Law & Justice: November 2003 Archives

I have no idea whether or not this pseudononymous account is true, but GeekPress links to a story by a self-proclaimed mafia programmer who sets up and runs illegal book-making operations in New York City. The narrative is interesting, but what stood out most to me was near the end:

The fact remains that I could be pulling in $150,000 as a programmer on the open market. But I make a third of that. So why am I risking a prison sentence or the potential of a lifetime in witness protection for a job that doesn't make me all that rich? Simple: When you start making a lot of money, you get noticed by the biggest bullies on the block - the cops and the IRS - and I don't want that. I like living below the radar. I sublet a friend's apartment and pay his utility bills with money orders that I purchase at the post office or at one of those check-cashing storefronts. Because I get paid entirely in cash, I don't fork over any taxes. When you get right down to it, I'm an idealist. I don't condone the actions of the US government. By refusing to pay taxes, I withhold my financial support. And, truth be told, I like mobsters. They're more willing to accept you at face value. They aren't hung up on college degrees, or where you live, or how many criminal convictions you have.

The police and the IRS are, in a sense, the big dogs on the block, and this final paragraphs illustrates that they're performing their jobs adequately. Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of law enforcement isn't to completely eliminate crime -- it's to make crime unprofitable, in the aggregate. People such as "Simson Garfinkel" may still break laws due to "principle", but that's because their sense of profit is non-standard; the satisfaction they get from breaking the law is more "profitable" to them than the money they're sacrificing. Most people, however, are in it for the money, whatever it happens to be.

When society outlaws some behavior, it attempts to increase the transaction costs of that behavior and thus render it unprofitable. The purpose of law enforcement is to make the cost of breaking the law times the chance of getting caught and convicted higher than the benefit of breaking the law times the chance of getting away with it. That an illegal bookmaking operation is forced to give better odds than can be found in legitimate gambling (according to the story), and that the operator makes less money than his skills would otherwise earn, is a testament to the effectiveness of law enforcement.

Similarly, consider the War on [Some] Drugs, which props up street prices for chemicals that are relatively cheap and easy to manufacture, and thus arguably reduce their consumption. That's the theory anyway, and as long as prices are kept high enough it'll work. Obviously there are other factors involved in this form of prohibition, and as with any law society needs to weigh the costs and benefits of the law itself (but that's a different issue).

On the other hand, think about the enforcement of traffic laws. Because of the way they're enforced, it's obvious that most traffic laws are designed more as a source of revenue than for the protection of the public. For example, the vast majority of drivers decide that the benefits of speeding outweigh the costs of getting caught; almost everyone speeds. The explanation for this is pretty simple: everyone sees their time as valuable and not-to-be-wasted driving more slowly than necessary, and everyone knows there's only a miniscule chance of being caught in any particular instance. Thus, laws against speeding are ineffective and disrespected, and everyone knows it. The only reason they're kept around is to provide revenue for cities -- in a sense, they're an arbitrary, randomly collected tax. For this reason, I think speeding laws are unjust. If society really thinks it's important for people not to speed, we need to vote to increase the penalties enough so that the laws will be effective, even with sparse enforcement. For example, if the penalty for speeding was spending a year in jail, I expect speeding would be reduced dramatically.

Of course, this will never happen because no one thinks speeding is a big enough problem to punish effectively. We live in a democracy, where social right and wrong are defined (generally) by the will of the majority. If the majority doesn't believe speeding is worth discouraging effectively, and speeding laws are widely ignored and disrespected, there's no moral compulsion to obey them -- because the laws themselves are unjust. I believe we have a moral duty to drive safely, but the more restrictive legalistic details depend on the form of government any particular individual happens to live with.

In contrast, consider illegal book-making. According to the story, accepting 5 illegal bets in a single day is a felony, punishable by up to 3 years in prison. That level of punishment (times the level of enforcement) apparently leads to such ventures being unprofitable, which in turn indicates that society takes the crime seriously. Therefore, we have a obligation to obey the otherwise morally neutral restriction of our freedom (not that I think it's a great restriction).

Not a lot of information, but via Drudge I see that Geuda Springs, Kansas, has passed a an ordinance requiring households to purchase ordnance.

GEUDA SPRINGS, Kan. — Residents of this tiny south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.

Noncomplying residents would be fined $10 under the ordinance, passed 3-2 earlier this month by City Council members who thought it would help protect the town of 210 people. Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

"This ordinance fulfills the duty to protect by allowing each individual householder to provide for his or her protection," said Councilman John Brewer.

Interesting. I think it's generally wise for people to be armed, but I don't think government compulsion is a great idea.

At some point, the various anti-war-ok-we're-really-just-on-the-other-side folks are going to realize that the more they cry wolf when there aren't any wolves, the less effect their cries are going to have. Everyone likes free speech, and when people complain of government intimidation I get concerned... at first... but after a while, the complaints themselves become evidence that there's no oppression going on. If the kids were smart, they'd try to build some credibility just in case there ever is a wolf.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum.

Uh oh! "Suspicious activity"! Like what?

F.B.I. officials said in interviews that the intelligence-gathering effort was aimed at identifying anarchists and "extremist elements" plotting violence, not at monitoring the political speech of law-abiding protesters.

Oh, violence. Please, like that ever happens at peace protests.

The initiative has won the support of some local police, who view it as a critical way to maintain order at large-scale demonstrations. Indeed, some law enforcement officials said they believed the F.B.I.'s approach had helped to ensure that nationwide antiwar demonstrations in recent months, drawing hundreds of thousands of protesters, remained largely free of violence and disruption.

It sounds like the FBI's plan is proceeding exactly as they claim to intend: preventing violence, while allowing patriotic, America-loving dissent.

Nevertheless, the ACLU is concerned.

"The F.B.I. is dangerously targeting Americans who are engaged in nothing more than lawful protest and dissent," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred, and I have a serious concern about whether we're going back to the days of Hoover."

The line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred? Gee, I wonder how that came about? It wouldn't have anything to do with the American Civil Liberties Union getting involved in terror issues, would it? Not that there aren't real concerns, but this type of nonsense eliminates the credibility of serious warnings.

Furthermore, the executive director of the ACLU should know that although civil disobedience for a just cause may be morally acceptable, many forms of disobedience are illegal, and thus perfectly legitimate concerns for law enforcement officers.

The article closes with another non-point by the ACLU mouthpiece:

Critics said they remained worried. "What the F.B.I. regards as potential terrorism," Mr. Romero of the A.C.L.U. said, "strikes me as civil disobedience."

So... is Mr. Romero saying that no civil disobedience is potential terrorism? The key word here is potential, and Mr. Romero has already claimed that the line is terribly blurred.

You know what, I just thought of something scary. What if the left sounds shrill and idiotic because the government has already abducted all the smart dissenters?

Let's say Michael Jackson is completely innocent of all the charges against him: he's still shown some of the most phenomenally bad judgement I can imagine. There's four great examples in this single article.

Number 1: Nutso conspiracy theory.

"These characters always seem to surface with a dreadful allegation just as another project, an album, a video, is being released," Jackson said in the statement.

Sneddon dismissed Jackson's claims, saying the investigation had been underway for months.

"Jackson himself, I believe, has said this was all done to ruin his new CD that was coming ... like, the sheriff and I are really into that kind of music," Sneddon said.

What really needs to be said? Even if some kid wanted to hurt Jackson's career, why would the police go along with it and actually file charges if they couldn't find any evidence during their 14 hour search of the Neverland Ranch? Who even knew he was coming out with a new album? Maybe I'm just way out of the loop, but I sure didn't. Only a celebrity could come up with an egocentric explanation like that.

Numbers 2 and 3: Strange bedfellows.

It has been a tumultuous year for Jackson, whose talents as an entertainer have been eclipsed by his bizarre personal life. In February, he spoke in a British television documentary of sometimes sharing his Neverland bedroom with young boys.

?!?!?!?!!??!! Why would you do that and risk looking like a child molester, if you weren't actually a child molester? Why would you want to, and even if you did want to (for non-molestational reasons?!), why would you actually do it, knowing how it would look? And then, why would you go on TV and admit it like it was no big deal?! I can't possibly use enough question marks and exclamation points here to properly express my flabbergastedness.

Number 4: Superbaby.

In November last year, Jackson stunned fans in Berlin by dangling his barefoot baby from a hotel balcony.

I can't believe this wasn't some sort of crime. What if he had come to the balcony with a gun shoved in his kid's mouth? This incident is even more completely insane than the previous 3, and that Michael Jackson didn't even notice shows that he's criminally dangerous and should probably be locked up. What's to stop him from jokingly crashing his car into a hospital or laughingly taking a few potshots at a school?

I like some of his old songs; I even feel sorry for whatever mental problems he has that inclined him towards all the radical surgery he's put himself through. But look. At some point, I've got to stop feeling sorry for the millionaire Peter Pan and start getting concerned that he's a criminally insane lunatic.

Maybe he is insane, and he really can't control his behavior, but that's all the more reason to lock him up. Maybe his traumatic celebrity childhood is to blame -- who knows? Who cares? He may have a great excuse, but that's no reason to let him keep menacing the world.

Update:
Here's a new twist. Let's say your kid was dying of cancer and you had no way to pay for the treatments. Michael Jackson comes along and says he'll pay for everything, and your son will live... but you have to let him molest the boy later. Sure, in reality there may always be other sources of charitable funding, but a desperate parent may not know enough to find out, and may be really short on time. Even if you're against the idea and would rather let your son die, what if he insists on taking the chance?

S3 (who really needs to get his own blog) sent me a FoxNews article on an issue that's very troubling to me, unjust child custody laws. The article is mainly focused on Britain, but most of the problems it discusses are present in America as well. Adequate fathers deserve equal access to their children.

It's often the case that fathers are caught in a Catch-22. Since the father is typically the major income-earner of the family, he doesn't spend as much time with the children as the mother does. This leads to two results: first, judges award primary custody to the mother because the children are more closely "bonded" with her; second, the father is stuck paying for raising the kids, even though he doesn't get to be with them. Frankly, this is an absurd predicament.

I believe that it is a father's responsibility to provide for the welfare of his family, but once the family is broken up (depending on the circumstances, of course) that responsibility needs to be reconsidered by the authority in charge of the divorce proceedings. I've read of cases in which the father is forced to financially support the mother and children, while being denied custody and even legally-enforced visitation. The court is forcing the man to continue fulfilling his fatherly-husbandly obligations even after the divorce, but just imagine the outcry if the court also forced the mother to continue cooking his meals and having his babies. (Don't get all huffy -- financial support is as much a fatherly responsibility as having babies is a motherly responsibility, take 'em or leave 'em.)

My parents divorced when I was 10, and in retrospect I'm incredibly grateful that the judge awarded them joint custody of me and my brother. I really want to get married and have kids, but this is one of the aspects I dread. Presumably, when I find a woman I want to marry I'll be 100% confident that this could never happen to me, but I know there's no certainty. It's scary.

Finally, I'd like to applaud FoxNews' website; it's the only major news outlet I know of that puts lots of links to outside sources in its stories. In this case, it links to a group called Fathers-4-Justice that looks pretty interesting (although I don't agree with their position that grandparents have an inalienable right to visit their grandchildren).

I don't know much about the situation, but my esteemed co-Bearflagger Justene Adamec is being sued by Infotel (these guys? they look French [they're Canadien! -- Ed.]; these guys?) for something some commenters wrote on her site in response to this post about Infotel scamming her.

Anyway, McGehee and the other Bearflaggers are all over this, so I'm going to go back to work. I just wanted to note the incident, and lend my moral support.

This isn't specifically about "Law & Justice" per se, but I wanted to link to a pre-Lawrence article from The Advocate that has some personal stories about some of the current Supreme Court Justices. The Justices and the Court fascinate me, and it's a little voyeristic to be sure, but oh well. The context of the article is speculation on what the court will decide to do about Texas anti-sodomy laws (it ended up striking them down).

Update:
For more (professional, some personal) information about the Justices of your choice, read these short biographies. (Via Eugene Volokh.)

The New Hampshire Supreme Court says that gay sex isn't adultery.

The court was asked to review a divorce case in which a husband accused his wife of adultery after she had a sexual relationship with another woman. Any finding that one spouse is at fault in the break-up of a marriage can change how the court divides the couple's property.

Robin Mayer, of Brownsville, Vt., was named in the divorce proceedings of a Hanover couple. She appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that gay sex doesn't qualify as adultery under the state's divorce law.

In a 3-2 ruling Friday, the court agreed.

The majority determined that the definition of adultery requires sexual intercourse. The judges who disagreed said adultery should be defined more broadly to include other extramarital sexual activity.

So, what's your take on the matter, from a legal and moral standpoint? Does this affect the line that's drawn for male-female sexual activities and adultery?

My initial take on it is that female-female sex is different from male-male sex, am I wrong? Sure, you may think that all combinations are equally unfaithful emotionally, but are they all adultery?

Update:
Eugene Volokh says that the ruling applies to all nongenital sex and not just oral sex, for what it's worth. I think the moral aspect of the question is more interesting than the legal, however.

The Green River Killer has plead guilty to 48 murders, but Gary Ridgway is far from the worst serial killer in history. I'm not going to excerpt any details -- that BBC article is just a brief overview of serial killers in general -- but if you're looking for a really depressing read, google for "Pedro Alonso Lopez" (or read his Court TV site).

If you're interested, here's a federal list of controlled substances. Oxycodone (the primary ingredient of OxyContin) and cocaine are both Schedule II narcotics, for example.

A Colorado judge has ordered a mother not to expose her daughter to "teaching... that can be considered homophobic."

Cheryl Clark, who left a lesbian relationship in 2000 after converting to Christianity, was ordered by Denver County Circuit Judge John Coughlin to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic."

Dr. Clark filed her appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals last week.

Her former lover, Elsey McLeod, was awarded joint custody of the child, an 8-year-old girl who is Dr. Clark's daughter by adoption. ...

"Elsey never adopted this child. It's an egregious situation because the court is giving custody to someone who is not related to the child and has not adopted the child," Mr. Staver [a lawyer with Liberty Counsel] said.

The judge awarded joint custody, despite the fact that the former lover did not officially adopt the child.

Mathew Staver, a lawyer speaking for Dr. Clark, goes on:

"The mother is a Christian, and that's a major part of her lifestyle," he said. "She would be prohibited from reading her daughter Romans 1 or anything in the Bible on sexual fidelity in marriage, going to Bible study, or listening to a sermon on marriage or fidelity."

The judge's order seems to be atrocious, absurd, and in clear violation of the 1st Amendment as well as common parenting rights.

Update:
Eugene Volokh comments and notes the "best interests of the child" standard that courts use in custody decisions. Under general circumstances, it's for the parents to decide what is in the child's best interests, but when parental custody itself is involved, it gets much more complicated. What about when the child's "best interests" conflict with the parent's Constitutional rights? Among many other things, Eugene says, "But what this means, I think, is that sometimes the parents' constitutional rights should prevent a judge from rendering a decision that he thinks is in the child's best interests."

Yeah, this bothers me. Secret trials are not ok with me, unless the defendant waives his right to a public one. I hope the Supreme Court looks into it.