Law Professor Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) has a provacative new article up today on Fox News called The Next International Right . The lead-in to the article sums up the Professor's thesis:

"The international community has a dismal record of preventing or stopping genocide or punishing those responsible; the victims of genocide tend to be unarmed civilians; the best way to prevent genocide is to ensure that civilian populations are armed."

Using Rwanda, Cambodia and the Congo as examples, Prof. Reynolds says "it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed."

According to law professor Daniel Polsby and criminologist Don Kates, the meaning of this is that "a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country's civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide."

Prof. Reynolds argues that human rights groups "should be prepared to endorse a new international human right: the right of law-abiding citizens to be armed."

Like we said, it's a provactive column, and well worth a read. We're still thinking about it, although we're having a little trouble leaping from a Second Amendment right to bear arms to an international recommendation that citizens of all nations arm themselves as a precaution against genocide. Our conception of a "right" is an entitlement we choose to exercise, rather than a duty we feel obligated to perform. For some reason, the idea of an international recommendation to arm ourselves seems like the latter.

"A Beverly Hills judge dismissed drug possession charges against actress Winona Ryder today and said her trial on charges of shoplifting about $4,000 worth of goods from Saks Fifth Avenue must start on Oct. 24."

Mark Geragos, Ryder's attorney, "told reporters she was anxious to clear her name and added, "I don't go to trial unless I think I can win."

He has said previously she is the victim of her celebrity and that the district attorneys' office treats the ordinary shoplifter far less harshly. He said he will not accept an offer involving a plea to a felony because it would negatively impact her career.

"Former Symbionese Liberation Army member Sara Jane Olson must serve an additional five or more years in state prison for her role in a 1975 conspiracy to blow up Los Angeles police cars, the state's Board of Prison Terms ruled today. The three-member board cited the potential for great violence and harm, multiple intended victims, a sophisticated professionalism and her later flight in its decision following a one-hour hearing."

The prison board changed the amount of time Olson must serve on her sentence from 5 years and 4 months sentence to whatever is appropriate under post-1977 guidelines for a 14 year sentence. Under the best case scenario, Olson could be released after doing somewhere between 7 and 9 years. But she still faces a first degree murder trial along with other ex-SLA members due to the killing of a bank customer during an SLA bank robbery in suburban Sacramento in 1975. The preliminary hearing in the murder case is set for November.

Olson pleaded guilty to helping other SLA members plant bombs beneath police cars at a Los Angeles International House of Pancakes in August 1975. The bombs did not explode. The key witness against her at trial would have been former SLA kidnapee-turned-member Patty Hearst.

In making its ruling, the prison board applied "a little-used section of state law, allowing it to recalculate sentences for old crimes considering new post-1977 sentencing guidelines. The law provides authority to hold "serious offender" hearings and issue new sentences to "protect the public from repetition of extraordinary crimes of violence."

The jury in the Ira Einhorn murder trial deliberated for an hour and a half today before recessing. The will start again in the morning.

Skippy has the latest on Bush's positions on ballistic fingerprinting along with a ballistic fingerprinting for dummies guide and sniper news.

"The family of a college student who was murdered by a pizzeria worker nearly two years ago will ask a judge to spare her killer's life. Tom Murray, the victim's father, said Tuesday the family believes Gregory McKnight should spend the rest of his life in prison but should not be given a death sentence for killing Emily Murray. "We're going to ask the judge to consider a sentence that would assure McKnight dies in prison but not in the hands of the executioner," Tom Murray said."

A jury recommended the death penalty for Emily Murray's killer, but Emily opposed the death penalty and her parents want to honor her beliefs.

The number of family victims who oppose the death penalty for their loved ones' murders has been steadily growing in recent years. Among the most vocal organizations advancing this welcome shift is Murder Victims' Families For Reconciliation (MVFR).

Founded in 1976 by Marie Deans, the guiding prinicple of the group has been:

"From experience, we know that revenge is not the answer. The answer lies in reducing violence, not causing more death. The answer lies in supporting those who grieve for their lost loved ones, not creating more grieving families. It is time we break the cycle of violence. To those who say society must take a life for a life, we say: "not in our name."

This is a non-profit organization without a religious agenda. Its members come from diverse racial, geographic, economic and religious backgrounds. Their bond has its roots in the loss of a family member due to a criminal act.

We applaud them.

John Mink, widower of the late Patsy Mink who died September 28, has entered the House race for her seat in Hawaii. If he wins in a special election on Nov. 30, he will serve out the final weeks of her term. If Patsy Mink is re-elected posthumously on November 5, a second special election will be held January 4 to fill her vacancy. John Mink said he will not run in the Jan. 4 election.

Jim Dwyer and Susan Saulny report in today's New York Times that records show three of the five convicted youths in the Central Park Jogger case lost their best chances for by persisting in their claims of innocence. The records were released after the New York Times filed a Freedom of Information Act request.

Raymond Santana, Yusef Salaam and Kevin Richardson were the three youths who consistently denied involvement in the crime and suffered at the hands of the Board because of it.

The records show Kharey Wise, "was equivocal in his discussions of the crime at state hearings. Mr. Wise attended sex offender programs but refused to admit any guilt, a failure noted by the board as it repeatedly denied him. After losing three hearings in six years, Mr. Wise refused to attend any more hearings and was automatically denied. He left prison in August, after 13 years."

The fifth youth, Antron McCray served a juvenile sentence and no records were available for him.

Frontline (PBS) will air " A Crime of Insanity" Thursday evening at 9:00 pm est.

"In December 1994, Ralph Tortorici, a twenty-six-year-old psychology student at the State University of New York, walked into a classroom, pulled out a hunting knife and a high-powered rifle, and announced that he was taking the class hostage. During a three-hour standoff with police negotiators, Tortorici--a paranoid schizophrenic who believed the government had implanted tracking devices in his body--demanded to speak to the president, the governor, and the Supreme Court. Shots were fired, leaving one student seriously wounded and Tortorici charged with aggravated assault, kidnapping, and attempted murder. "

"That Ralph Tortorici was mentally ill was apparent to everyone. What was not so clear was how the courts should deal with his case. In "A Crime of Insanity," FRONTLINE examines the controversial case of Ralph Tortorici. Through interviews with Tortorici's family and the defense attorney, prosecutor, and judge charged with trying his case, the one-hour documentary explores the personal, political, and societal fallout that occurs when the legal and psychiatric worlds collide."

"Prosecutor Cheryl Coleman--in her first in-depth interview--tells FRONTLINE that she knew from the start the Tortorici case would be a tough one to win. Coleman spent over six months searching for a psychiatric expert, but for the first time in her career, she could not find an expert willing to testify that Tortorici was legally responsible for his actions at the time of the crime."

"Coleman recounts her efforts to persuade Chief Assistant District Attorney Lawrence Wiest to allow her to arrange a plea bargain, which would have sent Tortorici to a secure mental hospital rather than to prison. "I remember telling him, 'Look, we've pushed it absolutely as far as we can go...I don't want to do this and...there is no way that you're going to win this....Put aside the fact of whether or not he really is crazy, if you don't care about that, [but] we're not going to look so good...this is going to be a huge exercise in futility. A huge, public exercise in futility.'"

"Cheryl Coleman reveals to FRONTLINE what happened behind closed doors when, despite her recommendations, she was told to take the Tortorici case to trial."

"Despite her qualms, Coleman prosecuted the case. In "A Crime of Insanity," she explains to FRONTLINE what happens to a trial attorney once a trial begins. "When you're a trial lawyer, it doesn't even matter what side you're on because you go into a zone and you're into the battle," she says. "You're not thinking about right, you're not thinking about wrong. You're just thinking about winning....And you're just thinking about doing anything that you have to do. Short of...lie, cheat, and steal. But you're doing everything that they said you can do to win. And that's what we were doing... And anybody who says that they don't do that isn't telling you the truth."

Tortorici was convicted. [Judge] "Rosen sentenced Tortorici to the maximum allowed by law: 20-47 years in prison. But the time he would spend behind bars would be far less than that. Three weeks after being incarcerated, Tortorici attempted suicide in prison. Over the next three years, he was shuttled back and forth to a secure psychiatric facility. After nearly a year at the psychiatric facility, Ralph was returned, once again, to prison. Three weeks later, on August 10, 1999, Ralph Tortorici hanged himself with a sheet in his prison cell."

Clemency hearings for 159 inmates in Illinois began today. Many view the proceedings as a trial on the death penalty itself.

"The hearings, scheduled to last the next two weeks, are the culmination of the most comprehensive review of the death penalty by any state. They come at a time when national surveys suggest public support for the ultimate punishment is diminishing, and some polls say a majority of Americans believe an innocent person has been executed in the past five years."

"The extraordinary process in Illinois has been hailed by death penalty opponents and defense lawyers. But infuriated prosecutors and grief-stricken relatives fear that outgoing Gov. George Ryan ® will exercise his right to commute unilaterally all the sentences to life without."

"Today's hearings were as much a referendum on the death penalty as they were impassioned pleas in individual cases, with national death penalty foes facing off with aggrieved survivors of victims."

The hearings were set in motion by outgoing Governor George Ryan, a Republican and a death penalty supporter. (See our posts the past few days for more of the history, here and here.)

The Washington Post article continues with:

"It was almost like flipping a coin," Ryan said in an interview. "You have to remember that out of 25 people sentenced to die in this state, 13 were exonerated and 12 were executed."

"For the next two weeks, the 14-member review panel will divide into three or four smaller panels, each of which will hear from six to eight petitions a day in government buildings in Chicago and in the state capital of Springfield. The mammoth effort has involved thousands of preparatory hours by hundreds of defense lawyers and prosecutors, expert witnesses and family members ready to testify. Ultimately, the board's recommendations to the governor will be confidential and nonbinding."

The arguments raised by defense lawyers today included "police misconduct, coerced confessions, ineffective counsel and maintaining that their clients' crimes would not have qualified for a death sentence under the new guidelines."

"Ryan brushed off the suggestion that his actions were politically motivated. Commuting all the sentences to life was just one of his options, he said, insisting that he intended to review each case within the framework of the proposed reforms."

"For example, he noted he would pay particular attention to cases in which a jailhouse informant was the sole witness against an inmate, since the review panel suggested limited use of such witness in capital cases. "The system is in terrible shape," Ryan said. "But that doesn't mean I'm saying we're going let all the prisoners go."

The Illiniois Legislature has failed to implement any of the 85 suggested reforms.

Update: Steve Mills of the Chicago Tribune has another good article on the hearings, see Life or Death Debate Rages At Hearings.

The Los Angeles Times today reports that Kuwaiti detainees at Guanamo Bay are the first to mount an organized challenge to their detention. They are backed by the Government of Kuwait, an ally of the U.S.

"A dozen Kuwaiti captives have mounted the first organized legal and diplomatic effort by prisoners at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay to challenge U.S. policy that holds terrorism suspects indefinitely without court hearings or charges being filed against them."

"The men assert they are not members of Al-Qaeda, and are merely "charity workers who were assisting refugees of Afghanistan's harsh regime when they were caught up in the chaos of the war last fall and winter. In attempting to flee across the Pakistani border, they say, they fell into the hands of Pakistanis who "sold" them to U.S. troops, collecting a bounty that American forces were offering for Arab terrorism suspects captured in the region."

The men have been at Guantanamo for a year. No charges have been filed against them. The Government claims they are enemy combatants and not entitled to legal protections.

We remember a year ago when the Government told us that all the Guantanamo inmates were "front-line Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters, 'the hardest of the hard.' "

Later the Government admitted it had not identified any high-level terrorists among them. "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last spring it is possible that some were "victims of circumstances and probably innocent.... If we find someone's an innocent and shouldn't have been brought there, they would be released."

The Kuwaitis are still here. "They are teachers, engineers and students, according to leave-of-absence documents signed by their employers approving their charitable work. One is a government auditor; another works as a government agriculturist. Some have been fired from their jobs since their capture. Some knew one another before they arrived at Guantanamo."

Their lawsuit is backed by high Kuwaiti officials and has been brought by Shearman & Sterling, a Washington law firm specializing in international law. The prisoners are asking to meet with their families, to be notified of the charges against them, to confer with lawyers and for access to a court or other impartial tribunal.

The Kuwaiti Ambassador has said nine of the twelve have no ties to terrorism. "The Kuwaiti government isn't saying all of the men are innocent, but it simply wants the United States to evaluate its countrymen. "Let them be put on trial," Ambassador Sabah said. "If they are innocent, let them go. If they are guilty, we will deal with that. Nothing will solve this issue until they are given due process."

That is unlikely to happen any time soon as the U.S. insists that the men are enemy combatants who may be kept without charges, trials or even military tribunal proceedings until the "war" is over.

The Kuwaitis' lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge but an appeal is pending in the D.C. Court of Appeals. Oral argument is scheduled for December 2.

There is much more in this compelling article about the detainees themselves, we recommend reading the whole thing. The LA Times requires free registration.

Sam Waksal, the former head of ImClone Systems, pleaded guilty to six charges Tuesday in federal court.

His pleas are unusual in several respects. He has no plea agreement with the Government. He has not cooperated with the Government in exchange for a lesser sentence. There are still seven counts pending against him that the Government may pursue. And the Government has said it may add even more charges.

Why would Waksal plead guilty under such circumstances? We think this analysis in the Washington Post article by John Coffee, a securities-law expert at Columbia University, probably comes closest to the mark:

"John Coffee, a securities-law expert at Columbia University, said that if Waksal had pleaded guilty to the conspiracy counts included in an August indictment he may have been forced to admit passing on material information, implicating his father and daughter in an insider-trading scheme. "I think he can't decently send his parent or his child to prison. I don't think you have to go any further to understand his motivations," Coffee said."

"Coffee said Waksal could get significant jail time based on his guilty pleas. "This is legally not a tactically wise decision, but it is a very human decision," he said."

We also agree with those legal analysts who say it is unlikely Waksal will provide information against Martha Stewart. He may not have any incriminating information about her, or he may not want to give it up. Or the Government may have told him he can't cooperate selectively, giving up some targets but not others. It appears to us that the Government is not offering Waksal anything unless he incriminates his entire family--not even an assurance that his 80 year old father won't go to jail, which is undoubtedly why he wouldn't plead to the count involving his father today.

Waksal's son is likely going to prison, but his daughter, Aliza, may be spared as Waksal said in court today his daughter had no knowledge of his reasons for advising her to sell her stock.

Waksal pleaded guilty to two counts of securities fraud, and one count each of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury and bank fraud. Under the federal sentencing guidlines, he could receive between six and nine years in prison. Waksal and the Government disagree about the facts supporting the bank fraud case which means the Judge will decide that issue at a sentencing hearing.

Both ImClone's and Martha Stewart's stocks rose today.