Shard

Lol. It's remarkable to think that there remains groups of people who genuinely subscribe to all the hocus pocus. I wonder if deep down they are aware of their delusion. Surely they must be?

scrubbedexpat097

As our great leader would say "It is what it is"

Steerpike

From the BBC article: ""Yeah, it was weird. She's pregnant. She couldn't get her pants zipped and I was like trying to like… I had on a pair of jeans I haven't worn in a long time and couldn't get zipped either. So, I just put my belly out like hers," he said." So he just happened to be wearing a pair of jeans that wouldn't fit. I've had 'waist size' expansions over the years, and I can admit to holding on to a pair of favorite Levi's that wouldn't button up at the top, but never have I experienced that level of 'expansion', and if they are so tight that you can't even zipper them, let alone button the top, they must be extremely uncomfortable ... how does a guy with a gazillion dollars and a taste for the high life find himself with a pair of jeans that are so far out of date ...

This story caused me to spend an hour or so reading all about Liberty U and the behavior of Falwell. Yikes. How can people be so gullible!

Steerpike

What I find particularly annoying is the recent treatment of Andrew Sullivan. I find his religious views 'odd', but other than that he has a pretty impressive record, especially in the area of gay rights, marriage equality, etc. After a career of pushing such issues, it seems like that was 'not good enough' and he was 'canceled' from his job at NY Mag for not being liberal enough.

kimilseung

I know most will not have 30 minutes for this
and I am in danger of going full Paulry

mikelincs

Louisiana, a black man, Fair Wayne Bryant, has had his life sentence upheld by their supreme court, He was convicted in 1997 of trying to steal some hedge clippers His sentence was upheld by the 5 white males of the court, the lone black female dissented. He was jailed for life under the 'habitual offender law.

kimilseung

His complete record, as far as I see...

1979 attempted armed robbery (his only violent conviction): 10 years hard labor
1987 possession of stolen things
1989 attempted check forgery
1992 burglary
1997 hedge clippers

The dissenting voice, Chief Justice Bernette Johnson, said the sentencing was a “modern manifestation” of the extreme punishments meted out to newly emancipated black men in the post-civil war era. “The sentence imposed is excessive and disproportionate to the offense the defendant committed,” It is hard to argue with that, This is some hard-core serious cancel culturing.

scrubbedexpat091

Long sentences do they really deter crime in the first place? We know the death penalty does little to nothing to deter crime, so I would think long sentences are in the same boat, how many criminals sit and say "oh gee this will get me X years, I better not do it?"

Maybe I have been in Canada too long, the Canadian system only keeps the very worst most violent, highest risk to society in prison for life, someone with the above criminal history would never get a life sentence here.

If he has reached the end of the state courts, will he be able to appeal over into the federal courts to try and get the sentence reduced?

Steerpike

Non of his examples cause me any concern. The first guy looks especially deserving. Cancel away. Lots of other examples he does not talk about, though.

kimilseung

Maybe there are incidents rather than a culture, then?

Pulaski

Burglary is a young man's crime. If you lock up a habitual burglar until his 50th birthday he is statistically unlikely to reoffend.
AFAICT, having watched rather too many true crime videos on YT, the default in the Canadian justice system appears to be for the possibility of parole for first degree homicide after a period not exceeding 25 years, and for the possibility of parole for all other crimes after a period not exceeding 10 years. This is IMO waaaay too lenient in many cases, and especially for rape.

I am a supporter of reform of the US criminal just system, as in deed many people are in the US across the political spectrum, including to the right of my views, such as the Koch Brothers. There really needs to be a way, other than by pardon, to wipe criminal records, after say 10 years, as leaving ex-convicts with a permanent blot on their life that likely condemns them to live permanently outside of the economic mainstream has nothing to do with justice.

I am also doubtful that the death penalty is much of a deterrent, but I am still in favour as it tends to reduce the risk of reoffending. Much of the history of miscarriage of justice has been eliminated thanks to advances in DNA technology and other forensic sciences, and the likes of Chris Wattshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_family_murders deserves no more than to be dragged to the curb and shot like a rabid dog.

kimilseung

The ghost of Lendell Lee (and others) begs to differ.

Pulaski

You either haven't read my post carefully, or are not familiar with the Lendell Lee case, as it proves my point, not counters it. For your benefit I will summarize the bit I am talking about: Evidence in the Lendell Lee case was apparently not subject to DNA testing, so by 21st century standards his conviction is not as certain as it would be today. And from what I know of the Lendell Lee case, I am shocked that his execution was allowed to proceed before DNA testing had been completed. I am not sure if DNA testing was ever completed, even postumously, but I am intrigued now, so I may go and check to see if I can find out.

kimilseung

Is 2017 that so far back in time that DNA testing was in such infancy that it could not have been performed? Whats the point of DNA testing if courts refuse it to be done, and go ahead and kill people anyway. How exactly does Lee's case prove your point because you are going to have to go over this one step by step.
Its pointless in eliminating anything if courts refuse it

Pulaski

I agree, and that's my point. DNA testing was available in 1993, and that someone was executed with forensic evidence being subject to DNA testing is unacceptable (to me, at least). .... That's the beginning and end of my point on the subject, and you seem to be going out of your way to find bases to disagree with me. That often seems to be the case.