Votes, and now also murders, must be “counted” in a manner that is subject to interpretation.
Charles Champion was recently spared the possibility of the death penalty for the aggravated murder of police officer Steven Underwood on the creative theory that Mr. Champion did not murder enough people.
The defense successfully delayed the case and criticized King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng’s decision to seek the death penalty against Champion as arbitrary.
"Champion's lawyers have argued that the charge should be dismissed because of the inherent unfairness of the death penalty, because of its disproportionate use on black men, and because Gary Ridgway — who confessed to killing 48 women — was given a life sentence."
Those opposed to the death penalty apparently want juries to “count every murder.” In King County, anyone with fewer than 48 murders should not get the death penalty.
Fuzzy math is a product of our liberal education system. But liberals aren’t happy with just breaking the education system, now they want to break the justice system, and King County may not be able to ever seek another death penalty again. In fact, King County claims that the case has cost about a $1,000,000 so far and they didn’t even get to trial. However, the degree to which political correctness has become a consideration is amplified in King County where prosecutors might now be more “touchy-feely” than “hard-nosed.” Norm Maleng argues it was more a matter of time and unwilling witnesses that finalized the decision to dismiss the capital charges.
"Champion"-ing the Death Penalty has become a game in Washington State, and the courts and legal system are most easily manipulated in liberal King County, where only five people have been sentenced to death in the last 25 years and none have yet been executed. The decision to seek the death penalty is too political to be entrusted only to elected County prosecutors. It is time for legislative reform allowing the State Attorney General to seek the death penalty. The state has greater resources, and is more likely to apply a uniform standard when seeking the death penalty, that is less subject to forces of political correctness in liberal counties like King.
Anyone accused is guilty.
All defense lawyers are liberals.
Any argument made by a defense lawyer on behalf of their guilty client is thus an attack on the justice system.
Norm Maleng can't stand up to the liberals.
The AG can stand up to the liberals.
Give power to the AG.
A liberal gets elected AG and there are no more death penalty cases in Washington.
I could live with that result.
Tim, you really ought to stick to representing the BIAW.
Posted by: steven on December 3, 2004 11:10 AMIf they came out of the airlock for a minute, they would remember that the reason why Ridgway got a life sentence instead of death, was that he helped the authorities find all of the bodies of the victims.
Not that I agree that he should be alive, but a deal is a deal and that's how the legal system works.
Fuzzy math is a product of our liberal education system.
I'd really like to see (1) a definition of "fuzzy math," (2) how anyone in authority has established the conclusion that the education system is somehow liberal, and (3) how such a system created this so-called fuzzy math.
But liberals aren’t happy with just breaking the education system, now they want to break the justice system, and King County may not be able to ever seek another death penalty again.
So because a defense counsel does his job in doing his utmost in defending his client, you've concluded that the "liberals" somehow want to break the justice system. Have I got that right?
And I don't understand the connection between the two sentences.
I'm not sure you've earned the right to this soapbox with such specious arguments.
By chance, is your middle name Stretch? Just wondering.
"Fuzzy math" or "new-new" was a curricular proposed by the National Council of Teacher of Mathematics(NCTM) and has been adopted nationwide as a philosophy of math education. The philosophy views correct answers as less important than the thinking "processes" exhibited by the children.
The connection between the education system and the justice system is not really a stretch. The focus is always on the "process" rather than the result. When it comes to capital punishment cases, justice can be delayed by attacking the process. Multiple appeals can tie up a county's resources. For defense attorneys in capital punishment cases, the game is not necessarily about winning the trial, but rather tying up the county and courts so that the death sentence is rarely exercised. The effect is that counties are discouraged through economics from pursuing the death penalty. So while it remains a legal option to seek the death penalty, counties don't view it as a practical option.
There is a lot more history and statistics to support these observations. I can point you to studies on both pro and con positions for the death penalty if you are interested.
Posted by: Tim Ford on December 6, 2004 10:09 AMThanks for the definition. Maybe I was overseas when such a proposition came up because I don't remember it. It may be someone's philosophy, but it's not in place in my school district. My son's algebra teacher doesn't have a "close enough" approach to his grades!
So why do you label the education system as liberal? And why do you fault a defense counsel for pulling out all stops in order to save the life of his client? Are you suggesting that if you were a defense counsel, that you would not do so?
But let's skip to the bottom line, something that I've sort of circled around in this post: I get the impression that anything with which you disagree is somehow the fault of liberals. Although you haven't yet stated, do you feel the election laws that were enacted that control the recount are somehow liberal?
It's not paranoia if you really believe they're out to get you.
I don't know that anyone could say with a straight face that the WA education system isn't liberal. Well, maybe only if you have been overseas a very long time. It is a topic that is too long to properly respond to, but briefly consider the politics of the WEA, the Superintendent, I-884, etc.
I don't fault the defense counsel, but one can not ignore the observations about the effect of attacking the "process" as a means of undermining the capital punishment laws. Most defense attorneys appointed on capital punishment cases will honestly tell you that they oppose capital punishment in principle and would like to see it stopped altogether. It is not just about one client and one case. Observers understand that in King County, the Gary Ridgeway case is being used to prevent any new capital punishment cases from being pursued.
As far as whether the election laws are "liberal," I don't use that term in the same meaning when discussing laws as when discussing politics. A "liberal" construction of a law basically means to effectuate the intent of the law regardless of whether the law is politically conservative or liberal.
The policy of the election laws are "to encourage every eligible person to register to vote and to participate fully in all elections, and to protect the integrity of the electoral process by providing equal access to the process while guarding against discrimination and fraud." RCW 29A.04.210.
Politically, I don't view this policy as either liberal or conservative. It is a balanced policy that requires enfranchisement of eligible voters and guards against fraudulent votes causing the disenfranchisement of legal votes.
Posted by: Tim Ford on December 7, 2004 09:31 AM