Ok, so, don't get me wrong, I'm not conservative or anything, but when you state Huckabee's position that no one could have predicted he'd kill again, compare it to Rice and FEMA, and then state WHO actually predicted it, it's a false analogy.

The FAA makes predictions based on intelligence and, presumably some scientific study. FEMA/the Army Corps of Engineers/etc study the levees, work with the National Weather Service, and determine based on meteorological and engineering evidence that the levees will break.

Then, you have a bunch of women who have been sexually assaulted *write letters* based on their *own conjecture* and that's enough to constitute a "prediction" of the same magnitude? No. It's not.

Of course they thought (or at least said) he'd harm/kill again - he'd done it to them (a little PTSD perhaps?), AND, they probably preferred not to see him out of jail. Their predictions aren't based on anything like the FAA/NIE/etc. It's apples and oranges.

It's pretty crazy how many "it's not my responsibility" letters there are here.

If it's not your responsibility, who's is it? If it's not your responsibility, I hope you support paying a higher tax rate to support the agencies who are taking responsibility for your wish to have cheap products and services but look the other way when you have to deal with who (illegal immigrants) or where (China, with louse labor and environmental controls) they come from.

Unfortunately, until the government starts imposing a cost on businesses for hiring illegal workers (not likely, with big business running the govt), the only way to make businesses respond is imposing a cost yourself. That's how boycotts work, and that's why they're effective.

I don't disagree that it was likely he'd rape again. I just question the source. Like you said, an "expert" would be more than likely to say that it's possible. And that would suffice.

But it's weird to compare expert government agencies to the opinions of private citizens in claiming they're both "predictions" of the same magnitude.

It's kind of like, in a courtroom, "experts" are allowed to speculate on stuff they know about in their testimony, lay witnesses are not.

that's what i was getting at.

battered-women's syndrome and the like are not there because women deserve to get away with crimes that men don't.

it is there in recognition of the complete breakdown of any societal structure that should have helped these women before they got to this point. for many of these women *they had no other option*.

as some of the other posters have mentioned, often when women leave abusive spouses, that's when they're killed. restraining orders are as strong as the paper they're written on. for a long time, police summoned to a DV call would leave when they discovered that it was a marital spat. prosecutors dropped cases, and so abusive men were not put in jail, learning there were little consequences for their actions, and given carte blanche to continue. finances play yet another complicated part. oh, and often (can't remember the date range here) women were told if they left, their husband would get to keep the children.

yes, as some anti-BWS people will point out, there are now places women can go to get away, that society has recognized there's problem and thus these defenses aren't viable anymore. but it's hard to say that the situation is the same everywhere across the country. until DV is eliminated, it will have to be a case-by-case examination of what kind of options the woman had, and why she might have chose to forego them.

>@LS

>

>sigh...battered-women's syndrome and the like are not there >because women deserve to get away with crimes that men don't.

>

>Sigh. But that's frequently how it works in the real world, >isn't it?

>-- leftychris

Cute. I guess the question is, given the choice between the two worlds, which do you want?:

One where women who have been systematically ignored by society spend the rest of their lives in jail because the criminal justice system failed them, or

One where those women have the opportunity to present that information in court, and to have it taken into consideration, when the downside being that a few of the ones who get out early actually deserve to stay in jail.

I guess I'd prefer the one where a few of the wrong ones go free. And you know, I feel the same about all crimes (anti-death-penalty here) - I'd rather have 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person get sent to jail. Except as far as domestic violence is concerned, the numbers are probably the other way around...

how is a 40-year-old exception to the Clean Air Act a fad? CA has been more committed to emissions than the rest of the country for decades (again, see exception added in 1966, when CA already had standards and that fox-guarding-the-henhouse EPA was *formed*).

elephantman, how is that a fad? oh wait...someone trying to make actual *progress* on environmental problems? maybe if we call it a "fad" we can pretend it doesn't have to happen...

first, no one has a first amendment on salon or any other private website. the government's the only one that can't silence you (gotta LOVE it when people don't know what they're talking about).

second, i thought the discussion started with the point that an "ordinary citizen" couldn't get away with something like this. sandy berger is no ordinary citizen. a better point is that, no regular person who was held in contempt wouldn't get away with not going to jail...and that's probably true. those in power shouldn't get to abuse it in so many ways, but apparently both sides do...

You missed BC. But you're still up there :).

who don't know our bible, anyone care to explain the references?