From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:20:44 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Bell vs. Woodward--justice?
Message-ID: <199711120506.GAA16422@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>If the judge is overturning aquittals, then we have problems. And I would
>suggest we lock and load if the judge had done that and thrown her in prison.
>As it is, I only suggest that everyone lock and load because they threw her
>in jail before she was convicted. She hadn't yet had her trial, so she
>shouldn't have been in jail, period.

She was under indictment for murder, no? I don't know how Massachusetts
handles murder suspects before trial, but in many states those accused of
capital crimes don't get the benefit of bail. (Ditto for those who are
flight risks, etc.) Of course, prosecutors perforn their own dog-and-pony
show in front of the judge/magistrate, claiming that the accused is not
only guilty of everything one could imagine, but also a smarmy type who
would double-park during rush hour and probably has connections to the
Illuminati, neo-Nazi hate groups, and the O.T.O.

The logical extreme of what you propose is that, for a serial murderer, jail
would just be a rest stop between killings. "He was caught in Idaho and
indicted for murder, but they released him on bail. So he went over to
Montana and killed someone there, but they had to release him, too."
Surely there must be some reasonable middle ground.