Law
Use the crosswalk… Or else…
Most of the time, I find myself ranting about the flaws in our legal system, but today we have a unfortunate example of a man who appears to have a rather poor grasp of the basics, and subsequently cause himself a little more grief than neccesary:
Leroy Franklin Cladd Jr. was cited for not using a crosswalk late Thursday night. He balked at signing the ticket, a misdemeanor that landed him in jail. He was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time, police said. – [Yahoo/AP]
OK. To be fair, I can see where this guy erred. Honestly, why would they throw you in jail for jaywalking? But that’s the problem. They didn’t throw him in jail for jaywalking. They threw him in jail for refusing to answer to the charge of jaywalking. Big difference.
In case you don’t see the difference, let me spell it out for you. Jaywalking. No big deal. But if, perchance, you get caught by a bored officer with nothing better to do, you get a citation. The citation is merely a charge, an accusation of an infraction. Your signature on a citation is not an admission of guilt or innocence, it is simply a way of legally ensuring that you will show up, to either challenge the accusation, or admit guilt and make restitution.
If you don’t sign, you are not legally bound to voluntarily answer to the charge at a later date, so the only way to ensure that this happens is to arrest you on the spot, throw you in jail, and bring you before the next available judge. It’s that simple. It may seem a little harsh for a crime as piddling as jaywalking, but there you have it. The law ain’t perfect.
Seriously, the man should have just signed the doggone citation. At least that way, he might have had a few drinks at the bar before they came and arrested him for not showing up in court…
Fla. man jailed for jaywalking – [Yahoo/AP]
Laaaaaaaw, is a many splendored thiiiiiing… Not.
OK, forgive my musical refrain. I ran across an article today that kinda illustrated how important it is that the laws be objective, not morally motivated, and constantly revised to stay current with the changing times:
Dying in parliament is an offence and is also by far the most absurd law in Britain, according to a survey of nearly 4,000 people by a television channel showing a legal drama series.
And though the lords were clad in their red and white ermine cloaks and ambassadors from around the world wore colourful national costumes, at least nobody turned up in a suit of armour. Illegal. – [Yahoo/AFP]
Obviously many of these laws probably had some practical logic to them when they were made, and merely suffered from being too broad or too specific in scope. However the same is true of many of the laws on the books today. They are based on historical or social standards that are either obsolete or irrelevant today.
On the other side of the coin, there are laws placed on the books, that are simply poorly thought out. Most often emotional the result of knee-jerk reactions by over zealous lawmakers. For instance banning baggy pants? No tag in school? No hugs?!? Seriously, how is banning baggy pants supposed to reduce the crime rate of a city? (see <Dumb Laws.com> for a big list of really wacky laws… Fair warning, you may laugh yourself into oblivion 
)
But on a more serious note, the law has become a means for activists to push their own agendas, as opposed to protecting the society at large, and no, the two are not the same thing. An equitable legal system does not discriminate against anyone on the bases of race, color, creed, beliefs, etc, so it is absolutely ludicrous that any one should have to face prosecution simply because of their choice of clothes. What we are seeing is an abuse of the legal system. And it really needs to stop.
Die and you’re under arrest! Britain’s most stupid laws – [Yahoo/AFP]
Why we need better psych profiling for law enforcement.
I have mentioned on a couple of occasions that I believe that our Justice system here in America needs a serious revamp. I have no illusions about the complexity, inherent problems and near impossibility of creating a perfectly just, adequate and equitable legal system in any country. But here in the US, we have so many resources available that there are some things that we have no excuse for not implementing some basics that would seriously help balance out some of the flaws in the justice system and law enforcement, as it stands today. Articles like the ff, where an off-duty Wisconsin Law Enforcement Officer wigged out and went on a jealous killing spree, only cement my opinion:
An off-duty sheriff’s deputy went on a shooting rampage early Sunday at a home where seven young people had gathered for pizza and movies, killing six and critically injuring the other before authorities fatally shot him, officials said. – [Yahoo/AP]
I know police officers are people too, but shouldn’t there be checks and balances? A requirement for a Specific kind of person for these positions? Even the possible motive for the killings makes no sense:
The circumstances of the shooting were hazy Sunday and it wasn’t immediately clear what the gunman’s motive was, but the mother of a 14-year-old victim said the suspect may have been a jealous boyfriend. – [Yahoo/AP]
A jealous boyfriend? Really? He went on a shooting spree out of jealousy? Even though this motive is entirely speculation at this point, it still begs the question, how did someone like this make it into the force? I know many progressive law enforcement offices use psychological profiling in their hiring process, and I don’t know if the Wisconsin Sheriffs dept. is one of them, but I really think it should be a standard practice, not just in progressive law enforcement establishments, but across the board.
I think that along with periodic evaluations and a statistical analysis of officer behaviour in reference to their psych evals over time and as a whole, could help nip these kinds of problems in the bud. In fact any force that is intended to exercise any level of control over the general populace needs to have this kind of testing done. Maybe I’m beating a dead horse into glue. But come on. Isn’t it worth the lives that would be saved, and the prevention of unfair police brutality to implement something like this universally?
Off-duty Wis. deputy sheriff kills 6 – [Yahoo/AP]
Indian Judges Get Schooled
Here’s yet another great article on dysfunctional legal systems , this time from India:
In an order issued late Friday, Judge R. K. Tiwari was told to return for a three-month refresher course after issuing an arrest warrant in defiance of a previous High Court ruling.
Yes, in India, the lower courts can over rule the higher courts… NOT!!
Tiwari had ordered police to detain a landlord in a case where his tenant had failed to pay the power company, despite a previous High Court ruling that the landlord could not be held responsible. Tiwari could not immediately be reached for comment. – [Yahoo/AP]
And I thought it was bad here in the US!! How did this guy make it into office? But (at the risk of sounding like a broken record) one thing I will say is that the whole retraining idea is a good one. All judges and lawyers should be required to take periodic refresher courses in ethics and the law. As should police officers. And soldiers. and High-ranking military. And government officials. And… Well you get the idea.
OK… Back to my cave I go …
Indian judge ordered back to law school – [Yahoo/AP]
Litigating the Almighty…
I ran into an interesting article today, about a rather unusual case. It appears that no target is to great for the odd frivolous lawsuit. Or so this Nebraska lawmaker claims:
State lawmaker Ernie Chambers filed a lawsuit Friday against the Almighty — acknowledging he/she goes by numerous aliases — for causing “fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues” and other alliterative catastrophes.
The suit, Chambers vs God, asks the court for a “permanent injunction ordering defendant (God) to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terrorist threats” which affect innumerable persons, including Chambers’s constituents.
Chambers told local media he filed the suit to make a point about frivolous lawsuits frequently seen in US courts, citing a recent one against a judge. – [Yahoo/AFP]
OK, bud, we get the point. Notwithstanding the fact that it is common knowledge that there are a vast number of frivolous lawsuits brought to court in any given week, I fail to see how this particular stunt proves anything.
Any judge in their right mind would throw this out. And that will be that. And he wont have proven anything we don’t already know. Like the fact that he has too much time on his hands…
God sued over pestilence and terror – [Yahoo/AFP]
Our Rights: The Overlapping Gray Areas…
I just read an interesting article that illustrates a common, but not so visited aspect of our much valued “personal freedoms”. They are not as clearly defined many like to think:
For Dwight DeGolia’s neighbors, the last straw was the fake palm trees.
The 62-year-old retiree had spent years fixing up the sliver of sloping land outside his home, adding two putting greens that were almost 30 feet long, a small creek and a gazebo.
But the 8- to 12-foot palm trees made it impossible for neighbors to ignore DeGolia’s project anymore, a passion that they said was making the neighborhood look tacky and led them to take DeGolia to court.
Cities and neighborhood associations have struggled for years with how to handle situations in which eccentric people with a penchant for lawn decoration get into fights with nearby homeowners.
The battles often feature issues that are far from straightforward, such as whose property rights are more important — the woman who fancies dozens of cupid statues on her front lawn, or the next door neighbor who has to look at it? – [Yahoo/AP]
I thought I’d talk about this because it’s one of those areas that I think that American culture just doesn’t give enough attention to. The first and most important thing to remember is that, human beings are, at the same time, social, and very, very different.
Regardless of our intentions, so long as we have to interact with others whose beliefs, backgrounds, upbringing, etc., may be worlds apart from our own, we may do things to offend. Unfortunately, this can happen, even when we are exercising our “personal freedoms”.
Any good American will say that we all believe that our personal freedoms should be protected, and must remain inviolate. And in theory, this is good and admirable. Except for one, very large, problem. The idea of isolating and protecting an individuals personal rights is not always a realistic (nor universally practical) goal, since, in any social community, the areas of each of our individual rights overlap. Massively.
And unfortunately, being the litigation happy people that we are, we forget some of the lessons our parents taught us when we were growing up. You know, the ones about compromise? Sharing? We have become so selfish, that we will fight, tooth and nail, to the death, to do what we want to do, claiming justification under the flag of our “Individual Rights”.
We tend to completely ignore the fact that the person we may be in contention with, may have an equally valid right to say, do, or express whatever it is they feel the need to do at the time. Now I honestly believe that, with freedom, comes great responsibility. And, unfortunately, equally great sacrifice.
Everybody wants to have their freedom. But nobody wants to bear the responsibility, or have to be the one to sacrifice something. I believe that the idea of individual freedoms isn’t about each if us getting what we want. It is about trying to make sure that everyone, not just you, has a chance to get what they want.
We have to learn to compromise, be considerate of others. Try and resolve our differences. Be willing to listen. Be willing to compromise. Everyone should be willing to sacrifice something. Perhaps a little more this time, maybe a little less next time. It will change from case to case. And there are not perfect solutions.
But the willingness to compromise should be there, if we really all truly believe in the concept of individual rights. No ones rights should exist to exclusivity of all others. And until we learn that lesson, I think we will all just be going through the motions, and paying lip service to the concept of “Individual rights”. It will be a catchy phrase, nothing more.
And I don’t think we really want that as a nation. But that’s just my opinion.
Yard art is in eye of beholder and court – [Yahoo/AP]
Here Come the Fashion Police. Literally.
Every time I see a law that is centered around the way a person dresses, I cringe. I cringe because, almost every law that gets passed in relation to clothing seems to be based on someones personal conviction of what they believe to be “decent”. Here’s a typical example:
Baggy trousers that hang way below the belt and expose what the wearer has on underneath could soon be banned in the southern US city of Atlanta, a city council spokesman said Friday.
“Many youngsters are walking around with their pants way, way below their waists, and you can see everything. Some people call it a fad or a fashion statement but it is simple indecency,” Dexter Chambers, the communications director at Atlanta City Council, told AFP by phone.
And by everything, you mean what exactly?
The trend of wearing oversized trousers that fall down and expose one’s smalls derives from the US prison system.
“It started in prison, where, as I understand it, belts are taken away from inmates. But it evolved into a situation where it was used by prisoners to let others know they were ‘available,’ and it still has that sexual connotation,” Chambers said. – [Yahoo/AFP]
And this is the basis of your objections? Why do people like to look at things and then infer a meaning from it without any logical frame of reference to do so? Even if wearing your pants low around your hips in prison might mean you are sexually available, that does not mean it means the same thing out here. How can you make that kind of leap?
Is he trying to say that all of the youth running around with low slung pants are basically advertising thier sexual availability? I’m no expert, but I seriously doubt that. Why does the idea of it being a fashion fad seem so unreasonable? They are quick to deny that any similar laws are aimed at exposed bra straps and athletic bras, but what exactly is the difference? They might as well.
Who decides what the dress code of the street is supposed to be? Why is it that you can have women walking around in thong bikinis, and men in naught but a pair of speedos, and that is considered “decent” but a fully clothed man whose only fashion faux pas is that his pants are so low that his underwear is showing is an abomination?
These things make no sense. The law should not be used to enforce any indidivuals personal moral code. If the teachers don’t like it, then the schools needs to implement and enforce a dress code. The law should be used to enforce serious public safety issues. Not social dress code.
US city planning ban on low-slung baggy pants – [Yahoo/AFP]
Killers: Life, death, and the gray paradox in between…
Given that earlier today, I posted my opinion on what I think the criteria of a true “killer” is, I find it ironic that I should run across an article dealing with the ethics of the death penalty for a person who meets the legally circumscribed definition of a “Killer”:
“The European Union notes with great regret the upcoming execution in the State of Texas,” the Portuguese presidency of the 27-nation bloc said in a statement.
Texas is expected to hit the 400 mark on Wednesday — putting it far ahead of any other U.S. state — with the execution of Johnny Ray Conner for the 1998 shooting of a grocery store clerk.
The European Union, which on Tuesday called the death penalty “cruel and inhumane,” is opposed to all capital punishment and has called for its worldwide abolition.
“There is no evidence to suggest that the use of the death penalty serves as a deterrent against violent crime,” the statement said, adding that its irreversibility meant that miscarriages of justice could not be redressed. – [Yahoo/Reuters]
What I find most interesting about this article, is the EUs objection to the death penalty on the grounds that it:
- Has not proven to be a deterrent against violent crime.
- Is cruel and inhumane.
Oh really? I might actually have bought reason one, if the sole purpose of the death penalty was to be a deterrent to violent crime. But most of the people whom I think would think deserve the death penalty are people who could watch someone getting brutally massacred right before their eyes without batting an eye, and proceed to enjoy a steak dinner like nothing happened and then sleep like a baby that night. IMHO The death penalty is not a deterrent. It’s cleanup.
That’s not to say that the death penalty couldn’t be a good deterrent for the more normal types of killers. It’s just that nobody thinks it’s going to happen to them unless they actually see it happen, up close and personal. Humans are visual creatures. If you really want to make an impression on them, you have to show them. How many people you know have actually ever seen an execution occur? I’m willing to bet few to none. So how exactly is it intended to be a deterrent?
And point 2 is laughable at best. Is life in prison supposed to be less cruel than death? Sure you’ll be alive, but it won’t exactly be a picnic either. Many who get life ending up serving a reduced sentence anyway due to bing killed in prison. And inhumane? There are such things as humane executions. Is death by lethal injection inhumane? I don’t think so. If I had to go, what better way than to just fall asleep an never wake up again. Quick and painless. I don’t think it gets any more humane than that.
Now obviously, I have no intrinsic objections to the death penalty. There are some people who will never be able to function in a socially constructive way, and can never be rehabilitated. And I think these people only pose a continuing threat to the well being of everyone else, and can safely (in my opinion anyway) be removed from society. But there are problems.
The biggest problem, is the only valid objection I saw in the article. The fact that the death penalty is irreversible, and if there is a mistake there is no way to rectify it. I can’t argue that, because our legal system has many flaws. Innocent people are found guilty and the guilty walk free. On the basis of that alone, we ought to abolish the death penalty. Not because it’s not a good solution for eliminating incurably violent criminals from society, but because the system too flawed to accurately determine who really deserves that penalty.
The legal system, for all of it’s massive and highly detailed rules and regulations, is still run and decided by living, breathing, human people. Each person has different belief system, different ideas of right and wrong, and different thresholds and tolerances for things. And few cases feature objective and irrefutable evidence like a video camera or an audio tape that tells the whole story in an accurate and objective manner. The judge and jury often has to make assumptions and decisions based on assumptions. It’s just isn’t morally or ethically responsible to base anyones death on human assumptions and feelings.
But even if the system could determine with 100 percent accuracy who should get the chair, we can’t kid ourselves about what we are doing. There is a paradox to this way of thinking. We are, in effect murdering a person in cold blood. Yes, we are doing it to save the lives of others that we know could be killed if the killer is allowed to continue to live. But we are being killers ourselves, simply because do not have, and cannot come up with, a better solution. Imagine that. We have no imagination…
EU urges Texas to halt executions before 400 mark – [Yahoo/Reuters]
The RIAAs Worms Turn!
The RIAA seems to be a prominent fixture in the online media these days. And given that they seem to have adopted the rather short sighted strategy of knowingly suing both guilty as well as innocent members of the very demographics that they could have been legitimately making a lot of money from, it isn’t hard to see why. But now it seems that they may truly be getting ready to experience a full size serving of their own brand of justice:
In cases which should by rights have been initiated by the Bush government on behalf of innocent families across America, falsely attacked by Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, RIAA victims Tanya Andersen and Michelle Santangelo are determined to make the Big 4, as well as companies involved in the sue ‘em all morass, pay, literally and figuratively, for the distress they’ve caused and are still causing.
Go Tanya and Michelle! Though I have some reservations about the long term repercussions of Michelles’ legal approach, ( I think the justification for her claims and the resulting targets are only half right) , I was suitably convinced by Tanya’s list of complaints:
Her amended complaint is impressive. She’s citing negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy. – [p2pnet.net]
Wow. It looks like the RIAA is getting ready to have the book thrown at them. As I have said on many occasions, I have always felt that the big entertainment industries had all the right in the world to try and protect their business from pirates.
However I think they crossed the line when they started attacking any technology that could be used for file sharing, especially when these same technologies have proven so beneficial for so many other legitimate purposes. Even more heinous was the decision to sue people, en mass, without any kind of conclusive evidence, and use their legal and financial clout to extort them into settling.
What was the worst was when it became obvious that they were knowingly subjecting innocent people to this form of legalized extortion. I kinda think that they were definitely asking for this. And to be honest, the first line of the article actually echoes my sentiments exactly. Why has this obviously monopolistic corporate activity been ignored by the federal government? I am really interesting in seeing how this turns out.
RIAA named in first class action – [p2pnet.net]
Sheriffs Deputy drunken shenanigans…
Just read of an unusual DUI case involving an off-duty Sheriffs Deputy:
Charlotte Moore, 36, a jail deputy, was off duty driving her 2004 Pontiac Grand Am on Saturday when she was pulled over by her husband, Elko County Sheriffs Deputy Mike Moore, a police report said.
In two separate accounts of the incident, Mike Moore indicated she initially was pulled over for either speeding or making an illegal turn.
She allegedly left before being administered a portable breathalyzer test, the Elko Daily Free Press reported.
Mike Moore pulled her over again and called for backup. He left shortly after another officer arrived. – [Yahoo/AP]
Now this case is of interest to me for several reasons. First, obviously, as a sheriffs deputy who had probably jailed many inebriated drivers, she should have known better than to drink and drive herself. But the other more interesting point for me was that her husband actually pulled her over twice, and allowed her to be arrested for DUI.
Now I can only speculate about how strong their relationship is, but things like this have a tendency to become points of embitterment. How many people, given the opportunity, would have simply taken the easy route, covered it up, taken the wife home and let her sleep it off? Maybe he had a choice and maybe he didn’t. But if he did have that option, and chose to take this route, I think he did the right thing, and only hope that his integrity is rewarded.
Though I have to admit that in this day and age, I doubt that it will…
Husband pulls over his deputy wife twice – [Yahoo/AP]
Log In
My Thoughts…
Blogroll
General Info
Phyreblades Blogs
Famous Last Words
The Time Machine
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Issues
Pick your Poison:
Easy Eavesdropping.
- Phyreblade on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- dreadrocksean on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- shamelesslyatheist on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…