Jim

A number of things: Innocence. Potential. A life not yet lived. Fragility. Trust. Dependence. Embodiment of our future. When my two year old was in the hospital for two weeks as far as he knew he would always be in pain. I spent those weeks in a pediatric ward which is a place you can go to feel very lucky very quickly no matter what your circumstances. If Jamie's fate were to be mine or my wife's, at least we would be able to put the actions in some kind of context. We'd be terrified, in pain but at least would know that we were simply and extremely unlucky to have crossed the path of a monster. We wouldn't assume we'd done something wrong but would know that we'd just been unlucky. I don't even want to think how a ten year old girl would process such events.

I seriously doubt that Mr. Underwood was motivated to kill by the existence of the death penalty I do not believe that human life is an absolute value. There are some instances where killing is morally defensible - a solider in war, with consent of a terminal patient, self defense and, here, to punish.

First, as Dukakis learned, there is a place for human emotion in some decisions. Why did Dukakis' response hurt him so much? Because instinctively we all know that the state is acting on behalf of the individual who needs justice and wants punishment. Who would trust an automaton to lead the country? Second, the question I actually asked was how can you justify an inflexible life sentence unde this view? That seems more cruel than death if we are not to use emotions in any way. Third, there should be a gradiation in punishment for a very simple reason - it's fair to fit the punishment to the crime.

While the definition of legal "insanity" varies with the jurisdiction, you can be legally sane while suffering a mental illness. The basic question asked is if the perpetrator is capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

Hard to argue with but let's go on... I see a conclusion but no argument. How can you compare the assessment of guilt after due process is afforded to stalking and then destroying a ten year old girl? Underwood killed an innocent. The state should kill Underwood only if he is guilty. Apples and oranges my friend. No, I call him a monster because that is what he is. Bingo! This is the philosophical underpinning of this argument. Societal vrs individual responsibility. If Underwood is legally sane, i.e. able to determine right from wrong, then he is personally responsible for his crime. Not me. Not you. Not his mother. Not the failure of some republican administration to fund head start. Him. Why is it unfair for him to pay with his life? That's actually kind of scary. Determine the genetic or psych profile of a killer and then "catch" him before the crime is done? A very Minority Reportish kind of idea.... Does life imprisonment without parole deter more than a ten year sentence? I sure didn't learn that lesson. What I would learn is that a ten year old's life is precious and that if a "man" extinguishes that life while knowing right from wrong, he pays.

Does it make life easier to impute motives to those with whom you disagree? 1. Legalized... yes. 2. Ritualistic... well, I suppose when they inject people they have procedures but it seems a stretch to call them rituals. 3. Murder.... ergh, no. See #1. Argumentation by labels is a funny thing. I say the man is getting what he deserves. That immediately is switched to labels like "revenge" or "retribution" or "murder" without ever delving into substance.

Oh, I certainly agree. It's all moot unless Roe is reversed.

I don't want him tortured. I just want him to be no more. The state is not "murdering" him, it is killing him for his crimes. He is human and if he remains capable of distinguishing right and wrong, it only makes the offense all the more evil. I agree that if he is legally insane, he should not be convicted. There is also a reason why juries are given victim impact statements. At some point, societies interests in due process having been served, we have to look at what actually happened to real people and the impact it had on them. Part of the contract is that individuals relinquish their right of justice to the state and the state, in my minority opinion, has a moral obligation to do justice. I suppose it comes back to the question on the other board: What are we? If we are so many chemicals or if we act in predetermined ways, then I suppose we should all be content to merely fix the broken human machine and wish him well as he enjoys the rest of his life. There would be no argument for life imprisonment under this view. The instant the man is rehabilitated with the deterence society needs to protect himself, we let him go.

The difference is that a state has an independent interest in protecting resident children.

What if he never showed up in Oklahoma because he learned via a phone call from Florida that the vic was not going to show? If this is all Florida had, my guess, and it is just a guess, is they could prosecute under conspiracy.

Could constitute' date=' not would. The law under discussion is simple: Thou shall not leave this state with the intent of killing your "child." Since the fetus is, under this Roeless view, a child, my guess is that the state would have the right under the doctrine of parens patriae to keep it from being removed for the purpose of being killed. Again, I'm way out of my area here but this doesn't strike me as being a slam dunk.

But the crimes I'm talking about - conspiracy to attempt murder or, with the new law, taking a child out of state with the intent to kill that child - occurred in the state. Again, this only would apply if the child is a "child" not merely an extension of the woman. We are getting ahead of ourselves.

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, sec. 1834: Case law also requires the state to prove a "specific intent to defraud." It's been like ten years since I've seen this but I see now that this applies to the county, not state. However, the case I had where this came up was where a debtor took secured property out of state.

There are two issues: 1. Did Florida pass a statute to make this a crime (they might with their attempted murder laws and if some overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred in Florida)? 2. Is the Florida statute constitutional?

Interstate commerce is an incredibly broad concept. If states couldn't regulate anything that involves interstate commercie (e.g. wire and mail fraud), they could pass very few laws. There is a difference between concurrent and exclusive federal jurisdiction. Also relevant is whether the feds have acted to preempt a field. That is their right with interstate commerce but they do not always exercise that right.

Partly, yes IMO. Mind you, I was not entirely applauded when I made this argument in my criminal law class.

The difference here is that the criminal conduct originated from the state enacting the law. A better analogy would be whether Florida could prosecute you if you came to Oklahoma to kill me. They might get you for attempted murder even though as a practical matter, Florida would leave it to Oklahoma. OTOH, your point is that the mere residency of the perp does not determine jurisdiction. True, but here as in the attempted murder anlogy part of the criminal action arises in a state. The argument being made is that the mere fact that a crime involves interstate commerce means it is not subject to state laws. I'm no criminal lawyer but I think this is false. Many state crimes involve interstate commerce (e.g. using the telephones or mail). There can be concurrent federal (e.g. wire fraud) and state jurisdiction (e.g. a state law re fraud) even though these issues usually do not arise in normal cases. As you recall from the Rodney King case, it is not double jeopardy to prosecute a person twice for a federal (civil rights) and state (assault) violation relating to the same event.

I need to slow down. I think I misread your post. Time for scotch...