Kansas Is Wacky

The Kansas Legislature is debating a possible death penalty repeal. In recent years, Kansas has not been famous for its progressiveness, even though it's the historical birthplace of Progressivism.

My family moved to Kansas when I was nine years old. At the time, the Kansas governor was John Carlin, a Democrat (and Lutheran! my dad liked to point out), and he vetoed several death penalty bills that came across his desk. Mike Hayden, a Republican, followed him into office, saying he would sign a death penalty bill (at least that's how I remember it). But then the legislature got cold feet and didn't pass a bill.

The legislature finally passed a bill in 1994, under Democratic Governor Joan Finney. According to the Kansas Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Finney neither vetoed nor signed the bill. So that's weird. And it became law. No one has actually been put to death in Kansas, and seven people are currently on death row.

The New York Times recently reported that the American Law Institute had given up its death penalty work. That's the group that provided the original legal rationale the Supreme Court of the United States cited in its decision that allowed capital punishment again. That they've declared their project to be a failure seems like it must be a huge deal, that maybe it's an acknowledgment that sentiment against the death penalty is rising again. But hey, I'm no legal expert.

Naturally, the primary argument that states seem to be making against sentencing people to death row is that it costs too damned much, not that, say, state-sanctioned murder is immoral. Still, I suppose if high costs and tight budgets are what it takes...

But I don't have my finger on the pulse of Kansas politics at all anymore. Do any of my Kansas-dwelling readers (both of you) have any sense about how this debate will go? Could the death penalty in Kansas actually be overturned?

I'm telling you: Kansas is a totally wacky place.

It's the Ears and Beady Eyes

Recently, I've been reminded of Truman. Not the president. The Truman I'm thinking about was a developmentally delayed kid at my grade school in Texas. When I was seven, he looked about 20, but he was probably really only 12. For reasons I'm not sure, everyone knew all the names of the kids in special education at that school.

Truman wore cowboy boots and western shirts every day. His hair was pressed down on his head, his ears stuck out, and there was a certain emptiness in his beady eyes.

I had a minor run-in with Truman in the 2nd grade. I'd gone to the bathroom, and Truman was using the urinal, so I took care of business in the stall. When I turned around, Truman was standing at the door of the stall. He was leaning against one side of the stall, with his arm reaching across to the other side, blocking my path.

He was staring at me with his mouth slightly agape. His hair was slicked down, of course, and his beady eyes were glaring at me. It was nothing, if not predatory. And even then I recognized a certain amount of sexual curiosity in the predatory glare. I also saw some confusion, possibly thanks to his developmental delays. He had me trapped, but wasn't sure what to do next.

Naturally, I was scared. Truman was a lot bigger than me, and he and I were alone in the bathroom.

I bolted. There was surprisingly little resistant from his arm when I shoved it out of my way. I expected the big kid to be a lot stronger, and I was really small for my age then. I skipped the hand-washing part and headed right back to class. Truman didn't follow.

I only had one other experience with Truman that year. Again, I was going to the bathroom during class (I think I went when I felt bored, which was often in those days), and when I opened the door, Truman's head poked out of the stall. I turned right around and went back to class. Thank god I didn't actually need to pee.

So why have I been thinking about Truman these past few days? The slicked hair, beady eyes, and predatory glaring are back in the news in the person of Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, senior Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Jeff Sessions is clearly on the prowl, has SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor in his sites, and yet doesn't seem to be sure of what it is he's after exactly. She's right in front of him... Now what?

And ultimately, Sessions is no match for Sotomayor. Her brain will push his weak arm and confused mind right out of the way and lead her way to the Court.

That's right: Senator Jeff Sessions reminds me of a developmentally delayed grade school kid.

A Stay With Two Hours To Go

The Troy Davis case down in Georgia is getting some national and international attention, but not nearly enough.

In short, Troy Davis (an African American) was convicted of killing a (white) police officer in 1991 and sentenced to death. Since the trial, seven of the nine non-police witnesses have recanted their testimony, some claiming that the prosecutor threatened to charge them with perjury if they had recanted at the time.

Yesterday, after various parole board and court denials, Troy was two hours from lethal injection when his last channel of hope, the Supreme Court of the United States, put a stay on his execution until they review the case next week.

I freely admit that I don't know much about the case except that there's no physical evidence and that the prosecution won its conviction based on the testimony of the witnesses.

As we know, in recent years, SCOTUS has taken a sharp turn to the right (activist judges, indeed), so I have little faith that they'll overturn the conviction, order a new trial, etc. Call me cynical.

But if there's any doubt at all, how can capital punishment be used to put this man to death?

Wait. Scratch that. How can the state sanction the murder of any individual, whatever the crime? It's fucking medieval.

Naturally, both of our major party candidates for president support the death penalty. That makes both of them more cynical than I am. After all, putting someone to death denies the possibility of redemption on any level.

If you want to read more about Troy and his case, this is his website. I've heard interviews with his sister (the radio program Democracy Now is following the case), and she's fighting this battle and a recurrence of cancer. Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), she's impressive.

SCOTUS Just Set Up Mitt's Next Run for the White House, Among Other Things

Commenting on decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States (or SCOTUS as the kids like to call it) can be tricky when you're a layperson, i.e. one who tries in general to abide by the law but does not write, enforce, or interpret the law.

But hey, that doesn't mean I won't give it a whirl.

Limiting use of the death penalty was a pleasant surprise. Before I get into that, though, let me state the obvious, although I really shouldn't have to: I will not, and never will, defend child rapists. But state sponsored murder (i.e. capital punishment, the death penalty, etc.) is wrong in general. So I'm glad the Court found an excuse to limit it. Of course, they've also motivated a bunch of lawmakers who want to expand the death penalty as far as they can. So that's nice. Oh, and Judges Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts were in the minority, ready to sponsor as much killing as possible. Those four are dangerous justices, B&E readers.

Cutting the punitive damages on the Exxon Valdez case? Dick move, SCOTUS. That Alaskan community has been decimated, and although ExxonMobil's recent record profits shouldn't necessarily be considered relevant to the case, they fucking earned the requested $2.5 billion in less than a month last year. Shame on you, SCOTUS. This decision was 5-3, with Alito having to recuse himself because he's sitting on a tanker's worth of ExxonMobil stock. Justice Souter demonstrated his New Hampshire libertarian roots by siding with the majority on this one.

The guns ruling today? I don't really know what to say about this one. Gun owners own guns because they're really fun to shoot. Gun control advocates never seem to factor this into their arguments. I'm a supporter of gun control, but it's an issue I gave up on years ago. So today's decision... Surprising? You tell me: our Vice President shot a man in the face and got away with it.

Then there's this campaign finance case. They made some sort of decision that eases restrictions on rich candidates. Mitt Romney, for example, had to disclose a lot of extra information about his run for the White House because he was largely funding it himself. Apparently, those restrictions were limiting his speech. And here I thought his vast personal fortune was what gave him the platform in the first place. I look forward to having my choice in candidates limited solely to entitled, rich bastards.

It's clear now what the Roberts Court is all about. It's stacked with a bunch of right-wing freaks. Adding a touch of reason to SCOTUS sure would be nice. If anyone out there isn't yet sold on Obama over McCain, please take a long look at Justice John Paul Stevens, pictured above for your reference and enjoyment. He's 88. He's almost out-lived a piano keyboard. I don't know how much longer he can hang on.

On the other hand, he's a Cubs fan, and all those old Chicago guys are determined to see the Cubs' next championship. Jesus, if the Cubs win this fall and Stevens kicks it a happy man, we're totally hosed, SCOTUS-wise.