Amidst the avalanche of male sexual deviancy is a surprising trend. Harvey Weinstein did it. Louis CK did it. They masturbated in front of women. I rarely agree with the New Republic’s Jeet Heer, but I’m totally with him on this.

I was also so young & naive that I thought the whole point of masturbation is that it’s an act you do privately. https://t.co/xvghbg0dLQ

— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) November 9, 2017

And I’m so old and naive that I thought the same thing. If anything, the idea of being in proximity of another person, especially one for whom a sexual desire exists, would evoke thoughts of anything but masturbation. Continue reading →

As everybody except Jeff Sessions and a handful of the guys at PoliceOne know, crime has fallen dramatically. This would be a good thing, but for the fact that it means all the things we absolutely must do to prevent crime can’t be excused under the circumstances, which is why Sessions is desperately trying to thread the needle between fact and fear. But I digress.

Crime is down. Way down. And there is a brand new explanation for why.

Most theories for the great crime decline that swept across nearly every major American city over the last 25 years have focused on the would-be criminals.

Their lives changed in many ways starting in the 1990s: Strict new policing tactics kept closer watch on them. Mass incarceration locked them up in growing numbers. The crack epidemic that ensnared many began to recede. Even the more unorthodox theories — around the rise of abortion, the reduction in lead or the spread of A.D.H.D. medication— have argued that larger shifts in society altered the behavior (and existence) of potential criminals.

Continue reading →

Admission to a university like Cambridge is no small feat. It reflects innate intelligence and accomplishment. And isn’t that good enough?

Please be careful how you handle yourselves here in these early weeks: remember that you are NOT at any other uni, where students do drink a lot and do have what they regard as a “good time” – and you are NOT on a course, as some Cambridge courses sadly are, where such a behaviour pattern in possible or acceptable.

Physical Sciences is a VERY hard subject, which will require ALL of your attention and your FULL brain capacity (and for a large fraction of you, even that will not be quite enough). You can ONLY do well (i.e. achieve your potential, which rightly or wrongly several people here assumed you have) I you are completely focused, and learn to enjoy the course. People who just TAKE the course, but enjoy their social life, can easily survive in many subjects — but not in this one.

This came in an email from Prof. Eugene Terentjev to first-year Natural Science students, and all hell broke loose. Continue reading →

Ed. Note: Following a so-very-Tennessee story about the decisions made by a non-lawyer “judicial commissioner,” the question was posed for debate between David Meyer-Lindenberg and Chris Seaton: Should non-lawyers hold judicial positions? This is David’s argument.

We live in a time of ignorance.[1] This is all the more surprising because, as intellectual tastemakers named Tom keep reminding us, we have more information at our fingertips than we know what to do with.

Nor is the rot limited to the groundlings. Social media, for all its failings, and ongoing access to public figures have done a great thing for American democracy: they showed the country how little those who supply its opinions have in the way of knowledge, consistency and humility. From police spokespeople to pandering politicians, from fraudulent experts to journalists awash in bias, those paid to inform us have done their best to bring public debate into disrepute. We now see credentials with suspicion.

There’s another class of Americans who are, literally, paid to supply opinions. They’re judges, and the backlash against those once considered experts is spreading to the courtroom. The call now is for the professional judiciary, made up of judges who’ve studied law and passed the bar, to make room for laymen on the bench. Continue reading →

Ed. Note: Following a so-very-Tennessee story about the decisions made by a non-lawyer “judicial commissioner,” the question was posed for debate between Chris Seaton and David Meyer-Lindenberg: Should non-lawyers hold judicial positions? This is Chris’ argument.

People charged with crimes or sued civilly have to go before a judge who will hear their case. Because these are legal matters, involving laws, the average person might expect the person wearing the black robe had trainng and experience as a lawyer. In fourteen states, that idea doesn’t hold up, as non-lawyer judges preside over many cases, including criminal trials.

Take a deep breath before you start impersonating a blue-haired gender-studies major and screech “Sixth Amendment! Due Process! Fundamental Fairness!” Having non-lawyer judges is a good thing, and the judiciary doesn’t need only lawyers in its ranks.

First, the idea of a non-lawyer judge is an American ideal almost as old as the nation. In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville* praised the American “justice of the peace.” Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will face a very difficult decision about whether two Sloan school profs at MIT should be held liable for the suicide of one of their students.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments Tuesday concerning whether MIT, along with two Sloan professors and an S3 dean, should be held responsible for the 2009 suicide of PhD student Han Nguyen G.

Sloan is the name of MIT’s business school, and S3 is student support services. The nature of the student population may be a bit more peculiar than most given their selection process and culture. Continue reading →

The first time a lawyer walks into the pens can be a shock. The first thing that hits you is the smell, a mix of body odors and fluids, and solids, that may be the most awful smell you ever endure. And then you get to the cells, filled with the detritus of humanity.

To be sure, there are good, normal people in there. And there are the dregs of society. There are the mentally ill and the unfortunately sane. There are the guilty and the innocent, locked together for maybe 24 hours. This will come as a surprise to people who only read the sad anecdotes of the vulnerable and unfortunate written by the unduly passionate, but some of these people are disgusting and dangerous. Whether one prefers Dante or Kafka doesn’t matter at that point. Until you get out, that is your world.

That is also the world of the criminal defense lawyer, and more particularly, the public defender. And rarely are the words “toxic environment” more appropriate.

A half-dozen employees of the Cook County Public Defender’s office have filed a sexual harassment lawsuit, claiming county officials have done nothing to protect them from inmates who masturbate in front of them during visits to the jail and courtroom holding cells.

Continue reading →

Before cellphone and body cameras were ubiquitous, our arguments at arraignment and trial about the beating cops gave a defendant fell on deaf ears. The counter-argument was easy: why would this heroic, dedicated officer of the law, who doesn’t know the defendant from Adam and certainly has no personal animosity against him, possibly want to gratuitously harm him? Of course, we now know, because there are tons of videos on Youtube, that it happens all the time. Why? Who knows? Who cares? It happens. There may be no good reason, but it happens.

It’s the same argument for why no woman would allege rape if it didn’t happen. Or no black person would falsely claim to be the victim of a racist attack. Why would anyone do something like that?

After an unidentified troll wrote the threatening words “Go home n—-r” on dormitory message boards at the Air Force Academy prep school in September, Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria, the academy’s superintendent, delivered a blistering speech on tolerance. With 4,000 students standing at attention, he said, “If you demean someone in any way, you need to get out.”

The speech went viral, garnering more than 2 million views on YouTube.

Continue reading →

When Wild Bill Douglas wrote the majority opinion in Brady v. Maryland,* he played a cruel trick on the defense. One little detail was omitted from the decision. Just a small thing. Barely worth mentioning, except for the fact that it was the key to any meaningful use of Brady material: When the duty to disclose arose.

That was 1963.

New York’s Chief Judge Janet DiFiore announced via a memo from the Chief Administrative Judge that she will issue a new rule requiring Brady disclosure by the prosecution 30 days before trial.

Judges would be required to issue the order at the first court date where both the prosecutor and defense counsel are present. Judges could choose to issue a model order included in the memo or write their own.

Disclosures are to be made at least 30 days before trial in a felony and 15 days before trial in a misdemeanor case. The model order requires prosecutors to look through files to find information favorable to the defense.

Continue reading →

I write about the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the ABA.[i] The Standing Committee’s recent “not qualified” rating given by a unanimous vote of the members who voted (one abstained) regarding the nomination of Steve Grasz[ii] to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has created a firestorm of criticism.[iii]

According to Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, members of the Standing Committee will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 15, 2017. I predict a nasty hearing as the Chair and maybe other members from the Standing Committee are grilled about the handling of the Grasz nomination and, perhaps, other nominations.

As a preview, watch this detailed, and maybe even devastating, criticism (nearly 20 minutes) of the Standing Committee by Senator Sasse on the floor of the Senate on November 2, 2017, following the confirmation hearing of Mr. Grasz on November 1, 2017: Continue reading →