Operation Trick No Treat. No home delivery this year for pedophiles: "Under Operation Trick No Treat, sex offenders in Norfolk and Virginia Beach were ordered to spend 4:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Thursday in parole and probation offices... Participants watched educational videos related to their offenses, were tested for substance abuse and talked to counselors." [Daily Rotten]

This is actualy a pretty good idea!  Yes, it may seem to be a continuing "punishment" for sex offenders, but from a public safety viewpoint, it makes good sense.  Given the rate of recidivism when it comes to sexual offenses, especially by pedophiles, taking steps to prevent them from coming in contact with potential victims is a reasonable measure to take.  I also know from experience that even if you leave your porch light turned off (which is supposed to be the signal that your home doesn't participate in Trick or Treat), there will still be a number of kids who'll ring your bell to see if they can get something. 

I remember when I was a little kid, Halloween was a very popular holiday, but even then we were hearing warnings about the dangers of ringing a strangers doorbell.  Of course, the concerns in the 70's were more along the lines of razor blades or injected poisons and not sexual predators, but I'm sure they were there all along.

Fortunately, at least some of the sex offenders didn't seem to object to the diversion.  The article notes that:

"It makes sense," said Charles E. Davis, 64. "When you're not supposed to be around children, and they do come around your home ... that's the reason." Others said they felt that attending the session protected them from being falsely accused.

Hopefully, other communities will pick up on the idea - it's better for the kids, and it may well be better for the pedophiles as well. 

The Salt Lake Tribune -- Pounds of Flesh

The various jurisdictions involved in the terrifying Washington sniper case no longer have the incentive to blame one another for the seemingly endless days of fear. Now they are challenging one another for the honor of pulling the switch on one or both of the suspects.    

In neither case has the American criminal justice system acquitted itself with honor.

While I thought the various jurisdictions involved in the "sniper" investigation handled themselves reasonably well (given how hard it can be to get multiple jurisdictions to work together at all), but the competition now is very unseemly. It also stands to delay the task of bring justice to the killers of so many people.

I admit that I am not a great fan of the death penalty as a tool for justice.  I don't believe that it works as a deterrent, I think that it costs far too much compared to life inprisonment, I fail to comprehend how killing peope is supposed to send the message that killing people is wrong, and I'm not quite sure where we get off thinking that we, as a society, have the right to make that decision about anyone.  Viewing the death penalty as a form of social vengeance, however, I can understand much better.  I still don't necessarily think its the best way to handle it, but, on that primative level where most of us still feel the blood lust, I can appreciate the satisfaction it can bring to see someone who has done so evil given the most dire penalty we can imagine.  Sometimes I even think that it might be good to kill these monsters by doing to them whatever they did to their victims, but to do so would require an executioner to, at least on a temporary basis, become a monster like the criminal is - and I don't believe any person could stay sane under those circumstances.  Nor do I think society could, either.

But right now we are looking at a situation where many want to see Muhammad and Malvo put to death, and that is becoming a strong factor in trying to determine where to first put them to trial for their crimes.  In Maryland, where there are the most victims, would be able to sentence Muhammad to death, but not Malvo.  They also don't make quite as much use of the death penalty as some other states might.  As a result, there is a call for Virginia to be allowed a first crack at the pair, since they do seem to like to use the death penalty quite a bit, and would be able to kill Malvo as well.

Personally, I don't think that who can put them to death the most effectively shouldn't even be an issue in determining who gets the first crack.  To me, what would make the most sense would be to start with the Federal charges.  These are crimes that affected people in many states - to a point where their crimes became crimes against the country as a whole, and not just of the different jurisdictions where they attacked people.  After that, if other trials are deemed necessary or appropriate (or if they some how fail to convict on the Federal charges), start with the jurisdiction where the most victims were affected, and work down the list from there. 

That would, in my opinion, be the fairest way to handle it.  The penalties will have to be whatever the particular jurisdiction (or jusidictions) have deemed appropriate for crimes against their people.  Our desire for vengeance and slaking our blood lust may have to take a back seat to ensuring that not only to the criminals get fair trials, but so do the people who live in the areas where these crimes were committed.