Capital Punnishment

NOTE: I've written this an re-written it, three times in total, and it's still a disjointed, disorganized mess.  What can I say? It's a complex issue with a LOT of considerations to balance.  BUT, I'm just going to post it as-is becuase there's other things I want to write about, and if I let it go too long, I'll never get around to putting this up.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I did not intend for that one throwaway comment in my Casey Anthony post last week to turn into a death penalty discussion, many thoughtful, principled and pragmatic comments about the death penalty ended up in the comments section as a result of it. And, after reading them, I was motivated to do a little digging, a little exploring of the issue, and maybe clarifying both to you all and to myself where I really stand on it.


Although politically ironic, but from my own POV logically consistent, my position on the Death Penalty, as a general practice, is almost a perfect mirror to my position on abortion. With abortion, I feel that the practice is completely immoral in all cases (yes, you read that right) where the life of the mother is not in immediate jeopardy.  BUT, as this is just my opinion - and since I don’t share the Right’s mental illness that compels them to force everyone else to live according to their opinion - I have no desire to see abortion made ILLEGAL, just becuase I see it as IMMORAL. With Capital Punishment, it’s kind of the opposite: I do not oppose the practice on general moral grounds. BUT… as a PRACTICAL MATTER I do see much that is wrong with how we go about administering it. So I never cheer-lead for it, as some do. And I do see a reduction in executions as a good thing. But I stop short of a complete abolitionist stance, based on moral objection.

This puts me immediately at odds with posters such as jlarue, who feel it is simply an immoral practice. And you know what? You’re absolutely right. I’ll concede on all moral points right now: It’s wrong. And yet, I still feel the way I do. And, going back to the abortion parallel, I’ve never heard an argument, EVER, that convinced me that abortion was ever morally justifiable (in any case in which the life of the mother was not in imminent danger.) But again: What we believe to be moral and what we will support the legality of are not always the same. This happens to both Liberals and Conservatives, and hits me up from both sides of both of these two issues. The bottom line is that the execution of someone who has taken the life of another? Just does not bother me enough to change my opinion. If that makes me a bad person? Then so be it. For what it’s worth, I concede the moral high-ground to your admittedly more principled position. 

(Just an aside: In admitting that being “pro-death penalty” - one of a very few Conservative positions that I hold - is a moral failing on my part, it’s funny to me just how many Conservative positions in general (almost all of them, in fact) can be described that way.)

So… morally I concede, though that doesn’t change my position. What about those practical concerns? The administrative details?

Poster ClassicLiberal gave me a pretty good quote, about how “the government can’t even keep potholes filled” so he’d not going to trust them with such grave matters. That’s a nice sentiment, and while I have no intention of arguing that the practice is air-tight, I will point out that this is the same basic argument that Conservatives use to argue against a Nation Health Care system, so you’ll have to better than that. Fortunately, he did: The politicization of the Judiciary.

Now, I hear you when it comes to the ELECTION of judges. Hoo-boy, that’s a HUGE problem. And it affects so many aspects of our society. There’s just SO MUCH worng with that, in particular the very perversion of our Democracy that you describe the pro-industry and pro-corporatist groups doing. But, much as with our disagreement on filibusters, it still sounds to me (rigth or worng) like you are opposing a practice IN GENERAL because of how ONE GROUP has decided to abuse it. (And let’s please take up the filibuster/reform issue again another time, because I’ve been sitting on a counterargument for your loast post on that for like a year now,  but just haven’t felt like writing about it.) Anyway... IN THEORY, the election of judges shouldn’t be done on Political grounds. Of course, that’s gone completely by the wayside, but I’m not sure what else we should do. APPOINT them? To LIFETIME terms? NFW. And as counters I submit that Federally appointed Circuit and Supreme Court judges are every bit as politicized as local judges, and there’s an additional problem: WE CAN’T EVER GET RID OF THEM! What’s more, the judiciary is meant to act as a counter-balance to the Legislature and the Executive branch. But how will we get that when the judges are nominated, confirmed and appointed by the very bodies they’re meant to be opposing? I’ll see you and raise you two Scalia’s and a Thomas that this is a much worse way to go. This way, electing them? If a judge REALLY SUCKS? The will of the people, and the power of Democracy can be mustered to fix the problem. I just cannot belieev that because industry and corporations pervert Democracy, this is a reason to scrap the practice. Much as with terrorism, we must RESIST those forces, not allow them to trick us into dismantling our Democracy. If you have a third alternative, I really would like to hear it, but the immediate alternative, to me, seems like it can only be worse.

But it bring us to the crux of the matter, at least for me: Has this politicization, inefficiency, prosecutorial maleficence or any other factor actually led us to execute an innocent man?

Unlike Conchobhar, I have not served on a jury. In fact, I’ve only been in court three times in my life: Once when my parents finalized my sister’s adoption, once for a traffic ticket and once when I was being sued. (I won, if you’re wondering.) (OK, and I was called in for jury duty once, but I wasn't selected.) And our history, much like the UK’s, is rife with examples of officially administered injustice. And convictions are overturned ALL THE TIME when examination of the DNA evidence after the trial completely proves, beyond any doubt, that they had the wrong guy. (Remember: With a match, there’s STILL a 1 in 20 Million chance you’re wrong, but with a MISMATCH? Unless the lab-tech bled onto the sample, you KNOW the right answer. )

And you certainly have a good point, arguably THE point, when a verdict comes down to nothing more than which witnesses appear more credible: The guys who’s facing life or death and is on the stand for the first time in his life, facing a suspicious and skeptical jury; or the career law-enforcement officer (and trusted, heroic public servant) who’s in court every week, has testified hundreds of times and faces no personal or professional risk if should the case go one way or the other. And because “real-life” is never as neat and clear-cut as Television’s CSI shows, perception will thus determine reality. And that’s a huge problem, as matters of perception and personal feelings inevitably end up being given a weight disproportionate to their accuracy or value.

But there’s another side of that perception vs. objective evidence coin. It has been suggested that the preponderance of legal shows like CSI, Law and Order, etc… has had the effect of making us more skeptical as a people. That juries expect cases to look a lot neater and air tight before convicting. Now – I don’t KNOW if that’s true. Admittedly, I can’t find the original piece I had read. (I think it might have been a Slate piece.) And for all I know it could have been written by a disgruntled prosecutor who just came off of losing a big case. But as useless as anecdotal evidence is, case like Anthony (and O.J. Simpson and many others in between) do see, to suggest that there are juries out there for whom “erring on the side of caution” means an acquittal, when in doubt. Which… is exactly as it is supposed to be!

As I looked into this, I came accros a few other things, that can be interpreted in different ways…

For the years that I could find data for reasonably quickly (2006-2009) there were 186 executions in the U.S. In that same time period there were 65,642 murders. Now, committing the same error as when they calculate the divorce rate, that works out to a 0.3% execution rate for murderers. I find the size of that number – being so small – striking in a few different ways. If were trying to be a “tough-on-crime” Right Winger (never! LOL) I might cite this as evidence that we need to DO MORE to prevent violent crime. (NOTE: I’M not saying that. I’m just saying that you could imagine someone making that argument.) A death penalty opponent might use it to point out that very little would change if we DID eliminate the practice: It would result in an almost imperceptible uptick in prison populations, in exchange for KNOWING we NEVER executed an innocent person. Which is a pretty good trade off, I must admit! And a moderate supporter, like me, looks at it and is inclined to view it as a relatively small problem: 1 execution for every 357 murders? I don’t know. I guess I just thought it would be a LOT higher, by at least an order of magnitude. (BTW, my numbers were taken from a few different sources, which is why I haven’t linked them. If you have different figures, I’ll freely admit that I just grabbed the first set of data I could put together.)

I also found that, due to the (thankfully) small number of people we execute, trying to determine what kind of “deterrent” effect this has, if any, is impossible. One rather disturbing study showed that there’s only a discernable deterrent effect is places with very high execution rates. Meaning that, for this to work, we got to start executing MORE people. I might support the Death Penalty in theory, but putting that kind of reasoning into practice is just psychotic.

But putting aside any “benefits” we might see, no one should accept the possibility of executing an innocent man. So I did some poking around, looking first at overturned convictions. Of course, there are TONS of stories out there, and an interesting (though rather incomplete) list could be found on Wikipedia. I went through this list, trying to focus only on case where physical evidence exonerated the suspect, rather than them just being posthumously pardoned or something like that. (Where there was doubt of guilt, but not proof of innocence.) And there certainly is no shortage of cases where people sat on death row who were UNDENIABLY innocent. And one can certainly look at all of these MISTAKES and argue that such an imperfect system simply cannot be trusted. BUT… every conviction that gets overturned is also evidence that the system WORKS – that if someone is innocent, then the truth will come out. That may sound weak to some, and I’ll gladly admit that I’d feel better if we got it right the first time, every time, but it is significant that there ARE so many self-correcting mechanisms. The imperfection is mitigated by the fact that we recognize it.

BUT… Do they work? Was there ever a case where we KNEW we executed the wrong guy?

Well… A couple of names on that list jumped out at me.

First, there was Charles Hudspeth. He was hanged for the murder of her lover’s missing husband, who was found – ALIVE - a year later. Thing is? That was in 1892! And I have a hard time imagining a scenario like that happening today. So… it’s an EXAMPLE, but I’m not sure it’s still relevant. We’ve made SOME progress in the last 120 years.

There was also Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italian Anarchists convicted in 1920 in what many considered to have been a show-trial, rife with anti-Italian prejudice that was more common then than it is now, and executed in 1927. But at this point it’s impossible to PROOVE that they were innocent. A bad conviction? Well, Governor Dukakis certainly thought so, when he pardoned them in 1977. And I AM inclined to agree with him. But a definite “execution of the innocent?” Impossible to say.

Going from there to the wrongful execution article, I found a few more examples. There were several from the U.K. and Australia, but nothing from the U.S. The closest was Ellis Wayne Felker, who’s DNA evidence was re-evaluted after his execution. Butthe results we’re found to have been “inconclusive.” And that’s too frustrating. It’s not that I’d celebrate an innocent man being put to death, but putting aside that absurd result from 1892, at least ONE BONA-FIDE example of the State executing an innocent man would pretty much change me over to the abolitionist camp. That’s it. Just one. There are many cases where there has been doubt of guilt – and I DO NOT support the Death Penalties use in case like that – but so far no indisputable examples where we can prove innocence. And that means that it cannot be PROOVEN that our system is so profoundly flawed.

There was a case like that that got my attention many years ago, and that became very emotionally involved with.

The suspect’s name was Roger Keith Coleman. He was a coal miner in Grundy, Virginia, not far from where I was going to college at the time. And based on what the media presented at the time, I was convinced was innocent. Oprah had him on her show, and I found him to be very persuasive. At a minimum, the questions he raised and the apparent incompetence of his lawyer suggested that a new trial was appropriate. And he might have gotten one: Had that very same, publicly appointed lawyer, not filed his appeal ONE DAY AFTER the deadline to file had expired. Which, IMHO, pretty much speaks right back to that Public Defenders own incompetence! In any case, I was convinced he was innocent and beyond that convinced beyond any doubt that his original trial was flawed. But Virginia’s piece of shit Governor at the time, Democrat Douglas Wilder, (sorry, I really HATE that guy, and so does DW) refused to grant clemency, a even stay to allow the appeal about the appeal to go though. Coleman was executed and on that day I was convinced we had executed an innocent man. 100% convinced.

So, a decade later when Republican Governor Mark Warner decided to re-open the case and examine the DNA evidence which had NOT been presented at trial, I followed the story in anticipation that Roger Keith Coleman would finally be exonerated. Instead, the DNA evidence put him at the scene of the crime. He was lying. FUCK. I was angry, not so much because I WANTED to have seen an innocent man put to death, but because I had become so emotionally involved with his story. I got “sucked in,” if you will, and he was nothing more than a liar, and a murderer.

Anyway, I realize that our system of justice is imperfect. All of those overturned convictions DO point to mistakes of ALL KINDS being made. (Though over-zealous, political-motivated prosecution seem to be at the heart of many of them.) But saying that something COULD happen, is different form saying that it HAS. Finding errors, and the potential for errors, and FIXING THEM when they are found suggests that we have to have safeguards in place. Are they adequate? It’s a hollow sentiment, but so far? In this country? They appear to be.

Is this really "the problem" with the system?

Unless you live under a rock, or your TV is broken you probably heard the news yesterday: Casey Anthony was found "not guilty" on all charges directly related to the death of her two year old daughter Calee in 2008, save only the four counts of providing false information to the police.

(Which, let's face it, is something that probably been done by every single human being ever accused of a crime since the beginning of human history.)

My boss actually had a news feed up on his computer, so we heard the verdict pretty much as it came out.  Several of us were "following" the case, so naturally there was a lot of interest. (No, we don't work in a law office.) And I should say that I haven't been "following" the case, so much as I was bombarded by it.  There were 16,442 people murdered in the United States in 2008, but I'll be damned if I can name a single other case off the top of my head.  But hey: An attractive white woman, acting strangely I might add, a cute white kid, weird circumstances and answered questions? That's NEWS (I guess.)

I'm not trying to say that Calee doesn't deserve justice, nor even that I don't think Casey did it. (I DO, but more on that in a minute.)  The thing is, those 16,442? Are based on CONVICTIONS. How many OTHER cases of dead people in 2008 went uncovered by the media? How many OTHER victims didn't get justice? How many OTHER people got away with it?  That's the first thing that annoys me about these kinds of stories.

Another is NANCY FUCKING GRACE.

Oh my Holy Lord in Heaven, is there any other human being anywhere on this big and beautiful planet MORE ANNOYING and MORE GRATING that Nancy Grace?!  Holy crap, I honestly think I'd rather have Ann Coulter on my jury!  And I AGREE WITH HER! I don't even really have a problem with he JUDGEMENT in this case! I think she's basically got  it right! I just can't stand listening to her!

Here's the thing...  A few weeks back, CNN had a prominent defense attorney on air to discuss the case and he basically said, "Here's what the prosecution will try to say. Here's what the defense will counter with. And here are the issues that the jury will need to sort out." There may have been something in there about the states burden of proof, but it was basically a balanced, objective summary of the case, for the benefit of those who've managed to otherwise avoid or miss the massive coverage of it. Then they turned to Nancy. Her response, and I'm paraphrasing here, was something like this:

"THAT'S A LOAD OF BULLSHIT, MARK.  THE BITCH IS GULITY AS HITLER, AND DESERVES TO DIE - AT LEAST TWICE - IN THE MOST INHUMANE WAY POSSIBLE. ACTING LIKE SHE DID PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT SHE'S A LOUSY DAUGHTER, A LOUSY MOTHER, AND AN INHUMAN, MURDERING PUDDLE OF POND SCUM!"

...Which is what I guess passes for objective reporting on what Conservatives refer to as the "Communist News Network." (Or, as I call it, "Chicken Noodle News.")

And understandably, there were some pretty strong opinions being expressed around the office when the verdicts were announced.  A betting pool was immediately drawn up on Casey Anthony's life expectancy, and one of the more prominent opinions was: "THIS is what's wrong with our system."

Now… These were conservative guys. Not morons, professional people I respect, but conservatives. And what they were feeling was that (1) she was guilty and (2) she was let off. So (3) “the system” doesn’t work. We also got into a discussion about the 4th Amendment and how it’s bullshit that evidence obtained “illegally” was automatically inadmissible, particularly when it revealed the TRUTH of the matter. Now, I LOVE taking on Conservatives in these kinds of discussion, because I can do so from [their own] libertarian point of view, without having to wear my politics on my sleeve.

I simply asked them: How else can you protect our rights? You wouldn’t even know the person was guilty until AFTER you violated their rights! So what good is any protection of privacy and private property if there are no repercussions to the state for violating it? What else would you do? Punish the Cops?! Throw them in jail or sue them? Sure. And good luck getting any more cops to search shit from that point forward. It wouldn't work. So, flawed as it is, this the best you can do and not live in a police state.

And the whole reason we were even talking about that was that I said that I wanted to get an idea of the disparity between the case that was presented to the jury and the story that was told to us by the media. Sure: We’re all torqued up about this woman’s guilt because that’s how the media wants us. (And to anyone who thinks they always get it right, I have three words for: Jean Benoit Ramsey. And you and Nancy Grace owe her later-mother an engraved apology! Big time!) And who knows…? Maybe they even had some inkling as to where this case was heading. So by presenting one side, they might be able to milk this story even longer. Who knows? In any case, this case, for better or worse, is clear evidence trails are NOT tried in the media or the court of public opinion, and I for one think that’s a VERY GOOD THING.

Also… As you may know I like to think of things a little bit differently. I kind of have a “freakanomics” way of looking at the world, only with a progressive / liberal bias. And the one other Liberal in the office asked an interesting question to that end:

Do you think she might have been convicted, is she was being tried in a state that did NOT have the death penalty?

And honestly? I DON’T KNOW. It’s hypothetical, and there’s no way to prove it one way of the other, unless one of the jurors were to come right out and admit it, but it’s certainly one of the more effective, if somewhat more cynical, arguments against the death penalty that I’ve heard; A point that I never really considered: Could abolishing it end up in MORE convictions?

And just FYI: I SUPPORT the Death Penalty. Not blindly, of course, and not in all cases that it's been applied, and not the system that currently administers it. But the practice, in general? I’m basically OK with. And before anyone gives me the Liberal arguments against it, don’t bother. I’ve heard them before and I don’t care. But don't worry... I don’t get much love from Conservatives on the issue either. Because I don’t buy their bullshit about it anymore that I care about the far more fact-based arguments being presented by Liberals. I support it, yes, but I’ll happily admit: It’s a vice. It’s a vice that satisfies the sin of wrath, nothing more. Someone is dead, I’m angry about it, so someone must die. As long as it’s the RIGHT person? I’m basically OK with it.

Which brings me back to the case at hand: Did she do it?

Well, she certainly ain't winning any ‘mother of the year’ awards. She seems guilty of gross parental negligence at a minimum. (Something she wasn’t even CHARGED with!) If my kid were missing for three minutes I’m panicking. And after thirty? I’m calling the cops. But thirty DAYS?! Holy crap! So her first story was bullshit. I get that. So she’s also a liar. But there is an established burden of proof that the state MUST meet to convict someone of a Capital Crime. And in the absence of being able to establish either the CAUSE or the TIME of death? That burden gets very difficult to meet.

And so, unfortunately, since real life is not like CSI on TV, they had no case; just the least sympathetic defendant who didn’t yell “Allah Akbar!” at the time of the crime.

And here’s where my freakanomic thinking comes in… If you’re a Conservative, arguing with a Liberal about the Death Penalty, or tougher prison sentences, or anything else that falls under the “cruel and unusual punishment” venue, isn’t the fact that Casey Anthony got off PROOF that the system DOES in fact work? Doesn't it PROVE that we can’t possibly falsely convicting that many people if even a terrible, terrible person like her got off? Should this silence all of the Liberal critics of our legal system? If the Right wasn’t so blinded by their own anger, they might realize that this is actually a VICTORY for them! Kind of like how O.J. Simpson getting off (the first time) is proof that the system isn’t racist!

Even though... People are shown by DNA evidence to have been falsely convicted ALL THE TIME.

And Blacks are more likely to be executed, and receive tougher sentences than whites convicted of the exact same crimes.

But… I guess they’d still rather execute a couple more people than to be able to argue that the system works. See? I TOLD you it was a VICE!

BTW… If you ever have someone say something to the effect of “I’d rather send an innocent man to prison than risk letting a guilty man go free,” PLEASE hit them in the head with a brick that has the word “MORON!” engraved in it. And once they come to, ask them: If an INNOCENT MAN (AKA: NOT THE GUY WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME) went to prison, what happened to the guy who ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME?! (Um… I’m pretty sure he went free, FUCKWAD!) See… The guilty guy goes free either way! But these jack-holes would rather compound this legal cluster-fuck by sending THE WRONG GUY to prison on top of it! That’s how they want the system to “werk,” I guess.

The real problem here is how the media chooses to cover these things, and how they choose the cases they want to cover at all.  And this is compounded by the public's belief that they can draw any conclusions about our legal system from the media: An entity that focuses on one case at a time out of TEN THOUSAND (or more.) (16,442 in 2008!) By definition ANY case being given this kind of coverage the media can onlybe the exception: It's 1 out of 10,000+ after all!  You don't learn about significant trend with a NON-RANDOM sample size that small.
One last thing… There was a couple of great articles in Crack about bullshit the media thinks is news, and how the media makes bullshit look like fact. Worth a read. Oh, and here’s some GOOD NEWS that nobody’s talking about! (That last one has a little bit of conservative bias to it, at least the way I see it, but still: Good news is good news!)

Hate Crime?

I want to say a few things, show a few things, and ask all of your opinions about something, regarding the tragic suicide of the Rutgers student last week after being spied on and outed over the Internet by his “otherwise OK” roommate.


I was firing up my Wii the other night, and noticed the story on my Wii News Channel. Normally I don’t get my information from my Wii (or think with my… never mind) but I was interested in this particular story, so I clicked on it. For the most part it was a rehashing of the basic facts of the case, but their conclusion kind of pissed me off. I don’t have access to it any more, so I can’t put the exact wording, but it was something like this:

“Incidents such as these demonstrate the dangers lurking in the Internet and social networking sites.”

…The fuck?

That likes saying “Bananas are dangerous because the can be used to plug up the tailpipes of cars!” That’s an absolutely absurd conclusion to draw form this story! The Internet, and social networking sites are TOOLS. Now ANY tool can be misused for ill purpose. Duh. Obvious. Hardly a newsworthy story here. What it SHOULD show us are the dangers of homophobia. The dangers of ignorance. The dangers of intolerance and bigotry. It SHOULD show us what a lousy job we’re doing instilling our children with moral values such as respecting other people’s privacy. And this is absolutely all about this student being gay, because if he was with a girl, this wouldn’t have happened. But GOD FORBID we put out a news story that is remotely supportive of treating homosexuals like HUMAN BEINGS. That might buy into the radical GAY AGENDA. (…to be treated like human beings. What nut jobs, huh?)

Who’d have thought that my Wii was Conservatively biased?

Speaking of which… what’s with THIS douchbag? How much sympathy? The guys DEAD, asshole! Less than you deserve apparently, should your life be turned upside down, your privacy invaded, your trust violated, and your private affairs used as comedic fodder for those around you, and around the world. Hey, here’s an experiment… Let’s beat this guy to death, and see how much sympathy that generates! Hey… then at least we’d know, right?

Now, having said all that and establishing where I stand on the issue overall, I want to put out a question that I think and hope will generate some thoughtful debate:

Was this a HATE CRIME?

Personally, I’d have no problem with these two being changed with anything up to involuntary manslaughter, because their actions did, absolutely, lead to this man’s death. Unintentionally, yes. I’ll buy that. But there was, at a minimum, a tort being committed, if not a crime: Invasion of privacy. So, in my mind, I can see throwing some rather severe penalties at these two, because their behavior was absolutely unacceptable. No question.

But was it a hate crime?

Believe it or not, and while I may be accused of splitting hairs here, I say, “No.”

My reasoning, is that I think of hate crimes in a very specific way. They have everything to do with the MOTIVES behind a crime, but it really doesn’t have anything to do with hate specifically. That and I don’t think these two really HATED this guy, or gays in general. As little sympathy as I give them legally, this WAS really just a [despicable] college prank gone fantastically, horribly wrong. The MOTIVATION that I need to see to consider something a hate crime is this: Are they trying to send a message to the rest of the [whatever] community?

If they had set his car on fire? Slashed his tires? Beat him to a pulp, while wearing hoods? (Etc, etc…) THAT’S a hate crime, because it’s meant to send a message, a threat, to the rest of the community. And as much as I despise these two, I just don’t see that here. It may be a minor point, but I think it’s an important question; especially if we expect “hate crime” to carry the kind of weight that “terrorism” (essentially the same crime) carries when someone on the Right makes that claim.

Personally? I see this as a crime of IGNORANCE. And I think it shows how much better of a job we need to do to teach people (children) not only tolerance, but a basic respect for boundaries! If these same two had put a web-cam in the girl’s bathroom, there would be people calling for rape charges. But instead they spy on a gay student, and there’s a debate as to whether or not there’s even a crime here. And my Wii seems to think that the danger lies in the Internet and Social Networking!

That sickens me. Because there is no doubt in my mind that if this student were not gay, (1) he wouldn’t have been harassed like this, and (2) if he was, the public would clearly be putting the spotlight of guilt on the other two students, not piddling about, debating whether of not there’s been a crime committed.

But please let me know your thoughts. Especially on whether or not this is a HATE CRIME.  Because I had heard that allegation raised, and I really wasn't quite sure what I really thought about it.  So I'm interested to hear your all's thoughts about it.

This made me sick

Every now and then I read an article that just makes wonder what the hell is wrong with people. OK - to be fair, I actually spend most of my waking hours thinking that, but recently I read something that really kicked it up a notch or three.

Recently, in Concord, New Hampshire, several teens were charged with various crimes and misdemenors after coercing a younger, mentally handicapped classmate of theirs into letting them tatoo obscenities on his body in exchange for their "friendship," protection from their own harrassment and some additional tatoo work. Now as sick and twisted as these little scum-suckers are, what really floored me was the absurd defense offered by the mother of one of the boys charged:

He's the captain of his own ship. Nobody made the kid do that," she said. [...] "What are you going to do, arrest every bystander and call it hazing?"

Now, I realize that it's pretty much instinctual for parents to defend their kids - I'm a parent myself, so I know the drill - but this stupid bitch needs a few things pointed out her...

1) The victim was mentally handicapped. In some instances he may not even be held accountable if he had done this someone else. So right off the bat, putting his responsibility above that of your son's borders on laughable.

2) The victim was threatened, several times, with bodily harm. This includes at least one instance when he was surrounded (held captive, actaully) by the perpetrators, at least one was armed [with the tatoo gun.] That's ASSULT. Period. Even if NOTHING else happens. Theatening someone with bodily harm in a such a way as they believe the threat and you are in a position to carry it out is ASSULT.

3) Your son is not a liscenced tatoo artist. Thus in the state of New Hampshire, as in most states, him tatooing ANYBODY is, in and of itself, a crime.

4) Tatooing a minor in the State of New Hampshire is forbiden. So again, in and of itself this would STILL be a crime, even if #3 did not apply!

That's three crimes committed, before you even consider the bodily mutilation that the victim endured (and the fact that the victim was 'compensated' in WEED) at the hands of that piece of shit you call your son. Isn't a rape victim "Captain of her own body?" I mean - it's not like anyone's making her stay there, right? Maybe I can fire a gun in this disgrace to women everywhere's general direction and suggest that as "Captain of her own body" she should have not just stood there, in the path of the bullet.

I sincerely hope that these four scum bags are charged to the fullest extent of the law, including being charged with hate crimes wherever applicable. And while I'm usually loath to hold one person accountable for the actions of another, in this case I would have little problem going after the Mother as well. At a minimum, she should lose her parental priveliges and and legal influence that goes with them. Negligence... shit, I don't know. What I can tell you is that if I had been there (or knew of it) and did anything short of calling the police, my parents would have KICKED. MY. ASS. And I would have richly deserved it!

These four rat-bastards are sociopaths. They should be committed after their jail term is up. And the fault lies with the parents who didn't instill even the most basic levels of humanity into these four future career criminals. My only compensation is that they'll all probably be dead by 30. I hope that the memory of every one of their future victims haunt theirs parents, as does the guilt that they failed in their charge of raising these kids, and instilling some values in them - ANY values, at all!

What the fuck is wrong with people?!

The Doctrine of Choice

(I'm still working on Keynes, so here's some more brain droppings of mine) (Thanks George!)

The Doctrine of Choice is a pompous name that I've given to a very simple idea that guides my legal, moral and political philosophy more than anything else. At it's simplest it is this: People should be allowed to do whatever they provided that they're not harming anyone else.

A lot of people CLAIM that's what they believe, but I bet they'll fail the test on more than one thing, and on many things if they're a social conservative. Stated a little more specifically it goes like this:

1) Everything is legal, unless it victimizes someone else. To be a crime, something MUST have a victim. (And no, "Society," doesn't count. A tangible victim.)

2) The threshold for someone being a victim is for them have a choice they are otherwise entitled to usurped or taken form them by another.

Now... #2 may sound a bit odd, but it's actually a very low threshold for crime when you think about it. Does someone have to be killed, receive bodily harm, lose a certain amount of monetary valuables? Well, those WOULD qualify, but I set the bar pretty low. All they have to lose is their choice. Now you'd think that setting the bar for crime so low, that I'd end up outlawing many more things than the social conservatives would. But the opposite is true. So let's test this system, first against some easy ones...

MURDER

When you and I woke up this morning, we had a clear choice to make. Face another day, or slit our own throats. Putting the drama aside, obviously, most of us, on most days will choose the first option. But if someone comes along and SHOOTS me? They are taking my LIFE, yes, but they really only need to be usurping MY CHOICE (to live) for this to be crime. (The ADDITIONAL loss of a LIFE is really only relevant to the SENTENCING portion!)

THEFT

I can do whatever I want with MY [after-tax] MONEY. Buy stuff, lend it to a friend, invest it, put it in the bank, give it to a homeless guy, burn it... WHATEVER I WANT. But if someone, say the guy from the previous example, were to STEAL my money, well... That's tantamount to making the decision fore me: and the decsion was forced to give the money to him. Regardless of how much I've lost, it's all a crime because the choice was MINE, and he usurped it.

RAPE

I can have sex with whomever* I* want*, and I can abstain as I wish as well. But someone who's raping me, say, again that slimeball from the last two examples, is saying, "No. It's not YOUR choice, it's MINE. And I SAY, you're going to have sex with ME!"

*Point of clarification: CHOICE in this case DOES imply CONSENT on the part of all parties involved. And CONSENT implies all parties are legal, [human] adults. All parties must be legally able to GIVE consent, which rules out both animals and the underaged. In each case, we do not recognize consent, and a choice is thus usurped still.

So... You get the idea. Here are some more knotty ones...

FRAUD is a crime because it means that the person's choice was not INFORMED. You have usurped the choice in this way by withholding information that otherwise may have resulted in a different choice. In anyway they've been cheated of their choice.

SOME DRUGS remain illegal, but not all. To qualify as a controlled substance something must be both synthetic (meaning that it is consumed in a form that has been chemically altered from it natural form) and addictive. Addictive is important, because addiction is what represents the usurpation of choice here. NOW... the CRIME is on the part of the DEALER. Why you ask, when the USER in fact CHOSE to use drugs? Very simple. It's a case of unbalanced information. Prior to becoming addicted the user has no REAL idea, no real information about how horrible addiction is, what it REALLY does to every aspect of your life and how likely he is to even become an addict. And most who are or have been addicted would have made different choices had they had the first hand knowledge of these things back when they started, but they didn't. How could they know? But the DEALER? HE's got a pretty shrewd idea what's in store for his customers. He peddling addiction via fraud. So anyone dealing addictive synthetic substances (crystal meth, crack, cocaine, heroin, opium, ecstasy, roofalin) is going down. But Tobacco, marijuana, coca leaves, betel nut, 'shrooms... it's all good, baby. They occur in nature, and you just can't outlaw something that's ALREADY THERE, on it's own. If we didn't invent it, how the hell can we outlaw it? REGULATE it? Sure. (18 and over only.) TAX it? You best your asterix. But why throw someone in jail who picked something up off the ground and chowed down or smoked it? No reason to. None at all.

The exception, and it should be obvious at this point, is Alcohol. I say: grandfather it in, and leave it legal. I have no justification for this in my model, other than the fact that it is consumed in moderation without issue (even some health and social benefits) buy almost everyone on the planet. So we'll draw the line HERE, and outlaw anything ELSE that fails the above tow tests.

Also... I say controlled, rather than illegal, becasue I still wouldn't outlaw those other thigns. Should we find that their is some medical use for them, in some small, safe dose? I won't let the law in the way of the medical research. And before you scoff, you should realize that most presciption anti-despreseant and pain-killers are checially very similar to many narcotics. Paxil is almost identical to cocaine in structure but also in the effect it has on the brain. It's just kept in a REALLY SMALL does - miligrams being swallowed insetad of grams being snorted. But you CAN get hooked if you abuse prescription medicinces. Just ask Rush Limabugh.

Now for some tricky ones:

GAMBLING

As long as the game is fair, meaning not FIXED, and everyone understands the rules and the odds? (IOW no fraud involved) Why the hell not? Just regulate it to insure fairness, the way we do today in places that allow it, and keep it to certain ZONES in a given town or city. No one wants a Casino in their NEIGHBORHOOD, but downtown, or on the outskirts? Why not. Let each town decide for themselves. No reason for the STATE or FED to say no.

PROSTITUTION

As the now immortal George Carlin once pointed out: Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? Again I don't care WHAT goes on between consenting adults and neither does out current system of law enforcement... until money changes hands. WTF? Why should THAT matter?! You name me ONE OTHER THING that's it's legal to GIVE AWAY but illegal to SELL and I'll take it all back. But IMHO prostitution is NO CRIME. And thus should be LEGAL.

REGULATED, to be sure. And this is actually the BEST way to address the (faux) concerns that people, usually conservatives, express for the workers in the trade and use as justification for criminalizing it. Disease? Require (and have employers pay for) regular check-ups and condom use to keep your license. (Yes, you'd need a license! How else could you regulate it?!) Customer don't want to pay? Legal contract: Girl can SUE. Assault? Not likely if it all takes place inside the brothel, which has bouncers. This also addresses the next concern: We don't want hookers soliciting on the street, in the neighborhood, at the schools, etc... Well, just like with the casinos, this is merely a ZONING issue. Discreet advertising, discreet signage, and an off-the-beaten-path location, should satisfy any reasonable person involved. We'll never make it into an admirable profession, but there's just no rational justification for criminalizing it.

DRUNK DRIVING

This includes ALL forms of intoxication, not just alcohol, so don't bother using DRIVING as an argument for criminalizing cannabis. That's just stupid. You can't drive drunk, high, low, or whatever. Stay home or call a cab. Why? Because everyone else on the roads made their choice to drive assuming it was safe. Or at least that weren't any reckless drunks out there, bombing around, which is as the law promises them. Plus you have no right to risk anyone ELSE'S life, other than your own. So it's simple. This fails the test.

HOMOSEXUALITY / GAY MARRIAGE

See 'prostitution.' As for the marriage part... again WHY THE HELL NOT? Show me any other legal contract ANYWHERE that I can enter with a member of the opposite sex, but not the same. There isn't one. And as far as the LAW is concerned with marriage that's all it is: a LEGAL CONTRACT. So if you have a problem with this one, all I can say is, "GROW UP."

RELIGION - The meaning of religious freedom should be obvious, and I'm stunned how many people try to say otherwise: (1) the separation of church and state. The above doctrine (as an interpretation of our Constitution) should drive our laws, not religion. PERIOD. (2) The prohibitions of any religion shall only apply to it's VOLUNTARY adherents. (So, "No" to these idiotic Catholic (etc...) pharmacists who won't dispense Birth Control. The church forbids YOU to use it. It has no authority over anyone else, and neither do YOU.) And anyone can leave any church at any time. (3) That also means no teacher-lead prayer in school. This violates YOUR choice to bring you child up in a given faith. Don't care about respecting OTHER PEOPLE'S faiths? Well what if the teacher was Muslim**? THEN would you want them preaching to your child or leading them in prayer? Didn't think so. Freedom for ANY ONE, necessarily means freedom for ALL, as well as the right to NOT believe or practice as well. It's pretty simple and, as far as I'm concerned, self-evident. I'll never get why so many people can't understand this. (And don't be an idiot an think this means that NO ONE can pray in school. THAT would be a obvious violation of their right to practice, which IS and WILL REMAIN 100% proteted. Only teacher-lead prayer in banned!)

**I ask it this way, because in THIS country, it's usually the CHRISTIAN funny-mentalists who don't get it. If we were having this discussion in IRAN, obviously I'd say "Christian" instead of "Muslim" in the above example.

Anyhow, THIS is how I interpret the spirit of the Constitution, and the Rights it grants. This is how I define FREEDOM and LIBERTY. The only laws that are needed would those that arbitrate situation in which one person choices would usurp another's. And it's usually pretty clear in these cases who's right and wrong. Except one.

There is one issue that this philosophy is USELESS to make any headway on.

Abortion.

Because abortion (arguably) involves two entities, both of whom may or may not be having a choice usurped. And one side clearly believes that the rights of one win out, while the other just a clearly believe it's the rights of the other. And you know what? I'm not sure there a "win" here either way. I just don't see this as anything other than lose-lose one way of the other.

So I'll cop-out on this one, but I promise to take up abortion at a later date. I might actually surprise some of you conservatives with my views on abortion, but I'm sure you'll come away disappointed anyway. LOL. The thing is... so will many liberals! You just can't WIN an argument over abortion!

If you are curious how I would interpret any other, just let me know. So far I've never been stumped. (Other than abortion, attmitedly.)