Law & Justice: October 2011 Archives
It's pretty clear that sex-selective abortion is currently Constitutionally protected by Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. Abortion supporters need to grapple with the fact that hundreds of millions of babies have been aborted solely because they were girls.
Sex-selection abortion occurs in America, too, and the practice is likely to increase. In August, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that a simple blood test seven weeks into pregnancy can reliably identify the sex of the child. Watch for a spike in abortion rates over the next few years as parents find it easier and cheaper to "choose" to have a boy by killing the fetus if--in a bitter reversal of an expression of joy--"it's a girl."The shocking reality of sex-selection abortion cries out for laws banning the practice. Polls have shown that about 95 percent of the American people oppose sex-selection abortion. Even those who style themselves "pro-choice" overwhelmingly agree that abortion should not be allowed when the reason for such a choice is that the child to be born is female. The most pernicious radical feminist argument for abortion rights--that abortion is essential for "gender equality"--doubles back on itself in the case of sex-selection abortion: if abortion on the basis of the sex of the child--killing girls because they are not boys--is not sex discrimination, it is hard to know what is. (Hvistendahl is, awkwardly, pro-choice, yet horrified by the consequences of "unnatural selection.")
Four states--Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and most recently Arizona--have enacted laws prohibiting sex-selection abortion. Those laws have yet to be tested in the courts. At least seven other states have considered bills that would ban the practice. A sex-selection-ban bill was introduced in Congress in 2009--I worked with committee staff on the bill--but it died in the then Democrat-controlled House.
When the Supreme Court visits the issue of sex-selective abortion it could bring down the whole house of cards that began with Roe.
Lots of international busybodies have their panties in a bunch over the summary execution of Muammar Gaddafi, but let's be adults: justice doesn't always require a courtroom.
Libya's rebel army has been accused of executing both Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his son Mutassim in cold blood as the United Nations suggested their deaths amounted to war crimes.Human rights groups and Gaddafi's wife Safia called for an independent investigation into the deaths, which robbed victims' families of the chance to see Gaddafi put on trial for his murderous acts.
Both Gaddafi and his son were filmed or photographed alive and relatively uninjured after their capture on Thursday, before both died of multiple gunshot wounds.
Unless there's doubt about the identities of men, there's absolutely no reason that Gaddafi or his sons need to be tried before their are executed. Their evil is well-known, and they reveled in it for decades. If there were trials, everyone knows that the outcomes would be preordained anyway.
Good riddance to some of the most evil people on earth.
As a child I was always told that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and it wasn't until I grew up that I realized the fundamental offensiveness of such an approach to law. The ancient Common Law principle of mens rea stands in opposition to such tyranny.
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged. As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault.
The modern proliferation of laws, rules, and regulations -- often created by bureaucrats and not elected officers -- makes it impossible for people to know the boundaries of legality, thereby putting every person in peril of accidental criminality. Even people who ask government agencies for clarification are out of luck.
It has thus become impossible for an ordinary citizen to know what is legal and what is not. In fact, as anyone who has ever tried to assure his or her legal safety by asking for guidance from the IRS or EPA knows, the agencies themselves don't have a clue, and are prompt to disclaim any immunity to prosecution for actions based upon their own advice.
I've experienced this. When I called the IRS for information about how to fill out a tax form I asked if there would be any record of my call in case I was audited after following their advice. The lady just laughed and informed me that "the IRS told me to do it" is no defense.
Crazy animal hoarder releases dozens of wild animals and then kills himself.
Authorities say that in all, 56 exotic animals escaped from a farm in Muskingum County last night, and one was still missing this afternoon.Of those animals, 49 were killed. Six animals -- a grizzly bear, three leopards and two monkeys -- were captured alive and taken to the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, and a monkey and a grey wolf were at large. The animals that were killed included 18 tigers, nine male lions, eight female lions, six black bears, three mountain lions, two grizzly bears, one baboon and two wolves, Sheriff Matt Lutz said.
Ohio apparently has no laws regulating ownership of exotic animals. I think that's good policy... let counties and municipalities regulate animals on their own. In this case, the local authorities probably should have intervened before these animals were released.
The real question in my mind: how could this guy afford to feed almost 50 large carnivores?
Jerry Pournelle muses about the American government's authority to assassinate American citizens.
The obvious question for discussion is whether this activity - summary execution of citizens without trial - is permissible or desirable under Constitutional Government as part of the discretionary war powers of the President, and if so, do they apply within the United States as well as in foreign nations? It is not a simple question. What acts must a citizen perform to earn a place on the proscription list? One of those killed was "Samir Khan, who edited an online magazine that spread the word on ways to carry out attacks inside the United States", but is that the totality of his acts that made him an enemy of the people? (I say enemy of the people, but I don't know what designation is given to people who may be killed on sight without trial.) What agents of the Republic are authorized to carry out the act of proscription?Could a private citizen who somehow got wind of the fact that a given person was on the list plead that as a defense? I killed him because he is proscribed. You cannot prosecute me. (As we certainly cannot prosecute the members of Seal Team Six for the execution of Osama, although I suspect the government of Pakistan would do just that if they could get custody of the team. As for example, suppose that one of the operators of an armed drone, told to kill a certain American citizen on sight if found in Oman or Pakistan, sees that person coming out of a casino in Las Vegas and takes the opportunity to gun him down. Would that be a valid plea in Nevada? Or suppose he follows this proscribed American to federal property and shoots him the instant he sets foot on federal soil? Improbable, or course. Probably impossible, although it might make for a good novel.
The bolding is mine, and my favorite part.
I think that the "assassinations"/non-judicial killings can be justified as a component of war. If American citizens join an army that fights against America then we can kill them without trial. That's war. Is that a lot of power to entrust to the President? Yes it is. That's why we should be careful about who we elect.
