Law & Justice: June 2005 Archives

It looks like Abu Gingy's suggestion is being tried in the real world as a developer goes after Justice Souter's house to build a hotel.

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land. ...

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Love. It. Tell me where to donate.

Apparently criminals are undeterred by restraining orders and police have no obligation to enforce them. Duh. In case you didn't know, your local police have no legal obligation to protect you from any specific crime. This is why law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Otherwise, we're just victims-to-be.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters. ...

City governments had feared that if the court ruled the other way, it would unleash a potentially devastating flood of cases that could bankrupt municipal governments.

Gonzales contended that police did not do enough to stop her estranged husband, who took the three daughters from the front yard of her home in June 1999 in violation of a restraining order.

Hours later Simon Gonzales died in a gun fight with officers outside a police station. The bodies of the three girls, ages 10, 9 and 7, were in his truck.

The city governments were right to be afraid, and I think this court decision was probably correct. I don't know enough about the case to say that a gun would have been helpful, but there are many circumstances in which one would be.

I know everyone's seen this by now, and I'm sure many people will have much more intelligent commentary on the matter than myself, but I'm astounded by a pair of Supreme Court rulings this morning that sound for all the world as if the Court is just making stuff up as it goes along.

WASHINGTON -- A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays inside courthouses, saying they violated the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Sending dual signals in ruling on this issue for the first time in a quarter-century, the high court said that displays of the Ten Commandments _ like their own courtroom frieze _ are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.

In effect, the court said it was taking the position that issues of Ten Commandments displays in courthouses should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.

By who? Apparently not legislatures or elected officials, since the courts have no respect for their discretion. So we need a federal judge to evaluate every display? Absurd. None of the other commentary I've seen appears to recognize the lunacy of these decisions. Maybe we should have the Supremes tour the country during their off-season and let them vote on everything they see.

As for the Commandments, it's not really a big deal to me if they're displayed or not... the presence or absence of the Commandments is not likely to win a single soul for Christ. My biggest complaint is that I think the matter should be left up to the states. The federal government needs to quit meddling with everything and let the smaller (and slightly more responsive) state governments deal with these issues. That's the whole point of the "federal" system.

Interestingly, Howard M. Friedman predicted this result last month. Referring to an article written by a reporter but based on an interview with him, Professor Friedman blogged:

As reported, I predicted that the Texas display would be upheld, partly because of the Justices concern about forcing bulldozers to tear down these displays around the country. But I also emphasized the peculiar history of the monuments that were furnished by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. Similarly, though not in the article, I predicted that the Kentucky display in the companion case before the Court would be struck down because of its different history. By the way, my record on accurately predicting Supreme Court results is not good.

Michelle Malkin links to other conservative commentators if you want more opinions... but isn't mine enough?

The Los Angeles Times has an article about the indictment of local Vineland Boyz gang, which sounds closer to the Mafia than what one would typically think of as a street gang.

The Vineland Boyz, a tight-knit gang that grew out of a football team in the late 1980s, was one of the most violent street gangs in the San Fernando Valley, but it operated primarily as a business, trading in narcotics and high-end illegal weapons and stealing big-ticket appliances from construction sites, according to a federal indictment made public Tuesday.

They've been arrested under federal RICO statutes, which means it shouldn't be hard to get convictions because -- as I understand it -- the level of gang involvement required for guilt is very low. Good.

The gang absorbed several other street gangs, forged an alliance with the Mexican Mafia to boost its narcotics trade, and controlled large areas of the San Fernando Valley and Burbank, the indictment said.

The gang became the focus of law enforcement in November 2003, when reputed member David Garcia allegedly fatally shot Burbank Police Officer Matthew Pavelka near the Bob Hope Airport and fled across the Mexican border. Garcia was captured 13 days later by the U.S. Marshals Service.

Obviously part of the alliance with the Mexican Mafia includes assistance for any Boyz member who needs to flee to Mexico... a sort of reverse Underground Railroad. I don't doubt that the gang also helped Mexican gang members come to Los Angeles.

In the Hat posted some history of the Vineland Boyz last year.

In a conversation with an SEU cop the other day, I was told that the VINELAND BOYZ gang is actually a migratory gang that used to claim NORTH HOLLYWOOD but were driven out or moved out due to pressure from other NH gangs. At one point in their move from NH to SUNLAND, they called themselves the VILLAGE BOYS. If anybody can shed light on this, feel free to correct me. This cop also pointed out that most VB players don't like to be inked and don't look like the average citizen's image of a gangster.

... They made the transition from ball players to tagging crews back in the mid 90s and by 1998 were heavily involved in drive-bys, slanging and tax collection. VB, of course, took a big hit when BURBANK PD and LAPD arrested dozens of players after PAVELKA's murder. While it may not be in shambles, VB isn't the hegemonic powerhouse it used to be. In the wake of police pressure, we heard that some shot callers in VB actually GREENLIGHTED every cop in the area.

An article about gang activity in Los Angeles from 1998 at StreetGangs.com also mentions the Vineland Boyz.

Despite its reputation as L.A.'s version of Nebraska, the Valley harbors nearly as many hard-core gang members per square mile as South-Central Los Angeles. The primary concentration is in Pacoima. Nearby rivals are next door in San Fernando, which has only a few gangs but many members. Gangs of interest include the Shakin' Cat midgets, who began aficionados of rockabilly music, and to the east, the Vineland Boyz, who have earned a nasty reputation for multiple drive-bys -- a Pacoima gang member estimates they`ve killed 26 and left at least four paralyzed. These killings have, in a twisted way, earned the respect of the other local gangs because the shootings were unprovoked and indiscriminate.

I really don't get the concern over privacy for library and bookstore records. Who cares?

WASHINGTON -- Advocates of rewriting the USA Patriot Act are claiming momentum after the House, despite a White House veto threat, voted to restrict investigators from using the anti-terrorism law to peek at library records and bookstore sales slips. ...

"No question, this is a real shot in the arm for those of us who want to make changes to the USA Patriot Act," said Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., sponsor of the provision that would curtail the government's ability to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects. He said the vote would help "rein in an administration intent on chipping away at the very civil liberties that define us as a nation."

Since when is reading material privacy one of the "civil liberties that define us as a nation"? It's nonsense. Investigators can get warrants to tap phone lines and peek into internet connections -- not to mention search warrants for homes -- all of which are clearly far more intrusive than looking into library records. (Although I don't think warrants are needed to look into book records.)

I don't see any reason why library records shouldn't be used to learn about a terror suspect. If someone is suspected of terrorism, isn't it relevant that they have or have not been looking at, say, books about demolition explosives or biological agents? Obviously if that's all a suspect has been doing, then no crime has been committed and all the investigators can do is keep an eye on the guy. But if the book records lead to uncovering a larger plot, then what's wrong with that?

Meanwhile, libraries (which I dislike) are destroying records to protect terrorists.

In the meantime, a number of libraries have begun disposing of patrons' records quickly so they won't be available if sought under the law.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Congress in April that the government has never used the provision to obtain library, bookstore, medical or gun sale records.

But when asked whether the administration would agree to exclude library and medical records from the law, Gonzales demurred. "It should not be held against us that we have exercised restraint," he said.

I've seen and heard of similar ideas before -- often involving razor blades -- but Sonette Ehlers of South Africa is the first to bring to market a rape-deterring "rat trap".

The tampon-like device, invented by a woman, supposedly protects women from rapists by cutting into a man’s penis. ...

The device, which Sonette Ehlers, its inventor, has patented, is worn like a tampon but is hollow. In the event of a rape, she said that it would fold around the rapist’s penis and attach itself with microscopic hooks. It is impossible to remove the clamped device without medical intervention.

“We have to do something to protect ourselves. While this will not prevent rape, it will help identify attackers and secure convictions,” Ms Ehlers told the Johannesburg Star.

Interestingly, many feminist groups in South Africa are opposed to the new invention, even though, as Fink Tank 3000 points out, South Africa is the "rape capital" of the world. The article contributes these numbers:

The South African Law Commission recently estimated that 1.69 million women a year were raped in the country but that only 52,000 cases a year are reported. Other estimates put the rate even higher.

Ms Smith said: “More than 40 per cent of those raped are children and nationally more than 65 per cent are gang rapes. Whether this translates as a woman raped every 26 seconds or more is irrelevant. It is far too many and not enough is being done to tackle it. This is not a male-only problem, it is a societal problem.”

Says a leading anti-rape campaigner:

Charlene Smith, a leading anti-rape campaigner, said: “This is a medieval instrument, based on male-hating notions and fundamentally misunderstands the nature of rape and violence against women in this society. It is vengeful, horrible, and disgusting. The woman who invented this needs help.”

I'm certainly no male-hater, and I agree that the device is pretty awful. Miss Smith is right in thinking that South African women need help to fight rape, but she fails to recognize that if the government won't do anything then women need to be able to protect themselves. These rat traps aren't as good a deterrence against rape as women carrying guns -- especially since the rape has to actually happen before the trap is of any use at all -- but the fear of such a device may discourage some attackers.

However, there are some complications. First of all, once rapists learn about the devices won't they just check for them? Second, it seems that the pain could cause the rapist to become more violent, thereby putting the victim in more danger. Even if the trap is debilitating in the short term, what's to prevent the rapist from finding the victim again later and taking revenge? Hopefully he'd get locked up for a while, but South African laws don't appear to be too good at that.

Ultimately, I mostly agree with this radio host:

The activist’s views were echoed by Jenny Crwys- William, the host of a popular radio talk show, who described the device as a “profoundly disturbing” development that underlined how society was in danger of accepting rape as a reality of everyday life. “We need more police and more sensitive police responses to rape. When more rapists go behind bars, rape rates will go down,” she told listeners.

Best solution: arm all women. Second best: prosecute, convict, and imprison rapists. Third best: rat traps.

(HT: Bill Handle.)

Apparently jurors are willing to punish amature abortionists even though their accomplices are presently beyond the reach of the law.

LUFKIN, Texas -- A 19-year-old East Texas man faces a life prison sentence for causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry twins, even though she wanted to end the pregnancy.

Gerardo Flores was accused of causing the miscarriage by stepping on his girlfriend's stomach. He was prosecuted under the state's new fetal protection law.

Erica Basoria acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy. But the 17-year-old can't be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion.

I wonder if this verdict will be upheld on appeal? Should it be? Are there any pro-choicers out there who agree with this verdict? The only injustice I see is that the mother is exempt from prosecution.

Robert Parks raises and good point and asks, where's PETA when you need them?

But, even if the twins aren't considered people, where's PETA when you need them? If they aren't human, there's no doubt to their animal nature. I highly doubt kicking and punching fall under "Ethical Treatment" by any stretch of the imagination. This is blatant, unjustified, "cruel and unusual punishment"!

La Shawn Barber makes a good observation and points out that fathers can't protect their children either.

When you reject moral absolutes, which apply to us all, in favor of satanic “relativism,” this is the result. An unborn baby is human only if his mother wants him or if the father kills him. He commits murder; she commits “choice.”

If the father wants to save his baby’s life but the mother elects to have the unwanted foreign growth scraped from her womb, he’s out of luck. That’s the unsustainable, contradictory, insane, incomprehensible rationale behind legalize abortion.

Beaker thinks that Gerardo Flores was just in the wrong place.

I guess he should have beat her in the lobby of a Planned Parenthood Abortion Mill™.

So let's see if I can make some sense of this. If the teenage girl kills her unborn twins, it's legal. If her boyfriend helps, with her full consent, he's put away for life. If a doctor (or any other member of Planned Parenthood) kills the unborn twins, with her consent, it's legal. If anyone kills the unborn twins without her consent, it's murder.

The babies were also in the wrong "place", in that identical babies who were located outside a womb would have had full legal protection. I can attack someone who invades my house and intends to hurt me, but if I invite a person in I can hardly complain about it later.

Bill Quick thinks the problem is that "social conservative lunatics" are writing laws.

This is the sort of insanity you end up with when social conservative lunatics start writing laws for the majority. Yes, yes, I know all about federalism. That doesn't prevent me from pointing out the idiotic outcomes federalism sometimes provides.

But a truly just system would have punished both killers, not just the man... and it's leftists who prevented that outcome, not rightists.

I'd go so far as to say that laws that everyone knows aren't going to be enforced are immoral.

WASHINGTON -- Anyone who lights up a joint for medicinal purposes isn't likely to be pursued by federal authorities, despite a Supreme Court ruling that these marijuana users could face federal charges, people on both sides of the issue say.

In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.

While the justices expressed sympathy for two seriously ill California women who brought the case, the majority agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.

The ruling could be an early test of the compassion Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promised to bring to the Justice Department following the tenure of John Ashcroft.

Gonzales and his aides were silent on the ruling Monday, but several Bush administration officials said individual users have little reason to worry. "We have never targeted the sick and dying, but rather criminals engaged in drug trafficking," Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Bill Grant said.

Then exempt them from the law! The whole thing is ridiculous, but I don't fault the modern Supreme Court; they're protecting the Constitution no better or worse than the other branches of government, all of which share the responsibility. There are two real problems: first, our government has become very unresponsive to our desires; second, our government has expanded far beyond any reasonable scope. Can you imagine our Founding Fathers sitting around debating what plants people can smoke or setting policy for high school athletics programs?

One problem with politicians, as with many other jobs, is that's it's impossible to just say "no, we've pretty much got all the laws we need" because there are always people clamoring for you to do something about whatever. Plus, if there aren't any new laws needed, why do you have a job? But the fact of the matter is that a legislator who sits on his hands for his whole term is probably the best kind.