NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/bit/listserv/politics/22484

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 6.1 KB | 137 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!uvaarpa!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!DREW.BITNET!JCOCURUL
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:[e-mail]>
X-Envelope-to: [e-mail]
X-VMS-To: IN%"[e-mail]"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:59:27 -0500
Sender:       Forum for the Discussion of Politics <[e-mail]>
From:         [e-mail]
Subject:      Re: Commandments,Ford
Comments: To: [e-mail]
Lines: 120

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> Joe,
>
> Didn't mean to be apologetic in terms of not understanding your

"I'm sorry" seems to be apologetic; I'm sorry I misunderstood

> post ... had no idea you were just another listee with an attitude
> problem ("don't let it happen again").  Well, let me reciprocate :

let me phrase this right.  that was meant as a joke.  Am I now on
your enemy list so you and I can go back and forth being sarcastic
with each other?  it is rather stupid, but tell me, so I'll be
forewarned.

>
> 10 Commandments :
>
>      on 1/25, I wrote that the posting of the 10 commandments was
>               not allowed despite the fact that they were bought with
>               private funds.
>      on 1/26, you wrote that the source of the funding didn't matter

as an constitutional matter, it doesn't.  Private funding of religious
displays put up in classrooms of public schools can break Lemon just
as well as if school funds was used.

>      on 1/26, I pointed out the obvious - tax payers may not want
>               their money funding such decoration
>      on 1/27, you write: "sure it does as a matter of degree"
>
> So, YES, it DOES matter.  Don't quibble just for the hell of it !

I didn't.  As a constitutional matter, as I noted in the post, it
doesn't, but a public funded display is a more serious violation -- a
matter of degree.

>
> You also seem to misundertsand the case.  Teachers did not put up the
> ten commandments (as your post seems to imply over and over ... "the
> teacher in the classroom still did ... a teacher putting up her own .
> .. etc.)  Which case are you on big guy ?

I also said that the teacher could have _let_ someone put it up, thus
indirectly supporting just the Judeo-Christian religion.  I noted that
the SC rejected oral argument somewhat rashly, since the situation
wasn't totally clear.  I really don't remember how the Ten
Commandments got there, but it did somehow and the teacher had to know
it was there, so gov't entanglement is still there.

> Ford Case:
>
> you write "deleted is a disagreement that insane people can't be put
>            to death"
> box of candy to anyone who can find that in my post (honestly).  In
> fact, the central point is that there is NO disagreement about execu-
> ting insane people.  The ship went right by you !

if that was the case, then why did there need to be a court decision
to keep an insane person from being killed?  If there was _no_
disagreement than the guy would have no standing to sue since his state
would make killing someone insane against the law.  I presume you have
documents showing that all 50 states and the federal gov't made
killing someone insane illegal at the time of the case?  If not, the
disagreement can't be total, or even if it was, it was still allowed.

>          "he admits the guy was in some way mentally unstable/insane"
> A dash usually doesn't mean a lot, but if you mean to imply that be-
> ing unstable is the same as being insane, I certainly disagree. There

I did not imply this

> are a lot of unstable people who know the difference between right
> and wrong and who, in my opinion, upon murdering large numbers of
> people are worthy of death.  See Penry v. Lynaugh (1989).

the insanity defense in many states don't require this to be the case,
so one can be insane and know right from wrong.  John Penry had the IQ
of 70 and the mental age of 7; yeah, that sounds fair (this is
sarcasm).

> now come to the real world and make an intellegent statement that
> relates to a judge trying to be reasonable in our justice system.
> When you say high, do you mean limitless ?  at any point in time
> (like when walking to the chair) ?  and based on ANY grounds (like
> hearsay from non-impartial witnesses blaming someone who is dead) ?
> Get serious, answer those questions.

someone dead can't be guilty?  I don't know enough about the case to
know how bad this "hearsay" evidence is.  I also would note that this
decision is applicable beyond this case and the high standard offered
of "truly extraordinary case(s)" is not very likely to happen.  One
justice says the test should be "no rational trier of fact could
(find) proof beyond a reasonable doubt" with the new evidence -- how
this is supposed to be assured is beyond me, but still 5 didn't
support this test.  So, the "truly extraordinary" standard is the one
most supported (by 4 or 5 justices, 3 don't see a need for this at
all i.e. a plurality doesn't think innonence after the guilty plea
matters in a death case).  I also see that he had 4 witnesses,
including the nephew of the supposed killer to testify-- this would put some
reasonable doubt in my mind in a capital case.  Herrera deserved at
least a hearing of the evidence by a state judge/court.
    New evidence can come anytime, as some states accept by not having
time limits on when it can be entered.  New evidence has to be of some
value and significance and I think testimony of the nephew of the
alleged killer (who was a boy when it occured and would have reason to
fear for his life if he told when the alleged killer was alive, so had
reason to keep quiet) with 3 other testifying is of some signicance,
me thinks. A hearing can saw the 4 are of little value, but the
prisoner must be given a chance to challenge this -- so the SC either
federal or state just ignoring the evidence since it sounds too little
is not enough.

> ... too bad this list brings out the smart ass in all of us, eh ?
>
> P.S.Ruckman,Jr
>
yes

 -Joe