WASHINGTON — Prisoners have no constitutional right to DNA testing that might prove their innocence, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a 5-to-4 decision.

This is an interesting case in that I can see both sides of the issue.

“After conviction,” Justice Alito added, “with nothing to lose, the defendant could demand DNA testing in the hope that some happy accident — for example, degradation or contamination of the evidence — would provide the basis for seeking postconviction relief.”

Is this concern reasonable - can DNS evidence degrade in a way that is both undetectable and which generates incorrect results.

Justices Reject Inmate Right to DNA Tests - NYTimes.com

I haven't read Bajakajain in detail, but out of curiosity I checked out Kennedy's dissent. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement between the judges in this case about just how culpable the defendant really was, and it colors both rulings. I haven't read too carefully, but Kennedy seems to suggest that the only kind of fine he would deem excessive would be a fine the defendant would be totally unable to pay.

There also seems to be a technical dispute about when to apply the 8th amendment. Kennedy writes:

So-called remedial penalties, most in rem forfeitures, and perhaps civil fines may not be subject to scrutiny at all.

It seems this case provides an opportunity to examine these questions more carefully. I'm all for it.

(As an aside, I think in rem forfeitures violate the due process clause but thats a whole other ball of wax.)

Kennedy's dissent in United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)

zeugma wrote:
It is worth noting that if she had shoplifted the equivalent number of CDs in Minnesota, it would be considered a misdemeanor offense and she would owe a maximum of $1000 dollars in fines...

The eighth amendment states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Apparently the only case in which excessive fines were considered was U.S. v. Bajakajian.

Here, Clarence Thomas wrote:

“Comparing the gravity of respondent’s crime with the $357,144 forfeiture the Government seeks, we conclude that such a forfeiture would be grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense. It is larger than the $5,000 fine imposed by the District Court by many orders of magnitude, and it bears no articulable correlation to any injury suffered by the Government. … For the foregoing reasons, the full forfeiture of respondent’s currency would violate the Excessive Fines Clause.”

That sort of reasoning seems like it applies here.

The EFF is already raising this point in the press:

“The disproportionate size of the verdict raises constitutional questions,” said Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer with the consumer group Electronic Frontier Foundation.

I think a Supreme Court decision invalidating the law that imposes these fines would go a long way toward restoring my faith in the ability of our country to make reasonable policy.

Lets see a Consitutional Challenge

skullaria wrote:
NOTHING is free in America. lol

Well, I was being sarcastic. I can, at least, complain about this result and petition that it be changed. I don't have to fear reprisal for expressing my opinions.

However, some results are so absurd that you cannot stop at complaining that they are wrong, you have to ask how it is possible for our system to reach such an obviously absurd result in the first place.

Here an industry with dollars to invest in lobbying has managed to get an insane judgement handed down through all of the checks and balances that are supposed to stop that from happening. Is this a unique situation? I don't think so. If we're this screwed up in an area of policy that I understand, I have to assume that we're just as screwed up in umteen different areas of policy that I don't understand or follow.

If it was really OK to close your eyes and trust the professionals to keep things running smoothly things like this wouldn't happen.

RE: The United States of America is a free country!

A federal jury on Thursday found Jammie Thomas-Rasset liable in the nation’s only Recording Industry Association of America file-sharing case to go to trial, dinging her $1.92 million for [sharing] 24 songs [on a p2p network].

We have mature, sophisticated political institutions in the United States of America that uphold justice and reach reasonable results.

We have credibility.

In fact, we set an example for the rest of the world. We are a shining light for freedom in which people of all nations find hope.

Our citizens are thankful that they live in a free country. They respect our legislators and judges - who have the most difficult task of maintaining and upholding our democratic values. These are intelligent people, our best and brightest, who faithfully represent the best interests of everyone in our country.

There are absolutely no widespread problems with our system's ability to cope with technological and social change. We are completely free of corruption and small minded authoritarianism. Our justice system meters out punishments that are righteous and appropriate, a fact which is ensured by our careful, deliberative processes in which checks and balances effectively contain the abuses of political power.

In sum, we are totally awesome, and there is absolutely no room for criticism of how we do things around here. Only evil people suggest that the fundamental structure of our institutions might need to be reconsidered. This is the end of history, and we represent the final form of political organization. There is no way that you could ever improve upon how we do things right now.

Man, what a great time to be alive!

The United States of America is a free country!

So where exactly does Sotomayor stand on the multifaceted issues of free speech? These are the kinds of questions one hopes will be explored in the Senate's confirmation process

Harvey Silverglate joins the chorus calling for examination of Sotomayor's views on the First Amendment.

The Phoenix - Sotomayor's mixed message on free speech

In December, as Nortel moved toward Bankruptcy, they asked employees if they would participate in a "voluntary layoff" - accept a severance package and voluntarily leave their jobs in order to cut company costs. Many thousands did. In January, Nortel declared Bankruptcy, and promptly stopped payment on all of those severance packages. Basically, when Nortel offered those severance packages they were lying.

This ranks as one of the most brazen examples of corporate malfeasence during this crisis. Of course, these executives continue to pay themselves multi-million dollar bonus packages, during bankruptcy, while maintaining that they cannot afford to pay the severance packages they offered to former employees. When the Canadian Parliament asked them to explain this, they refused.

OTTAWA - The chief executive officer of Nortel Networks Corp. will be ordered to appear before a House of Commons committee Thursday...

The House of Commons standing committee on finance had invited CEO Mike Zafirovski and others to appear before it, along with representatives of pensioners and employees, but Nortel declined that invitation earlier this week...

MPs, though, cited ``the supremacy of Parliament'' Tuesday morning in voting to summon Zafirovski to appear Thursday morning.

"It was a transparent attempt to avoid having to avoid explaining why they voted ... millions of dollars in bonuses for themselves when people were being denied their severance. That's exactly the type of thing we're going to get to discuss with (Zafirovski),'' said Mulcair.

Given the "we are unaware that there are health risks associated with smoking" nature of executive testimony to legislatures, "attempt to avoid having to avoid" might not have been a gaffe.

One thing to watch out for as budgets get tight is renewed aggressiveness from people who take money through coercion. This comes in the form of increased crime rates, but it also comes in the form of renewed efforts by governments to assess and collect fines and taxes.

Did you hear a jingling sound on the Akron Expressway a couple of weeks ago?

That wasn't a pebble stuck in your hubcap. That was the city of Akron and the state of Ohio hitting the jackpot.

From May 4 through May 8, eight motorcycle cops imported from the Columbus post of the State Highway Patrol wrote 733 speeding tickets.

The total take for that five-day Expressway binge: $103,902...

Although the patrol has claimed that ''about 98 percent'' of the tickets it wrote that week were handed to people committing ''aggressive violations,'' a Beacon Journal analysis of the tickets shows that only 51 percent could even remotely be said to fit that description.

I recently got caught in a speed trap near Denver. I haven't gotten a speeding ticket in over ten years. Apparently, I'm ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

The looting continues...

Sotomayor in reference to Hamdi and Padilla:

We have suspected enemy combatants detained in secret and given different process than criminals. One can certainly justify that type of detention under precedents and current law.

Its possible that this quotation has been taken out of context. On its face it seems to indicate that Sotomayor agrees with the Bush Administration's position on enemy combatants - that the Government may Constitutionally seize U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without charges, based soley on the allegation that they are enemy combatants but without presenting any evidence to that effect to anyone.

I certainly would like to read the original source document for this quotation but it doesn't appear to be available online.

New Documents Shed Light on Sotomayor's Thoughts About Sept. 11 Attacks - Political News - FOXNews.com

Opera today unveiled Opera Unite, a new technology that shakes up the old client-server computing model of the Web. Opera Unite turns any computer into both a client and a server, allowing it to interact with and serve content to other computers directly across the Web, without the need for third-party servers.

Thoughts?

Opera Unite reinvents the Web

While rational expectation is returning to part of the investment community, most investors are still trapped by institutional weakness, which makes them behave irrationally. The Greenspan era has nurtured a vast financial sector. All the people in this business need something to do. Since they invest other people's money, they are biased toward bullish sentiment. Otherwise, if they say it's all bad, their investors will take back the money, and they will lose their jobs. Governments know that, and create noise to give them excuses to be bullish.

This institutional weakness has been a catastrophe for people who trust investment professionals....

Indeed, most people who invest in the stock market get poorer.

Andy Xie: Tight Spot for Fed, Blind Spot for Investors