Morning Ed: Law & Order {2016.12.20.T}

Avatar

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

47 Responses

  1. Avatar LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    The way the people in the Netherlands handles incarceration is very dependent on the society of the Netherlands in the same way that the way Nordic societies handle issues are dependent upon their society. For a long time, the Netherlands have had a reputation of being more relaxed on social issues than America. In criminal justice this translates into a more lenient attitude towards handling criminals in prison or outside of prison. America has a much stronger law and order tradition despite our proclaimed love of the outlaw. Thats why many Americans advocate for broken windows policing and are very tough on criminals even though we struggle with overcrowded prisons.

    Sex crimes are shaping up to be for liberals what drugs were or are for conservatives. I can understand why many people would treat sex crimes this way but its possibly a bad idea. The big problem with sex crimes is that your talking about an action that is two different things at once. You have sex crimes as a tool of oppression and patriarchy and sex crimes that are theoretically supposed to be treated by the criminal justice system as no different than any other crime. It seems that many of my fellow liberals want sex crimes to be treated differently than other crimes even though they do not say so. They want the burden of proof to be on the defendant to prove his innocence rather than on the state and they want the standard of guilt to be lower, preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. More disturbingly they want the punishment to be a sort of mark of Cain even though we know that sex registries cause problems.Report

    • Avatar Kim in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      I want video cameras so that we don’t have to prove who did what. A lot of video cameras.
      Will this mean a lot more pornography on the internet? Yes.
      Also justice.Report

      • Avatar Will H. in reply to Kim
        Ignored
        says:

        Male-on-male rape is roughly three times as common in the United States as male-on-female rape.
        The biggest difference is that male-on-male rape is generally viewed as one of the most wonderful things under the sun, while male-on-female rape is bad, bad, bad.
        It smacks of the very same dominance of female genitalia, i.e., coverture under another name, and blatant hypocrisy.
        With the one hand, they lean on the crutch, while with the other they denounce crutches.
        I have no regard for such things, nor such persons wholly devoted to duplicity.Report

        • Avatar Kim in reply to Will H.
          Ignored
          says:

          will,
          I think we already have cameras in prisons — which makes it an enforcement issue. I am absolutely against male on male rape, and I consider it a real tragedy that folks refuse to write it into the literature.Report

  2. Avatar Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    One (of many) things that stood out about the ‘broken windows’ article was how the gentleman was accused of both refusing to move his hands from his pockets and flailing his arms around.Report

  3. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    Dutch Prisons: Gee, I know a US pres that promised to close Gitmo. Maybe we can send those guys to the Dutch. Seems like they got space.

    Broken window: Yeah..trying to save that 2.75 was a smart move wasn’t it? And then you went and put your hands BACK in your pockets after a twitchy cop had told you to take them out. Genius move.

    Colleges: Crime needs to be investigated by cops, not “student counsels” or admins.

    Employment Certs: This actually sounds like a good idea.

    Sex Toy Defense: That woman was grabbing small products. She should have thrown one of those giant dildos!

    FB Divorce: “The judge opined that too much is at stake in a divorce– from child support to property rights and “most importantly the Constitutional right to custody and visitation”– to grant one without properly notifying one spouse.” Duh. Perhaps try and have the guy declared legally dead?Report

    • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Damon
      Ignored
      says:

      Not a genius move, but also not on par with the charges. Twitchy cop should not equal arrest, they are supposed to be well trained professionals, etc.Report

    • Avatar InMD in reply to Damon
      Ignored
      says:

      Why anyone has every considered it appropriate to have colleges investigate and adjudicate violent felonies (or really any criminal conduct) is beyond my understanding.Report

      • Avatar LTL FTC in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        Because that’s the power base of one culture war faction and currently the only place it can exert even the smallest modicum of power. It’s called carceral feminism and it stands against the patriarchal violence of the state … except when it’s useful.

        I think that as groups discover how far they are from the majority’s Overton Window, the more they will double down on the institutions they do control. We’ll see how long that lasts.

        The current trend toward lowering the burden of proof comes from federal Title IX guidance and federal investigations. If DoJ stops pushing these kangaroo courts, there may not be an appetite for this on the trustee/regent level. Also, without DoJ cover, public institutions may have their hands forced to push this back to law enforcement.

        On the other hand, the only thing that trustees liked less than acquiescing to last year’s “demands” on race issue was the campus disorder that could only be ended by acquiescing. After all, it wasn’t their heads on the chopping block.Report

      • Avatar Francis in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        Because they are not adjudicating the criminal conduct. They are adjudicating the question of whether the student has violated the rules of conduct of the institution.

        Let’s say, for example, that you are employed by a company that has a lengthy process for terminating employment that is laid out in the employee handbook. A fellow employee accuses you of rape. You admit sexual contact but assert that it was consensual.

        Now what? Wait until the criminal process is completed? Fire you immediately? Put you on leave? Paid or unpaid? Or adjudicate the question internally in accordance with the handbook procedures?Report

        • Avatar Will H. in reply to Francis
          Ignored
          says:

          One significant issue is that roughly one half of all of what is classified as “campus sexual assault” occurs off-campus; i.e., there are valid jurisdictional issues.Report

          • Avatar Francis in reply to Will H.
            Ignored
            says:

            Nope. Every educational institution I ever attended — both private and public — reserved to itself the right to review off-campus conduct of students in determining compliance with the institution’s code of conduct.

            If granting so much power to the institution bothers you, then (a) don’t attend or (b) lobby the regents to narrow the scope of the code of conduct.Report

        • Avatar InMD in reply to Francis
          Ignored
          says:

          Your comparison isn’t at all apt with the exception of private institutions. To the extent we’re talking about public entities there are rules about what they can and can’t do when it comes to sanctioning people.Report

          • Avatar Francis in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            And look — right here is UCLA’s published policy for people accused of sexual assault!

            yes, public agencies have to give some due process to the accused while a private employer can terminate at will.

            But to reiterate, InMD stated “Why anyone has every considered it appropriate to have colleges investigate and adjudicate violent felonies (or really any criminal conduct) is beyond my understanding.”

            to which there is a very simple answer — the question itself is poorly posed. UCLA is not adjudicating the felony. Only the county prosecutors can do that. UCLA is adjudicating the issue of the accused’s compliance with the Code of Student Conduct.

            I think that the school could, if it so chose, to have a policy that it will take no action against an accused facing a criminal prosecution until the resolution of that proceeding. UCLA has chosen to reject that approach.Report

            • Avatar InMD in reply to Francis
              Ignored
              says:

              I’m not buying the ‘it’s only a code of conduct finding’ stuff. Yes, these boards can’t send someone to prison but they do label people violent felons. Their intent is that the accused is ostracized and denied access to education and other opportunities by virtue of the finding.

              Do you think these schools have adequate expertise, investigative abilities, and provide sufficient due process safeguards to justify that? I certainly dont.Report

              • Avatar Francis in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I think you’re massively shifting the goalposts here. Let me answer as best I can.

                Private universities and employers can do what they wish. They have no legal or moral obligation to give due process rights; they have only such obligations as created by the contract embedded in the handbook or similar agreement. If you end up subject to a student-led kangaroo court, that’s the price you pay for not reading the fine print.

                Public employers and universities are subject to the 5th and 14th Amendment and need to give due process to the accused. But the minimum legal requirement are, iirc, pretty low.

                I think you’re raising a different point, though. You would prefer that universities and employers choose not to pursue those code-of-conduct cases where the alleged conduct rises to the level of a serious crime. I don’t think that your preferred policy would get much support. I think most people understand that the criminal process is slow, erratic, and subject to a great deal of prosecutorial discretion.

                One classmate punches another, quite hard. There’s bruising but no permanent damage. The prosecutor refuses to file charges. The university does nothing? An off-campus party suddenly has a gauntlet of boys in front of the woman’s bathroom, and they are groping the breasts and butts of the women going in and out. No action by the university?

                I think most people would reject the idea that because misconduct has risen to the level of criminality the university is suddenly barred from taking action.

                Now, I have no idea how good the due process rights of public university students are from one state and one campus to the next. I have no problem with the idea that courts should reject those codes which create student-led kangaroo courts. Fair notice, the right to confront accusers, the right to be represented by counsel, and an impartial decision-maker are, to me, the bare minimum requirements. I’m open to reasoned argument as to the standard of proof that must be met.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Francis
                Ignored
                says:

                Francis,
                In cases of rape, the university acts to protect its own interests, rather than that of the students. In most cases, this is to get the noisy bitch to shut the fuck up. Allowing uniformed Campus Cops in on the whole mess just makes the situation worse.Report

          • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            FWIW, when I was attending a public university I was the victim of an off-campus aggravated assault (beaten unconscious by three or four students) that resulted in the college starting a process in which they were expelled. I didn’t initiate anything, I assume the police reported the incident and the results of their investigation to the school.

            I remember the lawyer that interviewed me had a last name like Law or Justice, and he told me with a smile that we don’t have to give no due process here. But there was some sort of process since I was asked to attend a meeting with probably about 20-30 people around the table, where I was going to be asked one question: “Have you seen any of these students before?” Me: “No.” I don’t recall being put under oath; certainly no cross-examination or other questions. One student had dropped out already; the others were expelled. I cannot remember the timing in respect to the criminal case, but the prosecutor pled the case down to simple assault.

            I won’t take it personal if you think the college should not have involved itself, but I guess I’m not surprised they were expelled.Report

            • Avatar InMD in reply to PD Shaw
              Ignored
              says:

              I can’t comment on the particulars of a situation I don’t know anything about. I would certainly hope that there was more evidence collected before the expulsion though than what you personally witnessed.Report

              • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I didn’t really witness anything. I was attacked from behind and repeatedly kicked and punched in the face and stomach while face-down until I was unconscious. A frat house across the street witnessed at least some of what happened and chased down the attackers and called the police. The attackers gave a statement that they had been playing cards and drinking whiskey in their apartment when they decided to go for a walk. They said I said something to antagonize them. There would have been pictures of my blood face, and hospital records from the broken nose surgery.

                There was a dispute on the existence of a justification defense, but not as to all of the elements of the offense. I assume the school didn’t find the justification adequate or thought the underlying conduct was still unacceptable.Report

    • Avatar Will H. in reply to Damon
      Ignored
      says:

      FB:
      The issue that I see here with the notice is that NY has the “nail and mail” system; i.e., the FB notice would likely have been upheld were it followed by a mailing.Report

  4. Avatar Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    Those women should be arrested, that’s a second degree violent dildoing! Where is a twitchy cop when you need one?

    Oh, wait! That was a dildo, in a sex shop! Quick, get a college administrator to dream up some manner of offense to forever label those women as without the benefit of due process.Report

  5. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lExnXQBJkXE

    Okay.
    Here’s the turing test:
    Are the people who made this video on the right or on the left?Report

  6. Avatar notme
    Ignored
    says:

    Facebook, Twitter, Google sued by Orlando shooting victims’ families for allegedly providing “material support” to the Islamic State.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/19/facebook-twitter-google-sued-orlando-shooting-victims-families/95634736/

    Interesting.Report

  7. Avatar notme
    Ignored
    says:

    Berlin terror attack: Live updates as truck attacker ‘still at large and armed for further attacks’

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/berlin-terror-attack-live-updates-9486959#rlabs=1%20rt$sitewide%20p$11

    I wonder if Merkel has been able to wash the blood off of her hands?Report

  8. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Did we all watch MTV’s New Years Resolutions for White Men?

    Hey, white guys: we came up for some New Year's Resolutions for you. pic.twitter.com/C9EeIY6wig— MTV News (@MTVNews) December 19, 2016

    Someone on my timeline compared that advice to this advice:

    https://youtu.be/RBVptNzeTOQ

    The difference, he said, was that the latter hit MTV’s target demographic.

    And it’s an interesting compare/contrast between the two. The latter, for example, has an authenticity that the former just doesn’t have.Report

  9. Avatar Kolohe
    Ignored
    says:

    Colleges – “Ban the Box! (#not all boxes)”Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *