The AP reports as fact that Tookie was innocent:

Williams was convicted in connection with four killings during a pair of armed robberies in 1979. But he never wavered from his claim of innocence and refused to confess to crimes he did not commit, even if doing so would save his life.

Well, at least we know how the AP feels about it.

Okay, I’ll grant you this: it’s probably just sloppy editing. But it’s sloppy editing that a pro-death-penalty editor would have caught — that is, if the AP employed such a person.

(Via Xrlq.)

Our favorite local liar, Alex from Martini Republic, recently portrayed a post of mine in this way:

At eleven o’clock last night, waiting for a man to die, dimbulb wingnut extraordinaire Patterico gets the lube and Kleenex out:

Luckily, in real life, we’re going to get our happy ending . . . in less than an hour.

Yes, he actually said “happy ending.” And Tbogg thought Malkin was getting overly excited at the prospect of a man’s death.

Here’s my actual post, from last night:

iowahawk has found one of Tookie’s children’s stories:

Once upon a time, down a bright sunny alley behind a magical cottage in a faraway kingdom called Compton, lived a little quacky ducky named Tookie. Tookie was brave and strong and all of the other duckies knew to respect him, because otherwise Tookie and his friend Sammy Sawed-Off would mess you up bad, understand?

It goes on like that. One problem: the story doesn’t have a happy ending. Tookie lives.

Luckily, in real life, we’re going to get our happy ending for once, in less than an hour. (Actually, it’s not really “happy” — but it’s as close as you can get in a situation like this.) And that ending will teach children more about morality than two dozen children’s books from Tookie.

I have bolded one sentence to emphasize what was left out by our lying friend Alex. Yes, I actually said “happy ending.” And I also actually said it wasn’t really happy. Alex doesn’t mention that. Nor does he mention the context of the “happy ending” phrase: a post about the irony of children’s books being authored by an unrepentant murderer who laughed about the gurgling sounds one of his victims made.

Of course, honesty has never been Alex’s strong suit, and a dishonest post by Alex is as unremarkable as a sunny day in southern California. What is remarkable about Alex’s post is his eager association of the concept of an execution with the concept of . . . masturbation. It makes you wonder what’s going on in that head of his. Note to Alex: I don’t want to know. Really.

Then you have his moron twin Joseph, who has attempted to make a name for himself by hurling off-the-wall and completely baseless accusations of racism at Kevin Roderick. Joseph continues the trend in a comment to Alex’s post, suggesting that my post criticizing a murderer is somehow racist. Defense attorneys, this genius suggests, could have me removed from any case involving a black defendant. All they have to do is print out my post — which is, recall, critical of a murderer, and says not one word about the murderer’s race — and give it to the judge.

A little fixated on race, are we, Joseph? What’s going on here? Some kind of overcompensation?

If I criticize a murderer, Joseph, I am criticizing a murderer. If you hear “black man” instead of “murderer,” that’s your problem, not mine. As I told another misguided commenter today, I don’t like murderers. The fact that you equate that with not liking black people says more about you than it does about me.

The psychologists would have a field day with these two and the word association book:

Psychologist: “Execution.”

Alex: Masturbation!

Psychologist: Um, yes. [Turns page.] “Murderer.”

Joseph: Black man!

Alex: Masturbation!

And these guys wonder why nobody really takes them seriously.

UPDATE: Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft, who has some honesty issues of her own, joins the party with a comment confirming that yes, I do indeed prosecute felonies. Does Jeralyn support moron Joseph’s scheme to try to “embarrass” me in real life by exposing my — gasp! — distaste for murderers? The placement of her comment on the moron brothers’ site suggests that she does.

I’ll say this for Jeralyn and Joseph, though: at least they have the guts to attach their actual names to their criticisms, however ridiculous they may be. You can’t say the same for Alex.

UPDATE x2: Joseph swings and misses again, trying to prove my “racism” by linking to this post — which, he fails to inform his readers, wasn’t written by me, but rather by guest poster See Dubya. (The post doesn’t prove that See Dubya is a racist, either; Joseph completely missed the point there as well.)

UPDATE x3: A good friend writes to ask why I would even acknowledge these idiots’ existence. They just want a reaction; why am I giving them one? He may have a point.

Former L.A. Times columnist Robert Scheer has a penchant for getting facts wrong. But you’d never know it from accessing the columns available from his personal web site. Those columns uniformly either repeat his errors without correction, or airbrush them to make it appear that he had it right all along.

Although Scheer’s L.A. Times column was the subject of repeated and numerous corrections over the years, you’ll search in vain for any hint of these corrections in the versions of Scheer’s archived columns available from his personal web site.

For example, the L.A. Times version of Scheer’s September 13 piece, titled Finally fooling none of the people, bears the following appended correction:

FOR THE RECORD:

Michael Brown: A Sept. 13 commentary about FEMA said that former director Michael D. Brown was a “college buddy” of his predecessor, Joe Allbaugh. The two have been friends for more than 25 years but did not know each other in college.

But the version of this piece in the Scheer archives linked from RobertScheer.com, which in turn is linked from Scheer’s new TruthDig site, bears no hint of this correction. Scheer’s archived version simply prints Scheer’s original false statement, completely undisturbed by any correction:

[Michael Brown] had secured this plum job because he was a college buddy of his predecessor, Joe Allbaugh, who managed Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign.

I wondered: was this an isolated incident? Or did Scheer’s complete set of private archives similarly whitewash his errors?

I had a friend do a LEXIS search. I’ll give you one guess as to what it showed.

(more…)

I have more on that new anti-Three Strikes proposition, which I told you about and analyzed in this post. Courtesy of the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys, I have obtained an analysis of the proposition by Chuck Nickel, a San Diego County Deputy District Attorney who is considered to be one of the top experts on criminal sentencing in the state.

Nickel’s analysis tends to reinforce the conclusions I came to in my earlier post. Here it is:

ANALYSIS OF THE NEW PROP 66 “THE THREE STRIKES REFORM ACT OF 2006”

“The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2006” is an initiative measure that has been submitted to the Attorney General for preparation of the Title and Summary. This measure could appear on the November 7, 2006 ballot if the proponents are successful in their signature-gathering effort.

This measure would be a disaster for the Three Strikes and serious felony statutes. It would significantly reduce the application of those statutes, and it would apply retroactively to release probably several thousand three-strike prisoners.

The current Three Strikes statutes provide two levels of punishment as follows:

· “Two-strike” punishment: PC 667(e)(1); PC 1170.12(c)(1) – If the current offense is any felony, and the defendant has one qualifying prior “strike” conviction for a serious or violent felony, the term for the crime is doubled; probation denial with a prison sentence is mandatory; consecutive sentencing for crimes on separate occasions is mandatory; there is no aggregate term limitation on consecutive sentences; and prison conduct credit reduction is limited to one-fifth of the total term.

· “Three-strike” punishment: PC 667(e)(2); PC 1170.12(c)(2) – If the current offense is any felony, and the defendant has two or more qualifying prior “strike” convictions for serious or violent felonies, the term for the crime is life imprisonment with a minimum term calculated as the greatest of the following three options: (i) triple the term for the crime, or (ii) 25 years, or (iii) the term determined under general statutes, including enhancements; probation denial with a prison sentence is mandatory; consecutive sentencing for crimes on separate occasions is mandatory; there is no aggregate term limitation on consecutive sentences; and there is no conduct credit reduction of the minimum term.

The following are some of the major provisions of “The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2006”:

· The Three Strikes statutes, for both two-strike and three-strike defendants, would apply only if the current offense is a serious or violent felony as defined and limited by this measure, instead of applying to any current felony.

· The number of crimes that are defined as serious or violent felonies would be significantly reduced for qualifying current offenses, for prior “strikes,” and for enhancements for serious felony priors.

· The following crimes would be eliminated as serious or violent felonies:
1. Residential burglary (unless someone other than an accomplice is in the residence at the time of the burglary) – PC 459. Note: This eliminates virtually all residential burglary priors and almost all residential burglary current offenses.
2. Assault with a deadly weapon – PC 245(a).
3. Assault with a deadly weapon on a school employee – PC 245.5.
4. Shooting at an inhabited dwelling or occupied vehicle – PC 246.
5. Shooting from a motor vehicle – PC 12034(d).
6. Grand theft of a firearm – PC 487(d)(2).
7. Criminal threats – PC 422.
8. Witness intimidation – PC 136.1(a) or (b).
9. Participating in a criminal street gang – PC 186.22(a).
10. Any wobbler felony committed for gang purposes – PC 186.22(b)(1)(A).
11. Any wobbler felony with personal use of a deadly weapon – PC 12022(b).
12. Any wobbler felony with personal use of a firearm – PC 12022.5.
13. Any wobbler felony with personal infliction of great bodily injury – PC 12022.7.

· Judicial plea bargaining would be allowed in cases involving Three Strikes, serious felonies, and driving under the influence. This would allow the judge to make a deal directly with the defense attorney, to the exclusion of the prosecutor.

· The sentencing provisions of this measure would apply retroactively to many three-strike cases, resulting in the immediate or early release of probably several thousand three-strike prisoners. (The issue of retroactivity and the full implications of the complex resentencing provisions require further study.)
1) It appears that most of the provisions of this measure would apply to all pending strike cases and all strike cases that are not final on appeal.
2) Defendants who are serving a three-strike life sentence for a current offense that is not a serious or violent felony as defined and limited by this measure will be resentenced within 180 days as follows:
a) Most of these defendants will be resentenced to a determinate term that is twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony (similar to a two-strike penalty).
b) Defendants who have one prior conviction for a sexually violent offense, second degree murder, or felony murder, will have the minimum term of their life sentence reduced to twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony. (A prior PC 288(a) without substantial sexual conduct probably does not qualify.)
c) Defendants who have one prior conviction for first degree murder (except felony murder), PC 288a(c)(1), or PC 289(j), or more than one prior conviction for a sexually violent offense or PC 288, will be excluded from the resentencing provisions.
3) Defendants who are serving a three-strike life sentence for a current offense that is a serious or violent felony as defined and limited by this measure are not covered by the resentencing provisions. (The issue of retroactive benefits, if any, for these defendants requires further study.)
4) Defendants who are serving a two-strike sentence are excluded from the resentencing provisions. It appears that resentencing three-strike defendants to a two-strike penalty solves the equal protection problem with respect to two-strike defendants that was raised by Proposition 66.
5) Other than the resentencing of three-strike defendants as described above, the amendments to the definition of serious and violent felonies are not to be applied retroactively.

There you have it.