Comments on: Poll: Most Evil Legal Principles

By: Confronting swastikas | a public defender

Confronting swastikas | a public defender — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:09:40 +0000

[...] there not a more excited tone in this post? Because the Second Circuit eventually ruled that it was harmless error. [...]

By: Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:28:01 +0000

I agree. It really is an awful legal hurdle. While some courts have embraced being pro-se as sufficient cause, most courts have not.

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:17:10 +0000

“Procedural default” in the habeas context really pisses me off. I suppose that falls under claims not preserved for appeal, so that’s how I voted. It just makes me so angry that prisoners handling their own appeals pro se can screw themselves out of winnable grounds for appeal if they don’t jump through the right labyrynthic hoops of post-conviction pleading.

By: Bad Words. « Audacity

Bad Words. « Audacity — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:56:39 +0000

[...] Law, PD — Audacity @ 8:56 pm I’d like to add “inevitable discovery” to the list of evil legal principles. [...]

By: Mark Bennett

Mark Bennett — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:18:32 +0000

Sean, you're wrong. The Consitution governs the relationship between goverment and citizens; it preserves the rights of the people in relation to the government and of the states in relation to the federal government. The Constitution doesn't even talk about "society." It doesn't describe in any way society's ability to punish individuals unless by "society" you mean "the government," in which case the it expressly limits that ability (in the Eighth Amendment) and lots of others. The founders, most of whom weren't ignoramuses or twits, were trying to prevent government exercising too much power, not too little. Society has the power to kill its weak and its lame, not the right. Society no more has "rights" in relation to individuals than government has. Death, by the way, is different.

By: Sean O'Brien

Sean O'Brien — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:46:50 +0000

Yeah, that’s right Mark. The Constitution does not allow us, as a People, to govern ourselves. Society does have rights in relation to individuals. We have the right to punish them for committing crimes, and we have the right to impose death. You may not like it, but that doesn’t make me an ignoramus, you twit.

By: Mark Bennett

Mark Bennett — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:19:58 +0000

The First Amendment, which allows ignoramuses to spout off in blog comments as though “society” has rights in relation to individuals.

Heh.

By: Sean O'Brien

Sean O'Brien — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:06:52 +0000

“Death is different”. Ninety-nine times out of one hundred it is sloganeering masquerading as analysis, and it is used to take away our right as a society to impose the harshest punishments on those who break our laws.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:58:45 +0000

[quote comment="2968"]“Totality of the circumstances”: The inkblot test for affirming convictions. The “let’s not articulate a clear rule, instead, let’s just convict because it feels right” standard of review in criminal cases. This “principal” creates more Alice-in-Wonderland, arbitrary and capricious results than any other one I can name. Therefore, it is the most evil.[/quote]
Ooh! Good one.

By: david

david — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:43:17 +0000

“Totality of the circumstances”: The inkblot test for affirming convictions. The “let’s not articulate a clear rule, instead, let’s just convict because it feels right” standard of review in criminal cases. This “principal” creates more Alice-in-Wonderland, arbitrary and capricious results than any other one I can name. Therefore, it is the most evil.