3 Death Row Inmates Executed Under Japan's New Justice Minister's Orders: A news article from the Mainichi Daily News, reports that the first executions in Japan in about three months occurred Thursday, the Ministry of Justice announced. It was the first time for executions to be carried out under the orders of Justice Minister Okiharu Yasuoka since he assumed his post in August. Executions in Japan were halted for a period of about 3 years, 4 months up until March 1993, as no execution orders were issued by justice ministers during the period. Since executions resumed, 73 inmates have been put to death. There are now 102 confirmed inmates on death row. Some of the convictions of the three inmates includes stabbing in a robbery attempt, murder, assault, stealing money, breaking and entering, and arson.

Five Countries Account For All "Child" Executions In The World: According to a story from the Daily Pakistan News, Human Rights Watch (HRW) is urging an end to the practice. HRW apparently has no intention of ending its own deceptive practice of lumping 17-year-olds together with actual children in its pronouncements. The HRW states that Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen are the only countries that continue to impose the death penalty on people younger than 18 after they have been convicted. The United States outlawed execution of juvenile offenders in 2005. Furthermore, the HRW states that Iran has executed 26 of the 32 juveniles put to death globally since January 2005. Iranian law allows such penalties for girls of at least nine and boys of 15 or older, said the report, adding that six juvenile offenders had been executed there this year.

'Good Judges Are More Important Than Ever', states David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey in an article from the Wall Street Opinion Journal. According to the article, judicial intervention has become more prevalent after 9/11. In June, the Supreme Court invalidated a careful compromise on detainee rights adopted by Congress and the president in the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA), which provided only limited authority for the federal courts. But it went further, framing an unprecedented role for the judiciary in wartime decision making, states the article. The Supreme Court decisions show an alarming and growing willingness by judges - who lack national security expertise and approach issues in relative isolation - to accept and decide matters left to the discretion of the president and Congress. This makes future judicial appointments all the more critical. According to the article, the next president will determine the course of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts for decades to come.

District Court Overturns Nevada's Sex Offender Law: A news story from the KTVN News Online, reports that a federal judge kept a new state sex offender law from going into effect. The law would have forced other offenders - who committed crimes and served their time long ago - to sign up with the state's sex offender registry, even though the registry may not have been around at the time of their conviction. The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada fought this in court, and won. The A.C.L.U. thought the law was unconstitutional, because it would basically punish sex offenders a second time, for a crime they've already paid for. The new law would have meant keeping track of thousands of extra sex offenders, regardless of the nature of their crime, or the time they had already served. Unfortunately, the text of the opinion is not available on the district court's web site at this time. We are curious to know how the court got around Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), in which the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision striking down application of an Alaska law to existing cases. The question might also interest the lawyer who represented the State of Alaska in Smith, John G. Roberts.