Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why . . .
On Tue, 15 May 2001 10:56:34 +1200 "David McNab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IMO, the death penalty serves to increase the incidence of violent > crime. > > The existence of such a penalty puts a chill into the community, and > sends > the message that a government is capable of lethal violence. In such > a > scenario, it's easier for a criminal to rationalise his/her violent > tendencies. Many crimes, violent and lethal ones, are commited in an attempt to avoid being captured, tried, convicted, and executed. These crimes at the very least can be instantly eliminated by eliminating the death penalty. If you take away someone's hope, you make that person desperate, and desperate people are capable of anything. And they usualy do a whole lot more damage when they are desperate, without any hope of a better future. Hope is the only thing that keeps prisoners in prison, not prison guards, or bars. If you had the power to sentence the population of an entire prison in a major city to death, effective immidiatly, and actualy used that power, you would find that prisoners will overpower and kill thier guards and escape into the general populace. You will also find that they would do anything, ANYTHING, to keep from getting caught. Thats what happens when you have legal murder in this country. > > And another point - it's not too hard to frame a person for > premeditated > murder. All it takes is a bit of time, money, planning etc to put a > person > into a situation where they can be seen as having motive, to abduct > them > away for a while so they have no alibi, kill some poor mug, and > plant a bit > of DNA, personal items etc on the scene. A bit of money will buy a > team of > disillusioned (perhaps ex-) detectives who will provide expertise. > Maybe > pull off a string of similar murders beforehand to get the District > Attorney > all hot under the collar, and the public screaming for blood. Unless > that > person is wealthy enough to afford an OJ-style 'Dream Team', > they'll > fry/spike/choke for sure. This is absolutely true, the system is no where near good enough to sentence only the guilty. I doubt it is even 50% accurate when you are dealing with capital punishment cases. GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why . . .
On Sun, 13 May 2001 01:08:10 -0400 "Darren Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> > imagination. I don't understand how he could wreak so much pain
> and
> > horror with so little thought. If he must die, then he must feel
> the
>
> He served a long stint as an american soldier, IIRC. Isn't that
> what they
> are trained (conditioned) to be able to do? ("not human
> casualties,
> soldier - collateral damage!")
Yeah, thats true. We are litteraly creating monsters in the military,
but I hope their training also tries to balance that need to kill with a
need to help and protect the innocent.
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why . . .
I'm still flabbergasted that the UK Parliament got away with passing a bill which gives ridiculous powers to the Secret Service. The real cringe factor in that Bill is the bit where a spy can go to an employee and demand the company's encryption keys - if the employee refuses, it's 2 years jail - if the employee tells anyone else in the company, it's 5 years jail. What... the... fuck... ??!?!? But then it shouldn't be too shocking - Poms are historically accustomed to living with less privacy than English-speakers elsewhere. It shocks me that the House of Commons actually passed the damn thing. If they tried that in Australia or New Zealand, it would have been tossed out pronto. Politicians would have been endlessly bombarded with mail, phone calls, email and personal visits from indignant voters. Ditto for the US, whose 'rebel streak' (perhaps partly due to early Irish concentration) is one of its many saving graces. Viva la Freenet! :) I'd love to see the UK spooks trying on their 'key escrow' laws with Freenet node operators :) - Original Message - From: "Mikus 29" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why . . . > In response to the recent implications that America is the source of the > problem, I'll present this to counter that "we" are not as much to blame as > those who accept, blindly, the invasions across the ocean. "We" are not > quite so lethargic about invasions of our privacy, and resistance of a > "Police-State". > > Mikus > > >NO HIDING PLACE > > > >SUNDAY TIMES MAGAZINE -- But the LIBERTARIAN nerds, known in this > >field as "cypherpunks", fought back in the name of freedom from > >the all-seeing eyes of Big Brother government. In the United > >States they have had some success, thanks to the native distrust > >of government; in Britain they have had almost none. > > > >http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/04/15/magazine1.html > > A few other bits from this (rather lengthy) bit of reading... > > We seem to have such fear of crime, and such a mute acceptance of the > seizure of power by the authorities, that we are actually comforted by the > thought that we are being watched all the time. This, in the current climate > of paranoia and high technology, is dangerous. Our right to live a > law-abiding life without interference is now utterly compromised. The > Englishman's home is no longer his castle, it is his virtual interrogation > cell. > > ... > > Closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are the final turn of the screw. > There are now 1.5m(million) of these operating in Britain, and some, as in > the London borough of Newham, use facial recognition software that > automatically identifies target individuals. Some of these cameras are > visible, but many, in pubs and clubs, are not. In time, it is thought these > cameras will be linked in a nationwide web. They will become, as Dr Stephen > Graham of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne has suggested, the "fifth > utility", after telephones, water, gas and electricity. "These networks," he > writes, "have long since merged and extended to become technologically > standardised, multipurpose, nationally regulated utilities, with virtually > universal coverage. I would argue that CCTV looks set to follow a similar > pattern of development over the next 20 years, to become a kind of fifth > utility." > > "We have far more of these cameras that any other country," Graham tells me, > "though Germany and the US are now catching up. Why? Well, I suppose we have > fewer constitutional and political fears about invasions of privacy. > > ... > > Soon, some have suggested, we shall have to record our entire lives on audio > and video just to establish an alibi, in case we are implicated in a crime. > Indeed, not to make such a recording may one day be treated as a cause for > suspicion. > > Do we care? In Britain, apparently not. We accept CCTV cameras out of fear > of crime, and as a result we have more than any other nation in the > world... > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > ___ > Chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat > ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why . . .
In response to the recent implications that America is the source of the problem, I'll present this to counter that "we" are not as much to blame as those who accept, blindly, the invasions across the ocean. "We" are not quite so lethargic about invasions of our privacy, and resistance of a "Police-State". Mikus >NO HIDING PLACE > >SUNDAY TIMES MAGAZINE -- But the LIBERTARIAN nerds, known in this >field as "cypherpunks", fought back in the name of freedom from >the all-seeing eyes of Big Brother government. In the United >States they have had some success, thanks to the native distrust >of government; in Britain they have had almost none. > >http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/04/15/magazine1.html A few other bits from this (rather lengthy) bit of reading... We seem to have such fear of crime, and such a mute acceptance of the seizure of power by the authorities, that we are actually comforted by the thought that we are being watched all the time. This, in the current climate of paranoia and high technology, is dangerous. Our right to live a law-abiding life without interference is now utterly compromised. The Englishman's home is no longer his castle, it is his virtual interrogation cell. ... Closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are the final turn of the screw. There are now 1.5m(million) of these operating in Britain, and some, as in the London borough of Newham, use facial recognition software that automatically identifies target individuals. Some of these cameras are visible, but many, in pubs and clubs, are not. In time, it is thought these cameras will be linked in a nationwide web. They will become, as Dr Stephen Graham of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne has suggested, the "fifth utility", after telephones, water, gas and electricity. "These networks," he writes, "have long since merged and extended to become technologically standardised, multipurpose, nationally regulated utilities, with virtually universal coverage. I would argue that CCTV looks set to follow a similar pattern of development over the next 20 years, to become a kind of fifth utility." "We have far more of these cameras that any other country," Graham tells me, "though Germany and the US are now catching up. Why? Well, I suppose we have fewer constitutional and political fears about invasions of privacy. ... Soon, some have suggested, we shall have to record our entire lives on audio and video just to establish an alibi, in case we are implicated in a crime. Indeed, not to make such a recording may one day be treated as a cause for suspicion. Do we care? In Britain, apparently not. We accept CCTV cameras out of fear of crime, and as a result we have more than any other nation in the world... _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why collateral damage
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the "governments", "media", "Businesses" and "voters" also made up of individuals? They are all the same as the individuals across the oceans that seperate them from the individuals living under the oppression of their other ruling parties. The majority of people all over the world are ignorant of their ignorance. Maybe the concentration is greater in the land that everyone looks to as being the "supposed" leader in the "free world". I'm sure I used to see it that way, until I opened my eyes(mind). Very rarely do I see anyone looking for a solution to a problem by searching for the cause. I see people more intent on creating a law to punish anyone exacerbating the problem. I hear, daily, of people murdered for "running from the cops" while trying to avoid being caught with an illegal substance they planned on ingesting for their own enjoyment, or supplying to their consenting customers. The problem is not in the drug dealers, it is in the intolerance of other people to accept that some people wish to poison their own bodies, which cannot be morallized into a legal statute. Making criminals out of people for doing something that doesn't harm another, by justifying it under the guise of "drug users are habitual criminals, likely to commit robberies and theft", is a circular arguement. The users wouldn't need to steal to fund their habit, if the drugs weren't illegal as the prices would be much lower. They'd also have a chance to get help without risking an unforgiving beauracracy, and jail time if they slip up during recovery. But, are those people, ignorant of their ignorance, being told that they can see much lower crime by the legalization of drugs? No. They're told that drug use and crime would escalate to unheard of highs, and they BELIEVE it... Yes, sound bytes are the order of the day. Yes, I live in the "Americas" but I'm not an American. I used to think I was. Now, I'm just a human trying to find some happiness in a world of insanity. I'm thinking that there may be more "sane" people in the "institutions" than there are outside of them, but that's a different story. Anyone talk to any dolphins lately? Wonko? Where's my fishbowl? And what's this fish doing in my ear? Mikus >From: "Stephen Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [freenet-chat] Which is why collateral damage >Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:22:32 +0200 > >Exactly my point! Thank you. (By the way, I am one of your, how can I say >it?, com-patriates as I was born and raised in the USA, matey). I ONLY see >individuals as individuals. It is the governments, the media, the >businesses, the LAW , the VOTERS, that refuse to see anything other than >SOUND BYTES. I laugh at Jnr. Why can't you see the funny side? Everyone >has prejudice. I claim my right to it! > >Stephen Bennett > >Message: 4 >From: "Mikus 29" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why collateral damage >Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:41:40 -0400 >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Although I live, geographically, within the physical borders of the land >mass you so unintelligently, and eloquently seem to get such a laugh at, I >am not insulted. I am, however, amused at the lack of intellectual >abilities of yourself, at including every human within those borders as >being so mentally inept as to qualify to meet your "belief" of what >americans "are". You should move here, too. Look who's using the word >"ignorant"... Prejudice is unbecoming of everyone who uses it. Smarten >up, >and see individuals for the individuals they are. > >Mikus > > > ><< StephenBennett.vcf >> _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why . . .
IMO, the death penalty serves to increase the incidence of violent crime. The existence of such a penalty puts a chill into the community, and sends the message that a government is capable of lethal violence. In such a scenario, it's easier for a criminal to rationalise his/her violent tendencies. And another point - it's not too hard to frame a person for premeditated murder. All it takes is a bit of time, money, planning etc to put a person into a situation where they can be seen as having motive, to abduct them away for a while so they have no alibi, kill some poor mug, and plant a bit of DNA, personal items etc on the scene. A bit of money will buy a team of disillusioned (perhaps ex-) detectives who will provide expertise. Maybe pull off a string of similar murders beforehand to get the District Attorney all hot under the collar, and the public screaming for blood. Unless that person is wealthy enough to afford an OJ-style 'Dream Team', they'll fry/spike/choke for sure. - Original Message - From: "Mr.Bad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why . . . > >>>>> "SB" == Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > SB> Only civilised people are against the death penalty. > > That's not true. *I* am against the death penalty. > > ~Mr. Bad > > -- > ~ > Mr. Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ > freenet:MSK@SSK@u1AntQcZ81Y4c2tJKd1M87cZvPoQAge/pigdog+journal// > "Statements like this give the impression that this article was > written by a madman in a drug induced rage" -- Ben Franklin > ~ > > ___ > Chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat > ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why . . .
> "SB" == Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: SB> Only civilised people are against the death penalty. That's not true. *I* am against the death penalty. ~Mr. Bad -- ~ Mr. Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ freenet:MSK@SSK@u1AntQcZ81Y4c2tJKd1M87cZvPoQAge/pigdog+journal// "Statements like this give the impression that this article was written by a madman in a drug induced rage" -- Ben Franklin ~ ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why . . .
>From: Aaron P Ingebrigtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I am against the death penalty for several reasons: > >1) For the guilty, death is a blessing, not truely a punishment. >2) For the innocent, being killed for a crime they did not commit is a >horrible thing, and the system is NOT good enough to kill only the >guilty. >3) As for money, if we are killing people just to save money then we >should be investing our money in rehab instead of incarciration for most >of the convicted criminals in our society. Are we? NO!! >4) I think it would be a better idea to rehabilitate those who can be >changed, and kick the rest of them out of the country. And devise some >way of keeping them out until their innocense is proven or something. I will agree with your reasons, above, but think there are more... one more I would suggest is that: We can prove ourselves no better than the person we are attempting to punish, by killing him/her/them. How can a society of individual people be proud to say they have killed another human being in an act of vengence, or retaliation, or punishment, or even for the sake of deterence, which we all know deters nothing? A civil, and advancing society, which is what most people tend to beleive we, as a society, are doing, by creating laws and attempting to reduce crime, would find ways to PREVENT the crimes, as opposed to using punishment of the criminals as a deterent to those who would become such. A society which must continuously add and redefine laws in order to maintain an illusion of an advancing, caring society, is a failure of such a great magnitude, that one must rely on maintaining the illussion of a safe society because of the mere presence of so many laws... No government on Earth, yet, has managed to proclaim a victory in such that laws were unnecessary, other than the common sense laws of not harming another, which wouldn't even need to be written down. The Killing of another person, by the government, other than in the act of self-defense(or defense of another) is as much an act of war against the whole populace as if it were done by an anonymous person planting an eggsplosive in a large building... Mikus P.S. - There may be many more reasons for not killing than that. And maybe there are reasons TO kill, like the other person wants to die, as is their choice, but that would fall more in the assisted suicide catagory, and not as part of this discussion. IMO, a FREE society does not KILL, regardless of its desire to rid itself of an "evil". _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why collateral damage
Although I live, geographically, within the physical borders of the land mass you so unintelligently, and eloquently seem to get such a laugh at, I am not insulted. I am, however, amused at the lack of intellectual abilities of yourself, at including every human within those borders as being so mentally inept as to qualify to meet your "belief" of what americans "are". You should move here, too. Look who's using the word "ignorant"... Prejudice is unbecoming of everyone who uses it. Smarten up, and see individuals for the individuals they are. Mikus >From: "Stephen Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Yup. got that right. Let's all make popcorn and watch the injection on TV, >the Web, and story-board it in all the print media. Hooray! It's the >American way! > >If Americans had any knowledge whatsoever of their own history, and >appreciated the meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or learned >any lessons at all, not least of which was the Nurnberg Trials, they would >abolish the death penalty without hesitation. But Amerecans are stupid, >un-caring, un-forgiving, ignorant of human nature, of psychology, of how to >build a better society. Rome wasn't created in a day, but the US will not >last even half as long as the Roman Empire. Of course, they were nothing >compared to the Egyptians. Face it: we're all gunna die. We're extinct! >Kill for Christ. And the so stupid ignorant people, the victims of >Oaklahoma, all Okies at the best of times, are using a new buzz word. Wait >for it...CLOSURE. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha What a joke the USA is. > Jnr. is president, too. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why . . .
> imagination. I don't understand how he could wreak so much pain and
> horror with so little thought. If he must die, then he must feel the
He served a long stint as an american soldier, IIRC. Isn't that what they
are trained (conditioned) to be able to do? ("not human casualties,
soldier - collateral damage!")
___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Which is why . . .
Yep, courage is required to stand and fight. As for stamina, I thought that was merely a physical ability? You don't absolutely have to fight your enemies physicaly you know. A brain can do so much more than merely direct huge muscles to pumel things and people. :) Censorship is hypocracy in this country. You can't have freedom of speech or freedom of expression if someone else has total control over what you can or cannot say. Like flag burning. You may not like it, you may be offended by it, but burning a flag in a disrespectfull maner is an expression of one's opinion, isn't it? And all people everywhere should have the right to express their opinions in any way they wish as long as they are not hurting anyone else, right? So flag burning should be perfectly legal, unless you are burning someone who happens to be wearing a flag, or something like that. :) To think otherwise is to be a hypocrite. To think that people have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and then to think that they should only be free to express YOUR opinions or the things YOU think are right is total hypocracy. As for Charleton Heston, I may not agree with him all the time, but who am I to say that he isn't genuine in his opinions or expressions? Am I a telepath? Can I read his mind? NO. No one can tell me that the opinions I express every day are not really my opinions, because they don't know, and can't know. Maybe Mr. Heston is just a media act, a publicity stunt, but so what?! Does that mean that the message isn't genuine, or that it is a lie? Not necessarily. As for McVeigh, I am against putting him to death by lethal injection. I am against the death penalty in general, but if I were for it I wouldn't want to be humane about it. No sir. I would want McVeigh to die a long, agonized death by the most extreme forms of torture known to man!! What he did to those kids, their mothers, and inocent families is beyond my imagination. I don't understand how he could wreak so much pain and horror with so little thought. If he must die, then he must feel the full wrath of the People who were hurt or killed by him!! Period!! THAT is justice I am against the death penalty for several reasons: 1) For the guilty, death is a blessing, not truely a punishment. 2) For the innocent, being killed for a crime they did not commit is a horrible thing, and the system is NOT good enough to kill only the guilty. 3) As for money, if we are killing people just to save money then we should be investing our money in rehab instead of incarciration for most of the convicted criminals in our society. Are we? NO!! 4) I think it would be a better idea to rehabilitate those who can be changed, and kick the rest of them out of the country. And devise some way of keeping them out until their innocense is proven or something. As for watching it, beware lest the justice system be transformed into a mere media circus, where the guilty are merely those who are most entertaining, and the innocent are those who have enough money, or are not entertaining enough to be overlooked or ignored by the system. I have watched and read so much in my life about the depravity of the human race. I know that the media we have today is all about entertainment, and not nearly enough about truth and facts. I don't want to transform the justice system into another entertainment medium, where the people who are the most guilty are the most entertaining. If you want to watch someone die, There just might be a problem, some kind of evil that could destroy you. Beware!!! On Thu, 10 May 2001 20:30:13 +0200 "Stephen Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Which is why it takes supreme courage, stamina and dedication to stand up and fight for human rights and democracy. Censorship never works, whatever the reasons for imposing it. People just turn a blind eye. Just like guns and the 2nd Ammendment to the Charleton Heston. His is just an act anyway. He isn't for real. Shoot'em up. And let's get that McVeigh dude on the web. We all paid for it, we should get to watch. Either that, or copy cat.
