"It would be impermissible for the court to base its decision of recidivism on its unsupported theory of genetics."

Oh, but maybe the poor judge was born with a tendency to believe that his gut instincts and stuff he's seen on the internet are scientific fact.

"Horrific video footage has emerged of Taliban insurgents stoning a couple to death for alleged adultery in northern Afghanistan."

"Hundreds of villagers can be seen on the video standing around as the woman, Siddqa, is buried up to her waist in a four foot hole in the ground. Two mullahs pass sentence before the crowd begins to throw rocks at her head and body as she desperately tries to crawl free...."

"State retribution for tiny thefts, such as stealing a potato, even by a child, would include being tied up and thrown into a pond..."

"... parents were forced to bury their children alive or were doused in excrement and urine, others were set alight, or had a nose or ear cut off. One record shows how a man was branded with hot metal. People were forced to work naked in the middle of winter; 80 per cent of all the villagers in one region of a quarter of a million Chinese were banned from the official canteen because they were too old or ill to be effective workers, so were deliberately starved to death."

New details from the Great Leap Forward, 1958-1962, in which 45 million people died.

"Despite protests from the West, her sentence will be carried out if the judiciary decides to carry it out..."

Iran relents in spite of/because of our objections.

"She will be buried up to her chest, deeper than a man would be..."

"... and the stones that will be hurled at her will be large enough to cause pain but not so large as to kill her immediately..."

Death by stoning in Iran. The crime is adultery. The evidence was a confession obtained after 99 lashes.

"I kind of see myself as a man of God and being like Joseph."

"In a sense, I feel like a bear, coming out of hibernation. Like, they come out to eat, mine would be coming out to enjoy what I have missed."

"I don’t see Judge Weinstein as a judge."

"I see him as my father. He helps people. He doesn’t destroy lives the way the prosecutor has. He’s the one who is going to set me free from the court."

The Supreme Court's new federalism decision.

United States v. Comstock, today's Supreme Court case upholding the federal civil-commitment statute, deals only with the question whether Congress has an enumerated power to make a law that authorizes the continued detention of sexual dangerous or mentally ill persons after they have completed serving their federal prison sentences. That is, the case is not about whether there is an individual right to be free of this deprivation of liberty — only whether the federal government can do it.

On this federalism question, the Court relies on the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. The persons who are detained have, in every case, been convicted of federal crimes. If there was federal power to create those crimes and to impose criminal punishment for them, then why wouldn't it follow that the federal government could do something more to those individuals? Justice Breyer writes for the majority: "the same enumerated power that justifies the creation of a federal criminal statute... justifies civil commitment...."

[T]he statute is a “necessary and proper” means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others. The Constitution consequently authorizes Congress to enact the statute.

Justice Kennedy writes separately to note that federalism concerns have been adequately tended to: "this is a discrete and narrow exercise of authority over a small class of persons already subject to the federal power." Ditto Alito: "This is not a case in which it is merely possible for a court to think of a rational basis on which Congress might have perceived an attenuated link between the powers underlying the federal criminal statutes and the challenged civil commitment provision. Here, there is a substantial link to Congress’ constitutional powers."

Justice Thomas dissents (joined by Justice Scalia):

Absent congressional action that is in accordance with, or necessary and proper to, an enumerated power, the duty to protect citizens from violent crime, including acts of sexual violence, belongs solely to the States....

Not long ago, this Court described the Necessary and Proper Clause as “the last, best hope of those who defend ultra vires congressional action.” ... Regrettably, today’s opinion breathes new life into that Clause, and... comes perilously close to transforming the Necessary and Proper Clause into a basis for the federal police power that “we always have rejected"... In so doing, the Court endorses the precise abuse of power Article I is designed to prevent—the use of a limited grant of authority as a “pretext . . . for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government.”

Constitutionally, death is different... youth is different.

(Also posted at Instapundit.)

WITHOUT MURDER, it's cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a juvenile to life in prison without parole, writes Justice Kennedy for a 6-3 Court. Dissenting, Justice Thomas criticizes the majority for imposing "an exacting constraint on democratic sentencing choices based on ... such an untestable philosophical conclusion": "that a 17-year-old who pulls the trigger on a firearm can demonstrate sufficient depravity and irredeemability to be denied reentry into society, but... a 17-year-old who rapes an 8- year-old and leaves her for dead does not."

"I proclaim the end of the world. All the world will be destroyed in this century. Every human being will die in this century," signed "The Christ Eternal Mehmet Ali Agca."

That's what Mehmet Ali Agca, the man who shot Pope John Paul II in the hand, arm and abdomen, wrote in a statement made upon his release from prison. Yes, he's now a free man. But he was pardoned in 2000 for shooting the Pope. He only served 19 years for that. The reason that he's been in prison these last 10 years is that he was extradited to his home country, Turkey, to serve a sentence for other crimes, including murder.

Agca has said he wants to visit the pope's tomb in Rome, and meet his successor, Pope Benedict.

"He has served his time in jail so now he is a free man according to the law. Let's hope also his heart has changed," said Archbishop Ennio Apignanesi.

"Maybe he will come to Rome. The Pope went twice to forgive him. Now he could come and make a prayer."

Are you getting this Christian forgiveness thing?

How do you figure a $290,000 fine for speeding?

Do the math!

The man was reportedly caught driving a red Ferrari Testarossa at 137km/h (85mph) through a village.

The penalty was calculated based on the unnamed motorist's wealth - assessed by the court as $22.7m (£14.1m) - and because he was a repeat offender.

And because it was a Ferrari and because it was red.

But seriously, you can't punish very effectively with a fine unless you take the individual into account. This guy shouldn't be able to casually buy his way into having the rules not apply to him, which is what it would be if he paid the speeding fine that would burden lesser folk but is nothing to him.

Now, let's extend this idea. Take a guy who loves solitude and spending time at home reading. Some other guy has lots of companions and loves going out every night and working and playing outdoors. They commit the same felony. Should they get the same prison term?

"Architect Clive Wille, 56, shouted 'Die, you bitch' as he tried to suffocate third wife and former secretary Susan Wille, 38, on their marital bed."

But Susan still wants to be friends with him. The judges said: "Nevertheless I am of the view only a significant sentence can be justified given the serious nature of the offence." Significant sentence? 7 years. (It's the UK.)

The Philosopher's Petition: "Apprehended like a common terrorist Saturday evening, September 26, as he came to receive a prize for his entire body of work, Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison."

Begins French Philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who is collecting the signatures of "writers and artists." I put "writers and artists" in quotes, because the list includes, presumably as "artists," at least one actor and one fashion designer. If "artists" is a comprehensive term, why aren't writers "artists"? But I delay. On with the rest of the petition:

He risks extradition to the United States for an episode that happened years ago...

And he fled! That's why time has passed. He's avoided the jurisdiction. It's not as if prosecutors let the case go stale.

...and whose principal plaintiff...

Plaintiff! You might talk like that in France, but here in America, that's the language of torts. And we are talking about crime.

... repeatedly and emphatically declares she has put it behind her and abandoned any wish for legal proceedings.

And how much money was she paid to settle the case? What were the terms of the settlement? Do you approve — as a general rule to be applied to all — of dropping criminal charges whenever the victim has been moved to closure?  It is the nature of criminal law that it is a crime against the people, and not merely a wrong against the victim. Do you argue against that, philosopher? Why? Give reasons! Your assertions are not enough — philosopher.

Seventy-six years old...

Yes, he's that old because he fled and because he was protected in other countries that apparently did not take rape so seriously, at least not when it was committed by a great artist.

... a survivor of Nazism and of Stalinist persecutions in Poland...

If a life of suffering excuses crimes, many, maybe most, of our criminals would escape prison. Wouldn't the Nazis themselves have cried about their own suffering in the years preceding their rise to power? Philosopher, do you approve — as a general rule to be applied to all — that those who have suffered earlier in their lives should not be punished for the serious, violent crimes that they commit? Explain, in abstract terms that meet the standards of the discipline of philosophy, why you think this is so.

Roman Polanski risks spending the rest of his life in jail for deeds which would be beyond the statute-of-limitations in Europe.

We have statutes of limitations here in America too. Do yours absolve fugitives? Philosopher, do you absolve fugitives who succeed in evading capture while a period of years passes? Would you do that for everyone? For Nazis? Explain your reasons in terms that meet the standards of the discipline of philosophy, so we can judge.

We ask the Swiss courts to free him immediately and not to turn this ingenious filmmaker into a martyr of a politico-legal imbroglio that is unworthy of two democracies like Switzerland and the United States. Good sense, as well as honor, require it.

Do you assert that an artist ought to receive special treatment? Would an ingenious Nazi deserve to live out his life in peace? What does the special treatment of artists have to do with democracy? Explain what ingeniousness, filmmaking, and democracy have to do with your proposed rule.

Bernard-Henri Lévy, you present yourself as a philosopher. I would like to honor philosophy. Back up your petition with a philosophical argument that we can understand and critique.

IN THE COMMENTS: Peter Hoh said:

So in Bernard-Henri Lévy's world, there are common terrorists. One must presume that some other terrorists are uncommon. Perhaps some are extraordinary. I wonder how one can tell the difference?

Surely, the 9/11 attacks were uncommon. In fact, they were ingenious.

Let's not forget what the German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen said on September 17, 2001:

... Stockhausen...  called the attack on the World Trade Center ''the greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos.'' Extending the analogy, he spoke of human minds achieving ''something in one act'' that ''we couldn't even dream of in music,'' in which ''people practice like crazy for 10 years, totally fanatically, for a concert, and then die.'' Just imagine, he added: ''You have people who are so concentrated on one performance, and then 5,000 people are dispatched into eternity, in a single moment. I couldn't do that. In comparison with that, we're nothing as composers.''

So, Bernard-Henri Lévy, by your standard, we should leave Osama Bin Laden alone?

Are Hollywood types defending Roman Polanski because they love him as a fellow artist or because of their own pedophilia?

Allahpundit trashes the Hollywood crowd for rushing to the defense of Roman Polanski.

Magically transformed, by Hollywood libertinism and douchebaggery, into an honest-to-goodness victim who’s being persecuted by the evil empire for, um, forcibly sodomizing a 13-year-old and then skipping bail.... ... Polanski and his cretinous supporters don’t care if he’s guilty or not. They want him to walk free, in the name of “art,” without another word spoken on the subject.

Is it just art, or is there a particular love in Hollywood film art of the forbidden love between the adult and child?

I thought I saw a pedophilia trend in the most honored films of 2008. I talked about that in this blog post...

I'm seeing all the well-reviewed year-end movies, and there's an awful lot of wrong-age sex. "Doubt" is about a priest accused of molesting children. "Benjamin Button," with its backwards aging character, had scenes of an old man in love with a young girl and an old woman in love with a toddler. "The Reader" had a 36-year-old woman seducing a 15-year-old boy. "Milk" had a man in his 40s pursuing relationships with much younger (and more fragile) men. "Slumdog Millionaire" shows a young teenage girl being sold for sex. I say that Hollywood is delivering pedophiliac titillation with the deniability of artistic pretension.

... and in this Bloggingheads with Glenn Loury:



Think about it.

Richard Cohen says "Let Polanski Go — But First Let Me At Him."

Absurd macho posturing from the liberal (?) columnist:

It’s alright with me if Roman Polanski is freed by the Swiss authorities who have detained him at the request of the United States -- if first I get a chance to bust him one in the mouth....

Ugh. This is on the level of hoping someone sent to prison gets raped. You think it's cute to flaunt your violent fantasies? I'll bet that elsewhere this guy acts as if it's important to follow the law, yet he loves the idea of punishment without due process whenever it jibes with the ebb and flow of his emotions.

I'll bet he's opposed to torture, yet he's in love with the idea of hurting someone as a way to express outrage. I'll bet he thinks that the locution "bust him one in the mouth" makes it man-to-man and somehow okay. Indeed, it's perfectly apt... to punch a 76-year-old man in the face.

Such is the fantasy of an aging major-media male opinionator. Look, either Polanski deserves to be put in prison or he does not. Take a position. Your fantasy is of committing a crime for which you would deserve to be put in prison. Yes, yes, of course, you'd never do it. Which is why you are a big hypocritical pussy.

***

This post is about the Washington Post Richard Cohen, not my ex-husband Richard Cohen. Around here, the WaPo Richard Cohen is called Richard Hasn't-Slept-With-Althouse Cohen.)

Anne Applebaum says: Roman Polanski "did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways..."

"... In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film."

What she doesn't say:

Applebaum failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed....

Incredible! We're talking about a Washington Post columnist here, who used the corporate pages to write a piece decrying "The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski."

But is that any more absurd than saying he's suffered enough because of all the burdens on his career? Think what this means, generalizing the opinion into an abstract rule. It means that those with high professional standing do not need the usual criminal punishments given to individuals who have very little in this world. Ordinary people must be punished in prison, but big shots are already punished heavily by the mere revelation of their crimes and therefore should be relieved of much or all of the usual prison sentence. Care to sign on to that rule? 

IN THE COMMENTS: Mortimer Brezny says:

I used to agree with Ann that punishment ought to be equal. But then I realized that sympathy is unequal. If you are poor, you are pitied. If you are rich, you are not. No matter if you were born poor and worked diligently over years to build a business that provides you with your present level of wealth. No matter if you were born rich and worked hard to sustain and grow the wealth with which you started. This imbalance, of course, leads to an unfair resentment and hatred of the rich. The poor can get away with all sorts of horrors against the rich and the successful, the talented and the intelligent, and when the favored sons strike back, they are chastened. That is wrong. Equal means equal. If the rich are to be despised and the poor are able to strike them on a daily basis in innumerable ways, then the rich ought to be able to strike back. And the punishments should reflect the toll of the daily indignities. I say punish the poor even worse. Make them suffer for their petty hatred of the rich, for their nasty, impish wrongful jabs at the rich on a everyday basis.

And let us not forget about contribution. Ayn Rand may have been a loon, but the truth of the matter is some create wealth and some do not. Those who create wealth -- of whatever kind; art, business, science, political wisdom -- are rare and deserve our protection and admiration. Those who destroy wealth, those who pilfer from the coffers of others, they deserve nothing but our contempt.

Convicted of manslaughter and attempted rape, a man who has not yet had sex reassignment surgery wins the right to be transferred to a woman's prison.

This legal right — under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights — was recognized by the High Court of London:

The prisoner is in her 20s and serving a life sentence for manslaughter and attempted rape....

Describing her as “a woman trapped inside a man’s body”, her barrister, Phillipa Kaufman, said the final step to her achieving full womanhood is gender reassignment surgery - but she had been told she cannot have it while in a men’s prison.

Doctors have refused even to consider her for the operation unless she fulfills the “living role requirement” - living as a woman for an extended period; so she has no hope of getting the surgery she so desperately wants unless moved to a women's jail.

The barrister told Judge David Elvin, QC, that, although the woman has now served her minimum jail term, she has been told by the Parole Board that she remains an unnacceptable risk to the public, still has “a great deal of work to do” and is “nowhere near release”.

That, Miss Kaufman argued, was a direct result of her intense frustration at being unable to have gender reassignment surgery...

Regardless of any extra cost involved, the judge said that to block her progress towards full gender reassignment surgery was irrational and would only increase her risk to the public.

Risk to the public? But this person is serving a life sentence!

The transsexual prisoner, referred to in court only as “A”, was convicted of manslaughter and jailed for five years after smothering her boyfriend with a pillow and strangling him with a pair of tights.

5 years have been served for this killing, and the court finds a right of this person to be put with women in order to do "a great deal of work" and win release.

Her life sentence tariff, the minimum period she must serve before being considered for parole, expired in 2007.

So 3 years was enough for murder!

The judge said that her detention in a men’s jail had both scotched her desire to live fully “in role” as a woman - and thus qualify for a full gender reassignment - and had also had a “serious adverse effect” on her ability to take part in work aimed at reducing her risk status and moving towards release.

Just a little lesson in European-style human rights for you this morning. The linked article says nothing about the human rights of the women prisoners who now must live with a very angry person who: 1. attempted rape and still has a penis, and 2. was strong enough to smother a man with a pillow and tights.

***

How long does it take to smother someone to death with a pillow? 2 to 3 minutes, if he doesn't manage to struggle the pillow away for a gulp of air. Try to picture what this person was able to do 5 years ago and think about why 3 years — 1 year for each minute of strongly applied murderous pressure to a struggling human being — is an adequate sentence.

"There's a huge bug in my house. I want Obama to kill it for me."

So tweeted I, right after making the video you can view in the previous post, but that isn't the post that inspired Chip Ahoy to animate this:



The inspiration comes from "Found guilty of downloading 24 songs, a woman is fined $1,900,000. Chip says:

This RIAA case and the outrageous irrational verdict reminds me of Obama killing that fly. How so? — you ask. This is how.

AKA overkill.

Found guilty of downloading 24 songs, a woman is fined $1,900,000.

In federal court in Minnesota. That's $80,000 for each of her selections, works by Linkin Park, Gloria Estafan and so forth.

IN THE COMMENTS: Marcia said:

Now you see why we need empathetic judges.

To rein in the heartless corporate thugs that we call jurors.

"He doesn't have 150 years to live..."

"... but I hope his time in jail will be hell on Earth."

***

Extremely lengthy sentences are showy but in fact wildly disparate. And there's not a damned thing you can do about the shamefully light punishment of the old.