The ISIS massacre in Paris occurred on Friday night, November 13, a little more than three weeks ago. The massacre in San Bernardino occurred last Wednesday, December 2. I believe it's safe to say that these have been the most discussed news stories in the United States, and possibly in the world, from the time they happened until now; I would bet considerable money on the proposition that they have been the most discussed crime stories.
One would think, then, that blogs about criminal law issues would have seen extensive discussion of the multitude of issues these events suggest. Among them are electronic (and other) surveillance, legal and illegal immigration, gun control, the forcefulness of the police response (which killed several suspects, obviously without trial), and the appropriate sentences for those found to have aided the terrorists in each instance.
I have therefore been nonplussed, to say the least, to see that not a single word about any of these questions -- indeed no mention of any kind -- has been made on one of the most widely read and eclectic criminal law blogs, Sentencing Law and Policy. Not a word by the author, the redoubtable Prof. Doug Berman, and none by any of his numerous commenters. In the meantime, SL&P has covered such things as Tennessee's fetal assault law, Hegel's theory of punishment, and "Stray Kittens Strut Their Stuff in Prison."
Criminal law blogs are private property and may choose their subjects as their owners see fit. I have no portfolio to patrol anyone else's choice of topics. That said, the total silence about Paris and San Bernardino is, I think, revealing. My guess is that one reason for the blackout is that the audience for SL&P is overwhelmingly against the death penalty, while, for the mind-numbing savagery of crimes like these, any lesser punishment would strike most Americans as a mockery of justice. Perhaps, then, silence is the best option.
For the record, I do sometimes hold off posting on a major topic myself. It might be because I don't have time to give a serious topic the attention it deserves, and a "quick take" would be inadequate and subject to misinterpretation. I might also post lighter material during that time because it is quick and easy to do.
Holding off for a decent interval is one thing. But for more than three weeks? About the biggest crime story in the world? About a story decently likely to affect the European view of the death penalty -- a hotly contested issue in sentencing?
You held off for a few days on the San Bernardino story, as did I, until it became clear it was a Jihadist attack. But for a major criminal law blog to say nada about the Paris attacks for the better part of a month (and counting) just blows my mind.
I'm afraid I must also take issue with the silence on this blog regarding the mass shooting in Colorado Springs, which was also perpetrated by a domestic terrorist.
Notablogger, that brings up a different reason for holding off. In this case, I have sent my comment as a letter to the editor of the Colorado Springs newspaper. Newspapers will generally not print anything that has already been published elsewhere.
If they print it, I will link to it. If they don't, if will post it here.
My main point is the folly and injustice of letting a minority of the jury, or even a single juror, veto a death sentence that 2/3 or more of the jurors think is deserved. Of course, you know that as well as anyone.
States that have such laws, including Colorado, need to amend them. The last thing Colorado needs is to have a second mass shooter get off with an unjustly lenient sentence because of its single-juror veto law.
notablogger,
The difference (so far as my own blogging goes) is that I FAVOR the death penalty, and, assuming the Colorado Springs case is proved BRD, with the required aggravators, I would have no problem executing the killer. People simply do not get to make their own individual law; down that path lies the jungle.
The folks who have gone blank on SL&P, by contrast, are at best ambivalent about the DP, and the great majority there oppose it. It seems to me probable that the blackout stems from their wanting to steer clear of a case where the death penalty is the only punishment consistent with the Eighth Amendment that even remotely fits the crime. In other words, their silence is consistent with something both of us have seen time and again in the DP debate, to wit, abolitionists will talk about everything and anything -- PTSD, brain lesions, capitalist oppression, the syndrome-of-the-month, you name it -- before they'll talk about what the killer actually did.