California Governor Denies Clemency

What a ridiculous, perverted notion. Shame on you.

 

Bill, stunning post! Thanks.

 

Which is exactly what the judicial system ought to be all about. If you cannot live within the social contract - agreeing to respect other people's rights to life, liberty, and property - then the government can take your life and/or your liberty and/or your pfroperty.

 

To my mind, capital punishment seems similar to torture. Not torture to force confessions or to extract information but torture simply for revenge. If our society ever came to accept torture for revenge to the point that it wasn't considered unusual then it would seem to be permitted by the constitution since that seems less cruel than taking someone's life? The President is arguing against passing laws banning torture. Which indicates to me that perhaps state sanctioned torture for revenge is not that impossible. Heck, the ancient Romans tortured people and animals for entertainment.

I think that it boils down to personal sensibilities.

 

True, I think that I've been up front with that fact?

 

Der Gropenfuhrer, to use Garry Trudeau's name, is going to have another interesting challenge next month. The next person scheduled to be killed by the people of California is 75, blind, nearly deaf, near death anyway from advanced diabetes, on death row for something like 30 years I think. He didn't personally kill anyone (neither did Manson, I believe), but ordered the murder of three people while already in prison.

Maybe if Arnold is lucky, this person will die of natural causes before January 17.

 

Wow. Trudeau's almost as subtle as Sharpton with "Hymietown". And as repellent.

 

Even though I disagree with the premeditated killing of people by government--some of whom are not guilty of the capital crime, we've seen--this is an honest position to take. I just want to acknowledge that.

 

This is what happened with Priscilla Ford, once the only woman on Nevada's "death row." Ford was convicted in 1980 of killing 6 people with her car by driving up on a sidewalk into a crowd. (Seven died, actually.) Her BAT was .162, but there was significant evidence she suffered from schizophrenia.

The state never executed her. They just left her in solitary confinement for 25 years. Ford was well-educated (and a teacher), and her family visited her routinely. (A really nice bunch of people.) Ms. Ford died this year in prison after 25 years of incarceration. She was 75.

How do I know about her and her family? I managed her case for about a year while assigned to the prison where she was incarcerated. In fact, I managed about 300 inmates, including Ms. Ford. A really sweet old lady who did a very bad thing. I didn't know the nature of her defense (she pleaded insanity), but keeping her in prison instead of killing her posed a threat to no one. And the cost of incarcerating her (about $40,000 per year, at most) was negligible compared to what it would have taken to execute her (millions in legal costs).

 

Who decides, Ted? Some venerate, omniscient entity known as government? Government is nothing mystical but a construct of fallible and often power-mad or corrupt human beings.

Know why we shouldn't give them such power? Because they'll use it. They'll use it because they want to or because some lusting mob demands so.

 

Well, I don't think that age and infirmity should stop the sentence from being carried out.

 

In this case, if it was an accident, life in prison may have been appropriate and, if she was suffering from schizophrenia at the time, then maybe time in the state mental hospital until she was deemed no longer a danger to herself or others.

 

We, the people, decide who our federal, state, and local legislators will be. And our legislators make our laws, deciding what things will be deemed against the law and what the punishments will be. NB: Some states have initiative processes, wherein people can vote on laws directly. We, the people, decide who will be our federal, state, and local executives. And our executives enforce our laws. Sometimes, we, the people, get to choose our state and local judges, though, in some cases, our state and local judges are appointed by the executive power and consented to by the legislative power, as is the case at the federal level. And the judicial power will interpret our laws. So, government is we, the people, speaking the general will through our representatives.

 

I wish it really worked that way, TH. Or maybe I don't; mob rule is ugly even when it's legal.

But the adjudicatory function is by definition anti-democratic in an constitutional republic. There are times when it is the sworn duty of a Judge do do the opposite of what a majority of citizens WANT him to do. Imposing sentence is one of those times.

BTW, that's one of the problems I've always had with the Gospel description of Jesus' trial before Pilate (sp?) The procedure sounds about right given the way Roman law worked (and given my VERY limited understanding of the same) right up until the Barrabbas business. That bit never rang true to me. Not even the Monty Python version!

ANYWAY...now what was I starting out to say?

Oh, yes. I love Doonsbury but I take issue with his Gropenfuehrer tag. It isn't funny and it implies something about Swarzenegger that is not only NOT true but is the exact OPPOSITE of true. He long ago repudiated his father's Nazi beliefs and actions and contributed to the Simon Wiesenthal people both in money and in time. He doesn't brag about it; neither would I under the circumstances, but he's an honorable man in this regard.

 

I'm sure that the laws state a specific sentencing range for each type of crime. At the trial level, the judge, I am sure, will choose something that is within that range of options. And remember that the laws were written by people who were chosen by the people at large. Now, at the appellate level, the judges are bound by the Constitution and will likely take into consideration various arcane precedents as well as various judicial and political philosophies, to be sure. And many of the people, not being versed in constitutional law, jurisprudential theories, or political theory, may indeed wonder where an appellate judge's decisions came from. And so be it.

 

Quite right

Yes. Yes, actually, you have it exactly right. The anti-democratic nature of the Judge's task is imposed by the democratically adopted constitution.

But here is the rub: The people who imposed the constitution aren't the same people, nor even the same generation of people, as the ones in whose name the Judge now acts.

This is where Austin's theory of "acquiescence" comes in and also an important proof of the "living constitution" theory.

The Judge applies the constitutional law to the case before him EVEN IF the present majority opposes it. Indeed, it wouldn't matter (or at least it SHOULDN'T matter) if 100% of the population INCLUDING THE JUDGE HIMSELF opposes the application of the constitutional law in the case before him.

Now, keeping in mind that sovereignty resides in the people and nowhere else, the only possible justification for a clearly anti-democratic act is that the people, having the power to change the constitution, choose NOT to; they acquiesce by their silence.

But the Judge will occasionally have to apply constitutional principals to situations not dreamed of when the document was written. By doing so, the Judge "extends", that is, "changes", the constitution itself to meet new circumstances. Again, the people "acquiesce" if they don't act.

I find this to be a very interesting analysis.

 

But...

Yes, but it is ok for liberals to slander and/or use sexist or bigoted talk. They can even be sexist maulers ala Bill Clinton. Has been ok for a long time......

 

Re: But...

You are wrong. It is NEVER OK.

And I love Arnold, especially since he had the balls to execute that scumbag Tookie despite all Tookie's hogwash about finding Jesus and writing a childrens' book. Why wasn't Tookie doing that instead of pumping innocent people full of lead in his heyday as the founding father of the despicable Crips? Easy to reform when your life is on the line - much harder to do the right thing when it is only your conscience keeping things in check.

 

Re: Re: But...

It is ok in their circles not in the rest of ours....

 

Here's an idea. Wouldn't it be great if DegreeInfo had a "Political Discussions" forum, for all this kind of stuff?