JeSoul:

Yup. The DC sniper guy I know. I had to google the Anini guy you mentioned (don't laugh at me oh ).   

Back in those “ember months” of 1986, nobody at school would discuss anything else but outrageously embellished stories of Anini. I think it was when the police caught up with that guy that I first started having doubts that juju, at least those imported from India, can do all the things attributed to it. 

JeSoul:
Fuel it? Hmm . . . I'm not so sure. I think like you said there's lots of pro and con arguments that have been put forth, and I would argue that it is pretty darn hard to determine either way.

The idea is about bandits having more incentive to kill witnesses. I don’t think a strong argument can be made there, but it appears there have been cases of bandits killing another person, and another person, and another person, just to avoid the gallows since they already killed one.

JeSoul:
  Wait a second . . .  so that means that scene in the Shawshank Redemption (I hope you've seen this movie) did just the opposite?

So it appears. I have not seen this movie, but I just checked it out at imdb.com and it’s the kind of movie I’d like to watch in a few days. This judge did it for real. If you like classical music then you definitely have stories to tell of people around you not being keen on this particular like of yours. Now, imagine a guy from some slum in LA who eats and sleeps Tupac or heavy metal being forced to listen to Bach and Tchaikovsky under circumstances where he can’t simply walk away!

JeSoul:
AK-47 armed inmates in Venezuela? Then why are they still inmates? lol.

You gotta give it up for them Latin American prisoneros. There was a fight between two rival gangs at that jail and many inmates were killed. The government moved in to restore order but the prisoners armed with automatic weapons took positions and have refused to surrender. At least, one soldier is already dead. More than two dozen people have died so far. I think the government is currently negotiating with them.

JeSoul:

Can we reward good behavior after the fact? If I steal a million dollars and then dedicate the money to the poor, does it partially soften my crime? make it more palatable? less egregious?

The act of giving crime proceeds to the poor, by itself, does not make it less egregious in my opinion. Lawrence Anini and most of the big Nigerian 419ers do this. Left to me the poor should reject anything from these sort of people. I think genuine remorse involves a change of heart, a change of mindset. If someone engages in armed robbery, maiming and killing and gives his proceeds to the poor, is caught and keeps repeating that he did it all for the poor, the law ought to take its course. I believe anyone who knowingly does hurt to any human being is building his own hell. I fail to see any morality in depriving someone of a possession, even if they have in abundance, to give to those who don’t have it. But if someone engages in banditry and murder, realizes in his heart and confesses with his mouth that it is bad to steal or kill and he should never have stolen or hurt anyone, and demonstrates this by seeking out and apologizing to his victims or giving everything he owns to the needy, or working with social workers to help delinquent kids, there is a case for mercy. The Bible says the angels of God rejoice when a sinner repents (Luke 15:10).

JeSoul:
I don't have a definite opinion on this - in the eyes of the Law I still committed the crime. In Tookie's case, the governor could've issued a pardon . . . but honestly and from a strictly legal (or it is judicial? abi criminal?) standpoint, I equally don't see his decision not to as wrong as he is bound by the Law.

Right, the “governator” was right legally speaking. Even beyond strict legalism, some of the reasons he gave for denying pardon were compelling. But he was within the law to grant a pardon. He acknowledged Tookie’s good work, but said he could not grant a pardon since remorse can only be demonstrated by an acknowledgement of guilt. To him, the evidence against Williams’ culpability in the murders was compelling – beyond reasonable doubt. Tookie insisted that while he did a ton of bad things he was not responsible for these four murders. He probably could have saved himself from the gallows by just admitting he did it. But the said he didn’t. To Mr Schwarzenegger that was the problem – he found it impossible to reconcile Williams’ claim of innocence with his claim of change of heart in the face of so much compelling evidence. Stalemate. I believe the governor acted without malice.

JeSoul:
Haba MyJoe lol. Justice doesn't necessarily mean "do me, I do you" now  . As I understand it, it is merely punishment (however the Law has chosen to define it - and the Jury of their peers chooses to sentence them) for a crime.

Yes, that is “legal justice” or "formal justice". But what is justice then – I mean “justice” without a qualifying adjective? I’m not sure I can do a good job of answering that. Maybe that is why the phrase in the legal community is “substantial justice”. I doubt absolute justice is achievable – we have to get used to that. And maybe someone will run a thread on “what is justice” around here one of these days.

JeSoul:
That is the heart of the matter ain't it. Maybe when I'm wiser and more seasoned like you I will believe otherwise

Ha ha. It’s all relative. You may actually be much wiser even though seeing it differently from the way I currently do.

JeSoul:
Even me self, I don't get the hoopla over 'killing law enforcement officials' and why it is more heinous than the average joe.

It's definitely not more heinous. I think the idea is that those we pay to keep the peace also deserve some peace. When people deliberately target policemen, firing at UNIFORMS, it sets off a whole lot of problems – families losing bread winners, low morale, trigger happy cops, corruption, etc, all contributing to making everyone less safe.

JeSoul:
But yes there is! There is no dispute on the DC sniper is there? that teenager in Mont Vernon as well, there's no dispute there either. Thankfully the law doesn't go 'life for life'. Its the jury and judge that have a say in the sentence - so the power does not rest with one man.

But you already alluded to the impossibility of having laws that objectively captures just a category of people. No wiggle room – that’s how it mostly works. Imagine having a law that sentences to death only when there is a confession or video evidence, or, perhaps, only when there is a confession since video evidence can be manipulated! We may also talk of those who become famous, that is, “everyone” knows and talks about them while the state is in pursuit – we get these sort of people every now and then: Johnny Dillinger, Al Capone, Ishola Oyenusi (“when you talk to me like that I gun you down”), Lawrence Anini. But how does a law capture this objectively? That’s the point I was making. In The Day of the Jackal, “everyone” involved in the matter knew Charles Caltrop was the Jackal at some point, but at the end of the day they turned out to be wrong.

Moreover, under the current system of “beyond reasonable doubt”, anyone found “not guilty” is instantly set free, not put in jail. Now, try imagining how that will work under a system of “beyond a shadow of doubt”! It’s all a “delicate balancing act”.

JeSoul:

Question sir. Have you seen the movie "A Time To Kill"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_to_Kill_(film)
If yes, what are your thoughts? (see me, na movies me I dey recommend  )

Movies sure are magical. I watch a good number of them nowadays. But I'm glad I stayed almost completely away from them till my 30's. I have not seen this one, but I read the book in 2001.

Michael Aondoakaa [Ah-on-DOH-kar], a recent Attorney-General of Nigeria, is well-known, not least for his crooked ways, which included openly advocating for people suspected of looting the public treasury and rendering millions of Nigerians poor and desperate. He was also the AG blackmailed by Pfizer in the pharmaceutical company’s efforts to avoid making payouts to victims of their drug trials in Kano. What many don’t know about Mr Aondoakaa is his huge contribution to Nigerian and, perhaps, Common Law, criminal jurisprudence; an achievement that singularly qualified him for the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, a rank that made it possible for the cabal he served as their poodle to make him Attorney-General. There was this case involving a woman whose husband would not stop cheating on her. (I did not actually read this case from the law report or journal but had it narrated by a trusted narrator. So I am giving you a summary of a summary!) The man was so brazen he would actually bring a woman into their bedroom and order the wife out! The woman bore her cross like many Nigerian women of the traditional school would. But one day she snapped and ended up killing him.

At the high court the state argued that for a plea of PROVOCATION to be successful, the accused person must take action within a reasonable time frame after the action said to cause the provocation. That is, poster A cannot say something nasty to poster B in one thread today, and tomorrow, poster B says something nasty to poster A in another thread and claim he was under provocation. It is assumed that anger passes with the passing of time. Aondoakaa, the defence lawyer, argued that the passing of a certain amount of time does not on its own nullify a plea of provocation. The high court accepted the prosecution’s argument, convicted the woman for murder and sentenced her to die by hanging.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the prosecution. But the Supreme Court accepted Mr Aondoakaa’s argument and, bingo – the law on provocation has been re-written! Law students will study that case for decades to come.

I think the case in Grisham’s book is similar. I agree when you said you would give weight to the fact someone is under drugs, is mentally ill, or emotionally unstable. Angry people are emotionally unstable. And that is the primary consideration behind the law on provocation, intoxication and insanity – the fact the accused person was not in full control of his senses at the time of commission of crime. Even when we move beyond strict legalism, it is the same question that arises: was the woman in the case above and Carl Lee Hailey in that book in control of their senses at the time they killed their victims? Hailey took his time to carefully plan his murders. It was an act of revenge. But, then, there is the immensely important fact that not too long before and not too far away the law had failed miserably in a similar case – four white boys who raped a little black girl had been acquitted. Now, that is enough to drive any father whose little girl’s life had been ruined crazy. It was Mississippi and many black people still feel put upon by the system in some of these Southern states. But couldn’t he have waited for the law to take its course? Shouldn’t he have? What I objectively think is that his action would, perhaps, have been more understandable (though not right) if he had waited for the trial and had acted only because the system failed to bring “justice” like in the other case. But it was not my daughter. If it was my daughter I doubt I would be objective. It is hard to say exactly what you would do in these kinds of situations unless it actually happens to you.

MyJoe! finally have some time to reply properly. Honestly, I think I gain percentage points in brain cells everytime I read from you . You're so smart and knowledgeable, exactly the type of elder I need to sit at their feet and learn

and btw *offtopic* you been seeing the wahala in Egypt? Am I joining the conspiracy ranks to think our friends in the MB are smiling at the instability?

MyJoe:

The idea is about bandits having more incentive to kill witnesses. I don’t think a strong argument can be made there, but it appears there have been cases of bandits killing another person, and another person, and another person, just to avoid the gallows since they already killed one.

Oh okay got it. That makes sense.

So it appears. I have not seen this movie, but I just checked it out at imdb.com and it’s the kind of movie I’d like to watch in a few days. This judge did it for real. If you like classical music then you definitely have stories to tell of people around you not being keen on this particular like of yours. Now, imagine a guy from some slum in LA who eats and sleeps Tupac or heavy metal being forced to listen to Bach and Tchaikovsky under circumstances where he can’t simply walk away!

Lol. Gosh that is really funny and I salute the inventiveness of that judge. lol. I know I would pull my hair out and pierce my ear drums if I were forced to listen to hard/death metal gross lol.

The act of giving crime proceeds to the poor, by itself, does not make it less egregious in my opinion. Lawrence Anini and most of the big Nigerian 419ers do this. Left to me the poor should reject anything from these sort of people. I think genuine remorse involves a change of heart, a change of mindset. If someone engages in armed robbery, maiming and killing and gives his proceeds to the poor, is caught and keeps repeating that he did it all for the poor, the law ought to take its course. I believe anyone who knowingly does hurt to any human being is building his own hell.

so so agreed.

I fail to see any morality in depriving someone of a possession, even if they have in abundance, to give to those who don’t have it.

I see you're not a an american-flavored pop-tart liberal democrat .

But if someone engages in banditry and murder, realizes in his heart and confesses with his mouth that it is bad to steal or kill and he should never have stolen or hurt anyone, and demonstrates this by seeking out and apologizing to his victims or giving everything he owns to the needy, or working with social workers to help delinquent kids, there is a case for mercy. The Bible says the angels of God rejoice when a sinner repents (Luke 15:10).

Well said, and I would tend to agree with you. And I think this is one of the main reasons pardons can be granted after the sentence. And I would say even if the sentence wasn't commuted, in the eyes of the Law, his genuine change in the eyes of God is what truly matters both here and afterhere. The bible itself also shows us hardknock, brutal, immediate and swift judgement resulting in death - from God. And we also see the opposite in great mercy extended. We need both ends of a single-edged sword in our society - that's what I think.

Right, the “governator” was right legally speaking. Even beyond strict legalism, some of the reasons he gave for denying pardon were compelling. But he was within the law to grant a pardon. He acknowledged Tookie’s good work, but said he could not grant a pardon since remorse can only be demonstrated by an acknowledgement of guilt. To him, the evidence against Williams’ culpability in the murders was compelling – beyond reasonable doubt. Tookie insisted that while he did a ton of bad things he was not responsible for these four murders. He probably could have saved himself from the gallows by just admitting he did it. But the said he didn’t. To Mr Schwarzenegger that was the problem – he found it impossible to reconcile Williams’ claim of innocence with his claim of change of heart in the face of so much compelling evidence. Stalemate. I believe the governor acted without malice.

Interesting. We've seen that compelling evidence doesn't always equate guilt so I can't argue in the offense. At the same time felons have been known to play the system. Stalemate for real. That is why I could never be a judge. Not to mention my heart melts to see people cry/weep. Don't buy the hard talker you see here, I'm a sucker for repentance lol.

Yes, that is “legal justice” or "formal justice". But what is justice then – I mean “justice” without a qualifying adjective? I’m not sure I can do a good job of answering that. Maybe that is why the phrase in the legal community is “substantial justice”. I doubt absolute justice is achievable – we have to get used to that. And maybe someone will run a thread on “what is justice” around here one of these days.

I vote for you . Absolute justice would be just like you said - eye for an eye - but that is impossible in our society. What do we do with the likes of Bernie Madoff? take billions back from him that he doesn't have? lol.

But you already alluded to the impossibility of having laws that objectively captures just a category of people. No wiggle room – that’s how it mostly works. Imagine having a law that sentences to death only when there is a confession or video evidence, or, perhaps, only when there is a confession since video evidence can be manipulated!

True true I did. Video evidence can be manipulated, but it would be pretty darn hard and a lot of other variables would also have to line up perfectly with the video for a jury to convict - at least I would like to think so.

We may also talk of those who become famous, that is, “everyone” knows and talks about them while the state is in pursuit – we get these sort of people every now and then: Johnny Dillinger, Al Capone, Ishola Oyenusi (“when you talk to me like that I gun you down”), Lawrence Anini. But how does a law capture this objectively? That’s the point I was making. In The Day of the Jackal, “everyone” involved in the matter knew Charles Caltrop was the Jackal at some point, but at the end of the day they turned out to be wrong.

Not sure I understand you fully here but . . . that's why they have their day in court and usually armed with a team of the best lawyers and usually for free.

We just caught Whitey Bulger - a dude on the FBI's top 10 most wanted & who's been on the run for 16yrs, 16yrs, imagine. He's from down the street here in Boston and was a notorious crime boss. You need to see how heads are fighting to be on his defense team. In developed countries, I think its pretty darn hard to lynch the wrong guy that 'everyone' knows is guilty.

MyJoe:

Movies sure are magical. I watch a good number of them nowadays. But I'm glad I stayed almost completely away from them till my 30's. I have not seen this one, but I read the book in 2001.

Michael Aondoakaa [Ah-on-DOH-kar], a recent Attorney-General of Nigeria, is well-known, not least for his crooked ways, which included openly advocating for people suspected of looting the public treasury and rendering millions of Nigerians poor and desperate. He was also the AG blackmailed by Pfizer in the pharmaceutical company’s efforts to avoid making payouts to victims of their drug trials in Kano. What many don’t know about Mr Aondoakaa is his huge contribution to Nigerian and, perhaps, Common Law, criminal jurisprudence; an achievement that singularly qualified him for the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, a rank that made it possible for the cabal he served as their poodle to make him Attorney-General. There was this case involving a woman whose husband would not stop cheating on her. (I did not actually read this case from the law report or journal but had it narrated by a trusted narrator. So I am giving you a summary of a summary!) The man was so brazen he would actually bring a woman into their bedroom and order the wife out! The woman bore her cross like many Nigerian women of the traditional school would. But one day she snapped and ended up killing him.

At the high court the state argued that for a plea of PROVOCATION to be successful, the accused person must take action within a reasonable time frame after the action said to cause the provocation. That is, poster A cannot say something nasty to poster B in one thread today, and tomorrow, poster B says something nasty to poster A in another thread and claim he was under provocation. It is assumed that anger passes with the passing of time. Aondoakaa, the defence lawyer, argued that the passing of a certain amount of time does not on its own nullify a plea of provocation. The high court accepted the prosecution’s argument, convicted the woman for murder and sentenced her to die by hanging.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the prosecution. But the Supreme Court accepted Mr Aondoakaa’s argument and, bingo – the law on provocation has been re-written! Law students will study that case for decades to come.

Very interesting! I am curious, if you were the judge, what would you have ruled?

I think the case in Grisham’s book is similar. I agree when you said you would give weight to the fact someone is under drugs, is mentally ill, or emotionally unstable. Angry people are emotionally unstable. And that is the primary consideration behind the law on provocation, intoxication and insanity – the fact the accused person was not in full control of his senses at the time of commission of crime. Even when we move beyond strict legalism, it is the same question that arises: was the woman in the case above and Carl Lee Hailey in that book in control of their senses at the time they killed their victims? Hailey took his time to carefully plan his murders. It was an act of revenge. But, then, there is the immensely important fact that not too long before and not too far away the law had failed miserably in a similar case – four white boys who violated a little black girl had been acquitted. Now, that is enough to drive any father whose little girl’s life had been ruined crazy. It was Mississippi and many black people still feel put upon by the system in some of these Southern states. But couldn’t he have waited for the law to take its course? Shouldn’t he have? What I objectively think is that his action would, perhaps, have been more understandable (though not right) if he had waited for the trial and had acted only because the system failed to bring “justice” like in the other case. But it was not my daughter. If it was my daughter I doubt I would be objective. It is hard to say exactly what you would do in these kinds of situations unless it actually happens to you.

Gbam left right center top down inside out.

And honestly, I think this is part of why the use of jurys instead of just single judges is on point. A jury - of his peers - a collection of carefully selected people by both prosecution and defense, will not just consider whether or not a crime was committed, but take everything else into account, and most importantly [b]put themselves in his shoes [/b]and consider how they would have acted. So we see even guilty as hell people walk free and we applaud the jury's call.

Another movie - lol - you seen "Law Abiding Citizen" starring Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler? It is exactly the scenario you painted. A man's wife and daughter are raped and killed during a home invasion. The forensic evidence gets screwed up and the perps could get off free, so the hot shot prosecutor in order to maintain his success rate strikes a plea deal with the defense - the main perp who committed the crime gets off with only 3 yrs while the accomplice gets the DP. The man loses his mind and disappears for years - all the while he plans an elaborate, impressive and deadly assault against the perp, the lawyers, the judge and the entire justice system.

As a viewer watching this unfold - you really can't help but cheer for the guy - even though he's 'wrong'. Its a good movie if you have the time

JeSoul:

MyJoe! finally have some time to reply properly. Honestly, I think I gain percentage points in brain cells everytime I read from you . You're so smart and knowledgeable, exactly the type of elder I need to sit at their feet and learn

Now, you are making my head swell by 50 percentage points in size! 

JeSoul:
and btw *offtopic* you been seeing the wahala in Egypt? Am I joining the conspiracy ranks to think our friends in the MB are smiling at the instability?

What I think they are doing is flowing with the CROWD in order to remain relevant. Even if they have any ideas, they are smart enough to know the military will become more assertive once they show any fangs. Remember Egypt is one of the countries where the military is so powerful that while it is not always what they want that happens, what they don’t want certainly never happens. The Algerians, the Turkish and the Pakistanis can testify to this. But if the MB have said or done anything that seems contrary to their professed progressiveness and modernism so far, I have missed it. I am still giving them “the benefit of the doubt” and placing them in the same category as the AKP of Turkey. All the wahala are not that surprising, though, when you consider this is a country coming out of years of diarchical and securocratic dictatorship, with the new leaders trying hard to please the people. They will soon tell themselves a country can’t be ruled from the streets and try becoming more assertive, and then things may get worse before they improve. Or not improve at all but degenerate to an all-out civil strife. The latter is less likely.

JeSoul:
I see you're not a an american-flavored pop-tart liberal democrat .

No. I guess I am neither liberal nor conservative, as I take issues on a case by case basis (Sandra Day O’Connor was my favourite associate justice and Clarence Thomas my least favourite), but conservatives tend to piss me off more often than liberals. If I was put in a jail and a judge wanted to get me I’d hope no one whispers into his ears to force me to listen to The Collected Speeches of Sarah Palin! John McCain is my favourite American politician for the same reasons I like O’Connor. But I wonder how you cope living and voting in the most liberal state in the US!

JeSoul:
Well said, and I would tend to agree with you. And I think this is one of the main reasons pardons can be granted after the sentence. And I would say even if the sentence wasn't commuted, in the eyes of the Law, his genuine change in the eyes of God is what truly matters both here and afterhere. [b]The bible itself also shows us hardknock, brutal, immediate and swift judgement resulting in death - from God. And we also see the opposite in great mercy extended. [/b]We need both ends of a single-edged sword in our society - that's what I think. 

Yes, but you will recall that God (1) is all-knowing (2) would take the whole circumstances into consideration (3) can bring back to life. Note there is no single instance in the New Testament where God instructed MEN to kill anyone. He is only alleged to have done that in the OT when a different order was in place.

JeSoul:
Interesting. We've seen that compelling evidence doesn't always equate guilt so I can't argue in the offense. At the same time felons have been known to play the system. Stalemate for real. That is why I could never be a judge. Not to mention my heart melts to see people cry/weep. Don't buy the hard talker you see here, I'm a sucker for repentance lol.

Right. That is what actually happens in most cases – they exploit anything they can find – loopholes, public sympathy, anything at all. And that is why it is so hard to know those ones who are wrongly accused. That is what the “governator” believed Tookie was doing, but we will never know for sure.

JeSoul:
Not sure I understand you fully here but . . . that's why they have their day in court and usually armed with a team of the best lawyers and usually for free.

I merely used it as an illustration concerning the fact that we may not be right 100% of the time in 100% of the cases we think we know who. Imagine a sniper shows up in Metro Dade shooting people at random. MDPD psychologists come up with a profile. After some days the MDPD, working on field data – someone, a former army sniper, bought a gun, asked some funny questions, was sighted after dark staking out a place, has been depressed since losing wife, was abused as a kid – release information that they believe John Schulz is the sniper. When the public gets this information they will watch out for Schulz and those who know Schulz personally will keep shaking their heads. One day the sniper is shot and killed as he is about to shoot someone. It then turns it wasn’t who the police suspected – John Schulz has been away on an extended visit to his brother at a bush camp. Now, that is a very rare situation, but it happened in that Forsyth book and came in handy to illustrate a point.

JeSoul:
We just caught Whitey Bulger - a dude on the FBI's top 10 most wanted & who's been on the run for 16yrs, 16yrs, imagine. He's from down the street here in Boston and was a notorious crime boss. You need to see how heads are fighting to be on his defense team. In developed countries, I think its pretty darn hard to lynch the wrong guy that 'everyone' knows is guilty.

Right

JeSoul:

  Very interesting! I am curious, if you were the judge, what would you have ruled?

At a superficial level, I buy the Supreme Court judgment. But details would be important for me – whether we have reasons to believe she planned it, what weapons, if any, were used, what she did immediately after the killing, and a whole lot else. But I disagree with the jury in the Hailey case. I would have convicted him but taking the situation of his daughter into consideration, would probably have agreed to ameliorate “murder” to something less severe and he would have got away with fifteen years or so. This tends to happen more at the Supreme Court level in Nigeria. I am pretty certain that Hailey, the vigilante, would not have walked from any Nigerian court.

I came here pretty sure what I would say but these two over sane people with Jays in their names have scattered my head. All I know is this: If someone murders someone I love, I'll murder the person on the spot if it's within my power. That wouldn't be me acting in cold blood. It'd be a crime of passion. I wouldn't expect to simply walk away and go home because I've done the State's work for it. I'd expect to go to jail, probably for life but I'd do it. I'm sure of it.

In the discussions, I noticed some of you segue from "what the Lord says" to "what I think" to "what the secular law says" and it's causing confusion. If not that the posters here are people with sense and maturity, we'd have been breaking beer barrels on each others' backs.

Morality is a tricky subject. This is a case of who will watch the watchers. If you don't deserve to live, you shouldn't. We should consider that we'll all die anyways. The punishment is just fast forwarding due date. We're all on death row.

Btw, I support the 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' thing. But then, that is impossible to prove when cold blooded murder is concerned. How do you know voices in his head didn't make him do it? Or he has MPD? The whole thing is really tricky. It may well be best if capital punishment was abolished altogether

MyJoe:

Now, you are making my head swell by 50 percentage points in size!

Oga na the 100% truth oh

What I think they are doing is flowing with the CROWD in order to remain relevant. Even if they have any ideas, they are smart enough to know the military will become more assertive once they show any fangs. Remember Egypt is one of the countries where the military is so powerful that while it is not always what they want that happens, what they don’t want certainly never happens. The Algerians, the Turkish and the Pakistanis can testify to this. But if the MB have said or done anything that seems contrary to their professed progressiveness and modernism so far, I have missed it. I am still giving them “the benefit of the doubt” and placing them in the same category as the AKP of Turkey. All the wahala are not that surprising, though, when you consider this is a country coming out of years of diarchical and securocratic dictatorship, with the new leaders trying hard to please the people. They will soon tell themselves a country can’t be ruled from the streets and try becoming more assertive, and then things may get worse before they improve. Or not improve at all but degenerate to an all-out civil strife. The latter is less likely.

You're so generous with these guys lol. Its good sha . . . not all of us can be like that

No. I guess I am neither liberal nor conservative, as I take issues on a case by case basis (Sandra Day O’Connor was my favourite associate justice and Clarence Thomas my least favourite), but conservatives tend to piss me off more often than liberals. If I was put in a jail and a judge wanted to get me I’d hope no one whispers into his ears to force me to listen to The Collected Speeches of Sarah Palin! John McCain is my favourite American politician for the same reasons I like O’Connor. But I wonder how you cope living and voting in the most liberal state in the US!

Lol. Its not so bad actually. Once you learn to look and simply laugh . Plenty of comedy for the soul. New Hamshpire is only a few hrs away . . . I can move anytime lol. I do appreciate the fundamental Liberal theology of progressiveness, really. Its just that I feel this modern incarnation of it is on steroids. Ah no love for Sarah Palin? I like the woman, which is why even when I dislike some of what she does/says politically I simply look the other way. McCain your favorite? I would've never guessed that. You like them experienced and seasoned it sounds like. I like them fearless and 'I don't give a damn'-ish.

Yes, but you will recall that God (1) is all-knowing (2) would take the whole circumstances into consideration (3) can bring back to life. Note there is no single instance in the New Testament where God instructed MEN to kill anyone. He is only alleged to have done that in the OT when a different order was in place.

This is very true and I cannot argue with that at all at all.

At a superficial level, I buy the Supreme Court judgment. But details would be important for me – whether we have reasons to believe she planned it, what weapons, if any, were used, what she did immediately after the killing, and a whole lot else. But I disagree with the jury in the Hailey case. I would have convicted him but taking the situation of his daughter into consideration, would probably have agreed to ameliorate “murder” to something less severe and he would have got away with fifteen years or so. This tends to happen more at the Supreme Court level in Nigeria. I am pretty certain that Hailey, the vigilante, would not have walked from any Nigerian court.

You'd be one tough judge sir. I agree taking into account all the other details would be central to making a good decision. I think that I would've acquitted Hailey - especially considering in that case if the races/colors had been reversed, he would've been lychned at city hall with the law enforcement as cheering spectators and a parade thrown with hotdogs served afterwards.

So I thank God I have never had the power of life and death in my hands.

vescucci:

I came here pretty sure what I would say but these two over sane people with Jays in their names have scattered my head. All I know is this: If someone murders someone I love, I'll murder the person on the spot if it's within my power. That wouldn't be me acting in cold blood. It'd be a crime of passion. I wouldn't expect to simply walk away and go home because I've done the State's work for it. I'd expect to go to jail, probably for life but I'd do it. I'm sure of it.

Chai! I trust you lol.

In the discussions, I noticed some of you segue from "what the Lord says" to "what I think" to "what the secular law says" and it's causing confusion. If not that the posters here are people with sense and maturity, we'd have been breaking beer barrels on each others' backs.

Lol.

Morality is a tricky subject. This is a case of who will watch the watchers. If you don't deserve to live, you shouldn't. We should consider that we'll all die anyways. The punishment is just fast forwarding due date. We're all on death row.

this boy! lol.

vescucci:

I came here pretty sure what I would say but these two over sane people with Jays in their names have scattered my head. All I know is this: If someone murders someone I love, I'll murder the person on the spot if it's within my power. That wouldn't be me acting in cold blood. It'd be a crime of passion. I wouldn't expect to simply walk away and go home because I've done the State's work for it. I'd expect to go to jail, probably for life but I'd do it. I'm sure of it.

In the discussions, I noticed some of you segue from "what the Lord says" to "what I think" to "what the secular law says" and it's causing confusion. If not that the posters here are people with sense and maturity, we'd have been breaking beer barrels on each others' backs.

Morality is a tricky subject. This is a case of who will watch the watchers. If you don't deserve to live, you shouldn't. We should consider that we'll all die anyways. The punishment is just fast forwarding due date. We're all on death row.

Btw,  I support the 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' thing. But then, that is impossible to prove when cold blooded murder is concerned. How do you know voices in his head didn't make him do it? Or he has MPD? The whole thing is really tricky. It may well be best if capital punishment was abolished altogether

Lol. When I was writing it did flash through my mind I was “segueing”. There should be no confusion if you separate them, but maybe I am wrong to expect my readers to automatically do this because that is exactly what I am doing mentally. There is (1) what  is reasonable in my opinion- don’t kill them because (i) we can’t really tell who is guilty and don’t know all the circumstances involved (ii) they should get a chance to suffer the consequences and possibly reflect on things and make amends (2) what the law currently says which I’d be obliged to implement if I am a judge – kill them (3) what the Bible says – show mercy. But, of course, I’d plead guilty to bringing in the Bible only when it was convenient for my argument! For Nigerian audience what the Lord says becomes relevant in a purely political matter if it will help to make the point. People believe their holy books say these people must be killed, and you want to show them it doesn’t. JeSoul made such a reference quite early in the conversation, in a response to M_Nwankwo, I think. In the US, particularly the Bible Belt, it is not uncommon to hear God mentioned in court rooms. And if you report for jury assignment, you’d be lucky to get in if word leaks out you are an atheist. If you find yourself in such a courtroom, what do you do? Remind them God is merciful.

As for those who “deserve” to die, you will observe that we have been sparing to them for a long time. There is a 15 year old boy in custody somewhere at Oyo or Osun state, not sure which. He was arrested by the police for beheading a child and selling the head to ritualists. When he is convicted he will be not get the death penalty because he is underage. But everyone knows a 15 year old who kills a child knows precisely what he is doing! As did that kid who recently made himself a name as the UK's youngest assassin. John Alan Mohammed’s spotter is now in jail while Mohammed was executed because he (spotter) was only seventeen at the time of the killings and can’t be executed due to the Eight Amendment. You will probably agree with me he deserved to die as much as Mohammed. That laws which exempt these people from being executed, using the somewhat arbitrary figure of 18, was based on compassion.

I agree with what you said about breaking bottles. JeSoul has been the only Nairalander I extensively discussed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with. I knew there would be no broken bottles, or even 9mms(!) and there wasn't.

JeSoul:

I do appreciate the fundamental Liberal theology of progressiveness, really. Its just that I feel this modern incarnation of it is on steroids. Ah no love for Sarah Palin? I like the woman, which is why even when I dislike some of what she does/says politically I simply look the other way. McCain your favorite? I would've never guessed that. You like them experienced and seasoned it sounds like. I like them fearless and 'I don't give a damn'-ish.

Generally speaking, I think patriotism, particularly the American brand, is a steroid and Mrs Palin is one Calvinistic right-winger high on it! I like McCain because he doesn’t go “I am a conservative, I am a conservative” or “I am a moderate, I am a moderate.” He says and does whatever he thinks is right without recourse to ideology or party. But I really like Obama, too.

JeSoul:
You'd be one tough judge sir. I agree taking into account all the other details would be central to making a good decision. I think that I would've acquitted Hailey - especially considering in that case if the races/colors had been reversed, he would've been lychned at city hall with the law enforcement as cheering spectators and a parade thrown with hotdogs served afterwards.

So I thank God I have never had the power of life and death in my hands.

I feel you on Hailey case. When I was reading the book I was rooting for him to get away, what with the KKK and all, that’s what my heart would want. But as a judge, while I will not rip my heart out and will listen to it, decisions will be taken in my head and I doubt I would find it in my head to see how letting someone get away with a brutal double murder, an act of pure revenge perpetrated on people who were already on trial, have served the course of justice or improved the society.

MyJoe:
In the US, particularly the Bible Belt, it is not uncommon to hear God mentioned in court rooms. And if you report for jury assignment, you’d be lucky to get in if word leaks out you are an atheist. If you find yourself in such a courtroom, what do you do? Remind them God is merciful.

  Lol.

I agree with what you said about breaking bottles. JeSoul has been the only Nairalander I extensively discussed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with. I knew there would be no broken bottles, or even 9mms(!) and there wasn't.

  Lol . . . no broken bottles yet mister .

MyJoe:

Generally speaking, I think patriotism, particularly the American brand, is a steroid and Mrs Palin is one Calvinistic right-winger high on it!

Chai! see yab lol. I prefer to think of her as passionate (bias admitted), and sometimes passionately wrong. The american flavor of patriotism is good now . . . gung-ho[i]-ism[/i] has its merits . 

I like McCain because he doesn’t go “I am a conservative, I am a conservative” or “I am a moderate, I am a moderate.” He says and does whatever he thinks is right without recourse to ideology or party. But I really like Obama, too.

Hmmm . . . interesting take on McCain. Well, I've never been really able to pay attention to him long enough to make a concrete decision . . . if 'boring' had a picture . . . . Obama I have always believed to be a good guy possessed with a 'ganja' spirit that smokes the latest reefers, thinking he can ride in on a toyota prius, wave his recycled wand at the crowd of zombies preconditioned with his personal ideologies and magically make the world a better place. That said, if Mitt Romney is the republican nominee, Obama has my vote in 2012 . 

---

I feel you on Hailey case. When I was reading the book I was rooting for him to get away, what with the KKK and all, that’s what my heart would want. But as a judge, while I will not rip my heart out and will listen to it, decisions will be taken in my head and I doubt I would find it in my head to see how letting someone get away with a brutal double murder, an act of pure revenge perpetrated on people who were already on trial, have served the course of justice or improved the society.

Well said sir. You would make a most fair and just judge. I guess when the actual responsibility of the Law is on your shoulders . . . its a bit different. The just concluded Casey Anthony trial (I'm sure you kept an eye on it). I agree 100% with the jury's decision to find her not guilty. Case was purely circumstantial . . . we cannot send people to jail simply on our best guess, there was plenty of reasonable doubt even though it is very likely she killed her daughter. Any thoughts on that case?

Which of this can bring each other ( Mmoney and Idea)

JeSoul:

  Chai! see yab lol. I prefer to think of her as passionate (bias admitted), and sometimes passionately wrong. The american flavor of patriotism is good now . . . gung-ho[i]-ism[/i] has its merits . 

Patriotism sure has its merits. In fact, I would probably recommend a bit of it for Nigerian leaders. Now, to understand the dangers of patriotism, particularly the emotional, unintellectual knee-jerk brand of it you find in places like the US and won't find in places like the UK, you have to take your mind back to 1930's Germany. I'd bet Hitler would never have been able to do what he did in the UK. But like you said there is the flip side - while the British were going on strike after the war, the Germans and the Japanese were building industrial wonders.

JeSoul:
  Hmmm . . . interesting take on McCain. Well, I've never been really able to pay attention to him long enough to make a concrete decision . . . if 'boring' had a picture . . . . Obama I have always believed to be a good guy possessed with a 'ganja' spirit that smokes the latest reefers, thinking he can ride in on a toyota prius, wave his recycled wand at the crowd of zombies preconditioned with his personal ideologies and magically make the world a better place. That said, if Mitt Romney is the republican nominee, Obama has my vote in 2012 . 

Lol. But I think Mr Obama has been practical on a number of things.

JeSoul:

---

Well said sir. You would make a most fair and just judge. I guess when the actual responsibility of the Law is on your shoulders . . . its a bit different. The just concluded Casey Anthony trial (I'm sure you kept an eye on it). I agree 100% with the jury's decision to find her not guilty. Case was purely circumstantial . . . we cannot send people to jail simply on our best guess, there was plenty of reasonable doubt even though it is very likely she killed her daughter. Any thoughts on that case?

I didn't follow the trial. But I would like to say that I am not comfortable with the either,  or,  nature of most American trials. Under the English system the judge has a lot of discretion, so it may be established that someone "did it" and he gets a few years in jail because of the circumstances.