Executioner's Song and Dance

Scott Hardie | June 27, 2008
The Supreme Court has ruled that child rape cannot be punished by execution. Nobody argues that it isn't among the most vile and heinous of crimes, but we don't decide punishment by how offensive we find the crime. Nonetheless, conservative politicans are up in arms over the ruling, vowing to find a way to continue executing child rapists despite the judgment. (link) I'm always tickled when politicians take advantage of an unpopular law by swearing they'll violate it, since they obviously can't, but their failure to do so will happen because the unpopular law will be upheld in court, which will make them seem even more righteous. It's the same thing with displaying the ten commandments or banning flag-burning: Politicians know it will never survive a court challenge, but they sure do get to play the hero in the meantime. Why do we vote with our hearts and not with our brains?

Amy Austin | June 27, 2008
I was far more perturbed by the decision to reduce Exxon's punitive damages to the state of Alaska by eighty percent... and the approximately eight seconds it took to mention it. Right before about ten minutes of coverage of the (non-)execution decision. I read somewhere a few months ago that the original amount awarded ($2.5 billion) was the equivalent of three or four weeks' profit for Exxon. If that's true/correct, then that means that Exxon now owes Alaska approximately four days' worth for the Valdez devastation. Well, shoot... why not just write them out an IOU, since it's looking more and more like "God's country" is about to be plundered for every last drop of black gold we can milk it for before we actually do something productive about our "oil addiction". Exxon probably already spent more than that on the legal defense for this alone.

Tony Peters | June 27, 2008
While I disagree with the ruling I understand why it was made...excusing two crimes against the state (Treason and Espionage) the federal death penalty statute upon which all states base their laws require that there be a death in a case that the death penalty is imposed. That is the Law, the smartest thing I've heard in response to that ruling was that the law needs to change, which might be possible considering the number of people on both sides of the aisle agree with the issue.

I'm not sure about the case but I do know that Alaska has made a lot of money on oil and residents still don't pay taxxes but they do still get royalty checks.

I'm surprised no one has said anything about our right to own a gun

Amy Austin | June 27, 2008
I already know these things about Alaska, too, but that doesn't have anything to do with punitiive damages. And besides that, not everyone in Alaska makes their money off of oil... there are a lot of people in the fishing industry who were severely affected and counting on that settlement money to pay off debts and/or get back their savings or retirements or restore their businesses to what they once were. Bankruptcies and suicides have occurred because of this. It's like the goddamn sub-prime mortgage issue... the government always seems to think it's more important to help/bail out the banks and the big businesses with deep pockets than it is to come to the rescue of those who need it most... "the little people".

Lori Lancaster | June 27, 2008
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | June 27, 2008
OK I will reserve judgment on Exxon I just don't have a lot of sympathy for the state as a whole when they essentially sold their sole for oil.

The Second amendment case had a far reaching implications for contract law had it be ruled the other way. The State of Montana joined the USA in the 1880's and part of that contract specifically referred to an individuals rights to own a firearm. A ruling for collective rights would have been a defacto renegotiation of that contract by only one party, which would mean that now any contract could be renegotiated without joint approval not to mention the fact that Montana's statehood could be terminated. Though I doubt that it was a major consideration it's still interesting to see how our laws are interconnected

Amy Austin | June 27, 2008
...they essentially sold their sole for oil.

hahahahaha... I know it's a typo, but this is funny on so many levels... I also don't think it's a fair generalization, either.

Tony Peters | June 27, 2008
I was jokingly referring to the fish. But my point is if you compare how we in the US (mis)manage our natural assets compared to how the the Canadians manage both their environment and their natural resources they make us look pretty poor stewards of our land

Amy Austin | June 28, 2008
Yes, but that isn't all "Alaska"s fault... and certainly, the companies who are by far the biggest participants in the exploitation of those assets (like Exxon) deserve to take a hit when gross mismanagement occurs. Right this moment, there are some pretty pricey spots in print and broadcast media (that started running a very convenient period of time *before* this settlement was -- quite predictably -- reduced to a meaningless amount) touting Exxon's commitment to green/alternative energy exploration by way of its participation (i.e., "Japanese affiliate Tonen Chemical") in developing a polymer for lithium ion batteries... a product that will improve/expand upon hybrid auto technology. Make no mistake about it -- this isn't being done out of the sheer goodness of their hearts... they clearly see that hybrid/electric vehicles are the wave of the future, and they're only working on building themselves the best surfboard around to make sure that they catch it... it's called lateral expansion. And these ads aren't for any other purpose than to toot their own horn, pat themselves on the back and curry favor with the (paying) public for their noble efforts to "go green". I'd find it a hell of a lot more impressive if they were silently pouring all that ad money into their lofty green goals (hey... press releases are still free, aren't they!) -- or, EVEN BETTER, letting it pay for those punytive damages that you just know they are celebrating in the boardrooms while the Alaskans of Cordova cry into their beers at the barrooms -- instead of using it like the blood money it is to buy PR time in an effort to clean up their own public image. I'm sorry, but this damn spot will never wash out in my opinion.

Tony Peters | June 28, 2008
It is the responsibility of the people to look out for their whats theirs...Alaska collectively grabbed for all the oil money they could and didn't really steward how the oil was taken from the ground...100 miles over the border the Canadians imposed strict conditions on when and how oil could be drilled...Alaska got lots of toxic waste damaged land (not including the Exxon spill) where Canada didn't get it oil as fast nor did they make as much money but neither did they get the environmental damage

As for Exxon and all the other oil companies they are trying to corner the market on the next energy source...Ethanol for all it's greenness is an abject failure driving food costs up more than it has done anything for the environment and it takes more ethanol fuel to travel the same miles creating more exhaust etc etc etc....