While I hesitate to admit it, I occasionally read the Size Matters column at  Above the Law by the pseudonymous Valerie Katz.  That she uses an alias is completely understandable, given her role of representing the small law version of an intellectual void and the disturbing picture beside her name.  But this one struck me as worthy of further discussion.

After a critical opening paragraph about the efficacy of eating chocolate to get “skinnier,” she writes:

Continuing in that vein, I found an article that confirms my long-held views on how to succeed as a small-firm lawyer: take frequent breaks, go on vacation, nap, and wear sweatpants. Don’t believe me? Check this out….

According to Tony Schwartz in his article The Magic of Doing One Thing at a Time, multitasking is a productivity killer. Schwartz argues that mutitasking is the reason that 25-50% of the work force is burned out. Multitasking splits one’s attention such that one never completely focuses on one task, and spends a longer time to complete various tasks. Worse yet, multitasking “relentlessly burn[s] down your available reservoir of energy over the course of every day, so you have less available with every passing hour.”

Initially, Katz misapprehends the gist of the article from Harvard Business Review.  Not only does it not promote the wearing of sweatpants (is this a woman fantasy, as I’m unaware of any men who dream of the day they can come to work in sweatpants), but the focus is on multitasking, and the damage it does to one’s health and productivity.

Why is it that between 25% and 50% of people report feeling overwhelmed or burned out at work?

It’s not just the number of hours we’re working, but also the fact that we spend too many continuous hours juggling too many things at the same time.

What we’ve lost, above all, are stopping points, finish lines and boundaries. Technology has blurred them beyond recognition. Wherever we go, our work follows us, on our digital devices, ever insistent and intrusive. It’s like an itch we can’t resist scratching, even though scratching invariably makes it worse.

Schwartz goes on to list a number of activities which, he asserts without much explanation, are common.

Tell the truth: Do you answer email during conference calls (and sometimes even during calls with one other person)? Do you bring your laptop to meetings and then pretend you’re taking notes while you surf the net? Do you eat lunch at your desk? Do you make calls while you’re driving, and even send the occasional text, even though you know you shouldn’t?

I don’t, except for eat lunch at my desk and play Spider Solitaire when I’m bored on a phone call, but your mileage may differ. From this Schwartz goes on the list a number of things that can be done to cure the resultant burn out.

How about this? Just stop doing it. 

Schwartz accepts as a given that we are utterly incapable of living the hard-pressed multitasking life, playing with toys because we have them and can’t possibly take our eyes off the screen, even as we sit in the presence of another living person for the ostensible purpose of having a conversation.  Rather than blame the iToy, he urges employers to give their people breaks and vacations.

That people need time away from work, both to recharge as well as rest their synapses, it’s not because they can’t be expected to divert their eyes from their iPad.  With careful planning, one can structure ones work so that there is time to get away. This is a good thing, even a necessary thing.  But not because we’re too weak to control our love of shiny things.

What’s worse is that Schwartz neglects to mention that multitasking is nasty lie we tell ourselves, that we can do seven things at once and that somehow makes us “special.”  Here’s the harsh reality for those of you who put multitasking on your resume as if it’s a positive: It means you do  seven things poorly rather than one thing well. You think differently? Unless you’re superman, you’re fooling yourself.

Initially suspecting that multitaskers possessed some rare and enviable qualities that helped them process simultaneous channels of information, Professor Nass had been “in awe of them,” he said, acknowledging that he himself is “dreadful” at multitasking. “I was sure they had some secret ability. But it turns out that high multitaskers are suckers for irrelevancy.”

Hard work requires focus.  It requires thought.  When the golden ring is completing a bunch of tasks rather than completing tasks well, what you get is tasks finished poorly.  That may be good enough in some other occupation, but it’s not acceptable for a lawyer.

Ironically, Schwartz concedes this to be true:

I know this from my own experience. I get two to three times as much writing accomplished when I focus without interruption for a designated period of time and then take a real break, away from my desk. The best way for an organization to fuel higher productivity and more innovative thinking is to strongly encourage finite periods of absorbed focus, as well as shorter periods of real renewal.

Yet, nowhere does he state the obvious, that clutching the iPad, iPhone, iToy all day long in your grubby little hand will not only burn you out, but prevent you from focusing on a single task and performing it well. Here’s a concept: When some extraneous junk causes you to have problems, rid yourself of the extraneous junk. Compensating for it elsewhere is only as necessary as the junk itself. You need air and food. You do not need 24/7 access to email and Facebook. Problem solved.

As for whether you wear sweatpants while working hard, that’s up to the person signing your paycheck, but adds nothing to the mix that I can see.

The point is that while breaks and vacations are needed from time to time to recharge ourselves, when you are busy at work, be busy at work.  Do not twit, text, surf or pretend you’re Pavlov’s dog whenever you hear the sound of a digital chime.  You can’t do it, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.

Via Sentencing Law & Policy, a  Denver Post article raises a difficult and troubling question: What to do with a life who kills in prison?  The article asks a somewhat different question reflected in the title, when lifers kill in prison, is it a waste to prosecute them?

The good people of Nassau County, New York, thought they were electing a district attorney when they cast their vote for Kathleen Rice. Later today, they will learn otherwise.  As for the rest of the nation, they will learn that they got no vote in the matter, but still feel the great might that Rice will hold over their children’s future. You see, Kathleen Rice has positioned herself as our National Testing Czar.

Via Newsday :

The Nassau County district attorney and two of the nation’s largest standardized testing companies will announce Tuesday that they have agreed upon security reforms in college admissions tests, a spokesman said Monday.

Kathleen Rice will appear at a news conference at 10 a.m. with officials from ACT and College Board, which creates and runs the SATs, her spokesman John Byrne said.

When you want everyone to pay attention, you hold a press conference to announce a press conference, thus assuring that no one misses the critical event.  The opportunity grew out of the SAT testing scandal, first revealed by the Superintendent of the Great Neck North school district.  Rice seized the opportunity to prosecute both the test taker, the guy who was paid to slip in the door as if he was the student, but the students in whose name the test was taken.  They must be prosecuted, Rice announced. Whether she pounded the podium is unknown, but I prefer to think she did.

A number of sound reasons were offered to justify prosecution, turning more students into criminals. There were also solid reasons not to prosecute.  One reason to prosecute went unmentioned: it provided a fabulous opportunity for a local district attorney to get her name in the media as savior of the integrity of high school testing.  It also provided an opportunity to leap to the larger stage, a national stage, as the Nation’s Savior.

Later today, Kathleen Rice will announce changes in the security of the SAT and ACT tests to prevent cheating.  Who isn’t against cheating? Cheating is bad, we all agree.  Stopping cheating is good.

What connection Rice has with the handling of the SAT and ACT isn’t exactly clear. The College Board isn’t a party to the prosecutions, and Rice has no hold over them. Yet somehow, they have been persuaded to negotiate with her about how their security will be structured.  I have no clue what they will announce later today, and for all I know, it will be a perfectly reasonable plan.

But who is Kathleen Rice to dictate how a nationwide test be administered?

The parents of high school students in Palo Alto didn’t get a say in Rice’s assumption of authority to dictate the security measures that may be imposed on their children.  There are no doubt security experts, people trained in such matters and who have given substantial thought to not only the best methods, but the unintended consequences of the various alternatives. Kathleen Rice is not one of them.

It’s unclear what the new security methods will be, or what burdens they will place on parents and students. It’s unclear whether they will be effective, or just give the appearance of efficacy until some bright person figures out how to circumvent them.  Or maybe they will be exactly what is needed. Who knows?

What is known is that nobody elected Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice to be the nation’s hall monitor.  And yet it appears that her assumption of the authority will happen without so much as a raised eyebrow. 

Consider your own local prosecutor, and what national authority you would want on her plate. It’s pretty darn cool to bootstrap a minor local elected position into a national platform, with the klieg lights shining their warmth down and a round of appearances on all the morning talk shows.  What prosecutor wouldn’t enjoy a little extra attention?  Even though the job of Testing Czar has been taken, there is still plenty of opportunity to seize control of a nation.  All one needs to do is find the right opportunity and run with it.

With much discussion at the  Mud Puddle and elsewhere about what it takes for a new lawyer to start up his own firm, a post by  marketing guru Seth Godin struck home.

Making big decisions about money

We’re bad it. And marketers know this.

Consider: you’re buying a $30,000 car and you have the option of upgrading the stereo to the 18 speaker, 100 watt version for just $500 more. Should you?

In a surprisingly large number of cases, we take the stereo, even though we’d never buy a nice stereo at home.

Here’s one reason we mess up: Money is just a number.

Comparing dreams of a great stereo (four years of driving long distances, listening to great music!) compared with the daily reminder of our cheapness makes picking the better stereo feel easier. After all, we’re not giving up anything but a number.

Here’s how to undo the self-marketing. Stop using numbers.

You can have the stereo if you give up going to Starbucks every workday for the next year and a half. Worth it?

The distinguishing factor of “Stand Your Ground” laws, which have been under renewed debate since George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, is a simple concept: The rule was that a person had the duty to retreat if he can safely do so rather than use force against an aggressor in proportion to the force being used against him. “Stand your ground” laws eliminated this duty. Simple to write. Really hard to do.

Former New York City Deputy Police Commissioner John Timoney, who went on to be Miami Police Commissioner, has an op-ed in the New York Times.  Surprisingly to some, and less so to others who are involved in the system, most police officials hate “stand your ground,” Timoney included.

Trying to control shootings by members of a well-trained and disciplined police department is a daunting enough task. Laws like “stand your ground” give citizens unfettered power and discretion with no accountability. It is a recipe for disaster.

To call it “unfettered power” is a bit too hyperbolic. It had plenty of fetters, but they were only considered after the fact, during what should have been the calm, reflective period when every detail could be considered.  

[A] police officer is held to account for every single bullet he or she discharges, so why should a private citizen be given more rights when it came to using deadly physical force?

The first part of this sentence is one that raises eyebrows. While this may be how it should work, experience suggests otherwise, bringing the latter part of the sentence essentially in line the beginning.  Most of us would argue that as long as the ‘good guy” ended up shooting the “bad guy,” everything else is a rationalization to justify it.

If you found yourself in a situation where you felt threatened but could safely retreat, you had the duty to do so. (A police officer does not have the duty to retreat; that is the distinction between a sworn police officer and the average citizen regarding use of force.)

Police officers are trained to de-escalate highly charged encounters with aggressive people, using deadly force as a last resort. Citizens, on the other hand, may act from emotion and perceived threats. But “stand your ground” gives citizens the right to use force in public if they feel threatened. As the law emphatically states, a citizen has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.”

That police are trained to de-escalate an encounter doesn’t mean they do so, but Timoney’s point, that society authorizes certain members, who are charged with dealing with force and, at least theoretically, trained to end an encounter without anyone being harmed, is critical. While we may complain (regularly) that police fail in this regard, the answer is not to let everyone behave like bad cops, but to make bad cops do better.

[C}itizens feel threatened all the time, whether it’s from the approach of an aggressive panhandler or squeegee pest or even just walking down a poorly lighted street at night. In tightly congested urban areas, public encounters can be threatening; a look, a physical bump, a leer, someone you think may be following you. This is part of urban life. You learn to navigate threatening settings without resorting to force. Retreating is always the best option.

This is where Timoney gets to the crux of the matter. Indeed, this is where  Geraldo’s hoodie point comes into play, as well as Zimmerman’s “suspicion.”  Just as with the cries of “bully” that permeate the school hallways, fear permeates the streets, at least for some.  One person’s normal is another’s threat. One never knows whether the hand in a pocket is grasping a handgun or a package of Skittles.  The argument is whether one needs to wait until the gun is pulled before defending, at which point it’s too late, or can take pre-emptive action because he feels threatened.

We can argue amongst ourselves about what constitutes a threat, and which threats are sufficient to justify pulling the trigger on a licensed magnum.  There is likely to be a great deal of disagreement about where the tipping point is between a threat of deadly force and unwarranted or mistaken fear.  People believe with absolute certainty that the point where their sensibilities kick in, where they think concern turns into a legal reason to kill, is correct.  As with most questions that depend on an individuals’ personal sensibilities, we tend to all have different views, yet are absolutely certain that ours is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

There are platitudes that allow us to rationalize the hazy areas, such as “better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.” How about better not to be judged or carried?  No matter how much better platitudes make us feel, they almost never contribute much to help us think through these situations. 

On the other hand, in the face of a threat, the ability to think things through with perfection, to know whether we can safely retreat without getting plugged in the back of the head, can be pretty difficult as well. The adrenal rush as we find ourselves in a threatening situation, with a split second to make a life or death choice, clouds our judgment at best.  At worst, few of us are really equipped to process, no less make a rational decision, when thrust into a situation that presents a real threat of life or death. 

Ever been in a car crash, with a mere instant between the recognition that something really bad is about to happen and it happening?  The body just reacts without thinking, the foot jamming on the brake, because fear takes charge.  Substitute a gun for the car and we’re no better at thinking things through.

Despite John Timoney’s opposition to the “stand your ground” law, the Florida legislature enacted it.  The good news is that the prediction of never-ending gunfights in the streets didn’t happen. The bad news is that one person died, even though it’s not at all clear that “stand your ground” had anything to do with it.  On the whole, Timoney is right that police are (or at least should be) better trained and equipped to make life and death decisions as to when deadly force should be used.  The rest of us, not so much.

On the other hand, humans possess the reflexive “fight or flight” instinct, and it’s sometimes impossible for the person who finds himself in a terrible situation to know which course is best.  Any law that encourages the participants to not harm another and live to argue the point another day is better than a law the encourages shoot now, think later.  But if it comes down to my life versus yours, I’ll shoot first and deal with the consequences later.

Regardless of which side you are on, there is nothing simple about it.

Once again, I’m constrained to put on my dashing fedora, brim turned down in a rakish sort of way, to address the latest legal fashion connundrum, the hoodie.  While it bears passing connection to baggy pants, previously discussed as a fashion faux pas, it’s been elevated to a pressing sartorial issue by no less important a personage than my doppleganger, Geraldo Rivera.



While it was understandable that the baggy pants look came into fashion as young men sought to emulate the excellent appearance of the recently arrested, it’s unclear to me that the police give hoodies to perps as they enter lockup.  I’ve been to lockup and while there are certainly plenty of people with hoodies, occasionally weather related, it’s not exactly a uniform.

Apparently, as Geraldo points out, the hoodie is the outer attire of choice for holding up 7 Elevens.

Every time you see someone sticking up a 7 Eleven, the kid’s wearing a hoodie.

That stupidity brought immediate comment from the saner and hipper side of the planet. “i didn’t even know geraldo still did stuff ppl listened to. damned if i listen to him now. but #BEATEMDOWNhoodies ARE on sale for $25,” media personality Bomani Jones tweeted. “Dear Geraldo Rivera: I’ll use small words so you can follow me, okay? Hoodies don’t kill people. Paranoid racists with guns kill people,” tweeted Wil Wheaton of Los Angeles. “That’s like saying Martin should not have left the house while being Black. As the Million Hoodie marches emphasize, there is nothing inherently devious about hoodies. It’s our culture’s racist stereotype for “suspicion” that makes hoodies worn by people of color — not soccer moms or Anderson Cooper –  an act that could be met with violence,” journalist Kristen Gwynne wrote on AlterNet.

 Perhaps the real takeaway here is that the haters who have ridiculed Geraldo for his attempt to eradicate the hoodie from the street is that they are prejudiced against Hispanic Jewish lawyers.  Had it been Rush Limbaugh who raised this issue, no one would have questioned his good will in trying to prevent another hoodie-related tragedy.

The bottom line is that guns don’t shoot people.  People don’t shoot people. Hoodies shoot people.  And nobody shoots anybody while wearing a bow tie. So leave Geraldo alone.  Remember, if it wasn’t for Geraldo, we would never know what was inside Al Capone’s vault.

Winning an argument isn’t accomplished by coming up with a platitudinous blanket in which to wrap your actions.  That’s the beauty of  clichés, there’s one to cover every occasion. 

Two heads are better than one

Too many cooks spoil the broth

I Am a Rebel . . . Is That Okay?

I have considered myself a rebel for a long time. I think of myself as someone who does what she wants, not what she’s told.

So there’s plenty of proof that I don’t live my life according to the expectations of others . . . right? Wrong. What I realized while reading The Art of Non-Conformity over the weekend, is that I do allow the expectations of others to stop me from saying, doing and even accomplishing certain things. The worst part is that some of those things are really important to me.

This is the work that is necessary for us entrepreneurs, rebels and World Dominators to do. Think about it: the worst that could happen if you truly let go of people pleasing is that certain people won’t be pleased. Guess what? Certain people won’t be pleased no matter what you do! Therefore, there is no point in letting that stop you.

Aside: I feel compelled to note that this post comes from a sense of obligation rather than any desire to pile on.  I’ve purposefully not included the name of the young lawyer, though its easy enough to find, because it concerns me that I and others have directed too many words at her conduct, and it’s not about one person, per se. Unfortunately, as the envelope keeps getting pushed further and further, and as she screams as loud and often as possible for others to look at her, she invited scrutiny.  She just doesn’t like when she gets it.  If only she could limit it to the happy, admiring thoughts she desires rather than the unpleasant ones she invites.

These familiar words weren’t uttered by some demagogue criminal defense lawyer or civil rights tool, though they have been many times before.  This time, they came from the mouth of the Michael J. Palladino, President of the Detectives Endowment Association. 

It was 2006 when cops shot 50 bullets into Sean Bell and his friends on the eve of his wedding day. Do you still remember? So many things have happened since then, good and bad.  At the time, it was big news. There are  eight posts about Sean Bell here from 2008, and my guess is that few of you read them. If you did, they likely blend into obscurity. Here’s a quick reminder of what happened :

The shooting of Mr. Bell, 23, who did not have a gun, occurred in the early morning on Nov. 25, 2006, as Mr. Bell and two friends were leaving a strip club in Jamaica, Queens, where they had been celebrating. The case drew widespread scrutiny of undercover police tactics.

The question remains whether the NYPD, having gone as far as taking the broad view of wrongdoing in this tragedy, will now pursue it with vigor and integrity.  Charging is one thing.  Now they have to prove that they can pursue their own cops with the same degree of effort and effectiveness that they would use against anyone else.  This has yet to be seen. 

But as first steps go, I’m impressed.  I’m not prepared to go as far as saying that maybe they’ve learned something from all this, but it’s better than they have ever done before.  And that’s something.

The New York City police detective who fired the first shots in the 50-bullet barrage that killed Sean Bell in 2006 has been fired, and three others involved in the shooting are being forced to resign, law enforcement officials said on Friday.

Law enforcement officials said word of Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly’s decision came late Friday. Detective Isnora, an 11-year veteran, will not collect a pension, one official said. “He loses everything,” the official said.

Three other officers — Detectives Marc Cooper and Michael Oliver, who fired shots at Mr. Bell; and Lt. Gary Napoli, a supervisor who was at the scene but did not fire any shots — are being forced to resign.

Mr. Isnora’s lawyer, Philip E. Karasyk, said, “The commissioner’s decision to terminate Detective Isnora is extremely disheartening and callous and sends an uncaring message to the hard-working officers of the New York Police Department who put their lives on the line every day.”

The party line, that police “put their lives on the line every day,” is an argument of desperation. While it may be somewhat true, it’s not a free pass for cops to kill people. Next argument.

Michael J. Palladino, the president of the Detectives’ Endowment Association, called Detective Isnora’s firing “disgraceful, excessive, and unprecedented.”

He continued: “Stripping a police officer of his livelihood and his opportunity for retirement is a punishment reserved for a cop who has turned to a life of crime and disgraces the shield. It is not for someone who has acted within the law and was justified in a court of law and exonerated by the U.S. Department of Justice.”

Being acquitted of manslaughter isn’t the same as the good housekeeping seal of approval.  Notably, Palladino’s primary concerns are for his union member’s loss of income and pension, the core of every cop’s interest in the job.  While it may strike civilians as misdirected, every cop understands. The pension is the bottom line of law enforcement.  The only thing worse than loss of the pension is death.

One law enforcement official said that, as the reality of the decisions sink in, they could have a drastic impact on how detectives view their work, particularly in the department’s undercover programs.

This is the point of the decision, to have a drastic impact on how police function. It would be nice to think it will be as dramatic as contended, but experience suggests otherwise.  This is still the outlier case. 

The New York City Police Department has finally closed the file on the Sean Bell killing.  The killing happened in 2006. It is now 2012.  Isnora was fired from the job. Sean Bell is dead. Isnora won’t get his pension. Sean Bell’s family received a substantial settlement.  The Union president is outraged.  Sean Bell’s fiance is lonely.

Did this fix the problem?  Will this change the way the police interact with civilians? Will the next undercover detective be more cautious in firing? Will his partners be less inclined to join in the barrage until there are no bullets left in their weapons?

Six years after the death of Sean Bell is a long time to reach closure, but NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly did what he said he would do. Will this be sufficient to change anything?

The anti-bullying forces have a great victory under their belt. So what if Tyler Clementi didn’t commit suicide because of Dharun Ravi; Ravi was still wrong, and certainly a galvanizing target in the War against Bullying.  Sure, Clementi was no Matthew Shepard, but you take your targets where you find them.

Now what?

Because of hate crime legislation, Ravi faces a term of imprisonment of 10 years. Uh oh.  Suddenly the anti-bullying crusade has a problem. They demanded he be convicted. They demanded he be held accountable. And now that they got their way, they are confronted with the consequences of what they asked for.  But it’s become clear that they don’t want that either.

Not ten years. That’s too much.

It’s what the law provides, and nobody in the Anti-Bullying Crusade argued that the law was too harsh.  But put it to use, and suddenly they’re staring the consequences in the face and they’re not happy about it.  A letter to the Editor in the  New York Times shows the misguided ambivalence.

To the Editor:

Re “Jury Finds Spying in Rutgers Dorm Was a Hate Crime” (front page, March 17):

This case raises critical questions for the gay community and for us all. How do we balance justice and compassion? Should this young man be imprisoned for up to 10 years for a cruel and immature act that had a dreadful consequence he did not foresee and would not have wished?

What is accomplished by imprisoning him, apart from satisfying our urge for retribution? Is this really the way to end bullying, or are we in danger of becoming the bullies we abhor?

We suggest that Dharun Ravi be sentenced to work for a gay rights organization. There his prejudices would be confronted every day simply by coexisting with people whom he might grow to like and respect.

We hope that a prominent gay rights organization will intervene in the sentencing hearing, saying: “Justice has been served. We applaud that. The message has gone out that harassment and bullying of gay people will not be tolerated. However, we do not support the maximum sentence for this young man and ask the court for leniency.”

STEPHEN KARAKASHIAN
ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ
PHYLLIS RODRIGUEZ
Milwaukie, Ore., March 18, 2012

The writers are, respectively, a gay rights activist, a criminologist, and a peace and reconciliation activist. The Rodriguezes’ son died in the Sept. 11 attack.

What the relevance of the Rodriguezes’ son’s death on 9/11 has to do with anything is unclear. Perhaps it’s to create credibility or generaly sympathy. Perhaps it’s to explain, without explanation, what a “peace and reconciliation activist” is. I dunno.  But now that the Crusaders have sent their message, they have embraced the belief that they get a say in the sentence as well. 

The problem is multifold. You wanted a crime with enhanced punishment for thinking thoughts you don’t like, but then argue that the very enhancement that distinguishes the crime you demanded serves no purpose.  It probably seemed like such an important message at the time, that hate crimes demand special especially harsh treatment.  But after you’ve calmed down and stopped hyperventilating, it doesn’t smell right anymore.

The letter writers are of the view that the judge whose responsibility it is to impose sentence should take into account their personal views.  Not only do they think that they’re view, that a ten year sentence is unduly harsh, should be considered, but they have the perfect alternative.  Ravi should be sentenced to work for a gay rights organization.  To this end, they hope that such a group “intervene” in the sentence.

Newsflash, singers of Kumbaya.  Neither gay rights groups, nor you, can intervene.  The imposition of sentence is not a matter of public approval.  It’s not a democratic decision. The judge won’t “crowdsource” it.  And nobody gets to “intervene.”

Maybe you should have considered the impact of the enhancements imposed by the legislators, a group that sometimes cares what others think provided they can grab some votes, when they tripped all over themselves to come up with punishments that would make the Crusaders all warm and fuzzy. 

The hyperbolic adjectives used in abundance to describe how awful it is to suffer a hurt feeling also make a great reason to add a decade to the punishment.  And you applaud the harshness, because of words like “cruel” and harassment, and the one no one has yet to adequately define: bullying.

It’s a lot harder than you thought to watch the consequences of your demands play out in the real world.  You wanted a message sent?  The message isn’t just the conviction of Dharun Ravi, but the punishment for the crimes for which he’s been convicted.  You don’t get to choose to truncate the message because it suddenly isn’t quite what you intended.  The message will be complete upon sentence, whatever that will be.  It can be ten years, because you screamed about the horror of bias crimes, the need to punish those who hurt someone else’s feelings.

You got what you wished for.  Are you sorry now?

Our complex world is filled with questions.  Why do we stay to the right when we drive? Is there something wrong with the left? Are countries where people drive on the left-hand side of the road wrong? Evil? Foolish? Of course not. It’s just that a choice has to be made so we don’t crash into each other, and for better or worse, our choice is the right side of the road. Done.

Even a question that’s fundamental to our legal system needs an answer. Why are defendants presumed innocent? Why not presumed guilty, and the burden placed on the defendant to prove that he’s not guilty?  The Constitution doesn’t expressly state that defendants are presumed innocent, though it does provide that a person can’t be convicted “except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The question of what to do about the New York City Police Department stopping and frisking hundreds of thousands of men and women of color is, yet again, on the table.  From the New York Times :

The Police Department has said that it conducted a record 684,330 stops last year, and that 87 percent of those stopped were black or Hispanic. About 10 percent of the stops led to arrests or summonses and 1 percent to the recovery of a weapon, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has examined police data.

Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat, recalled several occasions when, as a high school student walking home in Flatbush, he was stopped by the police, patted down, told to empty his pockets, produce identification and divulge his destination.

Assemblyman Karim Camara, a Democrat from Brooklyn, remembers greeting a woman who was walking down a street in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, when, he said, officers in plain clothes approached him and demanded to know who he was, where he was going and whether he had any guns or drugs.

And when Senator Adriano Espaillat, a Manhattan Democrat, was just 14, he said, detectives threw him against a wall and patted him down in Washington Heights, in Manhattan, when he was on his way to buy a Dominican newspaper for his father.

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, facing increased complaints about the practice, has  pushed back hard against critics. Last week, assailed by the City Council over the practice, Mr. Kelly said that the policy was an important policing tool intended to reduce the violence that has victimized blacks and Hispanics, and that, “What I haven’t heard is any solution to the violence problems in these communities.”

“People are upset about being stopped,” he continued, “yet what is the answer?”