DP Debate IX

From: MJB
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 2:03 PM
To: Ned Williams
Subject: Re: "beliefs" and their legitimacy in policy discussions


Let's put aside, Ned, whether Sedley Alley's motion for DNA testing w/ justified or not. Shouldn't Tennessee permit DNA testing now?

MJB

-------------------------------------
From: Ned Williams
To: MJB
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: "beliefs" and their legitimacy in policy discussions

On him? Is that even being asked for? If so, sure--assuming his next of kin approve of it and the taxpayers don't have to pay for it and it isn't unreasonably "costly" to allow it to happen.

--------------------------------
From: MJB, 7/1/06, 2:26 pm

I am glad to read it, on the evidence that he wanted tested before we killed him.

--------------------------------
From Me,

Yikes, you guys keep busy don't you? Like I said, sure, with qualifications.


--------------------------------

From: MJB, 7/1/06, 3:11 pm

Ned. Our state--representing us--doesn't want to let Sedley Alley's representatives perform the DNA tests even now. Tennessee currently demonstrates a fear of being proved wrong.
Now, I’d like to cut through all the stuff in your last message & return to the issues involving state killing. I don’t mind discussing Israel’s occupation of Palestine & oppression of Palestinians & Palestinian revolutionaries’ violence toward Israelis. I don’t mind discussing Bush-Dick’s unwarranted invasion & occupation of Iraq or their illegal arrest & torture of men at Guantanomo—but one thing at a time.

Ned, if all you did were vote for candidates who want to kill, then you & I wouldn’t be in this discussion. You vociferously supported killing on the City Paper’s website. Thus, the blood is on you, too, as it’s on me, but I refuse it. I am against it. You are not.

You claim a deterrence to state killing that has been proven time & again not to exist. You claim that these delays hinder the possible deterrence, but there is no evidence that that is so. Further, most murders are performed in the heat of emotion or by people who are mentally disturbed. The VAST majority of murders are committed by people who are not making good decisions, which further deteriorates any deterrent effect of state killing. Today’s Supreme Court has cut down on what you construe as delays in our killing a helpless individual, but it, even with John Roberts & Samuel Alito, is unlikely to speed up the process any further. Without a deterrent effect by state killing, you have no reason to support it, even if you state, without foundation, that it isn’t cold-blooded & that it isn’t immoral.

Here is what we know: State killing has no deterrent effect on crime. State killing is practiced by very few nations of the world, which makes it unusual. State killing differs from all other punishments by being irrevocable, thus making it cruel AND unusual. Killing someone without the cause of self-defense makes one a killer. You & I have agreed on that. Live with it or change your mind on this. You will still be you, a good person, if you support the abolition of state killing.

MJB