Submitted by Peter Lushing, Mar 4, 2008 10:45

Picture Southern judges 50 years ago beseeching prosecutors not to bring cases against racist killers because they'll be a big waste of time, local juries not likely to convict (yeah, I know there were probably few contemplated prosecutions, but the analogy is valid). Liberal minded people would've argued it's wrong to kill people, double wrong to kill people racially, triplelly wrong for the juries to nullify the law, quadrupally wrong for judges to enable the miscarriage of justice. Further, there is a vindication of the law in bringing a proper proscution, albeit doomed. Also, who knows when the tide will turn and jurors' attitudes will change? But, one might argue, the judges where are simply predicting that the jurors' will not find the cases suitable for the death penalty. Whence these jurors' attitudes, if not disagreement with the law of the land (federal law has a death penalty, doncha know). Some of these are multiple murders. If you don't like the death penalty, act to repeal it. Meanwhile, the judges should redouble efforts to get death-qualified jurors, and let the chips fall where they may. Federal law -- civil rights law, e.g., -- should be enforced uniformly around the country. Wasn't that established back when liberals liked federal law?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.