Reality show?

Well, she actually says she'd "not necessarily be interested" in a reality show, unless it was a "watchdog" type program (that is, not a reality show at all), but she's also keeping options open.

Incidentally, since I just got burned by buying into MSNBC's and Scheck's spin, I'd like to point out that I did read this article beyond the headline. The headline claimed "O'Donnell Considers Reality Show," but in fact her answer indicates she's not considering that.

It always bothered me about Christine O'Donnell that she had, to my way of thinking, too big an appetite to be on TV. I view her various silly Senate bids through this prism: Ways to keep on television. To grab the spotlight.

I always got a strong "flake" vibe, not to mention a strong "dumb as a bag of hammers" vibe to boot.

I always viewed her as I viewed those failed comics and writers for Radar who infest every episode of Hey I Remember the 80s: People who were on television not due to any accomplishment or talent, but due to a confluence of two things: 1) 500 cable channels' insatiable hunger to videotape any human being willing to work for scale and then edit together in such a way that they can call it "content," and 2) quite a few people who desperately want to be involved in such ventures, just to say "Hey, I'm on TV."

I grant you Mike Castle was a RINO, of course. If that means you can't support him, even in Delaware, where only a RINO has a chance of winning, fine. I understand then you had no good choices and went with the one you thought at least had some upside to it. (Whatever that was.)

I'm just glad she's in the past.

But I sort of don't think she is. Not completely. Her whole adult life has been focused on getting into the limelight. I do not see this impulse abating at any time in the future.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 AM | Comments (290)
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

I support the death penalty. As Dennis Prager notes, to honestly support the death penalty, one has to assume that on rare occasions that an innocent man may be wrongly executed -- and yet still find the benefits of the policy to be greater than the downsides. One can't wish that situation away; it will happen, governments being governments and bureaucrats being bureaucrats.

That said, of course, one can hardly be indifferent to such a miscarriage of justice. As with many things, the opponents of this particular policy cannot defeat it; only the supporters of the policy can defeat it, by not treating it with the required level of care and caution, and thus undermining it far, far more in terms of public support than any amicus brief from the ACLU.

Executing the monstrous is a worthwhile policy. Executing the innocent, or at least the doubtfully guilty, is... not.

In this case, the man in question is not proven to be innocent. In fact, based on the way this MSNBC is written (failing to state the government's case against the accused in an appropriate level of detail), I'd say it's 99% certain he is guilty as charged.

However, a key piece of evidence offered against him -- the only physical evidence offered at trial -- is bad evidence. A strand of hair found at the crime scene was said to have only possibly come from the accused, and not from any other person present.

His legal team requested a DNA test on the hair, but Bush wasn't informed of this, and his sentence was not delayed to permit the test.

The test -- now performed years after his execution -- shows that the hair didn't come from the accused at all, but most likely from the murder victim. That is, it's not evidence at all -- it didn't come from the accused, and its presence at the scene of the crime means nothing.

That's critical because most of the evidence against Jones (the accused) comes from his accomplices, and, under Texas law, a man cannot be put to death based only on such evidence. (Which is an absolutely necessary provision, because these guys, of course, lie like there's no tomorrow.)

If there's no other evidence -- as there, you know, isn't -- then the death penalty cannot be imposed. The accused can still be convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, but no death penalty. Which makes sense -- look, in cases where you're relying on the testimony of criminals and liars to secure a conviction, you can only barely get past the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard if at all (and I am inclined to think you can't get past that standard at all), and you are going to want to preserve the possibility of a mulligan.

This guy shouldn't have been put to death anyway, DNA test or not -- hair analysis without DNA is one of those sorts of evidence like ballistics where the expert can only say the specimen is consistent with the hair of the accused, not that it definitely came from the accused. It's not like fingerprints where you can say, "No, this is definitely the accused's thumb." You can say that this hair came from either the accused... or like 15% of the population with similar hair. Useful evidence, but in an additive way only (that is, combined with other evidence) and not dispositive in and of itself.

And on top that inherent limitation of the evidence -- the expert was wrong anyway! The hair didn't come from the accused! And it probably did come from the victim, which the expert claimed it couldn't have.

A DNA test would have demonstrated the expert's error pretty quickly.

But Bush wasn't informed of the request for the test and so he was put to death. And this can't be blamed entirely on his staffers; Bush chose them, after all, and should have been more on top of matters such as this, given the profound social and legal consequences of getting it wrong.

Not to mention the personal consequences to the man executed. Although, in this case, I'm not super-bothered by that:

Prosecutors also hammered on Jones' brutal past. While serving a 21-year prison sentence in Kansas, he poured a flammable liquid on his cellmate and set him on fire, killing him.

In this case, the man probably was guilty, and in any event, is definitely not a big loss for society.

But not every error is going to be without harm. One of these errors is going to wind up killing an innocent man -- an innocent as a lamb man -- and then the entire system is going to be in dire jeopardy. Not to mention the fact that death penalty supporters such as myself will be morally culpable in the outrage.

FWIW, Barry Scheck, the lawyer heading this "Innocence Project," is a very credible voice, as far as I'm concerned. He seems like a straight shooter. He's as liberal as all get out, and he's anti-death-penalty, but he is careful to keep the Innocence Project about actual innocence (or at least lack of legal sufficiency of evidence in death penalty cases), and does not claim that every Tom, Dick, and Harry was wrongfully executed just to make headlines or campaign against the policy itself. (In fact, his quotes showing him letting Bush off the hook more than I have -- something he's probably doing to keep this non-political and just about facts and evidence.)

Scheck is, in fact, despite his politics, actually doing more to keep the death penalty on the books than most of its supporters... by keeping the system honest and cautious. Assuming, that is, that the states executing killers are careful to keep in mind they have a credible critic watching over their shoulders -- if they forget that, and lapse into sloppiness, his project is likely to wind up defeating the death penalty.

All governors in death penalty states should have at least a couple of people like him -- skeptics of the policy, but not willing to indulge in nonsensical arguments to spare everyone -- on the boards reviewing this material. And everyone on the board, whether pro-DP or against it, should be skeptical of the evidence in all the cases they review.

We need people who are not going to rubber stamp a death penalty finding; but also people who aren't going to jerk that knee and claim that in almost every case the evidence doesn't support the sentence. Honest brokers, in other words, who are not seeking to undermine the policy by questioning convictions, but who are rather seeking to support the policy by making sure that the cases against the executed will stand up to future scrutiny.

Some of these cases are going to be weak. This one certainly was. It's never a popular decision to commute the sentence of a previously-convicted killer now convicted of a fresh murder, but if the evidence won't support a death penalty sentence, well, it's more important to be right than popular when death is involved.

Update: Not So Horrible? Commenters, including Moi, point out this link:

The evidence at Jones' trial was conclusive. A number of witnesses placed Jones at the scene of the crime, including Leon Goodson, who heard the shots and watched Jones leave the liquor store. A strand of Jones' hair was found at the murder scene. Also, Timothy Jordan testified against his partners in crime. Jones was convicted of capital murder and received the death sentence. Dixon was convicted of murder and received a 60-year prison term. Jordan received a 10-year prison term.

Okay, here's where it gets involved. Robtr asked about this in a comment, and I answered there. I'll repeat the basics.

The felony murder rule says that if an accomplice in a felony kills someone in furtherance of that felony, you are guilty of that murder, even if you didn't participate in it directly. Even if you said, "Hey, put that gun away!" before your accomplice killed a guy.

There is a moral basis for this rule -- if you are creating a situation in which murder is likely (and in any heist-- it's likely, even if not planned), you are morally culpable for the foreseeable consequences of it.

And there is a more practical basis for it: If two men mug a woman in an alley with no other witnesses, and one many kills her, there will never likely be any conclusive evidence pinning the murder on one man while clearing the other. One man will blame the partner; the partner will blame the other. Without the felony murder rule, both would have a perfect, textbook case of reasonable doubt, and no murder conviction may issue. And yet, obviously a murder was committed.

So, the felony murder rule is a good one.

The complication comes in because the Supreme Court has ruled -- in error, I think -- that while the felony murder rule can be used as a basis for conviction, it cannot serve as a basis for death penalty sentence. They have ruled -- again, in error, I think -- that only those persons directly, provably culpable in the murder can get the death penalty.

(Actually, I'm simplifying-- you can get the death penalty for felony murder, but only if you can be proven that you intended the victim be killed (i.e., you agreed that the killing should happen, or otherwise blessed it) or you were both a "major participant" in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life). Both of these are very hard to prove, much harder than proving the usual felony-murder case, so the Supreme Court has strongly limited the application of the death penalty in felony-murder cases.)

At any rate: It does not appear true as Scheck said, except in a technicality sort of way, that there is "no evidence" against Jones except his accomplice's say-so. There are eyewitnesses to the fact he was part of the robbery. He was seen entering and exiting the place.

But he's right in that Texas law requires evidence, besides accomplice say-so, to get the death penalty (a very wise and hygenic rule, I think) and apparently there was no evidence besides accomplice testimony proving him as the actual shooter except the hair on the victim's body which was supposedly his (but which in fact wasn't his).

However, that is a much thinner and technicality-oriented case. I agree that you should have more evidence than accomplice say-so (notoriously a font of perjury) to convict a man of the death penalty (or, really, even most crimes).

On the other hand, I disagree with the Supreme Court's attempt to radically reduce the applicability of the death penalty in felony murder cases.

On the basis of what I think the law ought to be -- there would be additional evidence to convict him on felony murder, and thus to impose the death penalty.

But based on what the law actually is, it seems in this case they can't impose the death penalty without proving that Jones actually fired the killing shot, which they can't, really, and so he shouldn't have been convicted.

This last bit -- that it's nearly impossible to say with any certainty whether it was Dixon or Jones who killed the guy -- is the whole reason for the felony murder rule in the first place. And the Supreme Court was basically just excluding a ton of murders from death penalty consideration by imposing their additional rules on it.

Based on all this:

1) Commenters were right about this being more of a technicality-type case than I thought.

2) Scheck is making greater claims here than the situation warrants -- something I had previously credited him for not doing. That is, I thought generally he did not make technicality-based claims. Here he seems to be. He has just forfeit a lot of the confidence I had in him.

3) Both the MSNBC headline and the one I wrote do follow in this error of overstating the case here. I always said in the post I thought the man was guilty, but shouldn't have been executed, because lacking that additional evidence, the death penalty should not be imposed. (Again, I stand by that-- accomplice testimony is so weak as to almost not be worth presenting it in court, and if you are presenting it, if you've got so little you have to rely on that, that's a good indicator you have a weak case and ought not be seeking the death penalty in the first place.)

But... I have never agreed with the Supreme Court on its rule against the death penalty in felony-murder situations. I can see some reason for a safety hatch (some accomplices are much less culpable than others), but if someone wishes to evade the rule they should have to put up an affirmative defense demonstrating they are relatively innocent of the murder. (Like, they didn't bring a gun themselves and actually tried to avoid killing.) They should have the burden of proving that; the state shouldn't be forced into the tough position of having to prove which among three or four perpetrators who actually killed the victim.

As the saying goes: You bought the ticket, enjoy the ride. On top of that, I can make a damn fine case that anyone committing a major felony with weapons is already acting with "reckless disregard for human life," because, seriously? Dude, you really think you or one of your buddies isn't going to start shooting people if the intended victims exercise their legitimate and lawful right to self-defense?

You know there's a good 30-50% chance people are going to get shot when you do a heist. Those percentages are way higher than are usually necessary to prove reckless indifference.

So that last bit makes this a technicality situation for me -- both men are guilty of felony-murder. That case is easily made. This bit about the hair... that only impacts making a standard murder case, which, in my opinion, should not have to be made here at all.

Two men went into the store, shots were fired, a man is dead, there are no living witnesses to the crime except the perps. They're both guilty of felony murder and, to my mind, both eligible for the death penalty. Let both make their cases to the jury that they were not the triggerman, let them prove their innocence of the actual slaying in the penalty phase... but don't require the state prove which among them killed the guy. We know one did. We know both intended an armed robbery in which murder was a likely consequence. It's difficult to prove which one did it, which is the whole reason for the felony-murder rule in the first place.

Scheck Further Eroding The Confidence I Had In The Innocence Project Not Two Hours Earlier: Scheck avoids blaming Bush -- going out of his way to do so -- but then pins blame on Bush's staffers, who, he asserts, did not communicate to Bush that Jones was seeking a DNA test to prove his innocence.

The system failed, Scheck asserts.

But did it?

Jones' appeals were rejected in October by the U.S. Supreme Court but the inmate Thursday filed, and later asked to withdraw, an 11th-hour state court plea seeking DNA testing of evidence. He made no clemency request to Gov. George W. Bush, who had authority to grant him a 1-time 30-day reprieve.

The link doesn't say the guy also didn't request a reprieve -- it just says he didn't request clemency -- but unless I hear otherwise I'm taking that to mean he made no requests for delay for the DNA test.

That being the case, how did the system fail?

Let me tell you, and Scheck, the reason a lot of guilty criminals don't request the DNA test:

Because they know they're guilty and they assume the test will confirm that.

In this case, the hair turns out to have not been Jones', but the guilty mind, of course, would know that it probably would turn out to be his, right? So he doesn't bother with the request. Why delay the inevitable and all that.

So by now I have completely reversed myself. This was always more of a technicality-type case than it was sold to me as, and furthermore, it appears the defendant, who really is in the best position to know if he's guilty or not, didn't even bother asking Bush for a 30 day reprieve to conduct the test.

The guilty man decided he was guilty and that any further testing would likely confirm that and went to death without so much fuss and bother.

And this is the work-product the Innocence Project is pushing out to the media in press releases and press availabilities?

Okay, well, enjoy the cooked-up agitprop, Barry. A mere two hours ago I was a supporter and now I am an opponent. Hope it was worth it.

Even Worse Now: Wow, this story was utterly misrepresented.

I assumed that Jones and Dixon went into the store together -- thus the difficulty in saying if it was Jones or Dixon who shot the victim.

Turns out, no, the eyewitness says it was just Jones who went in.

Thus, there always was additional evidence, apart from the hair, to convict Jones.

Not the strongest case in the world, all told, but it does in fact satisfy Texas' standard that there must be additional evidence, beyond accomplice say-so, to secure a death penalty conviction. There was in fact "additional evidence," beyond the hair.

Wow.

The other day I was thinking about bluefin tuna. Instapundit linked an article indicating they were overfished and in danger.

It occurred to me that what we really need is a conservative-run environmental group. Why? Because I just don't believe environmentalists. I think they have agendas and etc. I think they make stuff up to advance those agendas.

On the other hand-- I don't want the bluefin tuna to be overfished. Not because I love the fish (it's just a fish) but because, well, we want these guys to remain on earth in good numbers.

In other words, I support environmental goals -- I just have no faith in the people pushing this crap on me. I want an honest broker who can tell me things, after expert analysis, stuff like, "The snail darter isn't in danger but the bluefin tuna is, so yes, take that latter report seriously. Ignore the claims about the former."

I just saw a petition calling for the end of commercial whaling, because one type of whale is about to go extinct. Is that true? If it's true, I care. If it's not true -- well, honestly, I still care, because I'm not a fan of whale-hunting even if they have nice healthy numbers, but it wouldn't be something I would think should be addressed by a major push to get Iceland and Japan to stop whaling.

Again, I need an honest broker. Someone watching out for this stuff who isn't going to give me a big snowjob.

I had thought Barry Scheck was performing that important function with his Innocence Project.

Now I see my faith was misplaced.

Again, hope the one-day story was worth it, Barry.

Posted by: Ace at 09:30 AM | Comments (291)
Post contains 3289 words, total size 19 kb.

As Insty might say, read the whole thing.

Upshot: SS and Medicaid are broken in principle. They cannot be "fixed" without fundamentally altering their basic design. It is morally wrong to continue as we are; it is wrong to burden ourselves and our children by outlandish and unsustainable promises made by men long dead.

It's like that Sam Cooke song I linked in my Briefing thread this morning: A change is gonna come.

Posted by: Monty at 08:00 AM | Comments (131)
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Just what we needed. Another chance to point fingers & scream at each other. I'm referring to the upcoming election for the Chairman of the RNC, which is currently held by Michael Steele.

Courtesy of Hot Air, I found this article at the National Journal's Hotline that discusses all the different factions that are lining up against Mr. Steele.

A Golden Nugget of Classical Goodness from the comments: "Steele has done a great job for the Republicans and brought in the Tea Party. He should stay in his position and we will fight for him." Oooooooookay. Saying that Steele "brought in" the Tea Party is a little like saying King George III "brought in" the the Continental Congress and the American Revolution, but I will concede that he has been at least friendly towards the Tea Parties.

Here's the thing: If you believe that Michael Steele has done a good job of leading the Republican Party, you need to believe that he set out to decentralize power on the right by helping alienate the Tea Party coalition and causing them to bypass the RNC with direct contributions to their favored candidates. If you think that this is a good thing, but don't believe that Steele set out to make it happen, voting for him would be like voting for Mr. Bean or Inspector Clouseau. Rewarding incompetence.

If you think that he's done a bad job and should be replaced, which way do you go with his replacement? There's talk of Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party, throwing his hat into the ring. I think this might be the best option out there. He's Steele's top assistant at the RNC, so he's not a completely new face who has to learn on the job; however, looking at how the Republican Party kicked ass & took names this year in the Badger State, he seems to be a proven winner.

Let's face it, no matter how the issue is resolved, the GOP will be labeled as racist in the media for deposing their first black chairman on the heels of a big legislative win. I think we need to dig in our heels and take the criticism, because the stakes are MUCH larger in the next election. 2012 isn't just another chance to take the Senate and increase our margin in the House - it's a freakin' Presidential year. Whether the Tea Party stays on the outside or they get one of their own into leadership at the RNC, the next chairman of the RNC will need to be a coalition builder between all factions on the right. Building "hip hop coalitions" and giving interviews to Al Sharpton will be the least of our problems in the next cycle. We need someone who can rally the faithful, and I'm afraid that Michael Steele isn't up to the job.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 07:32 AM | Comments (94)
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

It'll be a fairly short briefing today.

The zombies are attacking Ben Bernanke from all sides, and he's out of shotgun shells.

A wizened little dwarf straight out of a Brothers Grimm fairy tale Teh Krugman climbs up on his shouting stump, points a trembling, gnarled finger at the castle in the distance, and announces that demons straight from hell have infested His Majesty's palace.

The endgame is rapidly approaching for the PIIGS in Europe. I suspect that the problem, as it is here, is to find some way to allow the sovereigns to default without actually calling it a "default". The ECB has been throwing good money after bad all summer (like some other central bank which shall remain nameless), and has done nothing but delay the reckoning.

Whiskey, leprechauns, and shamrocks: Why Ireland is boned.

Noted prevaricator, wastrel, and ineffectual blowhard calls out the Chinese. The Chinese have responded by telling him to roll his pimp ass up and bust a move if he's so inclined. (Or words to that effect.)

When no one has any money, it's kind of hard to decide how to spread all that nothing around.

So...apparently investing in lean hogs is a sin. It felt dirty. I must be punished.

Have I mentioned that California is boned? I might have; I can't remember. Anyway, they're boned.

more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:48 AM | Comments (224)
Post contains 250 words, total size 3 kb.

Thank you to rdbrewer, dri, andy, ArthurK, and the others (and the cobloggers) who keep the Top Headlines Sidebar filled.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:01 AM | Comments (134)
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

I was busy all day and will be out pretty much all night - so sorry for the higher than normal ONT suckage.

Remembering Veteran's Day

Here Neo-neocon traces the history of Veteran's day from its origin as Armistice Day. And why poppies have come to symbolize it in many countries:

Wild poppies flower when other plants in their direct neighbourhood are dead. Their seeds can lie on the ground for years and years, but only when there are no more competing flowers or shrubs in the vicinity (for instance when someone firmly roots up the ground), these seeds will sprout.

There was enough rooted up soil on the battlefield of the Western Front; in fact the whole front consisted of churned up soil. So in May 1915, when McCrae wrote his poem, around him bloodred poppies blossomed like no one had ever seen before.

Ten More Celebrities Who Were Veterans
Some you might know about, some you might not.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:00 PM | Comments (723)
Post contains 479 words, total size 6 kb.

Sheesh, sorry to leave the blog for so long. I can't find anything super-interesting to link (or say), so I'll just do an open thread for now.

Posted by: Ace at 04:48 PM | Comments (94)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

On the plus side, next year we get to draw districts about as ugly as this.

Except in some places -- like Illinois. Damn, we just voted Phil Hare out of his horribly gerrymandered district, and now Illinois is going to redraw it to move Bobby Schilling's home out of the district he represents (and make other mischief, such as including more liberal voters there to give a liberal a chance to win it back).

On the upside, though, we'll be doing a lot more drawing.

Posted by: Ace at 01:27 PM | Comments (180)
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday about twenty percent of the write-in ballots were counted. 98 percent were for Murkowski and 89% of those weren't challenged by Miller's poll watchers. DrewM did the math and at that rate Murkowski would win by about 1000 votes without even having to count the challenged ballots. In other words, the exact-spelling rule dispute will be moot if the the 89% rate persists.

Miller must have done the math too because he's challenging a lot more ballots today, including these:

According to Miller's poll watchers, the three voters who filled out those ballots should be disfranchised. By challenging ballots like these, which are clearly Murkowski votes and don't appear misspelled to me, Miller is ensuring that the pile of challenged ballots will have to be considered to determine the outcome of the election.

more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:37 PM | Comments (201)
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.