"US Supreme Court to review severe sentencing for teens; Issue is among cases justices take up Oct. 5" by David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times | September 29, 2009
WASHINGTON - Joe Sullivan was 13 when he and two older boys broke into a home, where they robbed and raped an elderly woman. After a one-day trial in 1989, Sullivan was sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole.
Terrance Graham was 16 when he and two others robbed a restaurant. When he was arrested again a year later for a home break-in, a Florida judge said he was incorrigible. In 2005, Graham received a life term with no parole.
The two young convicts represent a unique American phenomenon, one the Supreme Court is set to reconsider in the fall term that opens Oct. 5. At issue is whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to send a teenager to prison until he or she dies for a crime that did not involve murder.
According to Amnesty International, the United States “is the only country in the world that does not comply with the norm against imposing life without parole sentences on juveniles.’’
And yet we BLATHER ON about HUMAN RIGHTS to everyone we meet!!
Don't think the BAD BREATH of HYPOCRISY isn't being notice, Amurkn!
Comes form EATING you-know-what!
*********************
Two trends in the 1980s led to juveniles serving life terms. First was the national move to abolish parole, reflecting fears that violent criminals could not be safely released.
Are you sick of being lied to?
Related: Huckabee's Willie Horton
Where was ALL THIS CONCERN as MANDATORY SENTENCES put POT FOLKS behind BARS!??
Second was the increased prosecution of young criminals as adults.
Well, MAYBE THEY OUGHT TO BE when they are RAPING OLD LADIES!
The Sunshine State is a leading tourist destination, a fact that will figure in the Supreme Court argument. In defense of its life-in-prison policy, the state’s lawyers have pointed to several deadly attacks on European visitors carried out by young criminals.
These violent incidents “were threatening the state’s bedrock tourism industry,’’ Florida’s lawyers said in the opening paragraph of their brief to the Supreme Court.
I was just wondering if and when PEOPLE are ever going to be put FIRST here in AmeriKa!
Here are some other major cases and pending appeals that the Supreme Court will consider in its new term:
--more--"Here is one that article did not mention(?):
"Public corruption law faces major Supreme Court challenges" by David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times | November 30, 2009
WASHINGTON - In Washington, anticorruption activists fear a court ruling against the law could take away one of the best tools to combat the culture of favors and gift-giving between lobbyists and members of Congress and their staffs.
“It would undercut public corruption cases across the board,’’ said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. But opponents say the law is vague and ill-defined. It fails to spell out, for example, the point where favors to a friend become a criminal scheme....
You know, this whole thing is rank and rotten I don't think it can be fixed this way.
Bribing a public official is also a crime, but it’s hard to prove. Prosecutors must show an explicit deal between the official and the person offering the bribe.
Yeah, all the BENEFITS to FRIENDS and WELL-CONNECTED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS as well as the SELF-SERVING KICKBACKS are JUST COINCIDENCE!
In February, Justice Antonin Scalia sounded off in dissent when the court let stand the convictions of Robert Sorich and two other Chicago city officials for having schemed to steer city jobs to campaign workers.
Related: The Corrupted Court
Yeah, I'm not expecting much from them at all.
Scalia said this open-ended law “invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors’’ who can turn minor ethical lapses into a crime that carries a long prison term....
Usually they have to be dragged kicking and screaming around here.
I mean, the FBI had to COME UP HERE to do it!
"US judge questions publicity in cases; Wilkerson, Turner arrests at issue" by Glen Johnson, Associated Press | July 3, 2009
A federal judge yesterday ordered prosecutors to produce affidavits explaining why photographs were released and publicity generated following the arrests of two Boston politicians on corruption charges last year.
The lead prosecutor in the case said he would have to determine whether he could comply.
Judge Douglas Woodlock told a pretrial hearing audience he wants to evaluate whether prosecutors tried to “gin things up’’ among the public after the arrests of former state senator Dianne Wilkerson and City Councilor Chuck Turner.
So WHEN DOES the INFLUENCE-PEDDLING and LOOTING become a concern, huh? This WHOLE SYSTEM serves the STINKING ELITE, America -- which is why they extol the virtues.
Woodlock said he wanted to examine whether disclosures in their complaints - including widely disseminated photographs of the two Democrats allegedly accepting bribes, Wilkerson’s in her bra - were more “fulsome’’ than necessary. He also said he wanted to understand any reasoning behind showing the defendants being led to court, any use of restraints, and how the defendants represented a risk of flight or a threat....
They are out on bail?
Also see: The Perils of One-Party Politics: Speaker's Shoes
Last Political Will and Testament of Dianne WilkersonI guess I see why the FBI has to do it now.
And you are STILL PAYING for the LYING, LOOTING WEASELS, Bay-Stater!
"Taxpayers’ bill nearing $378,000 in DiMasi case" by Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | December 9, 2009
The state House of Representatives has paid private attorneys nearly $378,000 in taxpayer money to represent the speaker’s office in a federal corruption investigation of former House speaker Salvatore DiMasi, newly disclosed records show.
DiMasi handpicked the law firm a few weeks before he resigned on Jan. 27, as the US attorney’s office was stepping up its probe of allegations that the speaker took money from a software company,
But that is a FINE LINE!
The House’s contract with the law firm, Gargiulo/Rudnick, was signed by the House business manager on DiMasi’s last day in office, but all payments to the firm, a total of $377,801, were made after Speaker Robert A. DeLeo took over. The contract is open-ended, and the lawyers could continue to get paid until DiMasi’s case concludes, a House spokesman said....
Bay State residents, WHY do YOU have to PICK UP this SLIME'S LEGAL TAB?!!!
But who cares?
It's not like your services are being slashed and your taxes raised, Bay Stater?
Some lawmakers, both publicly and privately, have questioned whether so much should be spent on legal fees as budgets throughout state government are being slashed and staffers laid off.
“I’m amazed - disgusted is a better word,’’ said Representative Bradley H. Jones Jr. of North Reading, the leading Republican in the overwhelmingly Democratic chamber. “If these are bills incurred by former Speaker DiMasi, why are we paying them? If we had to defend legislation we passed and there’s a court challenge, it would be entirely different.’’
Jones added: “I find it particularly offensive because I’m asking my staff to take a furlough. That everyone has to contribute five days to the Sal DiMasi defense fund is outrageous.’’
It is not only Republicans who have raised objections to the spending. Representative John Quinn, Democrat of Dartmouth, said he was especially angry, because just last week one of his aides was laid off and another had his salary cut.
“It’s unfortunate that many men and women at the State House had to be laid off three weeks before Christmas as a result of former speaker Sal DiMasi’s inappropriate behavior,’’ Quinn said. “This contract should be reviewed by an outside entity to determine whether the taxpayers of the Commonwealth should continue to pay legal fees for the defense of Sal DiMasi.’’
Related: DiMasi's Leftovers
Under the terms of the contract, the bill for Griffith is $300 per hour, an associate costs $225 per hour, and a paralegal $75 per hour. The expenditure turned up this week, tucked away in a spreadsheet analyzing House expenses that Representative William Brownsberger, Democrat of Belmont, posted on his website....
The Senate hired outside counsel to respond to subpoenas in the criminal cases against former senators Dianne Wilkerson and James Marzilli, but the amounts were far smaller....
Why are you PAYING for there defense at all, citizens?
What a piss-poor embarrassment this state is!
