Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bull_derrick who wrote (22866)	3/1/2005 7:28:28 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 23153

Derrick, Don't worry, even if the Court came to a wrong conclusion (which I'm not sure of in this case), it didn't use international opinion as the basis for its decision, simply mentioned it in passing (this is what is known as "dicta" in juris-talk). As I read the news articles, the Court simply flip-flopped on an earlier decision as to whether capital punishment for a 17 year old criminal was constitutionally cruel and unusual. Then it said it wasn't, now it says, whoops, it is. seattlepi.nwsource.com To me, this is probably the right result, and statistically meaningless. The death penalty is reserved for the most heinous of crimes, there's always the "youth defense", and then the interminable appeal, delay, appeal process in any death sentence case. The reality is that, with extreme exceptions, we weren't in the business of executing the under 18 heinous crowd. [I have taken a week off here to enjoy my new best friend, Viral Influenza. Have you met him? What a great guy, you really get to hang out together, 24/7, once good ole Viral comes to town.] Kb