John Kerry unveiled his new economic plan today:

John Kerry, promising to create 10 million jobs and keep them in America, said Friday he would cut corporate taxes by 5 percent and eliminate tax loopholes that push jobs overseas....Time after time, (the Bush) administration has put ideology first and jobs last. Today, I'm announcing a new economic plan for America that will put jobs first," Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery Friday at Wayne State University in Detroit.

Analysts say the plan is risky because it cuts the taxes of some rich corporations and doesn't focus enough on middle class voters. We'd like to hear what Maxspeak and Brad deLong have to say.

More than 2.2 million jobs have been lost under Bush. We think the criticism is unfounded and Kerry is focusing on jobs for workers:

We now have a tax code that has American taxpayers paying to ship jobs overseas," Kerry said. "That makes no sense. And if I am president, it will end."
Current tax laws allow American companies to defer paying taxes on income earned by their foreign subsidiaries until they bring it back to the United States. If they keep the money abroad, they avoid paying U.S. taxes entirely. Kerry would require companies to pay taxes on their international income as they earn it rather than being allow to defer it. The new system would apply to profits earned in future years only, not retroactively.

Give to Kerry.

Courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to overturn California's harsh three-strikes law that mandates a life sentence for third time offenders, including those whose third strike was a minor, non-violent offense. According to LA Weekly, a recent study by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) revealed these numbers:

...more than 42,000 prisoners — more than one-fourth of the state’s total — are serving doubled or 25-to-life sentences under Three Strikes. Nearly two-thirds of them are doing time for a nonviolent offense. That number includes more than 1,000 inmates serving 25-to-life for theft under $400 or drug possession. Some of their crimes practically define the word petty: One man is doing 31 years for stealing a pair of AA batteries; another got 25 years for shoplifting three packs of J.C. Penney T-shirts.

California's three-strikes law was enacted at a time when fear of crime was rampant. Like the unborn fetus protection bill that Congress passed yesterday, it was in large part a reaction to the death of one child who became a household name: Polly Klass.

The most organized, vocal group opposing three-strike laws is FACT--we have written about them a few times, including here. According to LA Weekly, the group just might get the issue on the ballot so voters can rethink the unjust law. They are seeking signatures for an initiative that:

... would make only violent and specific serious crimes count as strikes. It would also allow inmates convicted of minor offenses to appeal their second- or third-strike sentences, and would boost penalties for adults who molest children.

by TChris

Jurors deciding whether to convict former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski and CFO Mark Swartz have been working hard. Jurors have twice asked the judge to define "criminal intent." In its second request, made on Tuesday, the jurors asked the judge to "go slowly" in explaining the concept.

Over objection of prosecutors, the court declined to give a more specific definition of "intent," telling the jury only that it refers to a state of mind. The judge told prosecutors that he was only following the law. "I know you're not crazy about it," said Judge Michael Obus, "but we just work here."

The key instruction appears to be: "A defendant is not guilty of larceny if he believes he had the authority to take the property." Jurors on Wednesday asked to have testimony read back that goes to whether Tyco's board of directors knew of and approved all of the compensation that the officers received.

By yesterday, the sixth day of deliberations, it was becoming apparent that jurors were in disagreement. Jurors sent the judge a note saying that the "atmosphere in the jury room has turned poisonous." Another note complained that one of the jurors had "stopped deliberating in good faith," suggesting that jurors may be deadlocked in an 11-1 vote.

The defendants moved for a mistrial, but the judge denied that motion this morning. The judge agreed that the note complaining of a "poisonous atmosphere" and "incendiary accusations" did not constitute "the best note we ever got" from a jury, but denied the mistrial motions because he didn't believe the jury was hopelessly deadlocked.

Update: Although jurors today reported that their deliberations were "irreparably compromised" by infighting, the court sent the jury home for the weekend, again declining to grant a mistrial. Interestingly, one of the jurors apparently made an "OK" sign while walking past the lawyers. Whether the "OK" was intended for the prosecution or defense is unclear.

A new group has sprung up on the Internet, Republicans for Kerry. They seem serious, so if you have Republican friends, you might want to send them the link.

by TChris

In an attempt to blunt critics who say that the Bush administration has been less than fully cooperative with the commission investigating the administration's response to terrorism prior to 9/11, the White House has agreed to make national security advisor Condoleezza Rice available to answer more questions. However, her return appearance is subject to two stipulations: she will only answer questions in private, and she will not answer questions under oath.

The insistence on a private appearance, arguably justified by the need for secrecy with regard to some aspects of national security, is undercut by Rice's frequent appearances on news shows to spin the administration's viewpoint. More troubling, however, is the administration's refusal to let Rice testify under oath. Does the White House think that lying is so ingrained in Rice's job description that she shouldn't be subject to a criminal penalty for lying to the Commission? Does she plan to answer questions with her fingers crossed behind her back?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court today ruled today in the case of the public defender who was jailed for refusing to continue representing a defendant in a rape and murder trial after he had punched her co-counsel in court. The Court ordered her to stay on the case.

In an emergency ruling, the court let stand a judge's decision to hold attorney Andrea Konow in contempt of court for refusing to represent a man accused of murdering a 6-year-old girl after he sucker-punched his other defense lawyer during his trial. The lawyer, Fred Goodman, was not hurt by the unexplained attack, which came Monday just after prosecutors rested their case. He was allowed to withdraw.

Issuing a stay in this case would reward the capital defendant for his misconduct by providing him with an unwarranted new trial _ which may very well be the reason he punched one of his lawyers in the face in the first place," Castille wrote. Castille also chided Konow for "flouting her ethical obligation to the court." In a footnote, he wrote that if it was true she had suddenly become too afraid of El-Shabazz to represent him, she "may want to consider another line of work."

The Court's opinion is available here. One Justice dissented but hasn't filed her opinion yet.

Background on the case is here and here. Ms. Konow, by the way, is not only a supervisor in the Philadelphia Public Defender's homicide unit, she is also "staff" (i.e., regular faculty) at Gerry Spence's Trial Lawyers College in Wyoming. [hat tip to Peter Goldberger for the info and links.]

A survey released today by the Army shows that at the end of last summer, 52% of soldiers in Iraq reported having low morale. 75% believed they are being poorly led by their officers.

In addition, seven in 10 of those surveyed characterized the morale of their fellow soldiers as low or very low. The problems were most pronounced among lower-ranking troops and those in reserve units. The survey was part of a study initiated by the Army last summer after a number of suicides provoked concern about the mental well-being of soldiers in Iraq. The report faulted the Army for how it handled mental health problems, saying some counselors felt inadequately trained and citing problems in distribution of antidepressant medication and sleeping pills.

A senior Army commander said these numbers should set off alarm bells.

In its findings on suicide, the report confirmed data previously released by the Army that the rate among soldiers in Iraq in 2003 was higher than for the Army generally, but lower than that of U.S. men of a similar age range. There were 23 confirmed suicides among Army troops in Iraq in 2003, for a rate of 15.6 per 100,000 soldiers, the report said. That compares with an Army average in recent years of 11.9, they said.

Wow...check out SouthPaws, just started by Political Wire. It's an aggregator of liberal political bloggers:

Please help test two new Political Wire features. Southpaws features blogger commentary from the Democratic, left-of-center perspective. Wingers highlights Republican, right-of-center views. Each page is updated every hour throughout the day and night.

A big thanks to Taegan Goddard for putting this together.

Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Bill. Tena at Atrios gets it right:

It takes another huge bite out of the right to choose, and is a set-up for the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade. They never rest.

The bill was pushed to passage after the death of Laci Peterson and her unborn child. It's even referred to as the "Laci and Connor law." Legislation should never be passed in response to a singular event, no matter how horrific. Act in haste, repent at leisure. It's a bad law, and now we have to live with it.

Update: The LA Times calls the law "a ploy in the abortion war."

DeWine's bill cynically capitalizes on Laci Peterson's murder to push his definition of personhood into federal law.

Here's how the bill defines a "child in utero":

Introduced by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), the proposed Unborn Victims of Violence Act defines "a child … in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." In other words, the child exists from the moment of conception. The House passed similar legislation last month. As with nearly every aspect of the abortion debate, Americans are deeply divided on when human life begins. However, courts and most states generally accord more rights to a fetus considered viable outside the womb.

Parents of Arkansas schoolchildren have filed suit in federal court to stop random drug testing of their kids . The testing had been implemented after a vote by the local school board.

[Parent Mr.] Plopper, a journalism professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, said the administrators and school personnel "who support and maintain suspicionless drug testing are like schoolyard bullies who torment students just because they can. "In this case, however, these people are worse than such bullies because they are educated and should know better than to turn the civil liberties of equal protection and privacy into empty promises."

The complaint alleges that the policy violates the rights of the student plaintiffs under section 29 of the Constitution of Arkansas, as well as the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution.

We hope Mr. Plopper and the other plaintiffs win the suit. Scientific studies show random drug testing is ineffective:

A University of Michigan study of 76,000 students nationwide between 1998 and 2001 concluded that testing appeared futile as a deterrent. For instance, 37% of high school seniors had tried marijuana in schools with drug testing; in schools without drug testing, 36% had tried marijuana. "Randomly testing kids is incredibly ineffective," said Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

This is not just about a small school district in Arkansas. Last week, Bush proposed spending $25 million on student drug testing. At the risk of repeating ourselves, students should not have to shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.

Plans to reinstate the death penalty in Minnesota were hit with a potentially fatal blow yesterday when the senate rejected a bill to allow voters to decide.

Death penalty supporters, including the Senate sponsor, Mady Reiter, R-Shoreview, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty, said there is little chance of passage this year though a death penalty bill remains alive in the House. The measure was defeated 8-2 in the Senate Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee with all the Democrats and two of the four Republican members voting against it. The bill would place the issue before voters in November in the form of a constitutional amendment.

In other death penalty news, hundreds of Carribean death row inmates may get a reprieve:

Hundreds of death row prisoners in Trinidad, Barbados and Jamaica could win a reprieve if an unprecedented privy council hearing beginning in London today rules that the mandatory death penalty for murder is unconstitutional....
The appeal is the culmination of a strategy deployed over the last six years by English lawyers working free of charge on behalf of Caribbean death row inmates....If they succeed, up to 300 prisoners on death row in the three countries will have to have their sentences reviewed. The death penalty will not be abolished but will be limited to the most serious cases, and will no longer be the automatic penalty for murder.

In an article reminiscent of Midnight Express, ABC Radio in Australia reports that two Australian women imprisoned in Thailand since 1997 for smuggling 115 grams (about 4 ounces) of heroin flew home to Sydney today under a prisoner tranfer program:

Two Australian women sentenced to 50-years jail in Thailand for drug trafficking will arrive in Sydney today after being released under a prisoner-exchange program. They will serve another five years of their original sentence in Australia before being eligible for parole. 38-year-old Jane McKenzie, and 36-year-old Deborah Spinner were sentenced in 1997, after being caught trying to smuggle 115-grams of heroin to Australia from Bangkok. Convicted with them was Sydney man Lyle Doniger who was freed two years ago, following a pardon from the king of Thailand.

The women were denied a similar pardon, because their paperwork wasn't filed correctly. McKenzie and Spinner had faced the death penalty for heroin trafficking, but their sentences were commuted to 50 years' jail after they pleaded guilty.

The women will have served 13 years in prison when they finally are released. It sounds like they were the mules. We wonder how the man, a fellow Australian, got a pardon. Did he really just fill out the paperwork correctly, or was he able to come up with another more valuable kind of paper, like currency?

This would never happens here, right? Wrong. As TChris wrote last week,