AnnotatedOpinions.com

On an outcropping in a vast federal preserve in California, near the Nevada border, stands a cross. A simple, 8-foot cross.  

It has been there since 1934, when veterans erected it, on their own, to honor fallen soldiers. . .  

America is in no danger of being overrun by religious markers. The First Amendment will see to that. But the Constitution does not demand hostility toward all images connected to important religious traditions, or the purging of nonsecular symbolism from public spaces, no matter who put what where and why. . . .  

It is a modest memorial that happens to be infused with religious significance. . .  

[AO: Yesterday I argued against those who seek to have the cross removed. I based my argument on the fact that the land is no longer the property of the federal government and therefore the First Amendment does not apply. As a result, the VFW can do with the land (and cross) as they please.   

Here, The New York Daily News argues that the cross should be left alone because it was erected in 1934 by veterans and because America is in no danger of being overrun by religious markers. This argument is totally beside the point and shows a disregard for the relevant legal issues in the case. It also neglects the fact that other Americans attempted to install another, different, religious symbol more recently and those Americans were rebuffed. 

Assuming the land is government property, that the cross was erected so many years ago is not a sufficient reason to ignore the requirements of the constitution. Nor is it sufficient that our country is not overrun by religious markers. Whether the court allows the cross to remain on that outcropping should and will depend on its legality. The New York Daily News’ argument is not a legally cognizable argument. The argument I made yesterday, one base don the land not belonging to the Federal government, is legally cognizable.]

A violent three-time loser convicted in the cold-blooded murder of a disabled Long Island man is up for parole after only five years in prison.

Applicants don’t have to be terminal, only disabled enough that a state doctor considers them no threat. . . .

Releasing a murderer because he is sick defeats the purpose of a life sentence. Felder must stay in the can. . .

[AO: So, under a new law in New York, prisoners who are certified as sufficiently disabled to be incapable of harming society, and therefore considered no threat to society, are eligible for early release. Apparently, this program will save taxpayers millions.  

The New York Daily News is no killer coddler. They want people sentenced to life in prison to stay in prison . . . for life. However, their argument skips a step. See, the editors should first explore why criminals are imprison before demanding that those sent to prison for life should remain there for life.

Three major theories for incarceration are deterrence (personal and general), rehabilitation and retribution (i.e. punishment). It is generally accepted that prisons do little to rehabilitate prisoners. Also, the difference between personal and general deterrence is that personal deterrence requires incapacitating the criminal so she cannot commit another crime whereas general deterrence sends a message to other to not commit crimes or they’ll be imprisoned.

 An argument that a life sentence must be served whether or not an individual is a threat is an argument that the retributive theory for incarceration is the primary, and perhaps only, reason for punishment. But this is not so because if you accept that the purpose of punishment is, for example, personal deterrence. Then, there is no need to deter an individual who cannot continue to commit crimes.]

You can rest assured that back in the day, no pirate ever came as happily to court as did Smilin’ Abduwali, the Jolly Roger of today’s brigands.

. . . President Lincoln gave Gordon all of three days to get his affairs in order before the gallows. Meanwhile, Smilin’ Abduwali has a mom in Somalia, who says her son is an innocent dupe, and a radical New York lawyer, Ron Kuby, who says the Navy may have arrested S.A. in violation of the “principles of truce in warfare.”

Sort of high-seas Miranda warnings. No wonder Abduwali’s smilin’.  [AO: I must confess that I don’t understand the point of this opinion. It seems to suggest that the guy is smiling because he’s going to court and that we should hang him to wipe the smile off his face. Am I reading the opinion correctly?

Some of you will recall that I’ve argued on this site that capturing and trying pirates my not have the deterrent effect some conservative commentators have suggested. Well, there you go. Maybe if he is hanged, drawn and quartered, then we’ll get the deterrent effect they want. ]

The Maersk Alabama is the first American flagship to be taken since the 1800s, and the U.S. can lead the way by hauling the pirates back to America to face justice. New York, once the hotbed of pirate trials, would be a good choice.

The piracy of the Alabama is a rock-solid case that would force pirates to face stiff consequences. And imprisonment for life in a super-max penitentiary would send a message to the world on how to handle these thugs. [AO:  I agree that we have to put an end to this pirate problem. However, there are two problems with this argument. The first is that under US laws, the punishment for piracy is not life in “a super-max penitentiary.” Second, many of these pirates may find life in a super-max US federal penitentiary much better than starving to death in a failed state. We may inadvertently encourage more piracy if it becomes a means to a relatively better life in a US federal prison. ]

The vote by Congress to tax Wall Street bonuses out of existence was economic populism run amok. This was legislating by rage, fear and panic. [AO: Sometimes, Congress is left with no choice. It was necessary to take immediate action to avoid the bonus payments disappearing.]

Dispensing with calm deliberation, they distorted the tax code into a political weapon as a way to blunt the fury of the American public as said fury was about to be aimed not at the greedsters of AIG, but at the whole incompetent lot in Washington. [AO: What does it mean to distort the tax code? Seriously. This is an honest question. Also, where is your crystal ball? How do you know that the American people were about to turn their fury on Washington? Perhaps this is wishful thinking on your part?]

Only recently, after all, the House and Senate approved bonus limits that had the effect of exempting the AIG payments. Both bodies okayed the exemption at the request of the Obama administration. Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd carried the ball – and damn if his career isn’t going up in flames.  [AO: Do you have kids? See, you don’t follow your kids around telling them what to do and what not to do at every given moment. Washington thought that AIG was smart enough not to hand out such lavish bonuses. Apparently, Washington gave them too much credit. Would you have written this column if AIG had paid $1B in bonuses even without limitations from congress? How about $10B? Point is, Congress doesn’t what to have to tell AIG how much it can pay its employees. But AIG has given Congress no alternative.]