Recently in General Category

Well get used to it.  Those who enthusiastically support the death penalty and other forms of serious punishment for serious crime are just the latter-day Klan, according to one sort of thnking  -- the sort briliantly described in the "oikophobia" essay to which Kent made reference earlier today.

It's well worth the read, as is this column by Charles Krauthammer.  Krauthammer's piece is titled, "The Last Refuge of a Liberal."  You will not be surprised to learn that the refuge is the reflexive but still snarling charge of racism.

Krauthammer does not discuss the culture war about the death penalty, but he might as well have.  To abolitionists and a distressingly large number of other liberals, there is no such thing as principled or good faith support for capital punishment.  There is only the fact that blacks make up a much larger share of death row than they do of the population, and that suffices to show that, if you support the "barbarism" of capital punishment (as do two-thirds of the American people), you are a racist (as they are).

The fact that the great bulk of recent scholarship shows that the death penalty saves innocent lives by its deterrent effect (abstracts collected here), or that for some especially gruesome murders a mere prison term could not possibly be thought of as justice by a normal person  --  these things don't count.

As I said last week, abolitionism and the go-easy approach to crime in general can no longer be thought of as "arguments" as traditionally understood.  They have become a Test of Righteousness and a cult religion, and have a cult religion's certainty and venom. 

The murder rate in the District of Columbia is down substantially.  The District's dismal schools (a "root cause") are getting better, though they still have a very long way to go.  So naturally the people of the District are poised to fire the mayor.  Robert McCartney reports for the WaPo on "Adrian Fenty, Vincent Gray and the politics of race and class in D.C."

At 39, [incumbent Mayor] Fenty is a post-civil-rights leader who prides himself on being color-blind. It doesn't matter whether you're black or white, rich or poor; the key is that your trash is picked up, your potholes are filled and your kid's teacher is qualified.

That doesn't sit well with some of the old-timers.

Part of the controversy is school chief Michelle Rhee.  She has taken on a very tough job and done it very well, but she's Korean.  Well, if the people dump Fenty, and the new mayor dumps Rhee, she can come to Sacramento.  She gets along pretty well with our mayor.

James Taranto at the WSJ has found a word for an attitude that often comes up in debates on crime, especially capital punishment, although the focus of Taranto's column is the Ground Zero mosque dispute. The word is "oikophobia."  It is the opposite of xenophobia.  It is contempt and loathing of the familiar.  The source is this essay at Civitas in England by Roger Scruton: "the disposition, in any conflict, to side with 'them' against 'us', and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably 'ours.' "  Taranto explains the American variant of this attitude:

Yet the oiks' vision of themselves as an intellectual aristocracy violates the first American principle ever articulated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."

This cannot be reconciled with the elitist notion that most men are economically insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an educated elite. Marxism Lite is not only false; it is, according to the American creed, self-evidently false. That is why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.

I go past the California State Capitol twice a day, so I see a lot of silly demonstrations and displays.  This one goes in the Hall of Infame.

The banner says "1920 -- Votes for Women; 2010 -- Vote for Women's Values."

So let me get this straight. Barbara Boxer and Ann Coulter are both women. So in terms of values, they have more in common with each other than Boxer does with Barack Obama or Coulter does with Glenn Beck, right?

It seems like the message here is similar to the one directed at black conservatives such as Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell.  Don't think for yourself.  Don't stray from the script.  If you do, you are not "authentic." 

This kind of stereotyping is a betrayal of the drive for equal rights, not a celebration of it.

So what are "women's values" on issues of crime and punishment? I haven't seen any strong correlation between sex and positions on this issue.

Update: It's worse than I thought. The rally was staged by the California Nurses Association for the purpose of taking cheap shots at the person who is at least even money to be the first woman governor of California. Jack Chang has this story in the SacBee.

CNA Executive Director Rose DeMoro said, "We're basically here to call attention to the hypocrisy of her running and to say just because you're female, that doesn't make you a woman."

Yep. That's pretty much the same as the "not authentic" comments noted above.

And now, for something completely different. Peter Hecht reports in the SacBee:

The Canna Care medical marijuana dispensary has a truck driving around Sacramento with a sign telling people to vote "no" on the state ballot initiative that would legalize pot for recreational use.

George Mull, a lawyer for several Northern California pot shops, is fighting Proposition 19 on claims it threatens protections put in place for medical pot users with the 1996 passage of California's medical marijuana law.

And a Humboldt County dispensary operator complains that the new pot measure simply isn't needed. "They say they're legalizing marijuana," said Stephen Gasparas, who runs the iCenter pot dispensary in Arcata. "It's already legal. All they're doing is taxing it."

California's landmark initiative to legalize marijuana use for adults over 21 and permit local governments to tax retail pot sales is backed - and bankrolled - by leaders in California's medical cannabis movement.

And yet some of its more stubborn opposition comes from a vocal segment of the same community who worry their dispensary operations may be negatively affected.

On a more predictable note, six former "drug czars" from both Republican and Democratic administrations have this LA Times op-ed opposing the marijuana legalization proposition.  Politics makes strange bedfellows, as the saying goes.  Doug Berman at SL&P has this post on the op-ed.

After a six year investigation, the Justice Department decided last week that it had no prosecutable case against Tom DeLay, the Republican House Majority Leader from way back when.  On Saturday, the New York Times, ever a reliable voice for the convicted criminal (see, e.g., its crusade for lower sentences for crack dealers and its screeching opposition to the death penalty), took after the long-gone DeLay, reminding us in acid tones of the behavior Eric Holder's DOJ just found to be not criminal.

A suspicious person might whiff the aroma of double standards, or  --  dare I say it  --  partisanship.  The Times does manage to choke out that, "Others in Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have put family members on the payroll," but that is the last we hear of anyone currently in power.  The Times instead reminds us of, inter  alia, Mr. DeLay's all-expense-paid trip to Saipan  --  13 years ago.

Well gosh.  While we're at it, I wonder what Monica is doing these days. 

But I digress.  The howler in the Times editorial is this:  "[M]any of Mr. DeLay's actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them."

No kidding!  The actions, even of the supposedly rancid Mr. DeLay, not to mention everybody else, are not illegal unless they're made illegal.  Wow.  You learn something new in the Times every day.  The editorial staff must all be Harvard Law graduates.  Maybe they got their degrees while Elena Kagan was Dean.

P.S.  What "lawmakers," exactly  --  currently holdiing a substantial majority  --  have "chosen not to criminalize" sleazy fundraising practices?  Might it be the ones raising dough like crazy in Hollywood and for whom the Times has been going goo-goo for the last three-plus years?

This poll from Rasmussen is only tangentially related to crime. (Voting fraud is a crime.) It is, though, a good example of how extremely out of touch academia and some elements in the judiciary are from regular folks. Among academics and judges, requiring voters to show some ID is a troubling and controversial practice. Not so for regular folks:

An overwhelming majority of Likely Voters in the United States think all voters in the country should be required to present photo identification in order to vote in U.S. elections.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters finds that just 14% disagree and think the current identification system is sufficient. Just 4% are undecided on the issue.

This is a sentiment that spans demographics, as majorities in every demographic agree that photo identification should be required to vote.

For the mathematically challenged, that's 82% in favor.

We often hear that legalization of marijuana is not a first step toward legalizing everything, and that claims to the contrary are just so much fear mongering by Puritanical types who relish putting otherwise law abiding citizens in prison.  The truth, so we are told, is that marijuana legalizers understand that the harder drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, should remain prohibited.

Yes, well, as Emily Litella said on Saturday Night Live, "Never mind."

The London Telegraph has this story.

Why is it a bad idea to tell criminals that they're mere vessels of adverse social forces and thus, in all fairness, entitled to understanding rather than punishment?

First, because it's false.  Second, because it retards the development of a sense of guilt, an important ingredient in changing behavior.  Below are the first three paragraphs of a piece in today's Wall Street Journal that makes the point:

 

Authorities in China recently made a surprising announcement: They want to see an end to public shaming of miscreants by the police.

It's a step in the right direction that shame is falling out of favor as an official punishment in China. Thankfully, here, too, it remains the exception rather than the rule. Most of us have little appetite for bringing back the town stocks, and "perp walks" can end up parading an innocent suspect. The ugliness of shame makes us want to avert our eyes wherever we find it.

Yet in rejecting the cruelty of public humiliation, it's important that we not make the mistake of tossing aside guilt as well. Despite the bad reputation it has acquired since perhaps Freud, few emotions are more socially productive or personally beneficial. Let's not hold it against guilt that many people can't distinguish it from its evil twin, shame.

Here is something we could use more of, a thoughtful and balanced op-ed on the Arizona illegal immigration law. This one is by Alan Dean Foster in the NYT. He finds support for the law where people who get their ideas about Arizona from watching the national television news coverage would not expect it:

Luis emigrated from southern Mexico 16 years ago. He now runs a car maintenance business where I bring my old Aurora every few months. To say that he and many immigrants like him are strongly in favor of Arizona's new immigration law . . . is like saying one or two New Yorkers dislike the Red Sox.

Brody Mullins reports in the WSJ:

House ethics investigators Monday formally said they will hold a public trial to determine if Rep. Maxine Waters violated congressional rules by helping steer federal funds to a bank in which her husband owned stock.

Ms. Waters said she welcomed a trial before the ethics committee as an opportunity to prove she did nothing improper.

*                              *                             *

A report released today by ethics investigators shows that the probe centers on Ms. Waters' help in steering $12 million in federal funding to a Boston-based bank in which her husband had a financial interest.

For a century now, the Boy Scouts of America has been one of the very few organizations that effectively addresses the true root cause of crime -- lack of a sense of duty and personal responsibility. The WSJ has this editorial on the centennial, the attacks on the Scouts, and the curious fact that President Obama can't find time to address the Jamboree. 

We welcome to the blog, and to CJLF, Christine Dowling, who is the recipient of our 2010-2011 Fellowship in Criminal Law.  The competition for the fellowship was particularly strong this year, and we thank all those who applied. Christine will be blogging here at C&C as well as working on CJLF's amicus briefs in precedent-setting criminal cases.

How crooked does a Congressman has to be before the "self-policing" House brings charges? There actually is a bottom to the pit, believe it or not. The WSJ has this editorial on "The Rangel Standard." The trial of Charles Rangel will be the first since the ouster of the colorful but crooked James "Beam me up, Mr. Speaker" Traficant eight years ago. 

......is depressingly low.  Gallup measured confidence in 16 American institutions, Here are the results: