And a Silver Star for Prison Nurseries!

There is just so much wrong with this Northern Ohio editorial about a report on incarcerated women:

The report, released Thursday by the National Women's Law Center and the Rebecca Project for Human Rights, analyzes policies in three areas — prenatal care, shackling of pregnant women during childbirth, and community-based alternatives to incarceration enabling mothers to be with their children.

Only one state, Pennsylvania, received an A. Ohio received a C, scoring a D in prenatal care, a D in shackling policies and an A in community-based alternatives. Ohio also earned a B for its prison nurseries.

Let's put aside the awfulness of reading a sentence that "also" gives a letter grade to a prison nursery system and discuss the "alternatives to incarceration." Here's an alternative: let's try eliminating mandatory minimums:

As a backdrop to its findings, the report noted the number of women in prison — more than 115,000 as of 2009 — has risen at a higher rate than that of men since the introduction of mandatory sentencing policies for many drug offenses. It said most of the women are nonviolent, first-time offenders, and about two-thirds have at least one child under 18. (emphasis mine)

Put two and two together: legislative overreach into the judicial branch has authorized the government to put shackles on non-violent first-time offenders giving birth to children. In what bizarro world is this considered humane? What kind of society does this to a woman?

Well, the News-Herald has an original idea to prevent these situations: Just say "no":

While we support greater accountability and consistency, and while we don't feel women should be shackled to the extent they suffer lasting hip and back injuries while giving birth, as an Arkansas women alleges in a lawsuit, we feel the better way for mothers to avoid these problems is simply to stay out of prison in the first place.

Certainly a pregnant woman's health — and the health of her child — should be accounted for, but ultimately, incarcerated mothers are in the situation they're in because they committed a crime — for which they knew there would be consequences. (emphases added; smug contempt for justice in original.)

Shorter News-Herald: Well, so long as the shackles allow certain leeway so as to prevent injury, we see nothing wrong with treating a woman giving birth with less respect than we would give an animal in a zoo.

The 'crime ergo punishment' argument is as weak as it is tired. Yes, if you commit a crime, you can expect punishment if caught. This does not mean that any and all punishments are acceptable for any given crime.

There is a genuine and disturbing disconnect in this country between those who believe in blind justice, as I do, and those who believe that law and order should be blind to justice.

Photo courtesy of Jane Evelyn Atwood; used without permission.

That someone is labeled a "convict" or a "criminal" is not license to treat them inhumanely. This is even more true for those who have violated laws that are themselves unjust--as most of our drug laws and sentencing laws are.

bellum medicamenti delenda est.

Burying the Lede

So I'm doing my usual morning news round-up for work, checking out the major papers' headlines and features, and when I get to the LA Times, I come across, "L.A. County sheriff says budget cuts have slowed agency's analysis of drug evidence."

Now, for those who don't share my opinions regarding legalization may read this and just think that Los Angeles needs to get its budgetary house in order (which, of course, it does). But at the end of the story, where many people never manage to reach (such is the fate of most news stories), are these troubling revelations (my emphasis):

Sheriff's officials say cost-saving measures have put them on track to meet their budget-reduction goals — but not without sacrifice. Restrictions on overtime, for example, were shown last month to have significantly slowed fingerprint collection and analysis, often resulting in the destruction of potentially vital evidence.

The lag has delayed dozens of homicide investigations. It's also forced burglary victims to wait longer to have their homes or cars fingerprinted. In May, more than 120 burglary victims decided they couldn't continue preserving the crime scene, calling the Sheriff's Department to cancel fingerprinting altogether.

Cuts have also affected air support, according to Baca's report, with more than 150 requests from patrol units on the ground going unanswered during a two-week span in June.

Clearly, it's more important to spend so much time and resources on consensual exchange and personal drug use than it is to allocate basic services to victims of robbery and murder.

To be fair, some of the drug charges are probably tied to other more serious crimes, but that is not apparent in the thrust of the story, nor would most of those crimes ever be committed if it weren't for drug prohibition enforcement in the first place. What gets me about this story is not simply the police department's priorities, but that the implicit acceptance of those priorities, resulting in the 'oh by the way, murder and burglary cases are growing cold too.' If it was your house that was robbed--and your sense of security shattered--or your loved one dead at the hands of another human being, how would you feel about your case being discarded or delayed to pursue unrelated, non-violent drug busts?

Just for Fun Friday: Star Wars Edition

Hey, Who Wants to See Jar Jar Binks Savagely Elbowed in the Face?

 

 

Awesome. HT: Brooke Oberwetter

Imaginary Jurisprudence

The cojones on this Congress are approaching Blagojevich magnitude:

Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it - from beachfront property owners to asthmatics - for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill. (emphasis mine)

There is a long-established standard in courts of law: a plaintiff must provide what is known as "standing." Standing, in a nutshell, is reasonable proof that the plaintiff has suffered a harm because of the law or action they are challenging. For example, the D.C. gun case was originally called "Parker v. D.C.," but the complaints of Ms. Parker and all the other plaintiffs except Dick Heller were thrown out for lack of standing. Their complaints were based on conjecture: that they could reasonably expect to be arrested for having a firearm didn't pass the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' standing standard. Dick Heller showed standing by being rejected for a gun permit, going through a procedural hurdle to show the government actively denied his purported 2nd Amendment right--i.e., harm.

While I find that particular interpretation dubious, it illustrates my point that standing is an important and substantive hurdle that limits the suits brought into court. Expanding standing to expected harm, based on arbitrary standards of emissions, is entirely too burdensome on any defendant, whether a private entity or the federal government.

For example: while you are more likely to develop lung cancer or emphysema from smoking, it is not a statistical certainty. Indeed, you may get one or the other--or neither. You may, as smokers often defend themselves, get hit by a bus tomorrow and never suffer any long-term consequences from smoking. This law, if passed, will allow people to sue on grounds that they may--or indeed, may not--suffer harm from emissions.

This is not to anyway argue with the scientific methods of global warming. But there is not a single reputable study or finding that says that any individual or group will, with 100% certainty, suffer damages or harm as a result of carbon emissions. Furthermore, EVEN if there were, the extent of that damage is purely conjecture and incalculable for the purposes of awarding damages.

To exact an amount for damages that haven't happened yet is anathema to our theories of jurisprudence. This is a dangerous provision that can be described as nothing other than a gift to environmentalists and trial lawyers. This isn't justice: this is punitive preemption.

Ronald Coase famously dealt with pollution in market terms nearly 40 years ago, but I will grant that even in his framework, harm will come to people. In that case, the harmed have recourse through the court system, as they very well should. But while I fear an environmental regulatory regime under this Congress, it is infinitely preferable to an EPA rendered impotent by countless and contradicting lawsuits.

If they stop and think about it, I doubt highly that even environmentalist would like environmental protection by judicial fiat either--unless, of course, they want Justice Scalia determining environmental standards?

Update: Colorado Shooting

From the security guard who took down the killer in the Colorado church shootings:

[Security Guard Jeanne] Assam said, "I wasn't just going to wait for him to do further damage."

How much damage could he have done?

[Gunman/dead guy Matthew] Murray was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, said Sgt. Jeff Johnson of the Colorado Springs Police Department.

But gun control advocates would say that calling 911 and waiting for the police would be the prudent thing to do.

Tell that to the survivors.

Take My Job...PLEASE!

In an extraordinarily disgusting op-ed in the NYT today, (entitled 'Help Me Spy on Al-Qaeda') DNI director Mike McConnell extols the virtues of throwing out the 4th Amendment for the purposes of making his job easier:

Before the Protect America Act was enacted, to monitor the communications of foreign intelligence targets outside the United States, in some cases we had to operate under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, a law that had not kept pace with changes in technology. In a significant number of these cases, FISA required us to obtain a court order. This requirement slowed — and sometimes prevented — our ability to collect timely foreign intelligence.

For the record, the FISA court acts like a secret grand jury of judges...if you want to spy on a ham sandwich, just say the word. But when the government's case is especially specious, they have been known to turn down a ridiculously low number of applications. But I digress...

Any new law should begin by being true to the principles that make the Protect America Act successful. First, the intelligence community needs a law that does not require a court order for surveillance directed at a foreign intelligence target reasonably believed to be outside the United States, regardless of where the communications are found. The intelligence community should spend its time protecting our nation, not providing privacy protections to foreign terrorists and other diffuse international threats. (Emphasis added.)

So, if I read this correctly, the government has to show (up to four months post facto) that it "reasonably believes" that the information it taps is of foreign origin, but can still be considered "regardless" of where it is actually collected.

No warrant. No judge. Our safeguards are reduced to the 'reasonableness' of our government.

Pardon me if I don't feel any safer.

And Speaking of Interrogations

When I saw this yesterday, I noted to friends that this makes Watergate look like child's play:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about the C.I.A’s secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.

The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terror suspects — including Abu Zubayda, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.

And by "severe interrogation techniques" they mean torture.

Always feckless and preachy, but sometimes right, Dick Durbin, et al., are calling for investigations and hearings. I've been to too many Senate Judiciary Hearings to think that much, if anything, will come out of them (How many times did it take to get Gonzales gone?), but I'd like to see them anyway.

It's Not Ridiculous...

but it is completely awesome:

07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. V. HELLER, DICK A.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C.
Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the
Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns
and other firearms for private use in their homes?

This sets a pretty high bar for the giving of gifts for Thanksgiving!

Apparently I Missed A Meeting

So no one told me that there was a "we hate hate-crimes" march at the Justice Department today. Rev. Al isn't getting a Christmas gift from me this year.

Anywho, this is what some of the marchers were saying:

"I feel that [the DOJ is] ignoring African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities, and treating us as if we're insignificant and don't need anything," said Sheila Barnett, who came to Washington with a group from Cleveland.

Treating people as if they are responsible adults? How dare they!

My favorite quote of the day:

Others, however, said people of all ethnicities were hurting. "A lot of injustice is being done to the black race, white race, green race, whatever. We need to pull together," said Ruth Blackwell-Rufus, a 52-year-old nurse from Temple Hills. "I think that the Justice Department has fallen down. I think that they're closing their eyes and they're forgetting about the poor people."

It's bad enough that "pulling together" means absolutely nothing, but the "green race?"

While I fundamentally disagree with the concept, it is baffling to me that very few black "leaders" can be found to intelligently promote federalization of hate crimes (Prof. Charles Ogletree standing alone in this capacity, as far as I can tell). The staggering inanity of these statements, coupled with nonsensical congressional tirades from Sheila Jackson Lee and Rev. Sharpton himself only exacerbate the perception that blacks are ignorant fools not only requiring -- but demanding -- paternalistic protection from the government.

This is not progress.

"All Hands On Deck" Goes Down With Ship

Last weekend, the D.C. police chief implemented an initiative increasing the police presence on the streets. The results:

Violence in the District continued to rise last weekend despite an increase in arrests and police presence during the department's latest "All Hands on Deck" crime-fighting initiative, police data show.

Most available officers were working the streets Friday to Sunday, making 481 arrests, many for minor offenses. Yet the city recorded two homicides, three sexual abuse cases, 31 robberies and 26 assaults over the three days -- a total of 62 violent crimes, compared with 34 for the same three-day stretch last year.

"The numbers aren't looking good," said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), head of the public safety committee. "This says that 'All Hands on Deck' is more about catching law breakers than deterring crime."

Of the 481 arrests, made between 12:01 a.m. Friday and 7 a.m. Sunday -- the time period for the "All Hands on Deck" effort -- 119 arrests involved drug offenses, 101 were for traffic violations, 58 for disorderly conduct and 43 for prostitution. There was one arrest after a homicide, four in connection with robberies or carjackings, and 15 involving assaults.

...

Crime is on the rise in the District, with 165 homicides so far this year -- just four fewer than the homicide total for all of 2006.

Less than 13% of the arrests made this weekend were for violent crimes, whereas more than a third were arrested for completely voluntary recreational activity (drugs and prostitution).

In a city as violent as this one, you would think that arresting people for the sake of "being tough on crime" should take a back seat to actually concentrating on bringing the violators of others' rights to justice. Instead, however, the police concentrate on "moral" violations which reflect the upstanding nature of this pious capital of ours.

Strange Bedfellows: Malcolm X & Barry Goldwater?

Malcolm X and the struggle for liberty. (notice the language: 'that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...and that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.' taken from Barry Goldwater's acceptance of the GOP nomination in 1964.) I am not saying that Malcolm was a Republican...and I am not saying Goldwater was a sympathizer of Malcolm's. At the time of this speech, one could reasonably argue that they were diametrically opposed, given Goldwater's courting of southerners.

Nonetheless, the ideas of personal responsibility, resentment of injustice, and the fundamental concepts of human liberty are unmistakably similar.