006 12:03
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Deterrence, Costs and Benefits
of Death Penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Gary, </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If anyone really cares about this issue enough to read about it some
more, an excellent read is <U>Actual Innocence</U>, 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. <STRONG>False confessions occurred in 23% of the
exonerations</STRONG> that formed the basis of the <U>Actual Innocence</U>
book. Remarkably, <STRONG>mistaken eyewitness testimony occurred in
52%</STRONG> of the cases. </DIV>
<DIV>See the summary of <U>Actual innocence</U> here: <A
href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=141">http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=141</A>
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The following link may also be interesting to those with an interest
beyond this lengthy post.</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6">http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bruce Livingston</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g.
crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">Bruce and Jean Livingston</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 20, 2006 7:26
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea
deal</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>gc</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">Bruce and Jean Livingston</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jampot@adelphia.net
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A> ; <A
title=joekc@adelphia.net href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net">Joe
Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 19, 2006
6:04 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Duncan
plea deal</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Funny that I crossed in the mail with Gary on this one.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bruce Livingston</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g.
crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=joekc@adelphia.net
href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net">Joe Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 19, 2006
5:46 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Duncan
plea deal</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>gc</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Joe Campbell" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>joekc@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: "g. crabtree" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cc: "Pat Kraut" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:pkraut@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>pkraut@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>;
"vision2020" <</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:03
AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea
deal</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT
face=Arial size=2>> Dear Gary,<BR>> <BR>> Let me try to make
the point more clearly.<BR>> <BR>> Your "expert" said: "Of the
7300 inmates sentenced to death since 1973, 85, <BR>> or 1.2% have
waived remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not <BR>>
waived appeals. The evidence is overwhelming that murderers would
rather <BR>> live on death row than die."<BR>> <BR>> Here is
the argument:<BR>> 1. 98.8% of inmates sentenced to death since
1973 have not waived appeals.<BR>> 2. Therefore, murderers would
rather live on death row than die.<BR>> <BR>> 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. <BR>> <BR>> 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.<BR>> <BR>> Does this make sense now?<BR>> <BR>>
--<BR>> Joe Campbell<BR>> <BR>> ---- "g. crabtree"
<</FONT><A href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
wrote: <BR>> <BR>> =============<BR>> Well so much for
the reasoned response. What I'm not finding in the usual
<BR>> reply is anything to support your original contention. You
seem to object to <BR>> any facts presented with no rational
explanation. You style yourself an <BR>> expert and then present no
expertise. You bluster and blather and attempt to <BR>> shift the
discussion to different ground presumably because you find it <BR>>
difficult, perhaps impossible to make your case. I guess I'll just
have to <BR>> assume that you have nothing to back up your original
assertion and that <BR>> this is the very best you can do. How
surprising. I guess it's time to let <BR>> this sorry topic die.
(after your disjointed, wounded, and yet strangely <BR>> self
congratulatory, reply of course.)<BR>> <BR>> gc<BR>> From:
"Joe Campbell" <</FONT><A href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>joekc@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>> To: "g. crabtree" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>> Cc: "Pat Kraut" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:pkraut@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>pkraut@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>;
"vision2020" <</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:21 PM<BR>>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Thank you, Locksmith Crabtree! The recent cold has been getting me
down, so <BR>> I much appreciate the large dose of hot air coming
from your direction!<BR>> <BR>> I did not dispute the "facts"
noted by your "expert." What I disputed was <BR>> his opinionated
conclusion and the suggestion that it followed from the <BR>>
"facts."<BR>> <BR>> Your "expert" said: "Of the 7300 inmates
sentenced to death since 1973, 85, <BR>> or 1.2% have waived
remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not <BR>> waived
appeals. The evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather
<BR>> live on death row than die."<BR>> <BR>> The facts do
not support the conclusion; the inference is hogwash. Believe <BR>>
me, for I'm an expert! As you noted, I teach logic in my day job! You
seem <BR>> to be a bit selective in who you choose to lable
"expert," though, so it is <BR>> doubtful that this will impress
you. (The key factor appears to be that the <BR>> "expert" happens
to agree with you.)<BR>> <BR>> Suppose I say that (1) Mike
Rogers claims that Larry Craig cheats on his <BR>> wife and add
that (2) Mike Rodges is an expert who supports his views with <BR>>
"facts." Can I pass this off as evidence and argument, too?<BR>>
<BR>> You need to tell me how it is that your "expert" gets to his
conclusion from <BR>> the scant facts that you've presented. If you
can do this, his expertise <BR>> won't matter, for I know a good
argument when I see it. Moreover, you'll <BR>> have convinced me
that your view IS supported by facts and inference. As it <BR>> is
it appears to be based on the false assumption that all of our
problems <BR>> will go away once we start killing more
people.<BR>> <BR>> --<BR>> Joe Campbell<BR>> <BR>> ----
"g. crabtree" <</FONT><A href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>jampot@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> =============<BR>> Professor
Campbell, let me see if I understand you correctly. You claim that
<BR>> I have committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority
and then provide <BR>> nothing to backup your assertion. I would
think that to make your charge <BR>> stick you would have to A.
Provide some evidence that Mr.Sharp is not <BR>> knowledgeable on
the topic being discussed or B. (and more importantly) <BR>>
that the statistics he cites are in error, Or C. That I am misapplying
Mr. <BR>> Sharp's expertise or statistics. Quoting an person
knowledgeable in the <BR>> field who is referencing verifiable
statistics is NOT a logical fallacy. <BR>> (You actually teach
logic? As your "day job?") It would seem that you've <BR>> achieved
the enlightened state of "I'm right and facts be damned." With
<BR>> that in mind, I guess I would enjoy seeing what you can come
up with by way <BR>> of "neat quotes in favor of your position." I
would hope that they might <BR>> contain a scrap of fact rather
then the usual emotion and fallacious <BR>> statement that has been
characteristic of your previous responses. What <BR>> empirical
data or statistic can you provide to support your assertion that
<BR>> "A long life in prison is far worse than a short death?" What
pearl of <BR>> reason will you come up with to counter the pesky
fact (in bold below) that, <BR>> statistically, murderers prefer to
be behind bars rather then answering to <BR>> their Maker? I would
have thought that as man who pridefully proclaims "I <BR>> am
an expert about KNOWLEDGE." you should surely be able to set me
straight <BR>> in short order. Instead all I'm seeing is
fallacy followed by mistake. I <BR>> look forward to a reasoned
response. Baring that, I guess I'll have to <BR>> settle for your
usual reply.<BR>> <BR>> gc<BR>> ----- Original Message -----
<BR>> From: "Joe Campbell" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>joekc@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>> To: "g. crabtree" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>> Cc: "Pat Kraut" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:pkraut@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>pkraut@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>;
"vision2020" <</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:12 PM<BR>>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea deal<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>> Sorry for not responding to your wonderful example of an
appeal to <BR>>> authority earlier, Gary, but I've been busy
with my day job.<BR>>><BR>>> Here is my response: Your
comments below commit the fallacy of appeal to <BR>>> authority.
Do you really think that I can't find some neat quotes on the
<BR>>> web in favor of my position?<BR>>><BR>>>
--<BR>>> Joe Campbell<BR>>><BR>>> ---- "g. crabtree"
<</FONT><A href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>> =============<BR>>> Actually Joe,
if by empirical you meant "derived from or guided by <BR>>>
experience or observation" I would have no choice but to disagree. I
would <BR>>> think that just about everyone who has given even
the most fleeting <BR>>> attention to the news for the last few
years could cite five or more <BR>>> instances of murderers
fighting to avoid the death penalty for every one <BR>>> that
embraces that option. According to the folks at DPINFO.COM (death
<BR>>> penalty information) what appears to be an unbiased
clearinghouse for this <BR>>> type of
information.<BR>>><BR>>> "At every level of the criminal
justice process, virtually all criminals <BR>>> do everything
they can to lessen possible punishments. I estimate that
<BR>>> less than 1% of all convicted capital murderers request a
death sentence <BR>>> in the punishment phase of their
trial. The apprehended criminals' desire <BR>>> for lesser
punishments is overwhelming and
unchallenged.<BR>>><BR>>>Of the 7300 inmates sentenced to
death since 1973, 85, or 1.2% have waived <BR>>>remaining
appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not waived appeals.
The <BR>>>evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather
live on death row than <BR>>>die. Why? The survival
effect -- life is preferred over death and death <BR>>>is feared
more than life. Even on death row, that is the rule."
<BR>>>Dudley Sharp, Resource Director, Justice For
All<BR>>><BR>>> With this in mind, I would contend that
your assertion that "It is not as <BR>>> if your view has any
more empirical support than mine!" is, once again, <BR>>>
wrong.<BR>>><BR>>> gc<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
----- Original Message ----- <BR>>> From: "Joe Campbell"
<</FONT><A href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>joekc@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>> To: "g. crabtree" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>> Cc: "Pat Kraut" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:pkraut@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>pkraut@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>;
"vision2020" <</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:50
AM<BR>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea
deal<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>>
Gary,<BR>>>><BR>>>> It is not as if your view has
any more empirical support than mine!<BR>>>><BR>>>>
--<BR>>>> Joe Campbell<BR>>>><BR>>>> ----
"g. crabtree" <</FONT><A href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>jampot@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>>
=============<BR>>>> Reason #3: A long life in prison is far
worse than a short death.<BR>>>><BR>>>> If this is
truly the case, why do you suppose so many vermin such as
<BR>>>> Duncan<BR>>>> prefer/fight for the life
sentence? For the most part this, is true of <BR>>>>
all<BR>>>> convicted killers. What do you base your
contention on? I can't imagine <BR>>>> that<BR>>>>
it's even how you, personally, would feel should you ever be in a
similar<BR>>>> circumstance. (not that you would, of course)
This "long life in prison <BR>>>> is<BR>>>> worse
than death." mantra seems to be bandied about as a truism
with<BR>>>> precious little supporting evidence. In fact,
most evidence points the <BR>>>> other<BR>>>>
way.<BR>>>><BR>>>> gc<BR>>>> From: "Joe
Campbell" <</FONT><A href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>joekc@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>>> To: "Pat Kraut" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:pkraut@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>pkraut@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>>> Cc: "vision2020" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:33
AM<BR>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea
deal<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>>
Pat,<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Unfortunately, the fact
is that you and I will pay more if he is<BR>>>>>
(eventually) put to death. Yet another reason not to have the
death<BR>>>>>
penalty.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Reason #3: .A long
life in prison is far worse than a short
death<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> --<BR>>>>>
Joe Campbell<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> ---- Pat Kraut
<</FONT><A href="mailto:pkraut@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>pkraut@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
wrote:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
=============<BR>>>>> But why do I have to pay for him to
continue to have life in any
form?<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
If we do discover a complete theory..of everything...we shall
all,<BR>>>>> philosophers, scientists and just ordinary
people,<BR>>>>> be able to take part in the discussion of
why it is that we and the<BR>>>>>
universe<BR>>>>> exist if we find the answer to
that,<BR>>>>> it would be the ultimate triumph of human
reason...for then we would <BR>>>>>
know<BR>>>>> the mind of God.<BR>>>>> Stephen
Hawking<BR>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
<BR>>>>> From: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:whayman@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>whayman@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>>>> To: "Andreas Schou" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>ophite@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>>>> Cc: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 3:09
PM<BR>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Duncan plea
deal<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Hello
all,<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> I would agree with anyone
that Duncan tests the limits much more than <BR>>>>>
even<BR>>>>> more than Malvo in the DC area. What Duncan
apparently did lies outside<BR>>>>>
the<BR>>>>> human scope of sympathy. But even within this
absolutely and <BR>>>>> disgustingly<BR>>>>>
twisted psychopathic scenario, I still cannot advocate a penalty of
<BR>>>>> death<BR>>>>> for anyone. Duncan
included.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Killing, as we all
know, brings back no one. The argument of the
death<BR>>>>> penalty as resolution and closure I find
closer to vengeance than <BR>>>>>
justice.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Please don't take me
wrong; I don't think rehab etc. is the issue in <BR>>>>>
this<BR>>>>> case. I do hope that the rest of his life is
spent anonymously and <BR>>>>> ignobly<BR>>>>>
incarcerated.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Warren
Hayman<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>>
List services made available by First Step
Internet,<BR>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse
since
1994.<BR>>>>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>>>
</FONT><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>>
List services made available by First Step
Internet,<BR>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse
since
1994.<BR>>>>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>>>
</FONT><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>>
List services made available by First Step
Internet,<BR>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse
since
1994.<BR>>>>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>>>
</FONT><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>