[Overpaid Slacker]

tabs, we've chosen to have a very defendant-friendly system; and the threshhold is "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- not beyond any possible doubt. That, and the incredible procedural hurdles (MIranda, exclusion of evidence, etc.) involved in convicting someone provide as much confidence as you can get that if found guilty, someone's guilty.

When the Central Park Jogger convicts were freed a few months ago, Ann Coulter had a screed that gave the lie to the notion that "many" people are now being acquitted due to DNA evidence. Like the "flavor of the week" thing, all it takes is one or two such acquittals, publicized like the second coming of Christ by a media that is anti-Death Penalty, and it seems like a landslide.

In fact, the CPJ now-acquitees were let go by the same liberal jurism I'm talking about -- the questionable "admission" by one other person that he raped that woman actually did nothing to disprove the CPJ convicts' participation -- they, too, raped and contributed to her killing... But the outcry from a public that was told half the story, at most, was overwhelming.

Incidentally, Miranda is not the law of the land. Shortly after the Miranda decision, Congress passed legislation that means that such warnings are not required in order to introduce evidence or statements made prior to waiver of attorney -- but no court has enforced the law b/c of fear of public outcry. The cattle whose primary exposure to "the law" are cop and court shows would go ballistic. I can just imagine the Bush/Hitler Ashcroft/Goebbels fits that would occur if they started enforcing a real live law that was passed 30-odd years ago.

Ordinarily, when I post this kind of thing, I try to link to the articles/facts I'm citing -- I can't find Coulter's article right now, so you'll have to take my word for it; or not, I suppose.

If I could line up ten executioners from TX and FL that said the Death Penalty was a deterrent, would you move 9 times towards that side of the issue? One guy? c'mon. This executioner did all kinds of public polling and data research from the dawn of criminal justice systems through today and came up with this one opinion that moved you?

One of the first things we were taught in Criminal Law was that deterrence is only one element of the efficacy of punishment (the deterrence argument applies to all punishment - like incarceration, btw, not just the DP). There is also the need for the public to feel vengeance, the actual "tangible" evidence of a justice system at work, etc. I was a 1L a long time ago, and CrimLaw was never my thing, so I forgot the litany -- but suffice to say it was a litany, of which deterrence was only one part.

Damn, I am lazy this morning -- no article cites, no digging through my notes...

JP