In Pennsylvania Anthony Elois has served nearly four years in federal prison for violent posts directed toward his estranged wife, as well as law enforcement officials and even former co-workers.

He claims says he never meant to carry out any threats., but that he was depressed.  He further explains that he made the online posts in the form of rap lyrics as a way of venting his frustration after his wife left him.

The real issue: objective intent vs. subjective intent.

SCOTUS will consider whether conviction of threatening another person under federal law “requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten.”

At his trial, the jury was instructed to use an objective standard, and could find Elonis guilty if an objective person could consider his posts to be threatening.

In the appeal to the Supreme Court Elonis argues for use of a subjective standard, considering whether Elonis meant the messages to be understood as threats.

The argument for using a subjective standard seems applicable because of the type of communication involved here.  Online postings are impersonal, and can very often be misinterpreted.  How many times have you posted something and people took it the wrong way?  Further, comments intended for a smaller audience can be viewed by others unfamiliar with the context and interpret the statements differently than was intended.

POTUS weighed in, claiming a subjective threat would undermine the purpose of the federal law prohibiting threats.

Let’s look at the Supreme Courts history in similar situations – the court has previously cautioned that laws prohibiting threats must not infringe on constitutionally protected speech. Examples include “political hyperbole” or “sharp attacks” that are not all-out-threats.

Arrested for Assault?

Charged with making threats?

If you’ve been accused of a criminal offense involving assault or with making threats of violence contact attorney Tristan LeGrande by calling 281-684-3500.

So what’s changed?  There has been much controversy over the drugs we use to euthanize those sentenced to death both in Oklahoma and Texas.

A new development is that the state of Texas had been disclosing to the public what drugs they use for lethal injections.

That was until April, when Patricia Fleming, assistant general counsel for the TDCJ in Hunstville filed a brief asking that the TDCJ be able to keep secret the poison we shoot into the veins of those our society have deemed too dangerous and too much of a burden to keep alive.

Among the arguments to keep the drugs secret are foreign bans on the drugs used for lethal injections and the potential danger of violent opposition to those distributing such drugs was posed by those that are opposed to the death penalty.

Seriously?  Despite which side of the debate you fall on, and you believe we should or should not still have lethal injection among the punishment for the worst of offenses in Texas, most certainly you would agree that we should at least know how we do it and what drugs are going to be used.

Imagine the alternative: blind trust in the government, empowered to subject someone to the most punitive, final and irrevocable of punishments, to employ whatever noxious toxins it sees fit, so long as it doesn’t cost the taxpayers too much money.  Would this not be an impermissible devolution of our society?

Even those gung-hoe, ready to kill-em-all and-let-God-sort-em-out could agree, the public absolutely must know what drugs we use to kill people.  Some amount of humanity and civility must be retained in a civil society.

And maybe we do want Murders to pay the ultimate price.  But at what social cost are willing to execute them.  Are we prepared to trust the government to do it right with no one looking over their shoulder.  I think not, and I hope that we don’t let this spiral even further out of control.

Related – http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=1202653509518/Oklahoma-Controversy-Over-Execution-Drugs-Resonate-for-Austin-Lawyer

Thank you. Have a nice day.

– The Administrator