Ancient Rome, Final Exams, and the Death Penalty

I just finished my first final exam—Latin Prose—and now I only have to write two term papers and study for a chemistry exam. Anyway, for my exam we had to translate a good chunk of Sallust's Bellum Catilinae (The Catilinarian Conspiracy) and write a "linguistic and historical analysis" of another chunk. Not entirely painless, but not pulling teeth, either.

What brings me to write about this is a speech by Julius Caesar that Sallust quotes. After Catiline, a traitor against Rome, has been discovered, there is a debate in the Senate over whether to execute him (which was illegal, since he was a Roman citizen). After a rather obscure senator named Decimus Silanus (I'm still waiting for Biggus Dickus) makes a speech urging for the death penalty, Julius Caesar—the future emperor of Rome and one of the best prosecutors of the day—makes a speech against the death penalty.

So Caesar was more civilized—2000 years ago—than we are today.

I think anti-death penalty advocates could learn a thing or two from Caesar. He doesn't dispute that Catiline and his co-conspirators are a threat, or that they deserve death. Instead he says, essentially, "yes, we have the power to revoke the Porcian Law (which protected Roman citizens from execution) but we shouldn't because it is not worthy of us and will set a dangerous precedent." I think that we need to refocus the debate on these two arguments. We are honestly getting nowhere with the arguments that capital punishment is unconstitutional (and will get nowhere for some time), or that it doesn't prevent murder, or that we're executing innocent people. We need to say that we are a compassionate people, and a nation of just laws. We are not a people that indulges in mob violence, and we are not a nation of retribution. We must say that the death penalty is perfectly legal, but that we ought to rise above petty retribution.

More on Maryland's Rape Decision

Even over at Feministing, which covered Maryland's rape ruling decision when it came out, the readers seem to think that the decision might be valid. I'm not going to get into the particulars of the case, just the decision.

The case hinges on whether Maryland accepts the old common law definition of rape as a crime against the husband or father, rather than the victim. The Maryland court held that, until Maryland's legislature rejects the common law definition of rape, it stands. Unfortunately for the decision, Maryland has rejected the common law definition. The legislature has made it clear that if a man rapes his wife, it is still a crime. I would say that this rejects the common law definition pretty clearly.

Also, since Maryland's rape law says that it is a crime to "engage in vaginal intercourse with another by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other," and both "engaging in vaginal intercourse" and consenting are ongoing acts, the law itself (adopted in 1957) obviously makes continuing the intercourse after the victim withdraws consent a crime.

The only way they could have reached this decision is if they had decided it before they looked at the case law. It's ridiculous.

Maryland: "Go Ahead and Rape"

A Maryland appellate court ruled recently that once a woman has consented to sex, she cannot withdraw her consent. Like Sherry Colb at FindLaw, I can't do their reasoning justice without quoting them.

The concept, undergirding the Battle holding, rooted in ancient laws and adopted by the English common-law, views the initial "deflowering" as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensating, in legal contemplation, the injured party - the father or husband. This initial violation of the victim also provided the basis for the criminal proceeding against the offender.

In other words, rape isn't a crime against women, it's a crime against their guardian (read: owner). This is why I want to be an appellate attorney. The decision is morally reprehensible, and their reasoning is insane.

More on this tomorrow. I'm tired and have a chemistry lab in the morning.

Election Day!

Today's election day! Well, at least everywhere other than Oregon. We've been voting for a couple weeks now. In the great State of the Slug, everyone votes by mail, and we were 6th in the nation for voter turnout in the last midterm (4th in 2004). We've always had huge voter turnout (80% in the '60s), but we saw a huge spike in the 2000 election. What happened? in '98, we passed a ballot measure that has everyone vote by mail. This a) makes it easy to vote and b) reduces voter fraud. We don't have to worry about those Diebold machines, and every vote has a paper trail.

According to Stephen Keller, an employee of a law firm that represented Diebold, there is a program inserted into the machines that allows the results to be changed at the flip of a switch—and only republican administrations have bought the damn things. I guarantee you that if the Democrats lose the House, it was Diebold that stole the election.

One more prediction: if the Republicans keep the house, there will be riots everywhere. If Allen keeps his seat, there will be riots in Virginia's black community. If Ford loses, there will be riots in the rural areas of Tennessee (or at least very angry rednecks with guns). Majoritywatch.com is predicting a landslide victory for the Dems in the House, and Slate is predicting at least significant gains for them in the Senate. People know that we're winning. They will be angry if we lose. Bush crime family, watch out.

Here Come the Brides...

New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled that the state must give gay couples the same rights as straight ones. Normally I'd be all for this, but couldn't we have waited until November 8th? I'm worried that we'll see a conservative backlash because of this, and according to Slate, Menendez is only 4 points ahead of Kean.