Very Hottest Photos

With timed served, she will be released next week and probably making adult films shortly thereafter. If john Bobbitt is still around the industry, the two could have a best seller on their hands.

Four years is the maximum sentence under the jury's finding, so I take it as an indication the judge believes the jury got the not guilty verdict wrong.

This is going to be a short and bitter commentary. I did not watch any news coverage consistently until I discovered the verdict had been rendered via Twitter, so i can only speak in generalizations about the not guilty verdict.

I assume by the reactions of people with whom I have similar viewpoints that I should be shocked Casey Anthony was found not guilty, but i cannot honestly be. From what little I do know of the case, Anthony is an unpleasant, narcissistic type personal too immature to care for a child. This point is weighed against the forensic evidence in the being questionable. If I had to guess, I will bet the jury found Anthony more sympathetic than I did, and had it drilled into them the forensics evidence had to be perfect for a convinction instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not shocked if this is the case.

You cannot discount the emotional impact of staring at a defendant everyday for over a month, knowing full well she has been sitting in jail for nearly three years with presumably nothing on her mind but her dead daughter. I think that is far fetched in Anthony’s case. I can only assume her lackadaisical manner as the verdict was read and her smiling demeanor afterwards, both over relief she had dodged a bullet, were evident throughout the trial. But if juries take the innocent until proven guilty to heart as they should, then their instinct is towards sympathy.

Let us face it. Anthony is young, attractive in better times, and her daughter caylee was adorable. No one wants to think there is anything sinister going on there. Did the jury go too far with it? I would need to know their rationale for finding Anthony guilty of misleading police during the early investigation. The only reason she would lie to police is to cover up wrongdoing, yet they found her not guilty of child abuse and first degree murder. What did the jury believe she lied about and why do they believe she lied? How can the lies have no connection to covering up her knowledge of cCylee’s murder?

Juries have a habit of tuning out technical arguments on complex issues, especially if they are drawn out too long. Days upon days of forensic evidence will make a jury’s eyes glaze over. They will develop a negative view of forensics out of boredom, so it is easy for an experienced defense attorney to cast doubt on its value. The more complicated some thing sounds, the easier it is to convince a jury there are a lot of tings that can go wrong. When a jury is sick of hearing about it and does not understandf most of it anyway, the prosecution is in trouble.

There is also a reason prosecutors work for the government instead of making at least twice as much in the private sector--they are either inexperienced, or not that good at it. Most of these folks are biding their time until they can hit the big leagues--assuming they even can. The private sector wins out yet again.

When it all comes down to it, a trial is barely controlled chaos that becomes completely uncontrolled when it moves into the jury deliberations room. Who knows what jurors are thinking? Or over thinking, for that matter. They may have thought Anthony was young and naïve rather than immature and sinister. They may have thought the prosecuting attorney was an arrogant bully. They may have latched on to some nearly irrelevant factor to make their decision. I have heard rumors the jury got hung up on the lack of fingerprints on the duct tape. Weird stuff like that happens, so I cannot find myself terribly shocked Anthony got off the hook.

Someone finally figured out Jerod Lee Loughner is mentally ill. Too late to do anyone any good, but there you go.

What does a law and order conservative like yourself think about keeping juvenile criminal records sealed?

I am cautiously in favor of keeping juvenile records sealed.

The problem with it is the same as with anything to which an absolute rule is applied--circumstances vary. In the case of juvenile offenders, it is a matter of differing maturity levels. Sometimes a group of twelve year olds break into a house to steal video games. Other times, a group of twelve year olds break into a house and gang rape a nine year old girl. The former is likely a youthful indiscretion or failure of parenting that may not lead to an adult life of crime. The latter is a high indication those kids are not fit to participate in civilized society.

What I depend on is a rare bit of optimism. I assume youthful indiscretions can be fixed, so there is no good reason to hound a juvenile offender on into adulthood. I am also confident that heinous crimes committed by juveniles carry punishments which extend into adulthood. They are plenty of juveniles who have committed serious crimes transferred to regular prison after turning eighteen.

I am realistic to know keeping records sealed is not a perfect idea regardless of how the kid turns out, but it is fair over all. One can hope the failures cause minimal damage. I am shooting from the hip here. Someone with more experience in juvenile law tham me, which should be just about anyone else with a law degree, could give you a far more rationalized opinion.

You wanted to see the photos as proof Osama bin Laden is dead. Would you have preferred if he had been taken alive?

No. I also do not see what releasing the photos have to do with that, either. I have no doubt the scum,bag is in hell being gang raped by 72 dildo sporting Helen Thomas clones for all eternity, and I am satisfied with that sight unseen. The released photo would be both a sense of closure and a shared historical moment. How many brutal, iconic photographs are etched in our collective memory? Many from 9/11. it deserves a bookend with which to make peace.

But if he had been taken alive, think about what would have happened. Cast aside my objection to trying terrorists in civilian court anyway--I am assuming Osama Bin Laden would be tried in the same manner as Timothy McVeigh--lawyers would collide with each other in the rush to defend him in court. The trial of the century would have given Osama Bin Laden a forum. He had an overblown ego. He would have eaten that up. Prosecutors would most certainly, which would have Europeans up in arms. American progressives would probably be up in arms, too.

It is safe to say Bin Laden would be convicted, but think about how many years it would take before his execution would be carried out. In the interim, he would be jailed at taxpayer expense. He had severe kidney problems, so you could expect to foot the bill for medical expenses for years to come. Try this one on for size: acquiring a donor kidney and paying for a transplant because some would think allowing him to die of renal failure before his execution would be--wait for it--inhumane.

No, this is war, not a crime spree. Treating al Qeada’s terrorist attacks as criminal acts is what emboldened them in the first place. It was Bin Laden who declared the conflict to be a war. In war, the military kills the enemy. I will not deny emotional satisfaction in knowing SEALS killed him, but striking him down in a military raid was the best thing to do all around.

Although the class action suit claiming taco Bell uses only 36% beef has been dropped, the fast food chain wants an apology. The text of a full page ad that ran in Wednesday's edition of the Wall Street Journal, LA Times, and The New York Times, Taco bell asked the Alabama-based law firm to apologize for claiming that its meat mixture doesn’t meet the USDA’s requirements to be called beef.

“You go it wrong,” Taco Bell tells Beasley Allen in the ad, “and you’re probably feeling pretty bad right about now. But you know what always helps? Saying to everyone, ‘I’m sorry’.”

The law could not care less about hurt feelings. Lady Justice is only concerned with dollar amounts in such matters. Taco bell has been saved a bundle by the class action suit being dropped. The sooner the company stops talking about it, the quicker the public will forget it ever happened. Rubbing it in with full page ads in newspapers across the country demanding an apology is dumb on so many levels, it is unreal.

Why do you oppose hate crime legislation, but consider homicide worse than manslaughter?

I had to think about this question a while just to figure out what you were asking me. I think you are wondering why I oppose labeling an offense a hate crime even though it inherently possesses malice of thought when I think premeditated murder is worse than an unintentional killing. Is that it?

It is an interesting question. Answering it has been on edge to avoid hypocrisy, but I think I have a solid rationale for opposing hate crime legislation while still considering malice of thought in murder a true crime. My rationale boils down to not believing hatred is a crime, but plotting to murder someone is.

Think about it this way. A white supremacist can hate a black civil rights leader all he wants. It may make you uncomfortable to know there are people roaming about with those kinds of thoughts in their heads, but the world is full of rough edges. His opinion on the color of other people’s skin is his own. That is true even if he snaps one day, concocts a plan to kill the civil rights leader, and carries it out. Plotting the murder and carrying it out are crimes; the racist motivation behind it is not. It still ought not be a crime to hate the murdered civil rights leader even after the deed has been done. That is the thought police at work. They need no further encouragement.

I think hate crimes legislation is usually motivated by a desire to feel enlightened by punishing incorrect thought. The problem with labeling offenses as hate crimes is two fold. One, it is extremely nebulous to determine someone’s thoughts about committing a crime. Would it be a hate crime for a Barack Obama voter to vandalize Glenn Beck’s house? Howe about stealing a social Security check from an elderly woman? Is that ageism? Do we have to determine the mindset of the perpetrator in any crime involving people of different races/ yes, you would, and good luck with that. What are you going to do, by the way? Punish the perpetrator twice for not for not following the rules of political correctness in committing his crimes?

The second problem is realism. The law is not concerned with your warm fuzzies. It is results oriented. As much as one thinks courts like to take as much power for themselves as possible--and I am not discounting a radical change as “enlightened” legal scholars take more places on the bench--but determining someone feelings about committing a precedent they are eager to set. It is podium pounding politicians who go for hate crimes legislation.

So I oppose hate crime legislation, but support homicide being considered a horrible crime because I separate opinion and plotting as actual crimes. People ought to be able to think whatever they want, no matter how vile. Just try not to be living next door when they finally go off.