Good News for Criminals
While Terri Schiavo slowly starves to death without the benefit of the new trial Congress mandated, convicted murderer Lisl Auman got hers because the judge’s instructions to the jury failed to address the theoretical possibilty that jurors are too dumb to know that stealing back your own stuff isn’t “burglary.”
Of course, these cases are nothing alike. For one thing, Auman wasn’t sentenced to death for her crime. For another, Schiavo never committed a crime, while Auman was never sentenced to die for hers. For another, as those annoying John Ziegler ads keep reminding us 24-7, the State of Florida isn’t really “killing” Terri Schiavo, just “not taking extraordinary measures to keep her alive” (along with forcibly preventing anyone else from doing so, by why get bogged down on the details?).
Obligatory irony alert - from a March 18, 2001 Rocky Mountain News article on Auman’s crime:
The letter was dated Jan. 4, 2001, addressed to Hunter S. Thompson in Woody Creek. It came from the women’s prison in Canon City.
“I laughed out loud while reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas during my stay (13 months) at the Denver County Jail,” Lisl Auman wrote on yellow legal-size paper in looping, blue ink. “Thank you for helping to bring a smile to my face. During that time.”
Auman told Thompson that she was in prison for felony murder. She maintained her innocence. She wrote down her Web site.
“I didn’t know what to make of it when I opened the letter,” Thompson says. “My attitude is, `What the f— are you so cheerful about?’ If I were you, I’d slit my wrists.”
Then again, if I were Hunter Thompson, I’d probably shoot myself.
UPDATE: In a comment, Joel Buckingham points out another gem: not guilty by reason of Bible-reading.
March 28th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
More good news for Criminals too…if you’re convinction might have anything to do with…The BIBLE! (HORROR) you can get you sentence commutted too! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7318241
March 28th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
Good [censored by ACLU].
March 28th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
from the MSN article:
The court said Bible passages, including the verse that commands “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” could lead jurors to vote for death.
Except the Bible never actually says “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” The only mention of that phrase is where Jesus brings it up, saying that His way (love your enemies, and be kind to those that do your harm) is the right way. “An eye for an eye” comes from Hammurabi’s code.
Does anyone else get the feeling that the quality of judges in this country has taken a markedly severe drop of late?
March 28th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
Actually, the Old Testament does say “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” in several places. See, e.g., Deut. 19:21. Then again, so does the Colorado statute they were supposed to be enforcing, so I’m not sure what the harm is in having jurors read it.
March 28th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
I don’t think Congress mandated a new trial. Do you, really?
March 28th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
They clearly mandated de novo review. If that wasn’t meant to be a de novo trial, I’m not sure what the point was. Then again, I’m not a litigator so maybe there’s some subtle point here that escapes me.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:16 am
A comment that just couldn’t last.
I started writing this as a comment to this post over at Xrlq but I later decided I figured I ought to post it, after all, I thought it explained the harm Christians (of which I am one) pose to…
March 30th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
“They clearly mandated de novo review. If that wasn’t meant to be a de novo trial, I’m not sure what the point was.”
De Novo means to grant no deference.
Of course, it could also be that they meant something else but wrote this. Textualism to the rescue!
March 30th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
“De novo” is an adjective phrase, not a verb.
March 30th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
““De novo” is an adjective phrase, not a verb”
Exactly. Its a standard of review. Not a procedure. Not a trial.