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
mar 18 mar. 2025
[ cerca in archivio ] ARCHIVIO STORICO RADICALE
Conferenza Transnational
Agora' Internet - 3 maggio 1995
Re: Self defense, due process, and the DP

From: Daniel Dorry

To: Multiple recipients of list

Subject: Re: Self defense, due process, and the DP

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

X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List

CRAIG, OLE BOY! ALLOW ME TO RESPOND . . .

I am touched by Dorry's faith in due process for indigents charged

with serious offenses, but this is contrary to my experience (and

I daresay to that of most indigents); it is not necessary to assume

that lawyers or public defenders for indigent defendants are

incompetent, just that they are overworked. Might not the Sing

Sing warden's famous comment that those who were executed on his

watch had one thing in common--they were poor be not that surprising?

(the same is true in other fields--doctors as well as lawyers have

"$100,000 educations, but the level of medical care for uninsured

indigent patients in General Hospitals or even VA hospitals is much

poorer for the same reasons).

YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN, BUT THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM,

BUT WITH THE GROSS ECONOMIC DISPARITIES IN OUR COUNTRY. OJ GETS MUCH BETTER

PROTECTION THAN JOE NOBODY UNDER THE LAW . . . BUT WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO

WITH THE DP? CAPITAL CASES ARE CHOCK FULL OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS THAT

PROTECT EVEN THE POOREST DEFENDANT FROM PREJUDICE. THATS THE REASON THAT DEATH

ROW DEFENDANTS SPEND YEARS ON DEATH ROW. AND AS "TOUCHED" AS YOU ARE BY MY

FAITH IN DUE PROCESS, CRAIG OLE BOY, I AM EQUALLY SHOCKED AT YOUR SCORN FOR

IT. BUT HEY, YOU'RE AN EDUCATED FELLA; WHY DON'T YOU OFFER SOME SUGGESTIONS AS

TO HOW PROCEDURE SHOULD BE ALTERED TO BETTER PROTECT DEFENDANTS (LET'S SAY,

THE BLACK BELTS FROM YOUR SCENARIO A FEW DAYS AGO)? AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING

LIKE A SKEPTIC, I'D BE WILLING TO BET YOU DON'T HAVE A SINGLE WORKABLE IDEA.

As for the cases I know of, it was nothing as romantic as an evil "black belt"

beating up on a ninety pound weakling over an affair of the heart, but much

more pedestrian

with no witnesses--the routineness of such affairs itself contributes

to the lack of careful due process.

NO, NO . . . SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT IMPACT AT ALL ON DUE PROCESS . . . THEY

DO, HOWEVER, MAKE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO WIN AN ACQUITTAL. BAD LUCK <> LACK

OF DUE PROCESS.

Nor do I think the fact that

there has been no revolution is evidence that the criminal justice

system is working well for everybody,

I NEVER SAID IT WORKED WELL FOR EVERYBODY; I SAID IF INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE PUT

TO DEATH OR JAILED WITH ANY REGULARITY (A CENTRAL THESIS IN THE ANTI-DP CAMP)

THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A REVOLUTION. AT LEAST HAVE THE DECENCY TO RESPOND TO

WHAT WAS SAID, INSTEAD OF INVENTING THE TRUTH. ARE YOU A REPORTER?

but if it is not, a dramatic

increase in executions of offenders convicted in cursory trials

can only contribute to social unrest.

. . OR SOCIAL ORDER. (AND NOBODY IS ADVOCATING "CURSORY" TRIALS, CRAIG OLE

BOY; WHY THE INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE?) AND IF SOCIAL UNREST EMERGES, SO BE IT.

I'M WILLING TO TAKE THE HEAT TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE; AREN'T YOU, CRAIG OLE

BOY? OR ARE YOU AFRAID ALL DEM CRAZY NIGGA-FOLK GONNA COME BURNING DOWN YOUR

LILY-WHITE MANSION IN THE CLOISTERED 'FRISCO BURBS?

Dorry's first point, however is more interesting--by counting heads,

(no pun intended) an increase in executions of innocent parties, if

the increase is in direct proportion to the increase in executions

generally, will result in a net saving of lives, given the deterrent

effect of the hundred-fold or so rise in executions. Assuming that

Dorry is right that this does result in a dramatic reduction in

the murder rate, and no widespread protest against the new policy

results, due to the salutary decrease in homicides, there is still

the problem of getting from point A (where we are now) to point B

(Dorry's Utopia). It is simply not clear that a hundred-fold

increase

in the annual execution rate will immediately result in a dramatic

reduction in murders, and no significant protest or unrest.

IMMEDIATE RESULTS ARE NOT NECESSARY NOR EXPECTED; BUT ROME WASN'T BUILT IN A

DAY, YOU CRAZY OLE SHORTSIGHTED AMERICAN RADICAL, YOU! ;)

In the real world, it often happens that point B is more desirable than

point A, while points in between are far more undesirable than

either one. The issue of gun control may supply another example.

The advocates of gun control may have a point, that the lower

rate of violent crime in Western Europe has a lot to do with the

relative unavailability of firearms. But how is the number of

handguns in this country to be reduced from the present 200 *million*

to Western European, without trampling on important freedoms (and

BTW, I'd say that the wide availability of handguns poses a larger

threat to public safety than evil black belts bent on

_crime passionel_) [oops Western European levels].

A COUPLE OF WAYS, CRAIG:

1. PASS A NATIONAL GUN LAW THAT WOULD MAKE IT ENORMOUSLY DIFFICULT TO PURCHASE

A GUN ANYWHERE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT GIVES THE ORDINARY

CITIZEN UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN; BUT I WON'T

DEBATE THAT NOW. THE POINT IS EVEN IF I BELIEVED THE 2ND AMEND DID GIVE

CITIZENS THAT RIGHT IT WOULD STILL BE CONSTITUTIONAL TO PUT TOUGH RESTRICTIONS

ON GUN SALES.

2. PRAY THAT THE SUPREME COURT OPENS IT EYES TO THE EXCESSES OF FOURTH

AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE. WEAKEN THE DEFINITION OF "PROBABLE CAUSE", PUT THE

BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO PROVE A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION IN SEARCH

AND SEIZURE CASES, ET AL.

NOW, BACK TO OUR BROADCAST:

Meanwhile, the

levels of both CP and gun control we now have are useless or worse

than useless, being at best cosmetic and not getting to the root

of the problem. Yet I see little evidence of any inclination on

the part of the public for the drastic measures Dorry has in mind.

PERHAPS A GLANCE AT PUBLIC OPINION POLLS WOULD BE IN ORDER CRAIG. THE FACT IS,

THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST THE DP ARE A MARGINAL GROUP OF PROSPEROUS

URBAN LIBERALS WHO DO SO ONLY OUT OF COLLECTIVE MIDDLE-CLASS GUILT.

The example of Western Europe serves as a beacon for many would-be

reformers; at least it does show that a low rate of violent crime

is possible without capital punishment at all.

. . AND WITHOUT THE COMPLEX AND PROBLEMATIC DEMOGRAPHICS OF URBAN AMERICA.

But people argue

interminably about the reasons for this. The fact is that nobody

really *knows*, so that arguments get nowhere but continue

THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, WE DISAGREE ON CERTAIN KEY

FUNDAMENTALS. I BELIEVE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT:

1. PUNISHMENT DETERS

2. THE HARSHER THE PUNISHMENT THE GREATER THE DETERRENT EFFECT

3. CERTAIN CLASSES OF INDIVIDUALS (THOSE WHO COMMIT THE MOST VIOLENT ACTS

AGAINST SOCIETY) PROVE THEMSELVES UNWORTHY OF THE PRIVELEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF

ORDERED SOCIETY, AND THEREBY FORFEIT THEIR MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN THAT

SOCIETY: THE RIGHT TO LIFE.

4. THE POLICY THAT HAS THE GREATEST OVERALL IMPACT ON SECURING FREEDOM FOR THE

GREATEST NUMBER OUGHT TO BE IMPLEMENTED

5. THE DP IS ONE POLICY IN ACCORD WITH #4

I myself would be reluctant to a drastic operation whithout more

than rhetorical arguments from the prospective operation [oops

the prospective surgeon] as to the expected benefits.

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE? TO CONTINUE WITH THE METAPHOR, I HAVE NO "CADAVERS" TO

OFFER YOU, CRAIG.

And I

am similarly disinclined to support drastic increases in executions

without much more knowledge than I have seen from any source so

far (nor do I think that any such drastic increase is at all likely

to happen). The public prefers token CP and the Radical Party the

abolition of it. Neither policy has real effect one way or the

other, except as a matter of symbolism.

YOU ARE BOTH CYNICAL AND WRONG, CRAIG OLE BOY..THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS 'A

SCREAMIN FOR JUSTICE.

DANIEL DORRY, ESQ.

 
Argomenti correlati:
stampa questo documento invia questa pagina per mail