Some problems.
I think it says this.
"I am a moral philosopher. Moral philosophers should run criminal law making. I believe intention is relevant to permissibility."
If I got that backwards, tell me. The article is a long ipse dixit. It provides no external validation.
It has to address these objections.
1) Minds cannot be read with current technology. Most of the criminals are drunk or impulsive, and have little intent. Recklessness is weasel slinking away from intent.
2) Criminal Law is to remedy physical harm, not thoughts. The parameters of coverage of the criminal law contradict the argument that intention is relevant to permissibility.
3) Of the five goals of the criminal law, only safety is worth anything to the owner, the public. So, if haystacks should not be burned, criminalize open flames within a five feet radius by anyone. There is no intent in that law. The intent to impress her boyfriend by aiding the enemy still deserves hanging. I want to impress my girlfriend with my ninja skills by ripping out a man's heart with bare hands. It is a form of courtship, not an intent to harm.
4) If the wife is poisoned, the neighbor that bought the poison is no more guilty than the store owner that sold it. If the neighbor or store owner are guilty of anything, it is failure to report a plan to kill. There is no such duty under the misguided administration of the law by the American lawyer.
5) The mens rea is Latin, the language of a church. The mens rea came from a priest, Henry of Bratton. He learned it from 13th century Scholasticist philosophy, and studied with St. Thomas Aquinas. All Latin violates the Establishment Clause. The mens rea violates the Establishment Clause. Even the Church said, God would read intent in heaven. Not even the medieval church claimed man could read minds, as the lawyer claims. Henry just invented the mens rea. If you say, what's wrong with established moral principles, that a church just happens to embrace? OK. What is wrong with a Koran based, Arabic strewn jurisprudence? I read their hornbook, and liked most of it. By its Scholasticist origin, intent is unlawful in the criminal law.
6) Not only does the lawyer want a small elite who have never grown up to run the law, he wants a layer of complexity and supernatural garbage from 1250 AD that cannot be questioned because fictional. That layer will increase lawyer employment. Self-dealing without disclosure is bad faith. Put a bold black box warning, in big print, at the top of the article, "This article promotes the power of moral philosophers (me), and the rent seeking of the lawyer profession. Its content will maintain criminal victimization."
7) If the lawyer wants to get rid of punishment, no problem. It is also an obsolete relic, a form of social immaturity. Incapacitation, including large numbers of executions should replace it. As behavioral technology improves, the execution rates may decrease. Execution would solve the problem of the person, the biggest problem in crime. This means one would die for a having violent form of antisocial personality disorder, made a status crime, for the safety of others. Death is not a punishment. It is an expulsion. The lawyer may object, but mostly because it gets rid of the lawyer customer and decreases lawyer jobs. The Supreme Court would have to be emptied of lawyers to reenact status as a crime. For example, Scalia set loose a bigger number of vicious predators than Brennan. We are now undergoing the Scalia Bounce in the murder rate.
The biggest objection: Intent is church doctrine and unlawful in this secular nation. Repeal the Establishment Clause if intent is relevant to permissibility.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Criminal Law and Philosophy Conference at Rutgers
I will try to report on this conference. I may be well on my way to getting expelled before it begins.
Here are questions for Prof. Garvey about his paper.
1) What is will, where is it, how can it be assessed, within Daubert standards? Is it a synonym for impulse control? Impulse control is measurable with a timer, and has scientific validity. Will seems fictional, an impermissible utterance in a tribunal.
2) You are defending a serial killer. He controls himself for three months, then cannot contain his urges to kill for sexual pleasure. He has killed many little girls for sexual pleasure, made possible only by slitting their throats, his having the disability of sadism. You are addressing a jury. Explain the proposal of your paper which requires the defendant receive credit and mitigation for the three months he spent controlling himself. If the defendant starts a criminal career at age 25, how does one explain two decades of synchronic self-control, now gone?
3) If diachronic self-control seeks to exercise more external control in the service of self-control, isn't the deterrent effect of punishment an asset, and not an injustice? If the analogy is to losing control of an exploding bladder, then isn't jail like a Depends diaper, a remedy?
4) Doesn't this proposal add to the great burden of nonsensical mentalism? Not only do we now have to read minds for criminal intent and the mens rea, but now, also the attempt at control.
5) About half the perpetrators and about half the victims of murder are legally dunk. Please address intoxication, which is very prevalent during crime.
Additional questions from the audience:
1) What evidence beside defendant protestations could be used?
2) Give us the judge instruction to the jury.
Here is a proposed enhancement:
The much validated, Daubert safe, word, "impulsivity," is an alternative to the fictional, Daubert toxic, Aristotelian, "will."
How about this objective alternative to the restraint of will? "Treatment."
The defendant acknowledges he has a problem with impulses. He seeks formal treatment. This can be medical, faith based, support group based. The evidence is not defendant testimony but treater testimony. "He admitted having a problem. He showed up for treatment. He tried to comply with our suggestions."
Rich defendants are already doing this. Didn't Spitzer enter treatment for sex addiction after the FBI exposed his side activity? Other get religious. Any objective evidence of effort should be rewarded. The reason is that treatment has some chance of success, accountability of provider in torts, is cheaper than jail, and is proven to return about $7 for $1 of cost.
Here are questions for Prof. Garvey about his paper.
1) What is will, where is it, how can it be assessed, within Daubert standards? Is it a synonym for impulse control? Impulse control is measurable with a timer, and has scientific validity. Will seems fictional, an impermissible utterance in a tribunal.
2) You are defending a serial killer. He controls himself for three months, then cannot contain his urges to kill for sexual pleasure. He has killed many little girls for sexual pleasure, made possible only by slitting their throats, his having the disability of sadism. You are addressing a jury. Explain the proposal of your paper which requires the defendant receive credit and mitigation for the three months he spent controlling himself. If the defendant starts a criminal career at age 25, how does one explain two decades of synchronic self-control, now gone?
3) If diachronic self-control seeks to exercise more external control in the service of self-control, isn't the deterrent effect of punishment an asset, and not an injustice? If the analogy is to losing control of an exploding bladder, then isn't jail like a Depends diaper, a remedy?
4) Doesn't this proposal add to the great burden of nonsensical mentalism? Not only do we now have to read minds for criminal intent and the mens rea, but now, also the attempt at control.
5) About half the perpetrators and about half the victims of murder are legally dunk. Please address intoxication, which is very prevalent during crime.
Additional questions from the audience:
1) What evidence beside defendant protestations could be used?
2) Give us the judge instruction to the jury.
Here is a proposed enhancement:
The much validated, Daubert safe, word, "impulsivity," is an alternative to the fictional, Daubert toxic, Aristotelian, "will."
How about this objective alternative to the restraint of will? "Treatment."
The defendant acknowledges he has a problem with impulses. He seeks formal treatment. This can be medical, faith based, support group based. The evidence is not defendant testimony but treater testimony. "He admitted having a problem. He showed up for treatment. He tried to comply with our suggestions."
Rich defendants are already doing this. Didn't Spitzer enter treatment for sex addiction after the FBI exposed his side activity? Other get religious. Any objective evidence of effort should be rewarded. The reason is that treatment has some chance of success, accountability of provider in torts, is cheaper than jail, and is proven to return about $7 for $1 of cost.
Friday, May 16, 2008
California Supreme Court Permits Homosexual Marriage
The Rent Seeking Theory predicted this ruling. The Theory also predicts that an uniformly conservative US Supreme Court will uphold it against any challenge. The rate of marriage among heterosexuals has dropped. Divorce rates may be dropping. That means family law business is suffering and must find fresh business. All permutations of marriage, including marriage to animals and other phylla will follow. That trend will be driven by the disappointing increase in business from homosexual couple. Homosexuals are not stupid. They will not get married in the numbers anticipated. One of the most intelligent of lawyers finds a way to defend the legitimacy of a decision that reversed a referendum, his being a total victim of the indoctrination of the criminal cult enterprise that is the lawyer profession. He states, these justices are elected and accountable, unlike those on the Supreme Court.
If someone wanted to make homosexuals suffer, this decision could not be outdone. The lawyer is not really interested in the marriage. It is interested in the divorce of homosexuals.
With their high death rate, and above average personal assets, the inheritance will also provide a lot of work for lawyers.
Now, if a homosexual applies for a job, he gets snapped up, as a great worker. This results in a standard of living a full standard deviation above the heterosexual mean. Once this decision has percolated for ten years, homosexuals will become less employable. One applies for a job. It is impossible to know and impermissible to ask if he is married. Therefore, one does not know if there is spouse with AIDS who will break the health insurance budget of the company. Most employers will prefer to just not hire them.
If someone wanted to make homosexuals suffer, this decision could not be outdone. The lawyer is not really interested in the marriage. It is interested in the divorce of homosexuals.
With their high death rate, and above average personal assets, the inheritance will also provide a lot of work for lawyers.
Now, if a homosexual applies for a job, he gets snapped up, as a great worker. This results in a standard of living a full standard deviation above the heterosexual mean. Once this decision has percolated for ten years, homosexuals will become less employable. One applies for a job. It is impossible to know and impermissible to ask if he is married. Therefore, one does not know if there is spouse with AIDS who will break the health insurance budget of the company. Most employers will prefer to just not hire them.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The Standard of Professional Care in Trial Advocacy
The criminal prosecution sets the standard of performance for all trial advocacy: 75% success rate.
1) The prosecutors are recent law graduates with little experience.
2) They get paid a low wage.
3) They carry dozens of cases at a time, if not hundreds.
4) Their research budgets for each case have 4 numbers if lucky.
5) The defendant has no morals, and is strongly motivated to evade punishment.
6) Their lives get threatened.
7) Their charges contain more elements.
8) The burden of proof is higher than in other actions, beyond a reasonable doubt.
9) Every element must be shown to have been intentionally done.
10) The element and the intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Any other type of court not meeting the 75% rate of success for the plaintiff implies a subpar performance of the judge. The judge has allowed poor performance by the plaintiff side. If the rate of verdicts favoring the plaintiff falls below 75% over two years, the judge should be removed by the administrative judge automatically.
1) The prosecutors are recent law graduates with little experience.
2) They get paid a low wage.
3) They carry dozens of cases at a time, if not hundreds.
4) Their research budgets for each case have 4 numbers if lucky.
5) The defendant has no morals, and is strongly motivated to evade punishment.
6) Their lives get threatened.
7) Their charges contain more elements.
8) The burden of proof is higher than in other actions, beyond a reasonable doubt.
9) Every element must be shown to have been intentionally done.
10) The element and the intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Any other type of court not meeting the 75% rate of success for the plaintiff implies a subpar performance of the judge. The judge has allowed poor performance by the plaintiff side. If the rate of verdicts favoring the plaintiff falls below 75% over two years, the judge should be removed by the administrative judge automatically.
Why Torts Die, According to Yale Indoctrination Victim
This article casts suspicion on all torts today. They may all be pretextual (false use of the law).
1) Yet, I don't know why it takes 74 pages to miss the self-evident. Those without assets are judgment proof. He also missed the Rent Seeking Theory as Grand Unifying Theory of Not Just Appellate Decisions, But All Lawyer Decisions (the so called GUTNJADBALD).
2) Here is something else he missed. Goofiness of torts, rejected by juries. It is goofy to believe that rare accidents can be foreseen. That is the central doctrine of negligence. I demand that the authors give me the four numbers for tonight's lottery. They are far more likely to correctly do so than to foresee a car accident at the most dangerous intersection in the nation.
3) Why do scams die? They did not produce enough money for the effort of the scammer. Or, people learned from experience, and stop responding to the scam. Scholasticism methodology of church and law is not just a false theory, a scam, but is also a robust business model. So, many heretics burned at the stake were wealthy. The church seized their property. The church has moved on from Scholasticism, the best of thinking and technology of 1250 A.D. It did so hundreds of years ago. It apologized for the Inquisition, the business end of Scholasticism. The goofy, ridiculous, American lawyer continues to milk its Rent Seeking strengths.
The sole remedy is to end all judicial and governmental immunities. That fairness would accelerate the cycle of tort death by raising the risk cost of false torts. It would bring the great benefits of torts to those that inflict them on others. See how they like it.
Reverse Hans by statute. Repeal the corrupt, self-dealing Eleventh Amendment. Pass Constitutional amendment ending all self-dealt, lawless judicial immunities. Pass another ending res judicata, which is just another self-dealt, corrupt judicial immunity. The oppressors on the bench are not just incompetent, but also intentionally predatory. They make stealthy industrial policy without competence nor authority. They transfer massive amount of funds from the productive to the parasitic, mostly to lawyers.
The sole justification for such immunities is that the immune sovereign can never be wrong, speaking with the voice of God, a violation of the Establishment Clause. This article shows, the sovereign is often wrong, and reverses himself.
So, it is learned that the justices knew that smokers cost less to government by their earlier deaths, not more, as claimed in the tobacco settlement. All tobacco money gets returned, with triple exemplary damages for scienter. Take a state down. Bankrupt the voters that elected these incompetent, self-dealing predators to the bench. To deter.
The tort claim is a product, dangerous in its intended use. This article shows, they get defective and obsolete.
1) Yet, I don't know why it takes 74 pages to miss the self-evident. Those without assets are judgment proof. He also missed the Rent Seeking Theory as Grand Unifying Theory of Not Just Appellate Decisions, But All Lawyer Decisions (the so called GUTNJADBALD).
2) Here is something else he missed. Goofiness of torts, rejected by juries. It is goofy to believe that rare accidents can be foreseen. That is the central doctrine of negligence. I demand that the authors give me the four numbers for tonight's lottery. They are far more likely to correctly do so than to foresee a car accident at the most dangerous intersection in the nation.
3) Why do scams die? They did not produce enough money for the effort of the scammer. Or, people learned from experience, and stop responding to the scam. Scholasticism methodology of church and law is not just a false theory, a scam, but is also a robust business model. So, many heretics burned at the stake were wealthy. The church seized their property. The church has moved on from Scholasticism, the best of thinking and technology of 1250 A.D. It did so hundreds of years ago. It apologized for the Inquisition, the business end of Scholasticism. The goofy, ridiculous, American lawyer continues to milk its Rent Seeking strengths.
The sole remedy is to end all judicial and governmental immunities. That fairness would accelerate the cycle of tort death by raising the risk cost of false torts. It would bring the great benefits of torts to those that inflict them on others. See how they like it.
Reverse Hans by statute. Repeal the corrupt, self-dealing Eleventh Amendment. Pass Constitutional amendment ending all self-dealt, lawless judicial immunities. Pass another ending res judicata, which is just another self-dealt, corrupt judicial immunity. The oppressors on the bench are not just incompetent, but also intentionally predatory. They make stealthy industrial policy without competence nor authority. They transfer massive amount of funds from the productive to the parasitic, mostly to lawyers.
The sole justification for such immunities is that the immune sovereign can never be wrong, speaking with the voice of God, a violation of the Establishment Clause. This article shows, the sovereign is often wrong, and reverses himself.
So, it is learned that the justices knew that smokers cost less to government by their earlier deaths, not more, as claimed in the tobacco settlement. All tobacco money gets returned, with triple exemplary damages for scienter. Take a state down. Bankrupt the voters that elected these incompetent, self-dealing predators to the bench. To deter.
The tort claim is a product, dangerous in its intended use. This article shows, they get defective and obsolete.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Rent Seeking Theory Explains this Weasel Outcome
The Justices do not even have to take responsibility for it, by recusing themselves with bogus ethics pretexts.
However, massive lawyer make work now proceeds.
However, massive lawyer make work now proceeds.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Editors of JAMA on Industry Influence on Medical Science
Eleven remedies.
1) List all trials with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
2) Have all authors specify their contribution.
3) All affiliations and funding of for profits.
4) Consider funding when deciding to publish.
5) No data collection or analysis by for-profit company.
6) Statistics must be done by someone not employed by for profit.
7) Report and punish any author failing to report conflict or not doing the work.
8) Ban anyone reporting confidential information from a peer review to a for profit company.
9) Fire any editor who allows a for profit to manipulate a decision.
10) No for profit input into educational programs or materials.
11) All doctors are to be free of influence including that of service on a speaker's bureau.
"When integrity in medical science or practice is impugned or threatened - such as by the influence of industry - patients, clinicians, and researchers are all at risk for harm, and public trust in research is jeopardized."
I guess the AMA does not understand something. This is America and not Cuba. These are remedies where no harm has taken place. They are left wing ideologue bullying.
Here is another remedy. I will be requesting the removal of this unAmerican left wing ideologue from the editorship of JAMA.
1) List all trials with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
2) Have all authors specify their contribution.
3) All affiliations and funding of for profits.
4) Consider funding when deciding to publish.
5) No data collection or analysis by for-profit company.
6) Statistics must be done by someone not employed by for profit.
7) Report and punish any author failing to report conflict or not doing the work.
8) Ban anyone reporting confidential information from a peer review to a for profit company.
9) Fire any editor who allows a for profit to manipulate a decision.
10) No for profit input into educational programs or materials.
11) All doctors are to be free of influence including that of service on a speaker's bureau.
"When integrity in medical science or practice is impugned or threatened - such as by the influence of industry - patients, clinicians, and researchers are all at risk for harm, and public trust in research is jeopardized."
I guess the AMA does not understand something. This is America and not Cuba. These are remedies where no harm has taken place. They are left wing ideologue bullying.
Here is another remedy. I will be requesting the removal of this unAmerican left wing ideologue from the editorship of JAMA.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Recovery from US Government for Frivolous Fraud Prosecution
A government expert witness contradicted another. The claim had no merit. U.S. v. Mark Capener, M.D.
The court granted a third of the legal costs.
When the lawyer bully comes calling with all the power of government, the innocent defendant should always attack back. Seek discovery of the government lawyer for improper motives. Then countersue the government thug lawyer. Seek full discovery of all experts collaborating with the government lawyer. Always file non-frivolous, well argued ethics complaints, one at a time, in each state of licensure, once a month. The innocent defendant should always have company in the world of uncertainty and pointless, ruinous expense.
The government has dealt itself immunity for interference with contract.
All legal immunities should end. To deter the unjust government lawyer bully.
The court granted a third of the legal costs.
When the lawyer bully comes calling with all the power of government, the innocent defendant should always attack back. Seek discovery of the government lawyer for improper motives. Then countersue the government thug lawyer. Seek full discovery of all experts collaborating with the government lawyer. Always file non-frivolous, well argued ethics complaints, one at a time, in each state of licensure, once a month. The innocent defendant should always have company in the world of uncertainty and pointless, ruinous expense.
The government has dealt itself immunity for interference with contract.
All legal immunities should end. To deter the unjust government lawyer bully.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
We Predicted This
You must avoid harm to plants. Animals are getting civil standing in the future. This report sets up plants to get standing. They are even better clients than raucous animals. They do sit there "just like potted plants." This last insult is phyllist.
Next? Bacteria. We will need a fair hearing before using antibiotics to summarily wipe out bacteria by the trillion or to wipe a kitchen counter with a weapon of mass bacterial destruction (WMBD's) such a bleach on a wipe cloth.
Next? Bacteria. We will need a fair hearing before using antibiotics to summarily wipe out bacteria by the trillion or to wipe a kitchen counter with a weapon of mass bacterial destruction (WMBD's) such a bleach on a wipe cloth.
Natural Experiment: Prostitution Legal in Brazil
What is the harm prevented by laws prohibiting prostitution? Is there more of that harm in Brazil or Nevada? Most of the research on this question has come from extreme left wing feminists with a hate filled, biased agenda, devoid of credibility. Is there any research that does not carry this baggage, and controls for social class and education?
Improper to Recuse Oneself as Judge Over Pay Dispute
I disagree. The judge's hostility toward the legislator may prejudice the trial of the client of the legislator.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Homosexuals Bully the APA
They foreclose a balanced debate. Here . Here.
More homosexual intimidation and prevention of free speech. Here.
All PC is case. Because rent seeking judges will destroy entities that resist the lawyer generation of discrimination cases, self-censorship is the sole prevention. While I believe everyone should be left alone, who does not harm others, the left wing ideologues believe only intimidation can make their point. They miss the facts. The facts deserted the left 100 years ago.
More homosexual intimidation and prevention of free speech. Here.
All PC is case. Because rent seeking judges will destroy entities that resist the lawyer generation of discrimination cases, self-censorship is the sole prevention. While I believe everyone should be left alone, who does not harm others, the left wing ideologues believe only intimidation can make their point. They miss the facts. The facts deserted the left 100 years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
