Wouldn’t It Just Be Better to Let One Lucky Daily News Reader Strangle the Ft. Hood Shooter with His Bare Hands?

by |
11/16/2009 1:21 PM |


Were you aware that, in America, there are several layers of legal processes to ensure that citizens accused of crimes are given a fair trial? And that, in the case of heinous and high-profile crimes, due to the complexity of these processes and the care with which our legal professionals are duty-bound to proceed, the wheels of justice sometimes turn slowly?

Nice work “reporting” this “news”, Daily News Washington Bureau Chief Thomas M. Defrank. Here are some choice selections from today’s article “Could take decades to execute Fort Hood massacre suspect Nidal Hasan, but it didn’t take the Daily News long at all to realize that inspiring or pandering to outrage bordering on bloodlust is the surest way to appeal to readers regardless of the possible long-term damages the media can do to our democracy by behaving so cynically” (the stuff after the comma is mostly implied):

The slaughter took just seven minutes, but the wheels of justice will grind on for years or even decades if Maj. Nidal Hasan is sentenced to die.

Does that “if” seem disingenuous to you? Read on.

No matter how heinous his crimes, the Army psychiatrist is entitled to two separate appeals to the Supreme Court.

…The cost to taxpayers of his incarceration and legal appeals might reach $30 million, various legal analyses show.

…Hasan’s military and civilian lawyers are almost certain to file requests for a change of venue, psychiatric assessment and other pretrial motions, further extending the agonizing delays.

If convicted, Hasan still would be decades away from execution by lethal injection because he can appeal his sentence to at least seven jurisdictions.

… Lawyers say [a case roughly analogous to Maj. Hasan’s] will drag on for several more years and reach the Supreme Court a second time.

You know, it’s weird (and infuriating): it’s almost as if this country’s code of laws were written by clearheaded people not in the throes of burning impotent rage. Which is odd: I mean, wouldn’t you be perfectly happy to have your constitutional rights and protections subject to swift fluctuations in public opinion among people with no personal connection to the crime in question?

It probably goes without saying that the reader comments to this article will make you feel exactly as bad about America as you’d expect, because America, seriously, the fuck?