Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin

Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin (; born 27 November 1948), is a convicted war criminal for the killing Bengali intellectuals in collaboration with Pakistan army at the time of Bangladesh liberation war. After the liberation of Bangladesh, Chowdhury escaped from Bangladesh and took British citizenship.
Chowdhury is a founder of the Islamic Forum of Europe, believed to be an extremist organization and a trustee and former chairman of Muslim Aid, and a director of Muslim spiritual care provision in the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS).
On 3 November 2013, the International Crimes Tribunal which is set up by the government of Bangladesh to judge international crimes committed during 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, sentenced Mueen-Uddin, in absentia, to death for killing 9 teachers of Dhaka University, 6 journalists and 3 doctors in 1971. Mueen has remained in the United Kingdom since leaving Bangladesh shortly after its independence in 1971. Mueen-Uddin denies the charges.
He was alleged war criminal long before creation of International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh). In 1972, "The New York Times" reported that he "has been identified as the head of a secret, commando-like organization of fanatic Moslems", In 1995, a documentary film made by David Bergman, named "War Crimes File" was aired on British television channel Channel 4 showing his involvement in 1971 Bangladesh genocide.
Career.
In 1971, Mueen-Uddin was a journalist at the "Daily Purbodesh". In 1972, "The New York Times" reported that he "has been identified as the head of a secret, commando-like organization of fanatic Moslems", in connection with the Bangladesh liberation war. He fled Bangladesh shortly after its independence in 1971, and went to the United Kingdom via India, Nepal and Pakistan In the United Kingdom he was able to create a new life. He was a special editor of the London-based weekly "Dawat" and a leader of the London-based Jamaat organisation Dawatul Islam.
Mueen-Uddin is a director of Muslim Spiritual Care Provision in the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS), a member of Multi Faith Group for Healthcare Chaplaincy (MFGHC), and a trustee of Muslim Aid. He is currently a citizen of the UK.
Since moving to the UK in the early 1970s, Mueen-Uddin has taken British citizenship and built a career as a community activist and Muslim leader. In 1989 he was a key leader of protests against Salman Rushdie's novel, "The Satanic Verses". Around the same time he helped to found the extremist Islamic Forum of Europe, Jamaat-e-Islami's European wing, which believes in creating a sharia state in Europe and in 2010 was accused by a Labour minister, Jim Fitzpatrick, of infiltrating the Labour Party. Tower Hamlets' directly-elected mayor, Lutfur Rahman, was expelled from Labour for his close links with the IFE. Until 2010 Mueen-Uddin was vice-chairman of the controversial East London Mosque, controlled by the IFE, in which capacity he greeted Prince Charles when the heir to the throne opened an extension to the mosque. He was also closely involved with the Muslim Council of Britain, which has been dominated by the IFE. He was chairman and remains a trustee of the IFE-linked charity, Muslim Aid, which has a budget of £20 million. He has also been closely involved in the Markfield Institute, the key institution of Islamist higher education in the UK.
War crimes trial.
In 1995, a documentary film "War Crimes File" by David Bergman was aired on British television channel Channel 4 about the 1971 Bangladesh genocide. In the film, Mueen-Uddin was accused of being a member of the pro-Pakistan paramilitary force Al-Badr during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, and of being involved in war crimes.
In 2012, Bangladesh law minister Shafique Ahmed stated that Mueen-Uddin would be charged for war crimes. However, the prosecution has delayed submitting charges. He is accused of being a top member of the notorious paramilitary force Al-Badr and of the fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami political party, which fought for the country to remain part of Pakistan. Mueen-Uddin has denied all allegations.
Arrest warrant and extradition conditions.
On 2 May 2013, Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal brought war criminal charges against Mueen-Uddin and Ashrafuz Zaman Khan. The United Kingdom does not have an extradition agreement with Bangladesh, and the UK was reluctant to extradite Mueen-Uddin without assurances of a fair trial, plus assurances that there would be no death penalty in the event of a guilty verdict. Although Scotland Yard said in the 1990s that Bangladesh had primary jurisdiction for prosecuting Mueen for the 1971 killings, Britain could reconsider its decision to not prosecute.
Both Mueen and Khan were charged with committing a war crime by killing 18 intellectuals who were Dhaka University Professors Ghyasuddin Ahmed, Rashidul Hasan, Anwar Pasha, Faizul Mahi, famous playwright and Professor Munier Chowdhury, Mufazzal Haider Chaudhury, Dr Abul Khair, Dr Santosh Chandra Bhattacharyya and Dr Sirajul Haque Khan, Professor of Cardiology Mohammed Fazle Rabbee, eminent eye specialist AFM Alim Chowdhury, Physician Mohammad Martuza, Novelist and Journalist Shahidullah Kaiser, Journalist and Poet Selina Parvin, Journalists Serajuddin Hossain, Syed Nazmul Haque, ANM Golam Mostafa, and Nizamuddin Ahmed, in between 10 and 15 December 1971. An arrest warrant also issued for them. Both of them was most wanted after Bangladesh liberation war. According to prob report "Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin" was "operation-in-charge of Al-Badr".
Allegations from the relatives of the victims.
The widow of one victim, Dolly Chaudhury, claims to have identified Mueen-Uddin as one of three men who abducted her husband, Mufazzal Haider Chaudhury, a prominent scholar of Bengali literature, on the night of 14 December 1971. "I was able to identify one [of the abductors], Mueen-Uddin," she said in video testimony, seen by "The Sunday Telegraph". "He was wearing a scarf but my husband pulled it down as he was taken away. When he was a student, he often used to go to my brother in law's house. My husband, my sister-in-law, my brother-in-law, we all recognised that man." Professor Chaudhury was never seen again.
The widow of another victim, claims that Mueen-Uddin was in the group that abducted her husband, Sirajuddin Hussain, another journalist, from their home on the night of 10 December 1971. "There was no doubt that he was the person involved in my husband's abduction and killing," said Noorjahan Seraji. "I have waited 40 years to see the trial of the war criminals," said the widow, Noorjahan Seraji. "I have not spent a single night without suffering and I want justice."
One of the other members of the group, who was caught soon afterwards, allegedly gave Mueen-Uddin's name in his confession.
Another reporter on Purbodesh, Ghulam Mostafa, also disappeared. The vanished journalist's brother, Dulu, said he appealed to Mueen-Uddin for help and was taken around the main Pakistani Army detention and torture centres by Mueen-Uddin. Dulu Mostafa said that Mueen-Uddin appeared to be well known at the detention centres, gained easy admission to the premises and was saluted by the Pakistani guards as he entered. Ghulam was never found.
Mueen-Uddin's then editor at the paper, Atiqur Rahman, said that Mueen-Uddin had been the first journalist in the country to reveal the existence of the Al-Badr Brigade and had demonstrated intimate knowledge of its activities. After his colleagues disappeared, he said, Mueen-Uddin had asked for his home address. Fearing that he too would be abducted, the editor gave a fake address. Rahman's name, complete with the fake address, appeared on an Al-Badr death list found just after the end of the war. "I gave that address only to Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, and when that list appeared it was obvious that he had given that address to Al Badr," Rahman said in statements given to the investigators. "I'm sure I gave the address to no-one else." Rahman then published a front-page story and picture about Mueen-Uddin, who had by that stage left the city, naming him as involved in "disappearances."
This brought forward two further witnesses, Mushtaqur and Mahmudur Rahman, who claim they recognised the picture as somebody who had been part of an armed group looking for the BBC correspondent in Dhaka during the abductions. The group was unsuccessful because the BBC man had gone into hiding.
Verdict.
On 3 November 2013, the International Crimes Tribunal – a special Bangladeshi court set up by the government – sentenced Mueen-uddin to death after the tribunal found him guilty "in absentia" of torture and murder of 18 intellectuals during 1971 Liberation war of Bangladesh. According to "The Daily Star", lawyers called no defence witnesses, whereas the prosecution brought in 25 witnesses, due to non-co-operation from Mueen-Uddin's family. Those sentenced in absentia are not eligible to challenge the court's verdict. Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin denied the charges in an interview aired by Al Jazeera in August 2013.
The tribunal also said that Mueen-Uddin sometimes carried out the murders, and sometimes instigated and encouraged them. They ruled that he and his allies had complete control over the Al Badr during the 1971 War.
Reaction of trial from defence.
However, the trial was criticised by Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, the party he was served and which opposed the creation of Bangladesh and took part in committing war crime in 1971, stated that the trials were politically motivated. They also accused the current government of trying to destroy the opposition party by sentencing its leadership to death. However, the political motivation against Mueen-Uddin is unclear as he is living in the UK for more than 40 years. Mueen-Uddin's Legal Counsel described the verdict as "farcical". He further alleged "serious judicial and prosecutorial misconduct and the collusion of the Government with members of the judiciary and prosecution", and condemned the entire trial as a "show trial".
John Cammegh, a barrister in chambers at 9 Bedford Row, London, which represents Mueen-Uddin, in an op-ed piece, stated that the trial ""made mockery of that principle "[of international law], and that it served as "a terrible warning of the way in which the ideals of universal justice and accountability can be abused".
Reaction from victims' relatives about verdict.
Relatives of the victims voiced their satisfaction at the verdicts. Professor Rashiddudin Ahmad, whose brother Giasuddin Ahmed, a university teacher at the time was amongst those killed, said: "We have waited 40 years for this. It is some sort of justice, even though the sentence may never be carried out."
Europe's reaction to the trial.
The UK said on 22 January 2013 that it supported the war crimes trial in Bangladesh but always opposed capital punishment while Germany and France termed the trial an internal affair of the country. They gave their reactions a day after the International Crimes Tribunal-2 awarded death sentence to Abul Kalam Azad for genocide and crimes against humanity during the Liberation War.
Warren Daley, spokesperson of the British high commission in Dhaka, said: "The UK has made clear its support for Bangladesh's efforts to bring to justice those accused of atrocities committed in 1971. Along with our EU partners, we are however opposed to the application of the death penalty in all circumstances."


Dan Thomas (baseball)

Danny Lee Thomas (May 9, 1951June 12, 1980) was a Major League Baseball player who played for the Milwaukee Brewers in late 1976 and early 1977. During his brief major league career, he became known as the "Sundown Kid" because of his well-publicized refusal to play on seventh-day Sabbath.
Early years.
Born in Birmingham, Alabama, Thomas grew up in East Carondelet, Illinois, graduated from Dupo Senior High School, and played college baseball at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. In June 1971, he played in the College World Series; the Southern Illinois Salukis advanced to the championship game, but lost to the USC Trojans 7–2 on June 17.
The next year, Thomas was picked sixth overall in the 1972 amateur draft by the Milwaukee Brewers. In 1975, he was suspended for a half-season for striking an umpire, but in 1976 he had a league-leading .325 batting average in the Eastern League, playing for the Berkshire Brewers, and was named the league's Player of the Year. He won the Eastern League's Triple Crown by also leading in home runs and runs batted in, an accomplishment that was not equalled in that minor league until Lou Montañez garnered the Eastern League Triple Crown 32 years later, in 2008.
Major league career.
Joining the Brewers in September 1976, Thomas played 54 games for the Brewers in 1976 and 1977 as an outfielder and designated hitter. He had a career batting average of .274, an on-base percentage of .363, and a .457 slugging percentage.
The "Sundown Kid".
Thomas joined the Worldwide Church of God and began practicing strict Sabbath observance. When he arrived for spring training in 1977, he informed the Brewers that he would not play on the Sabbath, from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. "The Sundown Kid", as he came to be called, missed a night game on Saturday, April 23, 1977, when he was slated to be in the lineup as cleanup hitter and left fielder, after having been excused from pre-sundown batting practice earlier in the day. Thomas said he heard on the radio that he was scheduled to play in the game and apologized to Brewers manager Alex Grammas.
He told "People" magazine, "If I'm good at baseball, it's only because God gave me the talent. I'll give it all I've got, but I won't play on the Sabbath". Thomas was also outspoken in criticizing pitchers who hit batters, saying, "I think they ought to make a rule that if a guy gets hit and is able to get up, they should tie the pitcher's hands behind his back and let the hitter smack him in the face."
End of his baseball career.
After playing 22 games for the Brewers in 1977, Thomas was demoted on May 20 to the Spokane Indians, the Brewers' Triple-A Pacific Coast League farm team in Spokane, Washington, although his batting average with Milwaukee was a respectable .271. A "Milwaukee Journal" columnist, Bill Dwyer, wrote, "No matter how tolerant and ecumenical Brewers' management wants to be, they are irked by having a player sit out two games a week." While playing for the Indians, Thomas agreed to a pay reduction of one day per week due to his missed Saturday games. His batting average declined considerably, however, and the Brewers announced his reassignment to their Eastern League Class AA affiliate in August. Thomas refused the demotion and did not play the remainder of the season, saying "It's like they're asking me, 'Do you want to stay in the minor leagues the rest of your life? Conform or get out.'" Brewers president Bud Selig said, "It's just a tragic story. I know a lot of people are mad at us because of what they think we've done to him ... He's really a nice kid who wants to do the right thing."
Thomas was unsuccessful in his later attempts to rejoin the Brewers or sign with another major league baseball organization in 1978. He then played in Boise, Idaho, for the independent Boise Buckskins (predecessor of the Boise Hawks) in the short-season Northwest League, where he won the Class A league's batting title in 1978. In 1979, Thomas played for the Miami Amigos of the short-lived Inter-American League. Afterwards, Thomas quit baseball.
Personal life.
Thomas and his wife Judy had two children. The family lived near Spokane, where he had difficulty finding steady employment after baseball. He worked for a pool company for a time.
Thomas suffered from mental health problems beginning not long after his promotion to the major leagues. Thomas would later say that he "couldn't take success" and that he began to drink and take pills. While playing winter ball in Venezuela after the 1976 season, Thomas was hospitalized after overdosing on pills; he was flown back to Milwaukee for psychiatric care. According to a friend who lived with Thomas and his wife, Thomas knew that he had problems: "Danny knew he wasn't right. He told us that. He once said to his wife, 'Judy, I wish I had cancer, then at least people would realize what was the matter with me.'" In June 1980, Thomas was arrested in Mobile on a rape charge involving a 12-year-old girl.
Death.
While in jail on the rape charge, Thomas committed suicide by hanging on June 12, 1980. His family was so impoverished by then that they were unable to afford funeral expenses or even remain in Alabama for his potter's field burial. After the outfielder's death, sports columnist John Blanchette of the Spokane "Spokesman-Review" described him as a "troubled soul," saying, "no one was more haunted than Danny Thomas."


The Lime Works

The Lime Works is a novel by Thomas Bernhard, first published in German in 1970. It is a complex surrealist work, where the creativity and resourcefulness of a destructive personality is marshalled against itself in a nightmarish narration.
Synopsis.
The story opens with a description of a woman’s brains scattered across the floor of an abandoned lime works, and a half-frozen man crouching on the ground nearby, covered in manure.
From this first grotesque scene, Bernhard begins his story, a compelling tale of two people insidiously bound to each other, told through a hypnotic wave of voices – the people of the small Austrian town nearby (Sicking), the officials, the salesmen, the chimney sweeps, the local gossips, the couple themselves. The man, Konrad, is consumed with his work – a book that is to be both visionary and definitive, the ultimate treatise on the subject of hearing. His wife, a cripple, is the victim of his obsessive experiments: he whispers one phrase in her ear, over and over, hundreds of times, demanding from her impossible degrees of aural discrimination. She has no way of knowing, or no strength to tell herself, whether he is a deluded madman or a genius. For three decades, he has been waiting for the ideal moment, the perfect constellation of circumstances, to arise, so that he may begin writing down his conclusions.
But he never begins, and he is now an old man. We watch as he compulsively invites his own ruin. We feel him creep from one moment to the next, terrified of failure. Suppose he started writing and then caught a cold? Suppose he finished and his tome was judged worthless? Or his wife destroyed it? Even amidst the total isolation of the lime works, where they live, he is continually distracted. He hallucinates about prowlers. He hoards bits of food for dreaded visitors. And she torments him. He must feed her, read to her, bring her cider from the deep cellar (one glass at the time), maintain her voluminous correspondence with servants he has long ago forgotten, try on a mitten she has been knitting and unravelling for years, tend the earaches she develops from constant experiments... until the monotony and heartlessness of their life together shatters in a bloodbath.
Excerpt.
The many voices narrating the novel appear within brackets (and Laska’s is the local tavern):
"...Konrad’s wife, whose maiden name was Zryd, a woman almost totally crippled by decades of taking the wrong medication, and who had consequently spent half her lifetime hunched over in her custom-built French invalid chair, but who is now, as Wieser puts it, out of her misery, was taught by Konrad how to use a Mannlicher carbine, a weapon the otherwise defenseless woman kept out of sight but always within reach, with the safety off, behind her chair, and it was with this gun that Konrad killed her on the night of December 24–25, with two shots in the back of her head (Fro); two shots in the temple (Wieser); abruptly (Fro) putting an end to their marital hell (Wieser). Konrad had always been quick to fire at anything within range of the house, they say at Laska’s, and as everyone knows he did shoot the woodcutter and game keeper Koller who was passing by on his way home from work one evening about four and a half years ago; quite soon after Konrad had moved in, carrying his knapsack and a hoe, and catching it in the left shoulder because Konrad mistook him for a burglar; for which shooting Konrad was in due course sentenced to nine and a half months at hard labor. The incident brought to light about fifteen previous convictions of Konrad’s, mostly for libel and aggravated assault, they say at Laska’s. Konrad served his time in the Wels district prison, where he is being held again right now..."


Neil Perry (Dead Poets Society)


The Family Planning Association of Hong Kong

The Family Planning Association of Hong Kong (FPAHK) is a voluntary organisation that promotes family planning in Hong Kong. The current Executive Director is Dr Lam Wai-cheung, Mona.
The headquarters of FPAHK is located in , Wan Chai.
History.
The Association was founded in 1936 as the Hong Kong Eugenics League (香港優生學會). In 1950, it changed its name officially to The Family Planning Association of Hong Kong. It became one of the founding members of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1952.
In 1956, it set up the first subfertility clinic. In 1955, the Hong Kong government began subsidising FPAHK's activities. From 1964 on, FPAHK received financial support by the International Planned Parenthood Federation. In 1967, FPAHK ran the first Hong Kong Family Planning Knowledge, Attitude & Practice (KAP) Survey (「香港家庭計劃知識、態度及實行調查」) and started sex education.
Soon after, the Hong Kong Department of Health started to take over the FPAHK sub-fertility clinics. At the same time, FPAHK started its "Two is enough" (「兩個夠哂數」) campaign. To further publicise its campaign, FPAHK made a poster of artist Petrina Fung playing with her kids, with the caption "No need for lots of babies, have two at most".
In 1986, FPAHK began to establish the first health centre for teenagers at Causeway Bay. In 1989, FPAHK's new headquarters at Wan Chai Southorn Centre began operations. After that, FPAHK pushed through a new artificial insemination service, the family planning awareness initiative, a one-stop service for premarital couples, an obstetric examination service, the experimental hormone replacement therapy plan, and initiated the Hong Kong Women's Reproductive and Sexual Health Advocacy Group (香港婦女生殖與性健康倡議組織). The "Be a Mr. Able in Family Planning" (「家庭計劃，要做得哥」) campaign was launched to entice men to play an active role in birth control. In 1998, FPAHK began to provide a mobile clinic service. In 1999, the mobile library and menopause clinic service started. On 11 December 2006, the FPAHK's office at Tsuen Wan Centre began operation.
In response to the changes of population trend and family value of Hong Kong society, the association suggested "Family Big or Small, Family Planning is Best for All" to raise public awareness on early family planning. New initiatives were made to meet evolving needs of holistic sexual and reproductive health care, including Well Men Clinic, Cervical Diseases Clinic, Osteoporosis Clinic, Breast Clinic and Sex Therapy. On advocating sexuality education, the association launched a 3-year "Youth Sexuality and Love Campaign" in 2008, and organized the "4th Asian Conference on Sexuality Education" in 2010.


Thomas H. Eviston

Thomas H. Eviston (died September 8, 1860) was an American politician and businessman.
Eviston was born to John W. Eviston, Sr. and his wife in north Ireland. He was the brother of John W. Eviston, Jr., Thomas Eviston, and Martin J. Eviston. The family first settled in Providence, Rhode Island before moving to Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1842.
Eviston worked as a lumber dealer, and was the chief engineer of Milwaukee's volunteer fire department. In 1857 he was elected railroad commissioner for Milwaukee's Third Ward. In 1859, he was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly.
Eviston and his wife died when the "Lady Elgin" shipwrecked in 1860.


Ahmed Helmy

Ahmed Muhammad Helmy Abdel Rahman Awwad (; born November 18, 1969) is an Egyptian actor, comedian, TV host, voice actor, film producer and diplomat. He started his career in 1993 on the Egyptian satellite broadcast in a program called "Leib Eyal". In 1998, he made his first movie "Aboud Ala El Hedoud". Helmy starred in 18 film, one series and participated in a play. He won a lot of awards, including Damascus International Film Festival Award for Best Actor. He presented a lot of programs, including "Leib Eyal", "Darbaka", "Mn Sairbah El-Bonbon", "Sawayet Eyal" and "Helmy Online". He also participated as a judge in "Arabs Got Talent". Helmy is the founder of Shadows Communications and the author of the book "28 Harf". He is married to the Egyptian actress Mona Zaki and have 3 children.
Biography.
Early life.
Helmy was born in Banha, Qalyubiyya Governorate. He is the middle child between 3 siblings: Khaled, Ahmed and Sally. He traveled to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at the age of six due to his father's work there. He lived in Jeddah for 10 years before returning to Egypt and studied in there. Helmy graduated from the Higher institute of Dramatic Arts in Egypt, from the decoration department. Ahmed also graduated of the Egyptian Academy of Arts in 1993.
Personal life.
In 2002, Helmy married to the Egyptian actress Mona Zaki. They have 3 children: Lily (2003), Saleem (2014) and Younis (2016).
Career.
As an actor and performer, Helmy is notable for his fast-thinking and witty comedy. His career in mainstream Egyptian film began when director Sherif Arafa spotted him on the children's program "Leib Eyal" ("Kids' Play") on the Egyptian Satellite Broadcast. Sherif found in him the comedian actor he was looking for to star his film, "Aboud Ala El Hedoud" ("Aboud at the Frontier"). In that film, Helmy made his first big screen appearance, co-starring alongside Alaa Wali El Din. Thereafter, he quickly made a jump to leading roles in films such as "Omar 2000", "El Nazer" ("The Headmaster"), "Elsellem Wel Te'ban" ("Snakes and Ladders").
In 2007, Helmy topped the Egyptian comedian market in the number of audience and revenue, mostly due to the success of his movie "Keda Reda".
Ahmed Helmy ambassador for UN World Food Programme.
Egyptian actor Ahmed Helmy has previously collaborated with the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) to help promote its "Food for Education" project, launched in association with the "Chipsy" food products company.
Ahmed's sickness.
He was diagnosed with cancer and was treated in 2014 by removing the tumor from a muscle in his back.
Ahmed Helmy and "Arabs Got Talent".
Ahmed Helmy was a judge on the Arab talent show for its third season. He joins the Lebanese singer Najwa Karam, the Lebanese journalist and TV personality Ali Jaber, and the Saudi comedian Nasser Al Qasabi. He participated in the seasons: 4, 5 and 6.


We-Chank-Wash-ta-don-pee

We-Chank-Wash-ta-don-pee (Dakota: "Wičháhpi Waštédaŋpi", Good Little Stars) , or Chaska (pronounced chas-KAY) (died December 26, 1862) was a Native American of the Dakota who was executed in a mass hanging near Mankato, Minnesota, in the wake of the Dakota War of 1862, despite the fact that President Abraham Lincoln had commuted his death sentence days earlier.
Background.
In the years before the Civil War, relations between the Dakota people and white settlers had deteriorated considerably. Once the War began, already scarce resources were further strained, and the supplies promised to the Dakota in "a series of broken peace treaties" were no longer available. Starving tribesmen attacked settlements in Minnesota, and in response, more than 400 Dakota and "mixed-blood" men were detained by Brigadier General Henry Hastings Sibley. 303 of these men were sentenced to death, but Lincoln reversed all but 38 of the death sentences for lack of evidence. Chaska's sentence was one of those commuted, but (because of an apparent case of mistaken identity) he was nevertheless executed.
There has been some dispute over whether mistaken identity was to blame for Chaska's execution. There were three men held in Mankato on the day of the hanging called Chaska, which in the Dakota language means "junior" and is often used for a firstborn son. University of Oklahoma history professor and Little Crow biographer Gary Anderson believes soldiers "just grabbed the wrong guy". According to "The New York Times", "We-Chank-Wash-ta-don-pee's case was No. 3 and not listed in the execution order handwritten by Lincoln... The man he died for was No. 121, identified by Lincoln as Chaskey-don or Chaskey-etay, who had been condemned for murdering a pregnant woman."
Others believe the execution was deliberate. During the war, Chaska had abducted a white woman, Sarah Wakefield, and her children. According to Wakefield, Chaska "kept them from certain death and abuse at the hands of his fellow tribesmen. 'If it had not been for Chaska,' Wakefield said, 'my bones would now be bleaching on the prairie, and my children with Little Crow.'" For her part, Wakefield "firmly believed that Chaska was executed on purpose, in retaliation for her testimony and in reaction to rumors that she and Chaska were lovers. General Sibley, who appointed the tribunal that convicted Chaska, privately referred to him as Wakefield's 'dusky paramour.'"
Calls for a pardon.
A move has begun to award Chaska a posthumous pardon. According to the "New York Times", the idea of a pardon has received a mixed (though largely positive) response from the Dakota community:
Former Minnesota Congressman James L. Oberstar said a pardon would be "a grand gesture and one I think our Congressional delegation should support," adding that "A wrong should be righted." Former Minnesota Senator Al Franken, who sat on the Committee on Indian Affairs, also signalled support for a pardon.
In popular culture.
Chaska is a major character in the historical novel "Blood Moon: A Captive's Tale" (2017) by Ruth Hull Chatlien, which is based on Sarah Wakefield's memoir about her captivity during the war.
Chadwick Stokes released a song in 2019 titled "Chaska" detailing the events.


Rubina Shergill

Rubina Shergill was an Indian television actress. She was known for her performance in the role of "Inspector Simran Kaushik" in Zee TV's daily soap "Mrs. Kaushik Ki Paanch Bahuein", which eventually became her last show.
Early life.
Shergill was born and brought up in Chandigarh, Punjab. She did her schooling from Kendriya Vidyalaya Sector 31 Chandigarh and then graduated from MCM DAV College for Women, Chandigarh. She took lessons to become a professional singer, but soon realized that singing wasn't meant for her and she really should not pursue it. So, Shergill dropped all her ambition of becoming a singer.
Career.
Shergill's parents did not approve of her choosing acting as a career. However, she accompanied her mother, who was on a posting to Mumbai and started working on TV. She didn’t have to struggle hard to get into television. She visited a friend in Mumbai, met a few people and got work.
She worked in "Rehna Hai Teri Palkon Ki Chhaon Mein" on NDTV Imagine and one other serial before landing a role in "Mrs. Kaushik Ki Paanch Bahuein" on Zee TV in 2011. She played the role of "Inspector Simran Kaushik", third daughter-in-law of "Mrs Kaushik" (played by Vibha Chibber). Shergill said in an interview, "I feel fortunate to play a cop as well as a daughter-in-law as this gives me an opportunity to prove my mettle as an actor".
Death.
Shergill suffered a severe asthma attack during a party thrown by the production house of "Mrs Kaushik Ki Paanch Bahuein" on 23 December 2011 at a Mumbai-based five-star hotel. She did not have her asthma pump with her to inhale when she got the attack, and lost consciousness. She was then immediately admitted to the hospital.
A few days later the reports of Shergill's suffering from a brain hemorrhage were released. She was on ventilator support after slipping into a coma. She died on 12 January 2012, in Kokilaben Hospital in Andheri West, Mumbai. She was cremated at the Oshiwara Cremations Ground in Mumbai on 13 January 2012.
Tribute.
After her death, Shergill was not replaced by any other actress in "Mrs Kaushik Ki Paanch Bahuein" which was on-air when she died. At the time of her death, her character of "Simran" in the show was written as having gone for training. The script was originally written to have her return; however, after Shergill's death, the script was re-written to have "Simran" die as well.
Even after Shergill's death, the character of "Simran Kaushik" was shown during flashbacks and retrieved many times in the show which finally ended on 15 March 2013.
External links.
[[Category:2012 deaths]]
[[Category:Deaths from asthma]]
[[Category:Actresses from Chandigarh]]
[[Category:Indian television actresses]]
[[Category:1982 births]]
[[Category:Kendriya Vidyalaya alumni]]
[[Category:Actresses from Mumbai]]
[[Category:21st-century Indian actresses]]


Capital punishment debate in the United States

The debate over capital punishment in the United States existed as early as the colonial period. As of March 2020, it remains a legal penalty within 28 states, the federal government, and military criminal justice systems. The states of Colorado, New Hampshire, Illinois, Connecticut and Maryland (by the legislature and not the courts) abolished the death penalty within the last decade alone.
Gallup, Inc. has monitored support for the death penalty in the United States since 1937 by asking "Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?" Opposition to the death penalty peaked in 1966, with 47% of Americans opposing it; by comparison, 42% supported the death penalty and 11% had "no opinion." The death penalty increased in popularity throughout the 1970s and 1980s, when crime went up and politicians campaigned on fighting crime and drugs; in 1994, the opposition rate was less than 20%, less than in any other year. Since then, the crime rate has fallen and opposition to the death penalty has strengthened again. In the October 2016 poll, 60% of respondents said they were in favor and 37% were opposed.
History.
Colonial period.
Abolitionists gathered support for their claims from writings by European Enlightenment philosophers such as Montesquieu, Voltaire (who became convinced the death penalty was cruel and unnecessary) and Bentham. In addition to various philosophers, many members of Quakers, Mennonites and other peace churches opposed the death penalty as well. Perhaps the most influential essay for the anti-death penalty movement was Cesare Beccaria's 1767 essay, "On Crimes and Punishment". Beccaria's strongly opposed the state's right to take lives and criticized the death penalty as having very little deterrent effect. After the American Revolution, influential and well-known Americans, such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, and Benjamin Franklin made efforts to reform or abolish the death penalty in the United States. All three joined the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, which opposed capital punishment. Following colonial times, the anti-death penalty movement has risen and fallen throughout history. In "Against Capital Punishment: Anti-Death Penalty Movement in America", Herbert H. Haines describes the presence of the anti-death penalty movement as existing in four different eras.
First abolitionist era, mid-to-late 19th century.
The anti-death penalty movement began to pick up pace in the 1830s and many Americans called for abolition of the death penalty. Anti-death penalty sentiment rose as a result of the Jacksonian era, which condemned gallows and advocated for better treatment of orphans, criminals, poor people, and the mentally ill. In addition, this era also produced various enlightened individuals who were believed to possess the capacity to reform deviants.
Although some called for complete abolition of the death penalty, the elimination of public hangings was the main focus. Initially, abolitionists opposed public hangings because they threatened public order, caused sympathy for the condemned, and were bad for the community to watch. However, after multiple states restricted executions to prisons or prison yards, the anti-death penalty movement could no longer capitalize on the horrible details of execution.
The anti-death penalty gained some success by the end of the 1850s as Michigan, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin passed abolition bills. Abolitionists also had some success in prohibiting laws that placed mandatory death sentences of convicted murderers. However, some of these restrictions were overturned and the movement was declining. Conflict between the North and the South in the run-up to the American Civil War and the Mexican–American War took attention away from the movement.
In addition, the anti-gallow groups who were responsible for lobbying for abolition legislation were weak. The groups lacked strong leadership, because most members were involved in advocating for other issues as well, such as slavery abolishment and prison reform. Members of anti-gallow groups did not have enough time, energy, or resources to make any substantial steps towards abolition. Thus, the movement declined and remained latent until after the post-Civil War period.
Second abolitionist era, late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The anti-death penalty gained momentum again at the end of the 19th century. Populist and progressive reforms contributed to the reawakened anti-capital punishment sentiment. In addition, a "socially conscious" form of Christianity and the growing support of "scientific" corrections contributed to the movement's success. New York introduced the electric chair in 1890. This method was supposed to be more humane and appease death penalty opponents. However, abolitionists condemned this method and claimed it was inhumane and similar to burning someone on a stake.
In an 1898 op-ed in "The New York Times", prominent physician Austin Flint called for the abolition of the death penalty and suggested more criminology-based methods should be used to reduce crime. Anti-death penalty activism of this period was largely state and locally based. An organization called the Anti-Death Penalty League was established Massachusetts in 1897. However, national leagues, such as the Anti-capital Punishment Society of America and the Committee on Capital Punishment of the National Committee on Prisons, developed shortly after.
Many judges, prosecutors, and police opposed the abolition of capital punishment. They believed capital punishment held a strong deterrent capacity and that abolishment would result in more violence, chaos, and lynching. Despite opposition from these authorities, ten states banned execution through legislation by the beginning of World War I and numerous others came close. However, many of these victories were reversed and the movement once again died out due to World War I and the economic problems which followed.
The American Civil Liberties Union, however, developed in 1925 and proved influential. The group focused on educating the public about the moral and pragmatic trouble of the death penalty. They also organized campaigns for legislative abolition and developed a research team which looked into empirical evidence surrounding issues such as death penalty deterrence and racial discrimination within the capital punishment process. Although the organization had little success when it came to abolition, they gathered a multitude of members and financial support for their cause. Many of their members and presidents were well-known prison wardens, attorneys, and academic scholars. These influential people wrote articles and pamphlets that were given out across the nation. They also gave speeches. Along with other social movements of the time, however, the group lost momentum and attention due to the Great Depression and World War II.
Third abolitionist era, mid-20th century.
The movement in 1950s and 1960s shifted focus from legislation to the courts. Although public opinion remained in favor of execution (aside from during the mid-1960s when pro and anti opinions were roughly equal), judges and jurors executed fewer people than they did in the 1930s. The decline in executions gave strength to various new anti-capital punishment organizations. Among these groups were: a California-based Citizens Against Legalized Murder, the Ohio Committee to Abolish Capital Punishment, the New Jersey Council to Abolish Capital Punishment, California's People Against Capital Punishment, the New York Committee to Abolish Capital Punishment, the Oregon Council to Abolish the Death Penalty, and the national Committee to Abolish the Federal Death Penalty. In addition to growing organizations, the movement also profited from growing European abolishment of the death penalty and from the controversial executions of Barbara Graham and Caryl Chessman.
Success mounted in the late 1950s as Alaska, Hawaii, and Delaware abolished capital punishment. Oregon and Iowa followed their leads in the 1960s. Many other states added laws that restricted the use of the death penalty except in cases of extreme serious offenses. Abolitionists began to strongly challenge the constitutionality of the death penalty in the 1960s. Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund launched a major campaign challenging the death penalty's constitutionality and insisted a moratorium for all executions while it was in process. The United States executed zero people from 1968 to 1976. The anti-death penalty movement's biggest victory of this time period was the Supreme Court Case, "Furman v. Georgia", of 1972. The Supreme Court found the current state of the death penalty unconstitutional due to its "arbitrary and discriminatory manner" of application. The court, however, left states with the option to revamp their laws and make them more constitutional. Twenty eight states did just that and the court eventually allowed the death penalty again through a series of cases in 1976, collectively known as "Gregg v. Georgia".
Contemporary anti-death penalty movement.
The anti-death penalty movement rose again in response to the reinstatement of capital punishment in many states. In the courts, the movement's response has yielded certain limitations on the death penalty's application. For example, juveniles, the mentally ill, and the intellectually disabled can no longer be executed. However, the Supreme Court also made it more difficult to allege racial discrimination within the capital punishment process.
During this era, the movement diversified its efforts beyond those of litigation and lawyers, to include a wide range of organizations that attacked the death penalty legislatively. Some of the most influential organizations who continue to work against capital punishment today include Amnesty International USA, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. The works of these organizations have brought about various restrictions on the use of capital punishment at the state level, including several statewide moratoriums and bans on capital punishment. As a result, some scholars consider the American death penalty to be relatively vulnerable in this contemporary period.
Through both litigation and activism, the anti-death penalty movement has specifically targeted lethal injection as an unacceptable method of execution. By pressuring pharmaceutical manufacturers and raising awareness about protracted, painful, or "botched" execution attempts, activists have achieved some success at limiting the number of executions carried out. Contemporary activism and advocacy has also highlighted the possibility of executing innocent people, an issue that has gained salience as DNA testing has established the innocence of several death-row convicts. The Innocence Project has gained widespread recognition for its efforts to clear convictions using DNA evidence. Finally, many contemporary arguments focus on the greater cost of the death penalty compared to alternate sentences, which has attracted strong support in some state legislatures.
Rather than possessing leaders and members who are possible beneficiaries of the movement's success, the anti-death penalty movement is composed of "moral entrepreneurs" who speak up for those who are under threat of being executed. Membership is not as strong as those of mass movements because it is often composed of "paper membership," which means members are with a group that represents other issues as well or members are involved in multiple other issue-oriented projects.
Public opinion.
In a poll completed by Gallup in October 2009, 65% of Americans supported the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, while 31% were against and 5% did not have an opinion.
In the U.S., surveys have long shown a majority in favor of capital punishment. An ABC News survey in July 2006 found 65 percent in favour of capital punishment, consistent with other polling since 2000. About half the American public says the death penalty is not imposed frequently enough and 60 percent believe it is applied fairly, according to a Gallup poll from May 2006. Yet surveys also show the public is more divided when asked to choose between the death penalty and life without parole, or when dealing with juvenile offenders. Roughly six in 10 tell Gallup they do not believe capital punishment deters murder and majorities believe at least one innocent person has been executed in the past five years.
As a comparison, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America, and Western Europe, the death penalty is a controversial issue. However certain cases of mass murder, terrorism, and child murder occasionally cause waves of support for restoration, such as the Robert Pickton case, the Greyhound bus beheading, Port Arthur massacre and Bali bombings, though none of these events or similar events actually caused the death penalty to be re-instated. Between 2000 and 2010, support for the return of capital punishment in Canada dropped from 44% to 40%, and opposition to it returning rose from 43% to 46%. The Canadian government currently "has absolutely no plans to reinstate capital punishment." Nonetheless, in a 2011 interview given to Canadian media, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper affirmed his private support for capital punishment by saying, "I personally think there are times where capital punishment is appropriate." According to some polls, as of 2012, 63% of surveyed Canadians believe the death penalty is sometimes appropriate, while 61% said capital punishment is warranted for murder. In Australia, a 2009 poll found that 23% of the public support the death penalty for murder, while a 2014 poll found that 52.5% support the death penalty for fatal terrorist attacks.
A number of polls and studies have been done in recent years with various results.
In the punishment phase of the federal capital case against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in 2015 for the Boston Marathon bombing, the convict was given the death penalty. Opinion polls in the state of Massachusetts, where the crime and the trial transpired, "showed that residents overwhelmingly favored life in prison for Mr. Tsarnaev. Many respondents said that life in prison for one so young would be a fate worse than death, and some worried that execution would make him a martyr. But the jurors in his case had to be 'death qualified' — that is, they all had to be willing to impose the death penalty to serve on the jury. So in that sense, the jury was not representative of the state."
Deterrence.
In regard to capital punishment, deterrence is the notion that the death penalty (for crimes such as murder) may deter other individuals from engaging in crimes of a similar nature. Up till 1975, most studies agreed that executing convicted criminals and publicizing these executions did not significantly deter other individuals from committing similar crimes.
In 1975, however, Ehrlich famously contradicted existing social science literature by seemingly proving the validity of the deterrence argument. Although Ehrlich's study appeared to show that executing individuals and publicizing said execution resulted in lower crime rates from the 1930s through the 1960s, his findings drew criticism, due to other researchers' inability to replicate the study and its findings. Since the publication of Ehrlich's controversial findings, studies have been increasingly contradictory. As studies' findings become increasingly contradictory, the validity of the deterrence argument has become even more highly contested. In fact, a 2011 article about the validity of the deterrence effect problematizes previous studies, arguing that econometric estimates of execution deterrence are easily manipulated and, by extension, fallible.
One reason that there is no general consensus on whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent is that it is used so rarely – only about one out of every 300 murders actually results in an execution. In 2005 in the "Stanford Law Review", John J. Donohue III, a law professor at Yale with a doctorate in economics, and Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote that the death penalty "is applied so rarely that the number of homicides it can plausibly have caused or deterred cannot reliably be disentangled from the large year-to-year changes in the homicide rate caused by other factors. ... The existing evidence for deterrence ... is surprisingly fragile." Wolfers stated, "If I was allowed 1,000 executions and 1,000 exonerations, and I was allowed to do it in a random, focused way, I could probably give you an answer."
Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University, authored a study that looked at all 3,054 U.S. counties over death penalty on many different grounds. The study found that each execution prevented five homicides. Emory University law professor Joanna Shepherd, who has contributed to multiple studies on capital punishment and deterrence, has said, "I am definitely against the death penalty on lots of different grounds. But I do believe that people respond to incentives." Shepherd found that the death penalty had a deterrent effect only in those states that executed at least nine people between 1977 and 1996. In the "Michigan Law Review" in 2005, Shepherd wrote, "Deterrence cannot be achieved with a halfhearted execution program."
The question of whether or not the death penalty deters murder usually revolves around the statistical analysis. Studies have produced disputed results with disputed significance. Some studies have shown a positive correlation between the death penalty and murder rates – in other words, they show that where the death penalty applies, murder rates are also high. This correlation can be interpreted in either that the death penalty increases murder rates by brutalizing society, which is known as the brutalization hypothesis, or that higher murder rates cause the state to retain or reintroduce the death penalty. However, supporters and opponents of the various statistical studies, on both sides of the issue, argue that correlation does not imply causation. There is evidence that some of the major studies of capital punishment and deterrence are flawed due to model uncertainty, and that once this is accounted for, little evidence of deterrence remains.
The case for a large deterrent effect of capital punishment has been significantly strengthened since the 1990s, as a wave of sophisticated econometric studies have exploited a newly-available form of data, so-called panel data. Most of the recent studies demonstrate statistically a deterrent effect of the death penalty. However, critics claim severe methodological flaws in these studies and hold that the empirical data offer no basis for sound statistical conclusions about the deterrent effect. A similar conclusion was reached by the National Research Council in its 2012 report "Deterrence and the Death Penalty", which stated that "research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates is not useful in determining whether the death penalty increases, decreases, or has no effect on these rates." In 2009, a survey of leading criminologists found that 88% of them did not think capital punishment was an effective deterrent to crime.
Surveys and polls conducted in the last 15 years show that some police chiefs and others involved in law enforcement may not believe that the death penalty has any deterrent effect on individuals who commit violent crimes. In a 1995 poll of randomly selected police chiefs from across the U.S., the officers rank the death penalty last as a way of deterring or preventing violent crimes. They ranked it behind many other forms of crime control including reducing drug abuse and use, lowering technical barriers when prosecuting, putting more officers on the streets, and making prison sentences longer. They responded that a better economy with more jobs would lessen crime rates more than the death penalty. In fact, only one percent of the police chiefs surveyed thought that the death penalty was the primary focus for reducing crime.
In addition to statistical evidence, psychological studies examine whether murderers think about the consequences of their actions before they commit a crime. Most homicides are spur-of-the-moment, spontaneous, emotionally impulsive acts. Murderers do not weigh their options very carefully in this type of setting (Jackson 27). It is very doubtful that killers give much thought to punishment before they kill (Ross 41).
But some say the death penalty must be enforced even if the deterrent effect is unclear, like John McAdams, who teaches political science at Marquette University: "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
Maimonides argued that executing a defendant on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice." Caprice of various sorts are more visible now with DNA testing, and digital computer searches and discovery requirements opening DA's files. Maimonides' concern was maintaining popular respect for law, and he saw errors of commission as much more threatening than errors of omission.
Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, both of Harvard law school, however, have argued that if there is a deterrent effect it will save innocent lives, which gives a life-life tradeoff. "The familiar problems with capital punishment—potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew—do not argue in favor of abolition, because the world of homicide suffers from those same problems in even more acute form." They conclude that "a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment." Regarding any attempt to make a utilitarian moral argument for capital punishment, Albert Camus wrote:
The extent to which the deterrence argument is well-founded, however, is far from the only interesting and important aspect of this common justification of capital punishment. In fact, current conceptualizations of the deterrence argument are also paramount, insofar as they implicitly operate under the assumption that the media and publicity are integral to shaping individuals' awareness and understandings of capital punishment. In other words, current conceptualizations of the deterrence argument presuppose that most people are made aware of executions through the media's coverage of said executions, which means that the media's selection of executions to cover, as well as the media's coverage of said executions are necessary for the deterrence effect to transpire. In this regard, in contemporary society, the deterrence argument relies upon the implicit understanding that people's understandings and actions – including actions that may deprive an individual of life – are influenced by the media. Although it is increasingly unclear as to whether or not the media's coverage has affected criminal behavior, it is necessary to examine how the media's coverage of executions and, more abstractly, its holistic construction of capital punishment has shaped people's actions and understandings related to this controversial practice.
Use of the death penalty on plea bargain.
Supporters of the death penalty, especially those who do not believe in the deterrent effect of the death penalty, say the threat of the death penalty could be used to urge capital defendants to plead guilty, testify against accomplices, or disclose the location of the victim's body. Norman Frink, a senior deputy district attorney in the state of Oregon, considers capital punishment a valuable tool for prosecutors. The threat of death leads defendants to enter plea deals for life without parole or life with a minimum of 30 years the two other penalties, besides death, that Oregon allows for aggravated murder. In a plea agreement reached with Washington state prosecutors, Gary Ridgway, a Seattle-area man who admitted to 48 murders since 1982, accepted a sentence of life in prison without parole in 2003. Prosecutors spared Ridgway from execution in exchange for his cooperation in leading police to the remains of still-missing victims.
The media and the capital punishment debate.
The media plays a crucial role in the production and reproduction of various cultural discourses, and is imperative to reflexively shaping and being shaped by pervading cultural beliefs and attitudes. In this regard, media messages and, by extension, people's beliefs and attitudes towards practices such as capital punishment may have considerable ramifications for not only convicted criminals, but also for jurors, attorneys, politicians, victims' families, and the broader public debate of capital punishment. Thus, it is imperative to understand how the media's framing of executions has massaged people's understandings and their support of capital punishment, as well as how this framing affects individuals' engagement in criminal activity.
Media framing of capital punishment.
Journalists and producers play integral roles in shaping the media's framing of the death penalty. But frames develop through a wide variety of social actors and stakeholders. In terms of capital punishment, the media's framing of Timothy McVeigh's execution was interactionally accomplished by a variety of people. Specifically, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which historically shied away from media attention, responded to increased scrutiny through enlisting a media advisory group to help shape the media's framing of McVeigh's execution.
Despite the fact that media frames are ubiquitous, the public is not always cognizant of the particular frames with which they are bombarded. This is largely because the media frames issues in a way that, more often than not, keeps people from fully realizing said frames. For instance, examining the media's coverage of three Nebraskan executions reveals that the death penalty was framed in a particularly positive way, to ensure media coverage would correspond with the public's growing support for capital punishment at the time. This meant that journalists did not focus on the problems or tensions within each case, nor did they ask public officials hard-hitting questions regarding the cases or the death penalty more broadly.
Media frames can dramatically over-simplify complex social issues. More specifically, the media simplifies complex cases by ensuring news stories adhere to generally taken-for-granted, preexisting cultural understandings of capital crimes. More specifically, the media frames capital punishment in a particularly negative and inaccurate way, by almost exclusively covering cases that involve minority offenders, 'worthy' victims, and especially heinous crimes; this is especially true for capital crimes that involve the sexual degradation of women. A 209 thematic content analysis of Associated Press articles finds that the media frames the death penalty in a way that portrays capital punishment as being overly fair, palatable, and simple. To accomplish such discursively positive illustrations of the death penalty and individual executions, journalists frame stories around inmates' choice. In order of popularity, the other common frames journalists use to frame execution and the death penalty pertain to competency, legal procedures, politics, religion, state-assisted suicide, and inmate suffering.
Although most literature shows that in general, the media frames executions and capital punishment favorably by minimizing the complexities of each case, conversely, some studies show that the media frames executions and capital punishment in an overly negative way. Both conditions are achieved through reducing and obscuring the complexities embedded in capital crime cases. Content analyses reveal that "The New York Times", "The Washington Post", and Associated Press have framed the death penalty negatively by focusing on exceptions that challenge acceptance: innocence of some people convicted of capital crimes, the wrongfully accused and convicted, and convicted individuals' lack of competency.
A formal content analysis of articles in "Time", "Newsweek", "The Progressive", and "National Review" found that frames used in the left-leaning "Progressive" and right-wing "National Review" contributed to each magazine's respective bias. "Time" and "Newsweek", however, were very centrist in their approaches to social issues, including the death penalty. Although these biased frames may seem insignificant, the media's framing of capital punishment has significant implications.
Effect on public opinion.
The media plays a critical role in shaping people's understanding of capital punishment. This is especially true insofar as the media's increased focus on the wrongful convictions of innocent people has resulted in the public becoming less supportive of the death penalty. This finding is supported by more recent studies, including a study involving the analysis of "The New York Times" articles' contents and the public's opinions on the death penalty. The media's increased focus on innocent people's wrongful convictions, referred to as the 'innocence frame,' has highlighted larger fallibilities within the justice system; it has contributed to a decline in public support of the death penalty. Furthermore, examinations of whether individuals' exposure to press coverage has the ability to alter their understandings of capital punishment reveal that the way in which the media portrays the public's support of capital punishment has bearings on the public's support of capital punishment. More specifically, if the media suggests there is widespread support of the death penalty, something of which the media has been guilty, individuals are more apt to support the death penalty.
It is not only the abstracted 'general public' that is affected by the media's coverage of the death penalty. The media's framing of cases involving the sexual degradation of women affects district attorneys' conceptualizations of said cases, resulting in prosecutors being more apt to pursue the death penalty in cases that involve the sexual mistreatment of women. Cases involving the sexual degradation of women receive much more media attention than others do. Prosecutors are consequently more likely to pursue the death penalty for these crimes, despite the fact that they were, oftentimes, less heinous and gruesome than other capital crimes that did not involve the sexual degradation of women.
News coverage has been found to shape people's understandings of the death penalty and specific cases of legally sanctioned execution. Dramatic television has also been found to have significant bearings on people's understandings of and actions pertaining to capital punishment. Viewing police reality shows and television news programs, one's viewership of crime dramas affects their support of the death penalty. In fact, people's viewership of crime dramas has been associated with completely altering people's pre-existing convictions about the death penalty. More to the point, crime dramas are able to reframe cases in ways that correspond with people's broader ideological beliefs, while challenging and changing their specific beliefs about execution. For example, people who identify as liberals have historically been against the death penalty, but crime dramas like Law and Order reframe criminal cases in a way that associates the death penalty with another closely held liberal value, such as the safety and protection of women. In doing so, crime dramas are able to appeal to and sustain people's ideological beliefs, while simultaneously influencing and altering their stances on the death penalty.
The media's ability to reframe capital punishment and, by extension, affect people's support of capital punishment, while still appealing to their pre-existing ideological beliefs that may traditionally contradict death penalty support is a testament to the complexities embedded in the media's shaping of people's beliefs about capital punishment. How the media shapes people's understandings about capital punishment can be further complicated by the fact that certain mediums shape people's beliefs and subjectivities differently. People exposed to more complex forms of media, such as traditional, hard-hitting news shows, approach the death penalty in more complex, sophisticated ways than people who are exposed to less complex forms of media, including news magazine television shows. Although the medium is the message to some extent, it is also clear that every media form has some bearing – large or small – on the public's support of the death penalty. In this regard, questions must be raised about the ethics of capital punishment in an increasingly media-saturated society. Furthermore, the public and journalists alike must pay increasing attention to new investigative techniques that lend themselves to increased exonerations. These new techniques are illustrative of the fact that oftentimes, the media can play a meaningful role in matters of life and death.
Racial and gender factors.
People who oppose capital punishment have argued that the arbitrariness present in its administration make the practice both immoral and unjust. In particular, they point to the systemic presence of racial, socio-economic, geographic, and gender bias in its implementation as evidence of how the practice is illegitimate and in need of suspension or abolition.
Anti-death penalty groups specifically argue that the death penalty is unfairly applied to African Americans. African Americans have constituted 34.5 percent of those persons executed since the death penalty's reinstatement in 1976 and 41 percent of death row inmates as of April 2018, despite representing only 13 percent of the general population in 2010.
The race of the victim has also been demonstrated to affect sentencing in capital cases, with those murders with white victims more likely to result in a death sentence than those with non-white victims. Advocates have been mostly unsuccessful at alleging systemic racial bias at the Supreme Court, due to the necessity of demonstrating individualized bias in a defendant's case.
Approximately 13.5% of death row inmates are of Hispanic or Latino descent, while they make up 17.4% of the general population.
Some attribute the racial disparities in capital punishment to individual factors. According to Craig Rice, a black member of the Maryland state legislature: "The question is, are more people of color on death row because the system puts them there or are they committing more crimes because of unequal access to education and opportunity? The way I was raised, it was always to be held accountable for your actions." Others point to academic studies that suggest African American defendants are more likely to receive a death sentence than defendants of other races, even when controlling for the circumstances of the murder, suggesting that individual factors do not explain the racial disparities.
As of 2017, women account for 1.88% (53 people) of inmates on death row, with men accounting for the other 98.12% (2764). Since 1976, 1.1% (16) of those executed were women. Sexual orientation may also bias sentencing. In 1993, a jury deliberating over the sentencing of convicted murderer Charles Rhines submitted a written question to the judge asking if Rhines might enjoy prison because he was sexually attracted to men. The judge would not answer that question, and the jury sentenced Rhines to death. In 2018, the Supreme Court said that it would not interfere with the execution of Rhines.
Diminished capacity.
In the United States, there has been an evolving debate as to whether capital punishment should apply to persons with diminished mental capacity. In "Ford v. Wainwright", the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the state from carrying out the death penalty on an individual who is insane, and that properly raised issues of execution-time sanity must be determined in a proceeding satisfying the minimum requirements of due process. In "Atkins v. Virginia", the Supreme Court addressed whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of mentally retarded persons. The Court noted that a "national consensus" had developed against it. While such executions are still permitted for people with marginal retardation, evidence of retardation is allowed as a mitigating circumstance. However, the recent case of Teresa Lewis, the first woman executed in Virginia since 1912, proved to be very controversial because Governor Bob McDonnell refused to commute her sentence to life imprisonment, even though she had an IQ of 70.
Limits to majority.
In theory, opponents of capital punishment might argue that as a matter of principle, death penalties collide with the substance of Madison's understanding on democratic rule. According to the Madisonian principle, the majority's will shall prevail, but at the same time, the minority shall be respected. Hence, the majority cannot pass legislation which imposes the death penalty for the simple reason that such legislation eliminates in total the minority that chooses to disobey the law. Thus the question pertaining to capital punishment is whether the majority has the power to enact legislation imposing capital punishment on the minorities that disobey the laws and exercise the prohibited conduct. As a result, the punishment for disobeying the law – i.e., the prohibition to murder, cannot be the death penalty, because it threatens the existence of the minority.
Cost.
Recent studies show that executing a criminal costs more than life imprisonment does. Many states have found it cheaper to sentence criminals to life in prison than to go through the time-consuming and bureaucratic process of executing a convicted criminal. Donald McCartin, an Orange County, California jurist famous for sending nine men to death row during his career, said that "it's 10 times more expensive to kill [criminals] than to keep them alive." McCartin's estimate is actually low, according to a June 2011 study by former death penalty prosecutor and federal judge Arthur L. Alarcón, and law professor Paula Mitchell. According to Alarcón and Mitchell, California has spent $4 billion on the death penalty since 1978, and death penalty trials are 20 times more expensive than trials seeking a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. Studies in other states show similar patterns.
Wrongful execution.
Capital punishment is often opposed on the grounds that innocent people will inevitably be executed. In a study carried out by National Academy of Sciences in the US it states that 1 in 25 people executed in the US are innocent. Supporters of capital punishment object that these lives have to be weighed against the far more numerous innocent people whose lives can be saved if the murderers are deterred by the prospect of being executed.
Between 1973 and 2005, 123 people in 25 states were released from death row when new evidence of their innocence emerged. Whether all of these exonerations are cases of actual innocence rather than technical exonerations of the defendants due to legal issues in their cases that allow their convictions to be legally quashed is disputed by death penalty supporters.
Statistics likely understate the actual problem of wrongful convictions because once an execution has occurred there is often insufficient motivation and finance to keep a case open, and it becomes unlikely at that point that the miscarriage of justice will ever be exposed. In the case of Joseph Roger O'Dell III, executed in Virginia in 1997 for a rape and murder, a prosecuting attorney bluntly argued in court in 1998 that if posthumous DNA results exonerated O'Dell, "it would be shouted from the rooftops that ... Virginia executed an innocent man." The state prevailed, and the evidence was destroyed.
Despite this, some controversial cases have been re-investigated following the execution by state authorities, such as post-conviction DNA testing ordered by Mark Warner of evidence in the Roger Keith Coleman case in Virginia and reviewing the forensic evidence in the Cameron Todd Willingham case in Texas.
Another issue is the quality of the defense in a case where the accused has a public defender. The competence of the defense attorney "is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime".
In 2015, the Justice Department and the FBI formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an FBI forensic squad overstated forensic hair matches for two decades before the year 2000. 26 out of 28 forensic examiners overstated evidence of forensic hair matches in 268 trials reviewed, and 95% of the overstatements favored the prosecution. Those cases involve 32 cases in which defendants were sentenced to death.


Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council

The Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (abbreviated HNLC) is a militant organization operating in Meghalaya, India. It claims to represent the Khasi-Jaintia tribal people, and its aim is to free Meghalaya from the alleged domination of the Garos and the outsiders (the "Dkhars") from the Indian mainland. It was proscribed in India on 16 November 2000, but the ban was later lifted, before banning it again in 2019.
Origin.
The Meghalaya state was carved out of the Assam state, with an aim to address the unique needs of the major tribes in the region: the Garos, the Jaintias and the Khasis. However, discontent grew among the tribals due to the alleged high-handedness of the security forces, the youth unemployment and the inability to compete with outsiders from mainland Indian businesses. This led to the rise of several insurgent groups in the state.
The origins of HNLC lie in the Hynniewtrep Achik Liberation Council (HALC), the first militant organization in Meghalaya, which claimed to be a representative of the three major tribes of the state. After a split occurred in HALC over tribal differences, the Garo members formed a new outfit called Achik Matgrik Liberation Army (AMLA), while the Khasi and Jaintia members formed the Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) in 1993.
The original HNLC leadership consisted of:
Julius K. Dorphang resigned and surrendered to the Government of India on 24 July 2007, as a result of the internal differences within HNLC.
Area of operation.
The HNLC primarily operates in the Khasi Hills region, and has carried out a number of activities in Shillong, the capital of Meghalaya. The top HNLC leadership is based in Dhaka, the capital of the neighbouring country Bangladesh. Some of its camps are also located in Bangladesh, mostly in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
Activities.
The State Government and the Meghalaya police have accused HNLC of indulging in a number of illegal activities, including killing, abduction, robbery, arms smuggling, cattle smuggling and extortion in the Jaintia Hills coal belt. It has also been accused of circulating fake currency in the state, supported by the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan.
HNLC has claimed that it has tried to help the Khasi people and to make the society better. It launched Operation Kyllang (hurricane) to publicly punish rapists by torturing them, and claims to have reduced the crime in the Khasi Hills. It also calls for the boycott of the Indian Independence Day celebrations every year. It is opposed to the civil polls in Meghalaya, alleging that the elections would make the traditional tribal institutions powerless.
Funding and sourcing of weapons.
Over the years, HNLC built ties with the other secessionist organizations operating in North-East India, including the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM), the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB), the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) and the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). NSCN provided it moral, physical and financial support in its initial days.
The organization has obtained the Chinese weapons sold by the Wa tribe of Burma. These weapons were brought to the black arms markets in Bandarban and Sylhet of Bangladesh via Manipur and Mizoram, after being picked along the Indo-Myanmar border.
HNLC runs several businesses in Bangladesh, including a stone quarry in Jaflong and several betel nut plantations.
Decline.
Several of the HNLC members have surrendered over the years. Julius K Dorphang, the former chairman of the outfit, who surrendered in 2007, claims that "HNLC is nothing now", with only 55 cadres left in Bangladesh as of 2010. He later became a politician, and successfully contested Meghalaya Legislative Assembly elections in 2013.
HNLC has expressed desire to hold political dialogues with the Meghalaya Government, including in August 2010. The Shillong Khasi Jaintia Church Leaders Forum was designated as the official negotiator with HNLC.


I-5 Skagit River Bridge collapse

On May 23, 2013, at approximately 7:00 pm PDT, a span of the bridge carrying Interstate 5 over the Skagit River in the U.S. state of Washington collapsed. Three people in two different vehicles fell into the river below and were rescued by boat, escaping serious injury. The cause of the catastrophic failure was determined to be an oversize load striking several of the bridge's overhead support beams, leading to an immediate collapse of the northernmost span.
The through-truss bridge was built in 1955 and connects the Skagit County cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington, providing a vital link between Vancouver, British Columbia and Seattle. It consists of four consecutive spans that are structurally independent. Only the northernmost span collapsed into the river; the adjacent span also sustained impact damage from the same vehicle, but not severe enough to result in a collapse. The overhead support structure was known to have been struck by a truck as recently as October 2012.
Not long before the accident, the bridge had been evaluated as safe. Although not structurally deficient, it was considered "functionally obsolete", meaning it did not meet current design standards. The bridge's design was "fracture-critical," meaning that it did not have redundant structural members to protect its structural integrity in the event of a failure of one of the bridge's support members.
Within a month of the collapse, two temporary bridges were erected and placed on the failed span's support columns while the permanent bridge was built. In September 2013, the permanent bridges were installed and work began to prevent similar failures of the remaining three spans.
Background.
The bridge carries a section Interstate 5 (I-5) over the Skagit River between Mount Vernon and Burlington, in Washington state, about north of Seattle. I-5 is the primary highway between the metropolitan areas of Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia. Before the collapse, approximately 71,000 vehicles crossed the bridge every day.
The bridge was built in 1955, as part of the state government's upgrades to the U.S. Route 99 corridor and a year before the Interstate Highway System was begun. The bridge carries four lanes of traffic, two lanes in each direction separated by a median barrier. The portions over the river are four consecutive spans, each long. The spans are built from triangulated steel girders, using a through-truss design where the roadway passes in an open tunnel between the left and right trusses and between the lower and upper truss work. The roadway has relatively limited vertical clearance for tall vehicles due to the upper truss members. The abutted spans share pier footings and appear to be one continuous bridge, but the four spans are actually independent.
The bridge had been recently evaluated as safe and in good condition despite being 58 years old; it was not listed as structurally deficient. The bridge was classified as functionally obsolete, in this case because the bridge does not meet current design standards for lane widths and vertical clearance in new highway bridges. The bridge was not a candidate for any significant upgrades or replacement and was well-maintained.
Through-truss design.
This steel through-truss bridge had a "fracture-critical" design with non-redundant load-bearing beams and joints that were each essential to the whole structure staying intact. An initial failure (perhaps by cracking) of a single essential part can sometimes overload other parts and make them fail, which quickly triggers a chain reaction of even more failures and causes the entire bridge span to collapse. In 2007 the I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis collapsed suddenly from slow cracking of a single undersized and over-stressed gusset plate. In steel, these initial fractures begin small and take years to grow large enough to become dangerous. Following the Minneapolis incident, such age-related disasters in fracture-critical bridges are now avoided by finding and repairing cracks in a required thorough inspection every two years. Eighteen thousand bridges in the United States are labelled fracture-critical (from their design) and require crack inspections. The Skagit River bridge had last been inspected for cracks in August and November 2012 with only minor work needed.
Besides fracturing, some bridges with critical non-redundant parts can also suddenly fail from buckling of compressive members (the opposite of cracking of tensile members). In through-truss bridges the critical compressive parts are the top-chord beams running horizontally along the top of the bridge, parallel to the roadway edges. They carry most of the weight of the bridge and traffic. The chords are normally kept aligned and held in place by vertical posts, diagonals, and sideways sway struts. Top chords will quickly fold if their joints somehow become misaligned. Buckling damage is cumulative, but mostly happens from collision damage or overstresses rather than from age and corrosion.
The vertical clearance for vehicles is limited by the portals and sideways sway struts. These are relatively low in older bridges. In Washington State bridges, the sway struts are often curved downwards at the outer ends, with less clearance above the outer lanes and outer shoulders. Tall loads then need to use the inner lanes for maximal clearance. These bridges are vulnerable to impacts by overheight vehicles, and such impacts were common. There was a known strike on this bridge that occurred on October 22, 2012, and investigators found evidence of several other impacts in years past. Bridge inspection reports dating back to 1979 frequently note damage caused by over-height vehicles, and an inspection report from late 2012 noted a three-inch gash in the steel.
According to Charles Roeder, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Washington in Seattle, through-truss bridges were a common bridge design in the 1950s (there are 10,200 through-truss bridges in the US), but "[i]f you take out some of the top framing, you set that bridge up for a stability failure." Before computers, bridge engineers analyzed truss forces by slide rule, with each calculation being time-consuming. Although the finite element method and plastic design theory, both capable of analyzing redundant structures, had recently been formulated and had seen occasional use, they required significantly more calculation than the simple calculation methods for statically determinate structures, which precluded the use of redundant structural members. A great number of bridges were being designed at that time, and there were insufficient design engineers available to design many bridges as indeterminate structures.
Nowadays, through-truss and other fracture-critical designs are avoided in most new bridges for moderate-sized spans. Using three or more parallel main beams or trusses allows the structure to survive a single component failure.
Incident.
The collapse was caused by a southbound semi-trailer truck from Canada hauling an oversize load to Vancouver, Washington, directly damaging sway struts and, indirectly, the compression chords in the overhead steel frame (trusswork) on the northernmost span of the bridge. The vertical clearance from the roadway to the upper arched beam in the outer lane is , and all trucks with oversize loads are expected to travel in the inside lane where the clearance is around . The oversize truck instead entered the bridge in the outer lane, while a second semi-truck and a BMW were passing it in the inner lane. The oversize truck had received a State oversize permit for a wide and tall load, for a height of , and after the collapse a "dented upper corner and a scrape along the upper side [were] visible on the 'oversize load' equipment casing being hauled on the truck." The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) measured the truck's height, after the crash, to be . A pilot car was hired to ensure the load could pass safely. The pilot car never signalled the truck driver that there would be a problem crossing the Skagit bridge and did not warn the trucker to use an inside lane.
The oversize truck completed crossing the bridge while the first span immediately collapsed behind it. Both the driver of the oversized load and the pilot vehicle remained at the scene and cooperated with investigators.
There were no fatalities, but three people were transported to local hospitals after being rescued from their fallen cars. The cars remained on the flooded bridge deck after it fell into the river.
The trucker, employed by Mullen Trucking, was hauling an oversize load containing a housing for drilling equipment. The company's vice-president, Ed Sherbinski, said permits had been issued from Washington State that included clearance for all bridge crossings on the route. The truck had been led over the bridge by a pilot escort vehicle. A spokesman for the Washington State Department of Transportation said there are no warning signs leading up to the bridge regarding its clearance height. In Washington, only overcrossings of less than (the normal legal height limit) are required to have advance postings of height restrictions.
The oversize truck also damaged a sway strut of the second span, but not enough to initiate a collapse. That span was subsequently repaired.
Investigation.
The Washington State Patrol and the National Transportation Safety Board investigated the accident. The NTSB's report attributes the collision to the tall-load truck being in the wrong, outside lane, and being crowded further into the shoulder by the passing truck. It attributes the bridge collapse to the collision taking out multiple sway braces, which destabilized the critical load-bearing (upper chord) members.
Response and replacement.
Governor Jay Inslee declared an economic "state of emergency" for three surrounding counties (Skagit County, Snohomish County, and Whatcom County) in order to cope with disruption to traffic and the local economy. Traffic on I-5 was detoured around the scene of the collapse on an adjacent bridge upstream.
The collapsed span was temporarily replaced by a pair of two-lane bridges manufactured by ACROW, which were rolled onto the existing bridge piers. It went into service on June 19. Inspections on the temporary span near the end of July 2013 uncovered that part of an "L" joint that holds the asphalt in place between the temporary bridge and permanent roadway had come loose. The right lane of the bridge was closed for about two hours while crews welded the joint back into place and spread new asphalt.
A $6.87 million contract was awarded to contractor Max J. Kuney Construction of Spokane to design and build a permanent replacement span. It was built alongside the temporary span without interrupting traffic, and moved into place during an overnight closure on September 14–15, 2013. Planned changes to the three remaining overhead spans should allow overheight vehicles to operate in the outer lanes.
The collapse raised questions about how Washington State Department of Transportation regulates oversize vehicles. The department leaves it up to drivers to determine a safe route to their destination, unlike in many other states where routes are assigned. The permit for Mullen Trucking's trip did not specifically note the Skagit River Bridge as a hazard on the route, even though the outer trusses were a full foot lower than the truck; this contrasts with an earlier permit to the same company that included numerous clearance warnings. State lawmakers are exploring making changes to the state's oversize vehicle laws.
The bridge constructed to replace the collapsed bridge has been named the Trooper Sean M. O'Connell Jr. Memorial Bridge. State trooper Sean O'Connell was killed while directing traffic through the detour when his motorcycle hit a truck. Shortly after the accident, three state lawmakers proposed a bill that would rename the repaired bridge after him; this change was approved by the Washington State Transportation Commission.
Washington's infrastructure.
Prior to the bridge collapse the Seattle Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issued the 2013 Report Card for the State of Washington's infrastructure. The state's bridges were given a grade of "C−" (an average score among states). There were 400 structurally deficient bridges in Washington. Thirty-six percent of all bridges are more than 50 years old. The oldest bridges were designed for an expected life of only 50 years; keeping them safe is increasingly difficult and expensive. The advocacy group Transportation for America reports that 5.1% of Washington's bridges are structurally deficient, which is the sixth best in the country.


Frolic (brig)

The Frolic was a brig which sank northeast of Point Cabrillo, near Caspar, California. Historians have called it "the most significant shipwreck on the west coast". Its shipwreck site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as Frolic (brig) in 1991.
The ship was built in Baltimore.
It was on return from trading in China with a load of porcelain and perhaps opium when it sank.
The opium-trading brig "Frolic" wrecked on a reef north of Point Cabrillo, a few miles from what is now Mendocino in 1850; the investigation of the wreck by agents of Henry Meiggs led to the discovery of the coast redwood forests of the Mendocino area and the beginning of the timber trade that would drive the local economy for decades. Mendocino itself was founded in 1852 as a logging community for what became the Mendocino Lumber Company, and was originally named Meiggsville after Meiggs.
A cannon salvaged by sport divers is now in Kelley House Museum in Mendocino.
The wreckage of the "Frolic" was supposedly rediscovered in 1984 and was the subject of a 2003 episode of the History Channel series "Deep Sea Detectives" entitled "Gold Rush Disaster: The Frolic".
Point Cabrillo and the Point Cabrillo Light can be seen in background of a 1986 photo of the exact location.


Virginia v. Moore

Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that addresses use of evidence obtained by police in a search incident to an arrest if that arrest is later found to be unlawful.
Background.
Two Portsmouth, Virginia police officers had probable cause to suspect that David Lee Moore was driving with a suspended license. Virginia state code authorizes the police to give a summons to, but not arrest, someone who is driving with a suspended license. The police, however, arrested Moore, and in a search subsequent to the arrest he was found to be carrying crack cocaine. At trial, Moore contested the state's use of the cocaine as evidence, arguing that the arrest, and therefore the search, was a violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Opinion of the Court.
The Court decided unanimously in favor of Virginia. In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia that was joined by seven justices, the Court held that because the Fourth Amendment was not written with the intent to incorporate individual states' arrest statutes and because the arrest was based on probable cause, Moore had no constitutional grounds to have the evidence suppressed.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate concurring opinion and stated that there was less precedent for the majority opinion than is alluded to by Justice Scalia. Ginsburg's primary line of reasoning for ruling with the other eight justices lies in the fact that while Moore's arrest itself violated state law, the Virginia statute does not identify the suppression of evidence as a consequence of this violation.
External links.


Portus Baxter

Portus Baxter (December 4, 1806 – March 4, 1868) was a nineteenth-century banker, farmer, and politician from Vermont. He served as a U.S. Representative from the state's 3rd Congressional District from 1861 to 1867.
Early life.
Baxter was born in Brownington, Vermont, the son of William and Lydia (Ashley) Baxter. After attending local schools, he graduated from Norwich Military Academy in 1824, and entered the University of Vermont in Burlington. He left UVM in 1826 after his father's death, and was responsible for administering his father's estate. (In 1852, UVM conferred on Baxter the honorary degree of master of arts.) He moved to Derby Line, Vermont, in 1828, where he engaged in agricultural and mercantile pursuits, which took him down the Connecticut River valley and into Canada. He was one of the original incorporators of the Connecticut and Passumpsic Rivers Railroad, which was planned to run almost the entire length of the state on the eastern border.
Politics.
He became interested in politics early in his career. Baxter served as Assistant Judge of Orleans County from 1846 to 1847. He was the only Whig delegate from New England who supported Zachary Taylor for president in 1848. He also strongly supported Winfield Scott in his unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 1852. He became a Republican when the party was founded, and was a presidential elector for John Fremont in 1856.
In 1860, after many years of urging, he finally ran for Congress, was successful and eventually served three terms, from March 4, 1861, to March 3, 1867, in the 37th, 38th, and 39th Congresses. During the 38th Congress, he chaired the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of the Navy. He also served on the Agriculture and Elections Committees.
Civil War.
Baxter's time in Congress coincided with the four years of the American Civil War, and he was such a proponent of Vermont soldiers he earned the nickname, 'the soldier's friend.' One Vermonter's letters document instances where Mrs. Baxter, and other wives and daughters of Vermont's Congressional contingent, were strong supporters of the efforts of the Christian Commission. Baxter also frequently visited the regiments in the area immediately surrounding Washington, D.C., watching out for a son who had joined the 11th Vermont Infantry, and sponsoring others in their efforts to get promoted. During the bloody Battle of the Wilderness in May 1864, Baxter and his wife spent so much time in the hospitals in and around Fredericksburg, Virginia, tending to wounded soldiers, that they themselves suffered from exhaustion and eventually had to leave to recuperate.
Post Civil War.
He remained in Washington, D.C. after completing his last term. Baxter suffered from asthma, and he died of pneumonia after a few days' illness. His was buried in the village cemetery in Strafford, Vermont.
Baxter General Hospital, the Civil War soldier's hospital in Burlington, was named for Baxter, as was Portus Baxter Park in Derby Line.
Family.
His wife, Ellen Jannette Harris (1811–1882), daughter of Judge Jedediah Hyde Harris of Strafford, whom he married on June 19, 1832, survived him by fourteen years. They had eight children, four of whom lived to adulthood. The most notable was Jedediah Hyde Baxter, who served as Surgeon General of the United States Army.
Judge Harris was the business partner of Senator Justin Smith Morrill. Baxter and Morrill became close friends as a result of the connection to Harris, with Morrill referring to Baxter as "one of nature's noblemen" and Baxter consciously patterning his business and political career on Morrill's.