Nightingale

and MURDER is what the state will be doing tonight.

Killing him will not erase his crime either. Keep him in jail and keep him around a bit longer, he might do some more good. Killing him accomplishes nothing. Whether he is guilty or not, and whether he deserves it or not, the death penalty is the wrong thing to do. Yes, he probably murdered people. However, that does not make it right for the state to murder him. The law allows Schwarzenegger to grant clemency. it's at his discretion. The law doesn't tell him one way or the other. He can grant clemency if he wants to. In the minimal amount of spare time that law school allows me, I do what I can to work for the abolition of the death penalty. With regards to lobbying the legislature, I'm sure they're already quite sick of hearing from me, and the staff of my senators and congressman know my voice on the phone without my even needing to state my name. i have binders full of responses to letters I've written both to politicians from my area and those outside it. I'm a member of the Los Angeles chapter of Death Penalty Focus. Two other students and I are in the process of trying to lobby the law school's student bar association to allow us to begin a chapter of Project Innocence. That's really all I have time for at the moment.

So why dont the executioners get the chair for what they have done? Because something can be legally proper but still ethically wrong. Just because the law allows you to do something does not mean that you SHOULD do it.

He should grant clemency because the death penalty is wrong. State sanctioned murder is still murder. Since I started law school, I've learned enough about the legal system to know that there's wrongful convictions fairly often. Just because a jury finds someone guilty doesn't mean they really are. That's one of the main reasons why I'm against the death penalty. It's disgusting that people "just don't care." When you've read the reports of the 121 people who have been released from death row because their convictions have been overturned, it's hard not to care. When you've read the stories of the innocent men who have been executed and heard Sister Helen Prejean talk about them, it's harder not to care. Once you've talked to a family member of someone who was proven innocent by DNA testing after being on death row, not caring is damned near impossible.

If it isn't the governor's place to grant clemency, we wouldn't have a clemency procedure.

I'm not saying he should get a free pass. Clemency is not the same as a pardon. Clemency means he gets life in prison instead. I think the death penalty is wrong in every situation. However, I think that with everything Tookie has done to reform his life, it's even more despicable. To respond to a PM: Most of us who believe clemency should be granted base it on our belief that the death penalty is wrong. What you're hearing is the reasons why this execution is even MORE wrong. We figure you've heard the other arguments before.

Gov.Schwarznegger denied the clemency plea for Stanley "Tookie" Williams. He's scheduled to be executed at 12:01 am tonight. So, at 12:01 am, California is going to execute a man who has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five times. He was also nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature once. He's written numerous children's books encouraging kids to stay out of gangs, and has brokered gang peace treaties from his prison cell. Yes, he committed murders. However, this is a man who has truly turned his life around. Execution serves no purpose at this point and would reinforce the distrust gang members have for the government, undoing a lot of the positive work he's done with the gang members. There's so much more positive work he could do. I am disgusted with California and the governor.

It's much more expensive to house death row inmates here.

It's been proven time and again that drug laws don't deter. This is just another example. People commit crimes because they don't think they'll get caught. Sentences are punishment; they seldom deter. I don't think the death penalty does any good in any situation. Lock them up for life. That way, if it's somehow discovered that there was a mistake, they can be released. Too many people have been released from our death row after being proven innocent for me to be comfortable with executions.

If they are in a relationship, they are off limits and will be treated strictly as a friend.

The later you get a cochlear implant, the less likely you are to be successful with it, IIRC. However, one of the biggest issues is that many deaf parents don't see their deaf children as disabled, just different, and feel like there's no need to "fix" what isn't broken. Also, Deaf culture may be a huge part of their lives, and they feel that their children may not be able to fully participate if they are Hearing. While hearing people don't understand this, many deaf people view it as something akin to having surgery to add a third arm... sure, it would be convenient and make life more efficient, but why, when life is just fine now? If it were my kid, they'd have the implant. However, I'm not a member of Deaf culture, and I don't live in that world. I do understand, given my own reaction, that parents may not want their child to grow up in a culture that can be drastically different than their own. It's a choice only a parent and child can make.

And some of the guys wonder why there's a "women only" forum.

So true... I was on the freeway a few years back when it was one of those moments where you drive around a bend and all of a sudden there's a wall of traffic. I stopped fine, and looked into my rear view mirror. The lady in the truck behind me wasn't looking. She was looking down at something in the passenger seet. When I figured out she wasn't going to stop in time, I pulled into the shoulder space between the center divider and the wall. She rear ended the car that was in front of me. The guy in the car in front pulled over, realized what had happened, and asked me to wait around for the cops as a witness, so I did, and during the wait time, we found out that the thing she was looking at was a baby! The kid was crying because he/she dropped a toy, and the driver was looking for it. Sigh. Let the kid cry and keep your eye on the road until you can exit or pull over safely!

From what I saw, it seemed like it was one of those moments where she was totally thrilled that she'd won this big award and was just kinda hugging and kissing everyone around. Of course, most of the networks only aired that single half-second rather than context. Seemed totally innocent to me, and the media really blew it out of proportion.

Yup. Angelina also uses her fame and money to help improve the world... look at the work she's done in Cambodia. It's nice to see that a celebrity has interests outside themselves, and aren't afraid to get dirty and work hard to help people. A lot of celebrities talk a lot about causes, but Angelina is one of the few who actually gets out and does something about it. Her journal of her first visit to Cambodia is an amazing read.

this is a pretty simple, easy one... Contact your local Souplantation or whatever your favorite restaurant is, and ask if they do flier fundraisers... the way it works is that they give you a flier to hand out, you make copies, and anyone who comes in with the flier on a certain day, you get a percentage of the sale. If you can get people to hand them out outside of churches on sunday morning, you'll get a lot of people, especially if you put your friend's story on the back of the flier. You sometimes need to give them a "club" name, so make one up in advance. Here's one from Rubio's http://www.rubios.com/fund-raisers.html Some places don't even care if you stand right outside the door and hand a flier to everyone who walks in. Also, with her permission, contact your local newspaper (not regional, a town paper, usually inserted once a week in the regional paper) and tell them you have a lead on a human interest story. Get them to interview your friend about what she's gone through. If she's got a medical trust-type account, they can put at the bottom of the article "donations can be made at Bank of America to the Jane Doe Medical Expense Trust Account... any leftover funds will be donated to the American Cancer Society" or something similar.

I agree with you that they are the same (mostly, but not completely). Can you agree that Democrats and Republicans are both leftist liberals? Seems like the democrats want to tell you how to spend your money, mainly by taking it and spending it for you, but adopted a more open philosophy of personal freedoms such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.... Republicans used to want to let you keep your money, but legislate your morality. Now, given all the spending they've been doing, it seems like they're more fiscally liberal than those they brand "liberal" I finally gave up on both parties and registered Libertarian... keep your money AND keep government out of your life as much as possible. I like that idea.

That really is a bad thing. I think everyone should always have a passport, even if you never use it. It can take over a month to get one, and there are a ton of reasons you might need one asap. For example: Your sweetie surprises you with plane tickets to Tahiti...this weekend. Your mom/dad/sister/brother/SO is travelling abroad, gets sick or injured, and you need to join them. You find a great deal on plane tickets (I did...Ireland for less than $300 round trip). Something happens and you need to leave the country (hey, it might happen). I think the family emergency thing is the most important. It would be awful knowing someone you love is sick or injured, and you can't get to them because you don't have the right paperwork. A passport is good for ten years, and it is really no hassle to get one (yes, I did get mine after 9/11, and it still wasn't too much trouble).

I've heard that there is going to be more snape when the director's cut is released on dvd. From what I've read, a lot of snape scenes ended up on the cutting room floor just because of length.

56% of college students may actually be above average academically, depending on how you're measuring it. If they're measuring just college students, than at least 6% would be wrong, but if they're measuring everybody, many people who are below average academically don't go to college. Depending on what that number is, the kids who claim they're above average might actually be right.

Nope. Beatified isn't sainthood. Process of becoming a saint: # A local bishop investigates the candidate's life and writings for evidence of heroic virtue. The information uncovered by the bishop is sent to the Vatican. # A panel of theologians and the cardinals of the Congregation for Cause of Saints evaluate the candidate's life. # If the panel approves, the pope proclaims that the candidate is venerable, which means that the person is a role model of Catholic virtues. # The next step toward sainthood is beatification. Beatification allows a person to be honored by a particular group or region. In order to beatify a candidate, it must be shown that the person is responsible for a posthumous miracle. Martyrs, those who died for their religious cause, can be beatified without evidence of a miracle. On October 20th, 2003, Mother Teresa was beatified. She will now be known as Blessed Mother Teresa. # In order for the candidate to be considered a saint, there must be proof of a second posthumous miracle. If there is, the person is canonized.

Honestly, given what I've read about Iraqi law, I can't see how he'll be convicted. Under Iraqi law when Saddam was in charge, the leader of the country could not commit a crime. Therefore, nothing Saddam did while in office was criminal. What they're trying to do in this trial is similar to you driving 64 mph in a 65 speed limit zone, and getting clocked by a police officer. Two weeks later, they change the speed limit to 60 and send you a ticket, even though what you did wasn't illegal when you did it. From what I've read, they're much, much more likely to get a conviction in the ICC, because his actions were clearly against certain treaties. Most analysts seem to agree that the only reason he's on trial in an Iraqi court is to have access to the death penalty. If they somehow do manage to find a legal justification to convict him, yes, they'll probably give him the death penalty.

Nah. Pleas are usually offered when: 1. they'll help save time and money 2. the person being pled out has something to offer. neither of those would be an advantage in this situation. Bush wants Saddam on trial, and will probably not settle for anything less, because a public trial will highlight the new Iraqi justice system and make it look like we've really accomplished something. All the reasons for putting Saddam on trial in Iraq instead of just letting the ICC deal with him in the first place would be void if we pled him out. Saddam was put on trial in Iraq because Iraq has the death penalty and the ICC does not. Saddam won't accept a plea involving the death penalty, of course, so there's really no reason for him to be allowed a plea bargain.

They'll probably just try him in the International Criminal Court, which, from the info I could find, allows double jeopardy. If Saddam is found not guilty under Iraqi law (an analysis I read said that he may be, because what he did was not a crime under Iraqi domestic law at the time he did it), he will most probably be found guilty in an International Criminal Court, because what he did was a violation of international law and the treaties signed by Iraq.

My aunt and uncle put together a family tree with everyone's photo in an album, and on the last page was their sonogram.