Is it just me?

[Sunnywindo]

I do hope, and I think you will agree,
that this decision won't be forced on us
by the courts. We need to work this one
out through the democratic process, I think. Best

I really do hope you are right. I guess only time will tell.


Sara

[peeplj]

Well, maybe it's because I'm not a homosexual, but I really wasn't aware that homosexuals as a group had an agenda.

The next time the Heathen Liberal New World Order Cabal (TM) meets, I'll ask about this...now you're got me curious.

--James

[Walden]

Well, maybe it's because I'm not a homosexual, but I really wasn't aware that homosexuals as a group had an agenda.

I would assume there are certain groups of them who have an agenda, anyway.

The next time the Heathen Liberal New World Order Cabal (TM) meets, I'll ask about this...now you're got me curious.

--James

I know right wing conservatives who actually refused to vote for George H. W. Bush, because he used the term new world order. I was overseas at the time, and didn't vote one way or the other.

[herbivore12]

So there's a dilemma--if we do it
fast, it's probably unconstitutional
as well as recklessly dangerous. If we
do it slow, well, there's not much hope of
a deterrent effect and it's an expensive
legal mess. You can't do it fairly or
unfairly. Thanks,

But that doesn't solve anything. Not doing it is unfair as well. There's nothing fair about allowing killers to get ice cream, television and concerts the rest of their lives as children grow up without dads and moms.

Presumably your sense of fairness extends to those who might be unjustly convicted and executed, and their families, as well? In the current system, such a thing is not only possible, but even likely.

The application of a perfect penalty (death) in an imperfect system is very risky. Unacceptably so, I think.

What follows is from a combination of posts I made on a different forum regarding this subject; apologies if it gets muddled or the quotes go wacky, but the numbers are important to the argument:

A quick review of the stats: Between 1977 and 1999, 6,000 people were sentenced to death in this country, of whom 80 (as of 1999; the figure is actually higher now), or 1 in 75, have subsequently been released on account of innocence. Would we think airline safety was acceptable if 1 of every 75 airline flights crashed, or if 1 of every 75 airline passengers was killed in crashes?

Furthermore, between 1977 and 1999, when there were those 80 exonerations of death row inmates, there were also 553 executions, it follows that for every 7 executions, 1 death-sentenced inmate was cleared and released. In Illinois during this 12-year period, there were 12 executions and 13 exonerations of death row inmates; thus, the number of innocent persons released from death row exceeded the number of persons put to death.

You might be tempted to look at this and think, well, see, that means the innocent people are being exonerated (often after many years of incarceration, and sometimes literally hours before execution -- how awful would that be?), and not executed. In fact, a large percentage of exonerations came as a result of journalists or law students taking up the case and doing the work, and then bringing the case to suit through a group like the Innocence Project. The legal system itself, the system that is supposed to safeguard the innocent, actually failed many times, and only coughed up the lucky few convicted innocents when someone else took an interest and sued on their behalf. In other words, the system we'd have to trust so much actually failed.

If we had gone to a system that required that these men were executed quickly after conviction, it's certain that some -- or many -- of those later found to be innocent would have died. The System is broken.

(I should mention that I don't really have very strong moral opposition to the execution per se of persons found guilty of murder and heinous war crimes, etc., but do have real problems with applying such a penalty in our current system, and also real issues with the ways in which the DP is currently applied, disproportionately to the poor and non-white defendants. I have other objections, too, but the potential for killing an innocent is the most compelling for me.)

[Dale]

If we applied the death penalty in all murder cases and the penalty was carried out within 2 or 3 months after the conviction, maybe we'd know more about whether or not it deterred folks.

Maybe so. I would concede that is possible that would enhance the deterrent value. I would not concede that it probably would because I don't believe a guy who goes on a rampage and kills in cold blood is even going to THINK about the possible consequences. People who think about consequences are not killers. Killers don't think about consequences. The exception is the relatively rare geniunely premeditated murder.

But, back to your point, you seem to be arguing for the abolition of the appeal system, because it is certainly not realistic to get through an appeal process in 2 or 3 months. Are you arguing for abolishing appeals?

Dale

[Dale]

But what I'm saying here is that if Miss Manners were to be executed by lethal injection because a gay Englishman wrote Dale an email complaining that his significant other was whistling all the time....wait, I'm all mixed up.

Hehehe. It's ok. I get mixed up, too. But, I have to say: If Miss Manners ends up being executed because of Chiff & Fipple, I don't think I'll be able to live with myself.

However, if she is executed, I'll write a nice note of apology to her family with blank ink on good quality, tasteful stationery.

Dale

[susnfx]

However, if she is executed, I'll write a nice note of apology to her family with blank ink on good quality, tasteful stationery.

Blank ink?
How rude!

[Dale]

I really do understand some of the feelings behind people's support of the death penalty. And, like jim, I think the arguments for it are not silly. Due to a thing I'm involved in, I have some contact with some men on Alabama's death row. The men I deal with are no angels, although a few do seem fully reformed. The typical case would be a person who may have committed a murder 19 years ago, while drunk and mentally ill. After 19 years of prison, they could well be reformed. They've accomplished things, they've had a positive impact on others. They are often deeply involved in religion. The state of Alabama does not care.

On the other hand, and for example, there is a man on death row in Alabama named Jack Trawick. Jack is a sexually-motivated serial killer whose last victim was a young woman and an acquantance of mine--a member of my church. Jack briefly tortured her and murdered her relatively quickly because, instead of cowering before him (what he sought) she defiantly spat in his face. Jack, in my estimation, is a fully evil individual who, I confess I feel, is a waste of perfectly good oxygen. I certainly do not feel he deserves to live.

I will oppose Jack's execution because I'm against the death penalty in all cases. I confess that when he is executed, I will not shed a tear and I will have to contend with something like satisfaction in my heart. I'll have a beer. (I didn't lose any sleep when they executed Bundy, either. I had a beer.) But, I know that the d.p. is wrong and that's where I have to put my energy. And, incidentally, I do get some satisfaction from Jack living his life on death row. There's not much in the way of ice cream, concerts, TV..... There's basically a room the size of a walk-in closet in which Jack spends 23 hours per day. He lives with his toilet and a bunk. The food is abysmal. I'm not saying he "deserves" better. I'm saying that the old chestnut about prisons as country clubs is....an old chestnut.

[Dale]

However, if she is executed, I'll write a nice note of apology to her family with blank ink on good quality, tasteful stationery.

Blank ink?
How rude!

Oops. I flubbed a perfectly servicable line. That should read black ink.

Dale

[jim stone]

I think Blackhawk's point is that we can't
judge the deterrent value of the death penalty
under circumstances where people
sentenced to death go on living for
many years. It seems to me a good point.
I don't read him as advocating that
we do away with appeals or move
more quickly.

I also agree that not executing
vicious murderers is unfair, supposing that
they deserve to die (which I'm
not challenging). They don't get the
punishment they deserve; the victims
don't get the justice they're owed.

But I still think the argument I gave
is forceful. Here's why.
Suppose we operate the system
unfairly--that is, we execute murderers
quickly, eliminate the automatic
appeal to the state supreme court.
First, that's illegal under the
constitution; second it's recklessly
dangerous, as a good number of
the convicted are innocent. Many
of the appeals succeed.

So you have two injustices--
the injustice of punishing murderers
severely, but nowhere nearly as severely
as they deserve; and the injustice
of executing the innocent (under
a system of punishment that's
illegal).

The latter injustice is much greater
than the former, surely. So as a matter
of law and morality we shouldn't operate
the system unfairly, even though the
atlternative is also signifcantly unjust,
but less so. If we must do something
unjust, we ought to go for the lesser
injustice.

That leaves trying to operate the thing
fairly and legally--and the point is well
taken that the result is an expensive joke.

[E = Fb]

whistle, an instrument found in so many cultures, but is closed to many because you can't help pinning your political and religious views to it.

Boy, this guy gives you lot of credit, Dale. You can personally close off whisle ownership to major portions of the world.

[tinlaw]

Well Dale, I appreciate what you do, so I'm going to try to subscribe to the newsletter again. I'm one of those that signed up, got one, then never heard from you again. It sounds like I'm missing something, so I will try again!

[blackhawk]

Jim, Dale, Herbivore: good discussion, guys (Herb, I can't tell if you're male or female from your screen name...no offense meant in calling you a guy if you're not one). You guys have made me think with your intelligent discourse today. I'm too busy to keep up my end of the argument any further for now, but I've enjoyed today. And thanks for listening to my side of things with respect.

[Sunnywindo]

Well, maybe it's because I'm not a homosexual, but I really wasn't aware that homosexuals as a group had an agenda.

The next time the Heathen Liberal New World Order Cabal (TM) meets, I'll ask about this...now you're got me curious.

--James

I would say any group of people who lobby in Congress for... well, whatever it is, has an agenda. Having an agenda isn't nesscesarily a bad thing, unless you see it as, well... a bad thing. (Man, that sounds wierd, but my heat exahusted sleep deprived brain can't seem to come up with a better way of saying it tonight.) Clearly, not all homosexuals are supportive of what some other homosexuals are trying to promote. Just like how all women don't support everything that NOW (National Organization for Women) is striving to obtain.

But there are groups lobbying out there... such as GLSEN (The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) which seems a bit more reserved compared to say... NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) which is one group that I feel is just plain, well... disturbing. Surely I don't believe all homosexuals support both or any of these two groups... or others out there. But there groups out there with goals (agendas) that they are pushing for every chance they get. And they can have an effect on public policy. Such as the Supreme Court decision to make virtual kiddie lichen ok... doesn't matter now how vile the lichen is, just so long as no real children were photographed in the making of it. Made some at NAMBLA happy anyway.

I'm all for treating homosexuals with the basic kindness and consideration that all people in general deserve. I don't think they should be discriminated against when getting a job just because of their orientation. It doesn't even paticularly matter to me if a gay couple were to move in next door (had a lesbian neighbor in California... nice enough lady). But I do have a problem with some of what some homosexuals are trying to push. And I admit to having a big problem with with any homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) who would look at my young son as an object of lust. But I'm rambling again.... guess I just wanted to clairfy that I didn't mean to come across as painting a whole group of folks with the same paintbrush so to speak. If I did, sorry as that was not my intention.


Also would like to add my thanks to those who have been adding here as I have been finding this discussion on the death penalty really interesting... even though I haven't much to say on the topic right now. It's given me some new things to think about which is refreshing.

*This concludes this broadcast day... we now return you to your regular broadcast death penalty discussing schedule* or something like that....


Sara (who is going to go tuck her overly tired brain in bed... goodnight, sweet dreams, and best wishes to you all....)

[jim_mc]

Grouping homosexuals and pedophiles together is a common practice that people who hate homosexuals like to promote. There is no correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. Members of NAMBLA are not homosexuals. They are pedophiles. Every homosexual I know abhors NAMBLA. (I know hundreds - I'm from New York City - ).

The overwhelming majority of pedophiles prey on children of the opposite gender, or on children of either gender. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with this crime.

If lobbying to be treated with dignity, respect and fairness is an "agenda," I fully support that agenda. I predict that in 20 or 30 years, those people and politicians who currently speak out against gay rights will be looked upon with the same embarassment, disbelief and horror that those who fought to keep the south segregrated in the '50's and '60's are looked upon now.

Marriage seems to me to be a seriously ailing, if not dying, institution. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Something like 75% of married people have violated their wedding vows with affairs. A huge percentage of children are born out of wedlock (I'm thinking I read 30%, but not sure if that's correct). People are getting married later and later in life, if at all. So I don't buy the argument that allowing gay marriages will somehow demean the institution of marriage. It may even breathe some new life into the institution of marriage.

An alternative to allowing gay marriages could be that the benefits which corporations and the government allow to married people be taken away. I think it's only fair. Why should my company pay medical benefits for my wife if they don't have to pay them for a gay employee's life partner? Why should my wife and I be allowed to pay taxes at a lower rate because of our partnership when a neighboring couple doesn't have the same privilige? Does it sound preposterous that these benefits be taken away from me? Well, it sounds just as preposterous to me that gay couples don't enjoy them.

As far as the churches go, my feeling is that any church that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation is no different than a church that discriminates on the basis of race or gender. It's deplorable. The government hasn't done anything because of our long time principle of the separation of church and state, but I wouldn't be surprised if loopholes were found at some point in the future, if churches continue to refuse to end discrimination. Pressure could be put on churches by revoking their tax exemptions, for example. At this point that's more likely to come as a result of discrimination against women, simply because women are a federally protected group.

I think Jim's idea that churches will change from within is the more likely route that things will take, though. Most Christian churches I know of are concerned with being Christian, and eventually they will find a way to extend Christian charity to groups that they currently exclude. You will find justification in the bible for accepting all kinds of people. Christians will find it in their hearts to extend that acceptance to homosexuals.

I'm (just barely) old enough to remember the Latin mass, and I'm certain I'll live to see women as Catholic priests. I've already seen married Catholic priests (Episcopal converts whose marriages continue to be recognized). So I don't doubt that churches can change. And these changes won't kill the churches, nor will it cause lasting harm to them. Hey, think how much better your choir will sound when your church starts being more accepting to homosexuals!

I get pretty emotional about this because I've lost a good number of gay friends to AIDS, alcohol and drug addiction and suicide, and I think that many of these deaths could have been prevented if society didn't condone making life miserable for homosexuals. If you ever witnessed the misery of a teenaged boy struggling with his sexuality against the pressures of his parents, siblings, friends, church, employer and government, or the pain of a girl who turned to drugs to combat the lonliness she faced when her parents threw her out of their house because of her sexuality, you would never suggest that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice." Being hated and ostracized, and suffering through self loathing at the same time is not something a person chooses. They go through it because they have no choice. I refuse to believe that acknowledging, accepting and welcoming these people would amount to spitting in the face of God. I believe that rejecting them in God's name is closer to spitting in God's face.

With all due respect to those who disagree,

Jim