Subject: Re: FLEMING'S FOLLY
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
Dear Dan Dorry,
It has been some time since I have taken part in this debate over
the death penalty. You and I have had some healthy, respectful exchanges
in the past. But in your response to Ms. Flemming you appear to engage in the
very sniping she appropriately criticized, at one point asking her if she
comes from a middle class white background with an income above $50,000, or
something like that.
Phrasing like that has the hint of bigotry about it. Probably
not a conscious intention on your part, but think about it. Perhaps a
little reflection is in order.
One other point (I don't have much time now, so forgive the
shortness of this note): In your response to Ms. Flemming, you wrote that
her belief, one I share, that killing criminals is wrong because innocent
people will, on occasion be wrongly executed, is absurd because it would
mean that jailing criminals is wrong because sometimes innocent people
would get jailed. This is a weak anology, Dan, because if an innocnent
perosn is wrongly jailed, the mistake can be corrected. If an innocent
person is executed, there is no recourse.
One last thing, you implied in your response to Ms. Flemming that
she somehow thinks killers are merely misled people who are deep-down, good
natured. I think you know only too well that this is not at all where she is
coming from. Therefore, again, you, all of us, should avoid the kind of sniping
she talked about.
I have said all this to you, as I think you know from past
exchanges between us, with no anger, Dan. You are a bright individual
whose voice can, and oftentimes is, a very healty part of the CP debate.
But when any of us slide into discussion rooted in sniping we become part
of the problem. And I do believe that you are, at core, interested in
being part of the solution. And, I have no doubt the same can be said of
Ms. Flemming.
For those of you who do not know me, my name is Peter Kahrmann.
I a former board member of the NYC Chapter of Victims for Victims and I
am against the death penalty as I'm sure you've gathered by now. I became
involved in the whole issue of crime after I was shot in the head in a
hold-up in Brooklyn in 1984. But never fear, while the bullet remains in
the brain, I am in good health, fully ambulatory, and run marathons to
raise money for head injury victims ( although by sharing this
information with you, you now all know I can't duck worth a damn).
Also, as Dan knows, I don not respond to message rooted in, as Ms.
Flemming puts it, sniping. I am only interested in healthy, alebit
emotional at times, discussion about the problem of violent crime in our country.
Lastly, please don't make the mistake of thinking that my criticism
of Dan in this message means I do not like him or respect him. I told him
once some time ago, that I would leap to his defesne were someone to get
nasty wiht him, and I've seen it done. As a people we need to learn how
to disagree.
My best to you all.
Always peace,
Peter
P.S.
I will respond to any message as quickly as I can. PLease be
patient, however, as I am working on a few pieces that are absorbing, and
two of them are for editors who call daily with their how close am I to
finishing questions.
On Tue, 14 Mar 1995, Daniel Dorry wrote:
> Just a quick response to Elizabeth Fleming's recent post (My response is in
> CAPS):
>
>
> To all debaters of the Death Penalty question,
> some of us seem to have lost sight of the finer points of this
> argument in the midst of what can only be called sniping...maybe
> y'all should have stayed philosophy majors and gone to grad school,
> then you wouldn't be enclined to be so antagonistic.
>
> HUH?
>
> First of all, proving that the death penalty is valid does not merely
> require proof of reasonableness, it requires proof of necessity. You
> must prove that the DP is NECESSARY for a society with a functioning
> criminal law system.
>
> NO, I DISAGREE. IT IS ENOUGH (IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING, ANYWAY)
> TO SAY THAT SOMETHING IS REASONABLE IN ORDER TO MAKE AT LEAST A PRELIMINARY
> CASE FOR ITS VALIDITY. INDEED, OUR ENTIRE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS PREDICATED
> ON DETERMINING WHAT IS AND IS NOT REASONABLE UNDER VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES, AND
> JUDGING ACCORDINGLY. I CAN'T EVEN FATHOM HOW ONE WOULD GO ABOUT PROVING
> VALIDITY THROUGH NECESSITY, AND, UPON REFLECTION, I CAN'T THINK OF A SINGLE LAW
> THAT IS NECESSARY.
>
> FURTHER, IF THE ONLY VALID LAWS (OR PUNISHMENTS, IF YOU WANT TO NARROW THE
> SCOPE) ARE THOSE THAT ARE NECESSARY, I INVITE YOU TO TELL US WHICH ARE
> NECESSARY. WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO GIVE A-1 FELONS 25 YEARS TO LIFE INSTEAD OF
> 15 TO 25 YEARS? WHAT IS THE NECESSITY IN THAT? YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING...THE
> RATIONALE FOR OUR LAWS IS THAT THEY EXACT A REASONABLE PUNISHMENT THAT
> (PRESUMABLY) "FITS" THE CRIME. THERE IS NO NOTION OF NECESSITY INVOLVED. THE DP
> IS CERTAINLY NOT NECESSARY, BUT IF YOU START WITH A FIRST PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH
> ALL CAN AGREE, LIKE: 'LET'S HELP CURB VIOLENT CRIME', THEN GIVEN THE POWER OF
> HARSH PUNISHMENT TO DETER ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, IT BECOMES USEFUL SOCIAL POLICY
> TO PUNISH THE MOST ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR WITH THE HARSHEST PENALTY.
>
> A good Utilitarian would tell you that making the killing of innocent
> people wrong is always a good thing to do, but that killing criminals
> is NOT always a good thing to do (because sometimes innocent people
> are killed) and therefore killing criminals is wrong, but I think
> there are stronger arguments than the Utilitarian.
>
> BUT UTILITARIANS AREN'T CONCERNED WITH ABSOLUTES LIKE RIGHTNESS AND WRONGNESS,
> BUT WITH SHAPING POLICIES THAT WILL BENEFIT ALL OF SOCIETY IN THE BEST POSSIBLE
> WAY. THE ARGUMENT THAT KILLING CRIMINALS IS WRONG BECAUSE SOMETIMES INNOCENT
> PEOPLE DIE IS PATENTLY ABSURD, BECAUSE IF YOUR ARGUMENT IS EXTENDED, THEN
> JAILING CRIMINALS IS WRONG TOO, BECAUSE SOMETIMES INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE JAILED.
> (LET ME STOP YOU BEFORE YOU START THE 'BUT THE INNOCENT JAILED CAN BE RELEASED'
> ARGUMENT. THE NUMBER OF INNOCENTS JAILED IS MINUTE; THE NUMBER EXECUTED
> APPROACHES 0%). IF KILLING CRIMINALS WILL BENEFIT SOCIETY, AS IT SURELY WOULD,
> THEN IT IS A GOOD IDEA IN UTILITARIANS' EYES.
>
> However, it is
> necessary to point out that by advocating the DP, you accept the idea
> that in certain circumstances preventing potential future deaths is
> worth MORE than saving the lives of innocent people who are
> wrongfully executed, because you can't believe that the legal system
> is 100 percent perfect and innocent people are never wrongfully
> executed...
>
> I BELIEVE THAT 100%! ANY "REASONABLE" PERSON WOULD AS WELL, WHEN YOU WEIGH THE
> POTENTIAL (SLIGHT)HARM AND POTENTIAL (ENORMOUS) BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED FROM
> IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE DP LEGISLATION.
>
> But is this necessarily the case? Can you really claim that someone
> like Jeffrey Dahmer would not have killed, dismembered, and eaten 17
> people if 100 percent of convicted murderers were executed? Maybe
> he would have just tried a whole hell of a lot harder to make sure
> he didn't get caught. We can never be sure of the deterrent effect-
> statistics indicate no real correlation exists between the
> implementation of the death penalty and any change in murder rates,
> positive or negative. One could argue that this is because the DP has
> not yet been implemented in the right way, but we don't really know
> that either. Why use people, even killers, as guinea pigs?
>
> 1. YOU'RE PERFECTLY RIGHT IN POINTING OUT THAT NOT ALL VIOLENT FELONS WILL BE
> DETERRED BY THE DP, BUT, BY AND LARGE, PEOPLE (EVEN VIOLENT PEOPLE) ARE
> DETERRED BY THREAT OF FORCE. THE HARSHER THE FORCE, THE GREATER THE DETERRENT
> EFFECT.
>
> 2. YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF KILLERS AS GUINEA PIGS IS INFLAMMATORY. YOU'RE
> SEEKING TO PLAY ON EMOTIONS, BUT CONSIDER THIS: A) PERHAPS PEOPLE FORFEIT THEIR
> RIGHT TO LIFE BY TAKING THE LIFE OF ANOTHER (UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES); B)
> PERHAPS IT IS OK TO "USE" KILLERS AS "GUINEA PIGS" TO ADVANCE A LARGER SOCIAL
> GOAL.
>
> Why would apprehansion rates increase?
>
> SEE ABOVE...#1
>
> OK, one could argue that the death penalty might deter a certain
> percentage of street punks from killing one another, even though it
> doesn't seem to be working now. But can you imagine how many positive
> social programs (like welfare, Head Start, etc.) could have an even
> GREATER deterrant effect?
>
>
> AHHH, I SEE NOW. KILLERS ARE EITHER JUST MISLED (BUT DEEP-DOWN GOOD NATURED)
> STREET "PUNKS" OR VICTIMIZED GUINEA PIGS, NOT COLD-BLOODED OR RUTHLESS.
> WHATEVER...BY THE WAY, DO YOU LIVE IN THE SUBURBS, CALL YOURSELF MIDDLE CLASS
> AND WHITE, AND HAVE A HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF $50,000+ ...? JUST A LUCKY GUESS.
>
> ANYWAY, HOW CAN THE DP POSSIBLY BE EFFECTIVE NOW WHEN ONLY 1/1000TH OF ONE
> PERCENT OF THOSE CONVICTED OF MURDER ARE EVENTUALLY EXECUTED? SOCIAL PROGRAMS
> MAY INDEED HAVE A DETERRENT EFFECT. THE BETTER THE REASON TO IMPLEMENT AN
> EFFECTIVE DP, STREAMLINE THE APPEALS PROCESS, OPEN JAIL SPACE FOR LESS VIOLENT
> CRIMINALS, LOWER TAXES, RE-ALLOCATE SAVINGS FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS, ELEVATE THE
> STATUS OF THE UNDERPRIVELEGED...IT ALL GOES HAND-IN-HAND.
>
>
> My point is this. The death penalty has NOT, and no one can deny
> this, significantly lowered murder rates through its application.
>
> I AGREE. BUT LET'S WORK TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE. I KEEP HEARING: IT HASN'T WORKED,
> THEREFORE IT'S A BAD IDEA. BUT SHOULDN'T WE BE ASKING WHETHER IT CAN WORK? AND
> IF SO, HOW? AND IF NOT, WHY NOT?
>
> The valid argument in favor of its application is the fact that, yes, it
> does stop certain violent criminals from killing again.
>
> BRAVO...I SEE A LIGHT SOMEWHERE AT THE END OF THIS TUNNEL!
>
> But so could
> lifetime incarceration, NO possibility for parole, if our prison
> system were reformed enough.
>
> HEY, YOU GAVE ME SOME SPACE THERE...I'LL RETURN THE FAVOR. LWOP ISN'T A BAD
> IDEA, BUT IN THE END, WE HAVE TO ASK...IF 25 YRS IN PRISON ISNT A DETERRENT,
> WHY WILL 35 OR 45 YRS MAKE CRIMINALS THINK TWICE?
>
> And finally, if the DP is supported by such a significant percentage
> of American citizens, why do we insist on making it so difficult for
> state governments to actually execute anyone?
>
> GOOD POINT. FOR AN EXCELLENT DISCUSSION OF THIS, SEE THE NY TIMES EDITORIAL
> PAGE ON MARCH 7 OR 8 (I CANT REMEMBER)...ONE MAIN POINT WAS THAT IT IS THE
> SUPREME COURT (ALL OF WHOM ARE APPOINTED, NOT ELECTED) WHO HAS EXPANDED
> CRIMINALS RIGHTS ENORMOUSLY IN THE RECENT PAST, AND MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO
> EXECUTE ANYONE.
>
> This suggests to me
> that we as citizens are tremendously concerned with protecting a
> potential victim of a wrongful execution, and are more concerned with
> preserving life than executing criminals.
>
> NO, IT MEANS THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS SO CONCERNED, AND THERE IS A BIG
> DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY, AND THE WILL OF NINE JUSTICES.
>
> Moral law should be something which all, not just any reasonable
> person would agree to.
>
> ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT UNREASONABLE PEOPLE SHOULD BE HEARD IN MORAL DEBATE?
> ISN'T THAT PREPOSTEROUS? SHOULDN'T IT BE PRECISELY THOSE WHO ARE REASONABLE
> THAT WE SHOULD LISTEN TO MOST CLOSELY? AH, YOU RETORT, WHO ARE THE REASONABLE
> ONES? DON'T WORRY, LIZ, YOU'LL KNOW THEM WHEN YOU HEAR THEM...
>
> Just a few points to ponder.
>
> HMMM.....
>
> Liza Flemming
> philosopher-in-training
>
>
>
>
>
