What is your opinion of the death penalty? How important is this issue in deciding which political candidates you support?

I am absolutely, completely and totally opposed to the death penalty; and yes, I consider it very important when selecting among political candidates.

I haven’t always been opposed. In fact, I used to support it. That was until I started working with the North Carolina Division of Prisons and met former death-row inmates (their sentences had been vacated to life due to Furman v. Georgia.) Make no mistake: these men had done horrible things. They had proved they could not function in society, and absolutely should be in prison for the rest of their lives. But I generally found them quite ordinary and, at times, decent. They weren’t the bug-eyed, hate-filled psychopaths the media likes to portray.

They also provided a useful economic service. At the time I worked for Prisons, the most an inmate could earn was $1 per day. That’s a whole lot cheaper than the cost of a cleaning crew at minimum wage. In addition, there was a prison farm; the cost of inmates’ food was not fully borne by the taxpayers. It seemed to me to be a good situation: the state benefited economically (offsetting taxpayer costs), and the inmates were given meaningful and relevant work.

As my adult conscience has continued to form, I’ve discovered that there’s really no reason to support what is, in actuality, legalized homicide. Modern technology can indeed prevent most prison escapes. When it does happen, prisoners can be, and often are, recaptured. In other words, life in prison can, when properly sentenced, mean prison for life.

This accounts for other issues such as the cost of appeals for death-row inmates (a process I believe should be continued) and the costs of the executions themselves. There’s also the issue of human error; prisoners have been exonerated more than once.

In the United States as it is today, the death penalty is not necessary to protect society. Thus, its drawbacks far outweigh its benefits.

The reason I consider it so politically important is because of the phrase I mentioned above: “legalized homicide.” Applying the death penalty means that the government is using my tax dollars to murder a person in cold blood. That runs counter to everything I’ve come to believe as an adult. Only God has the right to decide who lives and dies.

Life and death are too vitally important to not consider them when making choices. In fact, I consider them to be the most important issues. Application of that isn’t always easy, but for the death penalty, it’s a no-brainer. Politicians who support it are supporting death, and will not receive my vote.

The Brussels prosecutor’s office admitted that a crypt was searched during a police search of the Mechelen cathedral near Brussels on Thursday.

Prosecutor’s spokeswoman Estelle Arpigny refused however to confirm complaints that the tombs of two cardinals had been tampered with.

“All I can say is that a vault was opened” during the investigation into new paedophilia claims, she told AFP.

According to the article, the authorities were apparently searching for hidden documentation of sexual misconduct; during this search, attendees at a bishops’ meeting on a different topic were subjected to a raid and temporary house arrest.

The Vatican is indignant. I am too. Since when is it common, or even logical, to hide documents in coffins? Just how likely was there to be any evidence actually present there, and how can an unannounced raid on a bishops’ meeting prevent the destruction of said evidence when it was in an entirely different location?

The only description of this activity that I find accurate is “state-sponsored vandalism.” There was no need to desecrate the tombs, and as Andy Mason notes, such an activity wouldn’t have even been tolerated if it the religious leaders in question weren’t Catholic. This wasn’t about police procedure; it was nothing less than a government-sanctioned hate activity.

A few years back, a co-worker (somewhat sheepishly) asked me to speak with her preteen daughter who’d become afraid of Catholic priests thanks to all of the activity concerning abuse allegations. I did so, pointing out that there’s nothing in Catholic doctrine that says children shouldn’t tell their parents if a priest says or does something that leaves them uncomfortable; and that almost all of the abusive activity in question happened at least a decade ago. In many cases it was much longer ago than that.

In other words, the current “scandal” is nothing more than media hype, and government raids and investigations are nothing more than witch hunts. The damage has already been done. In a lot of cases, the perpetrators are dead from old age. There’s nothing to be gained except appeasement of the increasing, and mostly artificially-created, anti-Catholic public sentiment.

But on May 17, it was more inconsistent than usual. In U.S. v. Comstock et. al., it held that it’s legal to hold certain types of criminal offenders past the end of their sentences¹. On the exact same day, in Graham v. Florida, it held that it’s illegal to hold certain types of criminal offenders until the end of their sentences².

What am I missing here?

There were some differences between the two decisions. Comstock involved (presumably adult) sexual offenders and federal law; it was argued based on the “Necessary and Proper” clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Graham involved juvenile offenders and state law; it was argued based on Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.

The cases were, indeed, quite different in a legal and Constitutional³ sense. However, with respect to criminal law and procedure, the decisions are totally opposite. Despite that, both of them will have significant effects when it comes to the relationship between sentencing and time served, regardless of whether it’s in federal or state courts.

We’re going to be easier on juvenile offenders. We’re going to be harder on sexual offenders.

But the way we’re going to do it is by having criminal procedure interfere with the courts’ imposed sentences. It’s not going to be by taking another look at the sentencing guidelines themselves.

Am I the only one who thinks that’s a rather backward approach, particularly since the Supreme Court has also made decisions about sentencing guidelines? Am I the only one who’s wondering what message the Supreme Court is sending to lower level courts?

Let’s put this issue in the right place. It doesn’t belong in the hands of the judicial branch. It belongs in the hands of the legislative branch.

The easier, more consistent and elegant solution is to look at sentencing guidelines. It’s also the solution that better represents the will of the people, since legislators have a more direct responsibility to the voters.

There are plenty of lawyers among our legislators. They make our criminal laws. To the Supreme Court I say, “let them do it.” Don’t interfere with their authority and undercut the lower courts, especially if it’s with inconsistent decisions.

1. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf
2. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-7412.pdf
3. A well-presented and rather neutrally annotated copy of the U.S. Constitution can be found at http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm.

He doesn’t deserve to be: he is a murderer. In 1988, during a robbery, he stabbed a man to death with scissors. He was convicted and sent to prison for that crime.

But on Wednesday, he will receive notoriety when he is the 1000th person executed in the United States since the 1976 reinstatement of the death penalty. In return for his murder of a man during a robbery, he will be murdered by the State of Virginia. Earlier in the week, two more people will be murdered by the States of Arkansas and Ohio, bringing the totals to 998 and 999 people respectively.

A bit of math shows that the murder of 1000 people since the 1977 murder of Gary Gilmore (the first to proceed under the 1976 reinstatement) results in an average of someone murdered every ten days. During this same time period, 122 people — some 3.5% of the current death row population — have been released from death row after their innocence was proven. Evidence exists suggesting that some of the people already murdered also were innocent.

In the name of law and order, we have instructed our governments to shoot, strangle, suffocate, chop up, electrocute and paralyze people and called it by the rather neutral term “capital punishment.” Some of these people may have been innocent. Some of them, such as “Tookie” Williams (founder of the Crips, multiple murderer and noted anti-gang activist), have saved other lives. Yet supporters of State-sponsored murder dare to call themselves “pro-life.”

How could the deliberate, premeditated and vicious murders of 1000 people, some of whom were innocent and others who have saved lives, be “pro-life”?

Sources: Gary Gilmore’s Eyes, 1000th Execution Next Week, Death Row Gang Founder Gets Schwarzenegger Hearing

The continuing uproar over U.S. treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib has a top Senate Republican looking at the need to clarify in law the rights of foreign detainees.

On the heels of Amnesty International calling the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, “the gulag of our time,” Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., will hold hearings this month on the treatment of foreign terrorism suspects there. Earlier this week Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld described Amnesty’s characterization as “reprehensible.”

Late Friday, the Pentagon for the first time confirmed several incidents in which the Quran had been mishandled at Guantanamo Bay prison. The incidents included a soldier deliberately kicking the Muslim holy book, an interrogator stepping on a Quran, and a guard urinating near an air vent splashing urine on a detainee and his Quran.

The Pentagon is working on new guidelines for handling people captured during wartime, including an explicit ban on inhumane treatment. The 142-page draft document is being written by the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and is not intended to set policy but rather to provide the military with guidance to implement detainee policies set by civilian authorities. Specter, according to an aide, is in the preliminary stages of drafting a bill to establish procedures for detentions and exploring the possibility of making the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court the venue for challenging them.

Amnesty International has called on the United States to close its Guantanamo prison, where about 540 men are being held on suspicion they have links to Afghanistan’s ousted Taliban regime or Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terror network. While the human rights watchdog worries about Congress putting into law “enemy combatant” status, which it says is a category of prisoner not sanctioned by international and humanitarian treaties, it applauded Specter for looking into the issue.

“Any kind of sunshine would be a good antiseptic for this situation,” said Jumana Musa, advocacy director for human rights and international justice at Washington-based Amnesty International USA. Specter’s hearing will focus on the detention of enemy combatants at both Guantanamo and in the United States, and whether trying them before military tribunals provides them adequate due process, the senator’s aide said. [Text continued at site.]

Kudos to Sen. Specter. I know I’m not the only one wondering when the prisoners at Guantanamo will ever even receive hearings — of any type. Creating guidelines for any sort of process is a step in the right direction, and Specter’s aide’s comments suggest that the guidelines will at least have some oversight by civilian lawmakers. Whether or not this fully addresses the situation described by Amnesty International remains to be seen, but this is a much better response than President Bush’s and Secretary Rumsfield’s comments about the report.

YORK, Pa. — What would you do if a man offered to pay your teenage daughter for sex while she was shopping?

Jimmy Hunt punched the man in the face. Prosecutors in York charged Hunt with disorderly conduct and simple assault. But they later dropped the charges after concluding that no jury would convict him.

Prosecutor Bill Graff said you can’t take the law into your own hands, but it’s likely that they’d get parents who’d say that’s what they’d do if it was their daughter.

There’s no disputing the fact that Hunt punched Armondo Hernandez in the face after he approached Hunt’s 17-year-old daughter while she was shopping for nail polish at a Wal-Mart. Hunt called police after the incident.

Hernandez has pleaded guilty to indecent assault and harassment.

While I certainly don’t blame the father, I do have a problem with the charges being flat-out dropped. Legally, it was an assault. The elements for the crime were met — and at least in North Carolina, if all elements of a crime are clearly met*, the judge does in fact have the authority to order the jury to return a guilty verdict. Now, I wouldn’t have a problem if the gentleman were, say, sentenced to one hour of jail suspended on a month’s good behavior or some other wrist-slap like that, or if the judge recommended expunging the crime after the period has passed. But when we start letting passions overrule the criminal justice system — even if justified — we take another step down the road toward anarchy and mob rule.

* Given the obvious political implications of such a move, judges use this power very sparingly if at all.

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. — A state judge in Winston-Salem today threw out all charges against a man who spent 18 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit.

Judge Anderson Cromer dismissed the charges against Darryl Hunt. He’s the man who was convicted twice and imprisoned for the 1984 murder of Deborah Sykes, a copy editor for the now-closed Winston-Salem Sentinel.

Cromer says Hunt also was a victim of the case, along with the victim, her husband, and her mother.

The same judge ordered Hunt released from prison after an emergency hearing on Christmas Eve. Hunt has been free on bond until today’s hearing.

Cromer says separate juries that twice convicted Hunt in 1985 and 1990 didn’t have before them the information available now.

Willard Brown was charged with murder, rape, kidnapping and armed robbery days before Hunt’s release.

The DNA in a semen sample taken from Sykes matched Brown’s DNA and he was arrested while in the Forsyth County jail on another charge.

While I’m sure this opened up old wounds for the husband and mother, my opinion is that the worst wounds are being opened up by our legal system, not the innocent man or even the perpetrator (who was allowed to walk free for years after committing this crime). No, DNA evidence wasn’t available in 1985 or 1990, but whatever happened to “beyond a reasonable doubt”? This case clearly shows that it isn’t guilt or innocence that determine the verdict — it’s the lawyer who shows the most compelling case to the jury.