1 I have a mixed take on this. Notice I didn't say feelings.

But I do understand your point of view, based upon credible experience. And I agree with your analysis.

What gets me is the heinous nature of this crime(s). and it has political undertones of placating the "minority" sensibilities of a certain segment of our community. To which I do have a slight rub with.

But I understand and apply this bit of knowledge that seems to have been lost within the ranks of our DA's office.

If in the commission of a felony, and a homicide is committed in that act, whether it was intentional or not, a review of the "capital" nature of the commision of that man act should be given a full and thorough investigation and accounting by the da's office.

So, when I carjack a vehicle, and for some reason I accidentally run over one of the victims of my original crime, either intentionally or not, and regardless of the attempt by the victim to allow me to proceed with my crime, or in the act of trying to stop me, and I kill them.

Thats capital murder.

Same thing if I am robbing a convienience store, and if I am armed, and pointing the firearm at the clerk as I am leaving and I trip and fall on the way out, and the gun goes off striking and killing that clerk. It may be defendable to explain that it was not my intent to commit murder, but a life was taken in the commission of another felony.

Thats capital murder.

But I am sure the DA's office did a job on this one. I don't have to agree with the call, but one thing we all must understand.

What we see on the news is NOT evidence that should be considered in a court of law.

I was on the bubble to be on the jury for the girl who killed her baby with rosary beads. And during the voi-dire process, the defence was already try-ing (sp? its early!) the case. And maybe they were correct in doing so. Did the life of that mother deserve consideration to contemplate the death penalty? Sure, it would not have offended me if that was properly introduced. But it wasn't, and the claim of temporary insanity was introduced, and that sullied me some to the whole legal process, and I let the judge, DA and defence lawyers know that their handling of this insulted my intelligence.

I was pulled aside and all parties had a crack at me to wonder why I took that stance. I was not dissmissed, nor was I punished by being told I was still in consideration for a slot on that jury. Even the defence liked me. I believe it was eventually the DA's office that dropped me because I questioned their authority. I was number 13 left in the pool of 450 that started the day. And they didn't seat any alternates for that trial.

So when we hear about the defence and their crazy ideas about why and how a person should be defended. We must also consider the actions by our DA's in these cases. Sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they really press the wrong buttons in people.

And they wonder why there is so much cynisism in how people feel about our court system.

2 The only way these three should be getting out at all is if they bury them with a shovel.