^^^ some good points. my comment wasn't really directed at anybody. thats why i won't play this stupid fucking left or right game because people get this "its us vs them" team mentality. i look at every issue differently. sometimes i have a conservative view and sometimes a liberal view, but i don't classify them as such. they are my own opinions.

Yep, I am the same way honestly. I fall on either decide depending on the issue. In the past, I was much more conservative being from a traditional Latin family not exposed to things like homosexuals, etc for the most part until I went to college (a very affluent one). I learned to accept people for who they are and not look down/hate them for what they believe.

I have never supported a candidate based on his party affiliation, I always support based on their stance on the issues. Case in point, in my short voting life (I am a registered democrat) but have voted for MORE republicans than democrats.

not trying to get off topic, but i never understood the whole anti-gay thing. my thing is do whatever(or whoever) the hell you want as long as it doesn't hurt me or anybody else, but some people just can't understand that.

As heinous as this crime was, and it certainly was, where was the outrage when the whites in South Africa committed atrocities against blacks for GENERATIONS??? Where were the slimy, soulless, piece of shit conservatives then? I don't remember any calls for whites to be executed. Where was your anger and sense of justice then???

Speaking for myself, I'd want the same justice. It's not an issue of race to me. It's about seeing the perpetrators get what they deserve. Black or white.

Because it's liberal idealism that often keeps justice from being done in cases like this. That's what's so frustrating. Not just that atrocities like this happen. But that true justice can't be meted out because it would offend the delicate sensibilities of some misguided liberal.

I guess it depends on how you define "anti-gay." As anyone can see by my posts, I'm pretty conservative. And religious. At the same time, I have two gay brothers. I love them and I think they should live and be well, as the saying goes. I don't want to see them be persecuted. But that doesn't mean I don't see a moral problem as far as their lifestyle goes. And I don't think they have a "right" to marry. Or at least for their "union" to be recognized in society the same way marriage between a man and a woman is.

I actually agree with you on the partisan, Left vs. Right thing. But I don't know how else to frame it. As it is typically "the Left" who would see these scumbags simply do life in prison rather being sent to meet their Maker.

fair enough. with me, i'm not religious at all so maybe thats why it does't seem morally wrong to me. i think people are just different, some just like the same sex. its not what most people feel but i don't think that makes it wrong. as far as marriage goes i don't see how people think if two gays are married then it somehow makes thier marriage less sacred but take that for what its worth because i don't wanna be married anyway

its trickey sometimes. with me, i'm all over the place.

pro gun.
pro drug legalization(at least weed anyways).
pro gay rights.

i guess they call that libertarian

many people forget that or choose not to think about it.You are right.

I agree with you, it is frustrating. In terms of the death penalty or a guy being sent to jail for X number of years and then after the fact the guy gets the death penalty or spends tons of years in jail you find out he was right and didnt commit the crime and was wrongly convicted or got the death penalty, THAT pisses me off. That's why I dont support the death penalty just willy nilly (and plus its actually MORE expensive to give somebody the death penalty than to give them life because of all the appeals and lawyer fees - thats the fiscal conservative in me) lol

As much as you may like to focus on them, just in terms of sheer numbers, the guys who end up being proven innocent years later are few and far between. Almost so small, as a percentage, to not even register.

And, as I've said over and over again, that it's more expensive to execute someone is a reason to completely overhaul the process. Streamline it and make it much quicker. Not a reason to do away with the death penalty.

Everyday more and more people are found to have been wrongly convicted it's actually gone up over time due to new technology, even if it only one percent or less. It doesnt make it right.

I agree it should be streamlined, but that wont necessarily calm my concerns. What if its so streamlined that the guy doesnt even get to appeal, etc? And then after the fact we found out he was innocent (it has happen, i read about in yahoo news all the time). Not surprisingly, its been happening in high numbers in a number of southern states like Texas.

DD, given your posts, I'm surprised that you advocate streamling death penalty appeals. The Innocence Project has just nipped the tip of the exoneration iceberg and it only has potential for success when there is DNA evidence available. As I've posted elsewhere, some Board members eschew due process and post rather vitriolic statements to assuage their own feelings.

You are right about Texas. Of the 297 Project exonerations, 46 have been in Texas and a good many of those in Dallas County. Here's the link:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/state.php?state=TX

I know a few girls who work at the Innocence project, great organization. I bet a good portion of those 46 people are minorities which are prejudiced by the criminal justice system in the first place (shame). Let me rephrase what I wrote. I dont actively advocate for streamlining the death penalty process cause like I stated above that wont necessarily quell my major concern which is people having the opportunity to bring in other evidence that might have been overlooked, etc to plead their case. I support it in the sense that I dont want millions of dollars in taxpayer money spent on guys like Vinny Gorgeous Basciano dragging/fighting his death penalty trial. The govt already has spent tons more $$$$$ paying for this guys legal bills over (over $3 million) than what they would have paid in total if he was just sentenced to life.

If you want to see a real life/entertaining example of what I am talking about, watch The Hurricane with Denzel Washington. IMO, awesome movie.

Forgiveness comes on a personal level. But that doesn't mean society doesn't have a responsibility to punish the offender accordingly. It's not a question of revenge. It's a question of justice. And allowing absolute scum like this to continue to live is a complete robbery of justice. Nothing but their lives will suffice.

Hurricane Carter movie was good, but quite untrue. Same for the Bob Dylan song. I believe he was guilty. In movie he is top fighter, in real life he was out of contention at time of his arrest for murder. They show police being jealous of his money, when in reality he was scraping by in months leading to his arrest. In Dylan song, he is called number one contender for crown, which he was not. After the fight shown where he loses for title, he lost most of his following fights. he was in financial downfall when arrested, not doing well as movie showed.

Aside from aspect of his crime, he also did not get robbed of title, the man he fought sued producers and they immediately settled.


here is a good read on him http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/moviepoints.html

Since 1973, 130 people have been released from death row when post trial evidence proved their innocence. If you happened to be wrongly convicted and waiting for your wrongful execution for a crime you didn't commit, you probably wouldn't want streamlined death penalty cases.

So, you're saying as long as guilt is certain - caught at the scene of the crime, DNA, confession, etc. - you're OK with the death penalty?

Thanks for sharing

Just a reminder to Board members: jury selection in the Drew Peterson trial is underway, so the trial should begin this week.

I thought that happened 10 years ago?

It seems like it. He was arrested three years ago.

Are you perhaps confusing him with Scott Peterson, who was convicted of murdering his wife 10 years ago?

Yes, Scott Peterson is serving life in jail.

Scott was the young clean-cut, good-looking, charming guy that fooled everyone at first with his fake concern about his missing wife. Drew, on the other hand,is total opposite. The guy immediately came across as an arrogant, slime-ball. Point being that looks can be deceiving or not. They both are scum.

Btw, isn't Drew being charged with this 3rd wife's murder and NOT his last wife, Stacey (I believe).


TIS

I would like to know what everyone, but especially anyone who's a lawyer or otherwise legally expert, thinks about this.

I watched most of Scalia's C-SPAN interview the other night. The man may well be a jerk but he's an extremely intelligent jerk. Two points he made stand out and require further discussion.

1) He put forth the idea that US Constitution has a fixed meaning which in many instances can be resolved by the text itself and what it meant to those who wrote it at the time. For example, given that capital punishment was extant at the time of ratification, it is senseless to argue that the constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" by definition makes capital punishment today unconstitutional. It may be a bad idea. It may be stupid. It may be vicious. It may not solve anything. But it's not unconstitutional. Per Scalia, to argue that our ideas and values have changed and therefore so has the constitution is to make the constitution meaningless. That's how Scalia sees it anyway.

Discuss. What are the weaknesses in this line of reasoning and if we agree that meanings must change how do we avoid saying the constitution is whatever we say it is?

2) Scalia was openly contemptuous of cameras in the court. He said that much of what justices do is stuff that requires intense knowledge of the legal code. It's not just them being philosopher-kings. He claimed that the only positive thing cameras might do is answer stupid questions (my interpretation, not his word though his tone did change to mocking) about why it's a good idea for SC justices to be lawyers/judges or law professors as legal professionals are the only people with the knowledge or patience to do this work or find it interesting.

Should SC justices have to be legally certified in some way? Scalia seems to think so.

Well, I don't agree with him that the Constitution has a fixed meaning. Some of it does, but not all of it by any means. However, I agree with him that since capital punishment was extant in 1787 and thereafter, the 8th amendment does not mitigate it. However, the 8th amendment is one of the Constitution's clauses that is definitely subject to interpretation.

Also, the fact many of the state conventions that considered ratification of the Constitution proposed among them over 200 amendments to it illustrates that there were many people back then who did not agree about what the Constitution's words meant. The fact that 10 amendments were approved confirms that.

I disagree with him quite a bit that the leading clause of the 2nd amendment is simply declaratory.

I don't want to see cameras in federal court.

A few exceptions aside, I'll take the morals and wisdom over the founding fathers, who wrote the Constitution, over the self-professed enlightened intellectuals of today. Hence the reason I lean much more towards a "strict constructionist" idea than the "evolving" notion of the Constitution. Because it has ended up being a case of the Constitution saying whatever a handful of judges say it does.

The way in which one attorney explained it to me is that the Constitution can almost always be used to settle procedural issues but not substantive ones. That is if we want to know how old do you have to be to run for president, that's defined in the Constitution.

But if you want to know what is the precise difference between fair use and copyright violation or where the limits of the 14th amendment are or what's the difference between a tax and penalty or other substantive questions, the Constitution alone often does not speak to those issues sufficiently.

The Court has to interpret whether certain textual provisions apply to certain substantive situations which results in case law. The other issue is that not every question raised today was contemplated in 1789. There's nothing in the Constitution that states that "everything herein must be interpreted as WE understand it in 1789". And that's a good thing too as some of the Founders had pretty problematic viewpoints. In any event the Courts under Article III must interpret the law and apply it to cases as they arise. Imperfect but so is any system.