We saw red when we read the USA article about those misguided professors who erroneously describe the cases of known wrongfuly convicted people and then make, what are to us, spurious arguments against the death penalty. We certainly have no intention of linking to the article. But we will link to Kevin over at Calpundit who so effectively rebuts it:

The death penalty has always been a curiosity to me. I don't really have a philosophical objection to it, but let's face it: the risk of killing innocent people is a really big practical objection. If you imprison someone and later find he's innocent, at least you can free him and make restitution. You can't do that after you've executed someone. But the real curiosity is this: why are there so many people who are passionate about keeping the death penalty? What's the emotional appeal? A life sentence without possibility of keeps murderers off the street just as effectively, but death penalty advocates are dead set against accepting this as a substitute. Even the risk of killing the occasional innocent person doesn't keep them from demanding an eye for an eye.

To which we can only add: An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind. Mahatma Gandhi

From Ross over at Bloviator, a new study shows there may be a link between lead exposure and juvenile delinquency:

Researchers tested the lead bone concentrations of 194 youths aged 12 to 18 convicted in the Allegheny County Juvenile Court in Pennsylvania and 146 students in regular high schools in Pittsburgh who did not have behavioral problems.

The study found delinquent children were four times as likely to have elevated concentrations of lead in their bones. The mean concentration of lead in the convicted youths was 11.0 parts per million, compared to only 1.5 parts per million among other high schoolers. Based on their findings, researchers attribute an estimated 11 percent to 38 percent of juvenile delinquency in Allegheny County to lead exposure.

"This study suggests a substantial proportion of delinquent behavior is due to a preventable cause -- lead," says Dr. Herbert Needleman, lead author of the study and a University of Pittsburgh professor of child psychiatry and pediatrics. "Very small amounts of lead are associated with toxicity."

The study appears in today's issue of Neurotoxicity and Teratology.

Ross has more on this.

Pete Karas of the Progressive Racine Blog sends us the good news that Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, who introduced 11 bills in Congress on its first day yesterday, plans to introduce these two pieces of legislation in the next few weeks: Federal Death Penalty Act which would abolish the federal death penalty, and the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act, which
would place a moratorium on executions by the federal government and encourage the states to do the same while a national blue ribbon commission reviews the fairness of the administration of the death penalty.

Yesterday we posted part of a press release from People for American Way sharply rebuking the Bush Administration for renominating Judges who failed to survive the confirmation process--particularly, Priscilla Owens and Charles Pickering who were defeated in Committee. We agree with Neas.

Nan Aron of Alliance for Justice astutely wrote the following when she was guest-blogging for Eric Alterman's Altercation a few months ago.

In light of the election results, there has been some speculation that the president will renominate those already defeated by the Committee. This would be an insult to the institution of the Senate, which has already performed its constitutional duty. The president has insisted he wants to work in a bipartisan fashion for the good of the country. The morning after the election, President Bush continued to reinforce his “uniter” message by saying, “I’ve talked to leaders of both parties and assured them I want to work with them.” We take him at his word; however, we will most certainly watch his deeds. To force the Senate to reconsider these nominees after it has done its work would be an ultimate politicization of the process.

We also think the New York Times proposed a good plan of action for the Democrats, a portion of which bears repeating:

Senate Democrats must insist on two things going forward: consultation and consensus. Senator Patrick Leahy, who will be the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, should ask to meet with the administration in advance to head off unacceptable candidates before they are nominated. Consultation of this kind occurred in the Clinton years, and it should be the norm for judicial selections, no matter which party holds the White House.

Senate Democrats should also make it clear that they will not accept extremist nominees. They must draw a line in the sand and say that those whose politics cross it will not be confirmed.

Democrats in the Senate no longer control the Judiciary Committee, which has until now been screening out the worst nominees, and cannot win party-line votes. But they should reach out to moderate Republican senators and build a mainstream coalition. And when a judicial nominee is unacceptable, they should not be afraid to mount a filibuster, which Republicans would need 60 votes to overcome.

Rumors have been swirling around Washington that there could be one or more Supreme Court vacancies in the next few months, making the stakes as high as can be. With the White House representing the far right in the nominating process, it remains up to the Senate — even in its new configuration — to represent the rest of the country.

We maintain, as we have said before, that the President does not have a right to flood the judiciary with far right-wing ideologists, particularly if there is any indication that they will become judicial activists--deciding cases based upon their conservative views rather than the law. What's so bad about a conservative judiciary? As we explained here, in response to a Fox News column Instapundit wrote on the subject:

We cannot support a right-wing, conservative judiciary. They are more of a menace than a positive force. Anyone concerned with criminal justice issues cannot realistically view a conservative court in a positive light, even though, in addition to the issues set out by Glenn, we appreciate conservative judges' support of privacy rights, opposition to laws providing increased punishment for hate crimes, and views on matters pertaining to asset forfeiture.

Looking at the big picture, a conservative court will not issue an opinion requiring: the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses; a moratorium on the death penalty; abolition of the death penalty; the elimination of racial disparities in sentencing; fair procedures (as exist in many states) regarding discovery, guilty plea colloquy, jury selection, and judicial disqualification; grand jury reform; adequate funding for indigent defense; restoration of full habeas corpus rights that were taken away by the "The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996"; meaningful checks and balances and oversight of law enforcement powers through increased scrutiny of requests for even more powers and resources; fair treatment of juveniles as juveniles, not adults; fair treatment of immigrants and restoration of discretionary relief from deportation.

Conservative judges only support some constitutional rights for some people. By and large they do not support constitutional rights for the citizen accused or convicted of crime. Thus, while Prof. Reynolds is correct that we should appreciate a conservative judiciary for the positive effect it will have on issues involving intrusions into privacy and federalism, we think any such benefit is far outweighed by the detrimental effect it will have on our principles of justice and on what until now has been the best and fairest criminal justice system in the world

Our advice to the Democrats, therefore, is different from that of Professor Reynolds and Mr. Benning.Instead of capitulate and embrace, and hold the conservative jurists to their promise of more great rulings restricting Congress and the federal courts, we advise the democrats to filibuster, early, loud and often. The only way to prevent these right wing jurists from imposing their narrow and unjust views on the rest of us is to keep them from attaining the bench in the first place. Take note of political action alerts, write your elected officials and tell them to oppose the nomination, and remember, grass roots efforts can be successful. A Senator can serve his or her constitutents only if he or she knows their position on issues. By writing to them, you become heard, and your opinion counts. We neither need nor want another Scalia, Kennedy or Clarence Thomas. Do you?

The Chicago Tribune ran a very complimentary article about Instapundit Glenn Reynolds Tuesday. It's a good read--

Reynolds runs the Weblog InstaPundit.com, which is becoming a must-see for better known opinion-makers trying to stay informed on current events.

For the zillions unfamiliar with the concept of a Weblog -- commonly called a blog -- it's a personal Web site where anybody with the energy and/or ego can comment on anything, anytime, anywhere.

Reynolds, a congenial and entertaining fellow, does have opinions on a wide range of subjects, which he posts with almost fanatic regularity on InstaPundit. Equally, if not more important, he gobbles up other info on the Internet and provides Web addresses -- links -- enabling readers to click onto sites Reynolds has located for them.

A University of Tennessee undergrad with a Yale law degree, Reynolds insists in a phone interview, that, contrary to appearances, he has a life -- with a wife, a forensic psychologist specializing in murder, and a 7-year-old daughter"We're a household of media geeks here," he concedes.

He also teaches, has written three books, produces regular columns for the Fox News Web site and techcentralstation.com, gets $1 apiece from T-shirts he sells on his Web site, produces techno music under the name Mobius Dick -- and does go on vacation....

For his part, Reynolds explains his success this way: "People are hard-wired to gossip and what's going on the world, and I think blogs are a reflection of that. They're most like 18th Century coffee houses where people got together to talk about the latest news."

..."I get more attention than I deserve. Some bloggers deserve more than they get. I'm happy to have it. Nobody becomes a law professor without a big ego. But, I encourage you to scroll down on my Web site and look at some of the other Weblogs."

There's more. It's great to see blogs getting attention in print from mainstream media and mainstream pundits.

The New York Commission on Judicial Conduct Tuesday ruled that a Judge should be dismissed for exhibiting "an impermissible bias toward authorities and against criminal defendants by his statements and campaign literature in 1999.

''A judge's election is tarnished when the judge's campaign activity flouts not only the ethical rules, but fundamental standards of honesty and fairness,'' the commission said."

In Watson's case, the commission said he intentionally used misleading local arrest figures to try to show that his predecessor was soft on crime. He also made several statements during the campaign such as promising to ''work with the police'' to help them in ''cleaning up our city streets.''

Judicial candidates are not supposed to say how they would rule on cases that might come before them as judges, nor are they allowed to show biases, such as against defendants and in favor of police.

The Commission also found that the Judge showed no remorse--until he realized his job was on the line. The Judge is Lockport City Court Judge William Watson of Niagara County.

"Hollywood didn't get its happy ending Tuesday when a Norwegian court acquitted a teen-ager of digital burglary charges for creating and circulating online a program that cracks the security codes on DVDs. The ruling, a blow to the entertainment industry's drive to curtail illegal copying of its movies, was a key test in how far copyright holders can go in preventing duplication of their intellectual property."

The Third Circuit has ruled that requiring sex offenders to submit to random lie-detector tests during the probationary period after release from prison is not unconstitutional, but forbidding them from owning a computer may be going too far.

Atrios is a tad angry about the FBI Canadian Alert Hoax.

Seriously, there are times when little partisan me just doesn't get it. I really really can't comprehend why at least a couple of people other than some idiots with websites like me aren't just a wee bit pissed off at this latest fake terror alert. Some guy in custody in Canada says some obvious nonsense about 5, or was it 19, guys sneaking across the border. The Canadian authorities, just to be prudent, hand it off to the FBI. We get a full media press - including a statement from the president - about these guys. We get word that the president has mobilized law enforcement to look for them, presumably diverting them away from other more productive terror-fighting activities. The media can't keep straight if these guys are Arabs or Pakistanis, or who the hell cares what's the difference anyway... Some members of our fine citizenry start calling the cops on randon brown people they spot on the bus. The FBI posts up pictures of who the hell knows who which are still up on their web site. Then, to top it all off they throw in a bit of Indian bashing just for good measure. This one can't even charitably be called a bungle. This is an outrage.

A mainstream media account is here.

We just did a live radio interview on Dan Viets' program in Missouri on the Patriot Act and abuses. For those listeners checking in here, and anyone else who's interested, we are reprinting a list of the changes that we published back in September.

The list comes from the Des Moines Sunday Register (September 1, 2002 edition). It was in the print (but not online) edition of the paper accompanying the opinion article "Lessons in Freedoms, Rights" by Rekha Basu.

Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks are:

Freedom of Association: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.

Freedom of Information: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public-records requests.

Freedom of Speech: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. The FBI won't say how many public libraries it has checked in order to determine who is getting particular books or looking up certain information on computers. A University of Illinois survey of nearly 2,000 libraries in December and January determined that the agency searched one of every nine of the nations largest libraries.
Right to Legal Representation: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

Freedom from Unreasonable Searches: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

Trial: Government may jail Americans without a trial.

Right to Liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

Other Changes: Government may listen to suspects on any telephones they might use, not just on a specific phone. The FBI and intelligence agents may share information, an unprecedented shift away from a 24-year-old policy that placed a high wall between domestic law enforcement officials and the CIA. The Treasury Department may target banks and foreign countries deemed havens for money-laundering. The Immigration and Naturalization Service may hold noncitizens up to seven days without charges and detain them indefinitely if they are considered a threat to national security.

[comments now closed]

TAPPED likes our response to its criticism yesterday of our earlier post on Rep. Rangel calling for the draft. Tapped also likes the reply to its post by Liquid List. We do too, in the context of the war against Iraq, which at this point seems inevitable.

We're putting the issue of a future policy for a military draft and compulsory national service on our list of issues to come back to in the near future. When we've thought it through and done some more research, we'll let you know where we stand.

If you are not already reading Tapped on a daily basis, you should be.

From a press release just received from People For the American Way:

"President Bush today sent the Senate 30 nominations for lifetime positions on the federal district and circuit courts, including 14 candidates for crucial appeals court judgeships, as well as several other judicial nominations."

"Among the nominees are Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen - both rejected last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee - and a number of other judges with troubling records on civil rights and other issues, some of whom are opposed by local, state and national civil rights, women's rights, and other organizations. Today's district and circuit court nominees had all been nominated for judgeships in the last Congress; new nominees are expected in the near future."

" "President Bush is choosing confrontation over consultation and cooperation when it comes to federal judges," said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas. "For two years, he has steadfastly refused to engage in bipartisan dialogue about judicial nominees. Now that he has Republicans in control of the Senate, he's counting on a rubber stamp for his far-right nominees, even judges like Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen, who were defeated after open hearings on their troubling public records."

Don't miss PFAW's editorial by Ralph Nees on the approaching Judicial Armageddon.