Post by CCADP on Nov 10, 2005 4:56:35 GMT -5
Wrong, Mr. Spitzer
He has good ideas for fighting terrorism, but seeking a death penalty law
isn't one of them
The latest advocate for reinstating the death penalty is none other than
the state's top lawyer and a very shrewd politician in his own right.
What's so puzzling about Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's call for capital
punishment for terrorists is that he, of all people, ought to know what
comes of these misguided quests to rewrite otherwise adequate laws. Mr.
Spitzer's proposal also might detract attention from his other very
appealing plans to make the state better equipped to fight terrorism.
"It's not being alarmist -- just realistic -- to say that New York can do
more to protect its citizens," Mr. Spitzer said in a speech last week to
the Association of Fire Districts of New York.
But how realistic is Mr. Spitzer, who happens to be the leading candidate
for governor next year, to think that the death penalty falls into the
realm of what's politically possible in New York?
Recent history is helpful here. Governor Pataki took office in 1995 and
had the death penalty back on the books within months. Of course, no one
was executed under that law. Instead the state's highest court struck down
several of the law's provisions early on and left it effectively
unconstitutional in another ruling a year ago. Subsequent efforts to
revive the death penalty, taken up by people much further to the political
right than Mr. Spitzer, haven't gotten especially far.
Just what would it take to write a death penalty law specifically aimed at
terrorists that could pass muster at the Court of Appeals?
Remember, too, that there's already a federal death penalty law that has
been enforced against terrorists.
In the same speech last week, though, Mr. Spitzer had some very practical
and creative ideas for making New York less vulnerable to a terrorist
attack. It's especially encouraging to know that he's inclined to share
more information with the public, rather than use the threat of a possible
attack as an excuse for eroding freedom of information laws.
"We should err on the side of disclosure," Mr. Spitzer said in a welcome
argument about the value of engaging the public with specific information
about terrorists threats.
That starts with more sharing of information about security and disaster
planning for specific events with the first responders -- firefighters and
paramedics in particular -- who can pass it on to the general public. It
requires, as Mr. Spitzer proposes, a clear chain of command -- from
federal to state to local government officials.
Mr. Spitzer's other proposals include better cooperation with other states
and Canadian provinces and between public safety officials in various
police and fire departments.
All of them, unlike a death penalty for terrorists, would be easy enough
to implement.
(source: Editorial, Albany Times-Union)
He has good ideas for fighting terrorism, but seeking a death penalty law
isn't one of them
The latest advocate for reinstating the death penalty is none other than
the state's top lawyer and a very shrewd politician in his own right.
What's so puzzling about Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's call for capital
punishment for terrorists is that he, of all people, ought to know what
comes of these misguided quests to rewrite otherwise adequate laws. Mr.
Spitzer's proposal also might detract attention from his other very
appealing plans to make the state better equipped to fight terrorism.
"It's not being alarmist -- just realistic -- to say that New York can do
more to protect its citizens," Mr. Spitzer said in a speech last week to
the Association of Fire Districts of New York.
But how realistic is Mr. Spitzer, who happens to be the leading candidate
for governor next year, to think that the death penalty falls into the
realm of what's politically possible in New York?
Recent history is helpful here. Governor Pataki took office in 1995 and
had the death penalty back on the books within months. Of course, no one
was executed under that law. Instead the state's highest court struck down
several of the law's provisions early on and left it effectively
unconstitutional in another ruling a year ago. Subsequent efforts to
revive the death penalty, taken up by people much further to the political
right than Mr. Spitzer, haven't gotten especially far.
Just what would it take to write a death penalty law specifically aimed at
terrorists that could pass muster at the Court of Appeals?
Remember, too, that there's already a federal death penalty law that has
been enforced against terrorists.
In the same speech last week, though, Mr. Spitzer had some very practical
and creative ideas for making New York less vulnerable to a terrorist
attack. It's especially encouraging to know that he's inclined to share
more information with the public, rather than use the threat of a possible
attack as an excuse for eroding freedom of information laws.
"We should err on the side of disclosure," Mr. Spitzer said in a welcome
argument about the value of engaging the public with specific information
about terrorists threats.
That starts with more sharing of information about security and disaster
planning for specific events with the first responders -- firefighters and
paramedics in particular -- who can pass it on to the general public. It
requires, as Mr. Spitzer proposes, a clear chain of command -- from
federal to state to local government officials.
Mr. Spitzer's other proposals include better cooperation with other states
and Canadian provinces and between public safety officials in various
police and fire departments.
All of them, unlike a death penalty for terrorists, would be easy enough
to implement.
(source: Editorial, Albany Times-Union)