Janklow Sues Dell -- Media Casts Felon as Everyman

KELO beat me to the obvious headline...

Most convicted man-slaughterers don't get gentle, positive press like this. KELO features former South Dakota Governor and Congressman Bill Janklow as he epitomizes the everyman struggle against big business. Janklow is suing Dell over the non-functional computer they sold him in May. KELO helps turn the screws of bad PR on Dell by showing him going through the lengthy and futile maze of telephone tech support.

This lawsuit is one nearly everyone can sympathize with. A company produces an inferior product. The company makes it nearly impossible to get service to solve the problem. The consumer's only recourse is expensive legal action. (Bonus philosophical inconsistency of the day: Some of Janklow's Republican friends argue that we need to limit lawsuits. Discuss.)

I'm betting the initial reaction of nearly every South Dakotan watching is the same as mine: "Go get 'em, Bill! Make 'em pay!"

But I see another angle here. Consider how Perry Groten (of course Perry would do this story! I still love you, Perry!) frames the narrative:

Not even a former governor and U.S. Congressman has the kind of clout to fast-track a lengthy journey through the customer support maze.

What if Groten had chosen an alternative framing:

Not even a convicted felon has the kind of clout to fast-track a lengthy journey through the customer support maze.

Hmmm. KELO and the rest of the mainstream media make plenty of hay keeping us scared of the bad, bad people in our midst. But Bill Janklow gets press like any decent ordinary Joe.

I know, Bill Janklow is anything but ordinary. He's darned interesting. He makes good press. He is a historic figure. He still has valuable contributions to make to South Dakota.

But he also killed a man through sheer recklessness.

How to properly allow Janklow into the public sphere is a complicated issue. The way we treat Janklow is also worth keeping in mind as we consider the place we allow all other felons in our community.

Abdallah Proposes Weakening Sex Offender Laws

If Patricia Stricherz is reading the news this weekend, she can e-mail me and say, "I told you so!" Stricherz, one of the GOP's unsuccessful legislative candidates here in District 8 last year, caught grief from me last October for saying one of her legislative priorities was to relax sex offender registry rules for juvenile offenders.

Now a Republican who manages to win elections, State Senator Gene Abdallah (R-10/Sioux Falls), is calling for making exceptions for juveniles and maybe others on the sex offender list:

"We're looking at the possibility of making exceptions to get off the list after a certain period of time depending on the seriousness of the offense," Abdallah said.

Senator Gene Abdallah is the chairman of the committee looking at the changes. Abdallah says some of the offenders on the sex offender registry don't deserve to be on it their entire life.

"We've had examples of 16 and 18 year olds dating, and he's considered an adult at 18, and she's not, and something happens and he gets on the sex offender registry and is on there for life," Abdallah said [Ben Dunsmoor, "Changes to Sex Offender Registry Considered," KELOLand.com, 2009.08.14].

Something happens... um, Gene, since when did you stop believing in free will and personal responsibility? This sounds dangerously like sexist (yes, check the senator's pronouns) boys-will-be-boys excuse-making. Just how well will "something happened" fly as an excuse for lighter sentences for other crimes?

More hilarity ensues as Abdallah tries to avoid headlines like mine:

Abdallah doesn't want to call it weakening the laws, he says he is still in favor of keeping some of the most serious offenders on the registry for life.

"I'm not in favor of weakening or diluting any laws when it comes to sex offenders or crime for that matter, but I do feel we should be fair," Abdallah said.

Being fair to some of those that are serving an online life sentence, on the sex offender registry* [Dunsmoor, 2009.0814].

I'm o.k. with fairness. I'm willing to have a discussion about whether we can fairly impose on certain criminals lifelong restrictions on where they can live and work. Maybe fairness does require weakening the law (although SDCL 22-24B-19 already spells out a number of criteria that allow offenders to get off the list). But Senator Abdallah does language and logic harm (once again!) with his clumsy word games. Right now, an adult having sex with a child is a sex offender. If Senator Abdallah wants to declare that such an adult is not a criminal, or is a less heinous criminal, just because the adult is dating that child or is in love with that child, then he should just say so and call his proposal what it is: a weakening of the sex offender law.

*Dang it, there's another one of those sloppy KELO sentence fragments!

Senator Abdallah Stinks up Airwaves with Death Penalty Nonsense

I'm listening to State Senator Gene Abdallah tie himself in rhetorical knots on this noon's South Dakota Public Radio's Dakota Midday. In a discussion of the South Dakota Supreme Court's overturning of Briley Piper's death penalty, Senator Abdallah makes the following "arguments" (I use the term with extreme generosity) in favor of the death penalty:

1. The death penalty is a deterrent: a dead criminal can't commit more crimes.
2. Two legislators who advocated repealing the death penalty were also pro-choice on abortion.
   
3. Lengthy appeals are a waste of resources; we should set a time limit and speed up these trials.
4. Life in prison for convicted killers puts other inmates at risk; do we want to have to explain to the parents or spouse of a DUI convict serving his month how he was killed by a convicted killer we could have just executed?
5. So many people read in the papers that so many killers have escaped. And they kill again!
   

I respect Mr. Abdallah's work in law enforcement and government. However, statements like the above make me want to get out the "What the heck are you thinking?!" blog-stick. Going down the flow:

1. The debate about deterrence usually refers to persuading other potential criminals not to commit crimes. Incapacitation and deterrence are two different things.
2. Rather than scream red herring, Bruce Gray, a death penalty opponent also appearing on the program, politely registers his displeasure at being lumped in with the pro-choice political camp. Gotta argue the issues before you, Gene, not the straw men you want to keep resurrecting when the argument gets tough.
   
3. Funny: at the end of the show, I think I heard Abdallah say we should never question the amount of resources we dedicate toward law enforcement. Yet he thinks we spend too much on capital trials and appeals. Kangaroo courts, anyone?
4. Funny: sounds like prison's a pretty awful place... bad enough to maybe deter folks from driving drunk and committing other lesser crimes that would get them locked up with those dangerous convicted murderers.
5. Evidence? Evidence? Not one specific example. Not one name. Not one article. For Pete's sakes, you're a state senator going on the radio. Even if they called you just ten minutes ago, bring your notes! Google something! Here, I'll help: link link link!
   

I do appreciate Abdallah's willingness to join the public discussion on a controversial issue. Now if he could just make sense.

Updating the Archives: Walker Bomb Threat Charges Go Nowhere

A while back (December 2007), I discussed the case of U.S. Marine Corps veteran Mark R. Walker, who was slapped with a rather tenuous charge of false reporting to authorities in connection with a flip comment he made to a bank teller about the contents of a package he was carrying. I don't recall anyone ever producing a good explanation of why it's a bank teller's business what a customer is taking to the post office. And I don't recall anyone following up with coverage of the trial or sentence.

That would be because there was no trial or sentence. I bumped into Mr. Walker in town the other day. (He was carrying a big backpack. I didn't even think to ask what was in it.) He says that when the whole fracas went down, he was at first inclined to go with the flow, plead, whatever. But when he realized the authorities wanted to make some sort of example on him, Walker took one simple action: he said he'd call his lawyer. That simple assertion of a basic right was all it took to make the authorities drip their flimsy homeland-hysteria case.

Walker was among the dozens laid off from Gehl last October. He plans to head up to Canada for university. And thanks to the GI Bill, you and I will fund his studies to become a planetary geologist. That's reasonable compensation for service to one's country. Now if we could just arrange compensation for treating a guy like a menace to society.

Wedding Thief Strikes Madison -- Reward Offered

Madison residents Jill Pruitt and Jeremiah Corbin got married and robbed this weekend. Not cool! Reader Matt Siedschlaw sends details and a general call for help in tracking down the wedding robber:

The wedding took place on Saturday, July 18, 2009. The bride is a finnacial aid assistant at DSU in Madison. The groom was recently employed with JMS percision in Madison until it recenlty closed and laid everyone off in Madison. He was lucky to get a job with the Rural Water Systems that will be locating to Madison as soon as the new Heartland building is built.

The wedding took place at Jeremiah's parents' house at Lake Madison by Johnson's Point. Following the wedding a reception was held at the Sportsmen Steak House and Lodge (the old Elks Club). The reception was held upstairs in the ballroom. At the reception there was an area that had the guest book and a box to collect cards and presents. This was located at the back of the room. The dance and reception went off with out any problems.

The next day I was with the bride and groom and family while they were opening presents. After presents were opened I asked what my brother and his wife had given them for a gift and they said we did not open a card from them. I thought that was strange. Other family members started mentioning names of people who left cards and no cards from those people were found. We called everyone who helped with the wedding and presents. All vehicles and such were searched, but there was no sign of the missing cards.

The Sportsmen's was closed on Sunday and the ball room was locked until today [Monday]. Today the family went up to tear down the reception and search for the cards. The room was searched and no cards were found. So, the police were called in and another search was done. In the women's bathroom approximately 31 cards were found hidden in the garbage can. The cards were opened with the cash removed. The checks were left but cash was gone. My guess of the amount of cash missing was between 300-800 dollars [Matt Siedschlaw, personal communication with minor edits, 2009.07.20].

Now Matt says the police are looking but have asked the newlyweds and their friends to try narrowing down the suspect list themselves. To shake some leads loose, Matt is offering a $100 reward to anyone who can provide the lead that brings this sticky-fingered sleaze to justice.

If you have any info, feel free to contact Matt or the Madison police.

Some Case Law for Newland's First Amendment Sentencing Appeal?

Messrs. Powers, Woster, Fleming, and I have all expressed misgivings over Judge John Delaney's sentencing of Bob Newland to, among other things, one year of public silence on the issue of marijuana legalization. I've been wondering what precedents might inform such a deprivation of a felon of his First Amendment rights.

In today's pro bono work for the Free Bob committee, I find some possibly relevant case law. Note that where the cases deal specifically with inmates, I would argue that non-incarcerated individuals on probation (as Newland will be for 88% of his public-silence sentence) deserve at least as much protection of their First Amendment rights, if not more.

• Wolfel v. Bates, 707 F2d 932: Prisoners retain their First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances . Might this mean that Newland can still participate in a petition drive to overturn anti-marijuana laws?
• Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974): Restrictions on prison inmate First Amendment rights should deter crime, help rehabilitate the inmate, and/or maintain security within the corrections facility. I continue to wonder how banning public statements on a given law serves any of those purposes. (I read, however, that Pell v. Procunier "has been substantially eroded as a precedent.")
• Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974): Free speech restrictions imposed on prisoners must "further one or more of the important and substantial governmental interests of security, order, and the rehabilitation of inmates," and must "be no greater than is necessary to further the legitimate governmental interest involved." Again, Newland's advocacy for marijuana legalization is a call for changes in the law, not violent overthrow of the government or even the prison warden. Forcing Newland's silence does not sound like a path to rehabilitation. Permitting a citizen to participate in legitimate political activity might actually be a good safety valve to prevent the citizen from seeking to advance his goals through covert illegal activity.
• Johnson v. Raemisch (2008): Inmates have a right to read and, concomitantly, publish dissent that advocates political action by citizens outside prison walls. Judge Crabb cites Truman: "Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures." [Harry S. Truman, Message to Congress, Aug. 8, 1950]
• Murphy v. Missouri Dep't of Corrections 814 F2d 1252 (1987): The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals found unconstitutional a prison's blanket ban on Aryan Nation publications. Even though Aryan Nation publications sometimes advocate violent action or express racially inflammatory views, the second criterion of Procunier v. Martinez requires restrictions be no greater than necessary. Banning Aryan Nation publications completely is greater than necessary. Arguably, the same standard applies to Bob Newland's speech. If he advocates legalizing marijuana through violent revolution or incites a prison riot to get some dope, then sure, the state has an interest in silencing him. But as far as I know, Newland's political advocacy has never crossed over into such dangerous territory.

Again, I'm no big advocate of smoking dope. But I share President Truman's commitment to protecting the voice of opposition. Bob Newland's transportation of a controlled substance is a crime, but his political advocacy has never been a crime, and it never should be.

----------------------
Update 12:00 CDT: A real South Dakota lawyer weighs in... and comes to a similar conclusion. Mr. Epp understands the judge's logic and acknowledges the bench's broad discretion, but notes that defendants still have the right to speak out. More opinions are welcome!

Bob Newland Becomes Political Prisoner: Sentence Overlimits First Amendment Rights

Permit me a moment of agreement with Dakota War College: Judge John Delaney's sentence on marijuana advocate Bob Newland appears to include an unjust infringement on Newland's political rights.

To review: Newland pled guilty to felony pot possession. Yesterday, Judge Delaney issued the following sentence:

1. 45 days in prison
2. one year on probation
3. no booze or other intoxicants for that year
4. random searches
5. weekly drug tests
6. no public role in efforts to legalize marijuana for one year

Now I'm going to ignore the argument about whether pot should be illegal in the first place. Newland broke the law, he's now a felon, he's got punishment coming. Let's keep it simple and talk in general about what sort of punishment a felon should get. Prison time, fines, probation, searches, check-ins—those are all reasonable infringements on the liberty of a person who violates the law. (It is worth noting that Judge Delaney cut Newland some slack, suspending the $2000 fine in recognition of Newland's mostly empty pockets.)

But a restriction on political activity? And a restriction specific to the law broken? That seems to go too far. Certainly putting a man in prison entails restricting a man's ability to engage in political advocacy—he can't exactly go downtown to a rally or march on Washington—but it does not take away his voice. If a man is convicted under a law he considers unjust, should we really take away his right to argue publicly for the repeal of that law?

I can see a potential conflict of legal interest here. Suppose Newland chose to appeal his sentence. (Don't expect it: he seems resigned to his fate.) Suppose he wanted to argue that the law under which he was convicted is unconstitutional. Would not that contention, made on the public record in court, constitute advocacy for legalizing marijuana? Would not his very appeal thus constitute a violation of his probation? Something sounds unfair there.

Felons are still citizens. They still have a stake in society. If they want to be advocates for social reform and justice, we should let them speak. That doesn't mean the county or state is obliged to foot the bill for that communication or permit convicted murderers furloughs for every political protest and parade that comes along. But even in a prison cell, one can still think and communicate one's thoughts to others. Whether those thoughts are worth reading or listening to is up to the public. Wesley Cook (a.k.a. Mumia Abu-Jamal) committed crimes heinous enough to land himself on death row, yet he is permitted to publish books and commentaries from prison. Newland's trangressions earned him just 45 days in the pokey; why would a judge restrict his First Amendment rights (speech, assembly, press, and petition) for 320 days beyond the time he will be a guest of Pennington County?

The best legal punishment serves either to restore or to rehabilitate. In Newland's crime, there is no party to restore, no direct harm that must be paid back. And there is no rehabilitation in denying a man his voice, especially not on an issue that has given him purpose and direction for decades. For a man so dedicated to a cause, a blanket denial of his ability to work publicly for that cause is nothing but punitive, and I'm not sure that serves the interest of anyone in South Dakota.

Now Bob, don't go getting a big head. I'm not saying you are Martin Luther King, Jr. But in 1962, Dr. King was sentenced to 45 days in jail for protesting segregation laws in Albany, Georgia. To make Dr. King sit in jail for breaking a law is understandable. But to order King to take no public role in advocacy against segregation laws would have gone beyond strict law enforcement to outright political repression.

Or consider that case over in Minnesota where Judge John Rodenberg ordered the parents of Daniel Hauser to submit the boy for chemotherapy, against their religious wishes. The judge rightly could have sentenced the mother to jail time for subsequently fleeing the state to avoid the court order. But could he have also ordered that she take no public role in advocating the religious principles that motivated her actions? I should hope not. I disagree with her beliefs, and her beliefs put her son's life in danger, but even if she breaks the law, she retains a fundamental right to express those beliefs.

Bob Newland disagrees with a law. Newland broke that law. He will serve time for breaking that law. But for a year, he will also be a political prisoner, banned on penalty of further incarceration from challenging the state on its (as he sees it) unjust law.

I don't like what Bob's been smoking. But I like even less the political penalty we the people are imposing on him.

Smut Peddler Faces Lawsuit for Sexual Assault

Speaking of objectification, a Sioux Falls smut shop owner is facing two lawsuits for sexual harassment and sexual assault. Two former female employees say David Eliason, owner of Annabelle's porn house in Sioux Falls and Olivia's pull-off-and-____-off rest area in Tea, tried to practice what he peddles with them, creating a less than optimal work environment. Last month, Judge Kathleen Caldwell heard from two women (likely the same, though I can't confirm that from my reading this morning) and found their stories sufficiently believable to grant a five-year protection order to keep Eliason away.

Eliason, of course, says the women's claims are "100 percent false."

Hmm... let's see: guy makes his living selling sex toys and portraying women as objects of sexual gratification. Guy gets sued for treating actual women who work for him the same way. Should we be surprised?

Eliason's chosen occupation makes clear his view of women's proper role in society. The trial and his lawyer's defense strategy promise to be equally disgusting.

Dr. Tiller's Murderer Is Not Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Speaking of rigorous German theologians, an eager reader sends me this article about abortion violence, moral reasoning, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The writer, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, confronts questions he's been getting about a possible analogy between the murder of Dr. George Tiller and the violent resistance Bonhoeffer ultimately advocated and conspired in against the Nazi regime.

I find any analogy between Bonhoeffer and a whining, perhaps mentally unbalanced domestic Christian terrorist repugnant. Bonhoeffer is one of my favorite Lutherans. For one thing, he bears a striking resemblance to my Brookings college pal Erik Johnson, not just in looks but, more importantly, in brains. Bonhoeffer took his theology seriously. He had to: he entered his career as a theologian and pastor in the gravest economic and political conditions. He denounced Hitler in a radio address two days after Hitler took the chancellorship. (The radio broadcast was cut off mid-sentence.) His resistance to the Nazi regime never flagged, until the Nazis executed him in April 1945. Even in prison, against seemingly overwhelming power, he fought to keep hope alive with words and big ideas. He is a fascinating historical character, at least as worthy of study (and celebration) as King and Gandhi.

Dr. Mohler agrees with me that Scott Roeder is no Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

So many readers are familiar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer's decision to take action against Hitler. Fewer are familiar with the moral and theological reasoning that led Bonhoeffer, quite reluctantly, to this conclusion. Even then, Bonhoeffer was not certain he was acting rightly. He felt that this decision, made under extreme moral conditions, was the best he could understand.

Other readers have seen the film "Valkyrie," and jump to some of the same conclusions. We must realize that Bonhoeffer did not come to his decision to resort to violence against the regime out of a moral vacuum. He and his brothers and sisters in the Confessing Church had long before come to the conclusion that they must oppose the Nazi regime in totality, risking imprisonment and far worse. It is nothing less than embarrassing to see American Christians make arguments citing Bonhoeffer while they fail to engage his moral and theological reasoning -- and when arguments are based in sloppy analogies from a position of cultural comfort [R. Albert Mohler, Jr., "Moral Reasoning in Light of Wichita," originally published in the Chicago Tribune, 2009.06.07].

Cultural comfort: opponents of legal abortion have numerous avenues to pursue their agenda well short of violence. The ballot box, the press, and the blogosphere are open to their efforts (and mine). We still have free and fair elections, not to mention an active (if blubbering) opposition party.

Mohler notes that Bonhoeffer himself opposed abortion. But Mohler also makes crystal clear that the murder of Dr. George Tiller (and any of the future violence Tiller's suspected murderer says is planned) is wrong:

America is not Nazi Germany. George Tiller, though bearing the blood of thousands of unborn children on his hands, was not Adolf Hitler. The murderer of Dr. George Tiller is no Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Dr. Tiller’s murderer did not serve the cause of life; he assaulted that cause at its moral core.

Ohio blogger and Operation Rescue veteran Julie Bogart further fleshes out that America–Nazi Germany distinction:

First of all, Bonhoeffer's mission to overthrow the Fuhrer was philosophically supported by the similar objectives of a concert of nations in the war effort. Bonhoeffer didn't act as a lone agent of justice, but rather cooperated with a consensus of justice-seeking governments, individuals and organizations bent on ending the evil plot of the Third Reich (a mission created by one individual leading a nation and abusing his power to coerce the extermination of entire races, as well as taking over sovereign nations through acts of war).

Though erroneously called "the culture wars," the debate about abortion is not a war! It isn't even war-like. The right to an abortion is rooted in respect for the individual's ability to exercise choice at the deepest level of personal conviction. The choice to have an abortion is not coerced by a tyrant, but is made within the privacy of an individual woman's heart, in concert with her beliefs, her physician's recommendations and her spiritual/ethical values. To prevent this "choice" is to coerce. Certainly the baby (or fetus - you choose) has no choice and is coerced into birth or death based on that choice (the crux of the debate is really - does the fetus/baby have rights? Not, is it a baby or is it alive?). Still, the question isn't about the abortionist. It's about what individuals believe about conception and pregnancy (which is nothing like the death camps of Nazi Germany!) [Julie Bogart, "Tiller, 'Operation Rescue,' and Bonhoeffer," Julie Unplugged, 2009.06.02].

We should all take heed of Bogart's distinction between our petty cultural bickering and the real war Bonhoeffer had to fight. Dietrich Bonhoeffer engaged in a moral and theological struggle that took enormous courage and ultimately took his life. Scott Roeder took a break from whining about having to buy license plates to walk into an unguarded church and shoot an unarmed man.

Scott Roeder is not Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Economy Down, Crime Down... Except in Small Towns

Do you feel safer in a bad economy? It's easy to imagine the economic downturn causing an increase in the number of hungry, desperate people out there who might be willing to snatch your purse, smash your window, or do other harm to you and your property.

But either recession doesn't cause crime, or other factors are keeping folks on the straight and narrow. According to the FBI, crime went down in the U.S. in 2008. Violent crime and property crime both dropped nationwide (2.5% and 1.6%, respectively). Those declines fit a trend that has held since the 1990s, with only a brief aberration of rising crime in 2005 and 2006, when the majority of us were quite content with the Potemkin housing-boom economy.

Dragging those numbers down (or is that up?): small-town America. You, me, the bunch of us in Madison, Flandreau, and other towns under 10,000 are apparently killing, raping, and mugging each other more frequently than we did in 2007. We're also stealing each other's cattle more often.

How does that figure? One sociology prof suggests our sense of community and willingness to sacrifice in hard times may help keep crime down during hard times... but we small-town folks are supposed to be paragons of such community virtues.

Another upside-downer: fears of crime (and NRA lies about President Obama) have driven big increases in gun sales. So gun-rights supporters perhaps have more ammo to argue that the increased presence of guns in homes (and hidden holsters) helps deter crime... but that's hard to square with the increase in crime in small towns, where there are a lot more guns per capita than in urban areas (dramatic stats on that here, but no source cited).

In times of crisis, should we replace "Head for the hills!" with "Head for the big city!"? I don't think so. But when urban crime is down and rural crime is up, something weird (and worth studying!) is happening.

Frank Schaeffer, Penitent for "Pro-Life" Provocation

Frank Schaeffer was an active anti-abortion activist in the 1970s and early 1980s. He and his evangelical father Francis Schaeffer campaigned through books and film to overturn Roe v. Wade:

In the early 80s my father followed up with a book that sold over a million copies called A Christian Manifesto. In certain passages he advocated force if all other methods for rolling back the abortion ruling of Roe v. Wade failed. He compared America and its legalized abortion to Hitler's Germany and said that whatever tactics would have been morally justified in removing Hitler would be justified in trying to stop abortion. I said the same thing in a book I wrote (A Time For Anger) that right wing evangelicals made into a best seller. For instance Dr. James Dobson (of the Focus On the Family radio show) gave away over 100,000 copies [Fran Schaeffer, "How I (and Other 'Pro-Life' Leaders) Contributed to Dr. Tiller's Murder," Huffington Post, 2009.06.01].

In the mid 1980s, Frank Schaeffer left what he now calls "the so-called pro-life movement and... a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America." He now takes a very clear position on the responsibility he bears for the murder, in a church, of Dr. George Tiller:

The same hate machine I was part of is still attacking all abortionists as "murderers." And today once again the "pro-life" leaders are busy ducking their personal responsibility for people acting on their words. The people who stir up the fringe never take responsibility. But I'd like to say on this day after a man was murdered in cold blood for performing abortions that I -- and the people I worked with in the religious right, the Republican Party, the pro-life movement and the Roman Catholic Church, all contributed to this killing by our foolish and incendiary words.

I am very sorry.

Schaeffer still expresses disagreement with Roe v. Wade and calls for changes in American abortion policy. Yet he unequivocally takes repsonsibility for his own words and what he perceives as his responsibility for the murder of Dr. Tiller.

We could use more direct language like that. It just might stop the next wacko from shooting a law-abiding doctor.

U.S. Courts Free Religious Terrorist, with Deadly Results

...but that's how things work in a nation of laws.

The accused murderer of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, Scott Roeder, had all the makings of a domestic Christian terrorist. In 1996, he was arrested for sporting bogus license plates. Police discovered bomb components and instructions in Roeder's car. He declared himself above the law, subject only to what he decided were "common sense" laws. The judge called Roeder a threat to public safety and sentenced him to probation. Roeder proceeded to violate that probation and get arrested a year later for tax delinquency. (See KAKE TV video here.) His religious fanatacism—"very religious in an Old Testament, eye-for-an-eye way" says his ex-wife—caused the collapse of his family. He subscribed to literature that justified the assassination of abortion providers. He associated with known anti-government groups like the Kansas Unorganized Citizens Militia and a Freemen group called "One Supreme Court."

Just a week ago, Roeder was caught on videotape vandalizing a Kansas City clinic, but a clinic worker said the video wasn't strong enough evidence to support a conviction. Another worker reported Roeder's license plate number to the FBI on Saturday, but the FBI said (CNN's words) "nothing could be done with the information until a federal grand jury convened."

There was as much evidence against this religious fanatic as there is against any detainee in Guantanamo Bay that he was a threat to public safety. Yet this man was not detained indefinitely without charge or subjected to torture. He received due process, and his original conviction was overturned on the technicality that the police had not followed the law in searching his vehicle. Due process and the Constitution allowed this religious terrorist to go free, to escape justice long enough to kill an American citizen on American soil.

But I still love the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution. I still want domestic wiretaps and the whole Patriot Act repealed. I still want all religious terrorists, whether in Guantanamo Bay or the Sedgwick County Jail in Wichita, to be charged and tried or, if the government doesn't have a case, to be set free.

Such is the price we pay for being America, for choosing laws over tyranny.

-------------------------------
Note: I extend my appreciation to Ken Blanchard, who issues an unequivocal denunciation of domestic terrorism. Why can't Pastor Hickey and other abortion opponents speak that clearly?

Mixed Messages from Pastor Hickey on George Tiller Murder

I'm having some difficulty discerning true meanings in some of the blog coverage of the murder of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. Todd Epp of South Dakota Watch/Middle Border Sun criticizes Pastor Steve Hickey of Voices Carry for "rejoicing" (Epp's word) in the murder. I review Pastor Hickey's original post: he pretty clearly expresses relief that Dr. Tiller is dead, and he says some odd things about us lefties deluding ourselves "into thinking Tiller is receiving heaven's reward right now" (bit of a stretch to make American liberal atheists like me sound like Muslim radicals, Steve). But he also salts his post with enough contradictory language about feeling sick about the murder that it's hard to tell what Hickey means. He says vengeance is the Lord's, not ours, but he expresses eagerness to witness the punishment he imagines God meting out on Tiller. he says the killing was "misguided and far more harmful to the cause than helpful," but he sees pro-choice activists who write offensive statements as more misguided than the man who shot Dr. Tiller in his church. And Hickey ends his post with this Biblical justification for murder:

...the Bible says in this case it'd be better for Tiller to have had a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the depth of the sea that to have done what he did in this life... [Pastor Steve Hickey, "Today Tiller the Killer, Now a Martyr for Molech, Not God," Voices Carry, 2009.05.31].

There is enough language in both directions that one could argue both ways: in places, Pastor Hickey sounds like he is justifying and celebrating the murder, but in others he sounds like he is condemning it... although that condemnation sometimes seems to reflect more concern about the damage the murder will do to his political movement than the sin of the murder itself. But Pastor Hickey and his supproters can quite rightly make the legalistic argument that he nowhere says he "rejoices" in the shooting.

KELO appears to side with caution and Pastor Hickey on this one. For perhaps the first time in its nearly two-year association with the independent South Dakota blogosphere, KELO has pulled a post. Mr. Epp's criticism of Pastor Hickey remains at his home site, but it has disappeared from Mr. Epp's corner of the KELO Issues blog list.

I won't cry First Amendment foul here. Those of us granted the privilege to post on KELO understand the rules perfectly well: KELO can nuke anything we write, for whatever reason, just as KELO (like any other media outlet, and any blogger) is free to choose what news it covers and what angles it chooses to play up or ignore.

But then I turn to Pastor Hickey's follow-up, which seems to play the same verbal shell game that got Mr. Epp's dander up and his post banned:

Also, earlier this evening a friend of mine dropped an interesting historical parallel into the fray that I believe to be right on the money. It made me think there is a little deja vu down there in Kansas tonight.

The historical parallel is to John Brown, who hacked pro-slavery Kansas farmers to death with swords.

President Lincoln called John Brown a "misguided fanatic." Historian David S. Reynolds hailed him as the man who "killed slavery, sparked the civil war, and seeded civil rights." Historian Ken Chowder said John Brown was "at certain times, a great man", but also "the father of American terrorism." Probably all of the above is accurate.

Misguided... killed slavery... great man... father of American terrorism... "probably... accurate." Pastor Hickey waits until the very bottom of the article, after reposting the full text of the celebratory "John Brown's Body," to say "Tiller's killer is no hero" and deserves no songs to be sung about him... although Hickey offers no explanation of what distinguishes John Brown's celebrated murderousness from yesterday's killing on sacred ground.

Pardon me if I scratch my head a little. I will agree that the issue is very complex... but must also conclude from the language in Pastor Hickey's article that he is trying to play both sides. He wants to introduce the John-Brown-hero meme, but he wants to be able to disavow it. Perhaps that's enough cover to get KELO to ban the debate... but Pastor Hickey lays enough verbal land mines to warrant Mr. Epp's criticism.

-----------------------------
There is one telling passage in the blog post Pastor Hickey says is "right on the money":

No rational person would consider Brown a positive figure in history….but he did prove something. The issue of slavery was one of life and death. It was not political. It was not governmental. It was much, much deeper than that, and there was no common ground high enough for both sides to stand and feel good about their compromises. It could not be negotiated. It had to be settled [emphasis mine, thoughts Randy Bohlender's, "Thoughts on the Killing of George Tiller," RandyBohlender.com, 2009.06.01].

The first part I emphasize actually encourages me: perhaps Mr. Bohlender and Pastor Hickey are agreeing with me that we need to take the abortion debate out of politics, get the government out of women's medical decisions, and address abortion at the personal and community level.

The second part I emphasize makes me nervous: No negotiation, no settlement... those sound like fighting words to me. If abortion protestors do retreat from politics, I hope they will follow Christ and Gandhi and not John Brown in their efforts to remake society. I only worry that Pastor Hickey's equivocal language does not sufficiently condemn the latter and embrace the former.

Update 2009.06.02 09:35 CDT: Even Sibby manages to be more direct in his condemnation: "Tiller Murder Is Not Pro-Life."

Scam Alert: Credit Card Hoaxsters Use First Dakota Bank

So I receive the following spam in my inbox from info@firstdakota.com:

Dear Customer,

1 First Dakota National Bank temporarily suspended your account.
Reason: Identity Verification
To verify your account call the total free number: 877-415-6056

Never access the Credit Union's Web site by clicking on a link provided in an e-mail. 1 First Dakota National Bank will never solicit you to provide or update personal or financial information. And, will never send an e-mail containing links to Credit Union's Web sites.

Local: 877-415-6056
Toll Free: 877-415-6056
201 N. Courtland Street
PO Box 609
Chamberlain, SD 57325

Copyright 2009 / 1 First Dakota National Bank - All rights reserved.

First Dakota National Bank is a legit outfit, but I have never done business with them. So I decide to check out the fraudsters. I call the toll-free number and get a machine that identifies itself in a slightly choppy computer voice as "First Dakota National Bank card verification service." It asks for my credit card number, expiration date, and PIN. I enter some bogus numbers, and the machine says my number has been verified. "Thank you for your time. Goodbye." No option to speak to a human... and right now some goofball in Santa Monica has probably already punched my bogus numbers into Amazon.com and found they don't work.

It looks like the scammers are trying same trick with other financial institutions: evidently similar e-mails with the same 877 number went out Tuesday purporting to be from Sun East Federal Credit Union in Pennsylvania.

The hucksters' business model must assume that the cost of taking even a thousand calls on a toll-free line will be offset by the one caller who gives up his credit card info and funds today's surprise shopping spree. Now I suppose it might be nice to get an autodialer to ring up 877-415-6056 20,000 times today, just to bankrupt the thieves on phone charges. But I have finals to study for.

Why I'm Glad I'm Not Black in Madison

The Madison Daily Leader reports a brazen, broad-daylight burglary and minor beating in our fair city. Saturday afternoon, a fella comes to someone's door, asks for help, gets let in, then shoves the resident to the floor and swipes money and jewelry.

The description offered by Chief Pulford: black male, 6'4", 150–200 pounds, dressed all in black.

Hm... skinny 6'4" black man in Madison. First thing I think: Shouldn't be hard to find him. My guess is that there might be two guys in town who fit that description. (But 150 pounds? I'm 5'10" and 150 pounds, and people think I'm skinny. Stretch that weight out across 6'4", and you have a guy who's probably not healthy enough to knock anyone to the floor.)

So now for the next few days, folks who've heard about Saturday's assault will look at every black male in town as a possible suspect...

...though I wonder: is that any different from how our African-American residents feel viewed around town any other time of the year?

---------------
Update 2009.04.22 08:05 CDT: Busted! KJAM reports Madison police have arrested 19-year-old Christian McMillian, formerly of Las Vegas. Evidently lots of neighbors called in with information. Now let's see the evidence....

Accused Cop-Killer Claims Self-Defense

"Defense Grows"? Try "Defense Grows Longer Nose...."

That Sioux Falls paper reports that Ethan Johns, accused killer of Turner County Deputy Chad Mechels, is pleading not guilty and claiming (brace yourself) self-defense.

"Our preliminary investigation shows a viable self-defense in this case," lawyer Jeff Cole of Parker said at the arraignment of Ethan Johns, 19 [Jeff Martin, "Defense Grows in Murder Case," that Sioux Falls paper, 2009.04.14].

Self-defense? That's the best you could come up with? Let's review:

Johns, armed with a rifle, was in the bathroom at his farmhouse when he opened fire on Mechels inside the home, wounding the lawman in the right arm, court records indicate. Then, after the deputy retreated from the house and climbed back in his patrol sport utility vehicle, Johns remained inside and shot again from the bathroom window, the documents state. This time, one of the rifle shots pierced the SUV's windshield and hit Mechels in the throat [Martin, 2009.04.14].

I don't need a law degree (and neither will the jury) to know that shooting a retreating law officer is not self-defense. The lawyer's got to do something to earn his pay... but wouldn't a guilty plea stand a better chance of keeping the defendant alive than an argument that killing a cop is self-defense?

South Dakota Corrections: Are We Man Enough to Rehabilitate?

Corrections—no, I didn't make a mistake... or did I? Do we all?

My Wednesday post on South Dakota's correctional system received a very intelligent and probing comment from my friend Shane Gerlach, who can speak with some experience as to the failings of our methods of dealing with those who break the law. For those of you who don't venture into the comments section, I promote his commentary in full here:

so here's the deal Corey...Please PLEASE find one correctional counselor with a counseling degree...please. If you do I will buy you the beverage of your choice.

Recidvism is ridiculous in this state because there is no rehabilitiation. Change must come from within certainly but BUT many of these men and women need and desire guidance and help.

Part time farmers, small business owners, promoted guards posing as counselors and a very overwhelmed and out numbered staff are not the help needed.

I broke my cycle...it can be done; but I had the advantage of suportive family and friends, an education, willpower and a solid release plan. I was way WAY ahead of the curve.

When we stop treating sicknesses as diseases (addictions and mental illness) our prison population will drop.

BTW Corey...where besides prison can one find a state sponsered treatment program?!?!?!?!?! You know for people who can't afford treatment but want...NEED....help?

Punishment has won the war over Rehabilitation. We are reaping exactly what we sowed. Prison has become a business that is profitable to this state. Who wired the schools? Who builds the cabins for the state parks? Who builds the Govenors houses? Who fights forrest fires? Who does disaster clean up? Who ran the state farm? Who work for 25 cents an hour for the DOT, Counties (including the Yankton Library) and other entities?

Prisoners. The correction system is nothing but a machine with a HUGE revolving door.

Hit me up some time I'll give you first hand truths.

Shane Micheal Gerlach

Punishment has won the war over rehabilitation—even I, your favorite bleeding-heart secular humanist prairie liberal, am prone to the macho lingo that proves Mr. Gerlach's point. I look at drunk drivers, drug dealers, et al. and speak of "giving them what they deserve."

But what do criminals... sinners... our fellow men and women deserve? Recall Hamlet's admonishment of Polonius, upon Polonius's statement that he will treat the visiting players according to their "desert":

God's bodykins, man, much better: use every man
after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?
Use them after your own honour and dignity: the less
they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.
[William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2]

I'm torn here. I like to believe that hard work will straighten a criminal out better than any counseling. But I know some folks outside of prison who've worked hard all their lives and are nothing but hard, bitter people. And when the state relies on cheap inmate labor, there is always a danger of dependence on what some might call slavery (not to mention driving down wages in the non-criminal workforce).

I often don't respond well to recommendations for counseling... but that's my persistent prairie machismo again. Maybe folks who break the law, especially those depressed enough to self-medicate, could use more interaction with counselors, folks trained in psychology who are less interested in reminding the criminals of the mistakes they made and the dirt-scum treatment they "deserve" and more interested in helping convicts understand their weaknesses and build strategies to deal with them.

My Christian friends might argue that it takes courage to forgive... and even more courage to reach out and help. And remember, courage comes from the Latin word for heart. To address our growing prison population, we need to figure out where our hearts lie between punishment and rehabilitation.

SD Corrections Secretary Reisch: Prison Numbers "Out of Control"

A few weeks ago, Drs. Newquist and Blanchard offered an enlightening discussion about South Dakota's burgeoning prison population. South Dakota Corrections Secretary Tim Reisch agrees there's a problem in the increasing number of people for whom his department has to take responsibility. In a story that didn't get much online attention last week (I can't find a full active copy online), Secretary Reisch discussed the growing expense of corrections in South Dakota and nationwide. (I quote at length, because it's interesting!)

In South Dakota, about 30 percent of inmates released wind up returning to prison within a year, 39 percent within two years, and 45 percent within three years, according to Corrections Department records.

Reisch said South Dakota's average daily adult prison population has risen from 2,267 in 1998 to a projected 3,451 this year....

"That's a lot of beds. That's a lot of mouths to feed," the corrections secretary said. "Many of these people have been in prison before."

The growing prison population forces the state and local governments to spend a lot of taxpayers' money that could be diverted to other programs if so many inmates did not return to prison, Reisch said.

The Corrections Department budget has risen from $49.4 million a decade ago to $108.7 million this year, he said. While it costs nearly $69 a day to keep an inmate in the South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Fals, it costs only $3.65 a day to supervise someone on parole.

The United States leads the world in putting people in prison, with more than 700 out of each 100,000 people behind bars, Reisch said.

In South Dakota, one in every 104 adults is in prison or jail, which ranks South Dakota 25^th among the states, Reisch said.

A study by the PEW Center on the States found that one in 31 U.S. citizens are in prison or jail or on probation or parole, Reisch said. "This corrections thing has really gotten out of control" ["Panel Works to Keep Released Inmates from Returning to Jail," AP via Madison Daily Leader, 2009.03.27, p. 7].

The article notes that over half of the 2,072 South Dakota inmates released in 2007 did their time mainly for drugs or drunk driving. I like to think giving drunk drivers and druggies some time to think about their crimes in a nice quiet cinderblock room, but the recidivism numbers seem to say otherwise.

When budgets are tight and even our corrections secretary says the "corrections thing" is "out of control," we need to look for other options. Maybe we serve society and the state budget better by expanding the Attorney General's 24/7 Sobriety Program—if we have the money and personpower to lock a few thousand people up and feed them three squares a day, we have the resources to manage a few thousand more urine tests or monitoring bracelets. Maybe we serve restorative justice better by putting more drinkers and dopers on a tight leash but leaving them out in the workforce where they can contribute to the economy and pay their victims back (if their crimes had any direct victims).

No criminal deserves a free pass. But society deserves a good return on its corrections investment. When parole or similar supervision costs a twentieth of incarceration, we should look for more ways to take advantage of such programs to straighten out criminals and our aching state budget.

Clyde Hides? Sioux Falls Bonnie Goes Solo

I can't believe Perry Groten didn't make more of this story: a blonde walks into the North Kiwanis Casey's Saturday night, pulls out a handgun, gets a fistful of cash from the clerk, and walks—doesn't run, doesn't peel out in a '68 Dodge Charger, just walks away.

And all Perry gets about the suspect: "She's described as 5 feet 9 inches tall, about 130 pounds with shoulder length wavy hair."

As Jemz notes, for a profile-busting case like this, the above is a stunning lack of detail, especially from KELO's most interesting reporter. Yes, I'm a chauvinist pig, but had I been working the cash register at Casey's on a Saturday night in spring, I'd have had her clothes, age, earrings, shade of lipstick, and the sound of her shoes etched firmly in memory... even before she pulled out the gun. If all the clerk got was what Perry gives us, I'm betting the clerk is either in love or in cahoots.

There's a story here... and a rather conspicuous blonde walking around Sioux Falls with a steely look in her eye. I guarantee, if she's not caught by Friday, KSFY puts her on Wheel of Justice... and triples its ratings.

Don't forget: up to $1000 for the tip that catches Sioux Falls Bonnie!

Sex, Murder, Booze, Embezzlement... and Snowplows -- Just Another News Day in South Dakota

Individual crimes and foibles don't usually strike me as news, but this week's news seems unusually rich with tales bad behavior by our fellow South Dakotans. Our Wednesday tabloid sampler:

1. 42-year-old Shannon Flowers has an affair with 20-year-old Brittney Chua of Woonsocket. Both are married. He already has two kids. She gets pregnant. He beats her to death with a pipe and disposes of her body in the city compost heap.
2. Fall River County deputy Buckly McColl picks up a drunk woman, has sex with her in Edgemont City Hall, then drops her off at a bar. McColl acknowledges what he did was wrong "because he was on duty and a married man." (Subtext: "Had I been off-duty and single, taking advantage of a drunk woman would have been perfectly fine.")
3. Kathy Gourley is charged with embezzling over $200K over five years from the Sioux Empire Fair. KELO runs an e-mail from an anonymous tipster saying Gourley showered her boss, newly resigned fair manager Matt Adamski, with thousands of dollars of gifts.
4. The South Dakota Department of Transportation reports 14 snowplows have been hit by motorists since the beginning of the year.

The lesson: Don't cheat on your wife, don't take thousand-dollar gifts from anyone but your wife... and don't crowd the plow!