February 16, 2006

"...' Now, then,'  said Lupin, beckoning the class toward the end

     of the room, where there was nothing but an old wardrobe

     where the teachers kept their spare robes. As Professor

     Lupin went to stand next to it, the wardrobe gave a sudden

     wobble, banging off the wall.

 

     ' Nothing to worry about, ' said Professor Lupin calmly

     because a few people had jumped backward in alarm.

     ' There's a boggart in there.'

 

      Most people seemed to feel that this was something to

      worry about. Neville gave Professor Lupin a look of pure

      terror, and Seamus Finnigan eyed the now rattling doorknob

      apprehensively.

 

      ' Boggarts like dark, enclosed spaces, ' said Professor

      Lupin. ' Wardrobes, the gap beneath beds, the cupboards

      under sinks -- I've even met one that had lodged itself in a

      grandfather clock. This one moved in yesterday afternoon,

      and I asked the headmaster if the staff would leave it to

      give my third years some practice.'

 

      ' So, the first question we must ask ourselves is, what is a

      boggart? '

 

      Hermione put up her hand.

 

      ' Its a shape-shifter,' she said. ' It can take the shape of

      whatever it thinks will frighten us most.'

 

      ' Couldn't have put it better myself,' said Professor Lupin,

      and Hermione glowed. ' So the boggart sitting in the darkness

      within has not yet assumed a form. He does not yet know

      what will frighten the person on the other side of the door.

      Nobody knows what a boggart looks like when he is alone,

      but when I let him out, he will immediately become whatever

      each of us most fears.'

 

      ' This means,'  said Professor Lupin, choosing to ignore

      Neville's small sputter of terror, ' that we have a huge

      advantage over the boggart before we begin. Have you

      spotted it, Harry? '

 

      Trying to answer a question with Hermione next to him,

      bobbing up and down on the balls of her feet with her

      hand in the air, was very off-putting, but Harry had a go.

 

      ' Er -- because there are so many of us, it won't know

      what shape it should be? '

 

      ' Precisely, ' said Professor Lupin, and Hermione put her

      hand down, looking a little disappointed. ' It's always best

      to have company when you're dealing with a boggart. He

      becomes confused. Which should he become, a headless

      corpse or a flesh-eating slug? I once saw a boggart make

      that very mistake-- tried to frighten two people at once and

      turned himself into half a slug. Not remotely frightening. '

 

      ' The charm that repels a boggart is simple, yet it requires

      force of mind. You see, the thing that really finishes a boggart

      is laughter. What you need to do is force it to assume a

      shape that you find amusing.'

 

      ' We will practice the charm without wands first. After me,

        please....riddikulus! '

 

       ' Riddikulus! ' said the class together..."

 

 

                       - Excerpts from the book "Harry Potter and

                         the Prisoner of Azkaban" , by J. K. Rowling

                         (1999, Scholastic Press)

 

 

To All,

     It seems that boggarts can be found in other places as well:

 

Riddikulus!:

     Claire Cooper of the Sacramento Bee covered yesterday a recent ruling by a Federal Judge in the death penalty appeal case of Michael Angelo Morales.

 

     Cooper reports that U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel has ordered the State of California to change the way it administers a lethal injection in lawful executions. This apparently was in response to recent efforts by Morales' defense team to overturn the imposition of the death sentence by any means necessary.

 

     In this case, Morales' defense team (which includes Former Whitewater Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, and who collectively have come under scrutiny for the submission of affidavits from former jurors that have apparently be discovered to be forged) has argued that too early an injection of the second of a three-drug cocktail (pancuronium bromide) may cause enough pain that the method violates the 4th Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.

 

     The state is thus apparently confronted with having to "cough up" the funds (and the volunteer anesthesiologist) for the heart monitor and EEG equipment capable of determining unconsciousness during future executions. Otherwise, the judge's decision may force the state to use only the first drug of the cocktail (sodium pentothal) in such quantities capable of bringing on death if it wishes to comply with the will of the majority of voters.

 

     Also with sodium pentothal, some authorities have opined in the media that such executions could stretch out for 45 minutes or more, as personnel wait for the condemned to assume room temperature. Such slower methods of execution may themselves face later questions brought upon appeal on rhetorical grounds.

 

     On the other hand, one can wonder what this shape-shifting of viewpoint by the nation's judiciary, on the methods of lawful execution, really has in store for the country, other than the additional price tag.

 

     For what appears certain is that the judiciary and the defense bar are trying to take what was to be a general prohibition against such age-old "favorites" as drawing and quartering (Like what the English did to William Wallace of "Braveheart" fame), impalement (allegedly a favorite of Shaka Zulu), or even the ritual sacrifice methods of the Azteca (Heart removal by obsidian instrument) and morph it into imposing nearly impossible performance restrictions on the state when administering the death penalty by the most humane methods yet devised. This extreme level of concern for the condemned over the victim can be hard to comprehend, especially when one takes into account how the condemned themselves have treated their victims.

 

     By way of comparison, what did Michael Angel Morales do to Terri Lynn Winchell, back on January 8, 1981, that the judiciary today feels he merits extra consideration? Is it possible that what Morales did is immaterial to a Judge Fogel, such as to make the phrase "Good Enough For Government Work" more on par with the quality standards of a Zeiss, a Lockheed, or a Toyota?

 

     The California State Corrections Department lists the following as the crime Morales was convicted for:

 

     "...On January 8, 1981, Ortega called Morales and told him he

         was driving Winchell to Morales' apartment. Ortega lured

         Winchell into accompanying him and Morales in Ortega's

         car to a remote area near Lodi, California. There, Morales

         attacked Winchell from behind and tried to strangle her

         with his belt. Winchell struggled and the belt broke in

         two. Morales then took out a hammer and repeatedly hit

         her in the head with it. She screamed for Ortega to help

         and tried to fight off the attack, ripping her own hair out

         of her scalp in the struggle. Morales beat Winchell into

         unconsciousness, crushing her skull in several places

         and leaving 23 identifiable wounds in her skull.

 

         Morales took Winchell from the car and told Ortega to

         leave and return later. Ortega left. Morales dragged

         Winchell face-down across the road and into a vineyard.

         Morales completed an act of sexual intercourse with her

         unconscious body. He started to leave, but went back

         and stabbed her four times in the chest to assure her

         death. Winchell died from both the head and chest

         wounds. Her body was left in the vineyard naked from

         the waist down with her sweater and bra pulled up over

         her breasts...".

 

 

     It is apparent from the account above that Winchell did not die willingly at the hands of Morales. And it is also clear that at the time it counted most, before the certitude of incarceration and the death sentence could drive home the seriousness of his actions, Morales lacked even an iota of compassion for a fellow human being.

 

     It is also crystal clear that Winchell suffered for long minutes in her death, since there was no physician in attendance at the murder scene to assure Morales that she was unconscious through the attempted strangulation, the hammer blows, rape, and knifing.

 

     Taking all of the above into consideration, one is at a loss to explain or comprehend Judge Fogel's punctiliousness in the Morales case.

 

     The debate is not without it's seriousness. A state that would divest itself of such rationale methods as the death penalty through specious rhetoric would soon become jealous of the few remaining rights retained by the individual to utilize deadly force. Mortality by hot lead, dished out by the fearful homeowner or intended rape victim, can be "relatively instantaneous" so as to even satisfy the Vogels of the world. But it is also widely known that mortally wounded assailants, in some cases, have been able to retreat from the scene of the crime so as to be found deceased any variety of distances away. With such judicial sentiments as can be extrapolated from Judge Vogel's ruling, it is not unimaginable that we could go the way of England where it is the defender who risks incarceration through a simple act of self-preservation.

 

      What is more, all the blood, toil, tears, and perspiration expended upon enhancing the "castle doctrine" risks being negated at the stroke of a judicial Papermate. A judiciary that currently enjoys the fruits of past lobbying efforts to deter attacks on it's officers may not be as equalitarian towards a citizenry asking for reciprocity (Orwell's maxim of "...Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others..." comes to mind here).

 

     After all, a judiciary showing less respect for the Founder's concepts of real property and free political speech, and more for that of foreign tribunals, may be giving us fair warning of things to come. Short of a constitutional amendment, only by reorganization of the courts (or at least a serious recalculation of the funding of the courts) can the public exert the influence that the Founders left for the caretakers of liberty. And if action is not taken soon, the law will turn into something that will not only be unrecognizable, but something to fear as well.

 

 

Links at:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14191161p-15018088c.html

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:IIzO8Y1rbw4J:www.corr.ca.gov/
Communications/docs/MichaelMorales.pdf+michael+angelo+morales+murder
+terry+winchell&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3