< Carla Tucker >
< Messages posted to thread:
>
< From Date >
< Mollie the Puzzled 03-Feb-98 >
< joey 03-Feb-98 >
< Friend of Aussies 03-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 03-Feb-98 >
< Ray 03-Feb-98 >
< Crystal 03-Feb-98 >
< Jason 04-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 04-Feb-98 >
< Reanna 04-Feb-98 >
< Fran 04-Feb-98 >
< Ray 04-Feb-98 >
< Jim D 04-Feb-98 >
< Irish Girl 04-Feb-98 >
< Debbie 04-Feb-98 >
< lone ranger! 04-Feb-98 >
< lone ranger! 04-Feb-98 >
< Lynn 04-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 04-Feb-98 >
< Kim 04-Feb-98 >
< 04-Feb-98 >
< Nora 04-Feb-98 >
< Bottom Line 04-Feb-98 >
< Dee 04-Feb-98 >
< netizen kane 04-Feb-98 >
< Dee 04-Feb-98 >
< Kathryn 04-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 05-Feb-98 >
< 05-Feb-98 >
< Sidnei 05-Feb-98 >
< Fran 05-Feb-98 >
< netizen kane 05-Feb-98 >
< Ray 05-Feb-98 >
< Jim D 05-Feb-98 >
< Kim 05-Feb-98 >
< Ray 05-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 05-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 05-Feb-98 >
< Kathryn 05-Feb-98 >
< Uncomplicated 05-Feb-98 >
< Ray 05-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 05-Feb-98 >
< Kathryn 05-Feb-98 >
< Quoting Mollie 05-Feb-98 >
< Ray 05-Feb-98 >
< The old Sage 05-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 05-Feb-98 >
< Kathryn 05-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 05-Feb-98 >
< Glowing Irish Girl 05-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 05-Feb-98 >
< netizen kane 05-Feb-98 >
< Ray 05-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 05-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 05-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 05-Feb-98 >
< To Sarah Bellum 05-Feb-98 >
< Kathryn 05-Feb-98 >
< Fran 05-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 05-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 05-Feb-98 >
< Fran 05-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 05-Feb-98 >
< Fran 05-Feb-98 >
< Crystal 05-Feb-98 >
< Ray 05-Feb-98 >
< Fran 05-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 05-Feb-98 >
< Ray 05-Feb-98 >
< Ray 05-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 05-Feb-98 >
< Ray 06-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 06-Feb-98 >
< Ray 06-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 06-Feb-98 >
< You never know who it will be next 06-Feb-98 >
< Lynn 06-Feb-98 >
< You never know 06-Feb-98 >
< Fran 06-Feb-98 >
< Even more uncomplicated 06-Feb-98 >
< Ray 06-Feb-98 >
< It's even more complicated than tha 06-Feb-98 >
< Jim D 06-Feb-98 >
< Have a seat 06-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 06-Feb-98 >
< Sarah Bellum 06-Feb-98 >
< Ray 06-Feb-98 >
< Gallows humor 06-Feb-98 >
< Even more uncomplicated 06-Feb-98 >
< Ray 06-Feb-98 >
< Uncomplicated 06-Feb-98 >
< Ray 06-Feb-98 >
< Jason 06-Feb-98 >
< Ray 06-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 06-Feb-98 >
< uncomplicated 06-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 06-Feb-98 >
< Ray 06-Feb-98 >
< Nora 06-Feb-98 >
< Ray 06-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 06-Feb-98 >
< Nora 06-Feb-98 >
< 07-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 07-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 07-Feb-98 >
< netizen kane 07-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 07-Feb-98 >
< Kathryn 07-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 07-Feb-98 >
< Rhonda 07-Feb-98 >
< Lurker 08-Feb-98 >
< Mollie 08-Feb-98 >
< Why Us? 08-Feb-98 >
< Jim D 09-Feb-98 >
< another soul 09-Feb-98 >
< how 'bout this reason 09-Feb-98 >
< Ray 09-Feb-98 >
< another soul 09-Feb-98 >
< Subject:
Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie the Puzzled
< Date: 03-Feb-98 >
Here in
Australia, we did away with the death penalty at least a
couple of decades, maybe three, ago...and so we should have
too.
Tell me this, if
it's not permissable in a so-called 'christian' society to end
the life of people in the throes of terminal and
excruciatingly painful death, what makes the big difference
that the same society can take the life of a 'criminal'?
And oh, the
absolute barbarity of waiting 14.5 years to kill Carla Tucker.
This seems to me to be taking vengeance just a little too far
for my liking.
One of the
issues with Carla Tucker is that some people say she has been
rehabilitated. If she has then why is she going to be killed?
Obviously the
governments concerned believe and accept,surreptitiously at
least, that the prison system in most cases does not
rehabilitate so why then do they all constantly keep pushing
the line that criminals go to jail to be 'rehabilitated'.
Let's be
realistic about this, lawbreakers go to jail to be kept secure
whilst the legal, health, welfare systems(and others) fight
over providing mostly less than adequate services, at a fee,
for these unfortunate people whose handicap, in most
instances, was that they initially had the misfortune to be
born into a less than desirable or effectively coping family.
We all know that
jails are places which are cruel and inhumane and will without
doubt ensure that upon release the 'criminal' will have even
more criminal tendencies following their exposure to cruelty
and degradation of the system and after mixing with other
hardened persons.
Make no mistake,
people who have gone to prison, generally make society pay in
some way or another for the indignities they suffer whilst
locked up.
I can tell you
first hand what it is like to try and interact with a
long-term prisoner now released so I am not talking without
experience.
Just let me
digress for a moment. My own son has recently been released
from jail. In the institution he was held in, prisoners were
released from their cells around 8 to 8.30am and locked in
again at 3.30 that same day. So for 17 hours these men sat,
lay, walked in a room which was probably no bigger than the
average bathroom in a house, and with an unlidded toilet next
to them.
Meals were not
as we remember on stereotyped prison movies where all the
prisoners sat in a big dining-room and banged their metal mugs
on the table. Rather, at the beginning of each week, seven
tiny packets of cereal were handed out to the inmates. Bread
and spread was available, I think, daily.
Food which was
anyways decent had to be purchased through the 'prison-shop'
which meant that families had to provide the money for this
food, and TV's, radios, fans etc. If the family could not
afford to support the prisoner, he suffered.
No sugar, or
oranges were allowed in case the inmates made home brew.
Pepper was not allowed because warders believed that prisoners
were trying to protect themselves from the dogs(aggressive
cell searches on a regular basis sometimes daily) by throwing
pepper at the dogs.
Lunch was
sandwiches at 12.30pm and so that the prisoners could be
locked in their cells at 3.30 the evening meal was served at
2.30pm.
And because no
sugar was allowed, Aspartame, in the form of Nutra Sweet was
given freely to the prisoners. My son estimated that he would
have consumed 10-20 packets a day of Nutra Sweet. He had no
idea that there could be a danger to taking this toxin into
his system.
Aspartame as we
are now learning is linked to adult and child hyperactivity,
mental disturbance, and aggression along with a lot of other
symptoms. I ask the question, surely offenders are the last
persons who should be given this substance?
Anyway to get
back to Carla Tucker, I believe that Western Society has a
'holier than thou' attitude towards criminal offenders and
punishment. We think we are somehow better than the
non-democratic and less civilised societies.
Well I think
it's time we properly evaluated our propensity for cruelty to
the less powerful in all of our communities and much of it
done in the name of Jesus.
Jesus was not
cruel. Remember the moneylenders in the temple? If Jesus was
here, he be a damn big trouble maker like he was when he was
alive. My guess is, he'd be standing at the gates of Carla's
prison, not waiting to take her to 'heaven', but being
infuriatingly intimidating to the authorities just with his
presence and his awareness of the less than 'christian'
behaviour of these bigots.
So I guess all I
can glean out of this little one-sided debate of mine is that
the use of 'a christian society' is a joke.
Farewell to you
Carla. If nothing else your initial downfall and now your
likely demise/murder may help some thinking people to grapple
further with the inconsistencies of daily life.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >joey
< Date: 03-Feb-98 >
Mollie,Carla
Tucker took a pick axe and put 45 holes in a person and them
claimed that she got a sexual high while she plunged the axe
into this persons body GIVE US A BREAK.plenty of death row
prisoners turn to god in which is just a excuse,but its to
late l
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Friend of Aussies
< Date: 03-Feb-98 >
OK Mollie, What
is a "Banana Banger?"
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 03-Feb-98 >
Joey,
I'm not talking
about the original crime Karla Tucker committed. No doubt
about it, a heinous crime. I'm talking about the priniciple of
punishment in a so-called 'christian' society. Sorry, doesn't
that come through clearly enough?
Friend, You got
me...what is a banana-banger?
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 03-Feb-98 >
Who said we were
a "Christian" society, Moll? This country is founded
on separation of church and state.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Crystal
< Date: 03-Feb-98 >
The question is
larger than the death penalty. The question is, what kind of
society produces people like Ms. Tucker?
"If thine
eye offend thee, pluck it out." Isn't that what the death
penalty tries to do? It would make more sense to me to
cure/treat/or at least care about the causes of the disease,
rather than amputate the affected body part.
I think the
death penalty is a barbaric custom of a society that doesn't
know how to respond to it's own failure.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Jason
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
I agree
completely, Crystal. I'm glad they did it. I still am
wondering why her last meal was a salad, but now all of this
bull she was saying over the past 2 years on how she is so
close to God can be tested. No way she should have been kept
alive. An eye for an eye. I'm sure those victims didn't die
like she did; if anything, she should have been fried...but
they were nice to her in that aspcet. One less sick-o in the
world. I beleive in America that we have to re-set an example
and show people that you break a law, you will pay a price.
Texas is no bull; we all should be No Bull.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
Obviously Jason
you aren't quite getting Crystal's drift. Maybe you should try
reading it again or get someone to read and explain it to you.
People with your attitude scare hell out of me. Hellalulah!
I stand
corrected Ray, yes America supposedly does have a separation
between Church and State but my experience, limited though it
is, shows me that Religion is alive and well in US and I
repeat my statement that much evil is done in the name of
Jesus.
By the way, I
could also be wrong here but in Australia, Church and State
are still interwoven implicitly if not explicitly.
Out of the
mouths of babes. Crystal's last statement is spot on!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Reanna
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
Carla Tucker's
offense is inexcusable. But, let's look at the condition that
Carla was in when she committed this heinous crime. She was
under the influence of drugs. Look at Charlie Manson, Leslie
VanHouten, etc. They were under the influence of drugs. Most
heinous crimes are committed when the assaulter is under the
influence of drugs. It seems to me that something needs to be
done to get the drugs out of this country. If we all work
together, it can be done.
As far as
pardoning Carla Tucker, this would be a perfect out for all
those criminals now on death row. They would all find
themselves Attorney's and claim to be "Born Again".
Sorry, I do not buy it. There are alot of very messed up
"Born Agains" out there. They are no different than
any of us.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
'Separation' of
church & state? Is that what we have here? Oh. I really
wasn't aware of that. You might try telling the likes of Revs.
Falwell, Robertson et al, who've spent the better part of the
last 20+ years trying to cram their Christian-right agenda
down our collective throats! While you're at it, try telling
the whole neo-conservative movement! Their agenda has led us
into what I percieve as the most uncaring, unchristian era we
have ever experienced as a nation - and at it's base, all it
really is is a backlash by the ruling class, desperately
trying to hold on to power in a world that is changing faster
than they can devise ways to keep up with.
Crime and
violence are a symptom of a greater ill. How many can we kill?
Can we eventually wipe out all of those who pose a threat to
the status quo? There is a bigger picture here that people
fail to see.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
No doubt there
are those who would like to subjugate our Constitution with
their own vision of morality. I'm just reiterating, for
Mollie, the separation of church and state was pretty much THE
reason there is an America. Most of the early colonists came
here for religious freedom and, despite some occasional
friction, I think we have been fairly successful overall in
the 200+ years of American history to retain that value.
As to Robertson,
Falwell, et al. : I don't agree with religion becoming law.
However, by the same token, I think people sometimes stretch
that to mean the religious PEOPLE can't be active or take part
in democracy. I'm a libertarian and Pat Robertson would
consider someone like me anathema, but I do think there are
SOME issues we have in common and that there seems to be a
prejudice against someone like him, simply because he's
religious. Anyway, never thought I'd be defending the
Christian right, but I call 'em like I see 'em.
Anyway, when it
comes to things like censorship, sodomy laws, etc., you and I
are united, Fran. But I'd probably part ways with you on
other, more "economic" matters, on which I am
actually the ultimate conservative. I just don't trust
government, plain and simple. I think it makes no difference
if that government is in my wallet or in my bedroom -- either
way, it's wrong.
So how come you
never responded to my diatribe on "controversial
topics"?
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
I believe in the
death penalty. At least for now. What Crystal says makes sense
but it's too pie-in-the-sky. We as a society are not there yet
and until we are the death penalty acts as the greatest
deterent to that kind of crime. Texas, a state that has
executed more criminals than most during recent years, has
seen their crime rate plummet to one of the lowest in the
nation.
And while I'm
not against rehabilitation, it's our liberal, permissive
society that has failed to do its job against crime. Everyone
wants to be nice to their fellow criminal - oh, he didn't mean
to do it - oh he's a changed man - oh it's a product of his
upbringing - oh he was on drugs etc etc etc. Well it's about
time people started taking responsibility for their own
actions and if you chopped up someone with a pick axe, you
should pay the price. You took the drugs, you broke into the
house, you murdered an innocent person for no reason.
If you want to
analyze why a crime is commited and you can fix that, that's
great. There's no better fix than prevention. But until you
can do that, we must take a strong stand on crime and those
who commit it. To go easy on criminals, as our society
sometimes tends to do, is a mistake. There certainly are a lot
of problems in our criminal justice system and no quick fix,
but we must do our best to deter crime and protect the
innocent.
Now don't get me
wrong, I'm not saying that every crime should bring the death
penalty, and I hope that someday we can do away with it if
only because there will be no more, or few henous crimes. Will
that day ever come??
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Irish Girl
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
I have to say
that I agree with Jim, since I am for the Death Penalty. Too
many people who commit crimes in this country get away with
it. The only way they will take ANY responsibility for their
crimes is if the courts force them to. But is that happening?
I think not.
Look at the guy
in Connecticut who viciously killed his ex-girlfriend in a
jealous rage back in the late 1980's. He was found mentally
incompetant to stand trial & the charges were dismissed
due to his insanity defense. He was NOT NOT NOT ordered to
serve ANY time in a mental institution! This same man was
caught on video attending a community college. He was well on
his way (with an A average I might add) to obtaining a PHD!!!
I will give you
another example, one a little closer to home for me. Here in
Durham, a little over a year ago, a beautiful little 4 year
old girl was killed (IMHO she was MURDERED!) by a habitual
drunk driver. This man had been charged 9 TIMES with druken
driving. He was only prosecuted once. For the other 8 times,
he either had his own lawyer or a court appointed one. Both
sets of lawyers were able to get all charges dismissed. Not
ONCE did it even occur to this judge that perhaps this man
should be ordered to be put in rehab.
We now have some
dolt lawyer running for the DA's spot who is trumpeting his
plan to deal with habitual drunk drivers - not only to revoke
their drivers licenses, but to repo their cars on the scene of
the incident. *sarcasm* BRILLIANT IDEA MAN!!! Where were you
when you were defending these druken drivers!
Bare with me
here, this is my final example & one that I will not
forget as long as I live. There was a close friend of the
family that we had that was the victim of a brutal crime. He
had just become a state trooper & he was murdered in cold
blood - September 1984. Pulled some guy over on rt. 280,
approached the car to get license, insurance, etc. and was
shot point blank in head. I was young when this happened &
I still have the clipping of the newspapers articles. I know
that the man who was charged with the crime NEVER EVER went to
trial! I cannot remember exactly why that happened, but it
sure was not for lack of evidence. Some kind of mental
instability defense.
With tears in my
eyes, remembering my friend, I will leap off the proverbial
soapbox now. Sorry that this post was so long/emotional.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Debbie
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
I think that
everyone seems to be forgetting that two people were pick axed
to death. THEY were the victims!!!!! Although I felt sorry for
Karla, I feel sorrier for the victims families!!!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >lone ranger!
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
Sort of BEATING
A DEAD HORSE here aren't we! AN eye for an eye, etc...
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >lone ranger!
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
Sort of BEATING
A DEAD HORSE here aren't we! AN eye for an eye, etc...
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
The horse is
dead, yes. But the issue is alive still. I have mixed feelings
about the death penalty. Morally, I believe it's wrong for the
state to stoop to the level of taking a life. I think the
example is bad, in that it demonstrates the impotence of the
state to deal with societal problems in an effective manner.
Privately
though, in my heart of hearts, I tend to agree with most of
you: that the death penalty is a necessary evil.
I do wonder one
thing: since the death penalty was reinstituted, has there
been a decrease in violent crime? I think the answer is no.
Something is wrong with this picture. The death penalty is not
a deterrent. The only real deterrent to violent crime is a
strong sense of right and wrong - something that is sadly
missing in large segments of our society.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
It's very
interesting to read the different opinions on this topic
because really, when it gets down to it, what Lynn and Crystal
have referred to so aptly, the lack of moral cohesiveness in
our societies is the root cause of most of our miseries.
To kill someone
who has murdered another person, seems to me to be the epitome
of 'do what I say, don't do what I do! Naughty, naughty
citizens, you must not kill, but we the government can kill
you if you do!
Sure, people are
twisted and high on drugs and mentally unstable and not coping
and poor etc but something made them that way and I defy any
society to plead innocence to at least a significant role in
creating certain conditions which contribute to a person
behaving in an unacceptable manner.
Take drugs for
example, how many so-called respected citizens, police,
government officials etc have succumbed to 'making a bit on
the side' from the sale of drugs. How many of these same
people " do drugs, but just on a recreational basis matey".
How many women
are in our societies who, in past years, were never adequately
cared for in their communities after their husbands took off
and started new families leaving their discarded family to
either live on welfare or struggle along in a poverty
situation, to name just one problem area.
And so, when
these 'less than admired and cared for by the community'
individuals go and hack someone to death(which I am not
condoning at all) we, the model citizens which we all think we
are, yell loudly in condemnation...punish, punish, punish!
Just seems like
we punish inhumanely to relieve ourselves of our community
guilt feelings and with the death penalty there is a double
bonus..i.e. get rid of the nasty offender and once dead then
the 'out of sight, out of mind' prinicple relieves us of the
necessity to grapple with the societal predicament.
The question I
go back to ask is....Why did it take so long to put Karla
Tucker to death...and how many people made a financial
'killing' out of the extension by 14.5 years of this woman's
life?
And, being a
southerner from downunder...could someone please fill me in on
Charlie Manson, murderer extraordinaire, did he get the death
penalty? If not, why not?
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Kim
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
The death
penalty works. Here's how: Karla will never kill again.
Simple. Don't babble about keeping them locked up for their
lives. I'd rather have my taxes pay for the fry-fest than
inmates getting college degrees.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
...
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Nora
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
I just caught
holy hell in another newsgroup for expressing an opinion on
this subject. But, what the heck!
Fry fest? Is
that really what you want? How about a good old (conservative,
I might add) kinder, gentler America?
Is it any wonder
that violent crime is so rampant in a society that thinks of
the lower socio-economic classes as being less than human?
Forget it. I
have nothing intelligent to add here. I can't do this twice in
one day.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Bottom Line
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
The death
penalty tends to be a deterrent to planned murders. I doubt
that it enters into one's mind when the crime of murder is one
triggered by instant rage -- the so-called crime of passion.
The death penalty means little to one who is wasted ond drugs.
I haven't seen
this years FBI Uniform Crime Reports which will reflect the
stats for 1997. They'll be out around July. But I'll bet that
the majority of murders do not fit into the 'planned' variety.
I really have no problem at all with instant death for
murderers who've plotted the demise of their victims. It's a
bit problematical for the cases where murder results from
rage, passion, etc. As for drugs? If the drugs were taken
voluntarily (even if the 'taker' is addicted), it's no
different than a planned murder. The drug user is a ticking
bomb. If he doesn't know that, he ought to.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Dee
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
Karla Tucker's
re-birth was no reason to consider pardoning her. People who
have committed grievious crimes, especially while under the
influence of drugs or alcohol, often have a huge attack of
morning-after grief and repentance. This can last for the rest
of their lives, if the consequences of their act was great
enough.
My mother and
sister were killed by a drunk driver. That drunk driver was a
man who had a decades-long history of alcohol abuse. He had
never been sent to jail, although he had caused both bodily
harm and property damage before that fateful night. Nor was he
ever remanded to a rehabilitation facility. In fact, his
drivers' license was never so much as suspended.
On the night my
mother and sister died, that man was drunk. He was driving.
Co-workers who were aware of his problem knew that he was
driving drunk that night. They also knew that he was under
emotional stress because his girlfriend had given him the
boot. No one did anything to stop him or help him.
That man was my
father. He picked us up at my grandmother's house and was
driving us home when he went over the center divider and into
oncoming traffic. The resulting pile-up involved 5 cars. My
mother and sister and an elderly couple were killed.
My father was a
state trooper. (Not NJ)
He murdered my
mother and my sister and that older couple, just as surely as
if he had shot them with his service revolver. He got early
retirement at half-pay. He never did any jail time, naturally.
He never made any attempt at restitution. To this day, he is a
drunk and a criminal, and has never been brought to justice,
and never will be.
Having said all
that, I still do not believe in the death penalty. Killing the
killer will not bring back the victim, and for the state to
act as executioner on my behalf only removes the deed from my
hand and puts it in the anonymous hand of the state.
Do we require
vengeance? Do I, personally, require vengeance? No. Life
itself metes out vengeance. My father will live with the
knowledge of what he did for the rest of his life. That's
sufficient.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >netizen kane
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
First I would
like to say hello to you all.I've been reading the posts on
this thread with a great deal of pleasure because at last
there is serious discussing with so many diverse opinions.
Ray, I do want to take issue with your assertion that the U.S.
is not a Christian country because of our separation of church
and state. I would maintain that it was precisely because the
U.S. was overwhelmingly Christian when the nation was founded
that the provisions for separation of church and state was
instituted.The colonists knew only to well the dangers
inherent to democracy that an alliance of the ruling class and
church leaders posed as in Europe. As to capital punishment:I
agree with Mollie, Lynn, Fran,and Crystal for these
reasons...Our country reinstituted the death penalty in
1975,today the U.S. is completely out of step with the rest of
the world, as nation after nation is abolishing this barbaric
practice. Some of the reasons:statistics show it is not a
deterrant to murder,this draconian step is both race and class
based i.e.those that are executed are either working people or
dark skinned or both.{the most recent exception to this was
the trial of O.J.Simpson ...dark skinned but definitely not
wanting for money and the best legal representation that only
money will buy. More later.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Dee
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
Race was not an
issue in the Simpson case, no matter what they tried to make
us believe. Race was never the issue. But color was.
GREEN!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 04-Feb-98 >
Mollie, kudos
for starting this thread. I thoroughly agree with the
anti-death penalty positions posted so far; but one intensely
important reason to end executions has not been yet mentioned
-- the proven likelihood of killing an innocent person. The
state that murdered Karla Tucker also murdered at least two
men KNOWN to be innocent. Another state, Illinois I think, has
instituted a temporary ban on executions because it was
learned that SEVEN innocent men sat on death row.
The organization
of attorneys against the death penalty points out quite
persuasively that most death sentences are handed to people
being represented by public defenders who have ridiculously
low budgets and negligible resources.
We pat ourselves
on the back and present ourselves to the world as a fair and
just society. Poppycock!!! We are the only developed nation in
the world with a death penalty.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
I have to say,
at risk to my precarious membership of this chatgroup(being a
non-US citizen that is), I support Kathryn's view that the US
is less than a fair and just society. I have been visiting the
US since 1978 and have never, ever seen in any Western 'civilised
society such poverty and so many homeless and disempowered
people as I have seen in America(although England is catching
up).
On the other
hand, I have never seen such wealth as there is for example in
New York flaunted to almost an obscene level.
A number of
times I have stayed near East St Louis and was appalled at the
conditions in housing estates there. I'm not saying Australia
does not have its own problems with the Kooris but America is
supposed to be the most advanced country in the world. That
you have so many people living in wretched conditions with
little or no hope for a future, any future that is not
misery-filled condemns you as a society to pickaxe murders,
gang-killings, drugs, domestic violence and a million other
detrimental behaviours which will bring your country to its
knees eventually.
The really
shocking thing is that Australia lives in the shadow of the
US. You would be amazed I'm sure at the similarity of our
cultures. After all we have been raised, since the early
fifties, on the values encapsulated in your TV shows.
Sadly then, your
tragedy today is ours tomorrow. You are simply a few light
years ahead of us and it seems that our leaders are to busy
doing what, I don't know, to see the perilous path they are
leading us down.
For the most
part the posts in this thread have left me feeling hopeful
that there are thinking people who will rage against
complacency. The worst scenario(hate that word but can't think
of a better one at present) is that Jason(above) might one day
get together with Kim(above) and procreate some new little
'fry-festers.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Sidnei
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Bang! Bang! Oh
God, forgive us !! Bang! Bang! Oh God, forgive us !! Bang!
Bang ! Oh God, forgive us!! Bang ! Bang ! Oh God, forgive us
!!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Ah, Sidnei! How
right you are! It is so easy to be repentant after the fact!
But how often does that momentary repentance keep us from
committing the same errors?
Whether it is
the criminal or the state, piling wrong upon wrong will never
make it right.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >netizen kane
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Iwas struck by
your observations,as a visitor to the U.S.,of the widening
disparity of wealth & poverty. Here are the latest
statistics,from the January 12th issue of the Nation
magazine:POVERTY IS INCREASING. the poverty rate last
year,13.7 percent, was higher than in 1989, despite seven
years of nearly uninterrupted growth. Approximately 50 million
Americans - 19 percent of the population-live below the
national poverty line. Those in poverty include one in four
children under the age of 18,one in five senior citizensand
three of every five single-parent households. THE WORKING POOR
ARE LOSING GROUND:In constant dollars, average weekly earnings
for workers went from a high of $315 in 1973 down to $256 in
1996 , a decline of 19 percent. INCOME INEQUALITY IS
INCREASING; Last year the poorest fifth of families saw their
income decline by $210, while the richest 5 percent gained an
average of $6,440[not including their capital gains] Of course
the stock market is at dizzing heights while all this is going
on. Dee, I thought your posting was incredibly poignant.
Kathryn, you certainly seem to have a clear eyed view of our
situation.It may not be pleasant to look at ,but nothing is to
be gained by hiding our heads in the sand ,like the proverbial
ostrich.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
I tend to get
off on rants, so I'll try to restrain myself. First, to
Mollie, in this country, it is a simple fact, that no one NEED
be homeless. That's not to say there isn't a disparity between
rich and poor or any of that. As a free-marketeer, I have my
own take on that, which isn't even worth getting into here.
But the fact remains that there are a MULTITUDE of public
housing programs -- from HMFA to Section 8 to HUD projects to
the ridiculously wasteful, but nonetheless common practice of
paying to put people up in motels. Beyond merely government
programs, there are many, many more privately run charities
from Habitat for Humanity to churches, synagogues and mosques
to "Comic Relief" to the American Red Cross to the
Urban League, etc., etc.
Anyone who IS
homeless and SEEKS help WILL get it. I happen to believe this
help is often, itself, a trap that does the DISempowerment you
speak of, but nonetheless, it exists and anyone could take
advantage of it. There seems to be this myth perpetrated that,
if you're poor in America, you're destitute and resigned to
sleeping on the streets. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
Why don't they
seek help? There are two reasons that you find -- at least one
or the other -- in almost every case: drugs and/or insanity.
We DO have a major drug problem and it invades every level
from the richest of the rich to the poorest of the poor. In
efforts to combat that problem, many programs for the poor
demand drug tests and then will require those who fail them to
enter treatment or rehab in exchange for their benefits. For
many, the addiction proves so strong that they will, in fact,
rather starve on the street if they are still allowed to do
dope.
The other
problem -- the mentally ill who are homeless -- is somewhat
more dicey. Because of our vision of rights, you cannot commit
someone who is not violent against their will. No matter what
the nature of the mental illness, if they don't hurt anybody,
there's really nothing that can be done to help them. In fact,
when the court rulings first came about in the late 1970s that
granted thousands of sanitarium patients their release, many
(perhaps most) simply chose to live on the street. That's
where you'll still find a good number of them today.
Anyway, I know
what the homeless must appear to be and there's many
Americans, especially those who've never met or known homeless
people who simply don't understand what the problems are. But
don't be mistaken, homelessness really doesn't have THAT much
to do with poverty. It has to do with other conditions --
serious conditions -- that our society has to fix, but poverty
is a relatively small part of the equation.
In actuality,
the poorest urban Americans living in run-down ghettoes in
places like South Central, Los Angeles or Newark, New Jersey
are STILL likely to have: a television, a telephone, often a
car and MORE living space than a middle-class Japanese native.
There IS no great poverty in America, no matter what people
would like to portray.
And the fact
remains that, more than any other culture, we have class
mobility in America. My mother came to this country as a child
born without any medical care in a one-room shack with no
running water in the mountains of Portugal. In other words,
she was truly born a peasant. Today, she owns a four-bedroom
home with a big screen TV, fireplace, four cars, computers,
fax machine, VCRs, camcorders, hi-fi stereo system and watched
her children attend the finest, most expensive private
universities in the country. THAT, to me, is what America
means.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Kane -
Interesting facts. Why? Unemployment is at an all-time low.
Doesn't that mean that more people are working? Then why are
more in poverty?
I agree that the
death penalty only acts as a deterent in a planned killing,
but no one can doubt the effect of deterents in general. Just
look at the cold war. it was deterents that kept us from
blowing up the world. The fear of what would happen if one
side started something. We need strong deterents to crime and
drugs.
What do other
countries do (as was mentioned).
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Kim
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
I wasn't going
to revisit this site (since I found it by accident and am not
truly interested people whose lives revolve around chat rooms)
but after reading some of the responses on this thread about
the death penalty I need to let it out. Everyone is entitled
to have an opinion on issues like this, I'll respect
everyone's, but facts are not opinion. The death penalty IS a
deterrent. Texas has executed about one-third of the people
that have been put to death in the recent past. Their murder
rate?? Down by about 2/3 according to a state prosecutor on
CNN Tuesday night. No correlation? They take their murder
seriously there. They have no room for sympathy because
someone found God. Isn't anyone tired of no one taking
responsibility for their actions? I'm sure Karla was truly
sorry for what she did. I've done things that I've been truly
sorry for but I had to deal with the repercussions. Luckily, I
never made the choice to commit a felony. But she admitted to
a heinous crime and needs to be punished for it. The U.S. has
one of the most fair and humane criminal justice systems in
the world. It's not perfect, but it works most of the time.
Everyone seems to be worried about these "poor"
murderers, in a literal and figurative sense. Yes, some people
get better defenses than others. People with money ALWAYS get
better things than the poor. I hope that's not news to some of
you. It's called capitalism here in America and I'll take it
any day over a lot of the other forms of society and
government that are out there. I doubt that if your family
member gets axed to death and begs for his/her life, you'll
feel more forgiving towards the murderer if he's poor. Yes,
innocent people have probably been put to death; we're not a
perfect society or people. But on the reverse, a lot of very
violent and guilty people served little or no time and are
walking around your town. It's the effect of an imperfect
society. No one seemed to have mercy on too many other
death-row inmates and they didn't even confess! People are
upset because she's a white woman. Don't lose sight of that. I
can't think of any black male that received the attention
Karla the Killer got. No more excuses - people have to think
of the consequences of their actions. Our younger generations
seem more and more willing to blame society, parents, drugs,
etc. Everyone has choices and once you're willing to risk the
outcome, you should be willing to risk the consequences of the
outcome. Capital punishment is a serious issue, not taken
lightly and in need of some refining, but still just
punishment in some cases. Okay, now I'm leaving.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
I'm not real
firm in any position on the death penalty, but I want to pose
a scenario. Someone is convicted of a heinous murder and is
sentenced to life in prison. Once in prison, he commits other
murders. No treatment helps him. He doesn't care how many more
people he kills. He LIKES killing people and will continue to
do so the rest of his natural life. What do we owe this
person? Must we continue to spend the public's money housing
and clothing and feeding him? There is NO chance of
rehabilitation, no remorse, and no intention of ever stopping
his murderous ways. What do you do? If not execution, then
what?
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
There are far
too many examples of self-made millionairs in the United
States to prove Mollies ranting about American poverty
incorrect. One thing that separates our nation from the others
is that Every US citizens can CHOOSE how to lead their lives.
We are all given a free education for 13 years. The tools are
there to succeed.
A friend of mine
who just opened up his own GNC franchise repeated the same
phrase over and over again..."You make your own
bed." He said this when he would hear others complain of
their lot in life. It irked him because he worked very hard
and saved every penny until one day he accumulated enough to
buy his own franchise. He had the same job as me. We earned
the same money. Why is it that he is now the owner of his own
business and I am still where I am? COMPLACENCY. Do I blame
the US Government because I still live in a small apartment
and work for a large corporation rather than own my own house
and my own business? No! That is MY DOING!
I made my own
bed!
I agree with Ray
- he is more articulate than I am. I just didn't want him to
be the ONLY one to vocalize this opinion. It is not the PC
thing to say, maybe, that the US is still a pretty good
country. But I'll say it loud and I'll say it proud: I am glad
to be an American. Wouldn't change it for the world.
As for Capital
Punishment...not to cop out...but this is another instance
where I can only make a decision on a case-by-case basis. It
does frighten me that we might accidentally put an innocent
person to death. However. in those cases where we are
absolutley certain (I mean there has to be a confession,
witnesses, hard evidence) and where there is no remorse then I
think it is our DUTY to apply the death penalty for our own
protection. Take the killer of Poly Klaas, for example. This
guy is a menace to society. It would be sinful to not take him
out before he takes someone else out. That is self defense and
I believe that it is not only alright to defend yourself and
others but also a moral obligation to do so. As for Karla
Tucker...I'm not sure. I am struggling because of the severity
of her crime and the fact that it seemed that she was no
longer a menace to society. However, I feared that if we let
her go then every other criminal on death row would suddenly
finid G-d.
And on my last
note...THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNRY. This country may be
based on Judeo-Christian ethics but it is not a CHRISTIAN
country. The last time I checked this country was founded
based on religious freedom. That is freedom to observe ANY
religion. If I have to, I WILL get you a quote from the
Constitution to prove it but I really don't have the time. Its
a shame that ppl from around the globe actually believe that
is true. Although it isn't stopping anybody from immigrating
here. Beleive me, I have nothing against Christianity...I
married a Christian and encourage him to attend Church.
However, your statement is inaccurate and it bothered me that
our own citizens did not correct that statement, rather they
agreed with the statement. Don't want this to go off on a
tangent but, like everything else, I'm sure I'll take heat for
it. C'est la vie. C'est dommage.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Oh, and one more
thing...I am disapointed that anyone who doesn't agree with
Mollie is considered 'ignorant'. I didn't know that Mollie was
the be-all-end-all authority on this subject. Its nice to open
up a topic for conversation and LISTEN to others opinions so
as to enlighten yourself. Not to open up a topic, listen to
others, then commend all those who agree with you and bash
those who disagree.
You can do it,
it is legal and certainly allowable. But, clearly, it isn't
nice.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Let's just keep
the record straight here. No one was advocating or working
toward the RELEASE of Karla Tucker. The efforts were for
COMMUTATION which simply means setting aside the death
penalty. Further, the appeal to Gov. Bush was for a 30-day
commutation to allow for a more measured analysis of the
issues. The debate is about execution not freedom.
About the US
being a Christian nation. Well, I sometimes think we who live
here cannot see the forest for the trees. I do believe the
rest of the world perceives us as a Christian nation and if
they are wrong, that is a lot of mistaken thinking. If we are
NOT a Christian nation, how can prayer in school be seriously
advocated? How can so-called Blue Laws stand? Why are only
Christian holidays nationally observed?
I always get in
a blue funk when I encounter the position Ray takes regarding
poverty, homelessness, etc. My view of civilization is that we
ain't there if anyone, for any reason, is hungry, unsheltered,
without medical care, or does not have a job that pays enough
to live and/or raise a family adequately. The resources to
achieve those ideals are, at the moment, tied up tidily by the
obscenely wealthy (paraphrasing Mollie). Nowhere is it writ
that money for social programs must come from the middle or
lower classes...
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Uncomplicated
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
It's not a
complicated issue. I think those who rant for 10 paragraphs on
this issue should be put to death, your existance annoys me.
As a matter of fact, anyone's who's existance annoys me should
be put to death. While I'm at it, lets kill the homosexuals,
child molesters, speeders, parking violators, anyone who
smokes pot (but not who drinks beer or is addicted to legal
narcotics because that's o.k.), and anyone else who is not of
European heritage for that matter. Wait there is more, there
should be an all others category saved for those others who
generally just don't seem to conform with capitalism and the
American way. Let me be the be all and end all and this world
would be a better place, just ask me I'll tell you because
after all it is for me that this world exists.
Dee has great
courage and is an old soul, listen to her wisdom. Stop being
stupid.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Kathryn, I
understand your opinion, but to me it's quite clear. What
makes someone "obscenely wealthy"? Do you believe in
the right to property? If you do, and if that property is
aquired by legitimate means, what authority gives you or
anyone else the right to say one person has "too
much" and another has "too little"?
I know it's
become an incredibly un-PC thing to say that capitalism is
just and fair, but I tend to think most people in this country
still hold that it is a proper value, even when they may
seemingly hypocritically advocate the merits of redistributive
systems like the one you suggest. Why do I feel this? Because
when I take one of my little cousins to the playground and I
listen to what parents tell their children, I have never, ever
heard a parent say to a child that it's okay to forcibly take
toys away from other children who have more than you do. Nor
have I ever heard a parent tell a child that if one kid has
more than the others, then it's okay for those others to form
a "government" and VOTE to take those toys away.
Perhaps that
seems an inappropriately irreverent statement, but I think
it's very telling. In fact, I would suggest parents do this :
Calculate your taxes just as you do today, but instead of
writing a check to the IRS, you'll write a check to Toys R Us,
in exchange for the equivalent value in toys. You'll bring the
toys home and give them to your children; then after one week
an IRS agent will arrive at your door, confiscate the toys,
and return them for cash. I can think of no better way to
educate children about what taxes are.
I don't mean to
be condescending, but I simply disagree with your vision of a
"just" society. I prefer freedom.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
As for the
Christian Nation issue...which I do not want to take up
precious space here for this rather minute, yet bothersome
detail, but:
Who seriously
advocates prayer in school? The Christian Right. Who else? I
rest my case. Unless you are stating that my children will
have to pray to Jesus in public school or Me and my husband
will go to jail then I still can't call this a Christian
Nation.
Also, Blue Laws,
like those that exist in Bergen County exist for traffic
purposes. Ask any resident of Paramus (many Jewish ppl live
there, btw) why they want the mall closed on Sunday. Jesus? or
or a brake from the traffic noice and other related issues. I
don't think it is for Jesus. Just to be safe, ask Kathryn.
As far as only
Christian holiday being observed nationally:you make a good
point. My only thought on that would be that Christianity is
the majority religion in this country and so many ppl would
take off from work that day that it had to be declared a major
holiday. Same reason as Martin Luther King Day was declared a
National Holiday. I would be interested to know what the
reason is. I can only assume.
If this is a
Christian Country, then can we have a Jewish/Muslim/Atheist
president of the United States?
I am going to
assume that by saying this is a Christian Country that you
mean that the majority religion in this country is
Christianity and not that this counry is ruled by Christian
Law. The last time I voted, Christianity didn't play a role in
government. Therefore, Christian ideals have no place in
government. Therefore, the fact that Karla Tucker found G-d or
Jesus is of no consequence to her punishment. That was the
line of thought that I pursued. I hope the clarification
helped.
Also Kathryn, I
admire your ideals however they sound a bit communistic for
me. Somehow that got to be a dirty word, 'communism'. It
isn't. It is like, um...a kibutz. A communal way of living
where everybody works to take care of their neighbor. This is
a Capitalist society, though. You know, Horatio Alger - work
hard and reap the rewards. Why do I have to be responsible for
the homeless? I am, whether I like it or not actually - when I
look at my paycheck I weep. 32% of my income( I am taxed on a
commission basis - that is considered 'bonus' income which is
taxed at a higher rate) goes to the government. I pay to
support those that either can't or don't support themselves. I
have never collected un-employment or social security.
Someday, perhaps, I will. But why should I feel GUILTY if I
work hard and keep a little to myself? Is 32% of my income NOT
enough to support those that can't or DON'T support
themselves? I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I
am not spoiled. I had a PUBLIC education. We all have crosses
to bear, so to speak. Some choose to make more of their lot in
life then others. In this country EVERYONE has OPPORTUNITY. It
isn't guaranteed, you have to work for it. I cannot feel
guilty for everyone who is down on their luck. There are true
hard luck cases, for sure - but like Ray said" No one has
to go hungry in America. Those days are long gone. The food
and shelter is there if you ASK for it. It ain't heaven, but
it is enough. Is just enough not enough? Well...that's is
another story. But I am confident it is enough to sustain life
and given the right attitude, enough to pull someone up enough
to help themself lead a productive and meaningful life.
I can understand
the guilt, Kathryn. I am not a cold person. There just comes a
time when you have to stop feeling more for some ppl then they
even feel for themselves. Make the most of the opportunities
that you have around you and don't feel guilty. You deserve to
enjoy life and make the most of it. If what you want to do is
dedicate yourself to making other live better lives then more
power to you. You will find fullfilment. Don't ask to be
thanked, though. That would be a rare occasion. I have done my
share of community service and did it for my own sense of
pride. Not to be 'thanked'. Thanks never come.
"Give a man
a fish and he'll eat for now. Teach a man to fish and he'll
never go hungry..." Words to live by. Ppl who constantly
get handout expect to get handouts. That's why our welfare
system didn't work.
I am glad we can
share these ideas. I am paying very close attention to what I
read here and trying get a clearer perception of how the U.S.
is viewed by its own citizens as well as others around the
globe. I should just shut up and listen and leave it at that
but I am stubborn. Can't help myself. :-)
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
P.S. Rhonda,
what did I miss? Who said or implied that anyone who disagrees
with Mollie and/or her position is "ignorant"?
Considering the degree of passion associated with the issues
being discussed, I am impressed with what (and how) things are
being said.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Quoting Mollie
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
"Obviously
Jason you aren't quite getting Crystal's drift. Maybe you
should try reading it again or get someone to read and explain
it to you. People with your attitude scare hell out of me.
Hellalulah! "
I didn't think
this was necessary.
-Rhonda
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
BTW...a note on
"national" holidays.
All a
"national" holiday means is the days the various
federal employee unions have negotiated to get off. There is
no federal law declaring you CAN'T work on a national holiday,
nor should there be. You want to blame someone, look to the
union memberships. Same applies to the various state holidays
and state employee unions.
I've never been
a member of a union, which is perhaps why, when I was a
reporter, I had to work Christmas, Easter Sunday,
Thanksgiving, Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. What does a
government's negotiations over holidays have to do with
separation of church and state?
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >The old Sage
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Ax and Ye shall
receive.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Ray,
Sorry Astral
brother, but your explanation is too simplistic by far. As a
young person who has 'achieved' I can understand what you're
feeling but I'm surprised your university education did not
inculcate into you the need to be less dogmatic about life
issues.
You need to be
less positive and dogmatic about those who have/will not
'achieve' like yourself.
Are you sure
that you truly know and understand the nature of the vicious
cycle of which accompanies poverty and disadvantage.
It is
commendable that your mother has been motivated to do well and
you have obviously been blessed with this lady as a mum. But
the reasons which made life good for her could relate to a
hundred different factors.
What makes you
think that there is no chance of rehabilitation in jail...and
isn't this fact what I was trying to point out initially? The
punishment factor in society along with the prison system
needs to be radically rethought. Not every person can
conveniently be put to death when they offend.
I know the
problems within our societies are mammoth but we need to keep
trying to deal with them in a mature and caring way. Chatter
'Uncomplicated' is true when he says I have talked to much.
but hell, if only the few people who have replied to this
thread have thought about the issue then there's a start...and
we don't know how many others have read the thread and not
replied.
To Kim,
Surely OJ
Simpson had more publicity than as you put it 'Karla the
Killer'? Maybe you meant 'black man' who was executed?
To Rhonda,
I was tempted
not to answer your comments but that would be childish
wouldn't it?
It seems to me
that many of the chatters on localsource are thinking and
caring people who like to consider the big issues from time to
time. Thus, having not been told to 'rack-off' from most of
the chatters who talk to me, I felt strongly enough about this
issue to start the thread.
To see injustice
and stay quiet seems to me to be seen to be condoning such
behaviour and it is my personal choice to stand up and be
counted. I don't feel I have anything to lose by doing so.
Have you ever
thought that part of the 32% taxes you pay go towards
supporting ailing smokers & alcoholics when they
inevitably become ill and in need of medical treatment? You
see I don't smoke and I drink very little so I could easily be
peeved at having to provide money for these persons' health
care. But I recognise that for every good thing that I can
partake of in my daily life, i.e. roads, schools, hospitals,
housing etc there is bound to be tax money expended on
facilities which I might not agree with. That's just part of a
democratic society.
For example,
when we in Australia, are suffering immense government
cutbacks on education, health, housing etc. our government has
provided Indonesia with 2billion plus dollars to assist
stabilise their economy. Now this is a country which has less
than a good record in regard to human rights violations
towards peoples' who were once under the protection of the
Australian government. I don't agree with this action but as
an individual taxpayer/ citizen there is nothing I can do
other than voice an opinion if there is an opportunity to do
so.
If, as it
appears, you feel so strongly about my presence on local
source, maybe you should speak to the WebMaster who can then
contact me and we can discuss whether or not I should be
excluded from this chatgroup. I rather thought though that the
US was very strong on 'free speech'.
Finally,(yes I'm
finishing 'Uncomplicated')
I asked the
question about Charles Manson. Someone yesterday here in
Sydney said they heard he was going to be released soon.
Could someone
please fill me in on the status of Manson?
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Ah, Ray. That
you and I can co-exist is the greatest illustration imaginable
that the First Amendment is alive and well. Otherwise one of
us would probably be in jail! Maybe even fodder for the
gurney...
The story of
your family is impressive and many people, myself included,
have similar or more outstanding family sagas. But I don't
think the success stories are the point. Rhonda said I seemed
to be advocating something like communism. Utopian in the
historical Native American sense is more accurate: the welfare
of the whole community depends on the welfare of each of its
members; we are tenants of the earth, not owners; and we
should be careful about condemning without understanding. The
me/mine rapaciousness behind the free-market ideology
undermines everything I believe about community, citizenship
and humaneness.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Well put
Kathryn!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Glowing Irish Girl
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
'ang on a minute
there Rhonda.
I don't want to
appear anal about this, but I believe you took Mollie's
comments (directly) to Jason out of context. Crystal's
opinion, to sum it up, was anti-death penalty, IMHO. Jason
then proceded to support the death penalty & CONTINUED by
saying that he agreed with Crystal. I think Mollie was just
having a bit of fun with Jason, seeing as he was (pick one) a)
either straddling the fence on the issue b)feeling so strongly
about the issue that perhaps he left out a few crucial words
or c) just being downright provocative. Rhonda, I don't see
where you got 'ignorant' as being the label for those of us
who did not agree with Mollie.
Personally
Rhonda, I was surprised you did not bother to chastise Kim for
saying that our lives respond around this chat line. Is that
because you figured Kim would live to her promise & not
come back? Truly, and I am not being sarcastic here, I would
like to know why you did not respond to her. I thought she
made some very valid points.
Apologies to
Crystal, Mollie, Jason and of course you Rhonda for not
cutting/pasting your quotes directly.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
and picking up
on Glowing Irish Girl(by the way why are you glowing?) I chose
not to comment on Kim's remark that somehow we were all
airheads for talking on a chat line(which she joined in with)
but in fairness to LocalSource, over the past 12 months or so
I have looked at a number of chatgroups, none of them came
near this one for (a) easy access (b) interesting threads,
even to an 'outsider' and (b) generally interesting people.
This is the only group I freqent.
I continue to
post here because I get enjoyment from the interaction. It is
an interaction I would find hard to get with the busy days I
have. I also think it's a healthy outlet for us all and it
takes up less than 1/24th of my day which I do not think is an
excessive time to be exercising my brain.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >netizen kane
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Rhonda, I'm
troubled by the posting of yours where you attribute to Mollie
the use of the word IGNORANT to describe someone in which she
disagrees. You put QUOTATION MARKS around the word
ignorant,and yet when I've searched the entire thread there
has not been a single instance of the use of the word ignorant
to describe anyone, anywhere. It really isn't fair to
criticize someone for using the word ignorant when it's origin
has been conjured up in your own mind. Lets be fair,shall we?
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
No offense
intended, but everything you believe about community,
citizenship and humaneness undermines everything I believe
about freedom, liberty and the primacy of the individual over
the state. That we live in communities is, in my opinion, only
because it is generally in an individual's interest to do so.
We own, first, ourselves, we own our actions and our labor and
we own those unowned physical quantities which we mix with our
labor. I understand your philosophical disagreement, but it is
at that point, at the very beginning of our conception of life
(individual vs. group) that we disagree. Unlikely that this
fundamental difference could ever be reconciled between the
two of us. Doesn't make you a bad person, in my opinion, and I
hope you feel the same about me. So there really is probably
almost nothing on which we will agree and I think that's
beautiful. It's rare to find someone so diametrically opposed
to yourself that you really MUST come to love them, in a way.
As to Mollie,
let me address your points one by one.
1. My university
education tried to convince me of a lot of things, but I
steadfastly refuse to be the brainwashed drone many of
professors would have liked. I believe in freedom and I think
I always shall. Freedom is not at all "simple." It
is a million complex processes that operate at once. Rather, I
look at planned systems of order that seek to
"abolish" the inherent ills of life as
"simple." This is why they have failed the world
over and why we DO enjoy the highest standard of living in the
world. Freedom is not utopian, and it will not yield us the
"perfect" society that many here advocate. It will,
however, yield us the society in which those who dream have
the best chances of making their visions reality.
2. I never said
there was no chance of rehabilitation in jail. I gave a
hypothetical scenario of a repeated killer who clearly will
not stop. This is not meant to imply that every case of murder
falls into such a category. You simply misunderstood me. But
since you bring it up, what IS your response to that scenario?
Is there EVER a point, in your opinion, when someone is so
broken he or she cannot be fixed? If not, what is YOUR answer?
You've already advocated "prevention," for whatever
that's worth, but what about those for whom it too late? What
do you suggest we do?
3. I understand
this about my mother's story and the million others like her.
My mother came to this country from a fascist dictatorship.
Her family came here with no skills, no concept of the
language, no money -- nothing except drive, determinism,
imagination and an entrepreneurial spirit. That is the essence
of America and, having breathed it since my birth, having
lived through our story, I cannot imagine any other way. That
is no slight on those who have not yet "made it." I
applaud their every effort. But poverty is only a
"cycle" if you let it become one. Defeatism begats
defeat.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
To IG: Please
tell me what 'IMHO' means. ALso, yes I thought Kim would live
up to her words and not return.
To All: I
apologize for taking what Mollie said out of context. Also
what I meant to do was paraphrase,rather than quote which is
why I wrote 'ignorant' rather than "ignorant" but it
doesn't really matter as I have indeed offended, haven't I?
To Mollie: I
NEVER implied that you don't belong on Local Source. I still
have no idea why you are so defensive when it comes to me. Ppl
come and go on Local Source and some agree with you and some
don't but when I disagree with you it must be because I have
something against you personally?! I don't understand where
this all came from. Again, it is perhaps in the context of the
writing rather than the tone of the voice which you cannot
hear. This is a world wide web where anyone can chat. Of
course I would not have you sensored. Don't over-react.
Also, I am fully
aware of how my tax dollars are spent. You missed my point. It
wasn't that I don't want to pay taxes. Certainly we all have
that responsiblity. My point was that ppl should take MORE
responsiblity for THEMSELVES. In this country we are all given
PLENTY of opportunity. You can take two children and give them
the same eductation and economic background and yet one will
succeed and the other will end up on welfare. From what I am
reading here there are those of you who think it is
appropriate that we should all pay for the person who ended up
on welfare, given these circumstances. I think there is
something wrong with a system that allows this to happen.
Also, someone here (wish I could remember who) said that ppl
should start taking responsiblity for themselves. We all have
problems that we have had to overcome. I agree with that line
of thinking. You can choose to abuse drugs or you can choose
not to. The consequences should be yours to face. We have a
system that is set up to PUNISH. Those are the consequences.
The system isn't set up for REHABILITATION. Therefore, it was
only right that regardless of whether or not Karla found G-d
she should've recieved her punishment. I don't think everyone
will ever come to unanimous agreement on the death penalty. We
are all too diverse. And I respect those who have strong
convictions for and against. I don't know what the right
answer is. It is good that you opened this up for discussion,
Mollie. I like to see what other ppl think about topics such
as this.
I'm sure I
forgot to add a couple of things...but that's the gist of what
I wanted to say. I felt I needed to apologize to Mollie for
taking that post out of context. And I needed to put what I
said into better context, as well. Hope I clarified a bit.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Rhonda,
Because I'm
running short of time two comments only at this point.
You seem to
think my argument was that Karla should have been spared
because she found God. Go back and read what I have said. I am
talking about the system of punishment and how we, as caring
human beings need to examine our propensity to cruelty to
those we fear, fail, and /or dislike for whatever reason.
If the system is
set up for punishment only, and of course we know it is, then
it is wrong because all it is doing is creating the opposite
of what a peaceful and harmonious society needs.
Ray has asked
what my alternative to the Death Penalty is. I don't have one.
I cannot have one without knowing and understanding all of the
causal problems and the facts. But we need to keep trying to
find a solution and that will only come about when people
protest seeming injustices.
Secondly, go
back and read exactly what you have written about my postings
and consider whether or not you were short-sighted in your
comments about my right to answer any other posts in the way I
felt was appropriate.
You also said I
started the thread so I could benefit from other peoples'
responses. We all, I hope, benefit from the interaction we
have with each other, even when the reactions to one's posts
are inaccurate and inappropriate. Surely that is the whole
purpose of chatting between associates, friends, cyberfriends
whatever. Am I wrong? What reason do you post your messages
for if not to benefit from response to them?
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Mollie, I
understand the topic: Capital Punishment. Do not misrepresent
me, please. The redemption of Carla Tucker was only ONE issue
of many that I touched on.
Also, I already
apologized about taking your one comment to Jason out of
context. Do we need to beat a dead horse? Never did I say you
don't belong on Local Source. Enough already. I apologized. I
also thanked you for starting the thread so we could all
learn. We are in agreement on that fact that we all benefit
from this. Now enough already. Let's get back on topic.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >To Sarah Bellum
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Check your
e-mail.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Before I blow
out the candle and tip-toe off to slumber:
Blue Laws were
instituted to honor the Sabbath. Whose Sabbath? Traffic is a
johnny-come-lately rationale intended to obfuscate. Why not
close down Bergen County on a Thursday? I lived in Bergen
County almost 20 years and on any given Sunday I could buy all
the booze and cigarettes I could possibly want, but I could
not buy a sewing needle.
Ray, can you
support your claim that Christmas was made a holiday because
of union pressure? Or Good Friday? C'mon, friend, sophistry
does not become you.
Rhonda, nite,
nite. Hope tomorrow is a better day.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
I tried to add
something to this discussion this afternoon, but was unable to
finish my thought before I was interrupted. No matter. I see
you've all done very well without me.
What I wanted to
say was that not everyone in our society has the same degree
of opportunity.
It is easy to be
a happy capitalist from a certain perspective: when you are
speaking from a position of having 'made it'. But believe me,
it looks very different from the other side of the trough.
When a child of
immigrants, or a child of poverty, or a child of color 'makes
it' it is NOT because he/she has simply availed themselves of
the opportunities that are provided every child. When they do
make it, it is because they have worked twice as hard to knock
down the walls that have been erected to keep them from making
it.
Have you lived
in poverty, Ray? Have you ever had to choose between food and
rent? Have you ever gone to school hungry and come home in the
afternoon to a mother on drugs or alcohol? Have you ever
worked three jobs to support your kids, and still been unable
to make ends meet? Have you ever been denied a job or a place
to live because of the color of your skin or your accent? Have
you ever been homeless?
Yes, we live i
the greatest country there is, with unlimited potential and
unlimited opportunities for all... or almost all.
You said that
real poverty doesn't exist in the US. I beg to differ with
you, Ray. Now, don't take me personally. I like you alot and I
have enormous respect for you, but unless you have seen it,
lived it, you really don't know. There is a poverty of spirit
that pervades certain parts of our society that makes it well
nigh impossibe to achieve the American dream.
A big screen TV
cannot substitute for a loving, caring, involved family. More
square footage than the average Japanese cannot substitute for
decent meals. Homeless shelters cannot substitute for stable,
secure homes.
I've lived in
poverty, Ray. I know what I'm talking about. I've had to make
choices that no mother should have to make. I've been denied
housing because of the color of my family's skin. My children
have been denied jobs for that same reason. One of my sons was
beaten up so badly that he landed in the hospital. His
attackers, the grandchildren of immigrants, told him to go
back where he came from - which is really hysterically funny
since my children are part Native American, and tenth
generation Americans if you only count their European
heritage. Hell, my grandmother's great uncle was Robert E.
Lee! How American can you get? Yet he was told to go back
where he came from!
I've been
homeless, Ray. I've slept in a car and used the bathroom at
McDonald's to wash up in. And this happened not because I was
on drugs or otherwise wasting my opportunities, but while I
was working full time and trying to make it in America!
Forgive me if
I'm a little passionate about this, but I've been there. I
know what it's like from the inside out. It would almost be
easy for me to forget now. I qualify as having made it today.
It's not always easy, but I own my own business and I am fully
if not over employed. I have a roof over my head, gas in my
car, food for the dog, and a couple of dollars left over to
invest at the end of most months. I've achieved my American
dream, and it would be easy for me now to make pronouncements
about overcomming poverty with hard work. Except that I still
remember the hopelessness and desperation.
I still remember
what it was like and know that at the drop of a hat it could
be that way again. And I have my children and grandchildren,
people of color and children of poverty, who are still living
the struggle, to remind me.
I'm getting to
my point, I promise. It is this: that there is a very basic
ideological difference that separates those of us, like
Mollie, and Kathryn and myself, who have lived the struggle
and know it intimately, from those of you like Ray and Rhonda,
to whom the American dream seems like an inalienable right. I
don't mean to leave anyone out: we all know which side of the
trough we're on.
Because of those
differences, we're going to have a different view of poverty
and it's effect on the underclass in our society. We're going
to have a different take on society's obligation to it's most
underpriveledged. We're going to see the penal system and
capital punishment differently.
All of which is
really okay. We can still care about and respect one another
and come together to share ideas.
And, as Forrest
Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that."
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Yes, Blue Laws
were instituted for the reasons you state. The Christian
Sabath. Today, however, the people of Bergen County keep the
laws so that they can have at least ONE day of peace from mall
crowds. I have heard this rational from politicans, police,
ems members as well as residents.
As far as your
rationale is concerned: New York City must be a Jewish City
becuase they have alternate side of the street parking rules
in effect for Jewish Holidays. Now, you and I both know that
is not a correct statement. I wrote that to prove that
Christian Holidays are National Holidays because they are
celebrated by a majority of Americans. Not because we live in
a Christian Nation. I really don't wish to pursue this because
it is taking away from the topic at hand. Unless you care to
start a new thread, Kathryn.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
It is not safe
to assume that ppl who believe in capitalism have been born
with a silver spoon in their mouth.
I feel like I'm
repeating myself. The US is a place where someone who has
nothing has the tools to make something of themself and become
anything - even a President. Bill Clinton jokes aside, this
was a boy who grew up in Arkansas- one of the poorest states
in the nation. Raised by his mother and an alcoholic
step-father.
I'm sorry you
fell on hard times, Fran. No buts. I really am sorry. It
shouldn't happen to someone who is raising children and
working hard. I hope you were able to use the system to your
advantage in that case. That's what I want my tax dollars to
pay for. That's EXACTLY what I want my tax dollars to pay for.
I'm equally excited that you pulled yourself up and now are a
proud business owner. That's the Horatio Alger story - I love
it! See - we do have opportunity here and that is exactly what
I am trying to say. Getting back to the issue at hand- Carl
had opportunity but she blew it. The day she chose to give up
on life. She chose a drug induced state. She didn't care about
herself or others. I can't feel sorry for her. There are too
many ppl trying to do right every day. Who is lobbying for
those ppl? Who is lobbying for the woman living out of her car
trying to raise her children and hold down a job at the same
time? Think about this: Carla had more ppl coming to her
defense than you did, Fran. Do you think that is appropriate?
Where were all these ppl when you needed them?
Uh, Hello, Mr.
Graham - my friend Fran is living in a car with her children.
Um, could you find some time to help her out please? Raise the
public consciousness about homelessness, please?
I am not going
to apologize for being a consumer, btw. If ppl stopped
consuming then we would put businesses like Frans' out of
business and then she would be homeless again. When did it
become unpopular to be successful in the US? Success doesn't
have to come at the expense of the downtrodden. I think we all
need to take an economics class here. I admit I could learn a
thing or two. But if my memory serves, you need consumers in a
capitalistic society to keep the ball rolling. Unless you are
all saying you want to do away with capitalism and try the
communist thing. I think you all know how that turned out.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Okay, so I lied.
Apparently, that wasn't all I had to say. Rhonda, I'm not
trying to defend Karla. Not at all. What she did was an
horrendous act, to quote Nora, who posted that phrase
elsewhere. And there is NO excuse for what she did, and she
was certainly deserving of society's judgement and punishment.
Now, before you
tell me I'm speaking with forked tongue, let me defend my
position. I simply can not support the death penalty because
it is not a solution to the real problem of drugs, crime, etc.
I can see life imprisonment. No problem. Hey, I was carjacked
a few years back and was not happy that the guy hopped over
the fence up in Caldwell and hasn't been heard from since! I'm
not saying that crime should go unpunished. My heart bleeds,
but not that much! What I'm saying is that the whole death
penalty issue is a red herring intended to deflect our
attention from the socio-economic problems that I personally
believe society has failed to address.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Fran, I respect
your opinion.
For the record,
I still have not decided either way on capital punishment.
Can anyone tell
me what 'IMHO' means? I have seen this posted frequently
lately. Must've fell asleep at the puter when that one came
out :-)
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
In My Humble
Opinion.
I thought you
were kidding when you asked, or making an editorial comment to
the effect that someone's purported humble opinion hadn't
been. Sorry, kiddo! :-)
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Crystal
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
My goodness!
What a discussion! I have spent the whole evening reading
through here and one thing I can say is that everyone has alot
of good points. I wish we could all learn to argue like this
in real life.
I still don't
think it's right for the state to kill. I remember something
Lynn posted a while back when we were talking about the right
to die. She said that our regard for life has been cheapened
by the abortion debate and the high cost of medical treatment
for the terminally ill - don't yell at me if I don't quote it
exactly. Anyway, I think she was right, and that capital
punishment is another area where our regard for life has been
cheapened.
I know, I know.
The criminal didn't have much regard for life. But that
doesn't mean that we have to stoop to the criminal's level.
IMHO.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
IMHO means In My
Honest Opinion.
Fran, no I have
never lived in true poverty. I've been lower middle class. I
was shot at when I was 6-years-old. I was first offered heroin
in kindergarten. I knew pimps and prostitutes and drug dealers
and I passed them everyday on my way to school, but I never
went hungry and never had to worry about a roof over my head.
In my life, I've seen us go from where we were to where we
are, and I owe that all to my parents.
They HAVE lived
in poverty, or as close to it as this country and my mother's
home country offers. And they are much MORE adament in their
defense of capitalism, of the freedom to make your own living
and choose your own way in life, than I am. Your assumption
that one's background will determine one's stance on the
matter would not apply, and most immigrants I know feel the
same way. There is a REASON they chose to come here, and for
most it is the opportunity to be entrepreneurs that is not
available in most countries.
I'm not
heartless. I give of myself to help my fellow man. But IMHO
(to use the phrase) it is one thing to give of yourself and
give to charity and seek to help others -- it is entirely
another for the state to coercively TAKE what was rightfully
earned in the name of "justice." Since we're on the
topic of "two wrongs don't make a right," that's my
two cents on the topic. There are any number of public goods I
support, but because I feel PEOPLE should do them does not
mean the GOVERNMENT should. That's where I draw a distinction.
Every action taken by government, every dime that is spent by
government, is a dime that is forcibly STOLEN from someone
else. That is exactly the kind of statist tyranny that my
mother's family was seeking to escape. I understand you don't
see it that way, and I respect your opinion.
Kathryn,
Christmas being a holiday and it's being a
"national" holiday (there is no such designation)
are two different things. A FEDERAL holiday is what you mean
and a federal holiday IS, in fact, simply a day when federal
government workers get off. There is no law saying you can't
work on Christmas. I have!
Yes,
Christianity is the predominant religion, but I don't think it
should be called into consideration when determining law. I
agree with you -- blue laws and the like should NOT exist. I
won't even argue there are areas where religion
inappropriately seeps into the law (In god we trust, one
nation under god, etc.) but the argument was over whether a
"Christian" nation should allow the death penalty. I
don't think that we should ourselves a "Christian"
nation when determining public policy. I don't think religious
sentiments should come into the equation.
For the record,
I oppose the death penalty. But there are instances, and the
example I gave earlier is one of them, when I could see why
someone would advocate it. On those points, I am conflicted
and was hoping someone here could give me their point of view
on the matter.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Ray, I'm sorry
if I ticked you off. I didn't mean to offend. I do respect
where you are and where you've come from. Honestly.
Like I said,
there is a big difference in ideology here. There are so many
things that go into shaping our view of the world. You
were/are fortunate to have good parents who instilled strong
values into their son. Not everyone is so fortunate.
My kids, who are
all older than you, by the way, have done okay. They went
through their tough times, but they've survived and mostly
prospered in life, even when they've gotten the $#!+ kicked in
their faces. They also had the benefit of involved (albeit
divorced) parents, who cared about them and held them
accountable to certain standards.
My view is that
there are those who are not so fortunate, who have no parental
example to look up to, who have no moral training, who have
nothing but despair to tuck them in at night. By and large,
these are our criminals.
You will note,
please, that I have not said that the government owes anyone
anything. I said (or implied) that society owed a debt to it's
underclass. There is a difference. I'm not advocating doubling
the national debt on social programs that don't work. What I
WOULD like to see, however, is our government taking a leading
role in a more compassionate attitude toward the
disenfranchised. We look up to our leaders, and lately there's
an awful lot of anger and meanness being reflected back at us.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Fran, I
respectfully disagree with your argument. I refuse to excuse
criiminal activity. Your argument is an insult to all those
who successfully grew up without parental guidance. Are you
saying that anyone who grows up in a foster home and doesn't
become a criminal is an exception?
We need to stop
making excuses. Some actions are inexcusable. Why is that so
hard to take? Hey, I've had troubles, you certainly had
troubles, Ray had troubles....why aren't we criminals?
EVERYONE HAS TROUBLES! You can make an excuse for every crime.
I'm sure that it can be done. When does the criminal accept
responsiblity for his/her own actions?? Why is it a bad thing
to inflict punishment on the criminal? Why is it our
responsibility to rehabilitate a criminal? They have proven
they don't care about themself or society. Why should society
take time to care about the criminal when it is already
overburdened by those who are trying to do right but simply
down on their luck, aka your story, Fran?
I guess what set
me off is your comment about not everyone is as fortunate as
us. You can say that there will always be someone worse off
than the next person. Where does it stop?? Fran, your own
children grew up in a car while their single parent tried to
hold down a job! By your own standards it would be
understandable if they turned to a life of crime. I can see it
now...
Juror #1: We had
to let him go...he was less fortunate than us.
Juror #2: Who
could blame him...look how he grew up! In a car! He had no
chance!
Juror #3: If
only he had 2 parents! Then he wouldn't have turned to a life
of crime! I couldn't convict knowing that!
??????? Is this
too far fetched?
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
I'm not ticked.
I understand completely. Trust me, I've gotten much worse
tossed at me. I love these debates, because I find they are
constructive. But often, when people meet me and don't who I
am or where I've been, they make assumptions like "You're
a spoiled little rich white boy -- what do you know about
poverty?" which DO tend to irk me.
What irks me
even more are these lines of argument:
1> "When
you've experienced life, you'll see..."
2> "All
civilized countries do this, all civilized countries do
that..."
I find both the
left and right are often guilty of these committing these
debate "fouls." What either says is, essentially,
"I don't have any way of disputing you so I'll destroy
your credibility." It's intellectual bankruptcy to make
arguments along these lines.
Anyway, you're
not guilty of that, nor are most of these chatters. I see it
occasionally, but try not to let it bother me, because I've
yet to see anyone be NASTY about it. But basically, I think
any time people stick to the issues and don't get personal,
there's no reason for anyone to be offended.
By the way,
Fran, don't feel shy about e-mailing me your thoughts re:
poetry thread. I invited people into my privacy by posting
here, so don't feel like you're violating anything.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
That's a great
point, Rhon. Being poor or disenfranchised in some way does
not MAKE one a criminal. Having no respect for your fellow man
does. It is not an industry relegated solely to the poor. Look
at the Menendez Bros or -- though they both got it away with
it -- people like OJ and Klaus Von Bulow.
On the other
hand, the VAST majority of "poor" people do not grow
up to be murderers. Abuse does tend to make one abusive, no
doubt, but ultimately, it is not for the state to play
guidance counselor. In a free society, there is only one basic
right -- the right to do as you please, so long as you don't
hurt anyone else. And with that comes the only basic
responsibility -- the responsibility to accept the
consequences.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 05-Feb-98 >
Let me tell you
a little anecdote about our legal system Rhonda (which is
similar to the system in your country).
A woman was
raped beaten and stabbed by three men, she lapsed into
unconsciousness.
When the men
were being tried, the judge gave a more than lenient sentence
to the offenders with the explanation that 'because the woman
was unconscious for much of the ordeal, her suffering would
have been less than had she been conscious all of the time'.
Another one of
our esteemed judges, let a man off a very serious rape and
beating charge because he(the judge) said 'just because a
woman says no to sex doesn't mean to say she means no'.
Now with
imbeciles like this administering our legal system how can we
ever have faith in so-called 'justice'. I reiterate, it is no
longer enough for citizens to trust that those who are leading
the country are all-knowing, competent, honest, and effective,
we all need to take part in debating the big-issues and making
our feelings known to those representing us in government.
I also go back
to my point about the length of time taken to execute
Karla....how many people, organisations, etc, benefitted
financially from this woman's situation during this time?
Ray, I'm really
puzzled at your statement about the government stealing money
from someone to finance public works etc. Who either paid in
full or subsidised your university education let alone your
lower schooling and every other govt type facility available
to you?
You and Rhonda
seem to believe that the majority of tax monies are spent on
welfare alone. I suggest you should look at, just for one,
your country's defence expenditure, or maybe the Space
program. I would suggest welfare is not as significant an
expense as you make it out to be.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
My university
education? Me. Well, first my parents, then I paid them back.
We didn't get "government" financing and it wasn't a
government institution. I did go to public high school after
spending most of my years in Catholic school (also not a
government institution), and yes, those resources are taken
from the public till. Is that hypocritical? Probably. Of all
government programs, public education would be the last I'd
cut. I do think even it could be supplanted by the private
sector, but that's not realistically going to happen. This
board is already so far off the topic, so if you want to
discuss that, we should really start another thread.
As to tax
dollars, on the federal level, entitlements of various kinds
-- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Welfare --
actually DO comprise the bulk of the budget, and add up to be
significantly more than defense spending. Actually, Social
Security alone pretty much equals the defense budget of $300
billion annually. Defense spending needs to be cut
drastically, as well, no doubt, but you're mistaken on the
breakdown.
Space program is
actually a pretty small part of the budget, only a couple
billion.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Mollie, are we
reading the same stuff???? I say one thing and you tell
everyone else what you thing I said.
I do not think
the majority of tax monies are spent on welfare. I did mention
welfare but where did I mention that the majority of tax
monies was spent on welfare??
Stop taking my
words and twisting them, Mol. I'm getting angry now.
Also, the story
about the rapes which you pointed towards me is terrible. I am
wondering why you made it a point to single me out in the
telling of the story? I agree what happened is wrong. Do you
think I would disagree?
As far as the
length of time taken to execute ALL prisoners on death row...
I'm no expert but I read the papers and watch the news a
lot...time and time again it is explained that when a prisoner
is on 'death row' there is a mandatory appeals process. That
is the check and balance system put into place so that we do
not kill an innocent person. This is a better question for the
ex, I think. But I am pretty sure there is nobody getting rich
over this mandatory process. And yes, it probably is
excrutiating for the prisoner to be put through this long term
life or death ordeal. I can't say that I am sympathetic.
Good night all
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Just in case
anyone's interested in the 1998 federal budget breakdown, here
it is:
Total
expenditures : $1.7 trillion
Social Security
23%
Defense Spending
15%
Interest
payments 14%
Medicare 12 %
Medicaid 6%
Other
means-tested entitlements (Food stamps/SSI/Earned Income Tax
Creit, etc.) 6%
Remaining
entitlements 6%
Discretionary
spending (everything else) 17%
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Presumeably Ray,
within the 23% allocated to Social Security, a significant
portion of this would go to aged persons, physically and
intellectually handicapped people, groups which do not really
qualify as 'welfare recipients? Please forgive me if I use an
incorrect terminology(In Australia, welfare recipients are
derogatorily named 'dole-bludgers' ).
The 18% of
medicare& medicaid would presumeably be split likewise
would it not?
I'm afraid I
can't tell you what our budget allocation is but I will look
it up.
and Rhonda,
whilst I don't
like to push the point too far, but I think it needs to be
done....how are you sure nobody is getting rich over the
mandatory process? Tell me what proof you have other than what
you hear on the news or read in the newspapers and how many
times have false or misleading perspectives been expounded
through the media?...I rest my case.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >You never know who it will be next
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Dear Mollie,
Most of the
posting that I've read from you over the past few months have
been basically civil and well thought out. Now all of a sudden
you start a thread where people don't agree with you, in fact
they have strong negative feelings about your views. What is
your reply? Why flame them of course.
Mollie, you must
have been reading the various Bloomfield threads. You're
beginning to sink to the level of 90% of the posters here.
What did you
expect? People are tired of being afraid. A woman is caught
who killed two peole by striking them with a pick axe and
admits that she enjoyed it. The people of Texas voted to allow
capital punishment. Put it all toghether and you can't expect
any other outcome. In an ideal world we wouldn't have capital
punishment, but in an ideal world we wouldn't have murder (or
other heinous crimes either).
OK, I have my
asbestos suit on, let me have it.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Late for work,
but...
Ray, I picked up
on something you said last night about being in the middle
when it comes to really heinous cases. (Paraphrasing, sorry.)
I am too. In
principal, I am against capital punishment. But there are
times when I'm glad the government is there to do it, as in
mass murders, crimes against the state (OK City) and others
where the crime is so evil and the danger to the public so
great that life in prison seems inadequate.
I am not
comfortable in feeling this way. But it's the way I feel.
Somehow you have to blend/bend moral principle in order to
live in this world. Such is life.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >You never know
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Forgot one other
point I would like to make. About five posting up, Rhonda made
a comment about the appeals process. If a convicted murderer
has twelve months to file an appeal it will be filed one day
before those 12 months are up. That way, they have the maximum
amount of time to go through the legal system.
You can't blame
the 12 1/2 years on the state, you have to blame them on Ms
Tucker and her lawyers.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
I'm not making
excuses for criminal behavior, Rhonda. There is no excuse. The
fact that I see something from a different perspective doesn't
mean that I excuse the behavior. Perhaps I just see how it
evolves, and I believe that it could be lessened by dealing
with the problems that lead to criminality.
But... I could
also lessen my chances of developing lung cancer if I would
stop smoking, yet I still smoke, so one day I will have to
deal with the consequences. I'm not going off topic, I'm only
using that to ilustrate my point. I know what to do to avoid
future problems, but I'm not doing it.
You know, it's
really hard to defend a moral position. One either feel one
way or another, and no argument will change one's point of
view. We are all composites of what we have lived and learned
through life. I think this has been a really super discussion!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Even more uncomplicated
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Insufferable
bores all of you. I guess you need to have
"intelligence" to be as stupid as human
beings...thinking that there is such a thing as a utopian
society. The definition of a good society is one that works,
even if it is violent. Take a look at the ocean, calm and
serene on the top but look deeper and there is a whole lotta
violence going on, but you know what....it works. Get on with
your lives, end this thread today!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Never ceases to
amaze me when I see pompous a$$holes like yourself demanding
that someone else's conversations come to an end. If you don't
like what we're discussing here, then don't come to this
thread. You can start any thread you'd like or, for that
matter, go to any web site you like. This is called
"community chat." We come here to chat with one
another. If that doesn't interest you, that's your business.
But I don't think anyone here has ceased "going on with
their lives" over the discussions presented.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >It's even more complicated than that
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Hey Even-
I don't remember
sending you an invitation to come here. Any of you out there,
did you send Even an invitation? If you did would you please
raise your hand. Hmmmm don't see any hands raised out there.
Well if you weren't invited why did you spend your precious
time to come here and illuminate us with your wisdom? Maybe
it's because you're an insuferable bore like the rest of us.
After all, to make a blanket statements like you made you must
have read ALL of the postings.
What did you do,
escape out of the Bloomfield BOE thread?
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Ok Mollie. I
just realized. When I look at the globe, Australia is pretty
far to the left. (Just a joke).
To "You
never know" - Can I borrow the asbestos suit?
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Have a seat
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Could you do me
a favor "Even More Complicated"? Come over here and
sit down for a moment. Comfy? Good. Now let me attach these
electrodes to your legs and put this pretty hat on your head.
Good. Let me just walk over to this breaker box. Now don't
move..... Opps silly me i tripped and pressed the breaker:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
There that
should do it.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Mollie,
Why don't YOU
tell ME who is getting rich and where the money is coming from
over death row cases. Carla didn't have any money. The gov't
certainly isn't just giving away money. Defense lawyers don't
earn a helluva lot of money. Where's all this money to be made
off of Carla Tucker?? Geez, the damn long appeals process what
set up to HELP ppl on death row. Not the families of the
victims for goodness sake. Its just as difficult for the
famnilies of the victims to wait all this time, too. Y'know?
When you tell me
who is getting rich and how then we can pursue this issue.
Until then, I will seek the answer you require. It may take
awhile so be patient. I am obviously not a lawyer.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Sarah Bellum
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
BTW, if anyone
out there wants a 'Carla Picked Her Own Fate' t-shirt I'm
selling them at 1/2-off prices - only $10 plus shipping and
handling. E-mail your request to:
whatcomesaround@goesaround.com
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
That's a good
one. Reminds me of the "Ted Bundy -- Home-Grilled Florida
Bar-B-Q" shirts. We DO have pretty sick senses of humor,
Sarah.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Gallows humor
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Personally I
liked the T shirt that said "I like my Ted Well
Done".
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Even more uncomplicated
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
I see the
violence inherent in the system. I'm being repressed!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Supreme power
must come from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical
aquatic ceremony! Some moistened tart throws a sword at you
and that gives the right to be king!
We are the
Knights Who Say.......NIH!
Monty Python
always brings out the geek in me.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Uncomplicated
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
He's not the
messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
ROIGHT...then
when someone comes at you with a banana, what do you do? Come
on, now!
"If I were
not in the CID, there's something else I'd like to be....A
Window-Washer Me!"
Bicyclye Repair
Man, you're our hero!
That bird has
expired! It is an EX-bird!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Jason
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Hey Ray -
"Your Mother was a hampster, and your father smelt of
Eldeberries!" - Be back on her MOnday - CYO ski trip:-)
l8er.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Donchu be talkin
bout my mama, Jason or I'll have to tax that ass like the
government. I'll go Latrell Sprewell on yo ass! :-)
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Rhonda, let's
make a little list shall we of the peoples who gain income
from offenders:
by the way our
defense lawyers here are laughing all the way to the bank
soooo:
Lawyers both
defence and prosecuting
Judges
Court staff
police
prison staff
social workers
media
medical staff -
including psychiatric
executioners
security
personnel
and the list
goes on....
It's sort of a
shame the thread has slipped somehat, it has been a really
good debate and I for one feel hopeful that discussions like
this, even with the twaddle which is important too( how many
people have laughed at death jokes because we are a trifle
nervous of the old 'grim reaper') are beneficial to keeping us
someways 'nice-guys'.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >uncomplicated
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
BRING OUT YOUR
DEAD!!! BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!!!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Lawyers both
defence and prosecuting - Defense lawyers in this country do
not 'haul' in the $ like in Australia. Prosecutors are
salaried employees. So where is the $ to be made here? There
isn't any.
Judges - Judges
in the US are also salaried employees. There is no $ to be
made on the Carla case.
Court staff
-again you are referring to salaried employees. They'd have to
work whether Carla was around or not. No $ being made on Carla
here.
police -again,
see above.
prison staff
-again, see above.
social workers
-no social workers involved in the Carla case. If they were
you could apply the above.
media - Media
isn't making $ on Carla. If she weren't around they would find
another story to exploit.
medical staff -
including psychiatric - that's our tax $ at work. I am paying
for them! And so is every other US citizen!
executioners -
Tax dollars at work, once again!
security
personnel -See above.
and the list
goes on....
You haven't
proven that anyone made a dime on the Carla Case. Fact is, it
cost MORE US tax dollars to pay for and execution than to keep
someone alive for life in prison. The money is used to pay the
salaries of most of the ppl you mentioned. These ppl aren't
getting raises because of the Carla case. It's just jamming
our court system. Maybe our taxes get raised in the end
because due to the jamming of the court system we have to
build more prisons and hire more prison guards, etc...
NO ONE GOT RICH
OFF OF CARLA.
Defense lawyers,
btw can be appointed to a criminal by the court. That means
the gov't is paying the defense lawyers' salary. I guess it
works differently in Australia. Not all defense lawyers work
for the gov't. Those that don't work for the gov don't make a
heck of a lot either. I have 2 cousins that are defense
lawyers that could prove it to you but I think it would be a
bit crass to ask them to show you their W-2s (Tax Forms).
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Biggest problem
facing defense attorneys is all of the clients who never pay
their bills. Happens all the time.
I'm not
following you, Mollie. All of the people, except the
executioners, would still have jobs and likely still earn
comparable pay whether or not there is a death penalty. And
executioners are usually just guards earning overtime anyway.
There is a lot
of money in the criminal justice system, if that's what you
mean. It is an industry of its own. Just go to upstate New
York and you can see that. For many small towns, the local
prison is the biggest employer. That IS a fact, but I don't
really understand what you're condemning. We need prisons, we
need a justice system -- obviously someone's going to get paid
to administer it. So what?
The bigger
question is, is the system being run efficiently? In that
case, I'd have to argue "no." Like the military,
like welfare (and I'm now talking about welfare
administration, forget, for a moment, debate over its benefits
to the welfare clients) like virtually any government program,
money is wasted because there is no market to hold down costs.
When running a program on the public till, simple market
variables like : wages, facilities, purchasing, information
technology, etc. all tend to be distorted (sometimes obscenely
low, but usually obscenely HIGH) because there are no
controlling variables. You need more money, put in a
requisition and you're almost certain to get it. Unlike a
business, which determines its revenues before it determines
its outlays, government works in reverse. It says "what
do we want?" and then sends a bill to the taxpayers to
get it. This is a procedural problem more than a philosophical
one, of course.
The way to
alleviate it is to utilize clear and fair competitive
contracting, outsourcing functions in bulk (rather than one
job at a time) in order to maximize the pool of bidders and
encourage competition.
In New Jersey,
the waste that has gone into the correctional industry is made
obvious in our now more than a dozen prisons that are being
managed by private firms in partnership with the state. They
have been able to absolutely slash costs across the board
while still providing the same level of service the state was.
This is a coming trend and I think the next decade or so will
be one of the most exciting times to watch these
transformations in the ways governments the world over do
business.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Nora
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Someone sent me
a transcript of a program Pat Robertson did where he skewered
the husband of Karla's female victim for not treating her
better. Oh, if only he'd been a good husband, wifey wouldn't
have been shackin' up with that guy, and wouldn't have been in
harm's way when Karla and her beau came a callin'.
Want to know who
made the most money off Karla? Rev. Robertson! Each time he
cried about it on the air, little old ladies all across the
land rushed for their checkbooks, have no doubt!
Sonofabitchin'
hypocrite!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
He is
most-assuredly that.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Go Nora!
Thank you for
saying what I was afraid to say.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Nora
< Date: 06-Feb-98 >
Going to PA for
the weekend, friends, along with Rugrat & the Crazy Woman.
We'll miss this!
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >
< Date: 07-Feb-98 >
...
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 07-Feb-98 >
Rhonda, Salaries
are income are dollars !
Ray, We have
private prisons over here? Have heard(have no direct
knowledge) that they are even crueller than govt run
institutions.
All,
we have one of
the world's worst murderer's in a jail in Tasmania.
In 1996, Martin
Bryant shot and killed 35 people in cold blood injured 80+
others. This was planned and rumour has it that this young man
went to a disco with the same sports bag as he conveyed his
semi-automatic rifles to Port Arthur, two nights before the
eventual massacre but was refused entry. The death toll could
have been much higher.
There was no
trial because the state and Bryant did a deal. Bryant will
cost the Tasmanian Govt around $100000pa to keep. But this was
preferable to this government as they then did not have to
examine why they condoned a society which for many years
ignored the bizarre behaviour of this young man.
Even after the
massacre Bryant was judged to be sane enough to stand trial. I
lived not all that far from Port Arthur when this tragedy
occurred. I am not surprised it happened. Tasmania is a
worrying place. It is the only place in (I think) the Southern
Hemisphere which counts homosexuality as a criminal offence
carrying 21 years jail for the act.
Government
corruption and stupidity is rife and there is a very strong
hatred by some significant amount of Tasmanians to
non-Tasmanians.
Bryant's mother
and father had sought treatment for him because of his strange
behaviour some 18 years earlier but their pleas for help were
either denied by health professionals(govt) or were
ineffective in getting aid for their son.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 07-Feb-98 >
Mollie if you
think that someone made money off of Carla Tucker simply
becuase they happened to be a salaried employee doing the same
job that they would do if it were Carla or any other criminal
on or off of 'death row' then your logic is faulty and without
reason. Either you don't understand that salaried employees
make a set amount of $ regardless of their duties or you don't
want to understand. Seems like you would prefer to beleive
that the US has death row for purposes of profit (since we are
a capitalistic nation) rather than the US really believes it
is a proper form of punishment and deterent to certain
horrendous crimes against man.
Fact: It COSTS
the US taxpayer MORE to apply the death penalty.
The money goes
to DEFEND the death row convict in APPEALS!
Salaried
employees make THE SAME AMOUNT regardless of their duties. If
they made $20,000/year before Carla, then they made $20,000
DURING and AFTER Carla!
To imply that
salaried employees in any way benefit from the death penalty
and therefore is the REASON we have the death penalty is a
faulty argument.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >netizen kane
< Date: 07-Feb-98 >
Greetings to all
fellow netizens, The debate is lively & interesting &
much to everyone's credit there has been no personal
attacks,lets keep it that way. It seems to me,Rhonda,that in
listing all the salaried people from cops to judges to prove
that no one profits,is simply to be looking in the wrong
place.You fail to make the important distinction between the
public sector [cops,clerks etc.] and the private one, that is
,corporate enterprise. Turn to the financial pages of the N.Y.
Times or your local paper,and the answer about who profits
will be found there. Corrections Corporation of
America,manages more private prisons than any other company
worldwide.Correction Corp.ranks among the top five performing
companies on the New York Stock Exchange over the past three
years.By carefully selecting the most lucrative prison
contracts,slashing labor costs and sticking taxpayers with the
bill for expenses like prisoners escapes, C.C.A. has richly
confirmed the title of a recent stock analysis by Paine
Webber:"CRIME PAYS". There are now 1.8 million
Americans behind bars --more than twice as many as a decade
ago--and the "get tough"stance has sapped public
resources and sparked court orders to improve conditions.
C.C.A.now operates the sixth-largest prison system in the
country-and is moving aggtressively to expand into the global
market with prisons in England,Puerto Rico,[and yes
Mollie]Australia. In 1996, the General Accounting Office
examined the few available reports comparing costs at private
and public prisons. It's conclusions: " THESE STUDIES DO
NOT OFFER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT SAVINGS HAVE
OCCURRED". At its heart, privatizing prisons is really
about privatizing tax dollars, about transforming public money
into private profits.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 07-Feb-98 >
That is good
information, Netizen Kane. (I still have yet to find a movie
that can top 'Citizen Kane', btw. My all time favorite film.)
However, correct
me if I'm wrong, I think that the point Mollie was trying to
make was that the US wanted to put Karla, Carla or whatever
her name is, to death as a means to make a profit. I believe
what you said above is true. However, does that mean that the
US is in the business to put ppl to death? Private industry is
in the business to put ppl behind bars, maybe. But TO DEATH?
This is the matter hand. Please, Netizen, we need your
input...Did ANYONE make a profit on the death of Carla... and,
if so, were they instrumental in making sure she got the
'death penalty' so that they could make a profit? I beleive
this is the question at hand. Please correct me if I am wrong.
As J. Gedes once
said to Citizen Kane and my mom used to say to me:
"You're gonna NEED more than one lesson, and you're gonna
GET more than one lesson!"
This really
isn't the place for that comment, I just couldn't help saying
it! :-)
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 07-Feb-98 >
Perhaps Mollie
would kindly elaborate on the issue of money and the execution
of Karla Tucker. I, like most everyone here, have read and
reread most of the postings and I did not get even a hint that
Mollie thought the long delay and legal manuevering was an
intentional ploy to make money. I interpreted her postings to
mean because delays and manueverings in and of themselves
generate lucrative opportunities, there is no impetus to
streamline the system. If my interpretation is accurate, I
concur with Mollie; but I must add that because I am so
fundamentally against the death penalty I wish the delays were
longer and the maneuverings more circuitous. I wouldn't care
how many fortunes were made on tax dollars in that case.
I am wondering
about the statement Rhonda made that executions cost more
than...? Incarceration? I, too, have heard that but cannot for
the life of me remember who said it nor if he/she could back
it up with figures. Rhonda, if you have a good source for
this, I would really appreciate your passing it along.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 07-Feb-98 >
Rhonda,
I can't seem to
get my point across to you no matter how hard I try.
I cannot imagine
how you have come to the conclusion that I said that Karla was
given the death penalty to make money for the state. That is a
nonsense!
I suggest you go
back and read my postings again. I get the feeling you are so
anti 'Mollie postings per se' that you don't fully read and
understand what I am saying.
I would like to
debate the issue more but personally I think this thread has
almost done its day, but what a great thread it's been.
Additionally, I
am almost out of my allocation of cybertime for this
month(until 13th) so I have to limit my time until then.
Thank you
Netizen Kane your information was very interesting and
enlightening.
Also interesting
that here in Oz, Pres Clinton has almost redeemed himself by
virtue of looming war with Saddam Hussain...Clinton Zippergate
is now delegated to bottom of media priority.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 07-Feb-98 >
I am too tired
to re-read any postings on this thread. I did misunderstand
what you said Mollie. I thought you were insinuating that
people were making money off the death of Carla Tucker. Now I
really don't know what you meant, to tell you the truth.
Bottom line is,
I disagree with some of the things you say here. I don't
dislike you. I do, however, dislike the fact that you take
what I write personally. I am not the only one who has
disagreed with you, but you make it seem like I am out to get
you. I don't understand this. You can discuss any
controversial topic with anyone except me. You get entirely
too defensive and then acuse me of all sorts of oddball things
like wanting to have you removed from local source. I just
don't get it.
Well...I'm too
tired and frankly not interested enough to pursue why you
think the way you do. I'm not going anywhere and neither are
you so I suppose we will have to learn to deal with the
situation at hand. Don't be suprised if I should agree or
disagree with you in any given thread. Its not personal. Its
called 'discussing'. And don't worry...I won't go and rant
about you in every other thread the way you did about me 2
weeks ago. That's not my style.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Lurker
< Date: 08-Feb-98 >
Great thread! It
is in a way a debate between the particular and the universal.
What is more important, the individual or the community? What
endures, the individual or humanity? I have mixed feelings
about Karla Tucker and the whole revolting "born-again
Christian scene." I have not made up my mind about
capital punishment. I guess I am not that
"civilized."
Ray, could you
enlighten me as to why it is that the U.S. government (i.e.,
the U.S. Corporate structure) spends 15% of our tax $$s
supporting and training Saddams and all the "scum of the
earth" (the Mujahadeen) to fight against Communists and
install barbaric regimes to safeguard "oil" and
other wealth? The interesting thing is that these U.S. backed
"tyrants" then turn against their American masters.
It is the average American wage earner, not the success
stories like you, who ends up paying for our insatiable
neo-imperialism.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 08-Feb-98 >
Short of
cybertime so this will be brief.
I realise this
is not to do with Karla, but following along the lines of
Lurker,
On Saturday
night I watched a film on Sarajevo which, whilst I managed not
to weep left me feeling outraged that the US did little or
nothing to prevent the absolute tragedy that this war was(and
still potentially is) yet has already had one gulf war and is
about to take us all(possibly) along with another. Is it as
rumour has it that it is the threat to US oil supplies which
prompts US action?
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Why Us?
< Date: 08-Feb-98 >
Mollie, why the
outrage at the US? Why not outrage at the European Community?
After all, it's their back yard. Why not outrage at Saudi
Arabia and the other Muslim Countries. After all it's Muslims
that are being killed. Why not outrage at Russia. After all
they share a religion with their Serb brethern. Why not the
Australians for that matter? Can't you folks spare a few dead
boys?
Why the United
States? Because we're a "super power"? Because we
have a lot of money? Because we have a lot of young men that
can come home in bags?
Let's face it,
we went to Kuwait for our own interests, but is there anything
inherently wrong with that? That war was fought to stabilize
not just ours' but many other countries economies. What do we
get out of invading Bosnia?
Look around the
world, Bosnia's not the only place where there is pain and
sorrow. While we're at it we can help the Irish, give the
Basques their own country , clean up Cypress, fix 75% of the
African continent, fix that pesky Palestinian/Israel mess and
that will be just for breakfast.
Unfortunitely,
as a country we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If
we go into a country (Lebanon, Sudan, Grenada) were ruthless
thugs out for out own interests. If we stay away were cowards
and ....? I don't know Mollie, exactly what are we for not
going into Bosnia?
Like that great
sage Wilt Chamberlin once said, "nobody likes
Goliath".
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 09-Feb-98 >
Not just the
threat to US oil but the oil for half the free world. Well
said, "why us".
To Kane - I
agree with you concerning privatization of services. They must
perform the same service and make a profit besides. The answer
is better internal management.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >another soul
< Date: 09-Feb-98 >
So they put
Karla to death. Now we can see what it was all about. Yes
Karla commited an act that was so repulsive to society that at
least one part of that society said, let's kill her too.
But why did they
kill Karla? To teach her a lesson? You can't learn a lesson
when your dead. To prevent her from repeating the crime? Who
believes she would kill again?
Maybe it was to
teach us a lesson? We all experienced her death. Didn't you
feel it when you first her she had been killed? It was like a
little tremor in your spirit. You knew that a willful act of
killing was commited. At a given moment, in a given place, a
life was turned off. Was the person bad? Was the person good?
It just dosen't matter any more the person is gone. All that
is left is a body. All bodies are equal. They are dead - That
is all just dead. Karla can not do any harm any more, nor can
she do good. All she can be is a lesson to us all - But what
was the lesson?
What was the
lesson? Maybe it is, if you kill you will be killed? Maybe it
is that, vengence is ours and not the Lord's. He just get's
the souls back to deal with after? Maybe the lesson is more
sinister than that? Maybe it is if you do certain things, no
matter what you do to redeem yourself there is no redemption.
No redemption because we as your judges don't believe you. No
redemption because you can do nothing to right this wrong
except to die.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >how 'bout this reason
< Date: 09-Feb-98 >
Just maybe it
was directed to the next person who is holding a pick axe (or
a knife or gun)and is thinking about driving it repeatedly
into a defenseless person.
As someone
stated earlier, the murder rate in Texas has fallen
dramatically. Just maybe, Karla Faye Tuckers execution will
make someone think twice before they take a life for the hell
of it.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 09-Feb-98 >
In response to
Jim D and others with negative impressions of privatization --
you are entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to cite some
specific research and facts regarding privatization.
First, reference
the Reason Foundation's 1993 study titled "Cost Savings
from Privatization : A Compilation of Findings."
Researchers who examined 30 state and 300 local government
privatization projects estimated that governments typically
save between 20 and 40 percent through competitive
contracting.
For some
specific programs studied, look to the City of Phoenix's trash
collection program, which between 1979 and 1993 saved $21
million through outsourcing services.
A 1994 study by
researcher William D. Eggers found that Los Angeles County
saves more than $50 million annually by contracting out.
In Philadelphia,
Mayor Ed Rendell (a Democrat, I might add) has opened up more
than two dozen city services to competition, which the city
estimates has saved about $34 million annually. I have spoken
to Rendell on several occassions, and he notes also the ripple
effect : to stave off privatization and the potential of
losing jobs to private contractors, in-house units have been
reporting 20 to 30 percent lower cost figures than they were
before he initiated the city's comprehensive privatization
project.
Another
Democrat, Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago, has privatized
more than 40 services since taking control of the city
administration in 1989, including water customer billing, drug
and alcohol treatment, sewer maintenance, and health care
services at selected city clinics. Before Daley, the city used
to tow away abandoned cars at considerable cost. Today,
Chicago is paid $25 per car from private companies for the
privilege. Just by privatizing its towing service, the city
brought in over $6 million and, according to the Winter/Spring
1994 edition of "Business Forum," significantly
improved response time.
In 1991, under
Republican Gov. Weld and state Transportation Secretary James
Kerasiotes, Massachusetts was spending $5.5 million in that
state's Essex County on road maintenance. The state also
determined there was $2 million worth of services they would
like to do, but hadn't been doing for cost reasons. The put
the whole package up for bid and a private contractor came
back with a bid of $3.6 million for the project that would
have cost the state $7.5 million. After the first year of the
contract, the firm cam in $700,000 under cost.
Under Republican
Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, the City of Indianapolis has
privatized over 60 services since 1992. Among the
"casualties" : the city's microfilm operations were
moved into the private sector and the contractor cut the
city's costs by 61 percent, saved $400,000 a year and improved
the quality of microfilm documents. Sewer services moved to
the local water utility and save taxpayers $1.8 million a
year. Trash collection was made competitive in reverse -- city
public works workers submitted bids in the various trash
districts to compete with organized crime-controlled haulers
and won enough bids to save an additional $15 million a year.
Another way to
introduce market variables into the public sector is internal
markets, such as the City of Milwaukee's Internal Service
Improvement Project, started by Democratic Mayor John O.
Norquist, which encourages employee units to compete against
EACH OTHER for projects, which has resulted in
across-the-board savings of 44 percent!
I could go on at
length and fill a book, which is actually what I have done. I
am shopping around publishers right now for a book I've
written on privatization in America, and I'm interested in
starting a second one on privatization abroad, with the models
of such countries as the Czech Republic, Great Britain, Chile,
Argentina, Portugal and, more recently, Mollie's Australia.
All I'm saying, Jim, is that I think if you were to examine
some of the success stories I've encountered you'd see it's
not as black-and-white as you seem to characterize it. It is
not a bane to government, and it is not a panacea either. What
it is is an incredibly powerful management tool that, when
wielded by those who understand it -- like those mentioned
above and others such Cleveland's Mayor Michael White, San
Diego's Mayor Susan Golding or Michigan's Gov. John Engler --
can produce some remarkable results.
< Subject: RE: Carla Tucker >
< From: >another soul
< Date: 09-Feb-98 >
Perhaps you have
never seen a person killed. I would hope from your response
that that is the case. I don't believe the lesson is learned
by the next killer. The experience is too removed for them. It
is the people who do the killing that learn the lesson. That
is true for the executioners as well. I hope you will not have
to witness a killing. The event makes a lasting impression.
As for the
method of killing, a pick axe is just as deadly as a society
that lets some of its people dies as a result of ignorance,
poverty, or neglect. Killing is killing.
|