Archive for January, 2008

¡Larga vida a los dentistas mexicanos!

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008

Canadians come to America to escape socialized medicine; not a new story. Now, here’s a twist – Americans going to Mexico to escape socialized medicine. Here’s a snippet, but do go read the whole thing:

There was nothing second rate about the care I received. I got prompt care directly from the dentist. It was accurate, pain-free and effective and it cost a fraction of what I was paying at home. Even with my flight the total cost was about half what I would have paid at home. So even the cost were relatively pain free. The most painful part of the experience was dealing with the travel Nazis at the airport and waiting in line with thousands of people trying to get permission to re-enter my own country on my way back to the airport.

Of course you can seek treatment in the United States if you wish. Or you can take a medical vacation in Mexico. What you’d save, depending on what needs to be done, can pay for the trip and still put extra money in your pocket. Of course, if you have third party payment for your care you may not worry about the costs — and that’s one of the reasons that medical care in the U.S. is so expensive.

This story is simultaneously stunning, funny, sad, and enraging. Where is Michael Moore when you really need him?

Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt?

Sunday, January 6th, 2008

Why don’t we solve the Death Penalty question by requiring the standard of proof in all capital cases to be “Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt”?

This would, as I see it, have the following advantages:

  • It would deter prosecutors from seeking the death penalty in marginal cases
  • It would make jurors more likely to mete out the death penalty in cases where it was truly deserved
  • It would drastically cut down on the number of false guilty verdicts.

I had thought, at first, that the new standard of proof should be a ‘winner take all’ proposition. That is, the State either wins with the higher standard, or the Defendant goes free. But as I pondered the unintended consequences of such a rule, it occurred to me that it wouldn’t be long before Prosecutors began saying things like “If you don’t vote to convict, this man will go free . . . is that what you want to see happen?”.

Of course, then we’d be right back to where we started from, with juries being pressured in to making rash decisions, and more Defendants getting punished for crimes they didn’t commit.

So, I think it would be sufficient if, for instance, in a first-degree murder case, the jury had these options:

1. Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt with the penalty of death
2. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for a term in prison up to life with possibility of parole, or,
3. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a lesser charge (2nd degree murder, manslaughter, etc.)

What am I missing? What would be the drawbacks in such a system?

Wait, I Saw This Scene in “The Godfather”!

Friday, January 4th, 2008

You broke my heart, Fredo . . . YOU BROKE MY HEART!

Powered by ScribeFire.