It was this week in 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled capital punishment was both cruel and unusual, especially due to some states’ “capricious and arbitrary” ways of employing the death penalty.  The Court ruled race placed too large a role in determining who lived or died.  It didn’t stop there, however.  The Court recommended new legislation be instituted so that the death penalty might become constitutional again and went on to say legislation should directly address racial problems regarding capital punishment and that new guidelines should be put into place.  This, of course, wasn’t what opponents of the death penalty wanted, but for many, it was a start.

Then, in 1976, a substantial new study revealed over 65% of Americans not only supported the death penalty, but wanted it made constitutional again.  The Supreme Court heard the majority loud and clear and after having been satisfied of the changes it had strongly encouraged some four years earlier, the death penalty was once again deemed constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Interestingly, the first execution only a year later was commissioned via the firing squad.  Gary Gilmore, a Utah killer, faced the squad and in a split second, his life was over.  Still, many groups, including Death Penalty Focus, a group committed to abolishing the death penalty once and for all, insist racism is still too big a priority of those deciding the lives of others.   Further, it also reiterates the many who were convicted and executed, only to be found innocent later due to DNA or other evidence not available prior to the execution.  Currently, nearly 130 people across the country who were facing execution dates have been found innocent and not only taken off death row, but released from prison completely exonerated.  To date, there are over 3,300 prisoners who are on death row awaiting conviction.

It becomes difficult to reconcile those who adamantly insist the system is racist, especially since almost 45% of those currently on death row are white.  African Americans follow with slightly less than 42% of the total death row population, followed by Latinos (11.3%), Native Americans (1.10%) and Asian (1.10%).

With so much crime in today’s headlines, each story more evil than the one before, the odds of the death penalty being deemed unconstitutional again in the near future are practically nil.

Seems the Supermax Prison in Colorado seems to be dominating the headlines these days.  Richard Reid,

.

also known as the Shoe-Bomber, was convicted in 2003 of trying to detonate a bomb on an American Airlines scheduled to land in Miami.  Because of a weeks-long hunger strike, prison officials have now decided medical intervention was required to prevent him from killing himself.  He is reported to still be on his hunger strike, despite being intravenously fed and hydrated.

He filed a federal lawsuit that claimed he wasn’t allowed to follow his Sunni Muslim faith since being in custody.  Despite requests from the prison for the judge to dismiss the suit, a US District judge has refused to do so.  He’s currently in the prison’s medical wing and will likely remain there until he abandons his hunger strike, if he ever does.

Reid isn’t the only notorious prisoner who’s in the prison’s custody and making headlines.

Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, was convicted of crime in 1996 after having been the target of a 15-plus year manhunt.  He sent 16 bombs, killed three people and injured 23.  He’s now going to court in an attempt to prevent his personal diaries from being auctioned.  He’s already lost one court battle, but it’s now up the Supreme Court to decide the fate of these documents, should he decide to appeal.  If he does choose to appeal, he only has until Monday to do so.  If he loses there, his diaries will be auctioned and all of the proceeds will go to his victims.  It’s said there are close to 40,000 pages that he handwrote over the years.  Along with the diaries, the hoodie jacket and sunglasses that were drawn in the now-familiar sketch that was used in a worldwide distribution in an effort to locate him before his capture are also expected to be sold.  Creepy as it sounds, you can be sure there are many who would pay a pretty penny to own these things.

Surely there are ulterior motives behind their motives.  Reid is likely doing his best to further his cause with his hunger strike and for all anyone knows, there’s some hidden message in every move he makes that some extremist is deciphering.  Kaczynski is probably less likely concerned with who sees his personal thoughts before his capture and is more upset with where the money from this sale will go, or rather where it won’t go.  Either way, neither of these two will ever see the light of day as free men.

Although not yet confirmed, it’s likely one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most liberal justice’s will be publicly announcing his retirement in the very near future.  Justice David Souter’s imminent resignation allows President Obama to make his first appointment and will certainly select another liberal to step up to the plate and replace Souter.

Ironically, President H. W. Bush selected Souter in 1990 with the expectation of his taking a more

.

conservative view.  That didn’t happen and soon, Souter was siding with other liberals on everything from stem cell research, abortion rights and campaign finance reform.  He’s also chosen to vote whenever possible on restricting the death penalty.

With the usual split within the Supreme Court, President Obama’s selection will most likely keep those gulfs in place.  Depending on his selection, it’s probable, as is usually the case; his selection will remain on the bench for many years after his presidency has ended.

Perhaps Justice Souter’s most pivotal decision was in 2000 when he voted to allow the presidential recount to continue, thus allowing President George W. Bush to claim the presidency.  It’s been said this decision nearly resulted in his resignation in 2000 and that he was disappointed of his colleagues’ actions and called them “transparent” and “crudely partisan”.

Although Justice Souter hasn’t confirmed or denied his intent, both NBC and NPR are reporting their respective sources have confirmed June 30^th as his retirement date, which gives President Obama precious little time to select his replacement.  Souter filled the seat that was vacated by William Brennan.

On a personal note, Jeffrey Toobin wrote of Justice Souter, in his book The Nine, that he’s “low-tech”, refuses to use email, answering machines, televisions and cell phones.  He’s never married and once found himself on The Washington Post’s 10 Most Eligible Bachelors.

The Enron Scandal is in the news again.  This time, the Fifth Amendment is in the crosshairs.  F. Scott Yeager, one of the defendants in this sordid story who was indicted on 125 counts, and his lawyers will argue double jeopardy has attached in this latest indictment and that it should protect him from being re-tried for financial fraud, which happen to be charges he’s already been tried for, but also deadlocked the jury.  Other charges the jury didn’t deadlock on include wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud - on these charges, Yeager was acquitted.

His attorneys are using collateral estoppels - part of the Fifth Amendment that prevents a defendant from being re-tried on charges that were linked with other charges that one has already been acquitted on.  The best analogy would be a jury determining a defendant had no access to a gun on the day a murder occurred,

.

only to be retried later for shooting someone else on that same day.  If the jury determines he had no gun at all that day, he couldn’t have committed a murder with a gun at any other point of the day or anywhere else on the planet.

Basically, the argument follows a thought process of the jury, by its acquittal of some of those charges, that found he had no insider trading knowledge, which makes the new indictment moot.  If he had no insider knowledge, he couldn’t have done the things the jury deadlocked on.  The 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals tends to agree with Yeager’s lawyers and admits the unique approach to collateral estoppels might just work.  Still, there are some tough prosecutors Yeager’s attorneys are up against who are convinced they can prove a hung jury isn’t the end all when it comes to double jeopardy.

Of course, no one really knows how the original jury came to its conclusions, regardless, it was a difficult task they undertook and no one is questioning their justifications. 

Most everyone’s money is on the prosecution in this case.  One lawyer says Yeager’s lawyers have “more of an uphill battle than the Government”.   The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments Monday morning in Houston.

A New Jersey high school football coach, Marcus Borden, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court last Monday regarding his bowed head and kneeling on one knee during the prayers before football games. A rather vocal opponent, some spokesman representing the “school authorities”, says it’s nothing more than psychological coercion on the part of the coach, since students might feel obligated or pressured to pray even if they don’t believe in prayer.

There’s a difference in “faith” and “religion”. And doesn’t the First Amendment read something along the lines of the United States Congress prohibited from making laws respecting the establishment of religion? I could be wrong, but I don’t think the coach is a member of Congress - so I’m a little confused. We have to make concessions every single day in this country. Some of the concessions I make include following the speed limit - even when I disagree with it. Yeah, I know - I run the risk of getting a ticket. Well, I run the risk only when the day comes I can’t sweet talk my way out of a ticket. But that’s another story. My point is when did it get so convoluted and, well, wrong to have faith? What happened to the belief that two people could have different viewpoints regarding their faith and beliefs, but could still maintain a healthy respect for the other’s beliefs without it being wrong? My mom was raised as a strict Catholic - complete with Catechism classes, Mass and more than her fair share of Sisters with rulers, ready to rap knuckles at the drop of a hat. You should see her handwriting. It’s beautiful because of the importance of penmanship during the days of her Catholic school education. That said, she’s tried her best to make me understand why Confession is necessary and the importance of it in the Catholic faith. I respect that and I respect and trust her beliefs. We were fortunate to have been raised, even with my Dad’s Baptist upbringing and Mom’s Catholic upbringing to respect and honor the differences. The goal was to believe. Period. Have faith when none seemed to be found. Say your prayers. Have a healthy dose of fear.

And I can’t remember a single high school football game that didn’t begin with a prayer over the intercom - whether it was from my high school days or even more recently as my son’s high school days. It was never a problem and if there was anyone in attendance who disagreed, at no point was any disrespect shown to those who did choose to participate. I know this because no one in my hometown felt it necessary to go to court over it. Don’t get me wrong - I’m as faithful as one can be, but I’m not religious. And I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. My point is, with 95% of all high school sporting events beginning with prayer, it just seems insane to me for someone to refer to this New Jersey high school coach’s bowed head and kneeling as psychological coercion and further, it’s even crazier that the Supreme Court must be petitioned to decide this.

With so many other urgent matters that require the attention of the Justices in the Supreme Court, this shouldn’t be one of them.

All of the discontent regarding religious freedom, what’s appropriate and what’s not, where it’s OK to display and where it’s not, it can all be solved with one simple word: respect. Believe me, there’s never been a time I was ever pulled over that I thought I was wrong and the police officer believed he was wrong. But a healthy dose of respect sure took me farther (well, along with the sweet talk) and is the one reason my driving record is perfect.