Jim

This one element speaks to issues of "ultimate concern." We aren't talking about the price of gasoline here. You ignore the qualifier - a set of ideas usually expressed as "truth," not just theory. I"d have to look up the case but I suspect that all three elements have to be met, not just the two. The third criteria would keep issues of public policy or a general economic philosophy from qualifying as religion.

Apparently there is a body of law exactly on this point. The link I provided earlier referred to the criteria applied by the third circuit: It may be true that other courts have phrased it differently, but I doubt any court would reduce religion in a first amendment analysis merely to question of underlying values. That same link also referred to a 2001 case which held that the government was not establishing a religion with its earth day celebrations.

Heh, it was late last night when I found that and mainly I posted because I'd never heard of the White Rose and the Scholls. What an inspiring story. What courageous, intelligent and wise young people. With respect to substance, you would need standards to guide the judges as to what are the "extreme cases" to ensure that the law would not be misused in a crisis. These standards can't be vague or the potential for rule of men, not laws, becomes reality. Also, you would need to amend the constitution which preserves the right to jury trial.

All of this is not to compare your view to the Nazi system or to suggest that you were advocating that anyone be executed one day after trial. I do want to make the limited point, however, that our appeals system, particularly in a capital case, serves the primary purpose of restraining the awesome power of the State when it descends on an individual.

I thought you were emotional and were going to blast me. This all interesting stuff and I thank you for sending it. I'll go this far with you. If the legitimate consensus of the physch community is that these type of crimes can be reduced by studying serial killers (which Underwood probably would have become had he been smarter) for longer than the average time they spend on death row, then we should delay execution. It would seem to me most of the information needed could be drained out of the killer within 5 years or so but I'd be willing to be wrong on this.

You seem to think that killing is of recent origin when we are a species that evolved scratching and clawing and, I'm afraid, killing to dominate the planet. There is no physical difference between you and a Roman legionnaire who helped salt Carthage. Recent culture is a vast improvement on historical standards. "Could possibly" is about about right. Anything is possible but I find this connection doubtful. Actually, my mind jumped to the holocaust and then to WWII after you said "genocide." The earlier point I made was a very broad one: Not all killing is immoral and it is lazy to simply call killing "murder" (not saying you did this) and end the discussion. Fundamentally, I believe Underwood should die because that is a punishment which fits the crime. It's fair. He deserves it. DP opponents want to warp those reasons into blood thirsty revenge. I agree that if we had Christians and gladiators dieing in the Coliseum we'd have a problem. However, I think people are capable of making moral distinctions these days. They understand Underwood is dieing because there is zero doubt as to his guilt and because he deserves to die. The message that sends to me is not a mind numbing "killing is okay" mantra but, instead, a message that we protect our young and some lines will not be crossed. But that is the only limited point I made - some killing is justified. I didn't just cite war; i also cited enforcement of a living will, self defense and plain ol accidents. You have to look to the REASON for the killing and can't just say all killing is murder which is what some here have done. Your response, not mine, has been focus on the war example. I could just as easily emphasize accidental killings. When a car wreck occurs we don't just say the guy who hit the deceased is a murderer or even, necessarily, negligent. We look to why the killing happened. In this case, Kevin Underwood may die for the very simple reason that in premeditated fashion he brutally killed an innocent ten year old girl. If he is mentally capable of distinguishing right from wrong, that, together withthe fact that he was caught red-handed, will cause his death.

Oh, heck, give it to me with both barrels to the extent you think I'm one of the misguided intelligent posters supporting CP. I can take it. Mentally disturbed, yes. Legally insane? We'll see.

You are the one who referenced history to support the proposition that CP can numb a person to genocide. You didn't refer to any particular historical evidence so I threw out the first thing that occurred to me. Why is it a bad example? The soldiers who liberated the death camps had seen more killing than we, thankfully, ever will, yet they were still horrified by what they saw.

Most can understand why Jamie's killer should die without becoming numb to genocide. American soldiers in WWII who fought into Germany and witnessed the horrors of war still fully appreciated the evil of the concentration camps they liberated.

If there was a reasonable chance at success, I would say do your experiments. So far, I've not heard any success stories and I do not see why it justifies life imprisonment. You could study them while on death row.

Do you think it immoral to place any limits on immigration? If not, should we attempt to diversify immigration? There's a lot of misery throughout the world, not just in S. America.

Except for #4, these are all reasonably specific; however, I would certainly not oppose any revisions which tighten up the discretion given juries. As I have mentioned, I would also allow the jury to revisit guilt even in the sentencing phase. If there is ANY doubt (less than a reasonable doubt but more than a "well anything's possible" kind of doubt), I would instruct the jury not to impose the death penalty.

That yield answers? I've not heard them yet.

Maybe there is a competency issue.... I'd like to see how she slipped through. Good grief.

Even within Murder One, to impose the death penalty the supreme court requires the finding of a number of aggravating circumstances. I don't think killing Mr. Underwood, if he is proven guilty, is going to warp anyone. A soldier may kill to accomplish a strategic objective even if he is not in a "kill or be killed" situation. Same for a doctor who withdraws food and water pursuant to a living will. Society makes some killings lawful, which by definition, means those killings are not murder. Calling it "murder" (not talking about you here) is just another way of skipping past analysis of the question. Jim