Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Death Penalty Opponents to Coakley – No Grey Area – Dead is Dead.

By

Death Penalty opponents strongly disagree with Coakley’s position:

“Death penalty opponents, who are watching the case closely, say if Coakley’s arguments prevail it could be more difficult for federal courts to overturn death sentences, as well as other criminal punishments, handed down in courts.

“I was shocked to see that she and the state of Massachusetts had joined that brief…At the end of the day, if the state of Alabama wins, this kid with an IQ in the 60s will be executed,”-  Stephen B. Bright, president and senior counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights, an organization that opposes the death penalty.

Congressman Mike Capuano who has been critical of Coakley’s changing record on the death penalty is also asking how someone who is totally opposed to the death penalty could be pushing a legal argument for the death penalty to be used in a case of a mentally retarded person.

“It is difficult to see how she can claim that this is not about the death penalty, when a developmentally disabled person will face certain execution in Alabama in a matter of weeks if her arguments prevail,” Capuano said.

This is exactly why you need someone in the Senate with a firm opposition to the death penalty and all progressive issues. Someone we can count on, and no exactly where he/she will stand.  We cant afford to have someone find grey areas on a black and white issue. How can Coakley say that this is against the death penalty if her efforts will result in the use of the death penalty? This isn’t about abstract laws, dead is dead.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • the legal merits of the brief and it is very clear what Congressman Capuano disagrees with. If the brief is successful, it will help execute a developmentally disabled person. Why sign on?  

      • This term came up during the marriage debates.
        http://squaringtheglobe.blogsp…

        <

        p>

        This is the dismissive term used by Arline Isaacson, the fiery co chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, to describe those whose support of a lefty cause is tempered by their commitment to play by the rules.

        By “commitment to play by the rules”, Sam is referring to a commitment to abide by constitutional law. Then what then does one call the liberals who shun this adjective?

        Illiberal, I’d say.

          • what process are you talking about?

            <

            p>I believe the process in question is whether, and when, the Supreme Court can intervene in specific state cases.   Martha Coakley, personally and professionally opposed to the death penalty has put the weight of Massachusetts jurisprudence against what she sees as a dodgy intervention.  If she is persuasive, the Supreme Court may not intervene in a specific death penalty case and someone will die.   In this instance, the person scheduled to die is purported to be “developmentally disabled”.  I dont’ know the specifics of the case so I can’t say either way.

            <

            p>I can’t say I envy her.  It must have been a difficult choice.  

            <

            p>

            that make no sense.

            <

            p>Martha Coakley supports the process despite her avowed opposition to a specific outcome.   That’s the definition of a “process liberal”.

            <

            p>A process liberal believes that government, and the citizenry that votes for government, have neither the right nor the expectation of specific outcomes.  We do not accept the legitimacy of fiat, no matter how noble in intent. A process liberal believes that we only have the right to expect, and fight for, a fair process with appropriate checks and balances undertaken by sober-minded individuals.   It’s pretty much ingrained in the constitution: generally desired outcomes are listed in the preamble and specific outcomes are tacked on as the amendments. In between is nearly all process.

            <

            p>Needless to say, process liberals, like other liberals have to suck up a lot of frustration: most popular initiatives, purportedly seeking to “let the voice of the people be heard” are merely the desire for a specific outcome; no income tax; no same sex marriage; no this nor that…  Fiat that is often in clear contrast with the legislative process.      

            <

            p>In the Alabama deathpenalty case,  it appears to go beyond merely frustrating and approaches gut-wrenching.  

            • Martha Coakley, personally and professionally opposed to the death penalty has put the weight of Massachusetts jurisprudence against what she sees as a dodgy intervention.

              <

              p>What is it about the legal question being pursued by counsel for Holly Wood that you implicitly regard as a dodgy intervention?

              <

              p>What source can you cite that affirms your assertion about Coakley’s view of the legal question being raised, that is evasive, shifty or unsound?

              <

              p>Are you implicitly arguing that Coakley’s brief is intended to advocate against an unsound appeal and the matter of law it raises?  

              <

              p>The legal question pertains to the “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996” which puts a limit on the time a defendant can make a Federal judicial appeal in a death sentence case: “It purported to make the death penalty ‘effective’ by placing restrictions on federal judicial review of state criminal convictions.“

              <

              p>

              For all his accomplishments, President Clinton’s strategy of running to the right on crime issues left a notorious legacy known as the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. It purported to make the death penalty “effective” by placing restrictions on federal judicial review of state criminal convictions. The AEDPA requires prisoners to petition the federal court within one year after their state convictions become final (generally when the direct appeal process has been taken to its end) and bans review of most issues that prisoners attempt to raise in successive petitions. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the latter restriction on the theory that it did not suspend habeas corpus but merely required prisoners to make all their claims for relief at one time.

              State prisoners who are unaware of the one year limitations period for federal review often lose their right to habeas relief. Because prisoners seeking federal review generally have no right to a lawyer, those who are aware of the time limit often file their own woefully inadequate petitions. If, a couple of years later, the prisoner’s family comes up with the money to hire a lawyer, it’s often too late, even if the prisoner was unaware that serious constitutional violations deprived him of a fair trial.

              The AEDPA was supposed to make the death penalty “effective” by allowing states to kill death row inhabitants more efficiently. It hasn’t worked.

              […]

              Can you imagine sitting in prison and listening to your lawyer tell you: “The good news is that the federal court agreed with us that your constitutional rights were violated during your trial, and that the state appellate court made a mistake when it affirmed your conviction. The bad news is that the federal court thought the state appellate court’s mistake was reasonable, so you’re not getting a new trial.”

              “You mean,” says the inmate, “I should have won a new trial on my state appeal, but I don’t get one now even though my rights were violated?”
              link

              <

              p>First of all, for Coakley to claim her brief is unrelated to the death penalty is on its face a contradiction with reality given the statute in question is the “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996“.  Here’s the operative Coakley hedge: “This, from our point of view, is unrelated to a death penalty or any of the issues around that,” Coakley said. From what you’ve read already can you agree with Coakley?  I can’t.

              <

              p>Her brief argues an interpretation of the law which would, if its found to be compelling, denies Holly Woods’ appeal.

              <

              p>Coakley says her interest is to determine the terms under which the Commonwealth would be required to defend cases on appeal in Federal court. That’s certainly her prerogative but you have to ask about how she weighed the interests at stake in this matter. It does appear and rightfully so that Coakley has no regard for the interests of Holly Wood as compared to the legal question at hand: How the “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996” ought to be interpreted and the interpretations effect on Commonwealth’s defense of cases on appeal in Federal courts.

              <

              p>One thing is perfectly clear, she is not using her ample intellect and authority as AG to advocate for an interpretation of the law that supports a less restrictive  right to appeal death sentence convictions,  even in the context of this case where there’s evidence of ineffective counsel and an entirely inappropriate death sentence due to the defendant’s severe mental incapacity (IQ 60).

              <

              p>Coakley reversed her death penalty position due to the potential for wrongful convictions. Yet, now she wants to limit the defendant’s right to appeal, despite the same potential for wrongful convictions. Appeal is the remedy to wrongful convictions.

              <

              p>Coakley has been consistent in favoring “finality” in the balance between the rights of the accused and the state’s burden to prove, so her position in this case comes as no surprise. But I am hard pressed to call her position a liberal position.  I would instead call it a law and order position that is contrary to liberal principles of  burden of proof , and appeals as a remedy available to the wrongfully accused and wrongfully sentenced.  

              <

              p>

  2. There is no other issue that makes me more profoundly sad and angry than the fact that I am, as a citizen, party to state sanctioned murder. Even for a degenerate person who tortured and and raped and killed a series of little girls. Even on legal merits based our constitution, never mind obscure case law.

    • Coakley was willing to open the door to the death penalty an inch in service to her conceptualization of federalism.  Capuano was willing to open the door an inch in service to his conceptualization of American security.  The other two can sit on the sidelines and catcall what they would have done because they’ve never had to make a tough call like that.

      • our Attorney General had a choice as I posted down line

        <

        p>AG’s can refuse to represent the state and they do.   (0.00 / 0)
        And Governors must appoint a special counsel. Little fuzzy here, but when a parent of a child in Belchertown and Munson sued the Commonwealth Attorney General Bellotti refused to take the case after touring the place and describing it as a “hell hole”.  

        • You’d have admired Coakley for dodging the issue?  Would you be happier if Capuano had dodged his vote?

          <

          p>I want my politicians to take tough choices, not dodge the issues.

  3. Coakley is arguing a legal question that controls whether the Federal courts will hear an appeal.  The appeal is from the potentially incompetently represented and potentially wrongly sentenced (death sentence) man (with an IQ of 60) who was  found guilty of murder.  The legal question does not govern this case only but other cases in the future.

    <

    p>Coakley’s interest in the question regretfully is not consistent with the interests of the wrongly sentenced man.

    <

    p>Her interests are related to (should the question be answered in favor of the man) the additional demands put on the Commonwealth’s AGs office in the future; time, staff, and cost representing the state in Federal courts on appeal in instances provided for under this legal question.

    <

    p>She claims that, had she not filed a brief in this case, she would have been blamed for not doing her job.  (Read that sentence again. It’s pretty shocking that her response to this issue is framed by how her decision would be responded to by her detractors and not on the substance of the issue.)

    <

    p>Like a prosecutor, AG Coakley has discretion as to how she exercises the authority of her office in the interest of the  Commonwealth. In this case, are the Commonwealth’s interests best served by filing the brief in opposition of this man’s appeal, or by stepping back and letting 18 other states argue the point?

  4. This is troubling to me on a number of levels. The excuse that Martha is looking at this through a purely legal framework is easy enough to swallow, until you realize that if she is succesful, a mentally retarded man will be executed without access to appeal. That kind of detatchment might fly in some circumstances, but this is surely not one of them.  This isn’t about abstract case law, it’s about life and death.

    <

    p>Of all the AGs who signed this brief, only 3 represent states that have done away with the death penalty. As a Massachusetts resident, I never though I’d see our progressive state advocate such an archaic, barbaric practice (under the guise of states’ rights or not). I could never vote for a Senator who would do anything but staunchly oppose the death penalty under all circumstances.

    • Uffishthought says:

      I could never vote for a Senator who would do anything but staunchly oppose the death penalty under all circumstances.

      <

      p>I guess this means uffishthought won’t be voting for Capuano, after all, since Capuano voted in 2001 for a bill allowing the death penalty in terrorism cases.

      • I feel like you’re handing 0 zeros as an attempt to punish comments with which you do not agree but which you don’t take the time to debate. Why do you want it deleted?

        • in what you think is the service of your candidate.  Don’t like it, tired of it, that’s all.

          <

          p>I’ll use the rating system to express a view of a comment – positive or negative – when someone else has already made the substantive points I’d want to make or when I just don’t have the time for a protracted back and forth.

          • instead of giving out 0s which mean ‘delete comment’. If everyone who didn’t “like” someone else’s comment gave them a 0, we wouldn’t be a able to have a conversation.  What if this point of view is exactly right?  Would you rather it wasn’t known and wasn’t discussed?  Would you rather vote for Coakley and have others vote for Coakley not having considered this?  Are you choosing to put fingers in your ears, yell and say, I can’t hear you? That’s not an informed decision.  

            <

            p>Jerlyn Merritt is a well known attorney who covered the Scooter Libby trial in DC for her blog.  Some of the arguments about Coakley’s decisions in this matter and Coakley’s responses to questions about her decisions in this matter are direct quotes from Merritt’s blog.  Merritt has a keen interest in liberal issues and law enforcement. She lives in Colorado and will not be voting in our election. Take this one for example:

            <

            p>

            Coakley-speak:

            “This, from our point of view, is unrelated to a death penalty or any of the issues around that,” Coakley said. “A real concern was that we get a clear determination from the Supreme Court on what is the standard of review of a federal court looking at a state court decision.”

            How is limiting the appeal rights of a mentally retarded person sentenced to die not about the death penalty? AEDPA, which the brief addresses, is the infamously unfair “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.”[More…]

            <

            p>Those are not my words.  If you do not like them take issue, show how they are wrong.

            <

            p>But stop giving out 0’s which means ‘delete comment’.  Don’t it be said the Coakley supporters prefer to stifle free speech on a political blog. ‘0’ means delete comment.    

            • Neil, the statute is indeed called the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, but it applies to habeas corpus review in all state-court convictions, not just death penalty cases. I think the argument from the name of the statute is weak indeed. I’ve spelled out my view of this in a comment below. In short, I think that folks who are opining on this don’t understand how the law works–they don’t understand that litigation on ancillary procedural issues does not and should not turn on how the merits of the underlying case ought to come out. Otherwise, there would be no point in having rules of procedure at all.

              <

              p>TedF

          • 0’s are for totally inappropriate content – obscenity, commercial spam, etc. – not simply content that you personal disagree with. Giving people zeros forsimply because you don’t like a comment is a violation of the spirit of this forum, if not of the actual rules of the road. Please stop.

  5.  This amicus brief has very little to do with the death penalty. The case in which the brief was filed has to do with federal review of a state court decision,something that, under the Constitution, should be limited. Coakley signed onto a brief arguing for limited federal review of state court decisions.  If anyone had bothered to check out the actual unbiased facts combined with sophisticated brain power it would be clear that this is a state’s rights case and as Attorney General she was obliged to protect the state.  In other words, she was doing her job well. Now if she were voting purely for political purposes she would not have added her name and you would be busting her for that too.  Her signing on shows that she doesn’t put her finger in the air to test the political winds. It’s the same courage she has displayed in her 23 years working in public service for little money.  Martha Coakley was the first AG (and only) to sue the federal government over DOMA-she showed courage; suing big pharm, bringing to justice child abusers, sexual predators, holding energy companies to price controls, heading up the Boston Organized Crime Task Force for the Justice Department-the list is long.  

    <

    p>Martha Coakley was recognized by the Massachusetts Citizens Against the Death Penalty for her “Anti-Death Penalty Advocacy” in 2008. It’s particularly ironic to hear criticism on this issue from the only candidate in this race who has actually voted in favor of the death penalty, Mike Capuano. In 2001 Capuano signed onto a bill authorizing execution of terrorists.  Dead is dead and mistakes can be made whether you are handicapped physically or handicapped by your religion, ethnicity etc.  

    <

    p>Can we please work with facts here- Reality based universe.  This death penalty issue is being used as a wedge since Capuano is so far behind in the polls.  His only hope is to go negative.  This is a non issue.  All four candidates are against the death penalty and Coakley’s boni fides are impeccable.  

    • this is a state’s rights case and as Attorney General she was obliged to protect the state.

      <

      p>Do you want to substantiate that claim?

      <

      p>Or this one:

      In other words, she was doing her job well

      • Nor Coakley’s being honored by the Massachusetts Citizens Against the Death Penalty for her “Anti-Death Penalty Advocacy”-just last year.

        • “This one is easy. It is the job of the state AG to safeguard the long-term interests of the state. Those long-term interests start with the state’s having maximum independence to create its own law and policy over a whole range of issues. For the Massachusetts AG to file a brief supporting such independence is hardly surprising; indeed, any other position would have been surprising.”

          <

          p>Go to this link to read the rest-It is on the site Sentencing Law and Policy-
          Part of the Law Professors Network

          <

          p>http://sentencing.typepad.com/…

          <

          p>Let’s put this issue to rest.  Martha did the right thing for the state and it is clear  to those sophisticated enough to understand the role of the AG.  

            • Just for the record: the death penalty case we’re talking about here has nothing to do with the situation you’re describing where the A.G. can under some circumstances decline to represent the state.  For the AG to make that decision is a big deal, and it happens quite rarely.  In this case, the state of MA is not a party, so Coakley’s decision was much simpler.  She just had to make a decision whether to add her name to an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief filed by another state, or not.  She chose to do so.

              • Thanks. She chose to “add her name” to an amicus brief to protect states rights.

                <

                p>Would have been easy not to I think. But then we would have not had this interesting discussion about “tough choices”.

              • 1) What is the legal question being appealed regarding the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?

                <

                p>2) Is Coakley’s position on the legal question a more restrictive reading that would preclude Holly Wood’s appeal to be heard in the Federal Court as well as other death row inmates with a similar fact set?

                <

                p>3) Would a Massachusetts AG be equally within their authority to not sign onto an amicus brief or sign on to a brief that argues a different reading of the bill, one more favorable to rights of appeal?

                <

                p>4) Is Martha’s claim: “This, from our point of view, is unrelated to a death penalty or any of the issues around that” an unreasonable and misleading claim because the finding will effect the right to appeal in death penalty cases going forward and Holly Wood’s case in particular?

                <

                p>While IANAL I think the answers are
                1) I don’t know
                2) YES
                3) YES
                4) YES

    • Menemsha, Your entire first paragraph was copied, WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION, from the first comment on the blog “TalkLeft the politics of crime” on a post titled:

      <

      p>Another Reason Martha Coakley Should Not Be Senator
      By Jeralyn Merritt  
      Posted on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 09:10:00 AM EST  

      <

      p>Jeralyn is a Colorado lawyer focusing on Appeals of all Criminal Convictions, Cases involving Fourth Amendment Issues and Civil Forfeitures. (What’s your legal training, Menemsha?)

      <

      p>Here’s what Jeralyn says about AG Coakley in this matter:

      <

      p>

      I’ve never thought Martha Coakley would make a good U.S. Senator. I’m even more convinced now that she has signed her name to a brief restricting death penalty appeals, while claiming to be against the death penalty.

         The case, which comes as Coakley is battling for votes in the Democratic Senate primary, involves a convicted murderer from Alabama who has appealed his case to the Supreme Court, on the grounds that his state-assigned lawyer failed to introduce crucial evidence that he is mentally retarded.

         “There’s no way this kid should be killed,” said Stephen B. Bright, president and senior counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights, an organization that opposes the death penalty. “It’s old-fashioned Southern states’ rights. I was shocked to see that she and the state of Massachusetts had joined that brief.”

      Coakley-speak:

         “This, from our point of view, is unrelated to a death penalty or any of the issues around that,” Coakley said. “A real concern was that we get a clear determination from the Supreme Court on what is the standard of review of a federal court looking at a state court decision.”

      How is limiting the appeal rights of a mentally retarded person sentenced to die not about the death penalty? AEDPA, which the brief addresses, is the infamously unfair “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.”[More…]

      <

      p>There’s more, you should read it before you cast your vote December 8.  

      <

      p>It’s also worth a few minutes of your time to read up on the legal question at issue which relates to the “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996” here. Yes, that’s right “Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996” and as you’re reading it, keep in mind Coakley’s words:

      <

      p>

      “This, from our point of view, is unrelated to a death penalty or any of the issues around that,” Coakley said.

      <

      p>How is that not a bald face lie? Is her point of view delusional?

      <

      p>

      • Let’s keep this honest- I put quotations marks and I said it was a comment from a lawyer on another site and I linked to it.  I did as you suggested and went to Talk Left.  That piece was totally one sided and biased. When you read the comment section- the truly thoughtful comments refute her article. (Sounds like she is on your team, you seem to know a lot about her?)  

        <

        p>All four Democrats are against the death penalty.  This is a canard being used by  Capuano and his supporters to attempt in any way to change the poll numbers.  
        Your candidate so far is the only one to vote for execution of a human being.  You keep ignoring that stubborn fact.

        <

        p>

        • Why would you say:

          Nice try at smearing my comment- no plagiarism

          Let’s keep this honest- I put quotations marks and I said it was a comment from a lawyer on another site and I linked to it.

          <

          p>There are no quotation marks or blockquote on the first paragraph of your comment, which you plagiarized from TalkLeft verbatim here:

          <

          p>

          Shameful distortion of facts (5.00 / 2) (#4)
          by veritas3 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:00:50 AM EST LINK

          <

          p>You have a big pair of balls claiming I smeared you, that you didn’t plagiarize, and then to make your appeal  “Let’s keep this honest” as if I were the one being dishonest.

          <

          p>You are lying and lying pointlessly because anyone can see you did not attribute paragraph one of this comment to anyone but yourself and yet, you did not write it.

            • There are many other uncivil forums on the Internet.  I would hope BMG does not devolve into one of them.

              • Here is the paragraph Menemsha plagiarized:

                <

                p>

                Distorting the facts don’t change them   (6.00 / 2)
                This amicus brief has very little to do with the death penalty. The case in which the brief was filed has to do with federal review of a state court decision,something that, under the Constitution, should be limited. Coakley signed onto a brief arguing for limited federal review of state court decisions.  If anyone had bothered to check out the actual unbiased facts combined with sophisticated brain power it would be clear that this is a state’s rights case and as Attorney General she was obliged to protect the state.  In other words, she was doing her job well. Now if she were voting purely for political purposes she would not have added her name and you would be busting her for that too.  Her signing on shows that she doesn’t put her finger in the air to test the political winds. It’s the same courage she has displayed in her 23 years working in public service for little money.  Martha Coakley was the first AG (and only) to sue the federal government over DOMA-she showed courage; suing big pharm, bringing to justice child abusers, sexual predators, holding energy companies to price controls, heading up the Boston Organized Crime Task Force for the Justice Department-the list is long.  
                by: Menemsha @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 16:08:57 PM EST

                <

                p>Look HERE at the first comment on this TalkLeft post to see where Menemsha copied it from.

                <

                p>Did you look? Will you apologize for falsely accusing me of “personal attacks on Menemsha”?

                • Did it ever occur to you that some people blog at other sites as well using different usernames?   Veritas3 is also mine. In the future I would hope you would limit your criticism to facts.  

                • It is somehow out of bounds to point out that one is being insincere when they make a call for civility after handing out zeros just because they disagree with a comment?

                • The name calling, mischaracterizations and attacks on other posters.  He had merited every one of them.

                  <

                  p>I will also say that although people have feelings about the rating numbers, there is nothing uncivil about them.  They express my view of a comment, that is all they do.  People overly concerned about them might consider getting over themselves.

                • becuase I certainly don’t want to be put in a position where a woman is claiming that I pose a threat to her.  

        • I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but to “keep this honest” there are no quotation marks in your comment, and there is absolutely no suggestion that you were quoting someone in your comment. So technically that was indeed plagiarism.

          <

          p>Perhaps it was an honest mistake, but the mistake was yours and you should apologize.

          • Perhaps Menemsha commented on the other site as Vertias3.  Perhaps Menemsha and Veritas3 collaborated on producing the information.  Perhaps a third party sent the information out to both Menemsha and Vertias3.  Possibly Menemsha wrote this and communicated it to Vertias3 in another setting elsewhere before posting on BMG and Veritas3 actually used words written by Menemsha.  

            <

            p>Once the question was raised a clarification could have been made.  Saying quotations were used when they weren’t made matters worse.  It could be a situation where Menemsha is innocent but did not want to throw Veritas3 under the proverbial bus.  

            • I am also Veritas3 on TalkLeft  I also thought that he was talking about my comment with quotation marks regardng a lawyer’s response.  I had no idea he would call me out from another blog post I did.  

              • Looking back at this thread there are so mnay places where civility and respect would have made this a much more productive conversation.

                <

                p>NeilSagasn’s accusation of plagiarism was very clear and not ambiguous:

                <

                p>

                Menemsha, Your entire first paragraph was copied, WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION, from the first comment on the blog “TalkLeft the politics of crime” on a post titled:

                <

                p>NeilSagan could have asked if there was any explanation, like I suggested.  

                <

                p>Then Menemsha, most likeley annoyed by the accusation, did not read the post carefully and instead of immediately saying:

                <

                p>

                …different handles.  Veritas3 is also mine.

                <

                p>the situation is exacerbated by:

                <

                p>

                Nice try at smearing my comment- no plagiarism  
                Let’s keep this honest- I put quotations marks and I said it was a comment from a lawyer on another site and I linked to it.

                <

                p>The downward spiral of negativity continued and devolved into negativity and name calling.

                <

                p>ALTERNATIVE THREAD
                Question:
                Menemsha, Your entire first paragraph matches the first comment on the blog “TalkLeft the politics of crime” on a post about this issue.  Is it possible that you are Veritas3?  I’m reticent to think that you plagiarized.

                <

                p>Response: Yes, that is correct.  I blog as Veritas3.

                <

                p>See how simple and civil that would have been.  

                • Thank you for the clarity.

                  <

                  p> It didn’t occur to me that someone on this blog would accuse me of plagiarism from another blog-hence my initial response was referring to my comment  above his accusation.  True, it was a series of misunderstandings.  However, then Mr. Sagan followed me to an unrelated post and again accused me of plagiarism on this post.  Would one not feel threatened by that kind of behavior. It became personal and had nothing to do with the discussion.

                  <

                  p>My assumption was that this is a local Massachusetts site where we discuss issues and respect each other,  plagiarism is a serious charge.  I’m willing to say it was an anomaly since NeilSagan seems to be omni-present here.

                  <

                  p>I have been a blogger on other sites for many years. Blue Mass Group seems to be primarily a Capuano site, just as Kos was Obama.  If I am to continue to post here I just have to get over that fact.  It is a personal decision I have to make.  Many of my friends have decided it’s not worth it.  

                  <

                  p>I must say that David has always been courteous and open minded.  I know he has tried to keep this a balanced and safe place for all views.  Not sure how Capuano became the man but it is what it is.  We either accept it and deal or we leave.  Haven’t decided what side I’ll land but I have a feeling the attitude will be sadly-good riddance.

                  <

                  p>

                • I ought to have posed the question.  I didn’t “follow you” anywhere.  I googled the topic to see who else in the news and the blogosphere had posted commentary on it.  Your perception that you are a victim of stalking is without merit and an unfair accusation.  If you want to apologize, that is an option available to you.

                • In another post and thread on BMG.  I believe your intent was to attempt to make Menemsha’s comment in that thread less credible.  I also thought it was creepy.

                  <

                  p>I don’t see that Menemsha owes you any sort of apology.

                • Just a little intemperate during primary season.

                  <

                  p>There will be vigorous agreement on pillorying Scott Brown just a few weeks hence.

  6. I think much of this discussion betrays an ignorance of what lawyers do and what the law is about.

    <

    p>Let’s take an example that has nothing to do with the death penalty. A plaintiff in a civil case is responsible for serving the defendant with process within a fixed period of time. If he does not, he runs the risk of having his case dismissed, no matter how compelling the merits. Sometimes there is litigation about this–did the plaintiff have a good excuse for failing to satisfy this requirement? Would the defendant be prejudiced if the plaintiff’s failure is excused? And so forth. The point is that this ancillary litigation has nothing to do with the merits of the underlying case. Sure, judges may, in the privacy of their chambers, consider the merits, but lawyers and judges will tell you that they shouldn’t do that.

    <

    p>Or to take an example with a political subtext that will be more congenial here than the death penalty case being discussed: representatives of the “Birther movement” have over the past few months brought several civil actions seeking–well, it’s not exactly clear what they’re seeking, but they’re arguing that Pres. Obama is not a natural-born citizen. The courts have uniformly refused to consider the merits of this argument on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack standing. So a dispute about the meaning of “natural born citizen”, or the facts of Pres. Obama’s birthplace etc., are replaced with a dispute about the justiciability of the case. And in this case, I don’t suppose anyone here would argue that the courts, by refusing to decide the merits, were acting wrongly!

    <

    p>The Wood case is no different. The statute at issue, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2), prohibits the federal court from granting an application for a writ of habeas corpus unless the underlying state decision “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.” In other words, the statute forbids review even if the state court erred, as long as the error was not “unreasonable” in light of the evidence before it. The statute (subsection (e)(1)) also provides that the priosner has the burden of rebutting the state court’s findings of fact. In Wood, Coakley and the other attorneys general are arguing for a particular formulation of the standard of review under the statute–no more and no less. Their brief has nothing to do with the death penalty, as Coakley has been saying.

    <

    p>It seems to me that folks who are viewing this as a death penalty issue are politicizing the law in a way that is unhelpful and uninformed about what lawyers and judges do and how the law works.

    <

    p>TedF

    • I am against the death penalty in all cases, which, I think, shows that I am putting my money where my mouth is.

      <

      p>TedF

    • and I’m also against the death penalty.

      <

      p>TedF’s comment is the only one truly on the mark. I’m not a lawyer (I believe Ted is), but I’ve read enough to know that there’s a big difference between reading the law professionally and unprofessionally.

      <

      p>I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the amicus brief that Coakley signed could be peripheral to the actual SCOTUS finding. Not executing the guy and not screwing over states, in other words, aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. The brief might suggest that SCOTUS not screw over the states in your decision.

      <

      p>Treating this brief politically is no different than making Gov. Patrick’s work on behalf of a convicted, though not necessarily guilty, rapist.

      <

      p>The footstamping, pouting, and hissy fits we’re seeing on this thread are also familiar. We went through it during the Presidential Primary.  

  7. As a member of the MassDems Disability Outreach Committee, I take it upon myself to be a member of the vocabulary police.

    <

    p>The terms “retarded” and “mental retardation” are no longer considered acceptable descriptions for a person.

    <

    p>People can have “cognitive impairment” or “an intellectual disability” or a variety of other similarly phrased conditions, but those other, ancient words have joined the trashbin of history, alongside “idiot” and “moron” and other similar terms that were once used to attempt to describe peoples’ intellectual capacity.

    <

    p>In a related development, the idea of a single scale (“IQ”) for measuring a person is losing currency, in favor of the idea of “multiple intelligences.” A person may not be good at math, but may be a genius as a musician. No one scale can measure how much a person enjoys life, contributes to society, or needs assistance. We are all individuals.

    • As a clinical term, “mentally retarded” is a clinical diagnosis and is still commonly used and found in diagnostic recordkeeping.  The term has specific clinical meaning.  That meaning, however, is not conveyed or even appropriate when the term is used in common parlance.  The vocabulary of clinicians differs greatly from the vocabulary of the lay person.  Just sayin’.

    • In a related development, the idea of a single scale (“IQ”) for measuring a person is losing currency, in favor of the idea of “multiple intelligences.”

      <

      p>This is not accurate at all in clinical terms.  The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIC-IV) is used ALL the time in assessing the cognitive function of an individual and is an intrinsic component of identifying students with special needs.  The WAIC is the “IQ” test of old.  Again, common parlance bumps up against clinical measurement.  

      <

      p>Conversely, Gardner’s multiple intelligences are not used in this manner at all but is often used informally by classroom teachers and others in getting to know a class.  There are bazillions of versions of a “MI “test” out there, too, so, while the results can be interesting, there is no consistency or normed results.  Consequently, the “test” has no behavioral, clinical, or cognitive value in formal assessment.  

      • also has predictive value. If you understand the subtests, you can get a really good idea of how a person’s brain works before you ever meet them. Single-numbers for IQ don’t tell you much, and never did. A single number is completely descriptive. It doesn’t tell you how someone learns or what interferes with learning.

        <

        p>As a school psychologist, my father used to administer the Stanford-Binet IQ test in the late 1960s. If a kid had an IQ of 80 or less, he was warehoused in classes for (in those days) the retarded. Funny to think that I’ve had kids in my regular ed classes with a full-scale IQ of 80 in my high school classes. For all the criticism we hear these days, the fact is that education has and continues to improve.

        <

        p>Does any school administer multiple intelligence tests? Do they have any validity? I’ve never heard of them.

Archives