For the fellow Luddites who read this, you’re going to need to know what Godwin’s Law is in order to understand what follows.  Also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum,  Godwin’s Law states:

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

Put less mathematically, it means:

Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

While formed in humor, no one who has spent time in the virtual world doesn’t realize that Godwin nailed it, that all argument and discussion devolved to the most simplistic, the lowest common denominator. You will not see a reference in a comment here to Hitler or the Nazis.  Not because they aren’t made (they are, all the time), but because I refuse to allow it to post.

There is a branch of Godwin’s Law that applies specifically to criminal law blawgs, which brings me to Corollary 92, addressing any aspect of our fragile criminal justice system by Reductio ad Tyrannidem: Every example of impropriety or abuse by police, prosecutor or judge proves that we live in a police state, our elected officials are tyrants and the Constitution is dead.  It’s usually preceded in its expression by the words, “the real problem,” or a variation thereon.

To arrive at the conclusion, every issue is reduced to its simplest, least nuanced, unidimensional form, as is the case with Godwin’s Law, the battle of good and evil.  While I can appreciate the anger and frustration felt by those who run headlong down this path, and sometimes share the sentiment, it’s not helpful.

First, it’s wrong. You think otherwise, which is fine but irrelevant.  While the depth of thought attempted here may not rival the great philosophers, it remains above the median of a rock convention. This is a law blog, written for the purpose of discussing, understanding, critiquing and applying the various aspects of the criminal justice system to the world in which we live and function.

A comment that states an unsupported opinion is not an argument that demands address. It’s nothing. You think so? So what? This is particularly true of anonymous commenters, who invariably think their assertion that chocolate taste far better than vanilla proves their conclusion that all cops are evil. It proves that you are wearing a tin foil hat (internet shorthand for “you’re insane/irrational”).

Any point that relies on your personal experience or observation is meaningless in the absence of a demonstration of your credibility. Credibility is not self-attributed, even though you are absolutely certain that you deserve the trust and approval of others because you know how right you are.

Familiarize yourself with logical fallacies. These are the rules by which thoughtful argument happens, where commonly used but meritless arguments are bandied about among people who lack the capacity to distinguish a valid point from an assertion that may seem superficially valid but fails to comport with basic logic.  There are a lot of logical fallacies, and most people use them regularly to make their points. Even lawyers use them on occasion, whether because they don’t know better or they are trying to trick the unwary.  But they are fail the test of reason, and rather than sustain your position, reveal you as irrational.  Be rational.

This is not meant as a means of denigrating the views of non-lawyers, though lay-people most frequently violate Corollary 92.  But lawyers often do as well, whether because their grasp of reason is poor or they wear a tin foil hat that matches their three-piece suit.  Sometimes lawyers are as frustrated with the system as anyone else, often because they deal with it more intimately and regularly than anyone else, and grow tired of the effort of defending or explaining every subtlety. Understandable as that may be, it’s unacceptable in that it contributes nothing to a greater understanding of the system.  Irrational lawyers are worse than irrational non-lawyers. We have no excuse.

Finally, it doesn’t matter whether your point agrees or disagrees with mine, a detail that causes more anger than any other. You agree, and thus find my critical reaction offensive because “we’re on the same team.”  This isn’t a team sport. A ridiculous, ignorant, irrational comment that agrees with me is no less ridiculous, ignorant and/or irrational. There is a rule here, that no one should be made more stupid for having read something here.  It’s a hard rule, I know, but one which I will do my best to enforce.

Corollary 93 is more a matter of mechanics than substance. If you failed to make a valid point in your first comment, chances diminish considerably in your next 12.  If you failed to make a valid point in 100 words, spreading it out to 3000 won’t help make your point any more valid.

If your point was disputed once, responding with increasingly emphatic insistence that “NO, I AM RIGHT!!!,” using typographical gimmicks to enhance the appearance of your argument, copying in the text of the Fourth Amendment with the obligatory “it means exactly what it says,” referring to Publius or Federalist Paper 37, citing Marbury v. Madison, etc., is not going to win the day.  I realize you think it should.

If you’ve made your argument and it hasn’t received the reaction you desire, do not repeat it more emphatically. Others will read it and the response and make their own decisions. There is no “win” to be had. Stop digging.

This is a law blog. It is not a political blog. There are many political blogs, where points, no matter how irrational or misguided, are applauded because they comport with the goals the blog seeks to promote. If that’s what you seek, find a political blog that suits your taste and you will be embraced by others who share your views.

In 2012, a goal at Simple Justice is to elevate the tenor of discussion and thought. The insanity and stupidity are wearing on me, and just because you have a keyboard and internet access doesn’t mean you have something meaningful to contribute.  Your cooperation is appreciated.