Sunday, June 27, 2010

Questions You Will Never Hear Asked of Prof. Kagan at her Hearing to Confirm Her to be on the Supreme Court

Do you consider it possible to read minds of impulsive, intoxicated people long after a crime?

What is the main purpose of the criminal law, indeed of government? Do you believe we are achieving that purpose?

You were dean of a top law school. Do you believe education or indoctrination was taking place at your school? Is it possible to make intelligent modern people believe in supernatural doctrines without indoctrination techniques?

If the words, intent, element, culpability and others could be shown to come from the Catholic Church catechism sections on mortal sin, would their use in a trial or any legal utterance violate the Establishment Clause? If these could not shown to exist in nature, but are fictitious, pretextual, church inventions, would that violate the Establishment Clause?

Are you aware of any data showing current methods, such as plea bargaining, trials, and jury verdicts have any validity or even any reliability (repeatability)?

After the first secret ballot of the jury, don't all subsequent votes reflect the views of the most domineering member, and the rest who want to go home?

Explain the justification for impeaching an experienced judge for looking into the facts of a case on his own.

Can you explain why crime rates are so low where the lawyer lives, and so high where the lawyer works? Can you explain why there are 20 million serious crimes a year, and 2 million prosecutions?

Do you pledge to edit your decisions to the sixth grade reading level?

Do you plan to continue to sign the death warrants of millions of viable babies in third term abortions, without parental consent?

Are you a homosexual, a lesbian? Do the tyrannical tendencies of such individuals affect their fitness to serve on the court for the next several decades?

If over 100,000 missing persons reports cannot be resolved each year, is it possible, the murder rate is really 70,000 and not 17,000?

Where is it you have trouble grasping, the deceased have a low recidivism rate, and those with life without parole have been granted absolute immunity for all crimes after the first murder.

Please, read out loud Article I Section 1 of our constitution. Does judicial review violate that section in any way?

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Please, Do Not Call a Defendant Non-Violent Unless ...

Because most sentences result from plea bargaining, the original charge should be used to categorize the charge as violent or non-violent. Inherent in plea bargaining is the lessening of the charge for which the prosecutor has evidence.

Unless people are counting original charges and not the formal charges landing the defendant in prison, calling a prisoner non-violent is misleading.