Correction -- Error in Post on Paul Minor case

In yesterday's post about the Fifth Circuit's denial of Paul Minor's renewed motion for release pending appeal, I stated that "[t]he Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Paul Minor's request for bond pending appeal, then also denied his request for a brief furlough to visit his wife."

As Alan Lange of Y'all Politics has pointed out, that is not correct. The Fifth Circuit denied Minor's first request for release on bond pending appeal, and then more recently, denied a renewed motion for release on bond based on the circumstances of Mrs. Minor's illness.

Y'all Politics' post on the issue is here:
http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/15577/#43620

I wish the Court had granted the motion; it seems to me that the original offense for which Minor's bond was revoked in the District Court -- using alcoholic beverages -- has long sense been adequately punished. Serious issues regarding the jurisdiction of the Federal courts have been raised, and although questioning during appellate argument is not an indicator of the ultimate result of any case, it appears that, at least, the judges on the Fifth Circuit panel are concerned about this question.

However, my statement about what the Fifth Circuit denied was erroneous. I regret the error and stand corrected.

Innocent Victims of the Criminal Justice System

Sylvia Minor, who had celebrated 41 years of marriage to her husband Paul, died today. The story from the Clarion-Ledger is here:

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20090414/NEWS/90414019

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Paul Minor's request for bond pending appeal, then also denied his request for a brief furlough to visit his wife. Predictably, some folks are posting that this is just what he deserves. One visitor to the Clarion-Ledger even said:

"His actions probably contributed to the growth of the tumor with all the stress he caused her. She was better off by him not being there & he got exactly what he deserved."

I rather doubt Mrs. Minor would have said that. She was the innocent victim in all of this.

Another said, "The BOP doesn't let inmates out for this kind of thing, as a general rule. The inmate or family have to pay for transport and pay for guards to travel with the inmate."

True enough. But is that the right policy?

Does anyone understand what incarceration is supposed to accomplish? If so, perhaps they can explain how extinguishing all family ties and feelings will serve whatever the purpose is supposed to be.

And let's not forget . . . the Fifth Circuit has raised some very serious questions about whether the Federal courts have jurisdiction over this alleged offense. The two judges who were allegedly bribed were STATE court judges, who allegedly skewed STATE court proceedings in Paul Minor's favor. Pray tell, why is this a Federal offense?

And if Minor has a strong argument that he should never have been tried by the Federal Court, and is later released, how can his wife's loss of his comfort in her dying months be justified?

I think we are a better nation than this.

Paul Minor Oral Argument: Reports

The Jackson Free Press and the blog NMissCommentator have written helpful summaries of the oral arguments in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. paul Minor, et al.

The JFP story is here: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/judge_recuses_herself_from_minor_appeal_040209/

NMC's story is here: http://nmisscommentor.com/?p=659