...and i agee with krauthammer. normally i like to poke fun at him. in fact, the only reason i read him from time to time is if i'm bored and need to get my juices flowing by seeing which narrow-minded conservative colunist i can poke holes in.
no, really. i find myself in the odd position of reading today's krauthammer piece and thinking "yeah, exactly".
he writes about the zacarias moussaoui verdict, and how it was a good thing that it ended up as life in prison and not death. and all the reasons uncle chuckie lists -- that the death penalty should hardly ever (if ever) be used (though i'm pretty much totally anti-death penalty); that if used it should be only in special cases (eichmann, hussein); and for sins of comission, not omission (moussaoui was guilty of conspiracy in 9/11, more than anything for not informing authorities about 9/11, though it's debatable how much he really knew); and not for closure for the families of the victims (the aggreived party in any murder case is society at large...justice cannot be personal, then it's revenge) -- i agree with him. i even agree with his reasoning that the jury was a bit off in how they came to the decision, even if it was the correct decision (they found moussaoui's childhood traumas as mitigating circumstance...which if used as precedent would be problematic for the justice system).
anyway, yeah. whodathunkit?
related is the story in the post about the deliberations. it sounds not unlike the basic plot for the film 12 angry men. which if you see it, make sure it's the original version. henry fonda is fantastic.