On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. > > > > Specifically: > > > > A petitioner asserting his actual innocence of the underlying crime must > > show "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted > > him in light of the new evidence" presented in his habeas petition. > > > > A capital petitioner challenging his death sentence, in particular, must > > show "by clear and convincing evidence" that no reasonable juror would have > > found him eligible for the death penalty in light of the new evidence. > > And just exactly how is one supposed to do that? How do you 'prove' what > somebody else will do hypotheticaly? Clear and convincing to who? The > juror or the court? > > Clearly unconstitutional. So what? You think anybody gives a shit about the constitution anymore? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
