While snorkeling in Hawaii, a lawyer was attacked by a shark.
So much for that old joke about sharks, lawyers, and professional courtesy.
7.31.2007
7.29.2007
Speeding Towards the Start
I have a mere eleven days before my Crim final, and something odd happened. I found myself in the library.
I know what you're thinking: "How can you think that's odd?" Well, I haven't really been in there yet this semester. I did all of my studying at home with the few books I had there, or in the conference rooms with the study group. But I never felt the need to really study in there. Until Thursday.
On Thursday, it occurred to me that there are several dozen episodes of Law and Order on every day. They appear on TNT, A&E, Spike, NBC, and probably others. They run in batches of four or five. And once I start watching, I can't stop. The only thing that can stop me from watching more is an episode of Criminal Intent (which is, by far, the worst of the spin-offs). That's my problem. So, feeling the need to get away from the temptation to find out how Jack McCoy can sink the defendant this time, I retreated to a carrel in the library, where I have spent that last two days.
It feels like it worked. I spent my time studying inchoate crimes, and my outline for this section is better than any of my previous work. If I continue to spend this number of hours in the library, I might be slightly less worried about my final. Slightly.
The sad thing is that it's Saturday night, and I'm here studying attempt instead of going out. Oh, how far I've come. Oh, how far I have yet to go.
I know what you're thinking: "How can you think that's odd?" Well, I haven't really been in there yet this semester. I did all of my studying at home with the few books I had there, or in the conference rooms with the study group. But I never felt the need to really study in there. Until Thursday.
On Thursday, it occurred to me that there are several dozen episodes of Law and Order on every day. They appear on TNT, A&E, Spike, NBC, and probably others. They run in batches of four or five. And once I start watching, I can't stop. The only thing that can stop me from watching more is an episode of Criminal Intent (which is, by far, the worst of the spin-offs). That's my problem. So, feeling the need to get away from the temptation to find out how Jack McCoy can sink the defendant this time, I retreated to a carrel in the library, where I have spent that last two days.
It feels like it worked. I spent my time studying inchoate crimes, and my outline for this section is better than any of my previous work. If I continue to spend this number of hours in the library, I might be slightly less worried about my final. Slightly.
The sad thing is that it's Saturday night, and I'm here studying attempt instead of going out. Oh, how far I've come. Oh, how far I have yet to go.
7.25.2007
What you do on your own time...
The ABA Journal picked up an interesting story today from Florida that seems to involve the Amendment VIII.
Back in November, Terry Lee Alexander, in prison for armed robbery, was caught masturbating in his jail cell. A female sheriff's deputy saw the act, and he was charged with indecent exposure. During jury selection, the potential jurors were asked about their masturbation habits. All the men and all but two women admitted to the act. In the end, the jury convicted Mr. Alexander on the charges and added sixty days to his sentence.
While I don't argue that the act would be indecent if done in public, it seems to me that it is tremendously cruel to disallow such acts in the privacy of one's home. Prisoners are home in their cell, and when there is no cellmate, the area would be sufficiently private (the deputy saw the act from a nearby control room). He wasn't intimidating her, nor does it seem that he was using her as the object of his fantasy. He was simply trying to indulge himself.
In fact, we could go one step further. Public urination is a crime. The prisoner's cell is being called a public place in this case. In prison, toilets are in the cell. Therefore, the state is forcing the inmates to commit a crime every time they use the toilet. Thus, one would reasonably expect that the male organ in question would regularly be visible, self-gratifying or not.
Sexual acts are a biological necessity for human beings, especially men. Any law that disallows masturbation, even if it is in a prison cell, is at least potentially a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling in this case is wrong, and his lawyer ought to appeal.
EDIT: The ABA Journal reports today that seven more inmates are being charged by the same female deputy. Writers in the Miami papers are suggesting that this is a large waste of tax dollars. I'd have to agree.
Back in November, Terry Lee Alexander, in prison for armed robbery, was caught masturbating in his jail cell. A female sheriff's deputy saw the act, and he was charged with indecent exposure. During jury selection, the potential jurors were asked about their masturbation habits. All the men and all but two women admitted to the act. In the end, the jury convicted Mr. Alexander on the charges and added sixty days to his sentence.
While I don't argue that the act would be indecent if done in public, it seems to me that it is tremendously cruel to disallow such acts in the privacy of one's home. Prisoners are home in their cell, and when there is no cellmate, the area would be sufficiently private (the deputy saw the act from a nearby control room). He wasn't intimidating her, nor does it seem that he was using her as the object of his fantasy. He was simply trying to indulge himself.
In fact, we could go one step further. Public urination is a crime. The prisoner's cell is being called a public place in this case. In prison, toilets are in the cell. Therefore, the state is forcing the inmates to commit a crime every time they use the toilet. Thus, one would reasonably expect that the male organ in question would regularly be visible, self-gratifying or not.
Sexual acts are a biological necessity for human beings, especially men. Any law that disallows masturbation, even if it is in a prison cell, is at least potentially a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling in this case is wrong, and his lawyer ought to appeal.
EDIT: The ABA Journal reports today that seven more inmates are being charged by the same female deputy. Writers in the Miami papers are suggesting that this is a large waste of tax dollars. I'd have to agree.
7.24.2007
Dissecting the Debates, Part 1
It has now been 24 hours since the YouTube/CNN Democratic Debates, and I'm finally putting in words what my opinions were of the debates. It's a shame that half the questions were posed directly to Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama. I think (as a member of a third party) debates are often the only chance for lesser-known candidates to get a word in edgewise (when was the last time you saw front page news about Mike Gravel or Ron Paul?). So, while I thought the format was generally very creative, I thought questions aimed specifically at the front-runners ought to have been cut back.
I'm no Democrat, and so I watch the debates with the eye of a skeptic. The Democrat I like is Bill Richardson, who has the most "libertarian" views of them all. He's the only one that doesn't like tax increases, the only one who supports gun rights, and the only one whose solution to Darfur is reasonable (boycotting the 2008 Olympics to get China to pressure Darfur is genius, and an option far-too-often overlooked). I also believe that governors tend to make better presidents than senators. Senators are legislators, which means they make the laws. The president is not a legislator, and thus the experiences of a legislator are less valuable than those of a governor, who was him- or herself a chief executive.
That being said, I think Richardson came off poorly in the debate. I liked his video segment, but his answers just didn't seem to be well put together. I've read his writings, and I know he's brilliant. He just doesn't speak well in this debate format.
My distaste for Barack Obama grew even more last night. We counted the number of times he skirted the question or changed topic. It was just about every time he spoke. He doesn't seem to have solid ideas at all, and, while popular to the younger voters, just doesn't have (yet) what it takes to lead the country. This debate showed it. His answer that bothered me most: his response that the only reason his children went to private school (University of Chicago Lab School) was because he taught at the university. A good answer would have been, "I sent them to private school because I believed it was in their best interests." At least there he would have been honest. And I think many parents can relate. It's not "giving up on" our public schools to do what is in the best interests of you children. It's called being a good parent.
I enjoy Mike Gravel in these debates. While I don't think he has a chance of winning, I love that he's so self-deprecating, and that he spends the rest of his time tearing down the other Democrats. Not one for party unity, he seems to have the (reasonable) assumption that if more people hate another candidate, his chances increase. His best answer: when asked who his favorite teacher was, he said it was the teacher who helped him overcome his speech impediment, helping him learn to speak, so he could do so little of it at the debates.
Dennis Kucinich. Wow. What can you say about a man like that? He is the epitome of a single-issue candidate. I'm sure he has other opinions, but his basic argument in every answer is that he was the only one to have voted against the Iraq war and spending on the Iraq war every time. Again, at least he's tearing apart his fellow Democrats.
Joe Biden, while sometimes a bit abrasive, has the most realistic view of the Iraq situation. He proposes slicing the country into a confederation. At least his plan accounts for the fact that Iraqis hate one another, and you'll need to separate them somehow for the fighting to (mostly) end. And he would bring on Dick Lugar as Secretary of State, which is a smart move. I did NOT care for his smirky comment about Tennessee in response to the Red State Update question about Al Gore. Not that he was going to win Tennessee anyway. Nor did I like him saying that the gun owner wasn't mentally qualified to own the firearm. Way to sound like a jerk.
Chris Dodd had the most entertaining video clip (vote for the guy with the white hair for the White House). But otherwise he was unremarkable. Give credit to the lack of questions his way, perhaps, but his most worthwhile solution was to change the entire federal fleet of vehicles to hybrids (a good call, since the #1 polluter in the world is the U.S. government). Not so keen on his opinions about health care. Then again, I'm not a fan of ANY Democratic solution to health care.
John Edwards may have turned on the southern gentleman charm a bit much last night. I like him as a person, especially since he's one heck of a lawyer, but I'm not sure about his presidency. His solution for health care was the first and most complete out there (a pathetic attempt by Mr. Obama followed, which Edwards won't let him forget). It's still universal health care, but at least he's reasonable about it. He covered the bases well when asked about talking to his kids about sex. If nominated, this guy might actually win. At least now he uses his hair as a laughing point.
Read into it all you want, but I've saved Hillary Clinton for last. She's probably the smoothest talker on the stage who still answers questions. I wasn't a fan of Clinton before this debate, and I'm certainly not any more entranced now. Doug Hass covered one of my big issues with her very well back in February, with her talk of taking oil company profits. Too liberal for my blood, or as she prefers, "progressive" (a word used by all great communist leaders). On the other hand, at least she had the guts to say she wouldn't automatically talk to Castro and Chavez (unlike Obama) within the first year.
I have to say that I like the notion of "the people" submitting questions to the candidates, even if they do go through several layers of selection from obviously biased individuals. I dislike the time limits imposed, though I understand why they're there. But you can't answer a question like "How would you solve health care?" in sixty seconds.
Some friends and I will be submitting some questions for the Republican debates. Look for us in September!
I'm no Democrat, and so I watch the debates with the eye of a skeptic. The Democrat I like is Bill Richardson, who has the most "libertarian" views of them all. He's the only one that doesn't like tax increases, the only one who supports gun rights, and the only one whose solution to Darfur is reasonable (boycotting the 2008 Olympics to get China to pressure Darfur is genius, and an option far-too-often overlooked). I also believe that governors tend to make better presidents than senators. Senators are legislators, which means they make the laws. The president is not a legislator, and thus the experiences of a legislator are less valuable than those of a governor, who was him- or herself a chief executive.
That being said, I think Richardson came off poorly in the debate. I liked his video segment, but his answers just didn't seem to be well put together. I've read his writings, and I know he's brilliant. He just doesn't speak well in this debate format.
My distaste for Barack Obama grew even more last night. We counted the number of times he skirted the question or changed topic. It was just about every time he spoke. He doesn't seem to have solid ideas at all, and, while popular to the younger voters, just doesn't have (yet) what it takes to lead the country. This debate showed it. His answer that bothered me most: his response that the only reason his children went to private school (University of Chicago Lab School) was because he taught at the university. A good answer would have been, "I sent them to private school because I believed it was in their best interests." At least there he would have been honest. And I think many parents can relate. It's not "giving up on" our public schools to do what is in the best interests of you children. It's called being a good parent.
I enjoy Mike Gravel in these debates. While I don't think he has a chance of winning, I love that he's so self-deprecating, and that he spends the rest of his time tearing down the other Democrats. Not one for party unity, he seems to have the (reasonable) assumption that if more people hate another candidate, his chances increase. His best answer: when asked who his favorite teacher was, he said it was the teacher who helped him overcome his speech impediment, helping him learn to speak, so he could do so little of it at the debates.
Dennis Kucinich. Wow. What can you say about a man like that? He is the epitome of a single-issue candidate. I'm sure he has other opinions, but his basic argument in every answer is that he was the only one to have voted against the Iraq war and spending on the Iraq war every time. Again, at least he's tearing apart his fellow Democrats.
Joe Biden, while sometimes a bit abrasive, has the most realistic view of the Iraq situation. He proposes slicing the country into a confederation. At least his plan accounts for the fact that Iraqis hate one another, and you'll need to separate them somehow for the fighting to (mostly) end. And he would bring on Dick Lugar as Secretary of State, which is a smart move. I did NOT care for his smirky comment about Tennessee in response to the Red State Update question about Al Gore. Not that he was going to win Tennessee anyway. Nor did I like him saying that the gun owner wasn't mentally qualified to own the firearm. Way to sound like a jerk.
Chris Dodd had the most entertaining video clip (vote for the guy with the white hair for the White House). But otherwise he was unremarkable. Give credit to the lack of questions his way, perhaps, but his most worthwhile solution was to change the entire federal fleet of vehicles to hybrids (a good call, since the #1 polluter in the world is the U.S. government). Not so keen on his opinions about health care. Then again, I'm not a fan of ANY Democratic solution to health care.
John Edwards may have turned on the southern gentleman charm a bit much last night. I like him as a person, especially since he's one heck of a lawyer, but I'm not sure about his presidency. His solution for health care was the first and most complete out there (a pathetic attempt by Mr. Obama followed, which Edwards won't let him forget). It's still universal health care, but at least he's reasonable about it. He covered the bases well when asked about talking to his kids about sex. If nominated, this guy might actually win. At least now he uses his hair as a laughing point.
Read into it all you want, but I've saved Hillary Clinton for last. She's probably the smoothest talker on the stage who still answers questions. I wasn't a fan of Clinton before this debate, and I'm certainly not any more entranced now. Doug Hass covered one of my big issues with her very well back in February, with her talk of taking oil company profits. Too liberal for my blood, or as she prefers, "progressive" (a word used by all great communist leaders). On the other hand, at least she had the guts to say she wouldn't automatically talk to Castro and Chavez (unlike Obama) within the first year.
I have to say that I like the notion of "the people" submitting questions to the candidates, even if they do go through several layers of selection from obviously biased individuals. I dislike the time limits imposed, though I understand why they're there. But you can't answer a question like "How would you solve health care?" in sixty seconds.
Some friends and I will be submitting some questions for the Republican debates. Look for us in September!
7.21.2007
WW You D?
Hypothetical situation:
You're a law student. You're spending your Friday night at a local bar listening to a band. As you and your friends "bang your hair" to the sounds of the 80s, you see two bouncers removing another patron of the establishment. One bouncer has the man by the neck; the second kicking the guy's feet and pushing them along. The patron has a look of confusion and shock. The bouncers throw (literally) the guy out of the fire exit, and proceed to kick the guy several times in the ribs before closing the door. What do you do?
A) Walk out the door, help the patron up, and offer your advice on torts.
B) Tell the bouncers that they were out of line (and prepare to be strangled and kicked yourself).
C) Contract local police to a gross abuse of power by the bouncers.
D) Stand quietly by and watch someone get treated like crap.
You're a law student. You're spending your Friday night at a local bar listening to a band. As you and your friends "bang your hair" to the sounds of the 80s, you see two bouncers removing another patron of the establishment. One bouncer has the man by the neck; the second kicking the guy's feet and pushing them along. The patron has a look of confusion and shock. The bouncers throw (literally) the guy out of the fire exit, and proceed to kick the guy several times in the ribs before closing the door. What do you do?
A) Walk out the door, help the patron up, and offer your advice on torts.
B) Tell the bouncers that they were out of line (and prepare to be strangled and kicked yourself).
C) Contract local police to a gross abuse of power by the bouncers.
D) Stand quietly by and watch someone get treated like crap.
7.16.2007
The People You Meet
It is incredible the diversity of the people you meet in law school. Not just in terms of race, gender, sexuality, and the like, but the pure mindset of the others. So far, almost everyone has had a personality that is enjoyable, or at least insightful into worlds I have never known. This excludes our two main gunners, whose personalities are generally unpalatable. However, this is not to say that every idea everyone has is one with which I could agree, or even understand. Case in point.
Today in class we started discussing "To Catch a Predator" like scenarios, where the police entrap or entice (depending on your viewpoint) adults online trying to seduce underage persons. After class, one student mentioned to me that he disbelieved in age of consent laws. I couldn't let this go, so I walked with him and tried to wrap my head around his reasoning.
He explained to me that there should be no such thing as statutory rape. He believes that, in the interest of personal freedom, any two individuals should be able to do what they want with their bodies. I should point out that I believe this too, but only when the two persons involved are adults. Anyway, I asked him if he meant persons of any age, using an example of a nine-year-old girl who "wanted" to have sex with a fifty-year-old man. He said such a scenario would be fine, if the girl really wanted it.
I argued that the purpose of statutory rape laws were to prevent older people from taking advantage of particularly persuadable young people. He suggested that they were for the sake of prevention of pregnancy and STD in young people. The notion that the government worries about five-year-olds getting pregnant is one I cannot understand.
He made an interesting argument. He proposed that there would be a license that people younger than 18 could get that would give them permission to have sex with anyone they wanted of any age (all over 18 would automatically get the license). The license would operate much like a driver's license, in that the person would be required to have a knowledge of what he or she was about to do, and that they could appreciate the consequences of their actions. By having them jump through such a bureaucratic hoop, he suggests that young girls would get what was coming to them if they chose to have sex (since, in taking the test, they would be demonstrating consent). He likens this to a person who gets into deep credit card debt and have to pay it back three years down the road.
It was at that point I chose to end the conversation. I'm going to work on an argument to refute this notion (since apparently saying that young people can fall prey to perverts too easily is not sufficient).
I should emphasize that the guy is a generally good guy, and we've had many deep conversations about law and philosophy. But nonetheless, it's incredible the people you meet.
Today in class we started discussing "To Catch a Predator" like scenarios, where the police entrap or entice (depending on your viewpoint) adults online trying to seduce underage persons. After class, one student mentioned to me that he disbelieved in age of consent laws. I couldn't let this go, so I walked with him and tried to wrap my head around his reasoning.
He explained to me that there should be no such thing as statutory rape. He believes that, in the interest of personal freedom, any two individuals should be able to do what they want with their bodies. I should point out that I believe this too, but only when the two persons involved are adults. Anyway, I asked him if he meant persons of any age, using an example of a nine-year-old girl who "wanted" to have sex with a fifty-year-old man. He said such a scenario would be fine, if the girl really wanted it.
I argued that the purpose of statutory rape laws were to prevent older people from taking advantage of particularly persuadable young people. He suggested that they were for the sake of prevention of pregnancy and STD in young people. The notion that the government worries about five-year-olds getting pregnant is one I cannot understand.
He made an interesting argument. He proposed that there would be a license that people younger than 18 could get that would give them permission to have sex with anyone they wanted of any age (all over 18 would automatically get the license). The license would operate much like a driver's license, in that the person would be required to have a knowledge of what he or she was about to do, and that they could appreciate the consequences of their actions. By having them jump through such a bureaucratic hoop, he suggests that young girls would get what was coming to them if they chose to have sex (since, in taking the test, they would be demonstrating consent). He likens this to a person who gets into deep credit card debt and have to pay it back three years down the road.
It was at that point I chose to end the conversation. I'm going to work on an argument to refute this notion (since apparently saying that young people can fall prey to perverts too easily is not sufficient).
I should emphasize that the guy is a generally good guy, and we've had many deep conversations about law and philosophy. But nonetheless, it's incredible the people you meet.
7.10.2007
Party News
More good news from the Washington Times today. Just as I was disenfranchised with the two-party system several years ago, it seems that more and more of the American people are also losing faith in both parties. From the article:
I can imagine this trend continuing through the entire 2008 election cycle. As both parties spend more time bashing the other side, the people in the middle might realize that, in that respect, both major parties are correct.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Vote Libertarian.
"Polls show that fewer Americans are calling themselves Republicans or Democrats and the number of Americans unaffiliated with either party has reached an all-time high — good news for Libertarians, say officials of the nation's third-largest party.
"The Libertarian Party has had an 18 percent increase in membership since January, said Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee....
"A survey released last month by Rasmussen Reports found that a record share of Americans, 32.9 percent, identified themselves as neither Republican nor Democrat.
"The Rasmussen poll — conducted in May with a sample of 15,000 adults — found that the percentage identifying themselves as Republicans (30.8 percent) dropped for the fourth consecutive month, while the percentage of Democrats (36.3 percent) decreased for the third straight month, following trends that began for Republicans in the middle of 2005 and Democrats in January 2006."
I can imagine this trend continuing through the entire 2008 election cycle. As both parties spend more time bashing the other side, the people in the middle might realize that, in that respect, both major parties are correct.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Vote Libertarian.
7.09.2007
Magister rerum mens (Mind is the Master of Things)
The current discussion in class is Mens Rea. The concept of a guilty mind is one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system. Mens rea accounts for free will; in essence, man is responsible for his actions because he chooses them. While it is not always so simple, crimes are punished, in part, based on the levels of intent.
Aside from the usual issues of general/specific intent and scenarios involving intoxication, modern neuroscience is changing the way we look at human behavior, and thus, how we should punish wrong doing. This article in the New York Times magazine discusses some of the impact of brain-monitoring technology on the judicial process.
Generally speaking, there are two issues with using such technology. First, should we allow biological deficiencies as a defense against crimes? Second, should we use this technology to "predict" who is more likely to commit crimes? The article does a good job covering these issues, but I'd like to discuss a couple points in regards to the concept of mens rea in criminal law.
Under the Model Penal Code, there are generally no strict liability crimes. A crime always requires some guilty mind. This means having one of four mental states: purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence. If a defendant has a growth on his prefrontal cortex that causes him to act in a way that is criminal, should we hold him accountable? Perhaps he knows the difference between right and wrong, yet still pushes someone down a flight of stairs. With fMRI scans, among others, we can establish that the growth may cause anger or rage in response to certain stimuli. How would punishing the individual meet our purposes of punishment? While the goal of incapacitation would be met, we cannot "deter" an individual whose brain makes him commit a crime, and without surgery (and perhaps even with it) we cannot "reform" the individual. Yet a brain growth doesn't necessarily make one "insane" by our definitions. Further, wouldn't taking scans of a suspect's brain to determine their guilt in a crime be a violation of the ban on self-incrimination?
A striking second problem is that of holding individuals accountable for their predispositions. Let us suppose that we know that a growth in a particular area makes a person 1000x more likely to lose control of their rage and kill a person. Would it be fair to lock them up without an actus reus? If we punished thoughts, no man would be free. It leads to imagining horrible futures like that in Minority Report (don't get me started on how wrong punishing "precrime" would be).
I prefer the antiquated concept of free will. But modern science seems to be coming closer and closer to proving that free will is nothing but a combination of chemicals mixing in the right proportions at the right moments. In that sense, are any of us free at all?
Aside from the usual issues of general/specific intent and scenarios involving intoxication, modern neuroscience is changing the way we look at human behavior, and thus, how we should punish wrong doing. This article in the New York Times magazine discusses some of the impact of brain-monitoring technology on the judicial process.
Generally speaking, there are two issues with using such technology. First, should we allow biological deficiencies as a defense against crimes? Second, should we use this technology to "predict" who is more likely to commit crimes? The article does a good job covering these issues, but I'd like to discuss a couple points in regards to the concept of mens rea in criminal law.
Under the Model Penal Code, there are generally no strict liability crimes. A crime always requires some guilty mind. This means having one of four mental states: purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence. If a defendant has a growth on his prefrontal cortex that causes him to act in a way that is criminal, should we hold him accountable? Perhaps he knows the difference between right and wrong, yet still pushes someone down a flight of stairs. With fMRI scans, among others, we can establish that the growth may cause anger or rage in response to certain stimuli. How would punishing the individual meet our purposes of punishment? While the goal of incapacitation would be met, we cannot "deter" an individual whose brain makes him commit a crime, and without surgery (and perhaps even with it) we cannot "reform" the individual. Yet a brain growth doesn't necessarily make one "insane" by our definitions. Further, wouldn't taking scans of a suspect's brain to determine their guilt in a crime be a violation of the ban on self-incrimination?
A striking second problem is that of holding individuals accountable for their predispositions. Let us suppose that we know that a growth in a particular area makes a person 1000x more likely to lose control of their rage and kill a person. Would it be fair to lock them up without an actus reus? If we punished thoughts, no man would be free. It leads to imagining horrible futures like that in Minority Report (don't get me started on how wrong punishing "precrime" would be).
I prefer the antiquated concept of free will. But modern science seems to be coming closer and closer to proving that free will is nothing but a combination of chemicals mixing in the right proportions at the right moments. In that sense, are any of us free at all?
Nanny State Strikes Again
First of all, before I get started, I want to give a shoutout to the several blogs that have linked to mine in the past week or so. I have all of them in the Blogroll to your right, but I appreciate the warm welcome to IU Law from Doug Hass and Kyle Michael, and of course the links from Evan Schaeffer are always appreciated.
This was a sad week in Indiana for civil liberties. At the demands of the General Assembly, Indiana modified its seat belt laws to require use for all occupants of a motor vehicle, with a few exceptions for farm trucks, mail carriers, and newpaper delivery persons, among others. I simply cannot agree with this law and its alleged benefits for the public.
I agree completely that seat belts are a good idea. For the love of mercy, wear a damn seatbelt. Since we were kids, we've been raised to know that seat belts make driving much safer, and news stories abound of what happens when you don't (like Governor Corzine's incident in New Jersey when his SUV was driving 91 mph). Plain and simple, if you don't wear a seat belt, you are taking unnecesary risks in an age when stupid drivers are everywhere.
That said, the government has no place telling me how I should behave in my space. Who is harmed when I don't wear a seat belt? Well, unless my body flies out of the car and happens to hit another vehicle or human being, only myself. I agree with laws saying that parents should buckle in their children (duty of care). And I mostly agree with laws that make seat belts in cars mandatory (though my libertarian beliefs lead me to believe that a car company would have to be stupid not to install them anyways, simply because sales to educated [or common sense-using] consumers would drop). But telling me that, as an adult, I can't make up my own mind about my own safety is ridiculous.
Sure, there were 899 seat belt deaths in Indiana in 2006. Again, I'm all for safety. But when the government has to take care of us, we've lost everything that gives us free will, the essence of any free society.
I also oppose these laws from the standpoint of a law student. Generally speaking, I distrust laws criminalizing omission. There are times when such laws are necessary (requiring lifeguards to act to save drowning children, requiring parents to feed their children, and other scenarios where there is a duty to act). But criminalizing NOT acting for one's own good is government coercion. Think about it. Blacks defines coercion as "compulsion by physical force or threat of physical force". What happens if you choose not to wear your seat belt? Punishment by the state.
Perhaps the law is bad also because it encourages arbitrary enforcement. If I get pulled over in my Benz wearing a suit and listening to smooth jazz, I am probably less likely to recieve an actual citation than the poor black kid driving a beat-up Lincoln. Further, police may use this law as an excuse to pull over "suspicious" vehicles for a chance to get a whiff of that potentially pot-laced air. I am not saying that police are naturally corrupt, or that these scenarios will necessarily happen, but it doesn't take much of an imagination to see these problems in the law.
This is the latest in a string of government attempts to make us all better off by taking away our freedoms. It's the little things that count. This may seem minor (like surrendering trans-fats), but it preps us for losing more freedoms in the future. At some point we have to say, "Enough is enough; we can take care of ourselves."
I would love to get some feedback on this if you have a moment. Do you agree/disagree with my position?
This was a sad week in Indiana for civil liberties. At the demands of the General Assembly, Indiana modified its seat belt laws to require use for all occupants of a motor vehicle, with a few exceptions for farm trucks, mail carriers, and newpaper delivery persons, among others. I simply cannot agree with this law and its alleged benefits for the public.
I agree completely that seat belts are a good idea. For the love of mercy, wear a damn seatbelt. Since we were kids, we've been raised to know that seat belts make driving much safer, and news stories abound of what happens when you don't (like Governor Corzine's incident in New Jersey when his SUV was driving 91 mph). Plain and simple, if you don't wear a seat belt, you are taking unnecesary risks in an age when stupid drivers are everywhere.
That said, the government has no place telling me how I should behave in my space. Who is harmed when I don't wear a seat belt? Well, unless my body flies out of the car and happens to hit another vehicle or human being, only myself. I agree with laws saying that parents should buckle in their children (duty of care). And I mostly agree with laws that make seat belts in cars mandatory (though my libertarian beliefs lead me to believe that a car company would have to be stupid not to install them anyways, simply because sales to educated [or common sense-using] consumers would drop). But telling me that, as an adult, I can't make up my own mind about my own safety is ridiculous.
Sure, there were 899 seat belt deaths in Indiana in 2006. Again, I'm all for safety. But when the government has to take care of us, we've lost everything that gives us free will, the essence of any free society.
I also oppose these laws from the standpoint of a law student. Generally speaking, I distrust laws criminalizing omission. There are times when such laws are necessary (requiring lifeguards to act to save drowning children, requiring parents to feed their children, and other scenarios where there is a duty to act). But criminalizing NOT acting for one's own good is government coercion. Think about it. Blacks defines coercion as "compulsion by physical force or threat of physical force". What happens if you choose not to wear your seat belt? Punishment by the state.
Perhaps the law is bad also because it encourages arbitrary enforcement. If I get pulled over in my Benz wearing a suit and listening to smooth jazz, I am probably less likely to recieve an actual citation than the poor black kid driving a beat-up Lincoln. Further, police may use this law as an excuse to pull over "suspicious" vehicles for a chance to get a whiff of that potentially pot-laced air. I am not saying that police are naturally corrupt, or that these scenarios will necessarily happen, but it doesn't take much of an imagination to see these problems in the law.
This is the latest in a string of government attempts to make us all better off by taking away our freedoms. It's the little things that count. This may seem minor (like surrendering trans-fats), but it preps us for losing more freedoms in the future. At some point we have to say, "Enough is enough; we can take care of ourselves."
I would love to get some feedback on this if you have a moment. Do you agree/disagree with my position?
7.05.2007
Criminal Meiosis
Having been in class for three days now, I have noticed that there is an interesting group mentality beginning to show. It's almost like meiosis, in that our class is quickly dividing into groups. Not social groups, per se, but the so called "study group". Let me explain.
On day two, we were given two cases to analyze under a specific statue and the void-for-vagueness doctrine over lunch. Interestingly, the class split into two types of person: the types who wanted to go it alone, and the types that sought other human contact. Being in the latter, I found two guys that seemed reasonably intelligent, that I had gone out with the week before, and that I thought might contrast well with my mindset. At that moment, our cell divided from the others. I had to turn away good friends, perhaps better friends.
Over lunch, the three of us actually came up with answers that were fairly close to the "correct" answer given by the prof. And we worked quite well together, each contributing ideas that built upon the others for a full legal thought. We agreed that this was the ideal study group.
Fast forward to today. Again, we had fairly deep thought lunch work, so we decided to have a working lunch. This time, however, someone else wanted to tag along. None of us wanted to be "that guy" that refuses to share answers, so we allowed it. After a fairly unproductive lunch, we gathered another unattached soul, and lost the first. Again, our group didn't work as efficiently as it did on day two.
There is an exchange that goes on in this situation. As law students, we recognize the importance of networking and being social with one another. After all, our legal life will be dependant on these people. And yet, there must be a cutoff. When the engine runs fine, you don't need to keepadding parts. Sure, you may get supercharged here, or you might get a speed boost there. But as you go, there is a diminishing marginal return on additional study partners. Where do you draw the line?
On day two, we were given two cases to analyze under a specific statue and the void-for-vagueness doctrine over lunch. Interestingly, the class split into two types of person: the types who wanted to go it alone, and the types that sought other human contact. Being in the latter, I found two guys that seemed reasonably intelligent, that I had gone out with the week before, and that I thought might contrast well with my mindset. At that moment, our cell divided from the others. I had to turn away good friends, perhaps better friends.
Over lunch, the three of us actually came up with answers that were fairly close to the "correct" answer given by the prof. And we worked quite well together, each contributing ideas that built upon the others for a full legal thought. We agreed that this was the ideal study group.
Fast forward to today. Again, we had fairly deep thought lunch work, so we decided to have a working lunch. This time, however, someone else wanted to tag along. None of us wanted to be "that guy" that refuses to share answers, so we allowed it. After a fairly unproductive lunch, we gathered another unattached soul, and lost the first. Again, our group didn't work as efficiently as it did on day two.
There is an exchange that goes on in this situation. As law students, we recognize the importance of networking and being social with one another. After all, our legal life will be dependant on these people. And yet, there must be a cutoff. When the engine runs fine, you don't need to keepadding parts. Sure, you may get supercharged here, or you might get a speed boost there. But as you go, there is a diminishing marginal return on additional study partners. Where do you draw the line?
7.03.2007
The (Migratory) Birds and the Bees
Having completed two full days of law school, I feel like I made a great choice. Not just a great choice coming to Indiana Law, but a great choice in going to law school period. In these discussions, I feel at home. It feels good to sit at a lunch table and bounce legal theories off study partners. This is me in my element, and I feel like I'm ready.
The first day went surprisingly smooth. After a brief spiel by some of the deans, we were officially introduced to Dean Robel as the first third of the Class of 2010. It felt good, looking around, knowing that these people will be the folks with whom I spend my next three years. It became very real, as if all the dreaming and hypothesizing of the past year had finally materialized.
I feel comfortable saying that Professor Baude is an amazing professor. Everything you hear about law professors being tremendously witty is true. One minute we're discussing swarms of bees forcing us out of our homes, the next we're talking about whether an individual migratory bird needs to migrate in order to be migratory. We've had hearty discussions about voluntary reflexes, and how Baude told his son robbers wouldn't break into their house. Burglars would.
At this point, Crim Law is primarily philosophical and much less black-letter law. Why do we punish people at all? Why must laws be made in advance of crimes? Why don't we let judges "make" criminal law, while we let them create property and tort law? These sorts of questions are deeply thought-provoking, and they are a very good place to start the study of law. I can't imagine taking other law courses without this basic background. In that respect, I feel that the summer start program was the best use of money I could ever want.
Though the start of class meant the end of a solid week of going out, I have a feeling that I will enjoy my time in the classroom as much as my time out of it. I truly love this.
Until next time, try not to appear drunk in public, and keep your clipped-wing geese from jumping into my alfalfa fields.
I should clarify that this blog is chock-full of inside jokes that exactly 67 people understand. Sorry to the rest - take Baude, and you'll get it.
The first day went surprisingly smooth. After a brief spiel by some of the deans, we were officially introduced to Dean Robel as the first third of the Class of 2010. It felt good, looking around, knowing that these people will be the folks with whom I spend my next three years. It became very real, as if all the dreaming and hypothesizing of the past year had finally materialized.
I feel comfortable saying that Professor Baude is an amazing professor. Everything you hear about law professors being tremendously witty is true. One minute we're discussing swarms of bees forcing us out of our homes, the next we're talking about whether an individual migratory bird needs to migrate in order to be migratory. We've had hearty discussions about voluntary reflexes, and how Baude told his son robbers wouldn't break into their house. Burglars would.
At this point, Crim Law is primarily philosophical and much less black-letter law. Why do we punish people at all? Why must laws be made in advance of crimes? Why don't we let judges "make" criminal law, while we let them create property and tort law? These sorts of questions are deeply thought-provoking, and they are a very good place to start the study of law. I can't imagine taking other law courses without this basic background. In that respect, I feel that the summer start program was the best use of money I could ever want.
Though the start of class meant the end of a solid week of going out, I have a feeling that I will enjoy my time in the classroom as much as my time out of it. I truly love this.
Until next time, try not to appear drunk in public, and keep your clipped-wing geese from jumping into my alfalfa fields.
I should clarify that this blog is chock-full of inside jokes that exactly 67 people understand. Sorry to the rest - take Baude, and you'll get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)