justice

Thomas Beckett and Elliot Spitzer

Kelly — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:24:26 -0800

Thomas Beckett: Archbishop of Canterbury and Justice in America.

Does a question generally considered to speak to Church and State have any connection with jurisprudence and concepts of equal justice?

In the 12th Century, Henry II ruled an empire from England across the south and west of what is now France (Aquitaine). By Divine Right, this King of England was the law in every aspect of life. Every aspect save one. The other power in this empire was the Catholic Church.

Henry II ruled with the able hand of his lifelong friend and Lord High Chancellor Thomas Beckett. Even these two powerful men could not hold sway over the dominion controlled by the Church. Crimes and misdemeanors committed in the realm met with the justice of Henry’s court; unless a person holding office within the Church committed that crime. In that case, the Church held authority. More, Henry ruled every aspect of his own life, until it crossed a line of sacrament. There, Henry’s primacy bowed to the primacy of the Church.

Wright found guilty of murdering five women in Ipswich

Elizabeth — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:54:53 -0800

Gemma Adams, Tania Nicol, Anneli Alderton, Paula Clennell, and Annette Nicholls

Those are the names of the five women, sex workers each one, who were murdered in 2006. I vividly remember attending the vigil here in New York in December of 2006 when their names were read among the many names of sex workers who had been killed that year.

Yesterday Stephen Wright was convicted of their murders. He will be sentenced today. He faces life in prison.

Via the TimesOnline

The Genarlow Wilson case

Elizabeth — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:32:03 -0700

There's been a lot of interest in the Genarlow Wilson case on my wordpress blog. I wonder if we can start a thread here where people can discuss their questions, frustrations, and perhaps even other similar cases (if we know of any).

I, for one, am especially frustrated right now by the apparent poor judgement by the judge who revised Wilson's sentence yesterday. The question before him was a habeas corpos question, and that wouldn't seem to allow for a revision of the sentence but only for a vacating of the sentence. Why would a judge who apparently believed that tremendous injustice had been done make such lame decision? Why didn't he just toss out the original sentence altogether as unconstitutionally cruel and unusual? Are there lawyers (or even judges!)who can speculate on this? Anyone?

Here are some links to a couple of blog posts on the recent development.

My post on Sexinthepublicsquare.wordpress.com

JanieBelle on UDOJ