Alright, Springer is reverting to form

[jobycom]

His whole hour so far has been dedicated to "what you would like to do to the BTK killer if there were no prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." He's intermixed calls with random observations about prison and serial killers.

One caller made a serious point about Justice Stevens and his opposition to testimony from families of victims before sentencing (something I oppose, too). The caller made some good points. Springer missed them all, talked about the subject a couple of seconds, then went back to his callers.

I understand he's trying to entertain the masses andmaybe lasso in a few independents, but he doesn't have to offend the intellects of the average AAR listener, does he? I mean, we weren't the ones who watched his TV show. IMHO.

[demnan]

1. I'm convinced he's not all that bright or informed

but maybe you're right maybe he is and is just talking down to us. I'd like to see them put Ed Shultz in his slot since Randi is going to be the afternoon XM person this fall.

[jobycom]

5. I'm not convinced he's talking down

That may be the limit of his intellect. I can't tell. It may be the programmers trying to appeal to the masses, and Springer is really stretching his intellect to its fullest. But the show still seems to me to be at a low intellectual level. I guess someone's trying to appeal to the Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. crowd.

[bookman]

6. Randi on XM

Is that true? They are going to put Randi's whole show on?
My letters of protest answered?

Best news of the day.

[NYCGirl]

2. He always does the non-political subjects in the last hour on Friday. NT

[kanrok]

3. I'm interested in why you believe victim's families should not testify

at sentencing.

[jobycom]

4. Good for you. Springer wasn't interested, apparently!

:-)

My reason--and I'm not a lawyer, just my opinion--is that a person's sentence should be based on the crime and on the killer's intentions, not on how eloquently his family can speak, or on how much pain he caused people.

A grieving widow can easily bring a jury and judge to tears, whereas, say, a homeless bum with no family might go unmourned. So the sentencing begins to be affected by how many people loved a person and can appeal to the court, not by the intention of the killer. Maybe the man who murdered the family man did so in the heat of passion, whereas the man who murdered the bum did so just to watch him die. The former could receive a harsher sentence, though he is less a danger to the world and his motives were less (relatively) horrendous.

It can also open up race and ethnic and gender biases. A pretty grieving widow may sway a jury more than an unattractive, slightly grumpy gay partner, for instance, or a black man might not be seen as sympathetically as a white woman.

The nature of the crime should be revealed by facts about the crime, not the emotions of the family of the victims. IMO.