posted 12-02-98 01:02 PM ET        

Bingo!

A subject that I expect to evolve into a heated discussion! I saw one in one of the Lithuanian newsgroups - sparks flew!

posted 12-02-98 01:14 PM ET            

Anyway, I'm in favour of the death penalty for some crimes.
- Child abuse
- Rape
- Murder of children and cops
- Screwing up threads with non-spaced question marks

The penalty itself:

posted 12-02-98 01:32 PM ET            

The problem is that in today's American legal system I see the victim's family and friends as getting the most screwed. I know that if someone raped or killed my son, I'd probably want to torture and kill the bastard myself. The thing is that trials and appeals take so long that the victim's family has to wait what must seem like forever for any sense of closure. It doesn't seem right.

BTW, I don't think they've caught the guy who escaped from Death Row on Texas. Now THERE'S a reassuring thought!

posted 12-02-98 01:36 PM ET            

My opinion is that the government, by its nature being a collection of individual rights pooled for the common good, has only the rights the individuals have. Human life is a value by itself, and I strongly oppose capital punishment; that's point one.

Point two. Life sentence allows wrong judgements to be corrected by releasing the innocent. As far as I know, there is no possible way to resurrect a human being...

posted 12-02-98 01:37 PM ET            

This is because I see the humanism that I like so much IMHO have perverted into a "free for all"-doctrine in which the reluctance to use the ultimate form of punishment have resulted in a situation where people are starting to give up on the basic principle of justice. This leads to widespread paranoia that I think is more damaging to society as a whole than the occasional mis-judgment (which of cause is tragic for the person involved and his/her relatives).
I cannot stress enough that I only find CapPun appropriate where there is no reasonable hope of rehabilitation. We're talking several chronologically independant indisputable murders committed by a person in cold blood.
The basic principle goes like this: It is hot human to kill other humans (wars is another discussion). Therefore if you do kill people - and fail to see the wrong in this (or don't care) - you lose your human rights and subsequently your right to live.

From the real world:
Ukraine have a problem at the moment: The vast majority of the population and the president want to execute a mass murderer who have committed 50+ murders over a period of 2 years. However the European Council, who have a big saying in who is eligable for membership of EU, as a strict rule do not allow countries to have CapPun to be recommended.
I find this situation grotesque.

Another: Italy won't hand over �celan to Turkey because they are open about their intentions to execute him, which is causing a major diplomatic crisis. Now suppose Charles Manson had operated in Texas and had managed to escape to Italy (or another EU-country). Would a US request for him have been denied as well? I think not, though there can be no doubt what the Texans would have done to him.
The hippocracy is obvious to me.

He, who really loves his fellow man, must be ready to make sacrifices (in this case take a chance) for him. I think the ConCap's see a scenario along the lines of Kafkas "The Trial" and are afraid for their own fate on that account.

posted 12-02-98 01:49 PM ET            

the gorier and the more public the execution, the more of a deterrent it will pose.
People will commit fewer crimes, and therefore the innocent will not be caught.
BTW not everything i said was completely my own opinion, i just thought that a thread needs something to get it going.

posted 12-02-98 01:59 PM ET            

About my own opinion:
The one I posted is just one of them (sorta 80% of total).

When there is no doubt that a person IS the villain in some horrid murder, connected with child abuse, robery or rape, CapPun (nice invention, Omnidude) should be performed, but painlessly. War crimes (Srebrenica butcher, Gen. Radislav Krstic ,was caught today... off with his head!) - same story.

posted 12-02-98 02:28 PM ET            

Numerous studies have shown it is definately not a deterrent. If a criminal always thought about the potential punishment he would recieve, he/she wouldn't turn to crime.

Prison costs are _not_ reduced if the convict, like in the US, can wait up to 25 years on death row.

That leaves only logically invalid arguments with high emotional content, such as "retribution"/Whatever.

posted 12-02-98 03:24 PM ET            

My opinion is, that actually using the death penalty would easen up a lot. Brutal murderers, mass murderers, child abusers and police killers should be killed soon after they are convicted.

One other odd fact about convicts:
Our neighbour works in a prison. That prison is heated with logs, and the most trusted prisoners are sent to do that. Those prisoners could easily escape, because the building where they work is outside the prison walls. And also they could blow the whole place up. Once our neighbour wanted to check what those prisoners had done, just to see what "good" prisoners normally do to go to jail. Eleven out of twelve had killed their wives! Actually it's quite easy to understand that. When you kill your nagging wife when your drunk, you might not be at all of criminal type. When you have robbed some stores or a dozen cars you are clearly a criminal and in most cases will do it again.

So only murderers shouldn't be sentenced to death, persons with high numbers of sentences usually repeat their crimes and therefore deserve the same fate.

posted 12-02-98 03:25 PM ET            

Yes, the likelihood of being caught is the best deterrent, a lot less the actual punishment. Capital punishment doesn't work. If it would, the US wouldn't have a much higher crime (or murder) rate than european countries, would it ?

Just a short while ago, an anti death penalty organsiation presented 75 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death WRONGLY. Their innocence has been proven later. Though this may be a result of the seriously flawed (I'd even say: crappy) US legal system, the principal problem is always there.

Omnidude: "Now suppose Charles Manson had operated in Texas and had managed to escape to Italy (or another EU-country). Would a US request for him have been denied as well? I think not, though there can be no doubt what the Texans would have done to him."

Oh yes, it would have been denied. Every member of the European convention on human rights must not extradite to the US if the respective person faces the death penalty. That's the result of the Soering Case under art 3 ECHR...could tell you more about it, if you want.

posted 12-02-98 03:34 PM ET            

"I mean, the most bloody, cruel and evil things that humans can do."

I may feel that way, but if I follow my brain and not my stomach, I still have the problem: it won't work as a deterrent, and how do I get a 100 % prove that a person committed those things ?

posted 12-02-98 03:37 PM ET            

a) The prosecution would have to ask for it to be considered.
b) The jury would be asked if they feel that the evidence is strong enough not just to convict, but to recommend CapPun. A conviction on circumstantial evidence only would be expected to fail at this stage unless there was A LOT of it. (Basically, all 12 jurors must feel that the evidence is enough to convict without even the slightest hint of doubt.)
c) The defense counsel would get to make an argument for why CapPun should not be imposed (but the prosecution wouldn't, it should be obvious and this gives the defendant a slight edge).
d) A panel of three judges must unanimously decide to impose it.
e) Appeals would be limited to 5 years, but would be given special treatment to hasten them.

There are a very few cases in Canada were CapPun would be considered. Police killings are the top ones. Then there is the case of Paul Bernardo. Most people wouldn't miss him. (For those who aren't aware of him, he videotaped the sexual assualts and torture of a couple of teenage girls before he killed them and hacked their bodies up.)

posted 12-02-98 04:12 PM ET            

First you say:
> Again I will stick by my assertion that
> the death penalty is revenge against the
> criminal. Nothing more, nothing less.
Then you add:
> What do you do to punish the cruel and
> unusual CRIMES? Shouldn't the punishment
> fit the crime?

Having the punishment fit the crime (e.g. castrating a rapist) is basically just revenge, isn't it? Also, if the punishment fits the crime, then you would actually be pro-CapPun for murderers, right?

posted 12-02-98 07:28 PM ET            

The fact is it is a very emotive issue, and maybe there isn't a wrong or right answer.

And until they discover a way to determine 100% accurately, with no chance of error, guilt or innocence, I can't see how it will stop being such an emotive issue.

Personally, I am for it in principle, however, I have rather large reservations about proof of guilt, so I can't really condone it.

posted 12-02-98 07:56 PM ET            

Roland: While I acknowledge the existance of established law on the subject, Charles Manson isn't just anybody (and I picked him for that very reason). The man is intelligent and was very deliberate and explicit in his approach to the killings. He knew exactly what he was doing, proved charismatic enough to make others do like him and would (probably) continue if he was released.
I believe there would be a diplomatic crisis that would at least match the one with Turkey and I believe that Italy (or whoever) would eventually give in to save the relationship to the US.
This is my personal estimate, but I think it matches the "realpolitik"-trend of today.

And this is largely my point. Democracy is a fragile thing. If you as a government do not take the wishes of the public (the majority) seriously and instead avoid the potentially politically explosive subjects (of which CapPun is the king, IMO), it WILL eventually result in widespread civil disobedience, loss of the sense of collective responsability and ultimately anarchy or despotism.
On a strictly theoretical basis I agree that allowing for CapPun is compromizing the foundation of humanism by deliberately terminating a human life. In practical life, however, the stance that a human life have priority over any societal considerations leads to absurdities in so many areas that I cannot with a clear conscience defend the ConCap position. Consider the difficulties of a strict humanist stance on euthanasia for the terminally ill, abortion, funding to the health sector, armed peacekeeping forces in general...I could go on. Compromise upon compromise, so why not regarding CapPun?

Let there be no mistake: Deciding to terminate the life of another human being is a VERY serious decision that should only be taken in the gravest cases, where there can be no doubt as to the guilt and inhumanity of the accused. But if that is established, then IMO there's no valid excuse for not taking that person out. Putting him in jail for the rest of his life has the same practical effect for society (exept for minor economic considerations which I consider largely inconsequential), yes, but by extending to him the human right to live you extend the scope of what is human to incorporate someone who acts clearly inhuman, leading to a dangerous dillution the very concept/definition of a human being upon which humanism rests.

Humanism as a ideology only works among humans. I'm sure we'll all agree that being human is not adequately described by a purely physical profile. You have to act human to be human. If you do not do so - and it can be established that you are a lethal risk to humans - then there really is no difference from a rabid dog.

Hmm, I seem to wander a bit. That's because my reasoning consists of a lot of different minor points that IMHO together adds up to a make a good case.

Short comments:

CClark: Your process suggestion sound good to me.

posted 12-02-98 08:19 PM ET            

As for the more rational arguments, I think i sort of agree with OmniDude. I'm not by principle against all forms for capital punishment (some people just deserve a bullet in the head), though, of course, I'm against its implementation in the US (where they, for some reason, mainly kill blacks.. (or should that be Afro-Americans?)).

Yeah, you do occasionally kill innocent people, and there's no way you can give back their life. You do also, however, occasionally imprison innocent people for 30 years, and there's no way you can give back their life, either.

The only thing that's 100% certain is that people will never ever fin a way of determining anything with a 100% certainty...

posted 12-02-98 08:33 PM ET            

Who's to say they can't develop a perfect truth serum, with no side effects?

Who's to say humans can't develop ESP like abilities?

"Never ever" is an awfully long time. I may not expect to see it in my lifetime, but I imagine it'll happen one day...

posted 12-02-98 08:53 PM ET            

I might be absolutely certain that my interpretation of <whatever> is true - that doesn't mean it necassarily IS true. Truth is subjective, which is why I don't think you can determine it with 100% certainty.

I do agree with your point, though: Nobody can can say what is and what is not (technologically) impossible.

posted 12-02-98 09:23 PM ET            

For example "Did you cause the death of XXXX" can only really have a yes or no answer.

You might have a point in a very few cases of Rape, whereby a girl sort of changes her mind halfway through, starts crying out "no", and the bloke just thinks it is what she cries out during sex.

But in that case, even proving that the person thought they were in the right would help the case, as would proving the exact actions of the girl. It certainly wouldn't harm the matter.

And frankly, proving that someone though they were in the right doesn't prove anything. Proving whether or not they performed an action does. And it is impossible to dissemble. Either you stabbed them 50 times, or you didn't. Either you aided the person who did it (you were an accessory), or you weren't.

Whether or not that person thought they were justified is irrelevant.

Or did you have something else in mind?

posted 12-02-98 09:40 PM ET            

What I do mean is that the brain is a funny thing which defines truth as it pleases. Of course, in the clear cases of "did I, or did I not stab somebody with a knife 50 times" it might not be difficult (though it has been in some cases), but it's easy to add a little obfuscation: "Did I, or did I not hit John Doe with my car? Well, it was dark, I didn't see anything. I certainly hit something, and there was a dead man by the road. This might lead me to believe I killed the guy, which means the truth serum treatment would make me 'confess' my crime. However, it is NOT 100% certain that I killed the guy, even if it is perhaps extremely probable. I could have hit an animal (which miraculously survived and ran away), or perhaps even a standing dead guy...

I can with 100% certainty say that "I think, therefore I am." Everything beyond that is pure speculation.

posted 12-02-98 09:52 PM ET            

Esp if they get trackers in, and there's no blood of an injured animal anywhere, plus the injuries are indicative of a car crash, and the damage to the car is indicative of having hit a person.

And for the purposes of this argument, that case don't really fit, as we're talking about proof of a crime for giving the death penalty, and frankly, I don't think anyone would ever get it for that crime.

Even killing someone accidentally through negligence really isn't worth the death penalty, is it? Which is what this argument is about...

posted 12-02-98 10:00 PM ET            

Anyway, I thought this little discussion was about absolute vs relative truth..

posted 12-02-98 11:44 PM ET            

This is why you will never be able to know with 100% certainty. The state of mind of the killer is frequently the operative factor in capital cases. In the case you and DCA were discussing, it SEEMS like it was an accident, but maybe the driver really DID want to kill the guy, and used some sort of pharmaceuticals after the fact to confuse the issue in his own mind. He no longer knows if it was accidental or not. This is a bit contrived, but the more common case is people who are mentally disturbed in some way. Are they really in control of their actions? Can you really hold them responsible for what they do? What if they're "better" now? What about battered spouses? Consider a woman who's husband beats her, who blows the bastard away with a shotgun because she's sick and tired of it. She deliberately killed the guy, but is that really first degree murder? To understand a crime, you have to understand its context, which frequently involves understanding the frame of mind of the killer. Figuring out the "humane" solution to these problems may well be impossible.

posted 12-03-98 12:01 AM ET            

And I suppose in that case it _might_ be unfair to kill them. But in the case of someone who did it in cold blood, deliberately, and with full knowledge of what they did (full mental faculties), then I can see no reason not to end their lives.

Though this does bring up the whole box of worms of whether or not a person that far gone can be rehabilitated. Like that woman in America who supposedly repented, found God, and yet was still put to death.

So as I said, I am for it in principle, in rare cases. However, it is impossible to prove to my satisfaction right now, so right now I couldn't condone it. I also condone abortion and euthanasia (though that is another story, and I REALLY don't want to open that jar of pickles again).

I tell you this right now: If someone ever raped my wife or molested my children (though I don't have any yet), I would kill them. And feel absolutely no remorse about it. Obviously I would have to be 100% sure, I wouldn't do it on suspicion or anything. How about you? Would you be happy to see them possibly let off in a court of law or given 10 years for Rape, if you had proof (like catching them in the act)?

If so, you're a better man than I, Gungedin.

posted 12-03-98 12:03 AM ET            

OK comments on your comments :

BOOMBOOM, I agree with you, but not on the actual punishment .. experimentation is not a bad idea, public castration with the family present is a little too much .. what did the family do to deserve such treatment ???

Saras, actually, in my point of view, the death penalty is the better thing for society, they no longer have to worry about that particular criminal !!!

Oh gezz .. blah blah blah ... ok I've gotten about 15% of the way .. I'll respond to the rest of the posts later !!!

As it stands, CapPun stands also as a good deterent against crimes !!!

posted 12-03-98 12:10 AM ET            

Cop killers, brutal murder and mass murders are good guidelines !!! I also like the idea of 3 strikes you're out !!! After the third conviction of any kind, you get the death penalty !!!

posted 12-03-98 12:19 AM ET            

Greg: Yup, there are some people I would kill, remorselessly, happily. What's so wrong with vengeance anyway? It still don't buy your 100%, though.... (99.99...% or 100% given X I could live with..)

posted 12-03-98 12:30 AM ET            

Funny sort of argument. Earlier, you stated you were against it. To quote you:

"The cost of making a mistake is too great, and there are plenty of alternatives which are just as good from a "removal from society" point of view."

And yet, here you say you would be prepared to take justice into your own hands, and sentence someone to your own version of capital punishment. A bit hypocritical, no?

And I also believe that in that situation, where a member of your family had been harmer, your judgement would no doubt be less than 100%, so another reason that you'd belikely to make a mistake of some sort. I mean, you can't have it both ways...

posted 12-03-98 12:40 AM ET            

Certainly. I reserve the right to be as hypocritical as I damn well please, especially in an issue as important as the lives of my loved ones.

"you can't have it both ways"

Sure I can. By maintaining my anti-death penalty stance I can cause society to endorse official policies against it, making it difficult for official bodies (e.g. courts) to engage in it, while I can disobey any law at any time (and pay the consequences).

I'm not saying I ever would kill anybody, but I don't like to tie my hands when I don't know what situations I'll be facing in the future. That doesn't prevent me from trying to tie the hands of others who may not have sound judgement. Hypocritical? Yes. Sensible? Exceedingly so, at least in my humble opinion.

posted 12-03-98 12:52 AM ET            

Obviously some cases would slip through the cracks, like cases of mental instability and the like (where they would have to be found innocent), but you would still be against cap pun for a person who could be proven (through an unyet discovered test) that they deliberately planned and carried out rapes and murders? Basically, we'd be removing the option of judgement by proving with 100% accuracy guilt.

That is an odd attitude to say the least. Basicallky you are against it because of the fallability of the system, yet even if the system were infallible, you'd still be against it...

Brother Greg.

posted 12-03-98 01:31 AM ET            

"Never say Never".

We just don't know what will or won't be possible. I am sure that 500 years ago they would have thought it would be impossible to talk to someone accross the other side of the earth instantaneously. Or to fly to the moon. Or hundreds of other things we take for granted.

after all, we can use lie detectors now, and even though they are fallible, who's to say they can't be improved?

posted 12-03-98 01:31 AM ET            

1) prevent crimes from occuring (protect society)
2) fullfill a sense of justice

3) to make the criminal more moral

to do this you have several methods
1) rehabilitation (can work on reasons 1 + 3)

2) punishment (for reason 2)

3) pre-deterence (reason 1)

4) post-deterence (reason 1)

As to the death penalty

1) It serves absolutely no rehabilitative purpose

2) In certain cases it can be argued it would be a justifiable punishment

3) How effective it is as to pre-deterent is long and complicated, but it certainly serves some deterence.

4) It is the best post-deterence known (except in horror movies noone commits a crime after being executed)

Essentially the argument for the death penalty vs. life in max secur prison relies on the sense of justice reason....
Unfortunately justice is not an entirely rational thing. It is based on morality and therefore subjective.
Which is probably one reason why America has it and Europe doesn't. America has a much greater Bible-believing influence in the population, and the injunction of capital punishment for murder is one of the first governmental type commands given.

Anyways I am personally ambivalent about the issue primarily for the false conviction reason.

posted 12-03-98 02:02 AM ET            

Me, of course.

My reason for believing that it is impossible is that the human mind is too complex.

1) I doubt accurate enough measurements could be made (there may be quantum effects going on, so Heisenberg would apply)
2) I doubt we can extrapolate backwards for the brain. Basically, if we only have access to the brain "after the fact", then we probably will not be able to backtrack and figure out EXACTLY what was going on beforehand, at the actual time of the crime.
3) Even if we had ALL the info, understanding the human mind might be beyond human capability. The incompleteness theorem might apply (I'm not sure if it's appropriate to exptrapolate from mathematics on this one, but I belive that the incompleteness theorem says that for any closed logical system that is complex enough to include arithmetic, there are true statements about that system that cannot be proven within that system).

Basically, I have a few good reasons to believe that it's impossible. Understanding a problem well enough to know that it can't be solved is not admitting defeat. Having a "nothing is impossible" attitude seems kind of silly when dealing with things which ARE impossible. (for example, I believe it is impossible for the effect to happen earlier in time than the cause, do you believe that someday we'll beat that problem too?).

posted 12-03-98 02:57 AM ET            

Why becuase the lunts should not spend life on my budget, nor should they get more than one state, and one federal appeal(that will control cost). I have no moral qualms becuase by commiting the act of (What ever is deemed to desevre the death Penlaty) they forfit their right to life. The know that they do this, exspecial if the Punshiment was public, so they CHOSE death. I don't think Suicide should be illegal either.

posted 12-03-98 06:47 AM ET            

As a matter of fact, _no_ punishment really works as a deterrent.

If the human race as a whole _really_ wished to reduce crime to a minimum (there's always the possibility that some few persons have a genetic predisposition for anti-social behaviour - research suggests that this goes for 'XYY' "males"...), we would change our societies to aim for a world where no children are abused, beaten, deprived of anything, etc.

This would be a place where rehabilitation is used instead of punishment, and everyone gets an equal chance to develop as far as they can.

This sounds utopian, but the ideas are based in fact, and I could go on for quite a while in the same vein, but I think you get it.

The basic premise is that we should ask ourselves what we want a penal system for. Does it remove, or even reduce crime? No, not really. Short term, it's true that locally, you get a reduction of crime, when you remove the criminal from society, whether by incarceration or societally condoned murder. Long term, however, society will just breed more criminals, unless we change the way that society works.

Naturally, this is a view that more than three citizens of the United States of America will oppose, since it would mean having to take responsibility for the situation of the many disadvantaged living there, but you should think it through, before you start throwing the rocks.

If you get the currently many unproductive, non-taxpaying, quite often criminal, non-voting, etc. poor a productive, equal position in society, you'll find a lot of the crime will vanish.

If you also manage to change the bias of society, so as to lessen violence against children (whether through legislation or social stigmatization of child abuse isn't the point), this will lead to fewer crimes of violence in the future, etc.

Basically, make this a world where children can grow up to be _all_ they _can_ be, instead of a place where the vast majority of people are crippled at least to some extent by the way they've grown up.

OK. Let's see what you all say to this. I don't mean it to be inflammatory, but...

posted 12-03-98 06:52 AM ET            

"You have to act human to be human. If you do
not do so - and it can be established that you are a lethal risk to humans - then there really is no difference from a rabid dog."

Thanks for that one. This is exactly the danger with the death penalty, to make a decision who is human and who is not. Rabid dogs, well, this is very close to Nazi speak: Jews, gays, gypsies, dissenters are pests for the Volk. You are opening pandora's box. You decide that in cases a,b, etc, human live will not be respected - by the state!

Greg: "I think that in the case of Murder it is pretty easy to determine guilt. If they killed them, they're guilty. Whether or not they think they performed a crime is not really in question. For example "Did you cause the death of XXXX" can only really have a yes or no answer."

Excuse me, but this is way off. If you cause the death of someone in a traffic accident cause a suicidal guy is jumping in front of your car, you would commit murder under your definition. Murder is either the INTENTIONAL killing or, as in anglosaxon law, the killing with MALICIOUS INTENT. The rest may be manslaughter or just accidents. How will you determine the intent 100 % sure ?

Greg: "Even killing someone accidentally through negligence really isn't worth the death penalty, is it? Which is what this argument is about..."

But this would be murder for you ? While I might agree with that, you'd still have to prove "Negligance". A crime is not only defined by cause (action xx causes death), but also GUILT (intent, negligence erc...).

Greg: " if we could prove motive and intent 100% accurately..."

Now the guilt thing is there. I knew you wouldn't be that way off...

posted 12-03-98 07:46 AM ET            

I am a die-hard capitalist. I do not support death penalty (that is, 82% of me ). But I do not see a practical way of making gangsters and hoodlums grow white wings and start working at factories, offices etc.
Actually, in Australia there was a poll showing that criminal life provides much better income than average(something like AU$ 2,000 per week compared to normal 800 (correct me if i'm wrong)). See, you gotta make life hard for the criminals so that they start thinkin' before doin', not vice versa. I believe Australia is not an exception.

Better policing and less comfort in the prisons should serve well together with asset confiscation.

But to some extent you are right - the more you can earn working (ceteris paribus), the less you would be incentivised to go commit crimes.

posted 12-03-98 08:14 AM ET            

As for the legality of suicide: What are human rights worth if you are not allowed the most basic of rights, the right to decide when your life is to end? (this will probably prompt someone to think: Why doesn't the same rule apply to the question of CapPun? Well, I'll repeat my mantra: If a person have no respect for the basic human right to life - and subsequently justly is deemed inhuman - why should they be extended to him/her?)

posted 12-03-98 08:19 AM ET            

Rehabilitation works. Prisons don't. (Not to speak of capital punishment...)

As for the minority, for whom rehabilitation isn't an option, we'll have to keep them locked up, I guess. Killing them, however, would only be brutalizing ourselves.

As for those who argue that the families of murder victims need to get a palpable revenge or whatnot: killing someone won't get their loved one back, will it? All that happens is that someone else's son/whatever is killed.

That's not what is needed. What they need is to see that society cares, and this should be implemented by catching the murderer/rapist/whatever, caring for the perpetrator, and by providing help for the victim's family (s-one to talk to, whether it be psychiatrists, or someone else, and whatever other means are necessary to come to terms with the loss).

Anyone see Atom Egoyan's "The Sweet Hereafter"? It's a great movie by a great director!!! (You Canadians sure know how to pick your immigrants!!!) Also, it's subject impinges on what I've been writing here.

Basically, it's about a school bus that crashes, with, if I remember correctly, _one_ survivor (i.e. killing almost all kids from a small town). A lawyer turns up, and tries to get the parents to prosecute, but finally, the townspeople come to the insight, that punishing someone, getting money, or whatever, won't bring their children back, and what they really need is to face the grief together as a community (and personally, of course), to be healed, and able to go on with their lives.

posted 12-03-98 08:49 AM ET            

Hey, are you looking for some serious flaming, or what ?

There are many reasons why europe has less crime than the US, and the social network is one of them. This has nothing to do with getting money just for existing in tose cases, things are a bit more complicated.

posted 12-03-98 09:10 AM ET            

Also, I'm not saying "society is responsible for the crimes".

I would further say the sociopaths are the minority... Wouldn't you?

What I _am_ saying is that MOST people would prefer living honest, non-violent lives if they got the chance, but an overwhelming majority of those in prison for violent crimes are, for some reason, people who have grown up in environments where violence is a normal way of "resolving" conflicts, and where it's harder to acquire the skills/knowledge (whether it be social or academical) that make it easier to hold onto jobs, much less to excel and be a success in our ratrace society...

Since you mentioned Sweden, I'll mention a case which actually makes me proud of living here:

Not so long ago, a small boy was found dead in a woodland area in a Swedish city. Naturally, the police made this a high priority investigation. Fairly fast, it turned out that he'd been killed by some other boys, a few years older than him (though still pre-teenagers).

The interesting thing here is what happened next. Actually, all involved parties were given professional help to overcome the trauma of what had happened - the children who'd "murdered" the little boy, as well as ALL the parents. No punishments were meted out...

posted 12-03-98 09:16 AM ET            

I wonder if the (apparent) attitude towards welfare states has sth. to do with a "backlash" against communism?

posted 12-03-98 09:27 AM ET            

Regarding Manson: OK, you're probably right. I guess you're the authority here on law. The situation would make some HUGE headlines though, both here and in the US (you gotta give me something.. ).

"...the danger with the death penalty [is] to make a decision [about] who is human and who is not. Rabid dogs, well, this is very close to Nazi speak: Jews, gays, gypsies, dissenters are pests for the Volk. You are opening pandora's box. You decide that in cases a,b, etc, human live will not be respected - by the state!"

posted 12-03-98 09:57 AM ET            

BoomBoom: "Well, if he was pardoned after spending 30 odd years in prison, don't you think that is worse."

In the early/mid 70s there were some bombings in this country in Birmingham and Guildford. Six people were arrested and convicted for the Birmingham pub bombing, and four for the Guildford one. Under your scenario they would have preferred hanging to being in prison. Fancy asking them that? They were all released some 20 years later, and their convictions quashed. I bet they'd rather be dead.

It's things like this that make me totally unable to support the death penalty.

posted 12-03-98 10:13 AM ET            

To begin with, Lithuania is Lietuva in Lithuanian.

The attitude has nothing to do with living in USSR since it was not communist (in the purest sense), rather an oligarchy of the party, reinforced by terror.

"There are many reasons why europe has less crime than the US, and the social network is one of them. This has nothing to do with getting money just for existing in tose cases, things are a bit more complicated."

- what are these reasons and why is it so complicated?

"Also, I'm not saying "society is responsible for the crimes"."

- I did not imply that you said so.

Are sociopaths a minority? nope, I think people that cannot do anything else but commit crimes are sociopaths - meaning frequent guests of the jailhouse are sociopaths. Dunno about the rest of the world, but in Lithuania the majority (~80%) of convicts are jailed at least third time.

"The interesting thing here is what happened next. Actually, all involved parties were given professional help to overcome the trauma of what had happened - the children who'd "murdered" the little boy, as well as ALL the parents. No punishments were meted out..." -

- the teenager murderers should have been given a good spanking, at least this is so grotesque

posted 12-03-98 10:42 AM ET            

You should have faith in your ability, but also know the limits. Nothing is 100% certain. For that reason, there are wrong convictions. If people spend 20 years wrongfully in prison, that's horrible, but killing an innocent is even worse.

"And I resent being even remotely associated with Nazis!"

Sorry, but calling people "rabid dogs" and saying they should be treated accordingly is Nazi speak IMO.

Saras:

There are many reasons why europe has less crime than the US, and the social network is one of them.
Other reasons: gun control (another can of worms - yummy), a culture less based on confrontation and conflict (some wild west manners still in the US of A), a more balanced society (not just because of social grants, but for example more equal education, less difference in wages between workers and academics etc).

posted 12-03-98 11:04 AM ET            

IMO: America is less densely populated, and crime is really rampant only in downtown areas. The Europeans just have less alternatives to move out of downtown, thus crime is lower.

posted 12-03-98 11:34 AM ET            

We do we have a high crime rate? It simple kids are not taught to respect their parents (teachers, elders, other people). Spanking are nessasary same times.

What About Singapore(sp) they have a very, very low crime rate?

Preceived punshiment would work if people perceived they were going to get caught.

Racism is an arguement to increase the death penility. Why becuase it is obvious the Whites with good lawyers don't get it enough!

man the threadgrow fast

posted 12-03-98 11:55 AM ET            

The fact that no conviction is 100% certain should not mean we abolish the criminal justice system, just that we think carefully which sanctions we base on such convictions.

"We do we have a high crime rate? It simple kids are not taught to respect their parents (teachers, elders, other people). Spanking are nessasary same times."

Yup, always a simple solution.

"What About Singapore(sp) they have a very, very low crime rate?"

Look at Singapore's social structure.

"Preceived punshiment would work if people perceived they were going to get caught."

Right, that's a lot more important than the kind of sanction. So why the death penalty ?

"Racism is an arguement to increase the death pnility. Why becuase it is obvious the Whites with good lawyers don't get it enough!"

How about reducing it for the less privileged ?

"man the threadgrow fast
Steel_Dragon a pround Texan"

Yes, you can say that again.

posted 12-03-98 12:24 PM ET            

why can't we use math to talk?
Man that a little off topic.

A convicted Man is a guilty man. For a harden crimminal Rehab ain't going to work. He has forfieted his rights, so why keep him around.

Tough and helpful Rehab can work for the first timer if followed up a "normal" life.

posted 12-03-98 12:26 PM ET            

You're right, that's what I think of the USSR, as well.

>>"Also, I'm not saying "society is responsible for the crimes"."

>- I did not imply that you said so.

Right. I reread your post. I guess I just assumed you were still referring to my post...

>Are sociopaths a minority? nope, I think people that cannot do anything else but commit crimes are sociopaths - meaning frequent guests of the jailhouse are sociopaths. Dunno about the rest of the world, but in Lithuania the majority (~80%) of convicts are jailed at least third time.

Well, I think your so-called "sociopathic" Lithuanian convicts would probably not behave the same way if they were given a real chance at rehabilitation (it's not always that easy to leave a life of crime) ... but I guess you already knew that, and I can see you'd regard that as a luxury a country recuperating after a number of decades of oppression and mismanagement can't afford. Oh, well.

>- the teenager murderers should have been given a good spanking, at least this is so grotesque

No one really thought it was a matter of premeditated murder. It was regarded more as an accident or something performed out of a lack of understanding of what was really going on... I for one don't think spanking serves much of a purpose then. Not that I think it ever really does... If anyone really wants to discuss spanking as method for raising children, start a new thread.

>But guys, we do seem to agree on something, right? We all want better policing and less crime. That is very good, but that's probably it

Well, it all depends on how you define better policing...

I feel you haven't really reacted to all I posted, but if you wish not to, I can't do much about it.

posted 12-03-98 12:44 PM ET            

You seem not to entirely have digested the food for thought I served you. I'll pre-chew it a bit.

Certainly I'm not claiming rehabilitation is going to work for all criminals, but what we have now isn't really much in the way of rehab - except maybe what the Eskimos used to practice...

My point, however was that the need for prisons, and thus rehabilitation, would be VERY much lessened, if we managed to change a few factors in the ways we bring up our kids.

What I focussed on a bit was that violence begets violence, and it's an established fact, that those persons who abuse children and women tend to have been abused themselves. The same goes for those who commit crimes of violence in general. To me, this is a pretty strong argument for not using force as an argument with your children. They might get the wrong idea, i.e. that violence is an acceptable way of resolving conflicts.

Now, I know there are quite a few out there who think smacking your children and/or wives around is some sort of God-given right, but allow me to disagree, and present some form of argument for your point of view, instead.

posted 12-03-98 12:47 PM ET            

That's because I haven't been here. Just kidding. Seriously, there is another reason for the death penalty in the USA. This might sound like a cruel reason to have the death penalty, but US prisons are crowded. They are up to their maximum. Beacuse of this, people are getting paroled who don't deserve to be (they are not properly rehabilitated), and they do the same crie again. So, shouldn't the US, kill off its most obvious mass-murders (DJ's bringing up of 3 strikes rule for violent crimes). Manson should be dead, and so should Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bombings). Yell at me if you must, but I stand by this death penalty as does most of America. It seems weird that the USA is overwhelmingly pro-capital punishment, while Europeans are (from what I heard) are overwhelmingly anti-capital punishment.

Imran Siddiqui
(Fill in your own tag here!)

posted 12-03-98 12:51 PM ET            

1) A guy pushed a woman in front of a subway train (she was killed) and was arrested on the spot because some people in the station tackled him and held him for police. The woman was a complete stranger to him and when asked why he did it, his answer was basically "I wanted to see what it was like (to kill someone)."
This individual was found guilty, but will probably go to a mental health institution and not prison. People think that they'll be able to "rehabilitate" him. (On this one, I think CapPun would have been appropriate. I know it isn't "PC", but being mentally unbalanced, although not necessarily your own fault, shouldn't be an excuse for cold-blooded murder.)

2) Paul Bernardo. Canada's answer to Charles Manson. He videotaped himself sexually abusing some teenage girls and then killed them and hacked up their bodies. He is also believed to be the "Scarborough Rapist" who was responsible for a series of violent rapes over a period of several years. He's in prison for life, kept in solitary for "his own protection". Why bother, he's an animal and is as likely to be rehabilitated as Charles Manson. He's never going to be let out. Just shoot him and save the millions of dollars we'll waste on him over the next 60 years of his pathetic existance.

3) The name escapes me at the moment, but roughly 30 years ago a man was convicted of raping and murdering a neighbour's daughter. (Very well know case up here.) All of the evidence was circumstantial and included a "jailhouse confession" that a fellow inmate of the accused said he made. Recently, DNA testing proved that he was innocent and that the police covered up conflicting evidence and basically fudged things to make sure they got a quick conviction. In this case, CapPun would have been a mistake. However, recommending it would have been a mistake in the first place because all of the evidence was hearsay and circumstantial.

4) About a decade ago a man's inlaws were found murdered. Everything pointed to the son-in-law as having done it. He was under a lot of stress and financial pressure at the time. However, his character went against it and he swore he didn't do it. What they determined was that he had a family and personal history of sleepwalking. It was judged that the man was completely asleep when he made the short, automatic drive to the house and committed the crimes. I think he was found innocent on the grounds that he was not responsible for the actions. They were unconcious actions and not concious. (sp?) He was not deemed to be a high threat of re-offending. I think his wife did divorce him though.

The reason I put the first two cases up is to show that the "CapPun as revenge only" argument isn't entirely true. A lot of people (myself included) couldn't care less about "revenge" and instead view it as "removing a threat to society/making sure the person doesn't re-offend" and saving some taxpayer's money.

The third case is to demonstrate why CapPun should not be automatic and the fourth case is to demonstrate a very gray area.

I certainly don't think that CapPun should be automatic for all cases of murder. That _would_ be wrong. However, for cases where there is absolute proof (caught at the scene, videotaped) and there is no remorse and a reasonably good chance to re-offend, I think it is a reasonable alternative.

Yes, you'd need strict guidelines and a lot of safeguards, but I think a workable system could be implemented and overall it would be a good thing.

As for revenge, what's wrong with that? It is one way of providing closure. I guess it's the saying "two wrongs don't make a right", eh?

posted 12-03-98 01:40 PM ET            

This topic has been discussed in 80+ posts and ... (god I hate this!!)... both sides are right and both sides are wrong. This is such a slippery issue, a completely worn-out discussion and the funny part is that one (even our eloquent lawyer-to-be Roland ) cannot prove oneself 100% right.

posted 12-03-98 01:51 PM ET            

Well, thank you for THAT one! I'm fully insulted, but will try to hold my temper. I wonder if you hold some sort of grudge towards me?

Let's carefully examine what I originally wrote:
"Humanism as a ideology only works among humans. I'm sure we'll all agree that being human is not adequately described by a purely physical profile. You have to act human to be human. If you do not do so - and it can be established that you are a lethal risk to humans - then there really is no difference from a rabid dog."

First sentence: Wouldn't you agree that humanism only applies to humans? This leaves us with the tricky question of what defines a human, which leads us to
Second sentence: It cannot be a mere physical/DNA thing. If it were, at the very least transplantation from brain-dead coma-patients and abortion would be inhumane. Surely you do not hold that POW? I know I don't. Note, BTW, that physical traits were/is a cornerstone in nazism.
Third sentence: Admitted, this one is somewhat siplified and on its own does not accomodate for the severely mentally retarded being human - which is unfortunate given present norms but perhaps closer to the average persons real inner perception of this group of people than most people - including myself - would like to admit. But then that is a (somewhat) different discussion and obviously NOT my criterion for CapPun, for these people are mostly harmless.
Fourth sentence: Here I make room for every nuance of human existance except one, namely he/she who have no respect for human life and commit multiple murders without remorse. The "rabid dog" allegory is valid IMO because it is very much the same situation as when man's best friend catches rabies and become lethally unreliable. Nothing more, nothing less.
To associate me with Nazis on the account that I call mass murderers "rabid dogs" is kinda like if I associated you with Nazis because you're austrian (being austrian could however explain a certain oversensitivity toward anything sounding even remotely like nazism).

I maintain that you were WAY out of line, putting words in my mouth to make your accusation stick and generally very un-Roland-like and I'm surprised to hear you actually defending your position.

posted 12-03-98 04:56 PM ET            

Personally, I think that is a great idea. It may be too little, too late, but anything to help the remaining apes is a good idea in my books. Now the question: If you have CapPun for killing humans and someone kills a chimp, do you hang them if they are found guilty? Also, if you extend apes protection from murder under a law like this, do you then also disallow them from being kept in zoos, claiming that is a form of slavery? Or is it just protective custody to keep them out of harm's way?

posted 12-04-98 05:46 AM ET            

All I can say is: no insult intended. I've had that nice discussion with octopus in a (non ?)religion thread. IMO there is a difference in saying "you are a Nazi" and "you are using Nazi speak". As you feel insulted, I say sorry, but I maintain that the "rabid dogs" part is Nazi speak.

"I wonder if you hold some sort of grudge towards me?"

Absolutely not. I just hate the "rabid dog" example/analogy/whatever it is. It reminds me of my best hated ideology in history, and I think the idea behind it (as Octopus pointed out) is very dangerous.

"To associate me with Nazis on the account that I call mass murderers "rabid dogs" is kinda like if I associated you with Nazis because you're austrian."

As I tried to explain above, I didn't try to associate YOU with Nazis, but the way you made your point. Well, I think there's a difference in judging the way you make a point on grounds of language (as I did) or on grounds of Nationality of the person who puts it forward (as would be the case with the austrian=nazi association).

"(being austrian could however explain a
certain oversensitivity toward anything sounding even remotely like nazism)."

posted 12-04-98 09:11 AM ET            

I'll turn your argument around, though, and say that just as you are telling me that using the term "rabid dog" is going down a dangerous path that will eventually lead to nazism (a point that I can appreciate), you should be more careful in even remotely associating other peoples arguments as "Nazi speak". You did not make a point out of your categorization, you just brushed my argument off without any further explanation. How did you expect me to react?

posted 12-04-98 10:20 AM ET            

Thank you. That was what I meant, and I should have added that I did not want to imply that you are a Nazi or follow Nazi ideas, or that a pro death penalty stance was nazist.

"You did not make a point out of your categorization, you just brushed my argument off without any further explanation. How did you expect me to react?"

No particular expectations... as said, I should have clarified it in the first place. BTW, I said: "You are opening pandora's box. You decide that in cases a,b, etc, human live will not be respected - by the state!" If you want, that was and is the substantial part of my argument.

A human being shall be treated according to his/her deeds, ie also punished if he/she committed a crime. The quality of being a human being (ah... english isn't good here ), is however inalienable. Therefore I refuse to accept the argument that someone should no longer be regarded human, regardless of what he/she has done. So I don't accept: Murder x is no human being, we can do yzwhat...
Under my principle, I still have to ask myself whether the according response to a crime is the death penalty. And I don't think so due to the reasons the conCap people have already expressed. By applying the death penalty, the state is getting a lot more similar to the people it punishes, that's my view.

"Anyway, as you will know by now, the last thing I want is to be a nazi."

I never doubted that. Maybe that was a reason that made me even more willing to reject that kind of language as IMO, it doesn't fit the other things you've said.

"As I have stated earlier, what drives my "crusade" for CapPun...is that I solemnly believe that too much reluctance to take a practical common sense stand on the difficult ethical subjects, will sooner or later... result in the intellectual elite being run down by the masses..."

posted 12-04-98 10:44 AM ET            

"A man convicted is guilty, why do I say this even when it is oboiusly not 100%, becuase if you don't believe in the results of the system then NOONE CAN GO TO JAIL, receice rehabilitation or anything, for fear of send a wrongly convicted man."

The fact that no conviction is 100% certain should not mean we abolish the criminal justice system, just that we think carefully which sanctions we base on such convictions.

OK, suppose statistics show (I don't know if they do, but I suspect it) that there are more CapPun-candidates (as to the dertermination of who that is, see CCLarks suggestion) escaping from prison and committing additional murders than wrongfully convicted ones. Would that convince any of you ConCaps?

As for CClarks "what's wrong with revenge?", I have pondered the subject for a while and can only reach the conclusion (so far) that revenge is a un-PC expression of the essence of the "crime leads to consequence"-foundation of any justice system.

posted 12-04-98 11:03 AM ET            

"OK, suppose statistics show ...that there are more CapPun-candidates ... escaping from prison and committing additional murders than wrongfully convicted ones. Would that convince any of you ConCaps?"

posted 12-04-98 11:57 AM ET            

When I'm reffering to "common" as in common people and common sense, I'm talking about the (majority) of people who do not have the wish or ability to thoroughly comtemplate the issues at hand. People for whom ethics/morale is something they practice without thinking too much about it. People who zaps to a moviechannel at the very mentioning of the word "discussion". These people and their views plays a (frightening) large part in how politics and justice are practiced. I often do not like their views, but I'm forced to take them serious, if I want to be in touch with reality.
And I DO think that they - if presented with a case like the Paul Bernardo one, CClark mentions - would be overwhelmingly in favor of CapPun. Note in that context that public debate can often be misleading in that a LOT of common people would never actually sit down and express their opinions in a column in a paper or otherwise. Moreover, media coverage will always seek to establish the controversy by letting both sides be (roughly) equally represented

posted 12-04-98 11:59 AM ET            

As I've kind of said, I'm for controlled CapPun. I certainly wouldn't be for indiscriminate usage of it. But in extreme cases where it's obvious that nobody in their right mind would ever want the offender on the streets again, I think it is justified. (Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dalmer (although I think his fellow inmates took care of him, yes?), Paul Bernardo)

One of the big problems is that the cases which I would qualify as being worthy of consideration of CapPun are also usually the very emotional ones: child killers, serial killers/rapists, terrorist bombings (in some countries). These emotional cases are the ones that more often than not are the ones where the prosecution (state) is under a lot of pressure to get a conviction. [And what spawns that pressure? Revenge!] Because of the emotional nature and pressures, these are also the cases where wrongful convictions are most likely. (Guildford 4, the case I mentioned in Toronto and many others, I'm sure.)

I don't think that CapPun should be a black-and-white "you killed so-and-so, Bye-Bye loser!" However, I also think that it is an option that is worthy of consideration as long as the dangers are acknowledged and sufficient precautions are taken to make sure that guilt is assured. Yes, despite some people saying you can never be 100% sure, in some cases you can and in those cases it would be a reasonable (IMHO) course of action.

posted 12-04-98 12:09 PM ET            

"Moreover, media coverage will always seek
to establish the controversy by letting both
sides be (roughly) equally represented"

You must not watch a lot of news, or they do it differently where you live! Up here in the Great White Nroth (which is unusually green at the moment) the newsmedia will quite often declare a person's guilt before the trial. There have been quite a few high profile cases where a media ban has been imposed by the courts to make sure that the person gets a fair trial. In fact, the Paul Bernardo trial had just such a ban and the Canadian courts were rather upset with the New York media because the NY media said "Hey, we're Americans, you're ban means nothing to us so we're going to blab whatever we want over the airwaves!"

There is another case right now where an off-duty police officer was stabbed to death. The defence attorneys for the two homeless women charged with the crime wanted a complete ban on information because he was afraid that they would be killed in prison before even getting to trial!

The news media are FAR from impartial and almost never even approach anything resembling "equal representation". (I tried to avoid it, but anyone seeing even a little of the O.J. Simpson trial should know that the media had found him guilty long before the trial started.) Yes, they may interview counsel from both the defense and prosecution, but if you listen to the questions, there is almost always an incredible bias.

posted 12-05-98 10:26 PM ET            

I unfortunately have to agree as far as specific cases goes. What I meant was if a disussion of something like CapPun is treated in a debate program there's not much debate if both sides aren't represented and in order for the producers of the program to be (or at least appear) unbiased both sides are equally represented. The potentially misleading factor is then that both sides may not be equally represented in the population.

"Again, this [preconception] is one of the dangers that the ConCapPun crowd are rightfully afraid of."

posted 12-05-98 11:11 PM ET            

too answer some things that have been said about cappun.

whoever said it was not a deterrent.
ALL punishment is a deterrent (how much or how effective will vary)
also whoever receives the death penalty is very much deterred from committing further crimes.

as to actually decreasing crime. That is something that is a problem for criminologists within the limitations imposed by the rights granted by the government.

Basically as long as it is remembered that decreasing crime is not and end in itself but merely a means to make life materially and spiritually better for the citizens. Whenever a means of eliminating crime comes up then it must be evaluated on whether its impact on the citizens well being is overall positive or negative.

As to Cap Pun I consider it a viable means in extreme cases. Extreme in three ways
-extreme harm to community commited
-extremely low likelihood of rehab
-extremely sure of guilt
(for example Socrate's being "convicted" by ~60% of the jury only fills # 2 (he wouldn't have rehabillitated) possibly #3 (although I forget what the actual charges were) but definitely not #1))

posted 12-07-98 12:47 PM ET            

"Anyway, as you will know by now, the last thing I want is to be a nazi. As I have stated earlier, what drives my "crusade" for CapPun - among other things ... is that I solemnly believe that too much reluctance to take a practical common sense stand on the difficult ethical subjects, will sooner or later - as was the case in Nazi-Germany - result in the intellectual elite being run down by the masses in a stampede ..."

This one's juicy! You see, it's people just like you who, in a way, created the atmosphere that led to the creation of the nazis.

Let me explain: In Austria, early 20th Century, political power was largely in the hands of liberals/libertarians (I use this double term, since there's been some discussion of it on this forum...). They were well off, well educated, and viewed themselves as an intellectual elite (quite correctly, in a limited sort of way). Also, they had very admirable plans for the development of Austria and its citizens. The citizens would, e.g., in due time be given the right to vote in all sorts of elections, but they would have to wait till they were, ummm, better educated, etc.

Sadly, people began to wonder why others were deciding everything for them, and so, there was quite a lot of space for less scrupulous
people - I think you called them: "unscrupulous opportunists touting slogans along the lines of "1.000.000.000 flies can't be wrong: Eat ****!".
The rise of people like Le Pen in France and your own J�rg Haider (we have our own in Denmark called Pia Kj�rsg�rd) is IMO a testament to exactly this."

My point here is that your attitude towards the "common man" is offensive (without being that of a nazi ). Think it through: Sure, most persons don't express their views, feelings or ideas in public, but that doesn't mean they don't _think_, or have just as valid ideas or arguments on any and all subjects - or that you can discuss things with people, and get intelligent responses.

posted 12-08-98 09:24 AM ET            

I'll bring it up once more.

Can any of you North Americans (this includes Canadians) tell me what's happening in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case in Pennsylvania? Is he still going to be executed on 10 December?

Do you know the case? He's been in a death cell for 16 years, convicted of killing a police officer.

It's turned out, that several witnesses claiming that the cop killer escaped the scene of the crime weren't heard by the court, and the two witnesses who testified against Mumia Abu-Jamal changed the original testimonies when they went before the court (in which they didn't point out M. as the perpetrator), and were not prosecuted for crimes committed by them, as a result of that. Both these witnesses have said that promises and threats made by the prosecutors caused their changed testimonies. The witnesses are now saying that they were in the vicinity when the shots were fired, but they couldn't really see what happened.

The Pennsylvania State High Court (would that be the term?) now chooses to disregard these two witnesses (as was done with the earlier ones testifying in favour of M...).

As for the rest of the trial agains M., jury members were changed with mysterious pretexts, M. wasn't allowed to testify, and wasn't even allowed to attend large parts of his own trial for showing contempt of court, or the like, I gather... (Was it really worth any respect, though...?)

The judge presiding at the first trial in 1982, as well as in 1995 is called Albert Sabo. He happens to be connected to some "Police Brotherhood", who've been demanding the death penalty for M. the hardest. Moreover, Sabo has condemned more people to death, than any other judge in the USA...

This "Police Brotherhood" also spread the rumour that (the seriously injured and beaten (by the cops arriving at the scene of the crime, where M. and the cop he's supposed to have shot, lay bleeding...)) M. upon arrival at the hospital had run into the ward where the injured policeman was undergoing surgery, screaming "I shot the bastard, and I hope the bastard dies!" (or sth. to that effect).

No medical staff heard or saw any of this, and the police officer guarding M. reported "The negro said nothing."

Furthermore, there is no technical evidence (bullets, powderburns) linking M. to the deed.

What _is_ a fact, is that Mumia, as a journalist, had been very critical of police behaviour on several occasions. That he would be able and willing to kill white policemen was "proven" by the court, by quoting from articles written by M. when he was a member of the black panthers. Among other things, M. had quoted Mao: "Power grows out of the barrels of guns." This, combined with the witness statements that have since been retracted, was what the court based the decision to condemn M. to death on...

I'm hoping he'll get a new chance, but seeing that you guys claim 80 % of the US population is pro capital punishment, I am not optimistic.

I can only understand your POV as stemming from the (mistaken) feeling that you would never get into a situation where you may be falsely accused of sth. punishable by state-sanctioned murder... GOD how stupid that is!

posted 12-10-98 12:33 PM ET            

1) The subway pusher (or "Subway Butcher" as the local media have dubbed him) was sentenced yesterday. He was given life in prison with no chance of parole for 15 years. In handing down the sentence the judge acknowledged that Mr. Chong was mentially ill but said the defendant was aware of what he did and that it was wrong. Some of the evidence included an interview with the defendant where he basically said he did it because the girl he killed was the kind of pretty girl that would laugh at him. Apperently he locked eyes with her and saw something he didn't like so he pushed her in front of the train.
The judge said in his finding that he thought the defendant would be likely to re-offend since he showed no remorse and stated that the parole board should take that into account when he eventually is allowed a hearing. (In this case, I agree with the Texans and think the guy should just be permanently removed.)