C&C necessarily talks about politics, but the central subject here lies elsewhere. Readers may have noticed that I have not been shy about criticizing Republican Donald Trump's xenophobic, know-nothing blowhardism and Republican Sen. Mike Lee's unthinking sponsorship of the dumbed-down sentencing bill masquerading as sentencing "reform." I have likewise dished it out to Republican felons Bernie Kerik and Illinois Gov. George Ryan, the latter having repeatedly sold his office before becoming a Holier-than-thou death penalty critic.
This is not to mention that, as a spin-off of the Benghazi scandal, the current Administration has created what is to my knowledge America's only political prisoner.
In order to provide equal time, as it were, I now want to cite Kevin Williamson's regrettably insightful article in the National Review. One takeaway from it is that among the best ways to erode respect for law and faith in its enforcement is to abuse the power it confers. I think it prudent not to wait for the leading Democratic candidates to show that Williamson is wrong:
Donald Trump may talk like a brownshirt, but the Democrats mean business. For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics.
This is not to mention that, as a spin-off of the Benghazi scandal, the current Administration has created what is to my knowledge America's only political prisoner.
I agree 100% Bill that "among the best ways to erode respect for law and faith in its enforcement is to abuse the power it confers." And this insight is one big reason I generally oppose severe mandatory minimums sentencng provisions that can be too often subject to abuse by prosecutors by threatening functional LWOP sentences for the likes of Weldon Angelos and Chris Williams for having the temerity to excersice their constitutional rights to put the government to its burden of proof. I also think this insight should prompt you, Bill, to have a lot more respect for libertarian-minded folks like Senators Lee and Paul for backing modest federal sentencing reforms of these mandatory minimums.
And while we are focused on these types of concerns, I wonder if you are indeed concerned about the "banning politically unpopular academic research." My sense is that such bans have been most prominenet and prominently supported by the GOP when it comes to academic/medical research on gun violence and on possible health benefits on marijuana. I share your concern and fear that some (many? most?) establishment Dems are eager to expend the size, scope and powers of government, but I hope you would join me in highlighting that many in the GOP establishment seem to be just as eager to do the same when it serves their own political and parochial interests.
1. Actually, the charges brought against Angelos and Williams were not determined by the sentences sought. They were determined by whether the conduct alleged by the grand jury (1) matched what the defendants did, and (2) could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
I do not regard either criterion as being "abuse" of any kind at all. Defendants SHOULD be charged with what they do. Indeed, I cannot imagine what other principal criterion a prosecutor should use.
It's true in criminal as in civil litigation that it's often beneficial to the parties to settle a case rather than try it. This was true before MM's and it's true now. Indeed, it's so true it's a truism.
As the courts have uniformly held, however, it is proper for sentencing to reflect the defendant's accepting responsibility for the criminal stuff he actually did. What's wrong with that? Why have courts so many times reached that conclusion? Do you think sentencing should be the same for those who understand their wrongdoing as for those who continue to say they'll do whatever the heck they they please?
2. Notwithstanding all that, I agree that prosecutors give away the store far too often in plea bargains, and should refuse to engage in them more often than they do now. Are we in agreement on that?
3. Somehow, I don't think that, if it passes, the SRCA will be heralded as mere "modest" reformation. Far more likely is that SL&P will have a 20-part series on The True Wonderfulness Of It All (much as you're having with the Johnson case).
4. If gun control studies were actual "medical research," I might support them, but what they actually are are the forerunners of unconstitutional gun confiscation (recently backed in a front-page NYT editorial). That I do not support, since I believe that existing Second Amendment law, under the holding and dictum of Heller, is correct. (P.S. There is a big, big difference between refusing to fund something and "banning" it).
5. That said, I would eagerly support more Congressional funding into researching the brain tissue of defense lawyers, to see if there actually is such a thing as the "fancy-dance-with-the-truth" gene. To be balanced about it, we should also do research on the brain tissue of prosecutors, to see if there is a "I-love-working-for-peanuts" gene.
It's funny how Doug conflates arguably excessive sentences and the systematic abuse of the power of this Administration, and it's even funnier that Doug would elide the difference between "banning" something and not funding it. Elected Democrats have proposed criminalizing speech (e.g. Sheldon Whitehouse) and the various Dems who think that publishing a video about Hillary Clinton ought to be a crime.
Is Angelos' sentence excessive--maybe/maybe not. But whether or not it is--it's (a) not indicative of an out-of-control political party that abuses the levers of power to stick it to its political enemies and (b) it's not like Angelos didn't commit a serious malum in se crime.
You want to look at real injustice--check out the politically-motivated zeal with which Dinesh D'Souza was prosecuted--especially when the prosecution of him is viewed in the context of Obama's campaign's deliberate disabiling of anti-fraud credit card protections so that illegal foreign donations would be accepted. Or check out Gerald Amirault, who still lives in chains, at the behest of elected Democrats supported by Obama.
Instead, Doug serves up flawed arguments about the GOP's positions. Weak.