Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    > Maybe the real question here is, if you commit a violent crime and are
    > judged to be criminally insane, then why is it that you cannot get the
    > death penalty? 
    
    In response to this specific question:  At least in most states in the
    U.S., the death penalty is reserved for certain premeditated crimes;
    e.g. first-degree murder.  The insane, almost by definition, are 
    incapable of premeditation; therefore, they CANNOT be convicted of
    any crimes where the death penalty applies.
    
    I'm not commenting as to whether the above is right or wrong; that's
    just the way it is.
    
    As to the more general question of: can we eliminate "BAD people" from
    society........ that's a stickier one.  On the one hand, Lazarus Long's
    idea that there are some people who do not deserve to live certainly
    strikes a responsive chord in me.  On the other hand, I wonder who
    would sit in judgement as to who lives and who dies, and what standards
    would be applied.
    
    Think about it... premeditated murder?  No question that the murderer
    should be executed, right?  Oh, but a cycle of abuse drove the murderer
    to kill hir abuser?  Hmmm... does that mean that murder is OK as long
    as the victim is "more bad" than the murderer?
    
    I really, truly have no answers... only myriad questions...  [If you
    want an answer, maybe you should ask a man 8-) 8-) 8-) ]
    
    --jim
    

    Perhaps the person handing out the sentences (assuming said person
    had a fair trail and is proven guilty and insane) should be those
    people left in the wake and destruction afterwards.  You know, like
    family and friends of the person murdered.  If a parent doesn't think
    another should die for killing their child, then maybe they shouldn't.
    
    
    
                                   L.J.

the sociopathic personality is recognized in psychiatry...this is the person
who is not insane in the "classic" sense, yet who has no "moral compass"
to encourage "correct" behavior.  The sociopath feels no shame/remorse when 
committing a crime, nor does he/she feel any compulsion to NOT commit
an act which will benefit the perpretrator in some perceived fashion, whatever
the cost to others.  I've read that psychiatrists believe the sociopath
cannot be cured -- and presents the most danger to society at large.  In
one article I read (source is long ago and not remembered) several famous
serial killers were described as sociopathic personalities, Ted Bundy
being one.

This is, in my opinion, the closest we can come to the truly evil or
"bad" person - someone who must be removed from society permanently.
The sociopath is also described as "untreatable" in psychiatry.  If there
is no "motivator" to restrain murderous thoughts when a person feels
rage, for instance, then there is nothing to prevent murder.  From what
I've read, the reason the sociopath does not develop that motivator to
"do right" is not well understood, nor does there seem to be a treatment
for the disorder.  I do not feel we can safely assume that the
sociopath, or anyone who steps over that "line" between acceptable and
unacceptable behavior, has suffered brain damage of some kind or another...
nor may we assume, without further evidence, that there is any physical
manifestation of the condition.  Perhaps, it is simply that these
humans do not feel a part of any group/tribe/family/species - if they
feel truly DIFFERENT from the rest of us in an intense and profound way,
perhaps that is what allows them to commit such horrible crimes against
us.  

Man is, by nature, a predator, and that means that our species is
aggressive, capable of killing, and, most frightening, capable of
enjoying the hunt and kill...in primitive ages, these characteristics
made if possible for our ancestors to survive...these characteristics
COMBINED with the need to bond with, spend time with, our fellow
creatures, the need to be a member of a tribe or group, that sense of
"US" rather than just "ME", form the base on which the human character 
is formed.  The humans have always needed laws to govern behavior because 
the potential for violence and aggression when we are face to face is 
so strong.  Perhaps the sociopaths are simply those whose primitive 
instincts are stronger than their need to be members of our tribe..they 
are, therefore, willing and able to committ acts which they know will 
cause us to force them OUT and away from the rest of us...or even kill
them.

Can we prevent their occurrance?  I believe that there must be ways to
raise children to encourage their sense of being "part of the tribe",
yet their own individual selves, unique and yet "accepted" and loved.
If we can find the way to do this for all children, perhaps we will
stop seeing sociopathic behavior...but, we must also stop feeding
images of violence to our young.  The young have all our primitive
predator instincts, and a very shakey veneer of "civilization" over
them -- it takes conditioning for years to establish a strong veneer
of civilization....a great deal of "brainwashing" is required before
we can suppress the instinctive response to rage, for instance.  WE
MUST STOP SHOWING OUR CHILDREN THE IMAGES OF RAGE UNCHECKED, LUST
UNCHECKED, AND HATRED UNCHECKED if we hope to train them to suppress the
natural instinctive behavior to which we are all, at some level,
subject.  I think we grow our own monsters by allowing them to see
too much of our own fantasies.

Now, before anyone accuses me of self-hate, I wish to say that I know
we all have the potential for violence but I also know that we have
created that veneer of civilization that allows us to interact with
one another in safety - and I admire this characteristic of humans
most of all...our ability to perceive our own limitations and devise
methods to control, channel, and USE them as strengths...for instance,
our natural agression has, over eons, become a strong drive to KNOW
things, discover new territory, and gain new knowlege.  Humans are
the most fascinating of animals - worthy of a life-time or two of
study.

    I have a three step approach to killers like Ted Bundy.
    
    	1. Arrest them
    	2. Convict them
    	3. 72 hrs. after conviction kill them
    
    
    		Wayne

    I remember being told in a high school biology class that a large
    percentage of sociopathic criminals have an extra Y-chromosome.  It's
    theorized that this is the reason they're usually "uncurable" by
    psychiatric means - it's a physical problem.
    
    ~ginny

"are there BAD people?"  Reading the title, I
thought this would be a topic about picky eaters
and people who park in the handicapped spots.

Dan

    I think there are some people who are innately "bad," as there are some
    people who are innately "good."  Both these groups, in my view, are
    vanishingly small on a percentage basis.  These people, both the "good"
    ones and the "bad" ones,  are mentally deranged -- sick --  but the
    "good" ones don't come in conflict with society's rules and so escape
    being labeled as sick.
    
    Most people are born neutral, neither "good" nor "bad" -- and, like
    every other species of mammal, learn their "goodness" or "badness"
    through their environments.  Most of us turn out "good" because our
    environments are largely shaped by the morals of a "good" society and
    so we learn "goodness" as the pro-survival way of life.  To postulate
    the opposite tack, consider the many "primitive" societies such as the
    New Guinea cannibals (who were so afflicted with kuru) or the Jivaro of
    Brazil.  The cannibals thought cannibalism was good (and probably still
    do), so the norm was to grow up being a cannibal.  The Jivaro thought
    killing a person and shrinking hir head was good, so that's what they
    grew up learning to do.  If our society considered either of these
    behaviors "good," we'd grow up learning them and adhering to them as
    tenets of "goodness."
    
    -d

    Don't know if it's 'innate' but there seem to be a lot of people who
    have never been taught that there *is* such a thing as right or wrong.
    Given my choice, I'd take a neighbor who lived by _any_ moral code
    over one who lived by _no_ moral code. 

    
    I thingk that I'd tend to believe the "too many x or y or z
    chromozomes" theory.  I think that we jump too quickly at the idea that
    this person is "bad" because they grew up eating moldy bread or Mom
    kissed him/her goodnight on the left foot. There are too many people
    who grew up in 'bad' environments to blame childhood for everything. 
    
    And of course there are always those Jeffrey Dalmers out there whos
    parents can't understand why he is the way he is because aside from 
    skinning animals as a child, he was always such a good boy.....
    
    So what do we do when we see a "bad person" growing up? What of the 13
    year old boy who sets fires to the house, is already sexually molesting 
    other little kids, and is displaying all of the same symptoms of a
    Charles Manson Jr.? Surely we can't decide THEN that this potential
    sociapath is a FUTURE sociapath...but in alot of cases we CAN see that
    Jr. is a time bomb waiting to join the evil side of society.
    What do we do here? 
    And even taking that one step futher (!) What if this particular Jr.
    WAS sexually himself by his babysitter when he was 5 years old?? Is he
    BAD? Did someone MAKE him bad? Are all victims of sexual abuse
    potentially BAD? I would say not. So what makes Jr. react with violence
    in HIS case? The XYZ chromosome?
    
    Cathy
    

I don't know if there are people who are intrinsically bad, but I have had
some experience of a sociopath, and I can tell you that he was a truely
frightening person (though I hadn't the sense to be scared enough to avoid
angering him with the truth, at the time).  You who know me, directly and/or
from my notes, can you imagine me recognizing someone passed out on the side
of the road, and leaving him there?  I did this man.  I may be crazy, but I'm
no fool.

As to restraint/punishment of such a person.  The hardest part is that though
I recognized that this man was truely deranged, he is VERY smart and is very
good at first impressions.  He is not so impulsive that he cannot see, and 
avoid, actions that would have bad (for him) consequences.  All this means that
he had done (been caught at doing) nothing for which you could arrest or
convict him.  And until/unless he does, you can't touch him.  Even if he did
do something 'convictable', the defining characteristics of a sociopath are
so elusive that you can argue forever about whether or not this instance fits
the (current) definition, making the appropriate sentence (death, or life in
prison <solitary being safest for everyone else in the world>) difficult to
determine.

All this makes "justice" a very hard thing to deliver.

Sara

    In regard to whether there are bad people, I think that all people are
    a mixture of good and bad, and that most people have more good in them
    than bad, although with many people it may be only slightly more good
    than bad.  (But, if there weren't more good than bad the world would be 
    in even more of a mess than it already is.  I do, however, think the
    world would be a lot nicer if more people had a larger percentage of
    good in them, than bad.)  I don't tend to believe in absolutes so I
    don't think that there are any people who totally good or totally bad. 
    But, if a person's makeup is mostly bad and they then go on to kill
    someone then I don't think the small percentage of good they may have
    in them matters much.  (Who cares if somebody once shoveled snow for an
    elderly lady if they later go on to murder several innocent people?)
    
    I'm not sure whether I think that all, or most, of the people
    who are mostly bad are sociopaths or if they have simply chosen to be
    "bad."  I'm also not sure if I think it matters much when it comes to
    punishment or cures or whatever.  I do believe that we should have a
    death penalty.  I do think that the legal system in this country is too
    lax in that regard, and I am more concerned about the safety of all the
    mostly good, innocent people who are living their lives harmlessly than
    I am about the rights of a few sociopaths.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    The issues of the death penalty and of who is "beyond repair" are ones
    that I'm still turning over, and over, and over.  I worked for a summer
    in a maximum security prison and met all sorts of people with all sorts
    of reasons for doing what they did -- rage, greed, pain, and numbness.
    It was certainly a lot easier to understand those who committed crimes
    out of anger or greed than those who committed crimes out of some
    absence of conscience, some lack of connectedness with other humans.
    
    There's a frighteningly fine line between the person on the street and
    many of the people in prison.  In some cases, these people were behind
    bars because of a single decision, made under extreme stress and in the
    midst of a volatile situation.  It was fairly easy to make the mental
    leap and picture myself in their shoes.  Even with some of the hardcore
    career criminals, I could understand what had shaped their behavior.
    
    There were probably a small number of sociopaths in the prison, and
    I would guess that they were the inmates most feared by the rest
    of the population, and probably the ones that spent the most time in
    solitude (in many ways).
    
    One of the speakers that came to give a presentation to the guards
    and other prison workers was a well-respected sociologist who spent
    a total of 50 years studying criminal behavior.  His estimate was
    that somewhere around 90% of the prison population could be
    rehabilitated given the time, money, and skill (and more importantly,
    the will to do it on the part of penal institutions).  The rest, in
    his view, could not be rehabilitated because of the lack of any
    connection to other people or to a viable moral framework.  What
    happens to these few is the moral barometer which shows the level
    of compassion that the imprisoning society is willing to support.
    
    Given all this, I'm still somewhat on the fence, but leaning away
    from the death penalty.  I expect that I would not be able to pull
    the switch.  But then again, maybe that's one of those single decisions
    that's made differently under the influence of rage and hurt.  In
    some ways the lack of connectedness that's apparent in the sociopath
    is mirrored the final severing of connections when the switch is pulled.
    
    Ron
    
    ps.  There's an interesting piece on the death penalty in William
    Styron's "This Quiet Dust" (I hope I have the title correct).

    re. Charles Manson
    
    I'm _totally_ in the dark about why this man chose his direction; but
    it seems to me that his pre-dominant character traits are what are
    generally designated as 'good' in our society:  strength of will, a
    charismatic ability to influence, commitment to purpose, ...
    
    re. X's, Y's, & Z's
    
    Abnormal pathologies are a factor in many cases; however, they do not
    account for someone like Diane Downs -- a woman with no pathological
    abnormatilites that nevertheless views children as a frangible
    commodity -- didn't worry about killing the three she had as she could
    always have more.
    
    re. death penalty
    
    while there are certainly people I wish dead [or better still, never
    born]; I can't support killing them.
    
    re. blaming the childhood
    
    Yes, lots of people grow up under hellish circumstances and don't "go
    bad."  However, if growing up under hellish circumstances is even _one_
    contributing factor to death, disaster, pain and violence it's a good
    idea to work to end them [humanitarian reasons failing as a motivating
    factor].  No, they should not excuse; but they shouldn't be left out of
    the explanation.
    
      Annie

    further to 'excising the bad' ...
    
    the concept of designating 'badness' and eliminating the faulty
    specimens evokes in me 'memories' of past [and current] attempts at
    this.
    
      - exterminating the chronically un-employed in Nazi Germany
    	 [also Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, ...]
      - sterilising 'mental defectives' Germany, the state of Virginia, ...
      - exposing girl-babies and aborting female fetuses
       ... and more
    
    These may seems like extreme examples, but they are documented, real
    attempts at weeding out the undesirable in societies.
    
    Someone[s] made these determinations. And these someone[s] weren't
    intrinsically 'bad.'
    
    I believe that killing human beings, torturing animals, and raping anyone
    is 'bad' -- and I expect that most here would agree with me.  But I
    also believe that suicide is a personal choice and that the death
    penalty is 'Bad' -- many here would _not_ agree with me.
    
    I worry about who gets to decide.  I worry about the tyranny of the
    majority.
    
      Annie

well Annie, you are right imo on all counts in .13 & .14

it's a scary world sometimes

    
    We were just talking about "The Exorcist", the movie and "Evil".
    I don't know how many of you read the book when it came out, but
    the first chapter gave examples or REAL evil that happened as a
    lead in to "there IS a devil"...
    one of the "evils" that sticks in my mind after all of this time
    was the one where some group of people took over a boys school and
    tortured all of the boys (8, 9 years old..) and stuck drum sticks
    through their ears...
    
    In Time magazine a few weeks back, their feature article was "EVIL">
    In it, they talked about many such 'Evils' that actually happened.
    The one there that stands out in my mind here is the one of a mom who got
    up and fed her three kids a nice nutritious breakfast, then strangled
    them all to death and went off to work....
    
    Scary to think that that kind of evil DOES exist and that we are still
    straddling the fence on how to deal with it. 
    
    If we look at 'evil' as a cancer on humanity, instead of letting a
    tumour grow or waiting to see if it gets better on itself (which
    usually doesn't happen and the patient dies) we jump in and kill it,
    get rid of it and prevent it from causing greater damage. From
    my perspective, there are people out there who are a cancer and we
    cannot afford to see if they will get better or not. 
    Hard line maybe, but how many lives are we willing to sacrifice to see 
    if XX murdered is cured?
    
    Cathy
    

    
     Even though in this case I'll be in contradiction with my 
    notesfile personal name....   
    
      I believe it's a physical problem with these people, and they
    should NOT be exempt from capital punishment.
    
    Jack
    

    re: .16 (Cathy)
    
         You may or may not be interested, but this was discussed at 
    some length in BOMBE::DEJAVU a couple of years ago.  "Is there
    evil?" (or something like that.)  There were lots of opinions 
    voiced.
    
    Frederick
    

    re .16, Cathy, I agree with you 100%  I think it is more important to
    protect the lives of normal people than to worry about helping "evil"
    people.
    
    Lorna
    

    IMO, if killing people is wrong, killing people is wrong.

    If I believe that there is that of God in everyone, *every* one, then I
    can not agree that capital punishment has any place in this world.  I
    know there are many people in this file who consider me naive beyond
    belief.  That is your prerogative.  I consider anyone who thinks that
    capital punishment has any affect on crime rates to be naive beyond
    belief.

    E Grace

    Maybe no effect on crime rates, but recidivism goes to zero.

>    Maybe no effect on crime rates, but recidivism goes to zero.
    
    Hey, strangle everyone in the cradle and I bet the crime rate will
    drop, too.
    
    Ray

    RE: 21
    
    Recidivism may go to zero, but the crime rate increases. Increases
    in murders follow executions, and those states with the death penalty
    have the highest crime rates. These facts have been documented by
    Amnesty International, which fights the death penalty.
    
    Eileen
    
    RE: 22 Ray
    
    I really enjoy your notes!

    re .22

    It's make a sizable dent in the overpopulation problem as well.
    Maybe you're on to something there...

    
    
    re .23
    
    Does anyone have any theories on why the crime rate might go up after
    an execution? Is it coincidental?
    
    My concern is the number of repeat offenders are out there on the
    streets. If a man is capable of cold blooded murder (or molesting
    children or rape) without showing any signs of remorse, then is it
    fair to the rest of society to 'punish' this person (like punishing
    your rabid dog and then letting him loose again--he WILL bite someone
    else) and letting him walk amongst unsuspecting people again?  Odds are
    there WILL be another victim. 
    
    Cathy
    

    I don't know what causes the number of murders to go up following
    an execution, Cathy, but my guess is that an execution teaches people
    that it is okay to kill to solve your problems. Regarding allowing
    people out on the street who are likely to kill again, there is a
    lot of distance between the death penalty and releasing people to
    the streets. I personally think that humane incarceration is the
    answer for people who can't maintain control.
    
    Eileen

 Re.: .14 (MEMIT::JOHNSTON, Annie)
      "...
      - exterminating the chronically un-employed in Nazi Germany
    	 [also Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, ...]
      - sterilising 'mental defectives' Germany, the state of Virginia, ...
      ..."
    
    Annie, forgive my nitpicking (I agree with you on the issue):
    
    The nazi Germany started to eliminate the unemployment with
    revving up the military production and construction of highways
    and some other labor-intensive programs, later on building up the armed
    forces and para-military organisations. The homeless were considered
    parasitary and prosecuted. (In communist countries the unemployment
    was also deemed criminal and unemplyment was an offence. I know some
    people there who were deprived of the jobs first and next sentenced
    for beeing out of work for more than three months.)
    The mentally ill and physically handicapped persons were the first
    to be routinely murdered (gas, injections, hunger, exposure). This
    experience was later on used on larger scale in extermination camps.
    The criminals were 'preventively' detained, mainly in concentration
    camps. This was because they were considered incurable (as well
    as homosexuals). The criminals formed usually part of the
    infamous power structure in the concentration camps and were
    terrorising other inmates (kapos; der Kapo). The separation and
    elimination of criminals was also in use in communist countries.
    
    The separation of incurable < .. fill-in appropriate word ..> people,
    eventually murdering them (just to eliminate the danger from the society
    and save the food and other ressources) was part of the medical thinking
    from 18th and 19th centuries and were not invented or used in Germany only.
    (The organisation and the scale are unmatched as well as the inactivity
    of the population.) I have also met - not only in german speaking countries
    - some older MDs who still supported some of these ideas.)
    
    The psychology is still working on this issue, there is an excellent
    (Penguin?) paperback by Eysenck: Psychology is about people, where
    he discusses the hereditary/environmental issues as well as lots
    of other 'hot' topics, like learning, sex, pornography etc. There
    are some older books by Dr. Harris, where an attempt of the
    explanation of criminal behavior is made from the viewpoint of
    Transaction Analysis (interestingly enough, quite few german war
    criminals were interviewed by TA developers).
     
    The idea that faulty (incurable) individuals could/ought/should
    be eliminated (i.e. killed) terrifies me. The end does not justify
    the means, that is the difference between a criminal and non-criminal;
    i.e. a potential gain does not justify a death penalty.
                                                     
    Josef.

    
    
    lets take the case of Jeffry Dalmer. If he is found to be guilty
    ofraping, then murdering, the eating many boys, and if he does not
    show any kind of remorse for his actions, then should we risk his
    escaping prison? And should we continue to provide him with a place
    to live and grow old, in alot of cases with a higher standard of living
    then other human beings on this planet who have NOT committed crimes?
    
    And back to the idea of "are there bad people", can we say that he
    can be "cured", or is he the rabid dog? 
    
    If we believe that there is "God in everyone", then believing in the
    existance of God, we must also believe in the existance of "Satan".
    Why would it be so difficult, if we don't want to acknowledge the
    possiblity that some 'brains' are flat 'defective', to believe that
    this person is just plain EVIL?
    
    You're right though. Who would make the decision...that's the scary
    part.
    
    Cathy
    

    RE: -1
    
    I don't think Jeffrey Dalmer (sp?) should be killed. He is obviously
    severely deranged, and I at least do not want to live in a
    society that kills to solve its problems. To me, taking the chance 
    that he will escape (not very many prisoners do) is better than
    prolonging murder as a solution to problems. As for the standard of 
    living in prisons being better than that of some people who are not 
    in prison, I think that that is an urban legend similar to the one 
    that says people are living luxuriously on welfare. There was a 
    feature on 60 Minutes recently about prisons that showed conditions 
    that were barbaric to say the least.
    
    Eileen  
    
    

    Eileen, you didn't perchance live in Boston when Albert DeSalvo 
    escaped, did you?

    RE: Dana
    
    Yes, as a matter of fact I did, and my position stands.
    
    E.
    

      Eileen,
    
    I respect your position and willingness to stad by what you believe.
    
    You said <to me, taking the chance that he will escape is better than
    prolonging murder as a solution to problems>.
    
    As a Mom who is already a nervous wreck about what nuts are out there
    ready to snatch up my kids at the drop of a hat (especially lately:-(
    I don't agree. I have always felt that the lawyers who KNOWINGLY let
    rapists and child molestors and murderers go, should have to take
    them home to live with them.
    
    I feel the same way in this situation. Since *I* am at risk, and my
    children are at risk every second that people like him are allowed
    to live, I think that *I* would feel more comfortable knowing that
    that 'chance' was eliminated. 
    
    I tend to think of it more along the lines of "removing a proven
    cancer from society" as opposed to 'killing' someone.  I think that
    some "people" have forfeited their right to be called Human Beings.
    
    Cathy
    

    I have a real hard time believing someone like Dahmer showing any
    amount of "remorse".  I *might* be able to buy this if he only killed
    one person.  But, this guy killed quite a few folks.  Seems to me his
    only *remorse* would be that he got caught, not for the act itself.
    
    
    
                                 L.J.

>   I feel the same way in this situation. Since *I* am at risk, and my
>    children are at risk every second that people like him are allowed
>    to live, I think that *I* would feel more comfortable knowing that
>    that 'chance' was eliminated. 

   There are documented cases of innocent people ending up on death row.
   I may have my source wrong here, but I believe one such story is told
   in the book/movie "The Thin Blue Line".  Like it or not, you and your
   kids are also at risk for this.

    The death penalty is typically not administered for such a long period
    of time after the initial conviction that it's probably not eliminating
    as much risk as you'd like to believe anyway.

>   I tend to think of it more along the lines of "removing a proven
>    cancer from society" as opposed to 'killing' someone.

    "Proof" (in the criminal justice system) is "beyond a reasonable doubt".  
    It is NOT 100%.  There HAVE been mistakes.  I would liken it to a
    group of doctors voting on whether or not a tumor is cancerous after
    seeing some lab data, but not having done a biopsy.  There will continue
    to be mistakes.  Unlike real cancers, you cannot examine the person
    for irrefutable evidence of past deeds.

    There are other ways to lessen the chances of escape.  Whether or not
    they're a good use of societal resources is another story... but if
    the reason for killing inmates is to lessen their chances of escape, it 
    is an expediency and should be regarded as such.  There ARE other ways.

        Sharon



    

>   If we believe that there is "God in everyone", then believing in the
>   existance of God, we must also believe in the existance of "Satan".

No.

>   Why would it be so difficult, if we don't want to acknowledge the
>   possiblity that some 'brains' are flat 'defective', to believe that
>   this person is just plain EVIL?

He has that of God in him. He is a child of God, no less than you or I. Who
are we to judge him and condemn him to death? If God were just, rather than
merciful, EVERYONE would be condemned to death, no?

	-- Charles

    

That Dahlmer, and others who harm/kill, must be removed from society...we are
all in agreement on this.  The only question becomes HOW to remove this
individual.

I know it can be quite satisfying to destroy such creatures - there is a 
feeling of safety once he/she is dead, but I also fear making death an easy,
efficient option for solving our social ills.  Right now, it is costly, 
very frustrating to many, and time-consuming to actually kill an individual
once his/her conviction calls for the death penalty.  I am of a mind that
it should remain so.  Let us take the time and experience the frustation
before we, as a society, are allowed to kill...it is serious and permanent
and should never be taken lightly.

We don't know why the Dahlmers out there happen...but, we do know that they 
are not "normal", and this knowlege leads to the question of whether it is 
"humane" to destroy a deranged, perhaps insane human, one who cannot truly 
understand what has been done, nor what will be done to him/her.  I don't
have flip answers for this question.  I do however, know that the person
who commits such a crime against the tribe must be forever separated from
the tribe in some manner such that further crimes may not be committed.

I also believe that we must keep the Ted Bundys and Dahlmers alive long enough
to try and figure out HOW they came to be...and perhaps this can lead us to
the knowlege of how we can prevent them from occurring at all.  I suspect
that each of these creatures is the result of both genetic defect and
horrible child abuse/neglect.  And, sadly, they are also products of this
society that is so willing to show scenes of violence on TV and in
movies...while refusing to educate our children about their feelings about
sex/love/lust and how this can be twisted into a response to violent images.
We humans must learn to recognize our own natures - and we must
learn to teach our children that, while aggression/violence is part of the 
human psyche, it must be channeled, controlled, redirected into useful and
humane behaviors.  We are not teaching our children how to see and understand
their own natures - and we are leaving them defenseless against themselves.

>        <<< Note 1043.36 by TYGON::WILDE "why am I not yet a dragon?" >>>
>                         -< lets keep it hard to kill >-

	Well, TYGON::WILDE, while you are building your utopia, what
	should the rest of us do with these monsters ?

	Anybody care to think how often prisoners a) escape from
	prison, and b) kill and torture other prisoners ?

	I was waiting for this topic to degenerate into the hand-wringing
	so common to folks who, it seems, have never been exposed to
	violent crime.

	Let me tell you about my stomach-wrenching encounter with
	one of these animals, and the results of his depravity.

	I lived in a small town years ago.  The police department
	didn't have the bucks to have a photographer on staff, so
	they called reputable freelancers in town when there was
	a crime scene to shoot.  I'd seen burglar scenes, even a
	buddy of mine who took a .357 magnum to his own forehead.

	But I was not prepared for what I encountered when I was called
	to the hospital emergency room.  There, on the gurney, was
	an 18-month old baby girl.  From the doorway, it looked as if
	she was wearing shorts or something.  When I got closer, I
	saw that it was diaper rash.  I mean, this girl's entire
	pelvic area looked almost burned, blistered.

	Her head was bruised up.  Her eyes were swollen shut.  She was
	dead.

	I took the requisite photos, turned the film over to the cops,
	and was subsequently subpoenaed as a witness in the case.

	I saw the autopsy photos.  Huge subdural hematoma ( bruise
	under the skull ).  She had been beaten to death with a glass
	milk bottle.

	The "caretaker", one Wendell Tyler Turner, had bashed her about
	the head with the bottle, while the diaper rash and who knows
	what-else had gone un-cared for.

	I don't hate people, generally.  I may strongly disagree,
	be disgusted, think they're idiots, or whatever...but I
	don't hate them.  This guy, I hated.  I mean, I was filled
	with loathing when he walked into the courtroom.  I SAW what
	he had done !  It was not abstract "crime".  He was not
	"misguided", "unfortunate", etc, etc, ad nauseum.

	So, here's the kicker.  He was sent to a psychiatric evaluation
	hospital.

	AND RELEASED TWO YEARS LATER !  After the murder of a baby !

	Sorry, but when I saw this guy walking past the junior high school
	in town, I just about went ballistic !  

	It's not right that a guy like this is out amongst a town full
	of innocent children, and you'll never convince me otherwise.

	Steve H

    it's funny.  here I am in Vermont, the safest state in the Union; it
    ranked 51st (included DC) in both absolute and per capita instance of
    violent crime, as reported on NPR a few (2-3) weeks back.  And yet, the
    violent criminals that there are, or at least the ones that seem to get
    media coverage, are violent sadistic rapist torturer murderers, often
    repeaters.  I won't gag you with the description of the latest of these
    criminals, but he is a serial offender, convicted partly on evidence
    developed on a tip from his own son.  As a woman, as a mother of
    children, I fear this man to the tips of my toes.  I concede that there
    is a bit of god in this human; but then my concept of god is not all
    nice (I've read the OT, among other things).  I am finding it harder
    and harder to see, in practical reality, how we as a society can solve
    the problems posed by such criminals.  And harsh penalties are
    attractive, in that they at the least ameliorate the effects of such
    criminals on society, by removing them from it permanently.

    re. 27
    
    just to clear things up ... I included a reference to the state of
    Virginia in this country [US] because I know that the highly publicised
    selections under the Nazi purification plan are _far_ from being unique.
    
    in the aftermath of WWII many Germans were condemned for actions that
    were relatively commonplace in western cultures.  I am not so arrogant
    or so naive that I believe that artificial selections were an aberration or
    that they are limited to Germanic people.
    
    Pax,
      Annie

    Re: 37
    
       So, if you had the chance to get your hands on this guy, what would
    you do to him?  I believe a person's actions has a lot to do with what
    or who they are controlled by.  Just as this world has 2 (two) "super
    powers", so does the worlds that are unseen: If an individual has not
    the Holy spirit within them, then that person is apt to do anything. If
    you have the spirit of Almighty God, then your mind is controlled by
    his word and one of his fruits are "Self control".
    
    
    
    Lorenzo
    

    Re.: .39 MEMIT::JOHNSTON
    
    Annie,
    
    I was attempting to stress that quite few ideas the nazi Germany
    practiced came originally from other countries, U.S, Italy,
    France, U.K. (no priority implied in this list) and were also
    applied in communist dictatorships. I won't use the means
    these regimes did use, never and nowhere. Beeing raised in
    a communist country I could watch other dictatorship in action
    and from this experience I oppose death penalty and all sorts
    of dehumanizing punishments, as they de-humanize all involved.
    (I had long discussions with people who were victims of red, brown or both
    regimes; some members of my family did not survive, either.) 
    
    There is or should be quite a difference between a dictatorship
    and a free country, even in the area how to handle a crime.
    
    There are people who commit crimes, and there is no way neither to prevent
    nor stop that except to kill every newborn in a craddle (which is
    another crime too).   
    
    Pax, peace, pacem, paix, shalom, salaam aleikum, mir, Friede:
    
    
    Josef.
    
    P.S.: Few quotes from H.J. Eysenck, Psychology is about people:
    'People who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.'
    'There is nothing more fearful than ignorance in action.'
    'It is wrong, always, anywhere, and for everyone, to believe
    anything upon insufficient evidence.'
    

>    There are people who commit crimes, and there is no way neither to prevent
>    nor stop that except to kill every newborn in a craddle (which is
>    another crime too).   
    

	Oh, gosh.  We've got a problem here.  A serial murderer can
	be stopped.  We, as a society, can insure that he never
	endangers an innocent again.

	The problem is that we won't do this.  We would rather endanger
	future innocents than apply the ultimate sanction to a known
	threat.  This seems cockeyed, to me.

	All I ask is that the criminals be separated PERMANENTLY from
	society.  If this means putting them in a cell for life, and
	bricking up the wall, then so be it.  If it means lethal
	injection, then OK.

	But to allow a guy who rapes a 14-year old, then chops her arms
	off with an axe, free after a few years in jail, is a travesty.

	How'd you and your family like to have that cherub move next door ?

	Nice as it sounds, forgiveness, counselling, prayer, supplication
	to the current psychiatric deity will not fix these people.
	Psychiatrists don't even understand madness, now....not to mention
	being able to "fix" it.

	Until we can give a Ted Bundy or Wendell Tyler Turner a shot and
	have them absolutely "fixed", we must protect the innocents
	in our society from the known threats.

	Steve H

    re .42
    
    Very well said.  I completely agree.
    
    Karen

    
    reply .40
    
    Well then since you asked....(what would you do if YOU captured this
    man  )  We happened to discuss that very topic here at work yesterday
    in relation to a 13 year old girl who has been missing for over a
    week now....
    
    we decided that he should NOT be put to death...at least not right 
    away....he should be tortured...every day...at the same time so he
    has something to look forward to....and he should a knife...a dull
    knife...so that he can take his own life at whatever time he decides
    that he truly IS the coward SKUM that he is. 
    
    Yup....guess I'm not that all caring and good and loving when it
    comes to shild kidnappers and murderers and molesters...(I do tend
    to get a little emotional when it comes to children)!
    
    P.S  I don't want to rat hole here, but it seems to me that God has a
    little bit of a vengeful side to him as well.....as in the 'wrath of
    God'. If there is God in all of us, then I would assume that we are
    alos entitled to a little wrath....but *I* won't cause a flood that
    will destroy millions of innocent lives :-)
    
    Cathy

    Fine!  But please put in a form feed for those of us who do not wish to
    read sick torture scenarios!
    
    E Grace

I could not become a torturer, even of a torturer.  At least, I will not.  I
wish I didn't agree with Steve in .42, but I do.  My personal preference would
be for lifetime solitary, but a quick and painless death in cases where we
know beyond doubt (and there *are* such cases) the guilt of the person
convicted of a heinous crime, would not be abhorrent to me personally.

Now I might not always agree where a such death penalty should be applied; for
instance, I do not think killing a police officer is more heinous than several
of the examples mentioned just in this string.  This is one reason I tend to
go for lifetime solitary.

Sara

p.s. somehow it seems relevant to mention that Klaus Barbie died today.

    I think a lifetime of confinement, with no hope of parole, would 
    be more cruel than a quick death. 
    
    Other problems - cost, and the fact that such prisoners have no
    reason to behave while in prison. (Guards' worst nightmare.)

    
    re .44 (Me)
    
    
    more torture talk here.  but not TOO bad...
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Sorry if I made anyone throw up.... I meant to say   "GIVE him a dull
    knife" not to imply torture him with one.....
    
    there....much better.
    
    
    And sorry, I can't really agree with worrying so much about applying
    and "quick and painless death" to the likes of Jeffrey Dalmer. 
    Perhaps if others saw that it wouldn't be such an easy way out, and
    that the consequences of their actions might be a little less than
    pleasant, they wouyld reconsider.  Since most of us agree that they are
    all basically cowards anyways, seems that there may even be some sort
    of deterent affect from this, to would be maniacs! 
    
    Cathy (no, I'm not really a torture monger type...I just get REAL
    angry with our helpless hopeless choices)

    re .42, I agree with you, too.  I'd vote for the lethal injection over
    life in prison, as that way we know they're gone for good.  
    
    Also, the issue of preventing crime is one thing, but I think some of
    these people just deserve to be punished for the horrible things
    they've done to others.  The idea of torture is sickening but these
    people have already tortured other people and deserve to get a taste of
    it themselves, imo.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re: .47 We could give them a choice; life in prison or death by
    whatever means they'd prefer.  I haven't given the others any 
    thought.
    
    CQ

torture is torture is torture.  I won't do it.  I won't willingly subject
anyone to it.

    re .51, I can't imagine wanting to torture another person (or animal)
    either.  The thought of it makes me feel sick.  But, I still have no
    objection to a convicted murderer being given a lethal injection.  (I
    don't think it should be turned into entertainment, either, by being
    shown on tv or having a live audience of gawking on-lookers.)
    And, if someone were to kill a person I loved, I might not mind
    torturing them a bit if I had an opportunity.  As much as I hate
    violence, I see nothing wrong with executing criminals who have
    tortured and killed innocent victims.  I don't see why society should
    be expected to sit back and accept such behavior.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Lorna,
    
    I think that society would rather take a passive role in all of this
    violence that is growing around us, because it makes us feel that 
    deep down, we're really good people. 
    Instead, it should make us realize that us "good" people will soon
    find ourselves prisoners in our own homes with doors locked and
    bars in the windows (unlike Detroit of course...).
    
    I think it's time that we take a stand and say "we're tired as hell and
    we're NOT going to take it anymore". 
    
    Cathy

    Hmmm... just some random ramblings, mostly unconnected to each
    other:
    
    What good does *punishment* do?  If what we're talking about are
    TRUE sociopaths, then punishment does nothing.  Some of my earliest
    memories of being a tyke involve punishment:  at the time, I couldn't
    connect the act of being punished with ANYTHING else.  All I knew
    was that Mommie and Daddie were being mean to me.  It wasn't until
    LATER (age 7 or so) that I started to figure out the "lessons" they 
    were trying to teach me (as in, "That'll teach him a lesson!").  A
    true sociopath may very well be locked into the 2-year-old's mindset,
    at least as far as punishment is concerned...
    
    When I hear people longing for slow, painful punishment for the
    torturer/rapist/murderer, I think what they're REALLY looking for
    is to inflict on the perpetrator the same amount of pain that
    was inflicted on the victims.  But will this really do any good?
    Will it open the eyes of the perpetrator to the gravity of what
    s/he did?  Hardly likely....
    
    At the same time, I once drew an analogy between the penal system
    and the trash crisis:  In both cases, we have "refuse" that we
    want to be rid of, be it human or material.  What are the options?
    
    	- Landfilling (i.e. jail and throw away the key).  Well,
    	  this leaks "toxins" into the environment, and good
    	  landfills/jails are expensive to build.  Also, nobody
    	  wants one in hir backyard, so finding places to put
    	  them becomes a daunting task.
    
    	- Incineration (i.e. "Fry Ted Bundy").  Well, this tends to
    	  succeed in getting the offending article out of our lives,
    	  and the ashes are much less toxic and easier to dispose
    	  of.  But you can't incinerate EVERYTHING, and it does seem
    	  to be a waste of possibly usable material...
    
    	- Recycling (i.e. rehabilitation).  Sounds great in theory,
    	  but when you get right down to it, only a small subset
    	  of the input yields EASILY to this method.
    
    Each method is better for some kinds of material than others... and
    so it goes with people.  But none of these really solves the problem.
    
    The big word in trash these days is "source reduction" -- generating
    less trash in the first place so that what's left is more manageable.
    Similarly with people -- we have to get to the bottom of WHY some
    people become sociopathic and why others, even though they may have
    a conscience, commit mayhem anyway.  I sometimes get the feeling that
    those in power deliberaly REFUSE to take a good, hard look at the
    root causes of crime because the solution will be a bitter pill
    indeed.  It will involve such things as: redistribution of opportunity
    so that fewer people have utterly hopeless lives; becoming MUCH more
    open about sexuality so that sexual abuse and dysfunction can be made
    known and corrected sooner; providing TRUE advocacy for the
    disempowered (women, children, the poor, the unlucky...) as opposed to
    the patronizing lip-service provided by the establishment today;
    research into psychology and brain function so that we can find out
    WHY sociopaths become the way they do... and on and on.
    
    Which brings me to another point... time and again I hear calls to
    either kill or lock away the "sociopaths"... yet how do we KNOW that
    a person really IS an incurable sociopath?  I saw a story once on
    a PBS series on the human brain:  it was about a man who killed one
    of his wife's children (he wasn't their father).  It was your typical
    story of a nice, clean-cut, responsible person who one day freaks out
    and does something truly horrible.  He copped an insanity plea, but
    once he was committed the doctors were able to find and correct the
    brain defect that caused his erratic behavior.  He was able to emerge
    from the hospital a responsible citizen and a caring human being.
    
    So at least in this case, although the man DID commit a horrible act
    and showed every sign of classic sociopathy, the problem was NOT
    incurable.
    
    I guess my conclusion is that while there ARE people whose current
    mental state renders them unfit to live in society, we shouldn't
    just stop there and argue about what to do with the refuse.  If we
    come to a deeper understanding of the human brain and mind, then
    we stand a good chance of being able to return many such people to
    society as functional members.  Reducing the magnitude of the problem
    in the first place will go a long way towards our being able to manage
    those incorrigible sociopaths that remain...
    
    --jim
    

    re .54, I agree with the things you said you'd like to have changed
    in society that would probably lessen crime, even though I still want
    to have murderers executed.
    
    You asked what good punishment will do the criminal.  Why does it have
    to do the criminal any good?  Why do they deserve to be done any good
    anyway?  Because they're human?  I think they already renounced that
    right when they killed other innocent victims.  But, punishing the
    criminal might do make the victims family and friends feel better, and 
    don't see anything wrong with that.  I think the victims family and
    friends deserve to feel better.  If somebody killed someone I loved it
    would make *me* feel better to have the murderer punished, and I think
    that's valid under the circumstances.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .54, I think it's horrible that they released that man who killed
    his wife's child.  I don't care what was wrong with his brain.  He
    murdered a child and he doesn't deserve to be free walking the streets
    ever again, and if it was my kid and he was released, I'd try to make
    sure he'd wish he hadn't been.  I don't think I have to have compassion
    and understanding for a child murderer no matter what condition his
    brain is in.  If anybody ever hurt my kid I'd want to bash them to a
    bloody pulp with my own hands regardless of what condition their brain
    was in.
    
    Lorna
    

Torture really isn't good for anyone.  It's not good for the receiver, who is
likely to end up more vengeful, hardened, and motivated than ever.  It is not
good for the giver, who is likely to end up callous, guilt-ridden, and/or
otherwise warped.  And it isn't good for the society that tolerates it.  We
lose any pretense of the moral high ground.  I can't believe it makes people
"feel better" in any lasting way to get brutal revenge, though it certainly
makes people "feel worse" to see a criminal "get away with it".

Criminals - even mass murdering child molesters - are people.  They have
complex and varied backgrounds.  They may have been abused as children.  They
may have extra chromosones or chemical imbalances that affect their minds in
ways that "are not their fault".  The people convicted of heinous crimes may
not be the ones who committed them.  There are all sorts of reasons for finding
sympathy for these creatures if you are so inclined.  But that doesn't mean
that society can tolerate their presence.

In a society with infinite resources, we should cure the ills that produce
criminals and do everything possible to rehabilitate those who fall through the
cracks.  Our society has finite resources, and the resources spent on criminals
(and the falsely convicted) must be taken from other members of society for
whom it's even easier to find sympathy.  The homeless.  The unemployed.  The
sick.  The taxpayers.

So we make the difficult tradeoffs.  One can disagree about whether the right
tradeoffs are being made.  It's expensive to lock someone up for a life
expectancy of fifty years.  I've heard it costs even more (in extra legal fees)
to execute them.  A lot of people feel that execution is less humane - and thus
costs society more in lost civility - than life imprisonment.  I disagree, but
I can understand their logic.  Either cost is small compared to letting
monsters run free.

    
    About killing convicted murderers.... what if you get the wrong guy?
    It does happen.  E.G., that man in Texas (subject of the "Thin Blue
    Line" documentary) who was released after years in prison -- he was
    convicted of killing a police officer - a capital crime in many (most?)
    states, but it's pretty clear he didn't do it.  Fortunately, when the
    justice system realized their mistake, they didn't have to dig him up
    to set him free.
    
    If someone killed someone I loved, I can imagine wanting to see that
    person suffer .. maybe even die.  But...  we have a system that is
    supposed to mete out justice, and I can't see the justice in killing
    anyone (even though I freely admit that I might feel differently if it
    were personal.)   So I vote for people who are against the death
    penalty, and I expect/hope that if I ever were in a situation where
    someone I loved was killed or injured, the police wouldn't let me
    decide the fate of the convicted killer.  
    
    Justine

    
    re .58
    
    I agree that there have been times when the wrong man is convicted.
    But leaving that same man in prison for the rest of his life isn't much
    of a consolation.
    
    So our choice then is not to imprison anyone in case it's the wrong
    man.
    
    There comes a time when society has to take a stand and do the best it
    can.  Society is not always right, but it's all we've got. If a jury
    convicts someone in a fair trial, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT which is
    supposed to be the only way that anyone would ever get convicted, then
    society has no choice but to consider that person guilty and treat him
    as such. 
    
    True, mistakes will be made. People lose their lives every day over
    mistakes. But I'd say that the odds of hanging an innocent man in this
    day and age of appeals and scientific evidence, are alot lower than
    the odds that someone is killed by the repeat offender that we didn't
    hang. (did I say that right????? :-)
    
    But that brings me back to my original question. Someone mentioned
    awhile back that most victims are victims themselves of some sort.
    
    That was my point in the basenote. Is this actually true? Or were these
    people just born with square brains instead of round ones? What
    percentage of "sociapaths" are 'good people' gone bad because of being
    victims, and how many are just 'bad people', and does it matter?
    
    Cathy (always in pursuit of answers!!)
    

    
    
    	Sage words from the song "Foolish Notion" by Holly Near, feminist
    singer/songwriter.
    
    
    
    Why...
    Do we kill people,
    Who are
    Killing people
    To show
    That killing people is wrong??
    
    What a foolish notion...
    
    
    
    Difficult path to follow, pacifism, and I have strayed from it more 
    than once in my thoughts--but I always go back to it.  Violence is 
    *never* the answer, only another question.
    
    
    Debbi

    As far as I'm concerned, someone who is *proven* to have committed
    a terrible crime has forfeited both their right to live in society
    and also their right to live. If the law says they die for their
    crimes, they can't complain. Anymore than I can gripe about getting
    a speeding ticket if I drive too fast. I do think the punishment should
    fit the crime, but to torture them seems a bit barbaric. Terminating 
    their life humanly, like a rouge dog, is fair in my book. I would be
    wary about ensuring their guilt though. Any doubt and the sentence be 
    commuted to life, ie. never in public again. If one of these people did 
    something to someone *I* cared for, they would be safer in jail.  
    
    
    Jerome.
    
    PS - I'm glad that Ng bloke has been brought back to the states. 

    
    re:.59 "leaving that same man in prison for the rest of his life isn't
    much of a consolation".  To whom?  You can get an innocent person out 
    of prison (and make sure that person is provided with whatever they
    need to rebuild a life) but you can't bring a dead one back to life.
    
    CQ

    
    I am skittish about having a death penalty - because it can
    be abused - it's fact that it's used a lot more on minorities
    than on whites who commit the same crimes (big problem that
    clashes with my value system).
    
    I really don't think that torture for the sake of it should
    be done to anyone - in many of these cases that's what the
    perpetrator had done to them as a child!  Can you imagine?
    In most cases, the perpetrators have already led horrible
    enough lives.
    
    On the other hand, I agree there are *definitely* some
    good candidates out there for the death penalty!! (the
    "specimen" in Wisconsin comes to mind - I mean can I can't
    even *call* him a person he's gotten so far away from humanity
    in my book!)  And what about the slime (too good a word) who
    murdered an entire family in Townsend, Mass a few years back?!
    
    Keep in mind also that *are* repeat offenders out there.
    If these people were convicted more than once of murder, then
    there's a *far, far* less chance that a "mistake" was made
    twice.  At least for this (admittedly) small number of people
    - please, bring out the death penalty.
    
    And by the way, I can *always* think of a way to better spend
    society's money than by keeping a mass murdered locked up.
    Spending it on almost anything is money better spent.
    
    So, how to do away with the people who really should be done
    away with without having a death penalty that can be abused?
    

    The death penalty achieves only one goal - vengeance.
    
    The death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment to the state.
    Those on death row usually make numerous appeals.  We cannot remove
    their right to appeal without crippling our justice system, which
    ultimately affects all of us.
    
    The death penalty can permanently meet punishment to the wrong person -
    a life-imprisoned criminal can be freed (aka Thin Blue Line) if they
    are the wrong person.  Losing n years is still less severe than losing
    your life.
    
    The death penalty does not reduce the incidence of violent crime, nor
    of the crimes for which it may be prescribed.  Any argument on this?
    
    So, it all comes down to vengeance.  We could also permit torture or
    beatings and achieve vengeance.  Who will advocate that?  So why is the
    death penalty any different?
    
    The desire for vengeance by the wronged individual and his/her family
    is only natural.  I would feel the same way.  But as a society we do
    not permit the wronged party to decide the fate of the criminal.  This
    is a function of society, for good reason.  If a drunken driver hits my
    car, injuring me and my child, I may WANT to make him suffer.  But no
    society permits me to make this decision.   It obviates the
    constitutional principles of due process and fair trial.
    
    The desire for vengeance by society is also understandable.  The
    benefit of satisfying that desire is highly dubious.  
    
    Laura

    
    re .64, Laura:
    
    I think an excellent case has been made by others that the
    death penalty is more than - no, not even necessarily,
    "vengeance".
    
    It is a means of removing a serious threat from society
    permanently.
    
    You can argue that it's not the best way or what you think
    of as the "right" way, or that mistakes can be made, but
    I can't take it seriously when you argue that "vengeance
    is the only reason" for it, when excellent reasons *for*
    it have been put forth.
    
    

    re: .65
    
    What other reasons besides vengeance have been forwarded for the death
    penalty?
    
    The only one you mention is the desire for a permanent removal of the
    individual.  This can also be achieved by life imprisonment without
    chance of parole.  As for escape, it is technically possible to build
    escape-proof cells for the limited number of prisoners who would
    otherwise get the death penalty.  Yes, no method of imprisonment is
    foolproof.  For instance, even solitary-confinement prisoners must be
    moved to a medical wing for severe illness.  But the odds of such a
    break are very low.  Parole is a much more likely means of such a
    prisoner getting free.  Remove the opportunity for parole and the issue
    is largely resolved.
    
    I think there is one very important argument for the death penalty. 
    That is political expediency.  It lets politicans "get tough on crime". 
    Witness the Congress yesterday adding 48 new crimes to the death
    penalty list.
    
    However, this is expediency only.  It does not seriously address the
    causes of crime.
    
    To make an analogy, I'm sure you will agree that it is less expensive
    and more effective to prevent learning disabilities - by supporting
    maternal/infant care, nutrition, parenting education, and Head
    Start type preschools - than to deal with entrenched disabilities
    starting in first grade - and certainly more cost effective than having
    an unemployable adult.
    
    Similarly, it is more effective (100 percent, since the death penalty
    is not a deterrent at all) to prevent crime through parent education
    and many other social means.
    
    In the USA today, neither the prevention of crime nor the prevention of
    learning disabilities are a priority.  Why?  Expediency.  Not only are
    our politicians expedient, but we as a population are.  What will it
    take for us to address the causes of crime and other social problems? 
    
    First comes the political will - in the voting public.  
    
    We are now functioning solely a) for the sort run, and b) reactively
    rather than proactively.  Until we - the voting public - back long
    term, proactive measures, our crime rate and other social ills will
    continue unabated, and probably get much worse.
    
    I am saying that we the voters, and the politicans, should give up the
    posturing for positions of genuine substance.
    
    Laura

    How about putting the convicted sicko under long term sedation? 
    Firstly, they would be pretty cheap to look after, and secondly, 
    the expensive process of avoiding the death penalty through the 
    courts would be eradicated because the appeal process would be the
    same as usual. The sicko could be revived maybe once a week to get 
    some form of exercise or for any appeal hearings. They would also be
    able to be freed if later found to be not guilty.   
    
    
    Jerome.

>    The death penalty achieves only one goal - vengeance.

 No it doesn't. The death penalty _would_ be a deterrent if it were applied
consistently and with certainty. Instead it is hamstrung by the same
people who decry its ultimate lack of deterrence, a real act of sabotage.

>    The death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment to the state.

 It shouldn't be and it doesn't have to be. If the appeals process is reformed
the efficiency will improve dramatically without infringing upon anyone's
rights.

>We cannot remove
>    their right to appeal without crippling our justice system, which
>    ultimately affects all of us.

 We don't have to remove the right to appeal. We can simply amend it to
disallow frivolous appeals and stall tactics. The convicted lose no rights
(except the right to delay justice) and we get more for our money.

>    The death penalty does not reduce the incidence of violent crime, nor
>    of the crimes for which it may be prescribed.  Any argument on this?

 No punishment or consequence of any crime which is as erratically applied
as the death penalty has good deterrent value. Why should the death penalty
be any different in this regard?

>    The only one you mention is the desire for a permanent removal of the
>    individual.  This can also be achieved by life imprisonment without
>    chance of parole. 

 For what purpose? If we are going to deny someone liberty until death,
what do we gain by not killing them? A sense of moral propriety for some
members of society? Seems to me that's the same thing that's being decried
when we deny homosexual marriages, etc.

> Remove the opportunity for parole and the issue is largely resolved.

 Only if you are in a state that doesn't automatically commute those
sentences to 2nd degree offenses and reduce the sentence correspondingly
so we can free up some jail space for Johnny who got caught smoking a
joint... The average term served in Massachusetts (1988 time frame) for
a "life without the possibility of parole" sentence was 12 years!

 You want to talk about political expediency? How about open container laws?
How about reduce BAC for prima facie evidence laws? There are thousands of
laws passed that simply criminalize more people- don't even get me started
on gun control (a thousand heads nod knowingly). :-)

>    Similarly, it is more effective (100 percent, since the death penalty
>    is not a deterrent at all) to prevent crime through parent education
>    and many other social means.

 You're getting pretty fast and loose with the facts here, Laura.

>    I am saying that we the voters, and the politicans, should give up the
>    posturing for positions of genuine substance.

 A good idea, but easier said than done.

 The Doctah

    RE:  .67
    
    In the USA (can't speak for UK) only a mental patient can be sedated
    against his/her will.  I believe even that is under challenge.
    
    The problem is, if you forcefully sedate a prisoner (not mental
    hospital patient), you are violating his bodily integrity. I'm no
    constitutional expert, but it seems to me that if the state can violate
    a prisoner's bodily integrity, where do the state's powers stop?
    
    Again, an expedient answer, but one with messy implications for the
    rest of the law.  And it still does not address the base problem -
    prevention.
    
    I would rather save lives and prevent assaults by supporting the
    development of a well-nourished, properly-parented individual, than
    deal with the results of the assault.  The problem is - there is no
    expedient way to measure or predict the benefit of preventative
    measures.  The crime rate should abate in the long run - say 15 years
    or more - but the social temper now will not tolerate such a long wait
    for results.  We want results NOW.   And so we spiral downward.
    
    Laura 

    re:  .68
    
    re:  consistency of application
    
    I don't believe that if the death penalty were consistently applied it
    would reduce the rate of violent crime.
    
    Those who commit crimes for which the death penalty is prescribed have
    one or more of the following characteristcs:  
    
    a) No sense of having a future.  They live purely in the 
    moment and will defend their survival
    if immediately threatened.  But they themselves do things to shorten or
    endanger their own lives - such as using crack.  Unless we authorize
    police to immediately kill them upon arrest, they will not be deterred. 
    
    b) Acted in a moment of passion.  One who acts in a moment of passion
    gives no thought to the consequences.  
    
    c) Are deranged.  Have no concept of any results of their actions.
    Or act under inner compulsion - such as serial killers.
    
    d) Believe that they will elude capture.  Can't believe they will get
    caught.
    
    e) Believe they can plea bargain to a lesser offense, if caught.
    
    f) Don't know what the law is, or about changes in penalty
    applications.  Most violent criminals don't follow the news closely, if
    at all.  How many can even read?
    
    As long as the criminal fits any of the above, the death penalty will
    not be a deterrent no matter how consistently applied.  Since
    description a) fits criminals almost universally, that about sews it
    up.  I don't think anyone wants the police to administer the death
    penalty upon arrest (aka Chile under Pinochet, or Stalinism).  So
    changing sentencing requirements will not deter crime.
    
    Laura   

    re:  .68
    
    When I said "no possibility of parole" I meant precisely that.  Without
    exceptions.  If the courts permit modifications, THAT should be
    addressed.   On that point, you have my full agreement.
    
    Laura

    Laura,
    
    A minor nit here-there have been many criminals who have not
    come from broken homes, have not suffered poverty, sexual or physical
    abuse and are highly intelligent and well educated. I agree that
    it wouldn't hurt to try to find out what makes a criminal, but
    even that can become dangerous.  What kind of criteria should be used
    to decide who is a potential criminal and who isn't?  Reminds me of
    Lombroso (I think that's his name) theory of the born criminal which
    was based on physical characteristics (high forhead, beady eyes etc).
    Anything can be abused, given the opportunity.  It may sound
    cold-blooded, butfor me, I'd prefer to see a more strictly enforce
    death penalty as suggested by the Doctah as well as other reforms
    before I'd see another Ted Bundy, pHillside Stranglers or Jeff Dalmers
    be imprisoned for life.
    Christine

 Using your shopping list of criminal types, one would conclude that 
incarceration is not a deterrent either. But we know that's not true.
So your conclusion is highly suspect.

>    changing sentencing requirements will not deter crime.

 If one were to take this sentiment seriously, then there would be no
reason to have any punishment except lifetime incarceration (according
to the anti-capital punishment faction.) I disagree. Sentences DO matter.
Otherwise what would be the deterrent value in making a crime "worth"
a longer sentence?

 I think a whole lot of things have to happen to the justice system for it to
be fixed. Capital punishment is really a minor point in relationship to the
whole process. But it sure gets people excited. :-)

 The Doctah

    Unfortunately, rules and laws are always changing. Death is final.
    What if standards change enough that some bunch of soft-heads
    decides that Charles Manson should go free? _That_ is why I
    want that SOB _dead_. I am damn glad that Ted Bundy is _dead_.
    I _know_ he will never be a threat again. Manson still scares me.
    (And, no, I do _not_ trust the California penal system. Or any
    other.)

    
    
    Ok so if we don't want the death penalty, and we don't want to pay
    to keep them in prison forever and risk there being set loose
    anyways....how 'bout labotomys? Anyone out there see the movie
    "COMA"? How bout we just use em for parts? That may be the only
    thing they can ever contribute to society.......
    
    Cathy

    See Larry Niven's stories on using convicts for spare parts.
    (SF - gets to the point where jaywalking is a capital offense.)

>>         <<< Note 1043.76 by SA1794::CHARBONND "Northern Exposure?" >>>

>>    See Larry Niven's stories on using convicts for spare parts.
>>    (SF - gets to the point where jaywalking is a capital offense.)


What stories does he write? Sci-Fi? Fiction, non fiction? Using criminals for
spare parts sounds like a pretty good plot for a phychological thriller.


I'm all for the death penalty in cases where its obvious that the person was
responsible (Manson, Danmyer, Bundy, Hillside stranglers, etc) "WITHOUT A
SHADOW OF A DOUBT"

If there is reasonable doubt, but sufficient evidence to incriminate and
convict you of a heinous crime, life in prison in a hard labor camp.


And as far as using criminals as spare parts, I definitely wouldn't want
Charles Manson's heart!!! Isn't there a movie just released called "SPARE
PARTS"? Its about a Dr. who loses his arm and ends up getting the arm of a
sociopath killer. Sick.

Scott

    Re .77: Um, the problem with the "kill 'em if you're _sure_" idea is
    that, if there's enough reasonable doubt as to their guilt that we'd
    want to file them for future reference, shouldn't that be doubt enough
    to let them go? We don't have (or do we?) a category that says, "Well,
    we're not sure s/he did _this_ crime, but s/he seems to be an
    unpleasant enough character that s/he ought to be locked up anyway." [I
    know there are people I'd like to see locked up on general principles,
    but I acknowledge that this would be an unwise policy. ;-)] I suppose
    one could concoct a scenario involving the convict's confession (but
    confessions have been falsified before - and besides, if a confession
    qualified the convict for the death penalty, wouldn't we see even fewer
    of them than we do now?) or perhaps videotape of the crime (if it
    wasn't faked, wasn't fuzzy, wasn't subject to multiple interpretations,
    etc. - or does anybody believe the camera doesn't lie?)... I perceive
    several degrees of difficulty here.

    I've been having my consciousness raised on this issue over the last
    few years. While I'm not going to go campaigning against capital
    punishment, it seems very clear that it's not being applied fairly, and
    that many of the criminals from whom we'd most like to be permanently
    safe are clinically insane and not subject to the death penalty (lots
    of muddy legal ground here, I know). Often the heinousness of the crime
    has nothing to do with the appropriate treatment of the criminal;
    child-murder's one of the most horrible crimes, but what of mothers who
    kill during post-partum depression? Should they be locked up for life,
    even though the condition - once recognized - is treatable? What of the
    battered-victim scenario - how does one tell the difference between
    someone who was pushed into temporary insanity and someone who
    deliberately took a horrible vengeance? And should we even
    differentiate? After all, if someone's been driven to murder once, how
    can we tell they won't do it again? But by that logic, it becomes
    sensible to lock up someone for being a victim...

    Apropos of very little, there was something in the news the other day
    about a couple of American citizens who'd been living in Pakistan for a
    few years, and who'd been convicted of some kind of theft. They were
    each sentenced to have a hand removed. I wondered whether, these days,
    the removals are done surgically, or is it still handled with an axe?
    
    -b

On a per capita basis, the United States has more people in jail and prison
than any other western nation (including the (former) USSR).

Bruce

I thought an eye for an eye, etc. went out several hundred years ago.

The Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment." Leaving aside the 
Constitution for the moment, consider this:

If you torture someone, or allow someone to torture someone, or sanction
torturing someone, then you reduce yourself to the same level as the person
being tortured. You become no better than the person being tortured. You lower
yourself to their level of morals and ethics because what you are doing is no
better than what they did. The acts this person committed become no worse than
the acts you commit against him or her. 

If torture is permitted for one crime, there will be pressure to allow it for
other crimes. Do we permit torture only for heinous crimes? And what is that?
For felonies? For misdemeanors? For reckless driving?  For suspected murderers?
Who is going to decide? A presidential committee? And where does it stop? 
How much torture? Five lashes or 10? Three turns of the thumb screw every 
15 minutes? Who turns the screw?

The idea of torture is personally repugnant -- even disgusting -- to me. There
are evil people and evil deeds on this earth. There are also good people and
civilized people. Fortunately the latter far out number the former. Let's keep
it that way.

Bruce (who, you may remember, is not a pacifist)

I wish everyone reading this note would ask themselves if they
experienced physical or mental abuse in their families. Then
ask yourself how you think criminals should be treated. I'm
willing to bet there's a correlation between having experienced
abuse and becoming a perpetrator of abuse. This has been proved as far
as child abuse is concerned.

If you read the newspaper, you can figure out that except for 
cases of the extra Y chromosome human behavior is learned. To feel
lovingly towards others, you have to have experienced others as
nonthreatening and loving. If you didn't, you have no capacity
for what we consider normality. As soon as you behave the way
you were taught, you are thrown into prison with other people
from the same background, which reinforces your view of the
world.

Some people might think it efficient to kill these people off,
but if I and a lot of other people are right, by doing so, you
are perpetuating in the human family just what you are trying to
eradicate. All wise people throughout the world, throughout
time, have said that love is the only answer to aggression, but here 
we are almost in the 21th century doing the same old deadly thing.

Eileen

	Hmmmmmm, love as the answer to agression......

	How long do suppose the German/Middle-European Jews
	would have had to "love" Hitler to get him to quit ?

	How long should the Kuwaiti people have "loved"
	Hussein ?

	The Afghani should have greeted the invading Russians
	with kisses and hugs ?

	Or maybe Ted Bundy's little-girl victim in Lake City,
	when confronted with a murderous sociopath, should have
	offered her life (and innocence) to him out of a spirit
	of love.

	This is cracked.

	Offering forgiveness to thugs ALWAYS results in thugs
	taking the next step:  further agression.

	My suspicion is that folks who believe in kissing up to
	monsters are blissfully unaware of the natures of these
	monsters.  As long as it's abstract, something that
	happens somewhere else or on the news, it can be discussed
	as if it were a rash, or a minor irritant.

	Our society insulates most of us from the horror of
	violence and murder.  TV news shows us the body being
	carried out of a building under a blanket, a row of
	cop cars with lights blinking, etc.  Can't show the
	crime scene....that would disturb viewers' dinner !

	I suspect most people would change their tunes if they were
	confronted with the results of violent criminal acts.

	Steve H

    
    
    I think that the "love is the answer" MAY have SOME affect on
    cutting down on the number of future psychos. (MAY). 
    
    But that doesn't resolve TODAYS problem. What do we do with the
    psychos today, regardless of what made them this way?
    
    It is useless to discuss what caused these people to be this way
    and how we are trying to bandaid the issue.
    
    When you have poison ivy, it doesn't matter how you got it, 
    it only matters that you cure the poison ivy.
    The problem is two-fold. In the case of poison ivy, I would suggest
    that at the same time that you are curing your ill, you go out
    and wipe out the plant. 
    
    We do need to address the issue of not creating future Jeffrey
    Dalmers, if that is something within our power. But that doesn't
    answer the question of what to do with him TODAY. 
    Do we imprison him and let him go after he finds God and
    becomes a lawyer and model prisoner? I don't think that
    anyone out there has the right to release him and put *me*
    at risk by doing so, but it very well MAY be done. Obviously
    there are repeat offenders running free right now waiting to
    pick their next victim. 
    
    If we feel that this problem should be addresses with love and
    understanding, then maybe we should look for volunteers and
    have the Jeffrey Dalmers of the world move in with a functional
    loving caring family. 
    I have a feeling that most people would change their understanding
    loving caring feelings if the Jeffrey Dalmers of the world 
    moved in next door to them.  
    
    Cathy
    

Steve, I understand your outrage, but please understand that pacifists and 
others who oppose a death penalty, or who try to understand how Bad people
got that way, are not proposing that we allow Bad people to walk all over us.
They want to find some other way to prevent the harm.  You seem to think there
is no other way but punishment.  *I* think there can be no other way than to
hold people accountable for their actions, _even_while_ we understand/try to
understand why and how they got there; and to establish and deliver punishment
(yes, punishment) for convictions.

To those who seek to understand and heal the Bad people - in the long run, of
course, you are right.  We should work toward that.  But we should not excuse
adults from responsibility and accountability for their actions in the meantime,
for if we do we give up the very definitions of right and wrong, as well as
the right to claim credit for overcoming the obstacles that face us, as well as
ceding responsibility to -- well to whom?  the govt? a church? a moral majority?
a foreign power?  a different race? the other gender?
That way lies tyranny.  No, I'll keep responsibility for my actions, and hold
others to the same standard.

Sara

    re. 85:  Hear, Hear Sara!
    
    -HA

	Thanks, Sara.

	I think we basically agree.  I think it could be very
	productive to work toward "detection and early cure"
	of psychopathy.

	I'm just really concerned that we don't confuse research
	into the nature of this stuff with remedies available to
	us today, 1991.

	I'd like to suggest that folks who have not had the
	exposure to these things arrange to ride with a police
	patrol one Saturday night in an inner city.  You might
	see unpleasant things, but I suggest that after a year
	or two to digest what you saw, but you'd have a clearer
	concept of the consequences of the policies being
	discussed here.
	
	Steve h

>    Others of us truly believe in concepts like pre-emptive strike forces
>    and S.W.A.T. teams and the Canadian Mounties who ALWAYS get their man.
    
    And some of us are truly made nervous by the idea of pre-emptive strike
    forces looking for someone to pre-emptively strike.
    
    Ray (a man, and thus fair game for the Canadian Mounties)

    Yet more ramblings...
    
    I'm rambling becuase I've been turning this whole question over in my
    mind a lot lately... my later responses may even contradict my earlier
    ones; I'm thinking out loud more than providing hard-and-fast answers.
    
    Anyhow:  I think that much of the discussion so far has danced around
    the basenote question:  Are there **BAD** people?  If we answer this
    question in the affirmative, we must then ask the next question:
    "How do we tell good people from bad people?"
    
    There's the rub:  the answer to the latter question is much like the
    definition of pornography:  "I can't describe it, but I know it when
    I see it!".  If we wish to remain a nation of laws, though, we have
    to do better than that.  On the other hand, maybe "badness" in a person
    is just one of those things that CANNOT be decided by a logical set of
    rules.  If so, then how do we proceed as a society?
    
    Corollary to this is the question: How do we tell *who* a person is?
    How do we tell that a person is fundamentally *BAD*?  Most of the
    discussion in this note talks about what a person *does*, but I think
    this is different from what a person *is*.  Granted, there may be a
    strong correlation in most cases, but the correlation is not absolute.
    In my previous contribution I mentioned a fellow who murdered his
    wife's child, and was then diagnosed with a brain defect.  Once the
    defect was surgically corrected, the man returned to become a normal,
    productive member of society with no murderous tendencies whatsoever.
    Now, I believe that this man is fundamentally a *good* person, and an
    external circumstance caused him to do a *bad* thing.  Others in this
    thread, however, claim that because the man did a *bad* thing, he
    should be punished/banished/executed for it.
    
    Does this mean that goodness is like virginity in that one may only
    lose it once and never regain it?  I shudder at the thought.  Most of
    us have done things that we're not proud of, maybe even ashamed of.
    Yet we believe we're fundamentally good people inside (hmmm...
    interesting thought:  Is there ANYONE who truly considers hirself to
    be a Bad Person?).  F'rinstance, some parts of my sex life would get
    me executed if I'd committed them in Saudi Arabia.  Does this mean I'm
    a Bad Person in Riyadh but an OK person in New York?
    
    So many questions, so few answers 8-(
    
    --jim
    

re .83

	As you state, offering love when confronted with anti-social
	behavior only serves to reward that behavior. You have to 
	get the love to these people well before they begin 
	anti-social behavior, so that it is seen as a benefit
	to be lost if they engage in anti-social behavior, rather
	than as a reward for that behavior.

					Tom_K

    
>    Anyhow:  I think that much of the discussion so far has danced around
>    the basenote question:  Are there **BAD** people?  If we answer this
>    question in the affirmative, we must then ask the next question:
>    "How do we tell good people from bad people?"


	A bad person is someone who has done a bad thing.  Let's
	not quibble about one teenager hotwiring one car back 
	in '60.

	Let's also not detour the discussion with excursions into
	the theoretical.  

	The Jeffrey Dahmers, Ted Bundys and Pol Pots of the world
	are bad people.  We can see what they have done.

	We may never be able to focus a "badness scanner" on 
	someone and predict that they'll be the next mass-murderer,
	but we, as a society, must be willing to take firm steps
	to protect ourselves from them when they surface.

	Steve H

            A bad person is someone who has done a bad thing.  Let's
            not quibble about one teenager hotwiring one car back
            in '60.
    
    I disagree.  There's more to it than that.  We have all done bad
    things.  You can't "not quibble" about that - it's vital to the
    discussion.
    
    I think being a "bad person" must be someone who does bad things, who
    feels no remorse, and will continue to do bad things if possible. 
    There might even be more requirements than that...
    
            The Jeffrey Dahmers, Ted Bundys and Pol Pots of the world
            are bad people.  We can see what they have done.
    
    But it isn't just that they did it, but that they kept doing, they did
    it multiple times, they felt no remorse and would continue to do it, if
    they could.
    
    That's the entire point - obviously, some people who do bad things can
    be rehabilitated.  It's not as clear that people who are bad (as
    opposed to having done bad things) can be rehabilitated.
    
    D!

    re .88
    
    I'm really getting tired of this...
    
    Having grown up in an "inner city" neighborhood, I get real tired of
    blanket statements like Steve's that go unchallenged while ignoring
    the fact that most of these serial killers whose names are being
    bandied around grew up in nice middle class neighborhoods.  I grew up
    in one of the worst neighborhoods in Brooklyn - does this make me a
    "bad" person?  By heredity or by environment?
    
    Yes, Saturday nights you could always see patrol cars in the
    neighborhood.  Cops know that if you arrest a couple of teenagers for
    shooting craps in the park, then you get to stay in for the rest of the
    night doing paperwork.  A shoving match in the basketball court draws 3
    squad cars; meanwhile someone like Lisa Steinberg can be beaten to
    death in Greenwich Village and the police don't intervene until it's
    too late because things like that don't happen in nice middle class
    neighborhoods, even when the neighbors give eyewitness reports.
    
    I believe there are bad people.  But a lot of people are bad because of
    self-fulfilling prophecies -- if you tell a kid all his life that he's
    no good and will never amount to anything, I'm sure he'll live down to
    your expectations.  To make assumptions and condemn segments of the
    population based on geography is just as bad.
    
    ginny
    
    

    I don't think there is any such thing as a "nice middle-class
    neighborhood." Who knows what goes on at home? 
    
    Eileen
    

    I heard a radio news story yesterday that bears on this issue.
    
    There's a college student body president in the Midwest who gathered
    support from black and feminist groups to get elected.  He is black. 
    After serving well in this capacity for several months, a student
    newspaper reporter discovered that he had been convicted the previous
    year of striking his (then) girlfried, breaking one tooth and bruising
    her face.  Call him "Charles" for the sake of discussion.
    
    When this was published, an uproar followed.  Some feminists are
    backing a recall motion to remove Charles from office.  The black groups
    are charging racism.  The woman who was hit, a white student, published
    a letter saying that he should be retained in office because he
    repented for what he had done.  He said he dealt with the issue
    honestly, and even apologized personally to her parents, "the hardest
    thing I've ever done."
    
    Now, granted this involves racial politics and the issue of battering.
    But my intention here is not to go down those paths, which are ratholes
    to THIS topic, though valid elsewhere.
    
    The question is, as I see it, because Charles did something wrong once,
    should he be removed from office?  He has ambition to the US Senate. 
    Should this block his career?  
    
    On the one hand, Charles seems sincerely sorry.  He saw a therapist to help
    mend his ways.  It doesn't sound like he'll do it again.  Even his
    former girlfried testified that he had changed.  
    
    On the other hand, how can anyone know (even Charles himself) whether
    he might do this again?
    
    But if we are to mentally convict him as a batterer-for-life, are we
    not hypocritical?  Any man can potentially be a batterer or rapist. 
    Many men have hidden such crimes, never even been charged.  Why should
    we penalize Charles?  For that matter, many public officials (women as
    well as men) have skeletons in the closet, of all sorts.  When their
    skeletons are disclosed, are they then unfit to hold office, despite a
    good record in office?
    
    Interesting moral and political questions, eh?  So.  Is "Charles" a bad
    person?  What do you think?  
    
    Despite my strong feminist leanings, I'm inclined to give "Charles" the
    benefit of the doubt.  If he should batter again, then I would support
    his removal.  But he is a young man, and hopefully has a bright future. 
    He shows every sign of having repented and changed.  
    
    Let's say YOU sit on the Student Council.  How do you vote?  Impeach
    Charles, or keep him?  Why?
    
    Laura 
    
     

I heard that report too (ah the bennies of being a part-timer).

for me what blows it for Charles is that he -->deliberately concealed<-- the
incident during his campaign for election.  It is that, more than the fact that
he lost his temper and hit his girlfriend (not excusing that, mind you), which
makes me distrust him.  If he goes on to run for the Senate, how could I vote
for him, knowing that he has once knowingly and deliberately squelched 
publication of a negative story, for personal gain?  The hitting (benefit of
the doubt here) was spontaneous, impulsive.  The squelching of the truth was
not, it was intentional and planned and had to be carried out using persuasion
and possibly promises.

I wouldn't trust him.  Has nothing to do with punches or skin color.  He lied
to the people who voted for him.  This makes him a Bad-Politician-Person, 
though not a Bad Person as we have been discussing them in this string.

Sara

    Well, this kinda goes down the rathole of politics, but.....
    
    A candidate in Charles' position is in a catch-22 situation.
    Nearly everyone has skeletons in their closets, yet voters
    seem to want their politicians squeeky-clean.  The result is
    that only saints and deceivers can ever get elected to any
    kind of office.  There seem to be a LOT more of the latter
    than the former!
    
    I *honestly* don't know what to make of the situation.  As Sara
    said, even if Charles repented the crime of battery, he's still
    guilty of deliberately deceiving his voters.  On the other hand,
    if he's truly a good person after his therapy, then coming clean
    would virtually guarantee that he'd lose out to someone ELSE who
    has NO scruples about deception....
    
    Ah, the turbid waters one sees at the confluence of the clear
    stream of Ideals and the dark mud of Reality...... 8-(
    
    --jim
    

	The information presented regarding Charles' ambitions for
	political office make me wonder if the "repentance" is genuine,
	or based on expediency. I suspect it will be difficult to
	ascertain which is the case.

	But that's not all that relevant to this topic. What is relevant
	is *can* people change. Certainly they can. There was a Supreme Court
	Justice who was once a member of the KKK, who, after being elevated 
	to the 	court, turned out to be one of the most Liberal Justices in the
	Court's history. The old saw about "none are as righteous as the
	converted" may apply. 

	Would you rather trust such a person, or someone who "hasn't been
	caught yet"? Pretty hard to decide if you ask me.

	Trust, but verify.

					Tom_K

One sign that you can use to detect good people is that
they snarf the .x00 replies. :-)

Dan

    
    
    
    re .99 Tom_K
    
    
    >people *CAN* change
    
    But but who cares? Once you've eaten 16 or 17 young children, does it
    really matter if you promise to change? Does it matter if this person
    spends 20 years in prison, studies to become a brain surgeon and says
    thta he will (I swear) NEVER eat another person again?  Does it matter
    thta he "found Jesus" and has been forgiven for his sins?
    
    Sorry, but it doesn't mean much of diddly to me.....
    
    

    RE: .96  Laura

    > The question is, as I see it, because Charles did something wrong once,
    > should he be removed from office?  

    In my opinion, no.  However, it sounds as if some of the people who
    "backed" him in the election feel betrayed now that the truth has come
    out about the battering incident.  They do have the right, evidently,
    to make a motion for recall.  I don't know what process is used for
    this, but if the recall motion follows proper procedure, it's valid
    whether or not we (here) agree with it.

    > On the one hand, Charles seems sincerely sorry.  He saw a therapist 
    > to help mend his ways.  It doesn't sound like he'll do it again.  
    > Even his former girlfried testified that he had changed.  

    The fact that he ADMITS he did something wrong and has apologized
    sincerely for it - he definitely has my respect.  Admitting one's 
    mistakes and/or wrong-doings can be very difficult (and is totally
    *impossible* for some people, even if the 'wrong' is something less
    serious than battering.)  If he was still trying to weasel out of
    admitting he was indeed wrong, it would be a different situation.
    He'd be beneath contempt (eg, a real jerk,) IMO.

    Some may say it's just 'expedient' for him to admit he's wrong, but
    plenty of people find it impossible to admit they're wrong even when
    it would be very much to their advantage to do so.  He still has my
    respect.

    > He has ambition to the US Senate.  Should this block his career?  

    It shouldn't, but it probably will.  It's a fact of life that some
    political-hopefuls have pasts that they will never, ever, EVER live
    down (no matter what anyone says or does.)  

    It's a shame that he has the battering incident in his past.  I believe
    that he won't do it again, and I'd be willing to overlook it if I
    agreed with the rest of his politics (if I were in a position to vote
    for him in a given election) - but his chances for the Senate may be
    pretty slim because of his past, and I doubt there is much he'll be
    able to do to correct it.

    > On the other hand, how can anyone know (even Charles himself) whether
    > he might do this again?

    One battering incident does not make someone an habitual batterer.  If
    he lacked the ability to admit his wrong-doing, though, I'd be much
    likelier to believe he lacked the moral character to keep from doing
    it again.

    > So.  Is "Charles" a bad person?  What do you think?  

    I wouldn't consider him "bad" based on the available information about
    him - but his chances to hold public office could be hurt by the
    battering incident.

    > Let's say YOU sit on the Student Council.  How do you vote?  Impeach
    > Charles, or keep him?  Why?

    I'd vote to let him stay (realizing that it still probably wouldn't
    help his chances for a political career later, though.)

    returning to a direct approach on the topic
    <cut to the chase>
    
         I would say that a person is BAD when they continue doing bad
    things, even after they've been apprised of the negative effects of
    their actions.  eg. Al Capone was definitely BAD person.
    
         Can a BAD person reform?  May_be, but can society afford to bet
    the lives of its other citizens on the likelihood?  However much we
    might like to recover a lost soul, is it wise that we sacrifice other,
    non-predatory lives in the often vain hope that THIS one will be a
    sucessful turnaround?
    	[dale]
    

    re .95
    
    Eileen,
    
    That's my point -- wh does know what goes on at home?  When you make a
    sweeping statement like "if you don't believe there are bad people then
    go to the inner city on a Saturday night" then you're making a
    character judgement based on economics and (usually) race or ethnic
    group.
    
    ginny

	I don't believe in rehabilitation for violent criminals
	(the mass-murderer kind, not the teenager who got in a
	coupla fist-fights),because:

		THERE IS NO REHABILITATION THAT WORKS.

	Wow.  And you thought the American Psychiatric Association
	was telling you the truth about their "successes."

	The reality of "rehabilitation" efforts is X years of
	thorazine ( or the current drug of choice ), followed by
	an "diagnosis" that says "The patient has shown a remarkable
	reduction in violent tendencies in the last X years.  We
	feel that he is ready to return to society."

	Then , another child disappears.....

	This from an idealistic psych-major friend of mine who
	went to work in the ol' thorazine ward.

	He went on to get a real job with some hope of accomplishing
	something:  chemical engineering.

	Steve H

    Well, Steve, I disagree.  This from someone who *knows* any number of
    formerly very violent, psych hospital habitues.
    
    E Grace

Huh?  I failed to follow the logic leap from "thorazine doesn't work"
to "there is no rehabilitation that works".

in fact, I failed to follow the logic leap from "he's been doing well,
let him go" and "a child disappears" to "thorazine doesn't work."

Am I missing something here?

D!