Over at Live Journal, there is a great rendition of a typical conversation that I seem to have with clients on at least a weekly basis (maybe less so, since I tend to handle more serious cases, and thus have less volume, but certainly back in the misdemeanor stage of things).
Thanks to Skelly over at Arbitrary and Capricious for the great link. Skelly has a jury out now for a few days. I know how agonizing that can be. My last jury went out on a Friday, and came back on Tuesday (Monday being a court holiday), so I had to stew on it for the whole weekend. I hate jury deliberations. Good luck Skelly!
Friday, October 21, 2005
Tom Delay - Guilty until proven innocent?
I just did a trial where, during jury selection, I had some of the most right wing reactionary possible jurors expressing themselves. Basically, this was what they had to say: "If you are charged with a crime, it means you are probably guilty, because the DA would never charge someone who didn't do it, so even without any evidence, I would find the defendant guilty." "If you assert your right to remain silent, you do so because you are guilty." "Being charged with a crime is evidence of guilt." "Being in a gang means that you are guilty of anything that gang does, even if you have no part in it."
You get the idea, these people were so out there, they made Torquemada (Spanish inquisitor, for those who don't know, or never saw History of the World Part I) look reasonable by comparison.
So, it got me to thinking, do any of those right wingers believe that Tom Delay must be guilty? I'm sure they don't, but he is an indicted felon. A grand jury of disinterested citizens has found probable cause that he committed a crime, even after being presented with any exculpatory evidence (I'm sure right wingers will now loudly protest that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich, which I don't dispute, but hey, am I going to be the looney liberal to suggest that the system is weighted against criminal defendants? No, I'll leave that to the right wingers right now).
I wish that I had thought to ask these potential jurors this question.
I did get a nice couple of lines in, though. You see, during investigations into police misconduct, or any time there is an officer involved shooting, and Internal Affairs wants to question the officers, they have to read them their rights first (never mind that they're not in custody). The officers are then given COMPLETE IMMUNITY on what they say, so that it cannot be used against them in any way in a criminal matter, so that they can investigate the potential misconduct. This means, practically speaking, that the police can rarely be charged with crimes after they've given these "compelled statements." How many other jobs do you have where you can keep your job and assert your 5th Amendment right to remain silent in the face of potential prosecution? None that I know of. So, if all criminal defendants who don't testify, or assert their 5th amendment rights, are guilty, does this mean that all cops who assert their rights and then have to give compelled testimony are also guilty of the underlying crime they're refusing to speak of?
I asked this of those obstinate jurors, and you could see them crumbling behind the walls of congnitive dissonance that they've hidden behind. You could almost hear them muttering to themselves "Must...watch...Fox...News...NOW!!!"
You get the idea, these people were so out there, they made Torquemada (Spanish inquisitor, for those who don't know, or never saw History of the World Part I) look reasonable by comparison.
So, it got me to thinking, do any of those right wingers believe that Tom Delay must be guilty? I'm sure they don't, but he is an indicted felon. A grand jury of disinterested citizens has found probable cause that he committed a crime, even after being presented with any exculpatory evidence (I'm sure right wingers will now loudly protest that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich, which I don't dispute, but hey, am I going to be the looney liberal to suggest that the system is weighted against criminal defendants? No, I'll leave that to the right wingers right now).
I wish that I had thought to ask these potential jurors this question.
I did get a nice couple of lines in, though. You see, during investigations into police misconduct, or any time there is an officer involved shooting, and Internal Affairs wants to question the officers, they have to read them their rights first (never mind that they're not in custody). The officers are then given COMPLETE IMMUNITY on what they say, so that it cannot be used against them in any way in a criminal matter, so that they can investigate the potential misconduct. This means, practically speaking, that the police can rarely be charged with crimes after they've given these "compelled statements." How many other jobs do you have where you can keep your job and assert your 5th Amendment right to remain silent in the face of potential prosecution? None that I know of. So, if all criminal defendants who don't testify, or assert their 5th amendment rights, are guilty, does this mean that all cops who assert their rights and then have to give compelled testimony are also guilty of the underlying crime they're refusing to speak of?
I asked this of those obstinate jurors, and you could see them crumbling behind the walls of congnitive dissonance that they've hidden behind. You could almost hear them muttering to themselves "Must...watch...Fox...News...NOW!!!"
Saturday, October 15, 2005
The Death Penalty in Los Angeles
This applies directly to me, so I'll be the first (that I know of) to write about it.
The LA District Attorney's office is getting out of control in the number and type of cases that they seek the death penalty on. There has been a change leadership on the Special Circumstances Committee (the group that decides whether to seek the death penalty or not on special circumstance cases), and the new leadership is apparently committed to seeking the death penalty more frequently, in line with their political beliefs that more people should be sentenced to death as a matter of course.
The most egregious example of this is the case of Juan Alvarez, who tried to kill himself by putting his car in the path of an oncoming train. Whatever you may think about Alvarez and his admittedly stupid actions, how they merit a potential death sentence is completely beyond me. Considering that the death penalty is meant for the worst of the worst, for those who are just so evil and depraved that they have forfeited their right to live in even the indecent society of prison, how can a person who, by all accounts, only wanted to harm himself, be put in that category. How many times do cars get hit by trains without causing anything more than a few bumps or bruises for the people on the train, while killing the driver of the vehicle. The fact that this one time the unthinkable happened does not in any way merit a death sentence. This is the intersection of law and politics at it's worse (and is an argument for doing away with the death penalty altogether - in that having political considerations decide whether someone lives or dies is reprehensible).
But, that case is not alone. In my conversations with many people around the courthouse, DAs and defense lawyers alike, I have discerned a trend that the death penalty is being sought in much greater numbers with the change of the committee. Cases that in the past would never merit seeking death, let alone receive a death sentence, are now being treated as death cases (whether they actually succeed in getting death in many of these cases remains to be seen, and won't be known for another year or two).
Now, let's say you like the death penalty, and think that it isn't sought frequently enough - fair enough. But, let's see this through. I have one death penalty case right now, as do a few of my collegues. This death case has begun to crowd out my other cases, in that it will begin to take more and more time to prepare for than if the prosecution had just sought a punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole. In fact, if they were not seeking death, I would not even be on the case - the only reason I got on it was to work with another person who was already on the case but unable to go it alone. So, at some point, 2 lawyers are going to be working on this case close to full time, preparing for nearly a year for this case to go to trial. What happens to all of my other cases at this time? Well, I will have to have less cases, which means that they will have to go to someone else. But, you can't give too many cases to other people, so we will have to promote more people to felonies to handle these cases. If you promote more people to felonies, you need to train them, which requires resources, and you need to promote them, which means more money. And you need to replace them, which requires more hires. Thus, just because of my one case, perhaps you'll need to hire another 2 or 3 lawyers to pick up the slack.
And that's just one case. The prosecution is seeking death in a bunch more cases than usual. What if they have 10 more death cases in my office than they normally would have? This could mean 20 extra lawyers to pick up the slack. And then you have to deal with the paralegals that need to get hired to pick up the extra work on these cases. Of course, an investigator needs to work on the case, and they will be more tied up on that case than on your typical case, so maybe we'll need a couple more investigators for those cases. And don't forget, we'll have to travel much further afield than normal to investigate penalty, which is a more intensive investigation than just investigating the guilt phase (this is becuase you have to investigate the person's background, their childhood, youth, etc... which means you need to go to where they're from and track down their family, which can often require people to go places around the country, or even overseas). Are you still adding up the costs?
Don't forget about the extra experts that are needed in such a case, just for penalty. You need to look at the organic history of the person (do they have brain damage, mental retardation, other mental, psychological, psychiatric or physiological problems?). This may require things like shrinks, doctors, MRIs, PetScans and other potentially expensive tests. The state (ie - you, the taxpayer) pays for this. The DA's office probably needs extra resources on all of these cases, I don't know first hand, but I can guess extra investigators, attorneys, paralegals, and other resources. They'll also need to conduct their own testing if any of the defense testing shows anything of consequence.
These cases strain the courts more as well. They require more money for things like daily transcripts, longer trials, overtime for court staff to handle the extra work, court reporters charge by the page and per copy, so when you look at long transcripts with at least 3 copies (if there is only one defendant, it goes up more for each extra defendant), you are looking at a lot of money. One court reporter I know made over $10,000 (above and beyond salary, this is for just the transcripts) for transcribing a 3 week/3 defendant prelim. And that wasn't even a death penalty case. I can assure you that the prelim would've been twice as long if it had been a death penalty case (again, you do the math).
I have no idea about the costs of appeal, except to say that they are much more expensive than incarcerating the person for life.
So, let's assume you really want to kill a few more people, rather than put them away in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. In other words, they are already getting a death sentence, the only question is how long before they die, and how naturally or unnaturally they die. Of course, they will probably live for another 20 years before execution, as well. Is it that important that their life ends a few years earlier by the hands of the state that you spend so many extra millions of dollars to do it? So that you can execute someone who was trying to kill themselves on the train tracks?
If you really think it's that important, I suggest you raise your own taxes by a few hundred a month to pay for it, donate that money, it's so important to you. I'm getting some of that money, so thanks in advance.
The LA District Attorney's office is getting out of control in the number and type of cases that they seek the death penalty on. There has been a change leadership on the Special Circumstances Committee (the group that decides whether to seek the death penalty or not on special circumstance cases), and the new leadership is apparently committed to seeking the death penalty more frequently, in line with their political beliefs that more people should be sentenced to death as a matter of course.
The most egregious example of this is the case of Juan Alvarez, who tried to kill himself by putting his car in the path of an oncoming train. Whatever you may think about Alvarez and his admittedly stupid actions, how they merit a potential death sentence is completely beyond me. Considering that the death penalty is meant for the worst of the worst, for those who are just so evil and depraved that they have forfeited their right to live in even the indecent society of prison, how can a person who, by all accounts, only wanted to harm himself, be put in that category. How many times do cars get hit by trains without causing anything more than a few bumps or bruises for the people on the train, while killing the driver of the vehicle. The fact that this one time the unthinkable happened does not in any way merit a death sentence. This is the intersection of law and politics at it's worse (and is an argument for doing away with the death penalty altogether - in that having political considerations decide whether someone lives or dies is reprehensible).
But, that case is not alone. In my conversations with many people around the courthouse, DAs and defense lawyers alike, I have discerned a trend that the death penalty is being sought in much greater numbers with the change of the committee. Cases that in the past would never merit seeking death, let alone receive a death sentence, are now being treated as death cases (whether they actually succeed in getting death in many of these cases remains to be seen, and won't be known for another year or two).
Now, let's say you like the death penalty, and think that it isn't sought frequently enough - fair enough. But, let's see this through. I have one death penalty case right now, as do a few of my collegues. This death case has begun to crowd out my other cases, in that it will begin to take more and more time to prepare for than if the prosecution had just sought a punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole. In fact, if they were not seeking death, I would not even be on the case - the only reason I got on it was to work with another person who was already on the case but unable to go it alone. So, at some point, 2 lawyers are going to be working on this case close to full time, preparing for nearly a year for this case to go to trial. What happens to all of my other cases at this time? Well, I will have to have less cases, which means that they will have to go to someone else. But, you can't give too many cases to other people, so we will have to promote more people to felonies to handle these cases. If you promote more people to felonies, you need to train them, which requires resources, and you need to promote them, which means more money. And you need to replace them, which requires more hires. Thus, just because of my one case, perhaps you'll need to hire another 2 or 3 lawyers to pick up the slack.
And that's just one case. The prosecution is seeking death in a bunch more cases than usual. What if they have 10 more death cases in my office than they normally would have? This could mean 20 extra lawyers to pick up the slack. And then you have to deal with the paralegals that need to get hired to pick up the extra work on these cases. Of course, an investigator needs to work on the case, and they will be more tied up on that case than on your typical case, so maybe we'll need a couple more investigators for those cases. And don't forget, we'll have to travel much further afield than normal to investigate penalty, which is a more intensive investigation than just investigating the guilt phase (this is becuase you have to investigate the person's background, their childhood, youth, etc... which means you need to go to where they're from and track down their family, which can often require people to go places around the country, or even overseas). Are you still adding up the costs?
Don't forget about the extra experts that are needed in such a case, just for penalty. You need to look at the organic history of the person (do they have brain damage, mental retardation, other mental, psychological, psychiatric or physiological problems?). This may require things like shrinks, doctors, MRIs, PetScans and other potentially expensive tests. The state (ie - you, the taxpayer) pays for this. The DA's office probably needs extra resources on all of these cases, I don't know first hand, but I can guess extra investigators, attorneys, paralegals, and other resources. They'll also need to conduct their own testing if any of the defense testing shows anything of consequence.
These cases strain the courts more as well. They require more money for things like daily transcripts, longer trials, overtime for court staff to handle the extra work, court reporters charge by the page and per copy, so when you look at long transcripts with at least 3 copies (if there is only one defendant, it goes up more for each extra defendant), you are looking at a lot of money. One court reporter I know made over $10,000 (above and beyond salary, this is for just the transcripts) for transcribing a 3 week/3 defendant prelim. And that wasn't even a death penalty case. I can assure you that the prelim would've been twice as long if it had been a death penalty case (again, you do the math).
I have no idea about the costs of appeal, except to say that they are much more expensive than incarcerating the person for life.
So, let's assume you really want to kill a few more people, rather than put them away in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. In other words, they are already getting a death sentence, the only question is how long before they die, and how naturally or unnaturally they die. Of course, they will probably live for another 20 years before execution, as well. Is it that important that their life ends a few years earlier by the hands of the state that you spend so many extra millions of dollars to do it? So that you can execute someone who was trying to kill themselves on the train tracks?
If you really think it's that important, I suggest you raise your own taxes by a few hundred a month to pay for it, donate that money, it's so important to you. I'm getting some of that money, so thanks in advance.
Karl Rove in waist chains?
Appearing before the grand jury for the 4th time, not being assured that he's not a target, being pressed about details of his prior inconsistent statements? These are usually signs that someone is about to be indicted. In general, one would not appear before the grand jury without a grant of immunity under such circumstances, but of course, politics is not regular circumstances. So, Karl Rove is virtually required by his high political position to continue to appear for grilling in front of the grand jury (much like Clinton virtually had to appear before the grand jury in the Lewinsky matter).
But, remember what I wrote about a while ago, Conservatives generally don't go to prison any more. They are generally immune from prosecution. My theory why: prosecutors are frequently conservatives, and they have managed to make tough law and order consequences not apply to fellow travelers. In general, they have applied over the years to poor people, especially minorities. Perhaps that is changing these days, what with the extremely long sentences for people like Bernie Ebbers, the Tyco folk, the Adelphia folk (they were hard-core Republicans), and some of the other white collar criminals
The difference here, I think, is that Karl Rove is not a conservative accused of doing a run of the mill crime, he is a Republican operative accused of a crime in the course of his Republican duties, actions that were core to his political activities (in general, he's a slimer, and he was sliming someone here, and probably either went overboard, or lied about his actions). In these situations, I have found that the stink generally stops very low down, and the Republicans have managed to keep the upper folk from getting nailed.
Look at all of the lower lever soldiers who have been imprisoned for torturing detainees. Why has this stink not floated higher to the top (such as to the Secretary of Defense, White House Counsel or Attorney General, all of whom approved tactics that resembled torture and argued that the US was not bound by the Geneva Conventions)? In general, it is because Conservatives have managed to avoid accountability at the top for their actions, keeping the blame down low, and even then, protecting their own. I've written before about Oliver North and John Poindexter getting off on technicalities (and the rest of the lot being pardoned anyways), Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction somehow still avoiding prosecution, and other situations.
Compare this with the way in which tiny little controversies managed to become impeachable offenses during a liberal presidential administration, and the difference is stark. All of the original basis for independant counsel in the Clinton administration turned out to be spurious, and Clinton almost went down (pun intended) for lying about a BJ. Compare this with what has not even garnered a special prosecutor in this administration, and the comparison is stark.
As I've also mentioned, conservatives have no problem utilizing those technicalities they decry poor defendants from using. This is how Rush makes common cause with the ACLU in arguing his (no longer "so called") right to privacy in trying to keep his medical records out of the hands of prosecutors in Florida. I can assure you that Rove and Libby, if indicted, will allay themselves of the full panalopy of their rights, no matter how much they have tried to have judges appointed who seek to undermine those rights. And, ironically, judge will give far greater scrutiny to those rights when examining their case.
As I said, all in all, it looks highly unlikely that we will ever see Karl Rove in the waist chains that once adorned the reporter who refused to talk, or people like Susan McDougal, who refused to cooperate with Ken Starr (knowing, by the way, that he only sought her testimony to force her to say what he wanted or charge her with perjury for not following the script). And so it goes, Conservative law and order values tend to get flushed down the toilet when applied to Conservatives (the first US Supreme Court case to cast doubt on the mandatory minimum sentences that were so harsh to minor drug offenders was not a case that shocked the conscience such as 20 years for possession of acid, but those conservative heros Stacy Koon and Lawrence Powell, who were given sentences lower than the mandatory minimums for beating Rodney King, and the conservative Supreme Court, for the first time agreed that the mandatory minimums were perhaps not always mandatory).
It is, of course, hypocrisy at its worse, but it is the intersection of law and politics, American style.
But, remember what I wrote about a while ago, Conservatives generally don't go to prison any more. They are generally immune from prosecution. My theory why: prosecutors are frequently conservatives, and they have managed to make tough law and order consequences not apply to fellow travelers. In general, they have applied over the years to poor people, especially minorities. Perhaps that is changing these days, what with the extremely long sentences for people like Bernie Ebbers, the Tyco folk, the Adelphia folk (they were hard-core Republicans), and some of the other white collar criminals
The difference here, I think, is that Karl Rove is not a conservative accused of doing a run of the mill crime, he is a Republican operative accused of a crime in the course of his Republican duties, actions that were core to his political activities (in general, he's a slimer, and he was sliming someone here, and probably either went overboard, or lied about his actions). In these situations, I have found that the stink generally stops very low down, and the Republicans have managed to keep the upper folk from getting nailed.
Look at all of the lower lever soldiers who have been imprisoned for torturing detainees. Why has this stink not floated higher to the top (such as to the Secretary of Defense, White House Counsel or Attorney General, all of whom approved tactics that resembled torture and argued that the US was not bound by the Geneva Conventions)? In general, it is because Conservatives have managed to avoid accountability at the top for their actions, keeping the blame down low, and even then, protecting their own. I've written before about Oliver North and John Poindexter getting off on technicalities (and the rest of the lot being pardoned anyways), Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction somehow still avoiding prosecution, and other situations.
Compare this with the way in which tiny little controversies managed to become impeachable offenses during a liberal presidential administration, and the difference is stark. All of the original basis for independant counsel in the Clinton administration turned out to be spurious, and Clinton almost went down (pun intended) for lying about a BJ. Compare this with what has not even garnered a special prosecutor in this administration, and the comparison is stark.
As I've also mentioned, conservatives have no problem utilizing those technicalities they decry poor defendants from using. This is how Rush makes common cause with the ACLU in arguing his (no longer "so called") right to privacy in trying to keep his medical records out of the hands of prosecutors in Florida. I can assure you that Rove and Libby, if indicted, will allay themselves of the full panalopy of their rights, no matter how much they have tried to have judges appointed who seek to undermine those rights. And, ironically, judge will give far greater scrutiny to those rights when examining their case.
As I said, all in all, it looks highly unlikely that we will ever see Karl Rove in the waist chains that once adorned the reporter who refused to talk, or people like Susan McDougal, who refused to cooperate with Ken Starr (knowing, by the way, that he only sought her testimony to force her to say what he wanted or charge her with perjury for not following the script). And so it goes, Conservative law and order values tend to get flushed down the toilet when applied to Conservatives (the first US Supreme Court case to cast doubt on the mandatory minimum sentences that were so harsh to minor drug offenders was not a case that shocked the conscience such as 20 years for possession of acid, but those conservative heros Stacy Koon and Lawrence Powell, who were given sentences lower than the mandatory minimums for beating Rodney King, and the conservative Supreme Court, for the first time agreed that the mandatory minimums were perhaps not always mandatory).
It is, of course, hypocrisy at its worse, but it is the intersection of law and politics, American style.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Back in Action
Welcome me back everyone, because I'm back in action. Don't ask me where I've been of late, because I have no clue. Actually, that's not entirely true. I have been very busy at work over the last month and a half, and I have been in trial for over a week in a very serious case where I feel my client should walk. I also think that if I give too many details right now, I'll get outed. So far, I've been figured out by a few people around the office. They've kept it quiet, but I know, sooner or later, it'll become general knowledge.
So today, my question is: why anonymity, and does it matter.
Obviosly I have my views on this, since I've kept myself anonymous for this long, and work a bit to keep it that way. I generally feel that being anonymous, it gives me greater freedom to spout off my opinions. Not complete freedom though. Obviously, since I can be figured out, I have to show some discretion over what I say. I can't go and reveal client confidences that would make a difference and that could be traced to a specific client. However, being anonymous, it gives me greater freedom to say something like "my client in a recent murder case said...." It would be pretty hard for that to trace back to a specific client (as long as the comment wasn't too specific). It gives me freedom to criticize generic DAs without revealing who they are. A long while back I was in trial on a special circumstance murder case and railed against the DA at length. If I wasn't anonymous, that would immediately trace back to the DA, and could possibly harm my client.
On the other hand, keeping anonymous has been difficult. I can't be too specific about a case that I've handled, and I can't be too specific about where I am. Otherwise, it will be figured out pretty quickly (even the general clues that I've dropped over the years have resulted in a couple of people figuring me out - but they're friends, so they're not saying anything).
I like being able to speak freely and not worry about what people are thinking about me, as well as what they are saying about the blog and the things I write when I do so. Perhaps I don't like drawing attention to myself, and that would keep me from jumping front/center with attention to who I am.
I am curious about how revealing themselves has worked out for people who previously were anonymous and are now revealed, and for those who were never anonymous in the first place. People such as Patterico work in my field (perhaps very close to my home????) and have come out of anonymity, I'm curious how it affects him (he gets far more hits than I do, and he has branched out as a general conservative political blogger).
I also wonder if my anonymity has kept me imprisoned in this role of discussing mostly legal/criminal issues, and if coming out frees people from some of those constraints. I've received in general very poor reaction to discussion about off-topic issues, perhaps because people either don't think much of my opinions, or don't come to this blog for that purpose. I have a lot of strong views on a lot of different subjects, but have mostly kept them to myself on this blog in part because I'm only seen as "Public Defender Dude."
Anyways, for my regular host of readers who have stuck by me through my long hiatus, I thank you. Pass the word along that I'm back, so feel free to check back soon, and you'll see more rantings from PD Dude.
So today, my question is: why anonymity, and does it matter.
Obviosly I have my views on this, since I've kept myself anonymous for this long, and work a bit to keep it that way. I generally feel that being anonymous, it gives me greater freedom to spout off my opinions. Not complete freedom though. Obviously, since I can be figured out, I have to show some discretion over what I say. I can't go and reveal client confidences that would make a difference and that could be traced to a specific client. However, being anonymous, it gives me greater freedom to say something like "my client in a recent murder case said...." It would be pretty hard for that to trace back to a specific client (as long as the comment wasn't too specific). It gives me freedom to criticize generic DAs without revealing who they are. A long while back I was in trial on a special circumstance murder case and railed against the DA at length. If I wasn't anonymous, that would immediately trace back to the DA, and could possibly harm my client.
On the other hand, keeping anonymous has been difficult. I can't be too specific about a case that I've handled, and I can't be too specific about where I am. Otherwise, it will be figured out pretty quickly (even the general clues that I've dropped over the years have resulted in a couple of people figuring me out - but they're friends, so they're not saying anything).
I like being able to speak freely and not worry about what people are thinking about me, as well as what they are saying about the blog and the things I write when I do so. Perhaps I don't like drawing attention to myself, and that would keep me from jumping front/center with attention to who I am.
I am curious about how revealing themselves has worked out for people who previously were anonymous and are now revealed, and for those who were never anonymous in the first place. People such as Patterico work in my field (perhaps very close to my home????) and have come out of anonymity, I'm curious how it affects him (he gets far more hits than I do, and he has branched out as a general conservative political blogger).
I also wonder if my anonymity has kept me imprisoned in this role of discussing mostly legal/criminal issues, and if coming out frees people from some of those constraints. I've received in general very poor reaction to discussion about off-topic issues, perhaps because people either don't think much of my opinions, or don't come to this blog for that purpose. I have a lot of strong views on a lot of different subjects, but have mostly kept them to myself on this blog in part because I'm only seen as "Public Defender Dude."
Anyways, for my regular host of readers who have stuck by me through my long hiatus, I thank you. Pass the word along that I'm back, so feel free to check back soon, and you'll see more rantings from PD Dude.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Good Luck Katrina Victims
My heart goes out to all those living in the anarchy of the mess left behind by Hurricane Katrina. It is a real message, much like the Tsunami that hit Southeast Asia last December, that mother nature always laughs last, and loudest. Just when we think we can tame the environment, it always seems to come biting back at us far harder than we can imagine.
I highly encourage anyone to give money to the Red Cross for disaster relief. You can donate through their website. Please donate something, even if it's just a small amount. Everything adds up, and these people need it in a bad way.
To all my readers in the hurricane zone (as well as anyone else there, of course, but they won't be reading this), my thoughts and prayers are with you.
Moveon.org has a great concept they've put together, called Hurricane Housing, where people offer up housing, or people in need put in requests. Seems like a sensible notion, I hope it's working. If you live in the area, think about trying it out (I certainly would if I lived anywhere near there).
Good luck!!!
I highly encourage anyone to give money to the Red Cross for disaster relief. You can donate through their website. Please donate something, even if it's just a small amount. Everything adds up, and these people need it in a bad way.
To all my readers in the hurricane zone (as well as anyone else there, of course, but they won't be reading this), my thoughts and prayers are with you.
Moveon.org has a great concept they've put together, called Hurricane Housing, where people offer up housing, or people in need put in requests. Seems like a sensible notion, I hope it's working. If you live in the area, think about trying it out (I certainly would if I lived anywhere near there).
Good luck!!!
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
The US continues it's march towards a police state
The love affair between the police, the tools of repression and many citizens in this country continues apace. For years I have listened to conservatives talk about how we have too many rights in this country (except for the right to bear arms, of course), and this cry got even louder after 9/11. To be fair, there has emerged a vocal minority of conservatives that have begun to share common cause with groups like the ACLU and resist the further erosion of rights in this country, but they are a very small minority in the party (note how the Republicans in Congress will probably overwhelmingly make the Patriot Act permanent, despite misgivings from many Democrats and a few Republicans).
The latest example of the over use of the police and paramilitary to repress took place in Utah, where the police brought in over 100 police officers, including the SWAT team, to take down a rave for a lack of a permit (of course, they had a permit, but the police reasoned that plenty of crimes were taking place on that private property, so the love of private property had to give way to ruthless law and order).
There is even apparently a video of this event as well, where the police use police dogs, tear gas, and profanities (what happened to Mormons not swearing?) while breaking up the event and cracking a few heads (alright, I don't know that any heads were actually cracked, but you know what I mean). The police chief, despite the video proof, went on TV to say he saw the video, approved of the actions, and that there was no force used and no profanity, but that what happened needed to happen to these people.
There was apparently some kind of a whiff (pardon the pun) of political repression going on here, there was talk that this was a big anti-Bush rave in advance of his most recent speech there. Here is a quote that I got from Objective Justice (I will freely concede that this appears to be 3rd generation information, I've tried to get more information on the subject unsucessfully up to now, but certainly this fits in with the MO of the Bush administration in trying to dampen down dissent, such as the fake Secret Service person expelling people from a public Social Security event wiht Bush in Colorado because they had anti-Bush bumper stickers on their car, and later tried to justify it. That is only one of numerous attempts to stifle dissent that the Bush administration or their lackeys have engaged in). Here's the quote:
I have to say, I can't imagine the police ever going in to an event that's mostly Republican or conservative with such force. This is much more force than was used to remove Israeli settlers (although they are conservatives too, so that's no surprise - police are the same the world over, apparently). I know, I know, Republican-oriented events probably don't have much drug use at them - at least openly, so there wouldn't be the call to crash it like this. But really, a bunch of 15 to 25 year olds smoking pot and doing exstacy, do you really need 100 SWAT team members?
Of course, the law and order conservative types in Utah probably applaud this action. But, according to the accounts of the partygoers, exactly how are you protecting children (from drug use, of course) by coming in there with attack dogs, AK-47s and M-16s, tear gas, and beating people? And why did they need to confiscate so many cameras, or at least force people to turn them off? Whenever you see that stuff, it begins to look like the Condaleeza Rice visit to the Sudan, where reporters were jostled and roughed up (in her presence) after asking difficult questions of the Sudanese president.
This goes back to my previous posts about zero tolerance and things of the like. This take no prisoners, brook no dissent, allow no discussion attitude of police and other authoritarian leaders is truly disturbing. It's so ironic that as we try to make the rest of the world more free, we aren't only reaching out to them trying to pull them closer to us, we're also moving a little closer to them in our attempt to help narrow the divide. If this is narrowing the divide, I'd like to keep the gulf much wider.
The latest example of the over use of the police and paramilitary to repress took place in Utah, where the police brought in over 100 police officers, including the SWAT team, to take down a rave for a lack of a permit (of course, they had a permit, but the police reasoned that plenty of crimes were taking place on that private property, so the love of private property had to give way to ruthless law and order).
There is even apparently a video of this event as well, where the police use police dogs, tear gas, and profanities (what happened to Mormons not swearing?) while breaking up the event and cracking a few heads (alright, I don't know that any heads were actually cracked, but you know what I mean). The police chief, despite the video proof, went on TV to say he saw the video, approved of the actions, and that there was no force used and no profanity, but that what happened needed to happen to these people.
There was apparently some kind of a whiff (pardon the pun) of political repression going on here, there was talk that this was a big anti-Bush rave in advance of his most recent speech there. Here is a quote that I got from Objective Justice (I will freely concede that this appears to be 3rd generation information, I've tried to get more information on the subject unsucessfully up to now, but certainly this fits in with the MO of the Bush administration in trying to dampen down dissent, such as the fake Secret Service person expelling people from a public Social Security event wiht Bush in Colorado because they had anti-Bush bumper stickers on their car, and later tried to justify it. That is only one of numerous attempts to stifle dissent that the Bush administration or their lackeys have engaged in). Here's the quote:
A source inside the Utah government reports that this action was undertaken out of fear that the Rave would be used to rally support for the protest against Bush's upcoming Utah visit.
I have to say, I can't imagine the police ever going in to an event that's mostly Republican or conservative with such force. This is much more force than was used to remove Israeli settlers (although they are conservatives too, so that's no surprise - police are the same the world over, apparently). I know, I know, Republican-oriented events probably don't have much drug use at them - at least openly, so there wouldn't be the call to crash it like this. But really, a bunch of 15 to 25 year olds smoking pot and doing exstacy, do you really need 100 SWAT team members?
Of course, the law and order conservative types in Utah probably applaud this action. But, according to the accounts of the partygoers, exactly how are you protecting children (from drug use, of course) by coming in there with attack dogs, AK-47s and M-16s, tear gas, and beating people? And why did they need to confiscate so many cameras, or at least force people to turn them off? Whenever you see that stuff, it begins to look like the Condaleeza Rice visit to the Sudan, where reporters were jostled and roughed up (in her presence) after asking difficult questions of the Sudanese president.
This goes back to my previous posts about zero tolerance and things of the like. This take no prisoners, brook no dissent, allow no discussion attitude of police and other authoritarian leaders is truly disturbing. It's so ironic that as we try to make the rest of the world more free, we aren't only reaching out to them trying to pull them closer to us, we're also moving a little closer to them in our attempt to help narrow the divide. If this is narrowing the divide, I'd like to keep the gulf much wider.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Off on a technicality
Doesn't it seem that the only people who ever get off on technicalities, and aren't the slightest bit ashamed of it, are conservative Republicans? Think about it, they spend their time railing against the 4th amendment (the Republicans in Congress in 1996 once voted down the language of the 4th amendment in a crime bill, arguing that it was anti-law enforcement). They talk about this being a criminal bill of rights, how the Courts have created a right to privacy that doesn't exist, that it only allows criminals to get off on a technicality, all of these other idiotic anti-constitutional things.
Until it applies to them.
I really should start a website dedicated - much like the chickenhawk database of pro-war Republicans who managed to somehow miss serving in the Vietnam War - to crusading Republicans who talk tough on crime and against the Court's protecting people's rights to privacy, while at the same time shamelessly invoking as many of those rights as possible to ensure that their own crimes go unpunished. All so that they can go and rail some more about the system and how it favors criminals who get off on technicalities (like them, but we don't need to mention that now, do we?).
Of the most well-known that roll of my tongue without thinking long and hard, I come up with the classics, like Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter (cases reversed by the same judges who appointed Kenneth Starr as "independent" counsel due to potential tainting of their immunized testimony before Congress), Kay Bailey Hutchison (she had her illegal fundraising case dismissed when the Judge decided to rule on her suppression motion one item at a time, and the prosecution decided not to proceed that way), but none can compete for hubris with Rush Limbaugh.
The latest has Rush making new efforts to derail the prosecution into his doctor shopping case (do you think he'll get 25 years like that other guy in Florida did?). Read the article to find out all of the machinations Rush is using to avoid responsibility for his illegal acts, something he regularly accuses liberals of doing while bashing them on his show.
Do you think he'll ever concede the cognitive dissonance? Don't bet on it. He'll still keep bashing his liberals, and his audience, who still believes that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and had WMD, will continue to believe Rush is a martyr being unfairly targeted, and that there are too many laws too lenient on criminals (not Rush, though).
Disgusting.
Until it applies to them.
I really should start a website dedicated - much like the chickenhawk database of pro-war Republicans who managed to somehow miss serving in the Vietnam War - to crusading Republicans who talk tough on crime and against the Court's protecting people's rights to privacy, while at the same time shamelessly invoking as many of those rights as possible to ensure that their own crimes go unpunished. All so that they can go and rail some more about the system and how it favors criminals who get off on technicalities (like them, but we don't need to mention that now, do we?).
Of the most well-known that roll of my tongue without thinking long and hard, I come up with the classics, like Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter (cases reversed by the same judges who appointed Kenneth Starr as "independent" counsel due to potential tainting of their immunized testimony before Congress), Kay Bailey Hutchison (she had her illegal fundraising case dismissed when the Judge decided to rule on her suppression motion one item at a time, and the prosecution decided not to proceed that way), but none can compete for hubris with Rush Limbaugh.
The latest has Rush making new efforts to derail the prosecution into his doctor shopping case (do you think he'll get 25 years like that other guy in Florida did?). Read the article to find out all of the machinations Rush is using to avoid responsibility for his illegal acts, something he regularly accuses liberals of doing while bashing them on his show.
Do you think he'll ever concede the cognitive dissonance? Don't bet on it. He'll still keep bashing his liberals, and his audience, who still believes that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and had WMD, will continue to believe Rush is a martyr being unfairly targeted, and that there are too many laws too lenient on criminals (not Rush, though).
Disgusting.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
PD Dude Guest Blogging
A big thank you to Sean Sirrine, over at Objective Justice, who has kindly invited me to guest blog on his site. To start with, I have cross posted my previous post on his blog. However, his blog is certainly worth checking out, especially the post in which he offers up a review of the legal blogosphere, including some insightful (even if I may not totally agree with them) comments about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Go check his site out.
Tune in and drop out?
Sometimes I feel like it is time for normal people in the US to just drop out of the general society. This week has brought 3 stories that make me wonder if now is perhaps the time to do just that, and whether our country is really starting to be taken over by the loonies. 2 are criminal law stories, the other is an educational/political story.
In the last couple of generations, the only people who have dropped out of society in large numbers have been hippies and Christian fundamentalists (alright, I'm sure that there are other groups that have as well, these come to mind as the 2 largest and most well-known groups). Christian fundamentalists have jumped back into society in very strong numbers, and now I'm wondering if it's not time for those of us who are not Christian fundamentalist to drop out.
Consider.
In Utah, an 8 year old boy was arrested after telling his mother that his 14 year old female babysitter (for once, a female pedophile - you don't see that happen much!) dared him to touch her breast. When the mother told the police, the DA FILED CHARGES AGAINST HIM!!!! That's right, they filed charges against him for lewd conduct!!! What kind of a nutty society does that? The police said that he was a "willing participant!"
What does this mean? Well,if he's a willing participant, then how can it be lewd conduct, unless he's somehow a victim of it? If he's not a victim, what is exactly is lewd about it? What kind of fundamentalist idiots (I'm just guessing because it involves sex and Utah) would consider charging an 8 year old on these facts? Does this mean that in every child molestation where the victim doesn't resist, the victim is actually a co-participant, and therefore a defendant?
What kind of a society will this make? Will this make us better, or worse? For me, it says that perhaps it's time to retreat behind my liberal walls away from conservative society that condones such idiocy. You don't go to the "authorities" to resolve disputes anymore, since the authorities will mess them up worse than they were before you went to them. The authorities are the problem. What parent will every bring their kids to the police complaining about something happening to them if they think their kid may be arrested.
Of course, I wrote last week about the case of the teenager charged with murder and serving in CYA until he's 25 (incidentally, his mother finally spoke publicly about why the judge and DA screwed up so badly on this one, read it here), and here's another one.
An 11 year old girl was arrested, jailed for 5 days, and charged with felony assault (facing 5 years in the California Youth Authority) for throwing a rock at a boy. Apparently, while in her yard with her younger siblings, a few boys came by and threw water balloons and rocks at her, striking her in the face a couple of times. She threw a rock back, hit him in the face, cutting him (not terribly, mind you, he'll be just fine, and probably will think twice before picking on some girl again). The police came, spoke with him and his friends, and arrested the girl and hauled her away. This happened in Fresno, in rural central California. The girl is from a poor hispanic family, and the family charges that she is being treated this way in part because poor hispanics are far easier to mistreat than rich white people (no debate from me there, I saw far worse growing up, and no one arrested, but maybe that's due more to changing times, but I still think Beverly Hills youth get a greater pass).
Again, this makes me want to scream. Of course, the mayor of Fresno applauds this, it's just so easy to want to get tough with them violent out of control teens and poor folk swamping our country, but please! What is going on here. What is happening to our society when no one says enough, and the mayor applauds the police for doing this. How about saying to the parents of both kids - "hey, control your kids." But, it is so seductive to moralize, to talk about evil, to gleefully punish and lock up, to sermonize that evil must be met by harsh measures, with no sympathy for those who would fall off the path of the righteous.
This last part is not law related, so if you get tired of me talking about non-law related things, skip it, but.....
The final straw that makes me think it's just time to retreat into my own little world of normal people who believe in simple things like, say, science, is our own president's little comment that he thinks that evolution and intelligent design deserve equal play in the schools, that we should teach both, show both sides of the issue. This is so crazy on so many levels, that it would require a book to say them all, but I'll try just a few.
First of all, intelligent design isn't a theory, it's about poking holes in another theory - evolution. Now, poking holes in theories is something that I'm rather fond of, it's sort of my profession, but I don't substitute my profession for actually proving something. I'm just trying to create a reasonable doubt about that theory, not trying to substitute it for what may be the truth, or may not be quite believable as the truth. All intelligent design people try to do is create doubt about evolution - fine enough - but just so that they can substitute their completely non-scientific theory - that it's all bible based - in it's place. That's not teaching science.
Bush also says that people should hear both sides, and I certainly don't disagree with that - but NOT IN A SCIENCE CLASS!!! Debate the issue in civics classes, raise the issue that there are missing pieces of the evolution theory in the science class, but what are you saying? Well, we can't prove beyond all doubt that this is the way that things happened, so we're going to teach you about Genesis right now in your biology class for the next 6 weeks. ARRRRHHHHHHHHH!!!!! What kind of a nutty country do I live in?
Bush says local schools should be able to teach whatever they want. Well, didn't he push No Child Left Behind so that there would be national standards? Let's face it, no evolution, no biology, no organic chemistry, pretty much none of the advances that we've had for the last, oh, century or so. Is that progress? Is that going to help us compete with the Chinese and the Indians in getting good jobs?
So, at times like this, I really feel it is time to get together with normal people the country over, and form our own school districts, our own police forces, our own institutions, so that we can push all this wackiness out of our lives. It really does drive me crazy.
In the last couple of generations, the only people who have dropped out of society in large numbers have been hippies and Christian fundamentalists (alright, I'm sure that there are other groups that have as well, these come to mind as the 2 largest and most well-known groups). Christian fundamentalists have jumped back into society in very strong numbers, and now I'm wondering if it's not time for those of us who are not Christian fundamentalist to drop out.
Consider.
In Utah, an 8 year old boy was arrested after telling his mother that his 14 year old female babysitter (for once, a female pedophile - you don't see that happen much!) dared him to touch her breast. When the mother told the police, the DA FILED CHARGES AGAINST HIM!!!! That's right, they filed charges against him for lewd conduct!!! What kind of a nutty society does that? The police said that he was a "willing participant!"
What does this mean? Well,if he's a willing participant, then how can it be lewd conduct, unless he's somehow a victim of it? If he's not a victim, what is exactly is lewd about it? What kind of fundamentalist idiots (I'm just guessing because it involves sex and Utah) would consider charging an 8 year old on these facts? Does this mean that in every child molestation where the victim doesn't resist, the victim is actually a co-participant, and therefore a defendant?
What kind of a society will this make? Will this make us better, or worse? For me, it says that perhaps it's time to retreat behind my liberal walls away from conservative society that condones such idiocy. You don't go to the "authorities" to resolve disputes anymore, since the authorities will mess them up worse than they were before you went to them. The authorities are the problem. What parent will every bring their kids to the police complaining about something happening to them if they think their kid may be arrested.
Of course, I wrote last week about the case of the teenager charged with murder and serving in CYA until he's 25 (incidentally, his mother finally spoke publicly about why the judge and DA screwed up so badly on this one, read it here), and here's another one.
An 11 year old girl was arrested, jailed for 5 days, and charged with felony assault (facing 5 years in the California Youth Authority) for throwing a rock at a boy. Apparently, while in her yard with her younger siblings, a few boys came by and threw water balloons and rocks at her, striking her in the face a couple of times. She threw a rock back, hit him in the face, cutting him (not terribly, mind you, he'll be just fine, and probably will think twice before picking on some girl again). The police came, spoke with him and his friends, and arrested the girl and hauled her away. This happened in Fresno, in rural central California. The girl is from a poor hispanic family, and the family charges that she is being treated this way in part because poor hispanics are far easier to mistreat than rich white people (no debate from me there, I saw far worse growing up, and no one arrested, but maybe that's due more to changing times, but I still think Beverly Hills youth get a greater pass).
Again, this makes me want to scream. Of course, the mayor of Fresno applauds this, it's just so easy to want to get tough with them violent out of control teens and poor folk swamping our country, but please! What is going on here. What is happening to our society when no one says enough, and the mayor applauds the police for doing this. How about saying to the parents of both kids - "hey, control your kids." But, it is so seductive to moralize, to talk about evil, to gleefully punish and lock up, to sermonize that evil must be met by harsh measures, with no sympathy for those who would fall off the path of the righteous.
This last part is not law related, so if you get tired of me talking about non-law related things, skip it, but.....
The final straw that makes me think it's just time to retreat into my own little world of normal people who believe in simple things like, say, science, is our own president's little comment that he thinks that evolution and intelligent design deserve equal play in the schools, that we should teach both, show both sides of the issue. This is so crazy on so many levels, that it would require a book to say them all, but I'll try just a few.
First of all, intelligent design isn't a theory, it's about poking holes in another theory - evolution. Now, poking holes in theories is something that I'm rather fond of, it's sort of my profession, but I don't substitute my profession for actually proving something. I'm just trying to create a reasonable doubt about that theory, not trying to substitute it for what may be the truth, or may not be quite believable as the truth. All intelligent design people try to do is create doubt about evolution - fine enough - but just so that they can substitute their completely non-scientific theory - that it's all bible based - in it's place. That's not teaching science.
Bush also says that people should hear both sides, and I certainly don't disagree with that - but NOT IN A SCIENCE CLASS!!! Debate the issue in civics classes, raise the issue that there are missing pieces of the evolution theory in the science class, but what are you saying? Well, we can't prove beyond all doubt that this is the way that things happened, so we're going to teach you about Genesis right now in your biology class for the next 6 weeks. ARRRRHHHHHHHHH!!!!! What kind of a nutty country do I live in?
Bush says local schools should be able to teach whatever they want. Well, didn't he push No Child Left Behind so that there would be national standards? Let's face it, no evolution, no biology, no organic chemistry, pretty much none of the advances that we've had for the last, oh, century or so. Is that progress? Is that going to help us compete with the Chinese and the Indians in getting good jobs?
So, at times like this, I really feel it is time to get together with normal people the country over, and form our own school districts, our own police forces, our own institutions, so that we can push all this wackiness out of our lives. It really does drive me crazy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)