🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec11.161745.197@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>And would you have a similar problem with recasting the opinions of
>people who happen to disagree with you as their wanting to "feel good
>about the outcome of the case"?

Only if I thought it were misrepresentation to do so.

>Texas
>has a law that makes doing what Morris did a crime.  Try him and give
>him the penalty prescribed (a jail term plus a fine) FOR EACH SYSTEM
>IN TEXAS HE AFFECTED (I don't know how many, if any, that was).
>Sentences to be served consecutively.

This would be a very unusual way for Texas to prosecute the Morris 
case. It would also be an unusual sentence for Texas. Looks as if you 
want to bend Texas law to make your point.

Besides, Texas prosecutors are barred by double-jeopardy principles from
trying Morris.

>Do you like that better?  It's
>in accord with all those legal principles you're worried about, so you
>should.

What you have written is in accord neither with my principles nor with
Texas criminal law.

>Now then, back to where I think that problem really lies.  I've had
>this problem in discussions involving the law with friends of mine who
>are lawyers before.  The presumption seems to be that the law is
>'right' and that what we 'should' do stems from taht.

In the Morris case, in my opinion, the law (as interpreted by the
government) was wrong. So your discussion here seems inapposite.

>It's a great pity that Mr Godwin appears to feel that the appropriate
>response to someone disagreeing with him is to try and pillory them
>instead of trying to figure out where they're coming from.

Why do you keep referring to yourself in the third person?


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Everything one invents is true."
mnemonic@eff.org| 
(617) 864-0665  |                           --Flaubert
EFF, Cambridge  |