Screams in the Void

The Republicans vs. the NLRB

2011-05-06T16:18:00.003-04:00

It's been an awful few months for unions across this country, and for all people involved in labor as a whole. This nation is at war with working people, and it's time for us to realize this and acknowledge this point. I've met too many people at law school this year, at the height of the protests in Wisconsin, who said that they couldn't muster sympathy for unions and public workers. These are the future lawyers of America.

Since there's such a problem with public sector employees, let's move on to private sector employees, and how there's no sympathy for them in this nation. Or little sympathy.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is charged with working through labor disputes. It's a quasi-independent judicial body, run by specialists who only hear cases in the labor realm, designed to make sure that everyone's rights remain intact and to keep the court system from becoming any more overburdened than it already is. It's possible to appeal from the NLRB to the court system, but that takes time and energy.

Recently, the NLRB had to determine whether Boeing's attempt to move a plant from Washington (a state with fairly good labor practices although this is changing) to South Carolina (a right to work state. Right to work is code for anti-union, anti-labor, pro-corporation) was an unfair labor practice. I spent an entire semester going over what unfair labor practices are and it's too laborous to get into at the moment; however, an example would be if a move is motivated, in whole or in part, by a desire to circumvent current union contracts.

Boeing management has said that this move is. They've said so on more than one occasion. As such, the NLRB rightly found that the move was an unfair labor practice.

The response from our government? The government that cares so much about the Constitution?

The Republicans now want to defund the NLRB.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/7276/republicans_threaten_to_defund_the_national_labor_relations_board/

Since the NLRB is an administrative board, I suppose it's theoretically possible that Congress could do so. It's also a flagrant abuse of power and an attempt to threaten the judiciary. It sends the message that if one disagrees with individual legislators (or companies) then it won't exist anymore. This is in the long line of attempts to defund organizations that the Republicans don't like (ACORN, Planned Parenthood, NPR, PBS etc.) but it's more offensive, because it's a judiciary body.

It's job is to determine what is and isn't lawful; it isn't there to pander to political interests.

In the article listed, it's important to note that both Senators named represent South Carolina, the state that lost the case. However, the fact that they feel emboldened enough to propose this in the first place shows how far this nation has fallen into the frenzy.

My Labor Law professor thinks that the senators should be impeached for abusing their power this way. I agree, even though I'm sure it won't come to pass.

Liz Cheney's "Crusade" Against American Legal Principles

2010-03-10T10:46:00.001-05:00

Newt Gingrich was on this before Liz Cheney, but both of their opinions - which are, essentially, the same opinion - are incorrect, and the implications offend me as a law student, an American, and as a thinking person.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/us/politics/10lawyers.html?hp

Heroics and Terrorism

2010-02-22T15:31:00.001-05:00

According to this article, the daughter of the suicide pilot in Austin "disagrees" with her father's choice, but considers him "a hero" regardless.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/joseph-stacks-daughter-samantha-bell-considers-her-dad-a-hero/19368029?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Fjoseph-stacks-daughter-samantha-bell-considers-her-dad-a-hero%2F19368029

I don't think that we, as a nation, understand what heroics are.

Campaign Rules Revised - Contributions According to SCOTUS

2010-01-21T13:00:00.002-05:00

Son of a-

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=2&hp

I knew this was coming; I've spoken with my father about it, and it frightens me. Particularly if the R-71 decision allows for anonymous referendums.

And to the Republican whose group filed the lawsuit, I would like to make this point: corporations aren't people and don't have first amendment rights. They never did before, and so your use of "restoring" is misleading. Corporations aren't people; if they were, a corporation would have to go to jail when it did something illegal, rather than its officers who may or may not be blameless based on individual conduct. It hardly seems fair that corporations can share in the benefits but not suffer the penalties the rest of us face.

I'm so tired of economic speech being held as political speech, which this is confusing, and the confusion of money and speech. I have first amendment rights, which I'm currently exercising. Kraft does not. Except according to our five-person bloc, they do now.

Where are Thurgood Marshall and Willian O. Douglas when you need them?

Barring their restoration of sanity to the Court, can we simply save time by tattooing barcodes on all of our backsides now?

On Ignorance

2009-12-21T10:54:00.002-05:00

I came across this comment, and it's a good jumping point for a discussion of the ignorance of some of the people who are angry right now, and also of racism because there's just so much of it. For reference, here is the comment:

"There is no time for a 3rd party! YOU are deluding yourself as unfortunately even Glenn Beck does. A third party would ensure that B. Hussein would get in by fiat, thanks to ACORN and ignorant but active minority groups!
I am for Newt, but now he can win only if he takes Sarah Palin under his wing and prepares her to be his VP.
As for those who think the religious issue is "silly", it may be, but multicultural secularism is worse."

This is in response to Newt Gingrich's "Victory or Death" speech he recently gave. Newt Gingrich, for those who might not remember, is an old-school fascist-leaning member of the Republican party as opposed to Huckabee who is a new-school fascist-leaning member of the Republican party (Not to be confused with Pat Buchanan and Lyndon LaRouche who have proven through deed and speech to actually be fascists).

Newt Gingrich has few moderate positions (primarily involving climate change) and otherwise scares the living crap out of me and most rational people, and to explain further how crazy he is: he doesn't believe in the criminal justice system. The speech the comment replied to was one in which he claimed that all of Obama's cabinet members or other employees who did pro bono work involving terrorism suspects (which he called terrorists) should be removed from office as unfit to serve. Firstly, we need pro bono lawyers and few if anyone would go to bat to pay for these people's legal bills, so we need pro bono lawyers in a specific sense even more than a general sense. Secondly, we need lawyers to conduct the criminal justice system. No matter how nauseating an individual and how horrific the crime, in America (and I hold ideally in the world) you are entitled to plead your case. If you don't get this simple concept, it is *you* who have no place in government, not pro bono lawyers or lawyers who handle unpopular cases.

He would also be 69 when running in 2012 which presents the same fear with McCain, that a man of his advanced age and dubious health (as anyone as bombastic as he is is asking for a stroke or heart attack) is at severe risk for leaving his VP in charge either permanently or temporarily. And this commenter thinks that the ONLY way to get him elected is to have Sarah "Women should pay for their own rape kits and liberals and urban areas aren't part of real America" Palin be his heartbeat away from controlling this country, its nuclear stockpile, and all of the bargaining chips we have in the free world. This commenter is insane. Sarah Palin wasn't the only thing that cost McCain the election (as we all know) but she certainly helped a great deal.

And as for other aspects of this comment:

Our president's surname is "Obama" not "Hussein." Some people called Bush "W" because it was his nickname prior to office, which "Hussein" is not, but nobody called Bush "Walker" and certainly not because it was preferable to calling him "Bush." And Obama's surname isn't a euphamism for pubic hair and/or female genitals. Calling him "Hussein" makes you appear ignorant.

People don't get elected to any office by fiat. It's a debate tool to allow for a shift in debate focus. Not only that, but it doesn't mean what you think it does, since FIAT allows the assumption of the plan for the purpose of debating desirability rather than probability. All elections tend to be about desirability rather than probability. Unless you meant by FIAT but considering their sales numbers and recent acquisitions, I'd argue that FIAT also has no power to boost Obama's ratings or electoral hopes in 2012.

ACORN didn't have as much power as you think it did to begin with, and it's been further discredited. They won't be pushing anyone into office, just as they haven't in the past. You only know about them because of Obama's connection this past year and the prostitution housing scandal.

Ignorant but active minority groups - I have to assume you mean African-Americans, because you use language cues to imply them, particularly when invoking ACORN and our first African-American president. The African-American population 1) isn't large enough to bring in a president with no other support, particularly not with how they're disenfranchised when voting, 2) anymore ignorant as a whole than any other group in this country. I have to assume you think they're ignorant because they're black, which makes you a racist. And since you've already displayed your ignorance, I put little stock in any opinion you have. I assume you're afraid that the big, scary non-white people are taking over this country, which leads me to the following question:

You support Gingrich despite his historical ethical violations (not to mention Palin's) but are you sure you wouldn't rather have Buchanan? After all, he thinks that it's appropriate to mourn the loss of white America now that we have a nonwhite leader.

You link two concepts: multiculturalism and secularism. We have both in this nation, and as long as they aren't taken to the extreme of undermining the rule of law (e.g. any action legal elsewhere must be legal in America, such as stoning rape victims to death or public canings as government punishments or banning the building of private places of worship) it's not a big deal. Similarly, secularism is the only thing that prevents your religion from being trampled. Gingrich for instance recently converted to Catholicism, which has been historically discriminated against in this nation (by people who call Catholics "Papists" among others). If we adopt a religious position as the national position, all religions are at risk. Ah, but then I'm arguing by fiat and desirability rather than probability. I'll use probability then: Christians might take over this nation but they aren't united in opinion. ONE of the sects will reign supreme and considering how many sects there are, chances are likely it won't be yours.

The religious issue is "silly" because you're already free to live according to your religion; you're simply not permitted to make me live according to your religion or to make the government give your religion special treatment. That's the same deal everyone has. Trying to upset this balance - and it is a balance - is to try to tip the scales in your favor, which makes all your whining ignorant of actual issues. When a person whines about something they don't understand, and make a mountain out of a valley, the issue they address is silly.

I would also like to call Gingrich either "N. Leroy" or "N. McPherson" as turnabout can be fair play.

New York Fails to Legalize Gay Marriage

2009-12-02T20:11:00.000-05:00

Once again, our state Senate fails to do the right thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html?_r=1&hp

Unlike most of the non-New Yorkers whom I've read on the Internet recently, I'm not surprised. People don't understand how backwards we are in many ways - for instance, we're the only state in the union that doesn't permit no-fault divorce. (And an aside to all the people elsewhere who think that's just nifty - we still have plenty of divorce. People just get "creative" in their reasoning. There's far less adultery in New York than our divorce statistics show.) People also don't seem to realize how very useless our senate is. One of our senators was recently convicted of misdemeanor assault on his girlfriend's face with a broken bottle, and surprise, surprise, he switched his support for the bill to voting against it. They stalled in it last night; who really thought it would pass today?

To be honest, I didn't think they'd get to it; they've been tabling this easily enough. And they staged a coup in part to keep from having to address it.

To give a list of the some of the last four things the senate voted on, to put their uselessness in perspective:

1. Most recently - voting against gay marriage 38-24
2. Before that - passing legislation that would mandate a Blood-alcohol blow override device in the vehicles of people convicted of DUI. For extra measure, this was named after a drunk driving victim.
3. Before that - passing a resolution on Veteran's Day honoring veterans.
4. Before that - passing a bill OVER THE SUMMER ensuring that they be paid for the six weeks of not doing their jobs when they nearly let our public institutions go bankrupt.

To be fair, in between 3 and 4, they did some fly-by-night votes and then ignored everything else on their docket and letting it expire. They continued to do this when reconvening this session.

People are advocating voting out the senators who voted against gay marriage. I agree, but this doesn't go far enough. In the interest of New York state as a whole, we need to get rid of all of them; they've made it plain that they don't feel governance is within their capabilities.

New Yorkers on the whole favor gay marriage, and once we have legislators that actually represent us, we will have equality.

People have also been floating the idea of a direct vote of the people on this issue, or lamenting that we can't do one since we don't have a referendum system like many other states do. As a New Yorker, I'm thankful that we don't. There's something wrong with voting on civil rights, and no amount of agreement on one issue can change that. I'm happier to live in a place where I know that my civil rights won't be up for popular vote, and that I need not defend my existence on an individual level more than I already do for the sake of basic respect. People not from New York, please stop wishing referendum systems on us; we truly are better off for not having them, even when we're at the mercy of these 62 (and for the moment even more so 38) idiots.

And to the people who think there will be a New York constitutional amendment to make the Assembly stop passing gay marriage bills - it's not going to happen. Seriously, if you want to pass an amendment to stop the assembly from doing what they're doing, how do you propose you convince them to vote in favor of that amendment? Logical failure.

Religious Institutions Missing the Point of Anything Doctor King Ever Did or Said, Ditto Thoreau

2009-11-20T09:03:00.001-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/us/politics/20alliance.html?_r=1&hp

This is why I don't give money to Christian charities and don't volunteer at Christian institutions. They make me very uncomfortable, save the Unitarians.

To the signers of this petition - this is how civil disobedience works: You refuse to do something that you must which is legal on moral ground, then you are government punished for it. This is why Doctor King was in jail.

What isn't civil disobedience - signing a petition to ban secular rights for people that have no effect on your institutions whatsoever facing no risk of government punishment and then hiding behind "religious freedoms" when you're called on it.

Also, this: "They say they also want to speak to younger Christians who have become engaged in issues like climate change and global poverty, and who are more accepting of homosexuality than their elders. They say they want to remind them that abortion, homosexuality and religious freedom are still paramount issues.

“We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues,” said Charles Colson, a prominent evangelical who founded Prison Fellowship after serving time in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. “A lot of the younger evangelicals say they’re all alike. We’re hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues.”"

I am not a Christian, nor am I a Christian scholar, but I refuse to believe that Jesus would argue that condemning homosexuality is more important than aiding the poor. And I refuse to give even nominal respect to any institution that believes it is. This thinking is what has led the Catholic Church to hold the poor of our nation's capital hostage in their attempt to keep gays from having equal rights, and it's heart-breaking. How can anyone think that they're in the moral right when they come out and say that condeming people and preventing their rights (while trying to uphold their ability to do so on a SECULAR level) is more important than helping people.

In Inherit the Wind, Bertram Cates says "Religion is supposed to comfort people, not scare them to death." I'll take this a step further - religion is supposed to comfort people; it isn't supposed to harm people, its followers or others. Nobody has the right to do that.

Also, I notice that Charles Colson signed onto this. No wonder people are confused about how the government interacts with society, when Charles "Running the country is identical to getting Nixon re-elected" Colson is giving advice.

Disgrace of a New York Senate

2009-11-11T17:31:00.002-05:00

I cannot think of a single governmental entity more shameful than the New York State senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/nyregion/11albany.html?ref=nyregion

In the film and play "1776" New York abstained from every vote to reach the table, although they did so "courteously." At one point, John Hancock gets angry and the following ensues:

Lewis Morris: Mr. Secretary, New York abstains, courteously.
John Hancock: Mr. Morris,
John Hancock: WHAT IN HELL GOES ON IN NEW YORK?
Lewis Morris: I'm sorry Mr. President, but the simple fact is that our legislature has never sent us explicit instructions on anything!
John Hancock: NEVER?
John Hancock: That's impossible!
Lewis Morris: Mr. President, have you ever been present at a meeting of the New York legislature?
[Hancock shakes his head "No"]
Lewis Morris: They speak very fast and very loud, and nobody listens to anybody else, with the result that nothing ever gets done.

To echo John Hancock, why the Hell has nothing changed in the past 233 years? These people aren't getting anything done, and as abhorrent as it is that they keep ignoring civil liberties, there are other issues on the table besides gay marriage, that they're also ignoring.

I want to call attention to this paragraph: "As legislators negotiated over the budget and the marriage bill throughout the day, business in the Senate was at a standstill. Senators entered the chamber shortly after noon and took up a resolution honoring veterans. It was the only business they voted on all day."

Considering the fact that few if any people ever consider not honoring veterens, I imagine that it couldn't have taken long to pass that resolution. We pay these people for nothing. Our budget will expire in sixty days give or take, and we as a state cannot pass a budget in the red (unlike the Federal Government. This is a luxury not extended to us, and I'll debate the merits of this at a later date). We will have no money; we will be a bankrupt state. And these senators don't give a damn.

It's still an improvement, because they passed a resolution honoring veterens. During their strike in the summer, the only legislation they passed was one which stated that they should earn their salaries for their time not working. They spent the rest of their time sending me propaganda literature about how it's everyone else's fault that they stopped doing their jobs and destroyed the state for over a month. It only ended with one of the most corrupt deals in history. I also, for the record, want to state that one senator from Queens was recently convicted of the (misdemeanor) assault of his girlfriend with a broken glass to her face. I cite misdemeanor because he gets to keep his seat, as it wasn't a felony conviction. Welcome to the New York legislature, boys and girls.

Useless, completely useless. I call on every single New Yorker to vote out their senator next year on Election Day. We need to show them that there are consequences for their uselessness.

What is WRONG With People?

2009-10-19T16:14:00.002-04:00

With the focus on the fight in Maine over their hard-won same-sex marriage law, it's possible that the R-71 fight in Washington has slipped under the radar. A rather insidious attempt to deny domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples has cropped up in the form of R-71. There was an attempt to block the referendum, because the anti-gay lobby refused to release the signatures and addresses for verification, claiming imminent risk of harm if they did. This undermines the purpose of referendums, because it removes the only check on popular legislation, that is, verifying that the signatures are real.

To anyone who thinks it's hard to fake signatures, I'm working on a class project right now. I've a petition for a sign area variance that has over 300 signatures, all of them false. That took me twenty-two minutes to compile. One person, twenty-two minutes, 300 signatures. Reducing this to initials, it would have taken me about ten minutes. It's very easy to come up with 100,000 sets of false initials with nobody to check them. And since referendums are only supposed to come to pass with a substantial percentage of the ACTUAL population, this is a big deal.

The lowest federal court granted a stay, ruling that the signatures needn't be turned over for verification, and undermining the check on popular legislation. Last week, the federal court of appeals granted another stay, but overruled that decision. Today, Justice Kennedy has decided to grant another stay, freezing action on consideration of the issue for SCOTUS.

Meanwhile, the campaign is disgusting. People are couching this as 1) a religious issue and 2) an issue of marriage. The entire anti-R71 campaign is based upon "traditional definitions of marriage" which domestic partnership has nothing to do with. Same-sex couples were reduced to second class citizens, told they had to allow themselves a second-class role, and they're still being denied. Anyone who claims this is about redefining marriage is lying, and I will happily say that to anyone's face who wants to have a discussion.

In the midst of this announcement, as always, there are comments. Scrolling comments, as I always do, I came across this gem:

"I am glad that the supreme court is taking these death threats seriously. The gay marriage lobby has said all along that there were no serious threats, and this proves they've been lying. They are nasty bullies and I'm voting against them."

Which begs the question: What the Hell is wrong with you, Sir or Madam?

There have been no death threats. I've been following this closely, and the reported "risk of harm" has never included verifiable death threats. But that's an aside. What this comes down to is that you think gay marriage lobbyists are loud and obnoxious, and so to punish a group of lobbyists, you think it's all right to punish a group of people, and their families, for something that a few people didn't actually do. You want to strip families of protection because you think that a handful of lobbyists are "nasty bullies."

Again, I ask: What the Hell is wrong with you, Sir or Madam?

How can you punish innocent people, and denying basic rights is a punishment, because you don't like the proported behavior of some of them? How can you punish children like this?

I can infer from your comment that you're straight. So are my parents. My parents are some of the best people I've ever known, and I wouldn't dream of punishing them for your blather. Pay families in Washington the same courtesy.

A Few Notes on Roman Polanski

2009-10-16T13:08:00.003-04:00

I've been waiting for Roman Polanski to be brought back to America for years; I grew up in a house where he was a cautionary tale about bail jumping. Last month, he was finally caught, and the media has been buzzing since. Most frighteningly, he has a large group of supporters who don't seem to realize he's done wrong. I'd like to break down all of the arguments in favor of him, and so I have.

1. The girl was a Lolita - I don't even know where to begin here. They seem to be confusing two issues, that he pled to statutory rape, which he did, and that he was engaged in forcible rape. When a woman (a person) says "no" any conduct from that point on is forcible rape, and has nothing to do with age. People keep throwing the age of consent around like it's a full defense, when 1) the age of consent was 16 or 18 not 14 like these people like to pretend, 2) even if it was 14, she wasn't 14, and by statute, close is not enough in these cases, 3) thinking the person is 18 is not a defense in statutory rape cases, 4) he PLED GUILTY, 5) SHE SAID NO. How these people can pin the actions of a 40 something year old man on a 13 year old girl is sick, and they're still doing it. I spoke with my father; he represents primarily indigent black and hispanic clients. If one of them did this, and then claimed the girl was a Lolita, these same people would probably want these men hanged. But rather than use the example as a reason to get more justice, they want less. Under the law, she couldn't seduce, and that obviously isn't what happened here.

2. The girl's mother forced her into it - this has many of the same trappings of above, in that it removes all responsibility from Polanski and puts it on someone else. Here, there is an acknowledgement that the girl didn't seduce him and wasn't old enough to/didn't have the mindset, but then they blame the girl's mother. Because it's obviously only a parent's fault when something happens to a child by a third party.

3. He's suffered enough - This can be broken down into two arguments:
3(a) - his parents suffered in the Holocaust as did he to some extent, and then his wife was brutally murdered by Charles Manson years before this incident.I don't want to fall into the traps about how he wasn't home for the Manson murder or to debate how much of the Holocause he went through. Here are the relevancies: 1) events that happened before his rape and subsequent thirty-two years of bailjumping don't get to be credited as retroactive punishment for his actions; 2) I know several people and know of many, many more people who suffered through the Holocaust or saw their parents suffer through the Holocaust and didn't grow up to drug and rape a thirteen-year-old and then jump bail for thirty-two years; we shouldn't try to use one attrocity
as an excuse for another, or to try and assign causation here.
3(b) - he was in exile for thirty-two years. He wasn't exhiled, he was "in exhile" because he JUMPED BAIL for thirty-two years. We didn't change the locks on him after he left; he was welcome to return, serve his underlying plea sentence and serve time for his bailjumping at any point, but he didn't want to do that. He didn't get to go to England either because they'd have extradited him; this doesn't count as suffering. This is consciously weighing options. I don't think we as a society want to argue that fugitives suffer enough being fugitives that they don't deserve underlying punishments.
3(c) - he paid the defendant in a civil suit - criminal liability and civil liability have nothing with one another, which is how OJ lost the civil rights suit and won his criminal trial. The civil suit wasn't ordered by the criminal court and is thus irrelevant.
Also, a last note on this topic, not that it has to do with the underlying charges, but he's shown absolutely no remorse both in interviews and then in not returning to face his sentence like an adult. If we accept suffering as a mental phenomenan as it is often accepted in philosophy, I would say he hasn't suffered at all. Particularly when we add in everything he's done with his life since then, such as winning awards, making movies, and having a family while being rich in France.

4. He had no other choice, because of possible sentencing misconduct - This is an argument that means that anything can be excused as long as you feel backed into a corner. It can excuse murder. These same people will argue not murder, because you kill someone here and didn't do that in this instance, but if you argue NO CHOICE, then you have to take consequences. Even if we step back from murder, there are plenty of instances in which a person can feel backed into a corner and strike out against another person physically or verbally, the latter including lies to ruin a person's life. Those are all unacceptable, and some not as bad as rape, but certainly as bad as bailjumping. In addition, there is always a choice when it comes to judicial misconduct. You could show up to Court, lodge a protest, and fight from the inside to have your sentence reduced. Not to mention there was no misconduct legally, as the judge isn't bound by a plea recommendation; the sentencing and the actual plea take place at two different times (I watched a bunch of these over the summer). Judges reject sentencing recommendations all the time, but there's no outcry over that. He chose a plea, so he could be convicted of statutory rape rather than forcible rape of a minor. This was a choice; he had to accept the consequences.

5. He shouldn't go to jail because he needs to appeal and should be out on bail during that appeal. - No underlying appeals in plea bargains; he's waived those rights. Even if there were an underlying righ to appeal in his case, he has waived all rights to bail by proving to be a flight risk after bailjumping for thirty-two years.

6. He's too old - he wouldn't be too old if he'd gone to jail as he should have, rather than jumped bail for thirty-two years. I like this argument because there are two parts to it, and a similar one was used in the Manson trial. The part used in the Manson trial was this: during the trial, Manson had several outbursts wherein he deliberately tried to contaminate the jury by passing on media coverage of the trial to them, and then had his lawyer argue that the jury was tainted and thus couldn't render a fair verdict, and since the trial had been in the press for months already, no other fair jurors could be found, so he should be let go. That is to say, a defendant should be rewarded for a condition he solely and deliberately brought about. That's the same argument here: Polanski should be let go because he's old, and he's old because he fled for thirty-two years. As in the Manson trial, he shouldn't be able to reap the rewards of his own misconduct.

The second part is that the elderly shouldn't have to serve time for crimes they commit. To that end, I would like to bring up Bernie Madoff, who committed white collar crime and these same peopel were happy to let him have a...I believe it was 150 year sentence. And I would also like to bring up Edgar Ray Killen, who murdered Chaney, Goodwin and Schwerner in 1964 - he was prosecuted in 2005 and convicted at the age of 80, and he was a preacher. Surely if this was all right, then making Polanski serve his time is all right, since this particular argument hinges solely on age and not on degree of crime.

7. Innocent until proven guilty - Seriously? He pled guilty, there is no presumption of

innocence. He fled sentencing, not a trial, and so we can move on to actual sentencing without

another trial. This will be brought up in point argument 9.

8. The victim wants this to end - our justice system doesn't turn entirely on what happened to the victim, which is why it's society's interest which prevails, and why it's the People v. defendant and not victim v. defendant in court cases. If people want to argue how the victim's opinions SHOULD function, that's their time to waste, but it has no bearing on how this ACTUALLY functions. He has harmed society several times over with the underlying charge and the bail jumping. He has to be punished to make a point to society. And if I were the victim, I'd probably want this to go away too, since I wouldn't want people arguing over how sexually active I was as a thirteen-year-old as though that made a difference.

9. Anyone who wants him to serve time is "raping" the victim again - Apparently, people don't know the definition of the word "rape" if "rape" can be attributed to sending a third-party to jail. It's not an argument that they're raping Polanski, but rather that the victim is being raped by having him go to jail and having people insist on it. This is patently false, and I won't analyze that aspect further. What I will further analyze are the people who clarify and say that having to go through a trial would be just as bad as the initial assault. Again, I disagree, but I see where the argument goes with this, which is why so many rapes go unpunished because testimony is difficult to come by. However, it is rendered moot because he already pled guilty. Because he already pled guilty, there is no new trial, and she won't have to testify, and so the Polanski defenders who pretend to care about her emotional well-being have nothing to worry about. Further, the bailjumping trial is generally an administrative matter and can be demonstrated without a trial through a hearing. He was gone for 32 years, we have a record of where he's been and where he was picked up, and he never served his time. Administratively guilty, can be sentenced for the bailjumping without a full trial, assuming California is anything like New York, and this could be pursued in federal court as well since he went international.

10. This is about revenge - punishing people isn't always about revenge, and it isn't in this case for most people. I don't actually give much of a damn about Polanski as a person; I like his movies, I think what he did is despicable, and I'm disgusted with people who defend him. However, society has a huge underlying interest in this. We need to demonstrate that forcible rape of minors isn't all right, that statutory rape isn't all right, and the big kicker here that keeps getting forgotten by many other news sources is that BAIL JUMPING isn't all right. If we have a precedent that says that as long as you run away from your sentence, you're free to go, our society will fall apart. Honestly, what reason would a person have to stick around, since most of the defendants were caught and didn't turn themselves in, they don't have a moral weight forcing them to go through punishment. This needs to set precedent.

11. Related to the above, it's not serious/shouldn't the country have better things to do with its time - punishing fugitives is an excellent use of resources, particularly as this isn't an expensive one. The Swiss caught him; he's in custody, and he's already been convicted of the rape; there are no resources for a trial need be expended assuming everyone does this properly. And since this serves an important societal interest to stop bailjumping, it's a good use of resources.

Also, what isn't serious about it? Raping thirteen-year-old girls or disappearing for thirty-two years?

And since all he missed was sentencing, the underlying charge needs to be finished for the sake of completeness; this isn't a trial, it's merely a sentencing.

12. It wasn't "rape rape" to quote Whoopi Goldberg - as with the first defense, this is confusing the legal and moral issues at work. He pled to statutory rape, yes, but that isn't what he DID. What he did was forcibly rape a minor, and so any arguments hinging on what a good person he is or about how what he actually did morally needs to reflect what happened: drugging and raping a minor. Not having sex with a minor. And that is rape rape. People are defending what he was convicted for but attributing it to what he did, and that can't happen. Sort of like how a person can be charged with a vehicle and traffic moving violation as a result of a plea bargain from drunk driving. You were charged with speeding, which might not be a big deal, but what you actually did was drive drunk and that is a big deal; you can't claim moral credit for a plea bargain.

13. The use of hearsay testimony is illegal at trial - Firstly, there wasn't a trial since he pled guilty. Secondly, said testimony was at grand jury, where it absolutely is legal for the purpose of a narrative, and thirdly, there was no hearsay. Hearsay is information that comes through a witness that was heard from another party. Hearsay would be if I were on trial talking about something you told me happened to you. The victim was testifying to what happened to HER and it is not hearsay, it is simple testimony. This is a weak argument and a non-sequitor.

14. She probably didn't protest because she was drunk/drugged - This is the bottom of the barrel for defenses, but I've seen it. The argument here is that it couldn't have been forcible rape because she was too drugged up (from what he gave here, people actually acknowledge he drugged her for this argument), and thus didn't protest. If she was too drugged up to protest, she was too drugged up to consent (for the meaningless designation that is, since she was a mini-minor, as the age of consent was sixteen or eighteen, and thirteen is nothing close to that) and so this argument is moot.

15. Cultural relativism - cultural relativism my ass. Drugging and raping people isn't culturally acceptable in pretty much any society. They've polled the French and the overwhelming majority want him to go back to American and serve his sentence. As a social policy, we also can't say that just because something is acceptable elsewhere (and it's really only acceptable in the small pool of celebrities and artists who think that he should have a pass) that it should be the law of the land in America, beause then we have no actual laws, depending on where a person might have ethnic ties. Finally, we have a reasonable person statute to decide sanity and guilt; no reasonable person would think that this is acceptable behavior, and if we have to switch our rules for the sake of faux cultural relativism, then we have no justice system. And if he wasn't French but was American, his same supporters would simply argue it wasn't a big deal rather than cultural relativism, and so this is a faux argument.

16. Entrapment - People don't know what this word means. The Swiss were holding a film festival, and he chose to attend, and then was arrested in Zurich. Entrapment is when the police create a fake crime and then entice you to participate. The victim wasn't an undercover police officer thirty-two years ago. Neither of his crimes (the rape or the bailjumping) is entrapment; he simply let his ego take over and he was caught.

17. He's an artist/has made good movies - this is what this all comes down to. All of the other arguments come down to this, that Roman Polanski in being such a good director is above the law, and so they have to minimize his actions (it wasn't rape, wasn't a big deal) or paint him to be the victim (he's suffered enough, judicial misconduct, entrapment, was the victim of a Lolita seductress) because in the end, movies are more important than actions. As someone posed the question, does this mean that Stanley Kubrick could have gotten away with being a serial killer? According to these people, probably. There's self-interest from Hollywood types here, not only in defending their friends, but because a pass on this for Polanski sets up a precedent for passes for them in pretty much anything they do, because their artistic/cultural contributions should more than make up for their reprehensible actions.

18. The statute of limitations bars him from being pursued - This needs to be broken down into two parts, the statute of limitations for bailjumping and the statute of limitations for the underlying rape:
18(a) - The statute of limitations for the underlying rape is a non-sequitor because of two reasons: 1) statutes of limitations freeze when people flee so it's been frozen since his initial escape and 2) since he was already charged and pled guilty, the statute of limitations no longer applies; statute of limitations has to do with the amount of time between crime and initial arrest/charging.
18(b) - The statute of limitations for the bailjumping is ongoing and is compounded every day he does not appear. As such, the statute of limitations begins when he appears in America for the first time and immediately ends when he hits the courthouse.

19. Roman Polanski probably won't do it agian and thus there is no point in charging him/imprisoning him - this is a peculiar argument because it ignores four of the five traditional reasons for punishment (some might argue that it only ignores three, but since he remains remorseless, I think rehabilitation is still a possibility since rehabilitation is both preventative and a means of teaching one to regret what has already been done) and in doing so, argues that the only purpose of punishment is specific deterrence. Taken at face value, this is an argument for preemptive justice, that we should arrest and detain people who haven't committed crimes but are likely to, since there is no purpose in punishing them for the crimes they have committed, only those they will commit. I will take this seriously the minute they push for the release of all prisoners and the arrest of all people in the business world who are likely to commit white collar crime but haven't.

20. Calling him a pedophile is unfair - This is the single worst defense I've heard yet, but it's been a frequent one. Since he didn't rape a nine-year-old who was prepubescent but instead raped a thirteen-year-old (who was a Lolita!) we can't use pedophile, and on this semantic argument, he must be forgiven. Under the law, there is no "teenager" category, there is child and adult, minor and age of majority. In fact, in most legal jurisdictions, anyone under the age of 18 is called an "infant." So calling her a teenager to correct people who say he raped a child is bogus. Secondly, the connotation of pedophile is someone who has sex with minors, not someone who has sex with pre-pubesent children, and so it's perfectly fair to use words for their public connotation and not their strict denotation. Particularly with this set that seems to think that rape has a meaning which doesn't include forcible sexual intercourse.

21. It would be cruel and inhumane to send him to prison, because he will be raped in prison, and thus anyone calling for him to go to prison actually condones rape and their argument is rendered moot - I'm disgusted by all of this, but admittedly I'm having a lot of fun dusting off logic skills I haven't had to use since finishing my philosophy major. Most people would be happy if he was put in solitary, and most people don't like prison rape; it's hard to give any credence to people who whip out the prison rape/prison abuse argument in special cases but not for the general population, as most of these people aren't prison reform advocates. But taking this down to two points: first, that there are ways of punsihing him that don't involve prison rape or the risk of prison rape, and since he's 76, he probably wouldn't be put with the thirty year old and younger, active violent criminals who would be more likely to rape him. Second, that risk of harm to defendant doesn't outweigh society's interest in justice. We don't empty our prisons because of prison abuse. And even hard-core prison reformers don't think that prisoners should be given a free pass because of prison conditions; they want a more humane system, yes, but they don't argue that since the system is inhumane in some ways/places, that nobody should be punished for any crimes. That's asinine, and again, doesn't apply to the general population, only to Polanski. Also, for the record, it's possible to be against rape and still believe in a justice system. It's far more possible than it is to believe that being a famous director is a counter-balance to rape of a minor.

22. Film festivals are hallowed ground - No, cemetaries and holy buildings are hallowed ground (and considering the death of Doctor Tiller, perhaps holy buildings aren't hallowed ground). You don't get to claim "sanctuary" because you were on your way to a film festival. Unless there's some clause in the constitution or in our extradition treaties with Switzerland that explicitly states that film festivales are out of jurisdiction for arrest. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. And then, people are defending the celebrities defending him, by saying that they're just afraid that if he goes to jail, then they'll also go to jail. He isn't being arrested for making "Chinatown." He's being arrested for thirty-plus years of bail jumping and forcible rape of a minor. The fact that the celebrities are trying to downplay the rape while still acknowleding it means that they're aware of this.

23. It wasn't a violent crime - non-sequitor. Firstly, it was violent in the connotation, since he forced himself upon her. Secondly, it was violent in the denotation, since any rape is considered a violent crime under the law. Thirdly, even if it weren't violent, is this a defense of a crime? It wasn't a violent crime and so it should be let go?

24. He was sentenced to a 45/90 day psych evaluation; this was his sentence and he paid in full - this wasn't a sentence, this was a pre-sentencing necessity to determine whether he was competent enough to plea, since the nature of his crime/plea involved a violent crime. He skipped out on sentencing, which means he hasn't served a lick of his sentence.

And a note to conservatives who take his defenders to speak for all liberals/Libertarians/non-conservatives: they don't. The people who defend him are idiots, yes, but they don't have the power to speak for anyone but themselves.

Let's bring him back home and send him to trial for his thirty-plus years of bail jumping and the underlying statutory rape charge.

Introductions and Lexicon

2009-10-16T12:48:00.003-04:00

My name is John. You can also call me "Hermes," "Professor," or "Captain."

Here are a few references for the future, should you follow this blog.

Who I am - I am:

-Male
-Gay
-Transgendered
-Atheist
-Jewish
-Libertarian
-A law student
-A writer
-A Trekkie
-A comic book nerd

I mention all of those because they will make appearances in this blog in the future.

Here are some basic explanations:

What's an Event Horizon?

An event horizon is the threshold crossed by light or an object into a black hole. Once passed, escape is impossible.

Why Last Event Horizon?

Logically, an event horizon is the last thing in the physical world you'll ever see. As for why I chose it for the URL, the buck stops here.

Why Screams in the Void?

I'm a very angry person, and I often feel like I'm talking to myself.

Some of my rantings are political, some social, some have to do with entertainment. Sometimes combinations of the three. I'll also do book and movie reviews sometimes.