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.
