I live in a neighborhood where lawyers live. There were two sex offenders. One lives there, one works there.
I put in a neighborhood where lawyers work. There were 68 sex offenders.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Partner Sues Two Associates for Defamation in Report of Sexual Harassment
I would like to see all immunities end, including those of judges, legislator. If liability substitutes for violence, then immunity justifies violence.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Questions You Will Never Hear Asked of Prof. Kagan at her Hearing to Confirm Her to be on the Supreme Court
Do you consider it possible to read minds of impulsive, intoxicated people long after a crime?
What is the main purpose of the criminal law, indeed of government? Do you believe we are achieving that purpose?
You were dean of a top law school. Do you believe education or indoctrination was taking place at your school? Is it possible to make intelligent modern people believe in supernatural doctrines without indoctrination techniques?
If the words, intent, element, culpability and others could be shown to come from the Catholic Church catechism sections on mortal sin, would their use in a trial or any legal utterance violate the Establishment Clause? If these could not shown to exist in nature, but are fictitious, pretextual, church inventions, would that violate the Establishment Clause?
Are you aware of any data showing current methods, such as plea bargaining, trials, and jury verdicts have any validity or even any reliability (repeatability)?
After the first secret ballot of the jury, don't all subsequent votes reflect the views of the most domineering member, and the rest who want to go home?
Explain the justification for impeaching an experienced judge for looking into the facts of a case on his own.
Can you explain why crime rates are so low where the lawyer lives, and so high where the lawyer works? Can you explain why there are 20 million serious crimes a year, and 2 million prosecutions?
Do you pledge to edit your decisions to the sixth grade reading level?
Do you plan to continue to sign the death warrants of millions of viable babies in third term abortions, without parental consent?
Are you a homosexual, a lesbian? Do the tyrannical tendencies of such individuals affect their fitness to serve on the court for the next several decades?
If over 100,000 missing persons reports cannot be resolved each year, is it possible, the murder rate is really 70,000 and not 17,000?
Where is it you have trouble grasping, the deceased have a low recidivism rate, and those with life without parole have been granted absolute immunity for all crimes after the first murder.
Please, read out loud Article I Section 1 of our constitution. Does judicial review violate that section in any way?
What is the main purpose of the criminal law, indeed of government? Do you believe we are achieving that purpose?
You were dean of a top law school. Do you believe education or indoctrination was taking place at your school? Is it possible to make intelligent modern people believe in supernatural doctrines without indoctrination techniques?
If the words, intent, element, culpability and others could be shown to come from the Catholic Church catechism sections on mortal sin, would their use in a trial or any legal utterance violate the Establishment Clause? If these could not shown to exist in nature, but are fictitious, pretextual, church inventions, would that violate the Establishment Clause?
Are you aware of any data showing current methods, such as plea bargaining, trials, and jury verdicts have any validity or even any reliability (repeatability)?
After the first secret ballot of the jury, don't all subsequent votes reflect the views of the most domineering member, and the rest who want to go home?
Explain the justification for impeaching an experienced judge for looking into the facts of a case on his own.
Can you explain why crime rates are so low where the lawyer lives, and so high where the lawyer works? Can you explain why there are 20 million serious crimes a year, and 2 million prosecutions?
Do you pledge to edit your decisions to the sixth grade reading level?
Do you plan to continue to sign the death warrants of millions of viable babies in third term abortions, without parental consent?
Are you a homosexual, a lesbian? Do the tyrannical tendencies of such individuals affect their fitness to serve on the court for the next several decades?
If over 100,000 missing persons reports cannot be resolved each year, is it possible, the murder rate is really 70,000 and not 17,000?
Where is it you have trouble grasping, the deceased have a low recidivism rate, and those with life without parole have been granted absolute immunity for all crimes after the first murder.
Please, read out loud Article I Section 1 of our constitution. Does judicial review violate that section in any way?
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Please, Do Not Call a Defendant Non-Violent Unless ...
Because most sentences result from plea bargaining, the original charge should be used to categorize the charge as violent or non-violent. Inherent in plea bargaining is the lessening of the charge for which the prosecutor has evidence.
Unless people are counting original charges and not the formal charges landing the defendant in prison, calling a prisoner non-violent is misleading.
Unless people are counting original charges and not the formal charges landing the defendant in prison, calling a prisoner non-violent is misleading.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Sexting Cannot be a Crime
Unless burning down one's house without an insurance claim is. Unless killing one self is. Unless crashing one's care on purpose is. Why the ACLU is taking a complex privacy approach, is a mystery, unless it is to generate lawyer jobs.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
When a Lawyer Does the Right Thing, I Admit It, and Express Approval
The French always lead culture. They said, Communism was dead in 1984, it was only five years later. They taught the English lawyer inscrutable lawyer language as a tool of power and profit. They had an Enlightenment, we fulfilled it in our American Revolution. Let's hope this is a harbinger of greater resistance to the enemies of our civilization.
Lessons of the Mentally Ill in Jails
Prison is inpatient treatment. The pretty good management of the mentally ill, constituting a third of all beds of jails, proves something. Inpatient care can be adequately provided, as it is in most urban jails, for a tenth the cost of hospitalization. The gold plating of inpatient care is to appease oppressive but worthless lawyer driven requirements of accreditation and to prevent second guessing in medmal litigation.
Second, the fact that prohibition of restrictive procedures impairs prison officials less than health care setting officials results in great strides in the reduction of the suicide rate in jails, but not in hospitals.
http://www.ncianet.org/suicideprevention/publications/prisonsuicide.pdf
Some of the same methods can be applied to prison murders and rapes, to markedly reduce them by the same percentage.
Second, the fact that prohibition of restrictive procedures impairs prison officials less than health care setting officials results in great strides in the reduction of the suicide rate in jails, but not in hospitals.
http://www.ncianet.org/suicideprevention/publications/prisonsuicide.pdf
Some of the same methods can be applied to prison murders and rapes, to markedly reduce them by the same percentage.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Government Goons Intimidate Grandmas Singing God Bless America
That is the Left method. The facts abandoned the Left 100 years ago. All they have for persuasion is force. This has an effect of pre-chilling future speech for the elderly frail patriots. Their organization should seek an injunction to prevent police intimidation at the next rally.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Alternative Explanations for the Low Crime Rate
1) Sentencing guidelines adopted by the federal and state governments incapacitated a larger fraction of the male population. The number of downward deviations from guidelines has not grown much. The making of guidelines discretionary for judges took place 5 years ago. It usually takes 10 years for a law to have its full impact. This factor should be assessed in 5 more years.
2) Obesity.
3) Video Addiction.
4) Marijuana consumption.
5) More sex, at a younger age.
2) Obesity.
3) Video Addiction.
4) Marijuana consumption.
5) More sex, at a younger age.
Trial May Violate the Establishment Clause and Other Clauses
The adversary system violates the Establishment Clause. It comes from the disputation method of reaching some answer in Scholasticism. OK in 1270 AD, out of the question as an investigatory method today.
1) Imagine a Koran based jurisprudence. I read their hornbook. 90% of it is pretty good. Still, it would be appalling and unlawful to have legal procedures taken from there. There is a lot of church in the court, the architecture, the robes, the gavel, the high bench, the oaths, the standing upon judge entering the room, the pews, the stentorian tones, the high ceilings, the dressing up as if going to church on Sunday.
2) They got an answer, alright, but 100% of the time, it was incorrect by today's standards. There are no validity statistics to support this bonehead method. There are not even reliability (repeatability) statistics to support it.
3) Twelve strangers, using their gut feelings to detect the truth, will detect only likability, of the defendant, the witnesses, the lawyers, the judge's expressions of preference.
4) Rarity. Because over 95% of cases are settled by an agreement, the trial is a privilege of the rich. The trial, in practice, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment for everyone coerced into a plea agreement.
5) To avoid the expense of a trial, the prosecution will use progressively coercive and intimidating tactics to get a plea agreement, even one completely unrelated to the original charge. Such coercion violates the presumption of innocence and subjects the defendant to extra-judicial punishment.
6) The person with the most experience in the court is the judge. He is prohibited from investigating for himself. Should he drive to the scene of the crime, just to get an idea, he will be impeached. This is so the lawyer gets its trial billing. The trial is therefore to generate income, not to arrive at any truth. The argument against inquisitorial judges is that they are biased in favor of the prosecution. They will relate better to police of their race, age, and sex. If evidence of such bias can be found, the judge should be impeached.
7) The jury brings the wisdom of the crowd. This benefit is completely negated by 1) excluding any juror with knowledge; 2) allowing open voting and debate after the first secret ballot, all subsequent votes reflecting the decision of the juror who is loudest, and the rest wanting only to go home. There should be only one secret jury vote.
1) Imagine a Koran based jurisprudence. I read their hornbook. 90% of it is pretty good. Still, it would be appalling and unlawful to have legal procedures taken from there. There is a lot of church in the court, the architecture, the robes, the gavel, the high bench, the oaths, the standing upon judge entering the room, the pews, the stentorian tones, the high ceilings, the dressing up as if going to church on Sunday.
2) They got an answer, alright, but 100% of the time, it was incorrect by today's standards. There are no validity statistics to support this bonehead method. There are not even reliability (repeatability) statistics to support it.
3) Twelve strangers, using their gut feelings to detect the truth, will detect only likability, of the defendant, the witnesses, the lawyers, the judge's expressions of preference.
4) Rarity. Because over 95% of cases are settled by an agreement, the trial is a privilege of the rich. The trial, in practice, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment for everyone coerced into a plea agreement.
5) To avoid the expense of a trial, the prosecution will use progressively coercive and intimidating tactics to get a plea agreement, even one completely unrelated to the original charge. Such coercion violates the presumption of innocence and subjects the defendant to extra-judicial punishment.
6) The person with the most experience in the court is the judge. He is prohibited from investigating for himself. Should he drive to the scene of the crime, just to get an idea, he will be impeached. This is so the lawyer gets its trial billing. The trial is therefore to generate income, not to arrive at any truth. The argument against inquisitorial judges is that they are biased in favor of the prosecution. They will relate better to police of their race, age, and sex. If evidence of such bias can be found, the judge should be impeached.
7) The jury brings the wisdom of the crowd. This benefit is completely negated by 1) excluding any juror with knowledge; 2) allowing open voting and debate after the first secret ballot, all subsequent votes reflecting the decision of the juror who is loudest, and the rest wanting only to go home. There should be only one secret jury vote.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Foresseability Reconsidered, but Distinguished Professor Remains Clueless
Speaking of David Owen, Carolina Distinguished Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of Law. Most tort law professors are biased in favor of the plaintiff side, where they are supposed to be neutral source of learning for their students. Most tort law textbooks read like Mein Kampfs for the plaintiff bar.
I understand, foreseeability was an attempt to limit defendant liability, since a type of strict liability existed prior to its introduction. Problems.
1) Foreseeability has its origin in Scholasticism. It is a power of God to foresee the future and to be able to change it. It is a supernatural power and any mention of it in a legal utterance violates the Establishment Clause. Not even the Medieval Church believed, man could foresee accidents, only the modern lawyer.
2) The foreseeability of future accidents or injuries is like that of the winning lottery ticket in the Pick 5. If the professor believes defendants should foresee rare accidents, then he should provide the winning lottery numbers for tonight. He is more likely to get those correct than to foresee a car crash in the most dangerous intersection in the nation. I can foresee the sun will rise in the East because it has done so a million times before, without exception, meeting this criterion of being more frequent than 51% of the time. I can foresee that more than 50% of people who jump from the fourth floor will because that has happened in the past and has great repeatability.
3) The burden of proof in torts is to reach the preponderance of the evidence, namely 51% likely to be correct. It is impossible to meet that burden if the chance of having the accident is not above 51% likelihood. So if it can be shown that, under the same conditions, an accident will take place 50% of the time, but less than 51% if the time, the burden of proof is impossible to meet.
I understand, foreseeability was an attempt to limit defendant liability, since a type of strict liability existed prior to its introduction. Problems.
1) Foreseeability has its origin in Scholasticism. It is a power of God to foresee the future and to be able to change it. It is a supernatural power and any mention of it in a legal utterance violates the Establishment Clause. Not even the Medieval Church believed, man could foresee accidents, only the modern lawyer.
2) The foreseeability of future accidents or injuries is like that of the winning lottery ticket in the Pick 5. If the professor believes defendants should foresee rare accidents, then he should provide the winning lottery numbers for tonight. He is more likely to get those correct than to foresee a car crash in the most dangerous intersection in the nation. I can foresee the sun will rise in the East because it has done so a million times before, without exception, meeting this criterion of being more frequent than 51% of the time. I can foresee that more than 50% of people who jump from the fourth floor will because that has happened in the past and has great repeatability.
3) The burden of proof in torts is to reach the preponderance of the evidence, namely 51% likely to be correct. It is impossible to meet that burden if the chance of having the accident is not above 51% likelihood. So if it can be shown that, under the same conditions, an accident will take place 50% of the time, but less than 51% if the time, the burden of proof is impossible to meet.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
If Torts Replace Violence, Does Immunity Morally and Intellectually Justify Violence?
A criminal defendant was falsely convicted and sued the prosecutor for withholding exculpatory evidence. He admitted the immunity of prosecutors. However, he charged the supervisors negligently trained the prosecutors, an administrative function, no part of the duties of an officer of the court.
In an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held training was all part of the acts of the office, and rejected any liability. Prosecutors therefore have absolute immunity.
This is an appalling injustice. These are absolutely incompetent government slackers who need liability to motivate an improvement in what they do. They fail to prosecute the overwhelming majority of crimes. When they decide to prosecute, there is an unknown but large fraction of innocence. If the prosecutor embarrasses the office, he is an at will employee. He will likely lose his job after a suitable face saving interval.
So this is the question. If torts liability replaces violence, does immunity morally and intellectually justify violence?
In an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held training was all part of the acts of the office, and rejected any liability. Prosecutors therefore have absolute immunity.
This is an appalling injustice. These are absolutely incompetent government slackers who need liability to motivate an improvement in what they do. They fail to prosecute the overwhelming majority of crimes. When they decide to prosecute, there is an unknown but large fraction of innocence. If the prosecutor embarrasses the office, he is an at will employee. He will likely lose his job after a suitable face saving interval.
So this is the question. If torts liability replaces violence, does immunity morally and intellectually justify violence?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Answering Mike Farrell and the Extreme Death Penalty Abolitonist
Dissent gets zero tolerance on that blog. They will not post any comment even asking questions of the blogger. That is because the facts abandoned the left 100 years ago.
Only incapacitation justifies the death penalty. Farrell needs to come here to hear the problems with LWOP.
1) License to kill. All crime after the first murder have absolute immunity. The license is far superior to that of James Bond, always second guessed by politicians.
2) Dose-Response Curve. You cannot obstruct a treatment then claim it does not work.
3) Transportation. It kill three orders of magnitude more innocent people than the death penalty. By the abolitionist logic, all transportation should stop, including being a pedestrian which kills 2 orders of magnitude more innocents than the death penalty.
4) Illegality of deterrence. One may not punish a defendant for the speculative future crimes of unknown parties. That violates procedural due process rights to notice and to a fair hearing.
5) Punishment is a waste of time and expense. These folks have shown themselves to be incapable of learning from their beatings, their arrests, their accidents. Furthermore, punishment may come from the Bible, and violate the Establishment Clause.
6) Cruelty of LWOP and of the average death. Let prisoners choose to accurately assess which remedy is crueler. Most innocent people (90%) will have a rough, prolonged, agonizing, humiliating filled with painful but pointless medical procedures. The latter are caused by the threats of lawyers to sue the doctor who refuses to do them. Thank the lawyer for the painful death without dignity that awaits most of us. Why is the murderer entitled to get a perfectly painless version? Thank the rent seeking lawyer, again.
Only incapacitation justifies the death penalty. Farrell needs to come here to hear the problems with LWOP.
1) License to kill. All crime after the first murder have absolute immunity. The license is far superior to that of James Bond, always second guessed by politicians.
2) Dose-Response Curve. You cannot obstruct a treatment then claim it does not work.
3) Transportation. It kill three orders of magnitude more innocent people than the death penalty. By the abolitionist logic, all transportation should stop, including being a pedestrian which kills 2 orders of magnitude more innocents than the death penalty.
4) Illegality of deterrence. One may not punish a defendant for the speculative future crimes of unknown parties. That violates procedural due process rights to notice and to a fair hearing.
5) Punishment is a waste of time and expense. These folks have shown themselves to be incapable of learning from their beatings, their arrests, their accidents. Furthermore, punishment may come from the Bible, and violate the Establishment Clause.
6) Cruelty of LWOP and of the average death. Let prisoners choose to accurately assess which remedy is crueler. Most innocent people (90%) will have a rough, prolonged, agonizing, humiliating filled with painful but pointless medical procedures. The latter are caused by the threats of lawyers to sue the doctor who refuses to do them. Thank the lawyer for the painful death without dignity that awaits most of us. Why is the murderer entitled to get a perfectly painless version? Thank the rent seeking lawyer, again.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Targeted Killing Debate
The lawyer has granted national leaders immunity. It is OK to drop bombs on peasant weddings, perhaps by horrible mistake. However, it is unlawful to assassinate a leader seeking the eradication of one's nation. According to these collaborators, the killing of 7 million Germans is lawful, but the attempt on the life of Adolf Hitler would be unlawful if done when he was visiting Italy. It would infringe on the "sovereignty" of Italy.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Facebook Loving Criticism of Teacher is Protected Speech
The lawyer expert toward the bottom of the story says, threats are a different story.
Here is an analysis of a call to kill a Supreme Court Justice by Ann Coulter. It concludes that Supreme Court decisions require an imminence and physical likelihood before such threats can be prosecuted or even be considered unethical.
http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2006/02/what_can_and_sh.html
That analysis applies to criminal prosecution and lawyer discipline. Whether it applies to school discipline is not clear. The Court wants to defer to educational authorities to maintain school discipline.
Here is an analysis of a call to kill a Supreme Court Justice by Ann Coulter. It concludes that Supreme Court decisions require an imminence and physical likelihood before such threats can be prosecuted or even be considered unethical.
http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2006/02/what_can_and_sh.html
That analysis applies to criminal prosecution and lawyer discipline. Whether it applies to school discipline is not clear. The Court wants to defer to educational authorities to maintain school discipline.
Federal Regulators Must Pay Legal Costs After Dismissal of Claim
Innocent defendants should use this case as a guide to deterring the federal government.
""The EEOC has presented the court with anecdotal evidence to show that some members of CRST's management occasionally violated CRST's anti-sexual harassment policy by failing to respond appropriately to sexual harassment in the workplace," wrote the judge in April. "However, the EEOC has not compiled the failings of CRST's managers in any meaningful way to show that CRST has a pattern or practice of tolerating sexual harassment in its workplace."
That was a "big finding," said Mathias. "Once the pattern and practice allegation was gone, you had 200 or so claims with nothing in common, no unifying characteristic."
The EEOC's argument, said Reade, "boils down to little more than bald assertions." The EEOC's litigation strategy, she added, "was untenable: CRST faced a continuously moving target of allegedly aggrieved persons, the risk of never-ending discovery and indefinite continuance of trial."
In an order last August, Reade dismissed the remaining claims of 67 women after finding the agency had "wholly abandoned its statutory duties" towards them by not conducting any investigation of their allegations.
In the fee application, Jenner said its attorneys and staff billed a total of 18,005.75 hours on the case and sought $7,121,569.25 at rates ranging from $151 to $825 per hour for this work. Simmons attorneys and support staff billed a total of 2,507.66 hours at rates ranging from $95 to $295 per hour and sought a total of $502,977.02 for their work.
Reade on Feb. 9 said several factors warranted a large award: The company's counsel successfully obtained a dismissal of the entire case; the case involved hundreds of allegedly aggrieved individuals and there was potentially massive liability to CRST.
She awarded the amount requested by Simmons for its work, but reduced Jenner's request to $3,501,394.63 after comparing the firm's rates to market rates prevailing in the local community. She also awarded reasonable out-of-pocket expenses totaling $463,071.25. In an earlier order, the court had granted CRST $92, 842.21 in costs."
""The EEOC has presented the court with anecdotal evidence to show that some members of CRST's management occasionally violated CRST's anti-sexual harassment policy by failing to respond appropriately to sexual harassment in the workplace," wrote the judge in April. "However, the EEOC has not compiled the failings of CRST's managers in any meaningful way to show that CRST has a pattern or practice of tolerating sexual harassment in its workplace."
That was a "big finding," said Mathias. "Once the pattern and practice allegation was gone, you had 200 or so claims with nothing in common, no unifying characteristic."
The EEOC's argument, said Reade, "boils down to little more than bald assertions." The EEOC's litigation strategy, she added, "was untenable: CRST faced a continuously moving target of allegedly aggrieved persons, the risk of never-ending discovery and indefinite continuance of trial."
In an order last August, Reade dismissed the remaining claims of 67 women after finding the agency had "wholly abandoned its statutory duties" towards them by not conducting any investigation of their allegations.
In the fee application, Jenner said its attorneys and staff billed a total of 18,005.75 hours on the case and sought $7,121,569.25 at rates ranging from $151 to $825 per hour for this work. Simmons attorneys and support staff billed a total of 2,507.66 hours at rates ranging from $95 to $295 per hour and sought a total of $502,977.02 for their work.
Reade on Feb. 9 said several factors warranted a large award: The company's counsel successfully obtained a dismissal of the entire case; the case involved hundreds of allegedly aggrieved individuals and there was potentially massive liability to CRST.
She awarded the amount requested by Simmons for its work, but reduced Jenner's request to $3,501,394.63 after comparing the firm's rates to market rates prevailing in the local community. She also awarded reasonable out-of-pocket expenses totaling $463,071.25. In an earlier order, the court had granted CRST $92, 842.21 in costs."
Friday, February 12, 2010
Consider a Cross Claim Against the APA in any Mental Disability Claim
There is a duty among guideline makers to do no harm. If a set of diagnostic criteria is weak scientifically, and a lawsuit against an employer is filed, consider a cross claim against the negligent guideline maker, the APA.
1) This threat would make the APA more conservative in the sense of greater proof of validity for any new diagnosis.
2) It would deter the frivolous expansion of psychiatric diagnosis into normal but bad for you behavior. These no only stigmatize normal conduct unduly, it destroys the credibility of heavy duty, dangerous, psychiatric disorders.
3) Whatever the assets of the APA, they are dwarfed by the endowments of the parent universities employing the members of the DSM V committee.
1) This threat would make the APA more conservative in the sense of greater proof of validity for any new diagnosis.
2) It would deter the frivolous expansion of psychiatric diagnosis into normal but bad for you behavior. These no only stigmatize normal conduct unduly, it destroys the credibility of heavy duty, dangerous, psychiatric disorders.
3) Whatever the assets of the APA, they are dwarfed by the endowments of the parent universities employing the members of the DSM V committee.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Reasonable Stopping Distance and the Lawyer Dumbass
Traffic laws affect the entire population several hours a day. They have the most impact of any law subject. This is true even if one is walking. So, naturally, rules of the road are never covered in the core law school curriculum, and it is hard to find an elective offered.
Dumbass, here, is a lawyer term of art. It refers to someone with an IQ of 300, who enters law school, and emerges a mental cripple, from the criminal cult indoctrination that took place.
Simple example in traffic law. The reasonable stopping distance is always said to be a car length per 10 mph. That is true. Typical stopping distance from 60 MPH is about 120 feet, and one may assume the average American car used to be 20 feet long. However, this stop is from 60 mph to 0 mph.
In traffic, the car ahead may be traveling at 55 MPH, the car behind at 60 mph. The speed difference is 5 mph. It is not 60 MPH as it is with the full stop test of braking distance. The reasonable stopping distance required to prevent a collision is therefore roughly half a car length, or 10 feet. If it takes 45 feet to slow down from 60 to 55 mph, then the car ahead has traveled 40 feet. The real distance to avoid a collision is 5 to 10 feet.
The 6 car lengths are required to come to a full stop. Doing so in the passing lane of a highway is not just careless, reckless, and irresponsible. It is insane. One will be killed. Furthermore, the trucker trying to avoid a stopped car in the left lane will likely do something that will injure himself and many others driving around his truck.
The lawyer dumbass forgot something here, common sense. I have not been able to find this defense in a case of tailgating, aggressive driving, or careless driving.
Dumbass, here, is a lawyer term of art. It refers to someone with an IQ of 300, who enters law school, and emerges a mental cripple, from the criminal cult indoctrination that took place.
Simple example in traffic law. The reasonable stopping distance is always said to be a car length per 10 mph. That is true. Typical stopping distance from 60 MPH is about 120 feet, and one may assume the average American car used to be 20 feet long. However, this stop is from 60 mph to 0 mph.
In traffic, the car ahead may be traveling at 55 MPH, the car behind at 60 mph. The speed difference is 5 mph. It is not 60 MPH as it is with the full stop test of braking distance. The reasonable stopping distance required to prevent a collision is therefore roughly half a car length, or 10 feet. If it takes 45 feet to slow down from 60 to 55 mph, then the car ahead has traveled 40 feet. The real distance to avoid a collision is 5 to 10 feet.
The 6 car lengths are required to come to a full stop. Doing so in the passing lane of a highway is not just careless, reckless, and irresponsible. It is insane. One will be killed. Furthermore, the trucker trying to avoid a stopped car in the left lane will likely do something that will injure himself and many others driving around his truck.
The lawyer dumbass forgot something here, common sense. I have not been able to find this defense in a case of tailgating, aggressive driving, or careless driving.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Mother Country Has a Drop in Crime Rate
Whatever the causes, they are unknown, and cross national. I think we are talking about video and computer addiction, obesity epidemic, feminist, PC education.
Here .
"There was an unexpected 8% drop in crime recorded by the police in the 12 months to September with falls in burglary, robbery and violence despite the recession, according to the quarterly crime figures (pdf) published this morning.
The Home Office data also confirms that the murder rate in England and Wales has fallen (pdf) to a 20-year low, with 651 homicides in 2008/09 – 102 fewer than the previous year.
The latest British Crime Survey, based on people's experience of crime, also published today, shows that crime was broadly stable over the 12 months to September 2009 in England and Wales. However, it reports that the risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen to a new historical low of 22%."
Here .
"There was an unexpected 8% drop in crime recorded by the police in the 12 months to September with falls in burglary, robbery and violence despite the recession, according to the quarterly crime figures (pdf) published this morning.
The Home Office data also confirms that the murder rate in England and Wales has fallen (pdf) to a 20-year low, with 651 homicides in 2008/09 – 102 fewer than the previous year.
The latest British Crime Survey, based on people's experience of crime, also published today, shows that crime was broadly stable over the 12 months to September 2009 in England and Wales. However, it reports that the risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen to a new historical low of 22%."
Friday, January 8, 2010
Neither Deterrence nor False Convictions are Valid Arguments For or Against the Death Penalty
The rate of innocence is not an argument against the death penalty. Anyone using it that way must stop using any form of transportation until the problem of accidental deaths in crashes has been "solved." We need a moratorium on cars, trucks, planes, subways, bicycling and walking. These kill 1000 times as many people as the death penalty, and 5000 times as many innocent people as the death penalty. These crashes kill 40,000 people who have committed no crime, without procedural due process, without trial. They made the mistake of driving over black ice. They are dispatched by crushing and slicing by metal edges emerging during the crash. There were over 10 times as many children executed by by vehicles, as they walked, as there were death penalties carried out.
No. The rate of innocence is being used as a pretext to abolish the death penalty. The abolitionists will use the slightest mistake or imperfection to try to shit the death penalty down. Therefore the use of the rate of innocence represents a form of bad faith. Bad faith gives moral justification to invalidate the advocate.
The rate of innocence does justify something else. Tort liability of the judge, and of the prosecutor to the defendant. If jury misconduct took place and it was not immediately reported openly, the jury should have tort liability. Let each of these careless parties carry liability insurance to cover their carelessness.
*****
In the deterrence argument, one executes one person to scare another, and to prevent that unknown other from murdering an unknown victim. It is unclear if the typical murderer calculates the odds of getting caught, of being found guilty, and of undergoing the death penalty. It is unknown, if the death penalty can have such an effect. The death penalty has been blocked and is too rare to generate the statistical power needed to answer the question of deterrence. See the discussion on the dose-response curve.
Assume, powerful deterrence. For example, every execution saves 10 murder victims. Executing the person to have an effect on another violates the procedural due process right of the defendant to a fair hearing. His life is being taken to benefit someone completely unrelated to the crime.
No. The rate of innocence is being used as a pretext to abolish the death penalty. The abolitionists will use the slightest mistake or imperfection to try to shit the death penalty down. Therefore the use of the rate of innocence represents a form of bad faith. Bad faith gives moral justification to invalidate the advocate.
The rate of innocence does justify something else. Tort liability of the judge, and of the prosecutor to the defendant. If jury misconduct took place and it was not immediately reported openly, the jury should have tort liability. Let each of these careless parties carry liability insurance to cover their carelessness.
*****
In the deterrence argument, one executes one person to scare another, and to prevent that unknown other from murdering an unknown victim. It is unclear if the typical murderer calculates the odds of getting caught, of being found guilty, and of undergoing the death penalty. It is unknown, if the death penalty can have such an effect. The death penalty has been blocked and is too rare to generate the statistical power needed to answer the question of deterrence. See the discussion on the dose-response curve.
Assume, powerful deterrence. For example, every execution saves 10 murder victims. Executing the person to have an effect on another violates the procedural due process right of the defendant to a fair hearing. His life is being taken to benefit someone completely unrelated to the crime.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
