Re: Bell vs. Woodward--justice?

[jbaber@mi.leeds.ac.uk]

Tim May Writes: 
> At 6:09 PM -0700 11/10/97, Fabrice Planchon wrote:
> >On lun 10 nov  1997 =E0 01:06:08PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> >>
> >> Apparently shaking a baby to death is a lesser crime than opposing
> >> government fascism and having a continuing interest in chemistry.

Well the courts/administration seem to think so. Or at least think that
killing a baby is less deserving of punishment that standing against the
administration and spreading dangerous (to them) ideas (AP), which is what 
Jim is realy being punished for.
 
> 279 days.

It has been stated over here (by some American Law Professor) that this
sentence is only slghtly below the average usually served for this kind
of Involentary Manslaughter. Is this just made up because it is what people
over here want to hear of is it vaguely accurate?
 
> >think you are shooting the wrong target here ? I mean, I certainly agree
> 
> No, else I wouldn't have written what I wrote.

I think that perhaps the emphasis of what you said is being changed by other
writers who are hot under the collar about the Woodward case.

> I said in two different posts that my main point was about Bell spending
> more time in jail than a convicted baby killer.

Leaving aside the problem with a system where a judge can overturn the 
decision of a Jury (I have not seen all of the evidence so have no idea
if she is guilty or innocent but if you enter a country you implicitly
agree to abide by their laws and legal system, however what is the point
of having a Jury if the Judge can do this sort of thing?) then the actual
problem is the length of time that Jim is spending in prison and nothing 
to do with the Woodward case at all. It just goes to illustrate, once again, 
how laws are selectively enforced and procedures slowed in order to punish 
people who can not otherwise be punished as much as the administration would 
like to.

Forget Woodward, Free Jim Bell!

Jon