How much is a human life worth?
I’m reminded of that question again, because of this case out of Pasadena, TX (a relatively poor suburb of Houston). Here’s what happened:
Continue reading »
Jul 202007
One of the great ironies of the Scooter Libby trial was that the same conservatives who have for years fought for high mandatory minimum sentences–and against allowing judicial discretion to reduce those sentences–ended up complaining that the sentence given to Mr. Libby based on those sentencing guidelines was too harsh. Now we have the second verse of that song, although this time the “overly harsh” sentence is being doled out to two dirty border patrol agents.
There is a lot of debate about what happened. The story told by conservative talk-radio, not to mention Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, WorldNetDaily, etc. starts with two of our heroic border patrol agents who see a suspicious van near the border just outside of El Paso–a van that is currently being used to smuggle hundreds of pounds of marijuana across the border. As they approach, the smuggler gets out of the van and runs away. At some point, the story goes, he reaches behind himself and half-turns, as if to point a weapon back at the heroic border patrol agents. This makes sense, because we all know that drug smugglers are well-armed, for the most part. The agents open fire, but the man keeps running and manages to get back across the border. Shortly thereafter, the Mexican government demands that the border patrol agents be brought up on charges for shooting an unarmed man. The US attorney, Johnny Sutton, bows to that pressure, and throws the book at the heroic border agents. He misleads the jury into convicting them, and goes out of his way to fight for the maximum sentence possible by charging them with the use of a gun to perpetrate a felony–a charge that carries a mandatory 10 year minimum sentence. He also gives the drug smuggler “victim” immunity from the original drug charge, and gives him a visa to be able to come to the trial–which the drug smuggler uses to smuggle marijuana once more. Of course, given this storyline, conservatives are demanding a pardon and/or reinstatement for the border patrol agents (who were “just doing their jobs”), and are bucking to have Mr. Sutton fired.
Michael Vick was recently indicted for a dog-fighting ring operating in a house that he owned. In response PETA and the Humane Society are trying to get his endorsement deals cut. Now, an indictment merely means that a person has been charged with a crime.
One would think with the aftermath of the Duke Lacrosse Case fresh in our minds we would remember that an indictment doesn’t mean that somebody is necessarily guilty. As you may recall, Duke’s coach was fired, several student athletes were not allowed to graduate, and the entire team was blacklisted by a large group of faculty. And it turned out that they hadn’t actually committed the crime.
Now, for all I know, Vick could be guilty. But I think its a problem that these groups are taking such measures before he has been shown to be so. While in the eyes of the law people are innocent until proven guilty, it seems as though its perfectly fine to punish them in non-legal ways without proof of guilt. Kudos to Nike for not bowing to the pressure of these groups before the facts are all known.
Jul 112007
President Bush’s notion of executive privilege is completely bogus. This isn’t surprising. The problem, however, is that President Bush will likely be on his way out the door by the time the courts really have a chance to rule on any of these issues. The president only has eighteen months in office, after all, and it will likely take awhile for these things to work their way through the system–especially given that the Supreme Court would probably need to get involved eventually. It’s sad, because the courts have been pretty consistent about striking down President Bush’s extreme views of executive power in the past, but they have had relatively few opportunities to do so. And that blame lies with the Republican Party.
Jun 282007
Six Supreme Court decisions this week. All of them (but one) were decided 5-4. In my mind, the court got about half of them right… the problem is that the ones they got wrong were real doozies. Here are the cases, from best to worst (in my opinion):
Recent Comments