A few days ago,  I wrote about how the increase in threats of harm to federal judges may be a by-product of their personal vilification by neo-con talk radio for rendering a decision that was considered “bad”.   One ironic reaction from a  neo-con blog was that I was wrong to blame conservative radio, as it was the judges’ own fault for being evil, which is how the public’s perception of the judiciary has now been twisted.

The same sort of twist happened with my brother, Ken Lammers at CrimLaw, the other day.  He posted, jokingly, about my support for the “law and order” position  about BASE jumping off the Empire State Building.  While it was just in fun, the point was that Mr. Criminal Defense Lawyer came out against the crime.  Woo Hoo!

Similarly, Robert Guest and I debated the issue of driving while talking on cellphones  here and at his new blog, Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer (I miss the old name, IWTS, in place of this very generic name that seems conceived for Google searching).  I favor the cellphone prohibition, and was ripped to shreds to being responsible for the death of all freedom in society, a bit of an irrational extension but certainly a heatfelt position.

The point of all of this is that are in such a rush to pigeonhole people, to make a snap decision as to how they think about everything based upon a handful of known factors.  It’s all black and white.  If a judge issues one decision that a neo-con disagrees with, he’s pulled off then bench by an irate mob as an evil activist.  What of the thousand decisions that would bring smiles to their faces, like putting young Hispanic mothers in prison for decades for being drug mules to feed their children?  Don’t they get any credit with the neo-cons for that?

In a debate with  Doc Berman and Grits the other day, I defended liberal after they were blamed for mass incarceration.  For the purpose of that argument, I aligned myself with liberals because I find it disingenuous to take a position while absolving yourself from responsibility for that position.  We see that a lot with lawprofs, who set themselves up as disinterested observers while trashing one side or another, thus placing themselves above the fray, while creating the very fray to suit their argument.  It’s a convenient way to argue and then escape criticism for the argument.  It strikes me as wrong and lacking in integrity.  If you think something, then take responsibility for your thoughts.

But I am not really a liberal.  I don’t think most people are so easily characterized, even if they proclaim their membership in a group.  Indeed, if I was a liberal, does that tar liberals by my thoughts?  Hardly.  I’m not the definition of liberal.  Just because I say something doesn’t mean that it becomes liberal dogma.

I am a criminal defense lawyer.  It is what I do.  I believe in the work I do, the defense of the Constitution and the protection of rights of the accused.  But I am not a supporter of crime, of behaviors that I believe to be dangerous or damaging to society.  I believe in a balance between liberty and order, and that balance is based upon my understanding of studies of the impact of conduct, my personal life experience and my sense of morality. 

On some issues, I’m likely to be more “law and order” than many of my brethren in the criminal defense bar.  For anyone who has read Simple Justice for a while, you will already know that I’m no wild-eyed liberal.  In fact, I can be pretty darned conservative at times. 

Thinking people are capable of arriving at different conclusions along a broad spectrum of possible outcomes on any given issue.  We (see how I’ve just conveniently included myself in the “thinking people” group) asses each issue independently.  This confounds those who would pigeonhole us based upon one position, assuming they care enough to look any farther than one fact to  inductively reach broad conclusions.

I bet that anyone reading is thinking to him or herself, “Yeah, same with me.”  And I’m sure it is.  None of us are so simple and one-dimensional that we fit that neatly into the box.  Yet, many will view everyone else that way, putting the square peg into the square hole and calling it a day.  Instead, we need to look at the issue, the statement, the comment, the idea, and address its validity as a stand-alone concept rather than pigeonhole the entirety of the person based upon his belief on a single issue. 

It’s been very disappointing to me lately that so many people who I view as intelligent and thoughtful have resorted to this inductive, simplistic reasoning.  It has made for some pointless arguments that illuminate nothing.  There has been ad hominem instead of logic, or even honest disagreement. 

If my value system differs from someone else’s, does that make me a threat to western civilization?  It would seem so when some are hung up on their emotional reactions and unable to see that they are arguing self-interest, not reason.  Most disappointing is my expectation of people who claim the intellectual high ground, levy a shockingly emotional and baseless attack on others, and then later disingenuously disclaim it.  My bet is that they regret the initial attack, a product of the ease of hitting the “enter” key in a moment of pique.  Sometimes, I regret this too, usually because my words were too inartful or more extreme than I actually feel.

So where is all this going?  There are two reasons that Simple Justice exists.  Reason number one is to provide me (not you, me) with a means to write down my thoughts.  I’m not here to sell.  I’m not here to spin an agenda.  I just like to think and write, and this is a great way to do so.

Reason number two is that I enjoy a good conversation and a thoughtful debate.  But too often lately, debates haven’t been thoughtful or enjoyable.  Some have just been stupid.  Some people come here to argue, but lack the background, ability to reason or basic knowledge to engage in the level of discussion that will produce meaningful debate.  Some people have the tolerance to calmly and nicely explain why a comment is stupid.  I am not always that tolerant.

Sometimes, a person is just wrong about some hard fact but will just pound the table over and over to insist that he isn’t wrong.  They will not consider the possibility that they may have misapprehended something, and just keep insisting.  It’s a waste of time.  It’s unpleasant. 

Since it’s no fun, I’m not going to get engaged in it anymore.  When a discussion seems to be going nowhere, I’ve decided to just stop participating.  Having the last word is childish, and I find that giving it to others seems to appease them so they stop.  Most of the time, anyway.  It’s not because I concede, but because it’s no longer fun.  When Simple Justice is no longer enjoyable for me, it will cease to exist.  Remember, it’s here
for me, not you.

Before I end this very long polemic, let me point to an example of a great discussion (in my view).   This discussion At Robert Guest’s new blog is an example of how we can argue a point in a civil and thoughtful way via a blawg.  While Robert’s calling my value system “dangerous” was a bit hyperbolic, it was consistent with his slippery slope view.  Note the  two comments following the interchange between Robert and me.  They exemplify wasted words, since they reflect nothing more than facile inferential leaps, spoiling an otherwise good debate.

And before  Gideon posts a comment like, “why did you write all this” to indicate that he doesn’t care, I remind you that it is my blawg and I can write whatever I like.  If it’s not your cup of tea, then don’t read it.  I can post any damn thing I like here, and have every intention of doing so for as long as I enjoy it.  Whether or not any particular reader finds it worth his time to read it is entirely outside my control or scope of interest.  I write for my benefit, not yours.  So there.