For quite a while now, readers of SJ have “informed” me that they agreed with my posts about criminal law, but hated my posts that addressed the blight of identity politics and social justice. How could I be so right about one thing and so wrong about . . . wait for it . . . JUSTICE!!!

But it wasn’t just that I was wrong, but needlessly and gratuitously wrong, since none of this had anything to do with the real world. Until it did.

For some time, a fixation on identity politics, a culture of reflexive outrage, and a scorched-earth approach to trivial transgressions have been all hallmarks of student activism and academic radicalism. They are now becoming increasingly evident in American life as a whole. In the name of defending women and ethnic and sexual minorities — all reasonable goals — progressives on and off campus are taking illiberal stances that polarize society, put a chill on free speech, and erode respect for due process.

Not long ago, tropes such as “white privilege” or “rape culture,” which reduce a vast range of social dynamics to racism and misogyny, were seldom heard outside the radical wing of the academy; today, they’ve joined the mainstream.

Continue reading →

It outraged the many people who were absolutely certain Bill Cosby was guilty, because they read stories in the paper and believed, that the jury hung. This was still in the early days of believe the victim, evidence be damned, and why not toss out all those legal technicalities which prevent the “survivor” from obtaining “justice.”

But Cosby has been off the radar, as others who have done terrible things, nothing, and who-knows-what have become the targets of public castigation. In the interim, Cosby retained a new defense team, headed by Tom Mesereau, and they’ve been quietly doing the work of lawyers.

Defense lawyers Thomas Mesereau Jr., Samuel W. Silver and Kathleen Bliss filed court documents Thursday contending alleged victim Andrea Constand previously testified the sexual assault occurred at Cosby’s Cheltenham home before Jan. 20, 2004, forcing prosecutors to prove that the incident occurred on an evening somewhere within a 22-day window between Dec. 30, 2003, and Jan. 20, 2004. Continue reading →

I like maple walnut ice cream. Other people may not, and based upon my experience at ice cream parlors, it’s not a sufficiently desirable flavor to be worth the freezer space. But I like maple walnut. I like it a lot. When it’s there, that’s the flavor I order. Because I like it.

It’s not that I hate other flavors. I like pistachio (the real kind, not the funky green stuff). I like vanilla. I like other flavors too. But I really like maple walnut. It’s my favorite flavor. So to me, maple walnut is the best flavor of ice cream. I don’t care for chocolate. I know, but it’s true.

You disagree? You’re wrong. It’s not that you can’t prefer a different flavor. It’s not that you can’t proclaim that maple walnut ice cream bites the big one. You can hate on maple walnut all you want, but that doesn’t change anything as far as I’m concerned. I like it. Whether you do or not has nothing to do with what I like. Continue reading →

There’s an old joke that captures the problem pretty well:

I love humanity.
It’s people I can’t stand.

And while you may be unable to see the connection, it’s painfully obvious to those calling the shots. You are full of empathy, until you’re not.

In a twitstorm, Fordham law prof John Pfaff pointed out a reality that has long been clear to those of us engaged in criminal law, but miraculously eludes the unduly woke. It discusses a poll showing that Americans, by a margin of 85% to 13%, favor rehabilitation as the goal of the criminal justice system. Continue reading →

Definitions matter, which persists to present a problem whenever anyone presents an argument relating to rape and sexual assault. The words still evoke an image of some animal forcibly grabbing a woman, throwing her to the ground in a dark alley and brutalizing her.

Except that’s hardly the rape or sexual assault of which anybody speaks these days. It’s not that it doesn’t happen, and isn’t a horrible crime, but the far more prevalent cries relate to sex that is facially consensual but tainted by the latest excuses of discomfort, alcohol or post-hoc regret. And because of this insurmountable gap in definition, Jim Hopper’s attempt to challenge Emily Yoffe is revealed as a scientific sham.

As a psychologist who has researched the neurobiology of trauma and regularly teaches military and civilian police and prosecutors, higher education staff and others, I can expand a public conversation started in The Atlantic, by the unfortunately titled and highly misleading September 2017 story, “The Bad Science Behind Campus Response to Sexual Assault.” In fact, the science on the neurobiology of stress and trauma is actually quite good, and the real issues are how that science is taught to university staff who aren’t scientists and how they, in turn, apply that teaching on their campuses.

Continue reading →

It was once a joke to suggest that cops carry a credit card reader on their belt, performing cash and carry law enforcement. So cynical. So ridiculous. So . . . Detroit.

An irate customer who was upset about the price of an item started trashing a northwest Detroit Marathon gas station last month, prompting manager Sadek Kaid to dial 911.

When the police didn’t respond after several minutes, Kaid said he hit redial and asked why.

“The dispatcher said, ‘It’s because you don’t have the Green Light,’ ” Kaid said.

Think the worst nightmare of net neutrality meets the aspirational “protect and serve.” Continue reading →

Judges are not “fierce advocates,” despite the wishes of New York Times’ copy editors. Judges are, ideally, impartial, using their authority to apply the law. Ingham County Court Judge Rosemarie Aquilina conveniently abandoned that role by prioritizing the feelings of the “sister survivors.” whom former U.S. Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar sexually assaulted, over Michigan’s charge to jurists regarding the avoidance of judicial impropriety.

A judge should respect and observe the law. At all times, the conduct and manner of a judge should promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Without regard to a person’s race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic, a judge should treat every person fairly, with courtesy and respect.

Nassar’s sentencing hearing is a clear example of a judge straying from promoting the public’s trust in a fair and impartial judiciary. Let’s begin with Judge Aquilina’s decision allowing over one hundred and sixty victim impact statements across seven days.  Continue reading →

One argument against cameras in the courtroom is that judges, being human and fraught with the frailties of the species, might play to them. Who doesn’t want to look good for their close-up, Mr. DeMille? This seemed to terminally afflict Judge Rosemarie Aquilina as media focused on her.

There is a peculiar expectation that anyone would demand, or need, a deep discussion of how despicable Larry Nassar was and is. Is there a doubt? Is there anyone arguing that what this guy did isn’t absolutely horrible and outrageous? Continue reading →

Never having been a big fan of Toronto psychology prof Jordan Peterson, his interview with British journalist Cathy Newman held little interest. But Conor Friedersdorf’s Atlantic article about the interview was an exceptional dissection. No, it wasn’t really about Peterson’s views at all, even though the subtext was that he’s hardly the misogynistic ogre he’s portrayed to be by the highly woke. If anything, he’s a old-school liberal, but that’s neither here nor there.

What Conor’s article showed was the bizarre efforts of a lame advocate to take what Peterson said and try, with all her might to twist it into the most baseless, absurd and offensive expression possible. In the process, she revealed the worst of advocacy journalism.

But what struck me, far more than any position he took, was the method his interviewer employed. It was the most prominent, striking example I’ve seen yet of an unfortunate trend in modern communication. Continue reading →

It would likely be considered unseemly for a newspaper, say one as well-regarded as the Gray Lady herself, to put out a notice that it would like to publish a story about a particular identity group being victimized, so if you’re a member of that group and want to see your name in print, manufacture a claim of victimization and become famous! After all, newspapers report news, not create the news they want to report.

At least, that was the idea way back when. Today, there is a more social media perspective, where one sniffs the air for the stench of outrage and then solicits the stories that emit the desired odor.

Continue reading →