In a discussion yesterday with a certain very tall Germanic-type fella, the question was raised whether “the end justifies the means” is a principle, such that social justice advocates are principled in their approach. I was of the view that this is not principled, but am I wrong?

I took the position that this was the antithesis of principle, where one chooses the outcome one prefers, then sets about rationalizing it. It may be a logical basis or just a matter of feelz, but it is not grounded in a consistent and overarching adherence to a position. For example, I support the First Amendment, which means that protected speech spans speech with which I agree as well as somebody calling me names. That’s the price of principle.

My figuratively little shit Bentham-licker replied by noting that this was the foundation of utilitarianism. Continue reading →

Both Radley Balko and Ilya Somin have written great posts about why the Protect and Serve Act, which is now pending in Congress, is unnecessary, unconstitutional and just plain bad law. It would make an attack on cops a hate crime, meaning that it would provide for an enhanced penalty.

The House version is the straight up mandatory minimum flavor; cause “serious bodily injury” to a cop and the sentence starts at ten years. Cops tend to suffer “serious bodily injuries” quite a lot, often from the repetitive stress of face-punting a cuffed perp. Like “turf toe” in football, the impact on their dominant foot can last for days.

The message is don’t harm a cop. The law and order crowd perceives no issue with such an admonition, largely because they lead a simple and sheltered life where it never dawns on them that some people face the choice of being killed or trying to defend themselves from police use of force for the hell of it. There is no moral victory in being maimed or killed, but not harming the cop. Continue reading →

It’s now firmly established that a white prof can’t wear blackface even in furtherance of social justice. This, at least, provides a clear line that distinguishes affirmative conduct despite the underlying motive. Good motives do not make it acceptable. Fair enough.

And further, a white prof can’t utter the “n-word,” which is one of those affectations that pretend to conceal what the “n-word” is, as if using the “n-word” somehow makes it less of the “n-word.”

University of Kansas prof Andrea Quenette, who, in describing her own racial bias, used the n-word, for which she was sent packing. No matter what the circumstances, what the purpose, even if in the cause of ending racism, the word cannot be used.

Another bright line. But that didn’t inform Duke admin Larry Moneta’s choice. Continue reading →

The [other] old guy, Jeffrey Gamso, noted that the ACLU founders on the rocks of social justice donations, ceding its historic concern for civil liberties to the mob with paypal, but wasn’t always this way.

You might want to go back and read the news stories about the ACLU’s national board fracturing over the appointment and early days (years) of Romero as Executive Director. The Board essentially self-purged, the long-time committed civil libertarians quitting (there was some talk of them being forced out).

Romero is not and was not a civil libertarian. He is an old-fashioned (as in left and right, not philosophical/Lockian), liberal do-gooder who came to the ACLU from a position with the Ford Foundation.

Ira Glasser, the prior ED, and a strong civil libertarian who’d resigned after decades in the job, was disgusted, and rightly so, and even joined in creating an anti-Romero rump group on the outside.

Continue reading →

Ed. Note: Chris Seaton challenged me to a debate, following the Boy Scouts of America allowing girls to join and changing its name to Scouts BSA. Was this the end of gender distinction? Were they truly just a social construct? I argued the negative and Chris argues the affirmative:

Third wave intersectional feminism* slew another public monster when it managed to sever the terms “Boy” and “Scouts.” The institution wasn’t necessarily an issue. Rather, it was one more nail to the church door of the third wave feminist thesis** that boys and girls don’t have any fundamental differences. Gender*** is an irrelevant social construct.

If we are to accept this premise, then I submit we take the bold leap and abolish all gender preferential laws. Equality means we take away the regulations designed to benefit or deter a particular gender and level the playing field completely. Continue reading →

Ed. Note: Chris Seaton challenged me to a debate, following the Boy Scouts of America allowing girls to join and changing its name to Scouts BSA. Was this the end of gender distinction? Were they truly just a social construct? Chris will argue the affirmative and I argue the negative:

My wife and I tried. We bought our first child, our daughter, neutral color clothing, non-gendered toys, a doctor outfit rather than a nurse’s. But when she saw grandma’s high-heeled shoes, she swooned. Her first word was “shoes,” and the die was cast.

No, this proves nothing about boys and girls, but just my daughter. But if she prefers pink (she does) and loves shoes (she really does) and chooses to spend her time in the company of her girlfriends rather than male friends, who am I to deny her agency? Continue reading →

Vance Was Elected, Whether Cuomo Likes It or Not

Following the Eric Schneiderman accusations of either assault, rough sex or possibly nothing, the elected District Attorney of New York Count, Cyrus Vance, announced he was starting an investigation, the allegations of at least some incidents occurred within his jurisdiction.

Big deal? It was to Governor Andy, who announced that Vance would be removed from the investigation and it would be handled by Madeline Singas, Nassau County District Attorney. Cuomo has the authority to remove a prosecutor and appoint a special counsel where a conflict of interest exists. But did it?

In an ironic twist, Schneiderman was already investigating how Vance handled Harvey Weinstein, who more than 70 women have accused of sexual harassment and assault. Vance decided to not pursue charges against Weinstein in 2015 despite police having a recording of Weinstein admitting to groping. Weinstein’s lawyer had donated $55,000 to Vance in campaign contributions.

Cuomo said Tuesday morning that he wanted to make sure the DA pursuing the case would “have no conflict whatsoever with the attorney general, either institutionally or personally” to assuage the women in the article who outlined that fear about Schneiderman’s political power and position stopped them going public earlier.

Continue reading →

[Ed. Note: This is an experimental* guest post by one of my favorite criminal law journalists, Christopher Moraff, who writes on the intersection of policing, criminal justice, drug policy and civil liberties. He is a contributing writer at The Daily Beast, and co-host of the forthcoming podcast on drug policy Narcotica.]

On April 8, 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued a proclamation setting aside one week a year to acknowledge the suffering of crime victims and their families, with the goal, he said, of making victims rights “a central concern of those who participate in the criminal justice system.”

The president’s establishment of an annual National Crime Victims’ Rights Week coincided with a bipartisan push in Congress to enact new “tough on crime” legislation that would set the tone for the next three decades of criminal justice policy. Continue reading →

They weren’t angels to begin with, which blunts our ability to feel particularly bad for the three dudes and no doubt animated the prosecution to believe they were guilty and pursue them with unrelenting vigor. But even guys who aren’t angels don’t deserve to go through hell for a crime that never happened.

Three men accused of raping a 9-year-old girl near Vernal more than two years ago were found not guilty on all charges Wednesday.

Larson RonDeau, 38, Randall Flatlip, 28, and Jerry Flatlip, 31, were visibly relieved as the verdicts were read, some hugging their attorneys and another leaning over and thanking his lawyer.

Continue reading →

According to Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, the move will affect 542 people. That’s 542 lives, which is nothing to sneeze at, but the equivalent of about a day’s worth of pot arrests in New York City. But the point isn’t the number, but that Seattle is doing so at all.

The City of Seattle has filed a motion in municipal court to vacate – that is, retroactively void – all misdemeanor marijuana convictions in the city. According to a statement from Mayor Jenny Durkan, the request would effect 542 people. The city has also requested the dismissal of outstanding misdemeanor possession charges. In 2012, Washington became the first U.S. state to legalize marijuana for recreational use.

The headline calls this “decades” of marijuana possession convictions. These preceded Washington State’s legalization of weed in 2012. Why just Seattle and not statewide is unknown, for legalization raises the question of whether it makes any sense to maintain a sentence, to maintain a conviction on someone’s record, for conduct that’s now totally lawful. Continue reading →