A few replies:

   From: AlberCrombie <cesnyd01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
   Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 23:08:10 -0400 (EDT)

   2) even better idea - problem is, we don't succeed in doing that.  How many
   criminals out there don't give a sh*t when they get out and go right back to
   what they were doing that got them locked up in the first place.  I dont'
   have stats, but I've been led to believe that it's a hell of a big
   percentage number.

Last time I checked, US crime rates would drop by better than half if
"career" criminals were kept in jail for reasonable periods of time
(i.e. not quickly paroled, etc.), simply because they would not be out
on the streets committing more crimes.

One comment on sentances for rape:

I'm told by a feminist friend that back in the '60s and '70s a big
feminist campaign was to *reduce* maximum rape sentances; juries will
not convict if they feel the potential sentance is out of proportion
to the crime.  "Jury nullification" of bad law is a strong tradition
in the US, where juries serve as but one of many checks on the
government.  Of course, juries made from an unelightened populace are
a problem, but probably better than the alternatives.

   Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 11:03:57 +1000 (EST)
   From: Caroline Ann Seawright <kunoichi@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>

   > [ Hitomi ]

   > During a case where three american officers admited to kidnaping and 
   > raping a twelve year old girl, intervention by the American Government 
   > reduced the time to serve in jail to six years instead of the forty years 
   > being asked for by the prosecutors.

You are neglecting the following in your above and subsequent analysis:

American servicemen are stationed in Japan to defend it and "keep the
peace" in the Pacific Rim.  For obvious reasons it'll be a while yet
till Japan is trusted by its neighbors to fullfill this duty.

Japan's criminal justice system is, if possible, even more of a
travesty than the US system, but in the other direction.  No trial by
jury, (coerced) confession and conviction rates approaching 99.9%
(really) (e.g. judges who aquit don't get promoted), etc. etc.; bottom
line, Japan is a police state, albeit a very polite one (keep this in
mind with you watch "You're Under Arrest").  There is no way we'd
station very many of our servicemen in Japan besides the normal
diplomatic compliment without serious exemptions from Japanese "justice".

(Also don't forget the general exemption from the law the yakuza have,
at least in times past; the LDP and other power groups cut a deal with
them to suppress communists and serious unions, or so is my understanding.)

The consequences for Japan, the Pacific Rim, and the world if we were
to withdraw would be very, very bad---the US-Japan alliance is
probably the most important in the world, perhaps next to NATO.

   > [...]

   > Now the real question I have is that when Americans go to other 
   > countries, that country has to follow American law.  When foreigners for 
   > America, they have to follow American law.  Why?

US servicemen in Japan and probably a few other countries are a
special case.  Average citizens are "thrown to the dogs" in Japan and
elsewhere.

   [ other stuff about the silly claims the lawyers for the US rapists
     deleted; they're paid to say that sort of thing. ]

   Well, from other things that happen, like trying to censor the whole 
   Internet, it shows that the American law is very arrogant....

One minor detail that's not obvious to most of the non-Americans on
the list: the legislature in the US is much less powerful than it is
in parliamentary republics.  The Congress can legislate all it wants,
but nothing substantial happens unless the Executive signs on (or a
veto is overridden (takes 2/3 super-majority)) *and* choses to enforce
the law, and the Judical system feels it passes constitutional muster,
and juries feel it's a legimate law.  (I'm not even going to get into
the state and federal division of labor.)

We have a zillion "checks and balances" compared to parliamentary
systems that give one party an effective legislative and executive
monolopy on power for the duration of their hold on the legislature.
(Once upon a time we had a Judiciary that believed in the rule of law
and followed our written constitution, but that was lost in the '30s.)

In the case of the CDA, the Executive has stayed all enforcement until
it's fought out in court.  It's almost certain the CDA will be
overturned by the Federal Courts.  And even if it is upheld, it's
application beyond our shores is problematical as someone else has
pointed out.

[Don't worry, C&C on the fanfic that sparked this are coming up.]

					- Harold