An interesting point re the death penalty. I've been thinking through a similar problem as of late - reconciling the belief in the need for the state to have the ability/right to kill as a structural matter with the belief that the state should not in fact exercise that ability.

Yeah, I guess that's where I am as well. I'm not comfortable with the state killing people but I'm a big fan of harsh punishment for bad crimes. If this case doesn't get life, what does?

Well, I'm no legal expert, but he gave up some information (do you have a link to the story, by the way?) so the reduced sentence was clearly some sort of bargaining chip. I don't see the outrage. Maybe it's just my new "positivity" vibe.

I'm fine with a reduced sentence. Like reducing it from death penalty to life in prison. I've inserted the link, sorry about that.

Know what I find to be one of the more interesting aspects of this story? My father also grew up (the oldest of 8)in a poor Algerian family. He also bounced around North Africa and France. And some 30 years later he is a wonderful, successful, (legal) citizen.

If you can't get in legally, get out. If my broke-ass-didn't-speak-a-word-of-English father could do it, why can't everyone else?

Hi Ari,
just curious, was your father legal when he first got to North America?

I'm not sure what your question is. Did he sneak in under the radar via magic carpet? *lol* No. He applied to become a citizen while he was here. I'd be happy to answer you but can you phrase it differently?

First of all, 35 years is still a very long time to be in jail. I don't know how old he is, but many of us haven't even been alive for 35 years so that's like spending an entire lifetime plus more behind bars.
Secondly, the attack never happened. Someone who's only convicted of attempted murder is going to get a lighter sentence than someone who actually went through with the crime.

So he gets 35 years to help convert the prison population to radical Islam. And this is better than killing him how?

"So he gets 35 years to help convert the prison population to radical Islam. And this is better than killing him how?

Posted by DaveP. at April 27, 2005 06:49 PM"

Let him. I would enjoy the parole hearings after that: "Death to the American infidels!"
"Ok, parole denied. Next."

"Imagine if Canada actually enforced their own immigration laws..." Karol

lol! We couldn't enforce a wet paper bag. If you are looking for Canada to pull its' weight, you will be disappointed to know we already have been. Atm, we are embroiled in another government corruption battle, in a long list of battles. The reason noone else cares about these "scandals" is they are insignificant compared to countries who have power.

I am not pleased with us.

Next.

Not really all that important, but there is no parole for federal crimes.

"A terrorist who helps authorities should be spared the death penalty"

Lots of these guys don't care about receiving the death penalty. You know, like ones who aspire to suicide bombing or flying planes into skyscrapers.

Alceste, I don't know about 'parole' but I know there are several different options (you can claim to be a drug addict and go through a drug program, you can discover G-d and get credit for attending religious services, etc.) for early release in the federal system. I'm sure he wouldn't serve his entire sentence.

Yea - I agree he likely wound't serve the whole sentence and realize what I wrote was less clear than it should have been. The sentence reductions in the federal system are primarily non-discretionary. One does x program and gets y sentence benefit in return. Discretionary parole was ruled unconstitutional in the late 80's - I have absolutely no idea why though...