Powered by TypePad

« The consequence of not passing a new rape provision in Oliwood | Main | A message from Tom O'Dudley to his Oliwood lawyers »

November 5, 2008

A message from Vice-Governor Berman for Oliwood legislators

I just heard from my brother that the Oliwood legislature (finally) passed a new rape provision.  Congrats on the achievement.  Based on the lively legislative debate from the previous session debating various bills, I am confident I will be able to recommend that the Governor sign the new rape provision into law.

I also heard from my brother that the vote in support of the new Oliwood rape provision was not strong enough to overcome a possible executive veto.  Though I doubt the Governor will have reason to veto the bill, I would be eager to hear from anyone unhappy with the legislative outcome (or the intriguing legislative process) to comment on whether they might be inclined to publicly or privately encourage the Governor to veto the bill that was passed earlier today.

November 5, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c8ccf53ef010535db4a5a970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A message from Vice-Governor Berman for Oliwood legislators:

Comments

in order to convince a jury that Dudley was justified in murdering Parker without drawing lots, I think it is important to focus on the fact that Parker was near death anyways. As your counsel, I would attempt to paint Dudley's choice, as actually making a concerted decision, painful though it was to him, to kill the weakest member so that others might survive. In this way, I would want the jury to see Dudley's decision as noble, by hastening the death of someone who is suffering, in order to save the lives of three healthy people. I think the case turns on the question of whether the jury could conclude the danger or starvation was completely emminent and that it was absolutely necessary to kill someone to survive. I would try to emphasize the fact that again they had not had food for days, and when found were in the "lowest state of prostration". It is interesting to consider, if facing a jury on the issue now, as opposed to in 1884, if the jury would be less swayed by the fact that Parker was a servant, and not of the same class as Dudley and Stephens. While class distinctions were more devisive in 1884, it is interesting to think about if a jury would still subconsciously or consciously consider these things if asked to ultimately make a decision about whether or not Dudley was justified in deciding to value one life above another.

Posted by: Molly Gwin | Nov 6, 2008 10:32:02 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.