I couldn't imagine the Americans doing this.

I just watched Scotland's Secret Serial Killer last night on BBC iPlayer which was a Documentary that aired on BBC Two in Scotland on 10 Dec 2009 about convicted serial killer and child rapist Angus Sinclair. It seems that he was let loose on an unsupervised weekend pass to attend a small boat festival back in the mid 90s. He was selling toys there that he made whilst in prison. As the programme said, this would have been the perfect ruse for him giving his M.O. (get a young child to do him a favour and then corner the little girl).

Fortunately, he didn't kill or rape anyone whilst on pass.

"Psychiatrists believe Sinclair's obsession with sex cannot be cured". Well, I think that can be said about most humans.

Most US states would have put this clown on death row. I seriously doubt the yanks would have let him loose and unsupervised on an unsuspecting public (what were they thinking????).

iPlayer no longer has this available.

An interesting way to fight crime

It seems that the West Yorkshire police are using a young girls's letter to show the effects of crime. West Yorkshire Police are sending a Christmas card to known burglars across the Bradford area to make them think about the effect of their crimes.



The BBC interviewed a robber about his experience in a programme where he had to meet his victim and learn how his crime affected her. Somerset Children have also written similar letters.

I have to admit that my experience shows that prevention is far better than punishment at dealing with criminals. It will be interesting to see the effect this has on the West Yorkshire's criminal element.

Maybe an individual right isn't that bad an idea!

I was in a preliminary hearing today where several gun charges were raised in relation to a drug dealer. For the most part, they were possession charges: such as not having a permit for a firearm. Now, the gun was in a place of business. Sure, the business was selling drugs, but he has to protect his business!

Amusing aside, there was the issue of a business card and I was imagining something along the lines of "Kwame Johnson: drug dealer to scumbags".

Now, once an individual right is announced, these gun charges can be fought. In fact, they should be fought anyway since the State constitution provides: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. I mean what the hell is a law that prevents drug dealers from having guns doing on the books!?!?!?!?

More guns for criminals! More work for lawyers!

Yeah!

Barely has the dust settled...

And SCOTUS is going to hear its first felon in possession case. well, actually it's a challenge to the West Virginia domestic violence statute, but it's the opening salvo in a barrage that will seem like the Battle of the Somme fought with hydrogen bombs.


The problem is that changing the status quo regarding the Second Amendment, especially by setting up some sort of standard of review, will place this issue into a state of flux. I am not sure of where the Court will go in regard to the issue of whether self-defence should be added to the Second Amendment. Justice Roberts did make this comment:

Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, "compelling interest," "significant interest," "narrowly tailored," none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard. Isn't it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can't take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these -- how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?
I'm not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard.

CJ Roberts makes a comment a little later on about the First Amendment picking up baggage over time. Now, adding concepts to the Second Amendment which aren't there and announcing standards will indeed create baggage. Highly unnecessary baggage as far as public safety is concerned. And while the Constitution didn't mention self-defence it did mention insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare, which means it would be against the Constitution to find an individual right to firearms given the cost to society.

At this point, I plan on using the individual right to keep and bear arms in my criminal practise. Mr. Mohammad, my AK-47 toting client may benefit from this sort of decision. As will other criminals, which explains why the NRA, while urging Second Amendment strict scrutiny, thinks Martha Stewart and Lewis Libby have no gun rights. Of course, I agree with Douglas Berman that an individual right means that criminals and terrorists are entitled to guns.

After all, I consider Washington, Hamilton, and the rest of that pack of traitors to be terrorists. They terrorised law abiding British American citizens to either leave home or support their treachery.

So, indeed, Al-queda is entitled to arms whether that be a handgun or a weapon of mass destruction if there is an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution.