The New Mexico legislature is in session, and due to end March 17th. One controversial bill would repeal the death penalty, even though we have executed only one person since 1960.
The Albuquerque Journal, in a recent editorial, has suggested that the penalty be retained at least for murder of a prison guard. The Journal was impressed by our experience in New Mexico’s prison riot of February, 1980. Twenty-nine prisoners were murdered by prisoners, and no guards were murdered, although the guards were at the mercy of the killers. At that time, the murder of a guard was punishable by death, while the murder of a prisoner was not. The Journal seems to believe that the death penalty needs to be retained as a deterrent to murder in the killing of such guards.
I suggest that we retain the death penalty, at least for one type of crime. That is the abduction, sexual assault and deliberate murder of a female child under thirteen years of age. If there is any deterrent in our admittedly flawed system, perhaps it will save some lives of some female children. The law should also provide for moderate punishment for the abduction and assault, if the female child victim is not killed. The criminal should not face a long prison sentence for conduct short of murder.
A proponent of repeal states that the death penalty is no deterrent, or does not deter. How is this known? The federal government keeps statistics of unlawful homicides, but does not isolate, or separate out, those of wilful, deliberate, first degree murder. There may be studies which tend to show that the death penalty does not deter such murders in the first degree. We invite comments with references to any such studies, and will try to keep an open mind.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Thursday, June 12, 2008
OBAMA'S CONVERSION; MCCAIN'S INTERVENTION
Questions floating in my mind. No offense.
If Barack Obama was saved in the Trinity Church, with Reverend Wright officiating, was not Obama then 26 years old? In what religion did his folks raise him before he was 26? In the Southern Baptist religion, you can be converted (saved) as early as your 7th birthday, as the writer was.
Another question. We remember when isolationism was something the Republicans advocated. Why does John McCain want this country, outside of the United Nations, to have a presence in the Middle East? Why not just get out of the Middle East until the United Nations says go in with us?
If Barack Obama was saved in the Trinity Church, with Reverend Wright officiating, was not Obama then 26 years old? In what religion did his folks raise him before he was 26? In the Southern Baptist religion, you can be converted (saved) as early as your 7th birthday, as the writer was.
Another question. We remember when isolationism was something the Republicans advocated. Why does John McCain want this country, outside of the United Nations, to have a presence in the Middle East? Why not just get out of the Middle East until the United Nations says go in with us?
Thursday, May 01, 2008
SEAN BELL KILLING; OFFICERS ACQUITTED
The Sean Bell case in New York has been in the news the last few days. In a bench trial (Judge, no jury), which lasted two months, the accused police officers were acquitted of unlawfully killing Mr. Bell, in an incident in which the police fired 50shots. The men who were shot did not fire any shots. Bell was killed. His two companions were wounded.
We have some general comments on the criminal procedure and practice, and we assume the accuracy of the newspaper reports.
In New Mexico, the State has a right to a jury trial, as well as the accused. If that is the case in New York, the question arises, did the District Attorney agree to waive the jury trial? If so, why?
The accused officers did not testify at the trial. The Judge is not allowed to infer guilt because of the silence of the accused. That rule was adopted by the Warren Court in 1965, in the case of Griffin v. California, and it was imposed on the States. This rule (no inference of guilt from silence) is contrary to common sense and fair play; but it is the law, because the Supreme Court has ruled.
In the New York trial, the Judge admitted into evidence the testimony of the accused officers given in front of the grand jury. Did the District Attorney fail to object (to the admission of that grand jury testimony), in the trial of the case to the Judge? Those statements were hearsay, and were objectionable.
If there had been an objection by the State and if the Judge had ruled correctly, those statements of the officers (grand jury testimony) would have been excluded. In such case, the accused might have been forced to take the stand and be subject to cross examination before the Judge who was trying the case.
We have some general comments on the criminal procedure and practice, and we assume the accuracy of the newspaper reports.
In New Mexico, the State has a right to a jury trial, as well as the accused. If that is the case in New York, the question arises, did the District Attorney agree to waive the jury trial? If so, why?
The accused officers did not testify at the trial. The Judge is not allowed to infer guilt because of the silence of the accused. That rule was adopted by the Warren Court in 1965, in the case of Griffin v. California, and it was imposed on the States. This rule (no inference of guilt from silence) is contrary to common sense and fair play; but it is the law, because the Supreme Court has ruled.
In the New York trial, the Judge admitted into evidence the testimony of the accused officers given in front of the grand jury. Did the District Attorney fail to object (to the admission of that grand jury testimony), in the trial of the case to the Judge? Those statements were hearsay, and were objectionable.
If there had been an objection by the State and if the Judge had ruled correctly, those statements of the officers (grand jury testimony) would have been excluded. In such case, the accused might have been forced to take the stand and be subject to cross examination before the Judge who was trying the case.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
LAWSUITS FOR SPECIFIC AMOUNTS OF MONEY GIVE LAWYERS A BAD NAME
You have probably read of the lawsuit in which a man sued his tailor for millions over a lost pair of pants. Other cases appear occasionally in the news in which lawyers seem to vie for publicity by asking for astronomical damages. Such cases give lawyers a bad name and rub off on good lawyers.
Some jurisdictions, including New Mexico, have a rule that prohibits a lawyer from asking (praying)for money damages in a specific amount, and in such jurisdictions the prayer is for damages in an unspecified amount. "In such amount as the trier of fact may find." Or some such language.
Exceptions are allowed if one is pleading a jurisdictional amount ($25,000 to get into this Court, for example.) or if one is pleading a specific liquidated amount, such as the amount specified in a contract.
A young girl in New Mexico was rendered a paraplegic by a drunk driver a few years ago, and her lawyer unwittingly, in violation of the rule, prayed in his complaint for a million dollars in damages. The insurance defense lawyer cited the rule and demanded that the case be dismissed. It was nip and tuck, but the plaintiff's error was excused.
A wise person said "The law is common sense, put in good grammar." Rules can be helpful if not hyper-technical. Few lawyers are dishonest; and few are sharp practioners, is our experience.
Some jurisdictions, including New Mexico, have a rule that prohibits a lawyer from asking (praying)for money damages in a specific amount, and in such jurisdictions the prayer is for damages in an unspecified amount. "In such amount as the trier of fact may find." Or some such language.
Exceptions are allowed if one is pleading a jurisdictional amount ($25,000 to get into this Court, for example.) or if one is pleading a specific liquidated amount, such as the amount specified in a contract.
A young girl in New Mexico was rendered a paraplegic by a drunk driver a few years ago, and her lawyer unwittingly, in violation of the rule, prayed in his complaint for a million dollars in damages. The insurance defense lawyer cited the rule and demanded that the case be dismissed. It was nip and tuck, but the plaintiff's error was excused.
A wise person said "The law is common sense, put in good grammar." Rules can be helpful if not hyper-technical. Few lawyers are dishonest; and few are sharp practioners, is our experience.
Friday, September 21, 2007
MOVE-ON AD WAS BAD
“Before a single Democrat condemns MoveOn's ad, they should insist that George W. Bush and the Republican Party repudiate the anti-military smears on war heroes that have been the hallmark of Mr. Bush's political career.” This is a statement from Paul Begala, in a post on Huffingon Post today.
We do not think it is necessary for us to insist that President Bush repudiate earlier smears. Those smears were unjustified. Is this Move-On full page ad a smear? If so, it should be condemned, not defended. Not excused by the fact that the Republicans have smeared war heros.
Move-On asked the reader whether the reader thought that General Petreaus was betraying us (in a sense). Posing the thought as a question, Move-On left themselves wiggle room. However, the effect is to suggest that the General is about to betray us. The word should not have been used. Of course it was not intended literally, but that does not excuse its use.
Why hit below the belt? When you are on the high road, why slip or step into the ditch?
We do not think it is necessary for us to insist that President Bush repudiate earlier smears. Those smears were unjustified. Is this Move-On full page ad a smear? If so, it should be condemned, not defended. Not excused by the fact that the Republicans have smeared war heros.
Move-On asked the reader whether the reader thought that General Petreaus was betraying us (in a sense). Posing the thought as a question, Move-On left themselves wiggle room. However, the effect is to suggest that the General is about to betray us. The word should not have been used. Of course it was not intended literally, but that does not excuse its use.
Why hit below the belt? When you are on the high road, why slip or step into the ditch?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
SENATOR CRAIG SHOULD TAKE THE ULTIMATE TEST
People, including some in his own party, are demanding that United States Senator Larry Craig resign his seat in Congress. The reason is that what? He is gay? He is convicted of a petty misdemeanor based on his conduct in an airport restroom? Is that it?
Craig should do what Clinton should have done. He should have said that sex life is a private matter, and get out of people’s drawers! Get out of my underwear! If the people of Idaho want to fire me, that is their right. End of story for the present.
If I am a hypocrite about sex, is that a high crime? No; let my constituents decide my political fate. I will take the ultimate test, which is, how does my peccadillo render me unable to serve my country and people?
Craig should do what Clinton should have done. He should have said that sex life is a private matter, and get out of people’s drawers! Get out of my underwear! If the people of Idaho want to fire me, that is their right. End of story for the present.
If I am a hypocrite about sex, is that a high crime? No; let my constituents decide my political fate. I will take the ultimate test, which is, how does my peccadillo render me unable to serve my country and people?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
WE NEED MORE, NOT FEWER, SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS
Albuquerque’s Mayor, Martin Chavez, has been criticized by many for his “red light” camera program in the City. Surveillance cameras and radar have been placed at certain intersections controlled by traffic lights. Among the complaints are that the penalties are too high, that due process is lacking because the City treats the cases as civil nuisance cases rather than criminal cases, that enforcement is outsourced to an out-of-state company whose interest is to make money from catching these particular traffic offenders, etc.
Some of these complaints are reasonable, and in time we should all get back to the regular, criminal law model. That will leave the issue of whether we want surveillance cameras, and if so, where and when. That question should be addressed separately. Many right-thinking people are opposed to such electronic surveillance in traffic enforcement as well as surveillance of street corners, sidewalks, and parking lots, and the like.
We have a suggestion for Mayor Chavez. Why not experiment with traffic control surveillance cameras on the two interstates within the City limits? Stop speeding, illegal lane changing, and tailgating immediately. It would not be necessary to cite the offenders, just put their registration on an internet data base and allow the insurance companies to access the information. Also, allow the trial lawyers access, so they may reconstruct accidents and prove bad driving habits. Big trucking companies would soon know which of their drivers were in violation of the law, and past violations would be there to show habitual dangerous driving when that issue came before some Court.
Trucks come into Albuquerque at 65 to 75 miles per hour and travel through at 65 or more. Often they are close up on the rear of careful, law-abiding drivers. Why not catch these dangerous offenders on videotape and radar and expose them to the public through the internet? Is that an unreasonable invasion of privacy by Big Brother? Or is that self defense, and justified?
We are of the view that it is reasonable to use a camera and radar to catch any violation that may be caught by the old-fashioned way of having a motorcycle officer do the detection and enforcement.
Some of these complaints are reasonable, and in time we should all get back to the regular, criminal law model. That will leave the issue of whether we want surveillance cameras, and if so, where and when. That question should be addressed separately. Many right-thinking people are opposed to such electronic surveillance in traffic enforcement as well as surveillance of street corners, sidewalks, and parking lots, and the like.
We have a suggestion for Mayor Chavez. Why not experiment with traffic control surveillance cameras on the two interstates within the City limits? Stop speeding, illegal lane changing, and tailgating immediately. It would not be necessary to cite the offenders, just put their registration on an internet data base and allow the insurance companies to access the information. Also, allow the trial lawyers access, so they may reconstruct accidents and prove bad driving habits. Big trucking companies would soon know which of their drivers were in violation of the law, and past violations would be there to show habitual dangerous driving when that issue came before some Court.
Trucks come into Albuquerque at 65 to 75 miles per hour and travel through at 65 or more. Often they are close up on the rear of careful, law-abiding drivers. Why not catch these dangerous offenders on videotape and radar and expose them to the public through the internet? Is that an unreasonable invasion of privacy by Big Brother? Or is that self defense, and justified?
We are of the view that it is reasonable to use a camera and radar to catch any violation that may be caught by the old-fashioned way of having a motorcycle officer do the detection and enforcement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
