Law & Justice: January 2004 Archives

A lawsuit filed by some decendents of slaves against various corporations has been dismissed (without prejudice) by the judge in charge of the case.

CHICAGO — A federal judge yesterday dismissed a lawsuit brought by descendants of slaves against corporations they contend profited from slavery, saying the plaintiffs had established no clear link to the companies they targeted.

That's the first paragraph, but the most important aspect of the ruling is farther down.

"Plaintiffs' attempt to bring these claims more than a century after the end of the Civil War and the formal abolition of slavery fails," U.S. District Judge Charles R. Norgle said.

He said the plaintiffs' claims "are beyond the constitutional authority of this court" and that the lawsuit claimed no specific connection between the plaintiffs and the companies named as defendants. ...

In his opinion, Judge Norgle acknowledged "the historic injustices and the immorality of the institution of human chattel slavery in the United States."

But he said long-standing doctrine in matters involving political questions "bars the court from deciding the issue of slavery reparations, an issue that has been historically and constitutionally committed to the legislative and executive branches of our government."

Even if there were a clear and convincing connection between the companies being sued and the decendents of slaves, the matter of reparations for previously-legal actions is far outside the jurisdiction of any existing court. As Judge Norgle wrote, it's a political question that Congress must decide; Congress has the power to establish a system to deal with the question, but it falls outside the purview of our existing courts.

Further, even if slavery had been a crime 200 years ago, it would still be impossible to prosecute.

As for the timing, he said, the plaintiffs had failed to show how the wrongs cited in the lawsuit fall within the statute of limitations.

Personally, I believe that it's unjust and immoral to seek reparations for crimes perpetrated against one's ancestors. Where do you stop? Where do you draw the line? As the controversy over The Passion of the Christ shows, Jews are still worried about being persecuted for actions of some of their people 2,000 years ago -- and with some justification, considering the persecution they've dealt with over the issue in the past. Why stop with reparations for decendents of slaves? Why notgo back through all recorded history and try to right every wrong ever committed against anyone?

Part of the problem is that the leftist ideology sees groups, it doesn't see individuals. When leftists see black Americans they see members of a previously persecuted group, they don't see individuals responsible for their own destiny. Even though no ex-slaves are alive today, the members of their group are entitled to compensation for the wrongs done against their group two centuries ago. No individual matters -- and individual details are probably unknowable across such a time span -- all that matters is the group.

It's absurd to think that punishing innocents by taking away their possessions and giving them to the decendents of people their ancestors wronged is any sort of justice. If my grandfather killed your grandfather and it was discovered 50 years after they were both dead, it would be ridiculous for you to sue me over it. We all bear the consequences of our peoples' histories, good and bad, and we're all individually responsible for how we live our own lives. It's just a fact of life.

I'm not entirely certain, but this seems right. I guess.

Lionel Tate (search), the teen who killed a 6-year-old playmate and became the youngest defendant in the nation to be locked away for life, was released Monday after three years behind bars. ...

Supporters have rallied from the Vatican to the United Nations to free Tate since he was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of 6-year-old playmate Tiffany Eunick (search) three years ago. Tate was 12 when he punched, kicked and stomped the 48-pound girl to death in 1999.

Tate had claimed he accidentally killed the girl while imitating professional wrestling moves he had seen on television. ...

After Tate's conviction was thrown out, prosecutors renewed their offer of a three-year sentence in exchange for a guilty plea to second-degree murder -- the same offer Tate's mother had turned down before the trial. ...

He has agreed to one year of house arrest, 10 years' probation, counseling and 1,000 hours of community service.

Despite the apparent evil of his act, he's a child and I suppose logic dictates he be treated leniently. Nevertheless, his smiling photo and this quote from his lawyer are disconcerting.

"For now, Lionel wants to go home, he wants to feel his pillow, he wants to sleep in his own bed and his mom cook to make him his favorite meal tonight," said his attorney Richard Rosenbaum.

I have no doubt Tiffany Eunick would prefer similar comforts, to being dead.

All illegal aliens are "criminals", but there's a subset who commit many felonies in addition to their mere presence and who local police are afraid to arrest and prosecute due to political pressure. For example, 95% of outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles target illegal aliens. That's an amazing figure, but due to Special Order 40 the police claim to be unable to assist federal law enforcement in apprehending known illegal aliens who have already been convicted of felonies, deported, and who then return to Los Angeles.

I'm glad to see the issue getting some attention here in Los Angeles thanks to the John and Ken Show on FKI 640 AM, but it's even better to see FoxNews doing a piece on it and the Washington Times mentioning Special Order 40 in a larger article about the illegal alien crime wave. Jerry Seper writes:

Making matters more difficult for federal authorities are several municipalities that have passed ordinances prohibiting their employees, including police officers, from enforcing federal immigration laws.

Known as "sanctuary laws," the ordinances are in place in varying degree in major cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and Houston. ...

The Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE), also based in the District, has begun to bring lawsuits against those municipalities with sanctuary ordinances and has promised additional legal challenges.

FILE has argued that state and county governments are prohibited from adopting policies that prevent its employees from contacting federal immigration authorities about the legal status of any noncitizen or to report violations of U.S. immigration law by any noncitizen.

"These policies, called 'sanctuary policies,' promise foreign nationals who have broken our laws that the municipality in which they live will help them in their lawbreaking by resisting efforts to report them to the proper authorities," FILE said in a statement.

"Such policies are illegal, naturally, and have been rejected by the courts. Nevertheless, some cities, remarkably, persist in maintaining their illegal sanctuary policies," FILE said. "Unfortunately, the executive branch of the federal government has been for many years utterly derelict in forcing, as is its duty, municipalities to abide by the law."

There's some good-ish news at the end of the article: it looks like the Department of Homeland Security is going to create a few teams to help track and prosecute illegal alien felons. But uh, does anyone notice anything missing?

Assistant Secretary Michael J. Garcia, who heads ICE, the investigative arm of Homeland Security, has promised a vigorous enforcement effort for criminal aliens now in the country, including a $10 million effort to fund eight new teams of agents to apprehend and deport aliens convicted of crimes in the United States.

The new teams, which join eight already in operation, will be based in Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Texas and Washington state.

California? Hello? We've got more illegal aliens than anyone else, how about a little help here?

Update:
Here's a page on John and Ken's website with phone numbers and email addresses for the powerful people in Los Angeles. Call them and tell them you're opposed to Special Order 40.

The House will consider yet another bill designed to punish people who injure unborn babies while in the process of committing a federal felony. Perhaps this time the Senate will follow suit.

WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved a bill that would make it a separate federal crime to kill or injure a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman. Democrats on the panel called the legislation a thinly veiled attempt to erode abortion rights. ...

But Democrats and abortion rights groups said the real motive was to establish "fetal personhood" (search) by giving separate federal protection to a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus. "This is part of a larger cultural war that is going on," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, top Democrat on the committee.

The Democrats are right, of course. Just as attempts to continually tighten gun regulations are part of the grander plan to eliminate gun ownership entirely, laws aimed at granting legal personhood to unborn babies are part of a larger plan as well. For political reasons people on both sides of both issues take a lot of different postures, but I think everyone knows what's going on.

There is a cultural war going on over abortion, and laws such as this are designed to take advantage of weaknesses in the pro-abortion argument. Abortions of convenience are losing acceptance -- even among women -- and pro-lifers are slowly winning with commonsense proposals like this and the partial-birth abortion ban.

Note also:

California and nearly 30 other states have laws giving different degrees of protection to fetal victims.

If the Supreme Court doesn't revisit Roe v. Wade there will eventually be a Constitutional Amendment allowing states to regulate abortion like other forms of killing. This doesn't mean every state will outlaw abortion immediately, but they'll be able to make that decision on their own, just as each state defines and regulates murder without interference from the federal government.

My PRAR was fulfilled for the nominal cost of $0.10 per page, a total of 105 pages. (For the history, see here.) The gist of it:

- six CCW applicants in five years;
- three CCWs granted, one to the mayor and two to city councilmen;
- three CCWs denied to non-office-holders, one of whom was not a resident of the city.

They also attached the city's CCW policy, which doesn't really describe good cause except to say that the Chief of Police will make the determination. In total:

Good cause: Both Penal Code section 12050(a)(1) and the Police Department's responsibility for the public's safety dictate that good cause be established prior to the Chief of Police issuing a CCW permit. In evaluating good cause and determining whether it has been established, the Chief of Police will give careful consideration of the reason(s) for requesting the permit that is/are documented on the application. Personal convenience alone will not constitute good cause for the issuance of a permit. Job position, classification, or an asserted need for personal protection will not alone establish good cause, but they may weigh significantly in determining good cause.

There's a bit more that says (redundantly) that felons and people with CCWs revoked for cause will be denied (as required by law).

What's most interesting is that there's a section on "Application Processing" that says the Chief of Police will take fingerprints and send the application on to the Department of Justice, but they never took my fingerprints and so they couldn't have sent my application to the DoJ.

I was given the approved applications of the two councilmen (I was assured the mayor's is on the way), and I'm reading through them.

Let's see. The first councilman apparently had a current restraining order against him when he applied. That doesn't sound good. He was also the victim of domestic violence -- his ex-wife threw food at him. Maybe this is related to the restraining order against him? According to his good cause statement, he was held at gunpoint in 2000, but there's no further information indicating a further future threat.

For the second councilman, his entire good cause was redacted. There is a short answer to a later question asking why there are no other means of protection other than a CCW: "It is not possible or realistic for me to conceal myself from the public. Both my occupation and position with the city require me to be easily and readily accessible." Translation: I'm a city councilman.

Pursuant to Salute vs. Pitchess (61 Cal. App. 3d 557, 1976):

To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion" and "It is the duty of the sheriff [or police chief] to make such an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application under section 12050.

That's basically it. The CCW policy outlines an appeal process, which I might follow. I need to examine the matter further and consider my options.

Here's an excellent account of how law enforcement tracked down and prosecuted the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. As a fan of Law & Order, I eat this stuff up.

Glenn Reynolds posts about a Muslim Imam who wrote a book on how to "properly discipline" a disobedient wife (that is, beat them). It's a repellent topic, and Mr. Reynolds asks "Will any multiculturalists spring to his defense?"

Well, I certainly will not defend the beating of wives, but I would like to make one point. From the BBC article:

A Muslim cleric who wrote a book that advised men how to beat up their wives without leaving incriminating marks has been sentenced by a Spanish court.

Mohamed Kamal Mustafa was given 15 months in jail, which he will not serve as Spanish law suspends sentences of under two years for first offences.

No one should be subject to criminal prosecution for writing a book -- any book, no matter how disgusting.

I got an email about City Journal's new winter issue, and a couple articles caught my eye. Both relate to my city-of-love, Los Angeles, so I figured I'd post them together.

The first is a piece by Heather Mac Donald, "The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave". I love her use of hyphens in the headline (if she wrote it herself; although she could have also hyphenated "Crime-Wave"; then again, you can over-use them; anyway...), and the article discusses a major problem in Southern California.

Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.

As Ms. Mac Donald notes, city prohibitions against local enforcement of federal immigration laws is the ultimate reflection of our nation's failed immigration controls. She has more details:

In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

Ms. Mac Donald has a lot more, and I recommend reading the whole thing. There are two things she doesn't mention, however. First, how President Bush's recent policy proposal addresses the problems she discusses (if it does at all), and second how we can convince Mexico to extradite the hundreds of murderers who kill in the US and then flee across the border.

The next article is a bit lighter, "The Curse of the Creative Class" by Steven Malanga. He writes about cities implementing "hip" policies to lure younger, richer, more "creative" workers.

If you think these efforts represent some fringe of economic development, think again. All of these cities have been inspired by the theories of Richard Florida, a Carnegie Mellon professor whose notion that cities must become trendy, happening places in order to compete in the twenty-first-century economy is sweeping urban America. In his popular book The Rise of the Creative Class, which just appeared in paperback after going through multiple hardcover editions, Florida argues that cities that attract gays, bohemians, and ethnic minorities are the new economic powerhouses because they are also the places where creative workers—the kind who start and staff innovative, fast-growing companies—want to live. To lure this workforce, Florida argues, cities must dispense with stuffy old theories of economic development—like the notion that low taxes are what draw in companies and workers—and instead must spend heavily on cultural amenities and pursue progressive social legislation. ...

While much of The Creative Class is little more than Florida’s depiction of the Internet bubble’s go-go culture, the last third of the book offers urban policymakers a seemingly dazzling new economic-development agenda derived from these observations. To capitalize on the hot new economy, Florida tells policymakers, they must reach out to the creative class, whose interests are different from those of the buttoned-down families that cities traditionally try to attract through good schools and low taxes. The new creative class craves a vibrant nightlife, outdoor sports facilities, and neighborhoods vibrant with street performers, unique shops, and chic cafés. In Florida’s universe, the number of local bands on the pop charts becomes more important to the economy than tax codes. “It is hard to think of a major high-tech region that doesn’t have a distinct audio identity,” Florida writes, sounding more like a rock critic than an economics prof. Creative workers want to live and work in “authentic” neighborhoods of historic buildings, not areas that are “full of chain stores, chain restaurants and nightclubs,” he asserts. Accordingly, cities should stop approving expansive new condo developments on their outer boundaries and instead focus on retooling former warehouse and factory districts.

If this sounds like a bunch of nonsense, that's because it is. Mr. Malanga goes on to show (with actual numbers) that many of the cities Dr. Florida lauds as creative meccas are, in fact, not performing exceptionally well economically, and are actually doing worse than the cities he rates least creative.

... Yet since 1993, cities that score the best on Florida’s analysis have actually grown no faster than the overall U.S. jobs economy ... Led by big percentage gains in Las Vegas (the fastest-growing local economy in the nation) as well as in Oklahoma City and Memphis, Florida’s ten least creative cities turn out to be jobs powerhouses, adding more than 19 percent to their job totals since 1993 ... Florida’s ten most creative mid-sized cities are even less impressive economic engines. Since 1993, these cities, which include such underperformers as Albany, New York, and Dayton, Ohio, have increased their job totals by about 16 percent ... Jobs data going back 20 years, to 1983, show that Florida’s top ten cities as a group actually do worse, lagging behind the national economy by several percentage points, while his so-called least creative cities continue to look like jobs powerhouses, expanding 60 percent faster than his most creative cities during that same period.

And so forth. Read the whole thing before commenting on other factors, please. What is obvious to me is that the artsy, diverse, culturally vibrant atmosphere Florida advocates is an effect of wealth, not a cause.

After having my application for a CCW denied, I submitted a public records act request on December 15th, 2003, for information on the Hawthorne Police Department's CCW history (here's the PRAR itself). The law allows the recipient 10 days to respond to the request, and since I hadn't heard back from the HPD for almost three weeks I called the city attorney last Friday, January 2, 2004. He told me he had reviewed the PRAR and told the police to respond to it; he was surprised they hadn't, and said he'd get back to me. That brings you up to date.

Today I got another call from the city attorney (who has been quite helpful) who told me that my PRAR had been lost and asked me to fax over another copy, which I did. Shortly thereafter I received a call from an Internal Affairs officer at the HPD who wanted to go over the PRAR with me on the phone, which I did. The gist of the conversation was that the department now claims that they don't issue any CCWs to anyone -- although this directly contradicts the information I was given last month when I first applied. The officer I spoke to on the phone wanted drop the whole issue, claiming that since they don't issue CCWs they don't have any information with which to respond to my PRAR.

But my PRAR asks for information on denied applications, not just permits that have been granted. I also want a copy of the CCW-issuing-policy handbook they're supposed to have and make public by law. The officer I spoke with told me that they don't have such a handbook, and that they don't have any records on denied permit applications. I informed him that they have at least one record of a denied application, because my application was denied last month. I also informed him that the department should have a policy handbook, because it's required by law. He said he'd speak to the city attorney and their own private attorney and get back to me.

The nation's Catholic Bishops commissioned an audit of their new anti-abuse policy, and the details were released today under the strange headline "Catholic Sex-Abuse Report Finds Mixed Results". I say strange because according to the report 90% of US dioceses were found to be in compliance with the new policy... that sounds like a pretty solid result to me. Now, some critics say that both the new policy and the audit are flawed and insufficient, but that's a different issue.

The prelates commissioned the report from the Gavin Group (search) of Boston, a firm led by former FBI official William Gavin, and the investigation was overseen by Kathleen McChesney, a former top FBI agent and head of the bishops' watchdog Office of Child and Youth Protection (search).

Victim advocates said bishops had too much control of how the audit was conducted, so it should be viewed skeptically.

The bishops recommended whom the auditors should interview. And according to the report, auditors were unable to view personnel files that would verify whether bishops were complying with the policy's ban on transferring offenders from one diocese to another.

I'm not sure why the Catholic church keeps trying to treat this cancer with band-aids, but that's how it looks to a lot of people. I think the problem is that the bishops aren't giving this issue enough weight as they're trying to determine how to balance it against their other concerns.

"This is the bishops grading themselves based on a test they devised," said Peter Isely, of the Midwest chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (search). "I don't think anyone is going to be too surprised that after years of chronic failure they are now going to tell us they have miraculously become star performers."

However, Gavin insisted the audits were comprehensive and accurate. Investigators did not view personnel records because of "sensitivity to laws and privacy violations that may occur." Otherwise, he said, "we had free rein."

I don't know what laws he's referring to, but I don't see how personnel records could be held private from internal auditors. It's good to protect the privacy of people -- and I certainly wouldn't want the government snooping into personnel records -- but it wouldn't seem unreasonable to me for a private organization like the Catholic church to put reputational concerns ahead of the privacy of its workers.

Basically, the problem in my mind is that it doesn't look like the Catholic bishops are doing all they can do; it looks like they're trying to do the minimum possible. That's not what people like to see.

There's another study coming out in February:

A second and potentially more important study, also commissioned by the bishops, is scheduled to be released Feb. 27. It will attempt to tally every church abuse case in the country since 1950.

I'm interested to see if this later study will include a demographic breakdown of the victims, including age, gender, city of residence, race, and so forth. If the Catholic church wants to overcome this problem, this information will be necessary to really understand what's going on.

Following up on a post of mine about rape accusations from last year, the excellent Wendy McElroy writes a piece criticizing the way prosecutors and police undermine justice while seeking publicity.

The stigma our society attaches to those accused of rape is at least as strong as that attached to rape victims. And, at the point of accusation, neither is presumed to be innocent or guilty. [Isn't everyone presumed innocent? I'm not sure what her point is here. -- MW]

The answer will come back: because women must be encouraged to report rape without feeling intimidated. But it is equally valid to argue that accused men must be encouraged to defend themselves without feeling that the police and prosecutors will use the media against them. If the goal is to protect the innocent, the obvious solution is to name neither party until after a trial verdict. But police and prosecutors do not advocate this remedy. ...

How common are false allegations of sexual assault? No one knows. And the more anonymous accusations become, the less likely it is that solid statistics will emerge. One of the best studies remains that of the now-retired Purdue University sociologist Eugene J. Kanin. Kanin examined reports of forcible rape lodged with the police force of a small metropolitan town from 1978 to 1987. There were 109 accusations; 45, or 41 percent, were discarded as false.

Forty-one percent seems remarkably high but it does indicate the urgent need to take false accusations seriously. The law should apply its own standard of "presumption of innocence" by naming an accuser as well as the accused, or naming neither. It should prosecute the filing of false reports as vigorously as it does valid ones.

The problem is that no one will make a career out of prosecuting women who accuse men of rape on legally insufficient grounds. It's often the case that when someone is raped, there's little evidence other than he-said/she-said testimony, and in such cases it's incumbent upon society to acquit the accused; if there is clear evidence that the charge was fabricated, then society must act to punish the accuser.

Women who claim to have been raped make very sympathetic victims, and for good reason. There are few crimes more terrible than rape, but I would argue that a false accusation of rape is one of them. I advocate a system in which a perjurer/false-accuser would face the same penalties as their victim would have, had he or she been convicted of the crime they were falsely accused of. (Naturally, in many circumstances it may be impossible to prove that either a crime was committed or that the accusation was false, in which case no one should be prosecuted.)

I'm not at all about "blaming the victim" and I think people should be able to walk around with $100 bills taped to their clothes without fear of robbery... but I also think doing so would be rather foolish. Similarly, I think men and women have a responsibility to behave wisely and to keep themselves out of situations that could lead to misunderstandings, false accusations, or actual victimization. How each individual should apply that principle is a matter of personal choice and the exercise of personal wisdom. I have some standards I've set for myself that I may write about in a later post.