Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Ohio Man Who Raped 6-Month-Old Baby to Death Wants Mercy
Condemned killer Steven Smith’s argument for mercy isn’t an easy one. Smith acknowledges he intended to rape his girlfriend’s 6-month-old daughter but says he never intended to kill the baby.
The girl, Autumn Carter, died because Smith was too drunk to realize his assault was killing her, Smith’s attorneys argued in court filings with the Ohio Parole Board, which heard the case Tuesday. And Ohio law is clear, they say: A death sentence requires an intent to kill the victim.
“The evidence suggests that Autumn’s death was a horrible accident,” Smith’s attorneys, Joseph Wilhelm and Tyson Fleming, said in a written argument prepared for the board.
They continued: “Despite the shocking nature of this crime, Steve’s death sentence should be commuted because genuine doubts exist whether he even committed a capital offense.”
Smith, 46, was never charged with rape, meaning the jury’s only choice was to convict or acquit him of aggravated murder, his attorneys say.
However, rape was included in the indictment against Smith as one of the factors making him eligible for the death penalty. Under Ohio law, an aggravated murder committed in the course of another crime – such as burglary, robbery, arson or the killing of a police officer or child – is an element that can make someone eligible for capital punishment.
But, the law is clear: Eligibility for the death penalty relies on intent to kill. Perhaps it was there, but where’s the proof. If the glove don’t fit you must acquit, or something…
And, this is the right thing to do, I’m sure the attorneys will say. In America, everyone is entitled to the very best defense before the court they might have. All of the logic is durable enough, although book-driven and without any human intuition applied…no common sense…so it leads, step by step, to the conclusion that they should be there, where they are, in the courtroom, arguing “You must spare my client because he did not actually mean to kill this six-month-old baby girl he was violently raping.” (The book-driven common-sense-devoid durable logic also leads, step by step, to the conclusion that the jury will have to do that, there is no other valid verdict to hand down.)
Their parents must be so proud!
What’s the take-away here? There is a faint glimmer of validity to the argument that the lawyers present. All it proves to me, though, is that the lawyers are not the entire problem. Prosecutors must prove intent to kill, according to the law. A problem emerges because Smith was drunk as a skunk, and in a rage. But I cannot help but wonder: Is that an edge-case of some sort? What’s the population of accused murderers who are prosecuted under Ohio law, with the prosecutors asking for the death penalty? Are they a reasoned and sane lot? Do they tend to do crisply and clearly defined things, things that are easily proven, signifying their intent to kill?
Like fill out a form?
The problem is with the argument itself. It’s there to be made, and that means the lawyers are going to have a point when they say it’s their job to argue it. Since the problem is in the argument being there to be made, the root cause is the law. There are a lot of laws like this because there are a lot of people who want to make laws like this.
Make it harder to get people executed. That will somehow lead to good things.
It’s not always so.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
People used to understand that things like “justice” are inherently undefinable. Socrates and the gang never got there, despite all that wonderful stuff about caves and shadows and guarding the guardians. But since nobody reads the classics anymore, and since “justice” can’t be defined with any precision, the law came to be about semantics. Which means it’s ultimately about demagoguery.
If this were 100, or even 50, years ago, I’d say this is one of those “hard cases make bad law” exceptions, where letting some scumbag off on a technicality is necessary to preserve the (fiction of the) integrity of the whole system. Nowadays, though, what’s the point? Demagoguery will decide. Is this vermin white? They’ll throw the book at him. If he’s black he’ll walk.
- Severian | 01/06/2014 @ 08:13Severian: People used to understand that things like “justice” are inherently undefinable.
True enough. The world is a continuum, while laws are discrete representations. There are always going to be exceptions to any finite description. No rulebook can encompass every possible situation, so new rules are imposed to account for the exceptions, which in turn create more exceptions. That’s why legal systems become more complex over time.
- Zachriel | 01/06/2014 @ 10:12The lawyer needs to be hunted down and made to disappear. Not harmed, mind you, just “disappeared” and never found.
- vanderleun | 01/06/2014 @ 10:57Cuttlefish:
Here’s a free tip on Overcoming Asperger’s: Don’t just repeat someone’s statement more verbosely for the sake of saying something. I know it works in grad school to pad out the ol’ page length, but in the real world it’s weird and annoying.
- Severian | 01/06/2014 @ 11:04But…but….I only intended to “shoot to wound “.
Sometimes, I think the best response is simply let the offender go free into the community.
- CaptDMO | 01/06/2014 @ 11:33MAYBE with shoes, and a 10 minute head start.
I’ve often marveled at the ability of lawyers to defend clients whose guilt is obvious and their crimes staking-on-an-anthill worthy. I understand that our legal system is designed to be adversarial and that absent a vigorous defense, the government would willingly trample its citizens underfoot. That said, I’d risk being disbarred before defending this scum.
Anyone remember an episode from Season One of Boston Legal, before the show got stupid? In any, Denny Crane was picked by a judge to defend a criminal pro bono. The miscreant had raped and killed a young girl and he said “Probably a good thing she died, because I’ve got AIDS and all.” Denny Crane promptly pulled a gun out of his briefcase and shot the guy through both kneecaps.
I’m not necessarily for vigilantism, but as the father of a young girl, I was suitably cheered by that result.
- Physics Geek | 01/08/2014 @ 09:01