Radicali.it - sito ufficiale di Radicali Italiani
Notizie Radicali, il giornale telematico di Radicali Italiani
cerca [dal 1999]


i testi dal 1955 al 1998

  RSS
mer 19 mar. 2025
[ cerca in archivio ] ARCHIVIO STORICO RADICALE
Conferenza Transnational
Agora' Internet - 27 aprile 1995
To Peter and Craig

From: Daniel Dorry

To: Multiple recipients of list

Subject: To Peter and Craig

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

X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List

Hello all,

It has been some time since the death penalty has been re-examined on this

list. I'm glad that I was NOT the one to initiate the dicourse (for a change).

I won't bore you (or enrage you) with restatements of my position on the

merits of the death penalty, but I would like to respond to the posts recently

by Peter Kahrman and Craig Harrison.

Peter Kahrman wrote: (MY RESPONSE IS IN CAPS)

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.

THE "SNIPE" WAS SARCASM, IT'S TRUE; BUT IT WASN'T MEAN-SPIRITED IN NATURE, I

PROMISE. RATHER, IT WAS A FRUSTRATED RESPONSE TO WHAT APPEARS TO ME TO BE THE

SHARP DIVISIONS IN THE WIDER DP DEBATE WHICH RUN EXCLUSIVELY ALONG CLASS (NOT

RACIAL) LINES. SPECIFICALLY: IT SEEMS THAT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THOSE

I'VE SPOKEN WITH (AND OF COURSE, I HAVEN'T SPOKEN WITH EVERYONE, BUT WHO HAS?)

WHO DENOUNCE THE DEATH PENALTY ARE PRECISELY THOSE WHO ARE LEAST QUALIFIED TO

DISCUSS THE PHENOMENON OF THE CRIMINAL CULTURE IN AN INFORMED AND URGENT

MANNER. THE ARGUMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE DP IS WRONG BECAUSE IT "IGNORES

THE INNATE DIGNITY OF HUMANITY" IS ADVANCED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY BY WHITE

PROFESSIONALS (UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, LAWYERS, DOCTORS) WHO ARE IGNORANT OF

(WHAT CLINTON RECENTLY CALLED) "THE DARKER FORCES" OF OUR NATURE. THESE

PROFESSIONALS INHABIT NICE NEIGHBORHOODS (IN CITIES AND SUBURBIA), LARGELY

SHIELDED FROM THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT, AND KNOW ONLY OF CRIME WHAT THEY READ

ABOUT IN THE PAPERS: A DILUTED, ALMOST CLINICAL, DESCRIPTION OF EVEN THE MOST

BRUTAL OF ACTS, ACCOMPANIED BY A LENGTHY AND HEART WRENCHING ACCOUNT OF THE

SOCIAL "FORCES" WHICH (PRESUMABLY) "DRIVE" THE CRIMINALS TO ACTS OF

"ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR". MY POINT ISN'T THAT ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN

VICTIMIZED BY CRIME SHOULD HAVE A VOICE, OR THAT PROFESSIONALS SHOULD MOVE TO

CRIME RIDDEN NEIGHBORHOODS. INSTEAD, I'M SUGGESTING THAT A BROADER (LESS

LOCKEAN) UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF CRIMINALITY SHOULD BE SOUGHT AFTER

BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS MYOPIC AND MISINFORMED. IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE THAT A

CHILD GROWING UP IN POVERTY, SURROUNDED BY DRUGS, ENMESHED IN A GHETTO CULTURE

WHICH EXTOLS AGRESSION AND DISRESPECT FOR AUTHORITY AS VIRTUES WILL HAVE AN

ENORMOUSLY DIFFICULT TIME NOT INTERNALIZING THOSE VALUES AS HE REACHES

ADULTHOOD. BUT AT WHAT POINT DO WE STOP LETTING HIS ENVIRONMENT EXCUSE HIS

CONDUCT? ENVIRONMENT CAN NEVER BE AN EXCUSE FOR BEHAVIOR; ALL WE CAN DO IS

PUNISH WHILE WE TRY TO REMEDY SOCIAL ILLS. TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO

CONDONE CRIMINALITY, AND ADMIT THAT HUMANITY IN FACT DOES NOT HAVE AN "INNATE

DIGNITY" WHICH MAY RISE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES OF POSITION AND PLACE. BUT

HUMANITY DOES HAVE A CERTAIN DIGNITY . . . WE HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT TO BELIEVE

IN SELF-GOVERNMENT. BUT WHEN A PERSON MAKES A CONSCIOUS CHOICE TO IGNORE THE

RULES OF A FREE SOCIETY AND OFFEND THE LAWS OF MAN AND NATURE BY TAKING AN

INNOCENT PERSON'S LIFE, THEN PERHAPS THAT PERSON'S DIGNITY IS DIMINISHED JUST

A BIT. I REALIZE THIS IS GETTING A BIT LONG, SO I'LL CUT IT HERE, BUT WOULD BE

HAPPY TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION WITH ANYONE.

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.

HMMM...THINKING.....WELL, IF YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT I DO NOT LIKE WHITES OR

THE MIDDLE CLASS, THEN ALL I CAN DO IS ASSURE YOU I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST

EITHER. AS I SAID ABOVE, HOWEVER, WHAT I AM AGAINST IS A NARROWNESS OF

PERSPECTIVE (THAT SEEMS TYPICAL OF MIDDLE CLASS WHITES IN THIS DEBATE) THAT

SEEMS TO SAY, 'GOLLY, IF THOSE MURDERERS WERE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES TO

ADVANCE THAT I WAS GROWING UP - WHY, I'M SURE THEY WOULD HAVE TURNED OUT

DIFFERENTLY. THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED; THEY SHOULD BE REHABILITATED.' I'M

SORRY, BUT I CAN NOT ACCEPT THAT. PEOPLE - ALL PEOPLE - ARE GIVEN CHOICES.

SOME CHOOSE TO FOLLOW THE RULES, AND SOME DO NOT. TRUE, NOT ALL OF US HAVE THE

SAME RANGE OF CHOICES, BUT ON A MORAL LEVEL-ON THE LEVEL OF GOOD AND EVIL-WE

ALL HAVE LARGELY THE SAME CHOICES (AND CAPACITIES FOR BOTH). YOU DO NOT HAVE

TO SEND SOMEONE TO PRISON TO TEACH HIM GOOD FROM EVIL; IF HE COULDN'T MAKE

THAT DISTINCTION, HE WOULD NEVER BE SENT TO PRISON, ANYWAY.

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.

I DON'T WANT TO REVISIT THESE TIRED OLD ARGUMENTS PETE, BUT LET ME JUST

CLARIFY: IT IS ONLY A WEAK ANALOGY IF CONVICTS ARE WRONGLY EXECUTED WITH ANY

REGULARITY. IF THEY ARE (WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE), THEN (HANDS ARE UP) YOU GOT

ME. BUT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, MS. FLEMING WAS ADDRESSING THE IMMORALITY OF

KILLING FOR PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS (YOU KNOW, THE 'OLE "INNATE DIGNITY"

ARGUMENT); SO MY SUGGESTION WAS THAT ONE COULD NOT CONSISTENTLY OPPOSE KILLING

FOR MORAL REASONS AND YET ACCEPT THE MORALITY OF CAGING A HUMAN BEING FOR LIFE

(THE TYPICAL CRY FOR JUSTICE THAT RINGS OUT FROM ANTI-DP'ERS) WITHOUT FIRST

EXPLAINING WHY KILLING INVOKES A SPECIAL MORAL "AURA" THAT IMPRISONMENT DOES

NOT.

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.

AGAIN, I CAN ONLY REFER YOU TO MY FIRST PARAGRAPH IN RESPONSE.

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.

YOU'RE RIGHT. I'LL KEEP THE SNIPING TO A MINIMUM (BUT SOMETIMES YOU GUYS ARE

JUST SO WRONG!!) ;)

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

NICE TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN, PETE.

______________________________________________

Craig Harrison wrote:

I for one dropped out of the Dorry vs. everybody else CP thread when

it became clear what we agreed and disagreed on, given that the area

of disagreement concerned predictions of the outcomes of policy about

which nobody has real knowledge, with the predictable result that

reasoned argument gave way to rhetoric.

MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY....SAD, BUT TRUE.

We both agree that CP at its present level has no discernible effect

on the murder rate, while an automatic (and prompt) execution of 100%

of convicted murderers, thereby increasing the rate of executions

from a few dozen to a few thousand a year, would have a dramatic

effect.

YES....

But that is where the difficulty begins. Most Americans say they

support CP, but would they support an increase such as this?

THEY PROBABLY WOULD IF THE CRIME RATE DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY, AND IF SUCH

POLICY IMPACTED POSITIVELY ON THE QUALITY OF THEIR DAY TO DAY LIVES. ASIDE

FROM THAT HAPPENING, THERE WOULD BE OPPOSITION, I'M SURE. LET ME BE THE FIRST

TO SAY THAT THE IDEA OF METING OUT STATE SANCTIONED EXECUTIONS BY THE HUNDREDS

ON A DAILY BASIS IS A SCARY, SCARY PROSPECT. BUT RIGHT NOW SO IS TAKING THE

"A" TRAIN AFTER 11:00PM.

And if they didn't, juries would become reluctant to convict defendants of

murder. Right now, the criminal justice process leading to execution

a slow process indeed, partly due, Dorry claims to recalcitrant and

unelected justices thwarting the will of the people.

LET'S NOT FORGET THE IMPACT OF THE CRIME RATE ITSELF ON JUSTICE'S SLOW

HAND...THE MORE CRIME THERE IS, THE MORE BACKED UP THE COURT DOCKETS, THE

SLOWER THE HAND, AND VICE VERSA. IF THE DP COULD REDUCE CRIME, THEN IT WOULD

ALSO SPEED UP JUSTICE WITHOUT THE NEED FOR LIMITING PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS

ALREADY FIRMLY IN PLACE.

As a result, DA's are often reluctant even to ask for the death penalty (the

O.J.

Simpson trial aside). Should we do away with separation of powers,

one of the fundamental principles of our Constitution?

NO...

How can we assure that accused murderers get a speedy and short trial and

execution if found guilty, without mangling the Constitution and

surrendering important freedoms (e.g. perhaps rules of evidence,

perhaps presumption of innocence, etc.) to say nothing of increasing

dramatically the execution of innocent people.

WE SHOULDN'T WANT SHORT OR SPEEDY TRIALS...LET TRIALS TAKE AS LONG AS TRIALS

TAKE...BUT ONCE CONVICTED, GIVE A CONVICT FACING THE DP ONE AUTOMATIC APPEAL,

AND IF THE CONVICTION IS UPHELD, THEN LET THE SENTENCE BE CARRIED OUT. THERE

WOULD BE NO NEED TO ALTER EVIDENTIARY RULES OR THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES UPON

WHICH DUE PROCESS IS FOUNDED. BUT TOO MUCH OF ANYTHING (EVEN DUE PROCESS) IS A

BAD THING. AS FAR AS THE INNOCENT BEING EXECUTED IS CONCERNED, THIS IS AN OLD

ARGUMENT. WE CAN NEVER, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER KNOW WITH CERTAINTY IF A CONVICT

WAS GUILTY OR INNOCENT. THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN KNOW WITH CERTAINTY ARE THE THE

INNOCENT AND GUILTY PARTIES THEMSELVES. EVERYTHING IS HE SAID/SHE

SAID....COVERUP/DOUBLE COVERUP....ETC. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE DUE PROCESS

FOR...TO AID US IN DETERMINING GUILT AND INNOCENCE...IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT,

BELIEV IN IT ALL THE WAY. WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES? WHO KNOWS WHAT MOTIVATES

THE PROSECUTOR TO COME ALONG LATER AND SAY "I'VE SUPPRESSED EXCULPATORY

EVIDENCE" (WHICH WOULD MARK THE END OF HIS CAREER)? MAYBE HE DID, MAYBE HE

DIDN'T, ETC, ETC....

Again, how can we be sure that such measures would dramatically increase the

hostility,

violence and militancy of the inner city poor against the rest of us,

especially given the current enthusiasm for dismantling the very

social programs which might defuse the situation--even now, the US

has the greatest disparity of income of *any* industrialized country,

while educational opportunities (including the GI bill) are

disappearing. These are important questions. I don't know the

answers. But I do know that they can't be anwered by rhetoric.

--Craig Harrison, San Francisco

I DONT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS EITHER, CRAIG, BUT HOPEFULLY REASON WILL PREVAIL

SOONER OR LATER IN THIS DEBATE.

TAKE CARE ALL,

DANIEL DORRY

 
Argomenti correlati:
stampa questo documento invia questa pagina per mail