Subject:

X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List

Dear Memebers of this list:

I'd like to offer response to Craig Harrison's recent post.

He states:

"Dorry esq. [BTW for British or European readers: "esq." is not an indication

of social rank in America; quite to the contrary, it indicates that the person

is a lawyer] complains that others have ignored his arguments and

have made unsubstantiated claims and then goes on to say that capital

punishment is a deterrent if it's applied appropriately, or words to that

effect (sorry, I deleted the original)."

I'd like first to say that EVERY PERSON who has responded to my posts has

commented on my use of Esq., and it has been both an endless source of

amusement for me and a testimony to the [what Nietzsche reffered to as]

"resentiment" postmodern bourgeois liberals feel towards anyone

who dares utilize status labels [even if employed inocuously as a means of

professional identification]. What's the source of your resentiment, Craig?

Were you kicked out of a PhD program at some point [so now you're not Dr. but

plain ole Mr.?] Or was it that spelling bee you lost in the third grade? Did a

callous relative perhaps once make oblique reference to the family's origins

with the words "peasant stock"? If any of these tragedies are part of your

past, then allow me to express my sympathy, but as a liberal and a champion of

individual rights, surely you won't suggest that I don't have a right to

identify myself in a manner I think appropriate? Yes, I'm a

lawyer. You certainly don't believe that a member of the Transnational Radical

Party like myself would use Esq. as an indication of social rank, do you? If

that is your worry Craig, let me assure you: I drink my beer out of the

bottle.

Second, I have never made the claim that CP IS a deterrent to anything; I have

stated, however, that if implemented rigorously, it seems reasonable to accept

the notion that it can as a deterrent. At the very least, it is unquestionably

a SPECIAL deterrent (ie, it will deter the convicted criminal from engaging in

recidivist behavior). The fact that you have misstated my position in your

response, Craig, is evidence enough that people on this list have not

responded to my arguments.

"The qualification is the whole problem. For example, in early

nineteenth century England, there were over 100 capital crimes, including

stealing one shilling, a loaf of bread and picking pockets. Trials were

swift and hangings in London done publicly before big crowds at Tyburn.

Yet it was common for pick-pockets to work the crowds at Tyburn who were

watching a pick-pocket being hanged! One thing missing for deterrence

apparently was that apprehension was far from certain. (Indeed, even

stockbrokers at the time moonlighted as highway robbers at night).

Apprehension is also far from certain in America, especially in the inner

cities. In addition, a murder trial is a long and expensive process, as

Dorry, esq. must know. (And also anybody following the O.J. Simpson trial)."

I am reasonably certain that the apprehension and conviction rate of violent

criminals in the US today is much greater than the rate for petty criminals in

Victorian England. Why? Because investigatory techniques and modern technology

make it very difficult for criminals to hide from the law today. And let's

face it, how thoroughly did London's police force track down English Muffin

thieves? And how thoroughly do America's police forces (which may include

municipal, county, state, and federal contingents) track criminals? There is

no comparing the two; you are trying to create analogies where none exist.

At any rate, even if the apprehension rate in America is low, is that an

argument against CP or an argument for creating a greater apprehension rate?

You confuse issues. As for a "murder" trial being long and expensive, what are

you talking about? There is no such thing as a "murder" trial; people aren't

tried to determine whether or not they will be punished with death. They are

tried to determine guilt or innocence. Sentencing occurs separate from the

trial. (Or did you mean by murder trial, a trial in which the defendant is

being tried for murder? You probably didn't, because if you are arguing that

trying someone for murder is a bad idea because it clogs courts and wastes tax

money, then you are simply irrational).

"Now, in recent years, there have been one or two dozen executions in

America per year. At no time in our history has the number been more

than 200 in a single year. At present, (although exact figures are

hard to come by) there are probably about 5,000 people convicted of violent

crimes who are as deserving of the death penalty as the one or two dozen

executed in a given year. Two things follow at once: as a violent criminal

must realize, the chances of his being executed for his crime is quite small,

and, for CP to be a deterrent, the execution rate must be dramatically

higher than at any time in our history, perhaps close to 5,000 per year."

Again, yours isn't an argument against CP but an argument for more effective

implementation of the death penalty.

"The chances are that large increases in the number of executions will

be deeply offensive to people in our society before they become high

enough to be an effective deterrent, so that the high rates Dorry demands

are unlikely as long as we remain a free and democratic nation;"

You may well be right Craig. But if the increase in executions DOES have a

deterrent effect (even relatively slight), might not the population tolerate

the CP policy because they FEEL safer? And aren't you being a bit dramatic

when you suggest that the increase in executions will be so offensive as to

produce public outrage? Won't the violence of the execution be so remote from

ordinary people's lives as not to offend them directly or even very often? We

will not be hanging people in streets!

"I agree that the mere existence of CP at the present rate does not

significantly "brutalize" the society; 5,000 per year might well do so."

In what way exactly? Will the criminals become more brutal? How? Will law

abiding citizens become more brutal? How? Will Bill start challenging Newt to

pistols at ten paces?

"Equally likely is that a high rate of executions will give the criminal an

incentive to kill any potential witnesses to his murder, since he has nothing

to lose. (This was true for example in the Japan of the 1920's--since the

penalty for burglary was death, it was extremely dangerous to run into a

burglar in your home)."

Nonsense. Killing potential witnesses to a crime scene in a populated area (a

city street) would be impossible (because of sheer numbers). The threat of

killing witnesses in less populated areas (city street at night) is going to

be about the same regardless of punishment. The purpose of killing a witness

is to avoid punishment completely. I'm sure criminals do not allow witnesses

to a serious crime to escape harm simply because the witness's testimony is

worth life imprisonment as opposed to death.

"Now Dorry's claim that all violent crimes in America are done by blacks

is obviously false."

I resent this. I never said what you claim I did; you simply do not pay

attention. If you're going to make a remark as tainted as that, quote me. (But

of course, you can't).

"What is true is that centuries of racism have put a disproportionately large

number of blacks into an environment of destitution; especially outside the

South, mostly in inner cities. This vicious cycle cannot be cured over night,

and we've never tried very seriously to break it, but propose instead to try

even less hard and rely on harsh punishment instead for our safety and

standard of living."

You think the laws in these United States are harsh? Craig, please. You don't

even know what the law says. Can you give me (or anyone on this list) an

example of a harsh criminal statute on the books somewhere in the US?

"But this is unlikely to work. For those brought up in destitution in

the inner city, what reading and math skills they may pick up in their

miserable schools before dropping out are minimal. As a result, they

are virtually unemployable, even at minimum wage. In these circumstances,

a life of crime is a rational career choice. Arrest and prison, or

execution is a hazard of the trade, but an acceptable one, especially

for young men, whose aggressiveness is a condition of survival in the

gang-ridden inner city. Our legal system, like our tax system is

predicated on voluntary compliance by most people. It was not designed

for, and cannot handle, massive violations. In practice, therefore,

the costs of being caught are deeply discounted: to break the log-jams,

plea bargains are common, as well as early releases to make way for

new convicts. And the chances of there ever being enough police to

apprehend all offenders *where they are needed*, given any existing

or proposed legislation, are remote indeed."

The point is, Craig, that harsher punishments will make a life of crime an

IRRATIONAL career choice. Pouring less tax dollars into the criminal justice

sytem will result, and those dollars can go towards social programs to elevate

the status of the underpriveleged.

"In fact, merely removing "predators" from the street does little to

decrease the rate of predation; they will be quickly replaced by new

ones filling their niche."

Your logic is: I won't bathe today because I'll only get dirty again by

tomorrow???? Sorry Craig, but the fact that new germs will appear is no

argument to remove the existing ones.

"What you have to do is remove their habitat--in other words, get serious

about attacking poverty and the environment it creates at its roots, and all

our expensive feel-good measures, the crime bills, more laws in more states

providing for CP, the war on drugs, do not adddress the basic problem, are

unlikely to work and take away money and energy from the task of attacking

poverty. Instead, how do we propose to save money? Cut out welfare (1% of

the budget) or related programs such as head start (2%). But what about

subsidies to the wealthy, e.g. agribusiness, savings & loan, or say veteran's

entitlements, where the big bucks are? The gap between rich and

poor is increasing, and that is the real threat to society, as

even *Business Week* admitted a few months back."

We have to elevate the status of the have nots. But we also have to make

streets safe. You can't separate the two.

"Yes, we can make our streets safe. We can follow the Western European

model. (Granted, years of neglect give us a disadvantage, and racism

has kept a disproportionate number of blacks and latinos in destitution,

but even Johnson's quite modest war on poverty resulted in the lowest

poverty rate before or since the time it was dismantled)."

You made an argument, then realized that it doesn't apply. You're getting

better. Europe and America are two different worlds whose crime problems are

fundamentally different in character.

"We can follow the example of Nazi Germany, but only at the expense of what is

best in us and our society. More likely we'll follow the siren call of

whoever promises the latest cosmetic but ultimately worthless remedy (as Newty

is doing right now). And have the worst of both worlds.

While we take money from the politically powerless and give it to

the rich and powerful, or throw it at boondoggles which promise

tough measures while crime increases, we are postponing the day

when we may truly build a humane society, with liberty and justice

for *all*."

The Nazi reference is sensationalistic, obtuse, and suggests that you can not

argue reasonably without recourse to fabrication and hyperbole. Your entire

post was practically worthless, but the call for liberty and justice was a

kicker.

Sincerely,

Daniel A. Dorry, Esq.