The news is like... WHOA THIS GUY LIKE TOTALLY DIDN'T DIE FROM THIS LIKE
BOTCHED
EXECUTION BUT THEN DIED. So. LIKE WHOA.
And I can tell you, Idahoan that I am, what red staters are thinking.
"What the fuck?"
Followed by:
"So.. it worked out ok then. We wanted to kill him, and eventually, we did."
We don't give a flying fuck that he died of a heart attack from his vein bursting. Assuming he deserved to die for his actions, we could really care less how it happens. I mean, days on end of torture might seem overboard, but this? You really think we're going to give a fuck?
And then it's all, well, but like 4% of these guys turn out to be innocent.
That's bad. No one can, accepting that to be true, say otherwise. But I can already tell you some of us will tell you we can deal with 4%.
Fuck, it's like half our unemployment rate.
I read Camus kids. I love Camus. And I'm willing to even say, yes, Camus is right, capital punishment is philosophically and qualitatively worse than most things it is implemented for. Particularly now that only killing gets the death penalty. You want a good death penalty-real life comparison? How about child rapists raping their own kids- I can tell you, that shit happens on a schedule of sorts. Camus' whole deal was "what kind of monster would lock you in a room and tell you the day you were going to die?" Well, that may not happen very often, but similar shit occurs.
Hell, that's kind of what we do to our soldiers, come to think of it.
Anyway, Camus, much as I love him, is not terribly convincing. A better argument is this- who are we to give up on our brothers and sisters? Why do we get to say, "that's enough of this, kill the fuck."? Because when we draw that line, we stop trying.
What you may not know is- a few centuries back, death was the penalty for ALL FELONIES. Dude. Like whoa. Now, we rehabilitate a lot of felons. Sadly, there are many we don't. But for society to take the stance of "nah, fuck this guy" sucks- because it simply ends progress. We shouldn't say "ENOUGH." We can't know when it is enough. And if we leave them alive, pay for them to be alive, we have this itch, this itch to figure it out- why are people doing this? how do we stop them? how can we heal this soul?
Red staters- you know you claim we're a Christian nation. What would Jesus do?
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Monday, April 28, 2014
A factual record
Since the Volokh Conspiracy sold out, you can't just go on their site and say, "hey, what you're saying is nonsense."
I'd had an ongoing argument with Prof. Kerr as to his belief that magistrates can't refuse to sign a warrant because they think it will violate the Fourth Amendment.
No, that's really his position. He thinks that all the magistrate may do is determine if probable cause exists, they may not determine that the search or seizure will be unreasonable. Why does he think this? Why do academics think anything?
What I don't recall from that bizarre argument was his arguments today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/28/courts-grapple-with-the-mosaic-theory-of-the-fourth-amendment/
No factual record? What does he think a request for a warrant is? Is he of the opinion that a warrant cannot be requested through sworn testimony? That a judge may not ask questions of the officers involved?
If he were just an academic, I'd understand his weirdness, but since he did spend time with the DOJ, I gotta tell ya folks, I can't figure out why the man is so incapable of understanding the simplest things.
But I will agree, these are good times for those who love the Fourth Amendment.
I'd had an ongoing argument with Prof. Kerr as to his belief that magistrates can't refuse to sign a warrant because they think it will violate the Fourth Amendment.
No, that's really his position. He thinks that all the magistrate may do is determine if probable cause exists, they may not determine that the search or seizure will be unreasonable. Why does he think this? Why do academics think anything?
What I don't recall from that bizarre argument was his arguments today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/28/courts-grapple-with-the-mosaic-theory-of-the-fourth-amendment/
No factual record? What does he think a request for a warrant is? Is he of the opinion that a warrant cannot be requested through sworn testimony? That a judge may not ask questions of the officers involved?
If he were just an academic, I'd understand his weirdness, but since he did spend time with the DOJ, I gotta tell ya folks, I can't figure out why the man is so incapable of understanding the simplest things.
But I will agree, these are good times for those who love the Fourth Amendment.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Ouch. ICA slams defense, leaves 30 to life sentence intact.
Not that the average person would read it that way. State v. Marks came out yesterday.
You might read it and think, ouch. That's some bad law. But it's Judge Lansing, so she does what you'd want from a Court of Appeals. She tells you everything the defense SHOULD have done to accomplish what it wanted.
The case is about Mr. Marks, who was accused of having sex with his daughter. He was also accused of having sex with another daughter, but that didn't make it past the prelim. So, the state brought in the daughter that didn't make it past prelim to testify at the trial they could get under 404b.
The defense also wanted an expert to testify as to why you SHOULDN'T believe these girls. The state almost always has an "expert" telling you why you should, even though the victims don't behave like victims. The defense did not get this expert in.
Anyway, the Court of Appeals says no as well, but points out not only what the defense should have done, but what, to its astonishment, was simply abandoned on appeal. Check it out:
The district court held that Dr. Guertin would not be permitted to testify regarding the credibility of the victims as it would usurp the role of the jury in determining credibility. Marks does not dispute that ruling on appeal. The court also excluded the remainder of the proffered testimony as speculative and creating the risk of jury confusion. On appeal, Marks apparently challenges only the district court’s exclusion of a portion of Dr. Guertin’s proposed testimony relating to the examination of one of the victims, K.M. Marks argues that exclusion of this evidence was inconsistent with the Idaho Rules of Evidence and amounted to a denial of his constitutional right to present a defense.
On appeal, Marks has not precisely identified which portion of Guertin’s proposed testimony he contends was improperly excluded, but he appears to contend that Dr. Guertin should have been allowed to testify that the medical examination of K.M. indicated that she had not been molested.
You might read it and think, ouch. That's some bad law. But it's Judge Lansing, so she does what you'd want from a Court of Appeals. She tells you everything the defense SHOULD have done to accomplish what it wanted.
The case is about Mr. Marks, who was accused of having sex with his daughter. He was also accused of having sex with another daughter, but that didn't make it past the prelim. So, the state brought in the daughter that didn't make it past prelim to testify at the trial they could get under 404b.
The defense also wanted an expert to testify as to why you SHOULDN'T believe these girls. The state almost always has an "expert" telling you why you should, even though the victims don't behave like victims. The defense did not get this expert in.
Anyway, the Court of Appeals says no as well, but points out not only what the defense should have done, but what, to its astonishment, was simply abandoned on appeal. Check it out:
The district court held that Dr. Guertin would not be permitted to testify regarding the credibility of the victims as it would usurp the role of the jury in determining credibility. Marks does not dispute that ruling on appeal. The court also excluded the remainder of the proffered testimony as speculative and creating the risk of jury confusion. On appeal, Marks apparently challenges only the district court’s exclusion of a portion of Dr. Guertin’s proposed testimony relating to the examination of one of the victims, K.M. Marks argues that exclusion of this evidence was inconsistent with the Idaho Rules of Evidence and amounted to a denial of his constitutional right to present a defense.
...
On appeal, Marks has not precisely identified which portion of Guertin’s proposed testimony he contends was improperly excluded, but he appears to contend that Dr. Guertin should have been allowed to testify that the medical examination of K.M. indicated that she had not been molested.
...
Marks did not put the sufficiency of the State’s evidence “squarely at issue.” He noted that B.K.M. had originally told the authorities she had not been assaulted, but then changed her story. This comment was not an attack on the veracity of the witness, however, but part of Marks’s estoppel argument that he has abandoned on appeal.
Who had this gem on appeal you ask? Why those brilliant attorneys at the SAPD!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)