The Brian Nichols Case

8 Random Items for 12/15/2008 #1

Here's the thing: I'm opposed to capital punishment in all cases. You will never convince me that you can show society that killing people is wrong by killing people. Murder is murder whether sanctioned by the state or not.

So now you can tie the idea that I'm one of those "soft on crime" liberals around my neck. Well, no. For one thing, there's really no such thing as a "soft on crime" liberal. It is another of those stereotypes invented by conservatives in an attempt to destroy liberalism. (You know, liberalism, the political philosophy that won two world wars, created the middle class, ushered in the greatest period of peace and prosperity in our country's history, etc, etc, etc.)

Personally, I find Brian Nichols crimes outrageous and despicable. That four people have lost their lives because of this inhuman scum is a tragedy. Brian Nichols should never be permitted to walk among us again. He should be locked up for life and the key should be thrown away. But, if we kill him, how can we take the moral high ground? How can we say we are any better?

I don't blame the families of the victims for wanting him dead. That seems like a normal response to me. The blood lust of the prosecutor is shocking to me though. Now, I don't know Paul Howard from the next man on the street. Perhaps he's a good man. As a rule though, I don't have a high opinion of the Fulton County D.A. office. This is the same office after all, that employed that piece of eternal crap, and frequent abuser of her powers as a prosecutor, Nancy Grace.

Well, the blood lust is actually less annoying than the whining. The idea that the state didn't get a fair trial when they received guilty convictions on all counts is ridiculous. The idea that the state didn't get a fair trial when the verdict ensures that the defendant will be locked up for life is ridiculous. The idea that the state didn't get a fair trial because of two jurors who were opposed to the death penalty is ridiculous.

Essentially, the gist of the D.A.'s argument is that anyone who is opposed to the death penalty should not be allowed to serve on a jury in the state of Georgia where a D.A. might ask for the death penalty. Since there's no way to ensure this, Mr. Howard would like to make it easier for him to put those he convicts to death. He's looking to change the rules so that he only needs a plurality of jurors to kill people.

I would think the consequences of this change should be obvious. You might end up with someone empaneled on a jury who is so opposed to the death penalty that they refuse to return a guilty verdict if they know the accused would be put to death. Who would be served then?

For those if you who think justice requires at least one more death, you may get your wish. The Feds may go after Mr. Nichols as well and kill him for your amusement.

(This is based on a really rotten article that appeared in the AJC on Sunday. Now the AJC rarely exhibits the qualities of great journalism, but this article was embarrassingly bad. See if you can spot the journalistic transgressions.)