My tax dollars at work
Konrad Gaertner
in the center, and to the right was an article about the state House of
Representatives approving a new law:
"The legislation known as 'Jessica's Law' would remove the statute of
limitations from most sex offenses against children and create a new
felony in Texas -- continuous abuse of a child, defined as at least
two offenses over at least 30 days.
"That crime would carry a mandatory sentence of 25 years in prison
for a first conviction. A second conviction would be a capital
offense, eligible for life in prison without parole or the death
penalty."
And to the left was the story of a woman arrested for selling drugs
to an undercover cop:
"She didn't do it. The woman McKinney police were looking for
spells her first name differently, has a different middle name,
lives in a different town and has a different license plate number.
What saved Ms. Hernandez, however, was the lack of a tattoo."
Can someone recommend a state with sane laws and competent law
enforcement?
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
David Dyer-Bennet
> Can someone recommend a state with sane laws and competent law
> enforcement?
Well, the basic starting point is *get out of the South*. The more I
know about it, the more I consider the American Civil War a tragic mistake.
Kevrob
That's no guarantee of sanity. Law Enforcemt On Steroids has been
running roughshod over northerners, too. New York City has had some
infamous cases, and the addiction to no-knock raids or ones where the
SWAT team knocks and announces in the middle of the night, then breaks
into the house before the alleged malefactors can even wake up and
answer the door, has become endemic.
Radley Balko's blog, http://www.theagitator.com/ is continually
highlighting insane police behavior. He's written a white paper,
"Overkill" about the problem.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476
If you are thinking of running to Canada, Google-up "Basile
Parasiris."
Kevin
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Mar 7, 12:24 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Konrad Gaertner wrote:
>>> Can someone recommend a state with sane laws and competent law
>>> enforcement?
>> Well, the basic starting point is *get out of the South*. The more I
>> know about it, the more I consider the American Civil War a tragic mistake.
>
> That's no guarantee of sanity. Law Enforcemt On Steroids has been
> running roughshod over northerners, too. New York City has had some
> infamous cases, and the addiction to no-knock raids or ones where the
> SWAT team knocks and announces in the middle of the night, then breaks
> into the house before the alleged malefactors can even wake up and
> answer the door, has become endemic.
Oh, sure, we have far too many wretched excesses here, too. I still
think it's consistently better; though perhaps Texas is warping my
judgement about places beyond its borders. Then again I've heard some
first-hand reports from Oklahoma, too.
Saying one place is enough better than another, in some specific way, to
notice does *not* imply that the better place is perfect. Or even very
good. "Better" is a comparative, not an absolute.
Kevrob
True. At least my state doesn't have the death penalty, so we don't
"accidentally" execute anyone.
Kevin
Dan Goodman
> The front page of yesterday's newpaper had a big article on Walter
> Reed in the center, and to the right was an article about the state
> House of Representatives approving a new law:
>
> "The legislation known as 'Jessica's Law' would remove the statute of
> limitations from most sex offenses against children and create a new
> felony in Texas -- continuous abuse of a child, defined as at least
> two offenses over at least 30 days.
>
> "That crime would carry a mandatory sentence of 25 years in prison
> for a first conviction. A second conviction would be a capital
> offense, eligible for life in prison without parole or the death
> penalty."
>
> And to the left was the story of a woman arrested for selling drugs
> to an undercover cop:
>
> "She didn't do it. The woman McKinney police were looking for
> spells her first name differently, has a different middle name,
> lives in a different town and has a different license plate number.
> What saved Ms. Hernandez, however, was the lack of a tattoo."
>
> Can someone recommend a state with sane laws and competent law
> enforcement?
Newfoundland.
--
Dan Goodman
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
future http://dangoodman.livejournal.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
David Friedman
"Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Saying one place is enough better than another, in some specific way, to
> > notice does *not* imply that the better place is perfect. Or even very
> > good. "Better" is a comparative, not an absolute.
>
> True. At least my state doesn't have the death penalty, so we don't
> "accidentally" execute anyone.
>
I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people killed by police each
year was larger than the number convicted of capital crimes and
executed, so that may be of limited comfort.
Stat Abstracts doesn't seem to have any relevant figures. A little
googling turned up:
"Cincinnati police officers shot to death more suspects since 1995 than
police did in seven similar-sized cities, according to a Dayton Daily
News survey.
And among six cities with complete data, Cincinnati was second only to
Minneapolis in the total number of suspects shot. Minneapolis police
shot 29 people since 1995, killing 12. Cincinnati police shot 22 people,
13 fatally. " (2001 story in the Dayton Daily News)
So in about six years, police in Minneapolis and Cincinnati between them
killed 25 people, or about four a year. It's clear from the stories that
that is an unusually high rate, so it should give a rough upper bound.
The combined population of the two cities was about 700,000, so applying
the same rate per capita to the whole country would give 1600 deaths a
year as an upper bound. On average about 70 prisoners per year were
being executed during the same period. So it wouldn't be astonishing if
my conjecture above were true.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
Keith F. Lynch
> I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people killed by police
> each year was larger than the number convicted of capital crimes
> and executed, so that may be of limited comfort.
A more interesting comparison would be between innocent people killed
by the police and innocent people executed. But whichever is larger,
I think it's far preferable to be suddenly and unexpectedly shot dead
while going about one's business than to first be defamed, then be
held in an unpleasant place for years, with hope repeatedly raised and
dashed, then finally be strapped down and be poisoned to death.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> Kevrob wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> Konrad Gaertner wrote:
>>>> Can someone recommend a state with sane laws and competent law
>>>> enforcement?
I'm not convinced that's even possible.
>>> Well, the basic starting point is *get out of the South*. The
>>> more I know about it, the more I consider the American Civil War a
>>> tragic mistake.
There's no geographic monopoly on injustice.
>> That's no guarantee of sanity. Law Enforcemt On Steroids has been
>> running roughshod over northerners, too. New York City has had
>> some infamous cases, and the addiction to no-knock raids or ones
>> where the SWAT team knocks and announces in the middle of the
>> night, then breaks into the house before the alleged malefactors
>> can even wake up and answer the door, has become endemic.
> Oh, sure, we have far too many wretched excesses here, too. I still
> think it's consistently better; though perhaps Texas is warping my
> judgement about places beyond its borders. Then again I've heard
> some first-hand reports from Oklahoma, too.
Virginia may or may not be worse than Texas, but it's certainly worse
than Oklahoma. Name any other state where if you're convicted of
murder and sentenced to death, and your supposed victim shows up alive
and well a month later, they go ahead and execute you. (Google on
"21 day rule.")
> Saying one place is enough better than another, in some specific
> way, to notice does *not* imply that the better place is perfect.
> Or even very good. "Better" is a comparative, not an absolute.
Indeed. The only way to make any government look good is to compare
it with some other government.
Keith F. Lynch
> "The legislation known as 'Jessica's Law' would remove the statute of
> limitations from most sex offenses against children and create a new
> felony in Texas -- continuous abuse of a child, defined as at least
> two offenses over at least 30 days.
> "That crime would carry a mandatory sentence of 25 years in prison
> for a first conviction. A second conviction would be a capital
> offense, eligible for life in prison without parole or the death
> penalty."
Child sex abuse is one of the easiest crimes to be falsely convicted
of, since small children have a poor grasp of reality, and can easily
be talked into remembering things that never happened.
The lack of a statute of limitations means that an adult who
"recovers" a memory of something they think happened to them when they
were one tenth of their present age can put you in prison for life.
Where were you on the night of March 7, 1970? Can you prove it?
A death penalty for anything other than murder or treason is
unconstitional, according to the Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia,
433 U.S. 584 (1977).
Karl Johanson
> Virginia may or may not be worse than Texas, but it's certainly worse
> than Oklahoma. Name any other state where if you're convicted of
> murder and sentenced to death, and your supposed victim shows up alive
> and well a month later, they go ahead and execute you. (Google on
> "21 day rule.")
Scary stuff. Needs to be over turned for definite.
I'd make a quip about needing a new last line for the national anthem
there, but the boat sailed a while ago.
Karl Johanson
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Child sex abuse is one of the easiest crimes to be falsely convicted
> of, since small children have a poor grasp of reality, and can easily
> be talked into remembering things that never happened.
>
> The lack of a statute of limitations means that an adult who
> "recovers" a memory of something they think happened to them when they
> were one tenth of their present age can put you in prison for life.
>
> Where were you on the night of March 7, 1970? Can you prove it?
I'm fairly confident I can convince a jury I wasn't yet born
then. And the article did say the law would apply to crimes
committed after, um, September 1, 2007 IIRC. Which is surprisingly
sensible of them.
> A death penalty for anything other than murder or treason is
> unconstitional, according to the Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia,
> 433 U.S. 584 (1977).
They're hoping the courts will make an exception because it's
For The Children. It's not as if they expect laws to apply to
*them*. After all, they just created a special class of citizens
who are *required* to have unique privileges.
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Virginia may or may not be worse than Texas, but it's certainly worse
> than Oklahoma. Name any other state where if you're convicted of
> murder and sentenced to death, and your supposed victim shows up alive
> and well a month later, they go ahead and execute you. (Google on
> "21 day rule.")
Do you know of any cases where that happened? The rule only tells us
that it's legally possible.
You are probably familiar with the Bell South 911 case. One of the two
people accused of transporting stolen property worth more than $5000
across state lines--for transmitting a document copied from a Bell South
computer--agreed to a plea bargain that involved substantial jail time.
The other refused, went to trial--and had charges dropped and, if I
remember correctly, got an apology from the judge when it turned out
that the information in the supposedly secret document was available
from Bell South, to anyone, at a price of $13.
The first of the two was then freed--not because he had a legal right to
get out but because it was obvious that he shouldn't be in. I wouldn't
be inclined to rely on that happening, of course, but your case is
sufficiently extreme that I would want to see actual examples before
accepting the claim.
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people killed by police
> > each year was larger than the number convicted of capital crimes
> > and executed, so that may be of limited comfort.
>
> A more interesting comparison would be between innocent people killed
> by the police and innocent people executed.
Yes. But we don't have the data on that and I don't think we can get it,
whereas the other comparison is at least possible. I was taking it for
granted both that most people killed either way are not innocent and
that a significant but unknown number are.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Name any other state where if you're convicted of murder and
>> sentenced to death, and your supposed victim shows up alive and
>> well a month later, they go ahead and execute you. (Google on
>> "21 day rule.")
> Do you know of any cases where that happened?
No.
> The rule only tells us that it's legally possible.
It tells us that it's legally impossible for it *not* to happen.
If anyone is sufficiently skeptical, it would be simple enough for
them to put it to the test. Arrange for strong circumstantial
evidence that they murdered some specific person, who stays out of
sight until 22 days after the volunteer has gotten himself convicted
and sentenced to death.
(I wonder if Mythbusters would be interested in trying it?)
> The first of the two was then freed--not because he had a legal
> right to get out but because it was obvious that he shouldn't be in.
That was in a federal case, not a Virginia case. Virginia is different.
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> Name any other state where if you're convicted of murder and
> >> sentenced to death, and your supposed victim shows up alive and
> >> well a month later, they go ahead and execute you. (Google on
> >> "21 day rule.")
>
> > Do you know of any cases where that happened?
>
> No.
>
> > The rule only tells us that it's legally possible.
>
> It tells us that it's legally impossible for it *not* to happen.
Pardons are illegal in Virginia?
Paul Ciszek
In article <esnt08$7hp$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>unconstitional, according to the Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia,
>433 U.S. 584 (1977).
Timothy McVeigh was executed for the crime of destroying government
property.
If he hadn't been, *then* the state of Oklahoma would have had the
opportunity to try to convict and execute him for multiple first-
degree murder, but he was never convicted of that.
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Kevrob
> In article <esnt08$7h...@panix1.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >A death penalty for anything other than murder or treason is
> >unconstitional, according to the Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia,
> >433 U.S. 584 (1977).
>
> Timothy McVeigh was executed for the crime of destroying government
> property.
>
> If he hadn't been, *then* the state of Oklahoma would have had the
> opportunity to try to convict and execute him for multiple first-
> degree murder, but he was never convicted of that.
>
> --
>
No, McVeigh was convicted on 11 Federal counts, 8 of which were for
the first degree murder of Federal agents. See:
http://extras.denverpost.com/bomb/bombv1.htm
" A total of 168 people, including 19 children, were killed in the
April 19, 1995 explosion, but murder charges were only brought against
McVeigh for the eight federal agents who were on duty when the 5,000
pound fuel oil and fertilizer bomb ripped away the face of the Alfred
P. Murrah Federal Building.
Along with the eight counts of murder McVeigh was charged with
conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, using a weapon of mass
destruction and destruction of a federal building."
It is conceivable that, had no Feds been killed, he could have been
tried for the bombing of the building, but he then would probably have
been indicted for ATTEMPTED murder of federal employees.
That being said, I'd much rather he were rotting in jail. The chance
that he wasn't guilty is infinitessimal. but as long as it was non-
zero I wouldn't want to execute him.
Kevin
Keith Thompson
[...]
> No, McVeigh was convicted on 11 Federal counts, 8 of which were for
> the first degree murder of Federal agents. See:
>
> http://extras.denverpost.com/bomb/bombv1.htm
>
> " A total of 168 people, including 19 children, were killed in the
> April 19, 1995 explosion, but murder charges were only brought against
> McVeigh for the eight federal agents who were on duty when the 5,000
> pound fuel oil and fertilizer bomb ripped away the face of the Alfred
> P. Murrah Federal Building.
>
> Along with the eight counts of murder McVeigh was charged with
> conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, using a weapon of mass
> destruction and destruction of a federal building."
>
> It is conceivable that, had no Feds been killed, he could have been
> tried for the bombing of the building, but he then would probably have
> been indicted for ATTEMPTED murder of federal employees.
>
> That being said, I'd much rather he were rotting in jail. The chance
> that he wasn't guilty is infinitessimal. but as long as it was non-
> zero I wouldn't want to execute him.
And if he were rotting in jail, there might at least be some
possibility of getting more information out of him.
<http://sideshow.me.uk/sfeb07.htm#02220345>
(I have no idea how plausible the allegations in the referenced
article might be.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Kevrob wrote:
>>> David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>> Konrad Gaertner wrote:
>>>>> Can someone recommend a state with sane laws and competent law
>>>>> enforcement?
>
> I'm not convinced that's even possible.
>
>>>> Well, the basic starting point is *get out of the South*. The
>>>> more I know about it, the more I consider the American Civil War a
>>>> tragic mistake.
>
> There's no geographic monopoly on injustice.
Nor did I suggest that there is.
It does seem to me that there are some rather significant geographic
*concentrations* of injustice, though, and getting out of them still
seems like a good idea to me.
>>> That's no guarantee of sanity. Law Enforcemt On Steroids has been
>>> running roughshod over northerners, too. New York City has had
>>> some infamous cases, and the addiction to no-knock raids or ones
>>> where the SWAT team knocks and announces in the middle of the
>>> night, then breaks into the house before the alleged malefactors
>>> can even wake up and answer the door, has become endemic.
>
>> Oh, sure, we have far too many wretched excesses here, too. I still
>> think it's consistently better; though perhaps Texas is warping my
>> judgement about places beyond its borders. Then again I've heard
>> some first-hand reports from Oklahoma, too.
>
> Virginia may or may not be worse than Texas, but it's certainly worse
> than Oklahoma. Name any other state where if you're convicted of
> murder and sentenced to death, and your supposed victim shows up alive
> and well a month later, they go ahead and execute you. (Google on
> "21 day rule.")
I remember the discussion here, so I remember the rule.
>> Saying one place is enough better than another, in some specific
>> way, to notice does *not* imply that the better place is perfect.
>> Or even very good. "Better" is a comparative, not an absolute.
>
> Indeed. The only way to make any government look good is to compare
> it with some other government.
No, comparing it with any of the "failed states" makes about *any*
government look good.
David Friedman
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > Indeed. The only way to make any government look good is to compare
> > it with some other government.
>
> No, comparing it with any of the "failed states" makes about *any*
> government look good.
I don't think that's true. At least, I read part of a book about Somalia
a while back, written by someone who pretty clearly didn't have any
ideological axe to grind. The general impression was that, at the time,
most of the country was doing better than it had been when it had a
government, and probably better than the average of countries in the
region.
Justin Fang
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <45f03d5b$0$15013$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> > Indeed. The only way to make any government look good is to compare
>> > it with some other government.
>> No, comparing it with any of the "failed states" makes about *any*
>> government look good.
>I don't think that's true. At least, I read part of a book about Somalia
>a while back, written by someone who pretty clearly didn't have any
>ideological axe to grind. The general impression was that, at the time,
>most of the country was doing better than it had been when it had a
>government, and probably better than the average of countries in the
>region.
I gather this book was written before recent events in Somalia? Namely,
the private justice system deciding to turn itself into a government, and
then getting rolled over by a neighboring state.
I think you'd have a better argument using examples of governments worse
than any failed state, rather than a failed state (supposedly) better than
some governments.
--
Justin Fang (jus...@panix.com)
David Friedman
jus...@panix.com (Justin Fang) wrote:
> In article <ddfr-FF19E6.1...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >In article <45f03d5b$0$15013$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Indeed. The only way to make any government look good is to compare
> >> > it with some other government.
>
> >> No, comparing it with any of the "failed states" makes about *any*
> >> government look good.
>
> >I don't think that's true. At least, I read part of a book about Somalia
> >a while back, written by someone who pretty clearly didn't have any
> >ideological axe to grind. The general impression was that, at the time,
> >most of the country was doing better than it had been when it had a
> >government, and probably better than the average of countries in the
> >region.
>
> I gather this book was written before recent events in Somalia? Namely,
> the private justice system deciding to turn itself into a government, and
> then getting rolled over by a neighboring state.
Yes.
My point isn't that all failed states are better than all governments,
merely that some failed states at some times are better than some
governments.
--
Will
wrote:
>
> My point isn't that all failed states are better than all governments,
> merely that some failed states at some times are better than some
> governments.
>
> --
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
So? I suspect that the best despotism is probably better than the
worst republic. Even if true, that's a poor argument not to prefer
republican government to despotism.
Will McLean
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Where were you on the night of March 7, 1970? Can you prove it?
My name's on the program. I might be able to find people who remember
the show and me being there.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
Erol K. Bayburt
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <1173303463.4...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> "Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> > Saying one place is enough better than another, in some specific way, to
>> > notice does *not* imply that the better place is perfect. Or even very
>> > good. "Better" is a comparative, not an absolute.
>>
>> True. At least my state doesn't have the death penalty, so we don't
>> "accidentally" execute anyone.
>>
>
>I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people killed by police each
>year was larger than the number convicted of capital crimes and
>executed, so that may be of limited comfort.
I'd say that the relevant figure isn't the number of people killed by
the police, but the number of people killed in cases where the police
get off but a private citizen would get convicted. (Or one could argue
that the relevant figure is the number of people killed in cases that
end up being ruled justifible or excusable homicide - whether they're
killed by the police or by private citizens.)
--
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com
Kevrob
> On 7 Mar 2007 21:39:04 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Where were you on the night of March 7, 1970? Can you prove it?
>
> My name's on the program. I might be able to find people who remember
> the show and me being there.
> --
>
That was a Tuesday night. If I wasn't at home watching "The Mod
Squad" and Red Skelton I'd be shocked. Then to bed. It was a school
night!
Kevin
Paul Dormer
<1173590708....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevrob) wrote:
Well, according to my diary for 1970, which I still possess, 7th March
was actually a Saturday, and, according to the diary, I watched
Doctor Who, the Val Doonican Show and A Man Called Ironside.
Keith F. Lynch
> kev...@my-deja.com (Kevrob) wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> Where were you on the night of March 7, 1970? Can you prove it?
>> That was a Tuesday night. If I wasn't at home watching "The Mod
>> Squad" and Red Skelton I'd be shocked. Then to bed. It was a
>> school night!
> Well, according to my diary for 1970, which I still possess, 7th
> March was actually a Saturday,
Correct.
> and, according to the diary, I watched Doctor Who, the Val Doonican
> Show and A Man Called Ironside.
And nobody has yet figured out the significance of March 7, 1970.
I didn't pick it just because I was posting on another March 7.
Granted, it was less significant in the UK than in the eastern US.
Keith F. Lynch
> I'd say that the relevant figure isn't the number of people killed
> by the police, but the number of people killed in cases where the
> police get off but a private citizen would get convicted.
Relevant for what?
> (Or one could argue that the relevant figure is the number of people
> killed in cases that end up being ruled justifible or excusable
> homicide - whether they're killed by the police or by private
> citizens.)
Justifiable in an objective or a subjective sense? By "objective" I
mean one that would have been justifiable even if the shooter had
known all relevant information. For instance the tragic shooting of
the Japanese tourist who got the wrong address for a Halloween party
and wouldn't back down was subjectively but not objectively justified.
Police tend to do worse in the "objective" department, since they know
less about who is supposed to be in a place, and what's supposed to be
happening there.
Keith F. Lynch
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>> Indeed. The only way to make any government look good is to
>>>> compare it with some other government.
>>> No, comparing it with any of the "failed states" makes about *any*
>>> government look good.
What's meant by a "failed state"?
The US is able to prevent any rival government from ruling in the
territory it claims. In that sense it's successful.
Most of the people living in the US are moderately well off
financially. In that sense the US is moderately successful. This
success comes most from the government's relative lack of interference
with the economy. Actually, it interferes with the economy a great
deal in absolute terms. It only looks laissez faire in comparison
with what other governments do.
By standards of liberty and justice, the US is an almost total
failure.
> I think you'd have a better argument using examples of governments
> worse than any failed state, rather than a failed state (supposedly)
> better than some governments.
Such examples are easy to find. Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany,
present-day North Korea.
I believe the best anarchy is better than the best government, but I
can see how reasonable people can disagree. However, there's really
not the slightest doubt that the worst government is worse than the
worst anarchy.
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Erol K. Bayburt <Ero...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I'd say that the relevant figure isn't the number of people killed
> > by the police, but the number of people killed in cases where the
> > police get off but a private citizen would get convicted.
>
> Relevant for what?
In my initial post, I was thinking about how great the risk to someone
who did not commit any serious crime was of being killed by the law
enforcement system. From that standpoint the comparison should be
between the number of innocent people shot by the police and the number
executed. Since I don't know how many in either case are innocent, I
simply raised the question of how the total numbers compared.
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> A death penalty for anything other than murder or treason is
>> unconstitional, according to the Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia,
>> 433 U.S. 584 (1977).
> Timothy McVeigh was executed for the crime of destroying government
> property.
No, for the crime of killing eight government agents because they were
government agents.
> If he hadn't been, *then* the state of Oklahoma would have had the
> opportunity to try to convict and execute him for multiple first-
> degree murder, but he was never convicted of that.
True. There's little point in trying someone who's already on
death row.
Paul Dormer
(Keith F. Lynch) wrote:
> And nobody has yet figured out the significance of
> March 7, 1970.
> I didn't pick it just because I was posting on another
> March 7.
> Granted, it was less significant in the UK than in the
> eastern US.
There was an eclipse of the sun, which I assume was visible in the
US. Another comment in my diary for that day was that I saw TV
coverage of the eclipse from Mexico.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> It tells us that it's legally impossible for it *not* to happen.
> Pardons are illegal in Virginia?
Pardons are executive, not judicial, hence are outside the legal
system.
They're also very unlikely. Any intuition you may have about what a
governor is likely to do based on what's the obviously right thing
to do is likely to be wrong. Instead, look at the record of what
governors have actually done.
If someone really believes that they would not be executed if they
were convicted of murdering someone who showed up alive a month after
they were convicted, I'd like to see them put it to the test.
It's an interesting thought experiment. A reverse alibi. How would
you make a non-death look so much like a murder that you would be
almost certain to be convicted and sentenced to death?
Since you're a good guy, and also so that they'd have no excuse
to keep you locked up after your innocence is proven, I'll add the
constraint that neither you nor your "victim" break any laws in
the process.
One idea (inspired by a story line on the TV show "The Practice") is
to remove a little blood at a time from the "victim" and somehow store
it where it won't clot or spoil, until you have so much blood stored
up that nobody could survive the immediate loss of that amount.
Have the "victim" lie on the rug. Pour the blood over the "victim."
Maybe stage a loud argument first, but not enough to be guilty of
disturbing the peace. Neither of you can phone the police, since
that would be making a false police report. Pour some blood over a
sharp knife, and make sure your bloody fingerprints are on its handle.
Once the blood is dried and won't leave any more tracks, have the
"victim" change clothes and take a shower. Burn the bloody clothes in
the fireplace if you have one, but try not to burn them completely.
"Carelessly" leave the knife lying around. Have the "victim" climb in
a sack. Drag the sack into the back seat of your car late at night,
if you have one. "Accidentally" set off the car alarm in the process.
Also bring a shovel. Drive away, release the "victim" from the sack,
and ask the "victim" not to show until a month after you're convicted.
Dig somewhere with the shovel, to get dirt on it and on your clothes.
When you get home, remove the bloody carpeting and drag it to the
curb. Do a sloppy job of it. If possible, get it to the curb as long
as possible before the garbage haulers are due to arrive.
When arrested, refuse to answer any questions. The evidence will
speak for itself. Hire the cheapest lawyer you can find. Refuse
to plea bargain, and insist on a trial. Tell people that you are
innocent, but refuse to elaborate.
That leaves a couple problems, however. What if the police never show
up? And what if you are convicted but don't get the death penalty?
What if something happens to the "victim" shortly after the trial?
If you can arrange it so that someone sees the bloody "body" on the
floor, that would almost ensure that the police will be called. But
that makes the timing a lot harder. Not only does the "victim" have
to vamooose before the cops arrive, without anyone seeing them alive,
but there has to be a plausible way a dead body could have been
removed in that time without anyone seeing the removal.
Ideas? Let's put our heads together and plot how to (not) get away
with (not) murder.
Also, I'd like a little free legal adivce. Would any of what I've
suggested be illegal? If so, by what law? Thanks.
Keith F. Lynch
Well done. That was the one and only total solar eclipse that I've
ever seen. So I know what *I* was doing that day. Though I doubt I
could prove it in court.
I knew then that the next one in Virginia would be on Monday, August
21, 2017. And I've been looking forward to it ever since.
Paul Dormer
(Keith F. Lynch) wrote:
>
> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> > k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F. Lynch) wrote:
> >> And nobody has yet figured out the significance of
> > March 7, 1970.
> >> I didn't pick it just because I was posting on
> > another March 7.
> >> Granted, it was less significant in the UK than in
> > the eastern US.
>
> > There was an eclipse of the sun, which I assume was
> > visible in the
> > US. Another comment in my diary for that day was
> > that I saw TV
> > coverage of the eclipse from Mexico.
>
> Well done. That was the one and only total solar
> eclipse that I've
> ever seen. So I know what *I* was doing that day.
> Though I doubt I
> could prove it in court.
That's one more than I've managed. The last total eclipse visible in
the UK was in August 1999, but it was total only in the SW corner of
England. Didn't get round to organising a trip to Cornwall for the day
(even though I'd known it was going to happen for about 30 years),
although I'm told that the weather there wasn't that good that day.
My boss did allow us to go out into the car park outside the office to
observe it, and the weather was clear in Guildford, even though we
didn't get totality. We discovered that my glasses were of a suitable
focal length to project an image of the sun about 2cm in diameter
onto a piece of paper.
I think the previous total eclipse visible in the UK was back in the
1930s, and I'm sure someone is now going to tell me when the next
one is.
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> It tells us that it's legally impossible for it *not* to happen.
>
> > Pardons are illegal in Virginia?
>
> Pardons are executive, not judicial, hence are outside the legal
> system.
They are, however, legally possible.
Karl Johanson
> That's one more than I've managed. The last total eclipse visible in
> the UK was in August 1999, but it was total only in the SW corner of
> England. Didn't get round to organising a trip to Cornwall for the
> day
> (even though I'd known it was going to happen for about 30 years),
> although I'm told that the weather there wasn't that good that day.
> My boss did allow us to go out into the car park outside the office to
> observe it, and the weather was clear in Guildford, even though we
> didn't get totality. We discovered that my glasses were of a suitable
> focal length to project an image of the sun about 2cm in diameter
> onto a piece of paper.
I hope it didn't show any spots, because the notion that the surface of
the sun isn't perfect is sacrilege!
> I think the previous total eclipse visible in the UK was back in the
> 1930s, and I'm sure someone is now going to tell me when the next
> one is.
They aren't planning another 1930's. I pushed for having the 70's over,
but not enough people agreed.
Karl Johanson
Marilee J. Layman
Saturday. Little Theatre of Virginia Beach only performed Fridays &
Saturdays.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>> k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F. Lynch) wrote:
>>> And nobody has yet figured out the significance of March 7, 1970.
>>> I didn't pick it just because I was posting on another March 7.
>>> Granted, it was less significant in the UK than in the eastern US.
>
>> There was an eclipse of the sun, which I assume was visible in the
>> US. Another comment in my diary for that day was that I saw TV
>> coverage of the eclipse from Mexico.
>
>Well done. That was the one and only total solar eclipse that I've
>ever seen. So I know what *I* was doing that day. Though I doubt I
>could prove it in court.
>
>I knew then that the next one in Virginia would be on Monday, August
>21, 2017. And I've been looking forward to it ever since.
That will be my brother's 61st birthday.
Mark Atwood
>
> One idea (inspired by a story line on the TV show "The Practice") is
> to remove a little blood at a time from the "victim" and somehow store
> it where it won't clot or spoil, until you have so much blood stored
> up that nobody could survive the immediate loss of that amount.
Two senior members of the team actually tried to fake a murder on a
recent episode of "CSI", including blood from the "victim". The more
junior members still were able to unravel it, because the process of
storing blood such that it doesn't clot alters it in a way that they
can detect.
Now, learning about crime solving watching legal/crime dramas is like
learning military battlefield techniques by watching episodes of the
G.I.Joe cartoon, but it's still interesting.
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://fallenpegasus.livejournal.com/
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> One idea (inspired by a story line on the TV show "The Practice")
>> is to remove a little blood at a time from the "victim" and somehow
>> store it where it won't clot or spoil, until you have so much blood
>> stored up that nobody could survive the immediate loss of that
>> amount.
> Two senior members of the team actually tried to fake a murder on
> a recent episode of "CSI", including blood from the "victim". The
> more junior members still were able to unravel it, because the
> process of storing blood such that it doesn't clot alters it in
> a way that they can detect.
Anticoagulants in blood are utterly undetectable -- unless they're
tested for. And in the scenario I described, how likely is it that
they'd bother to test for them?
Another approach is to ensure that for whatever reason, the "victim"
had a prescription for that anticoagulant, so as to explain why it was
found in the spilled blood.
Yet another approach is to somehow make it look like the "killer"
dosed the "victim" with anticoagulants before stabbing them, either
to ensure that they bled out, or to make the killing look like a fake
killing, or in a failed attempt to poison them.
The most popular anticoagulant, warfarin, is marketed as rat poison.
The "killer" should be sure to buy an implausibly large amount of that
rat poison close to home while dressed conspicuously and acting very
nervous, and to leave empty containers of the stuff around at home
after the "murder." Also put some in the teakettle.
The "killer" should also take out several large life insurance
policies on the "victim" shortly before the "murder."
In real life, police don't look for subtle twists or decide that a
scenario is too obvious. They go with the obvious scenario. For one
thing, most killers are anything but subtle. For another, they don't
care if you're guilty, they care whether they can convict you.
Keith F. Lynch
> Saturday. Little Theatre of Virginia Beach only performed Fridays &
> Saturdays.
So you did see the eclipse. It went right through that city.
Keith F. Lynch
> It really was a Tuesday.
> http://www.infoplease.com/calendar.php?month=3&year=1970&submit=Go
March 7, 1970 was a Saturday, and that web page agrees that it was.
Kevrob
> On Mar 11, 9:47 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> > Marilee J. Layman <mari...@mjlayman.com> wrote:
>
> > > Saturday. Little Theatre of Virginia Beach only performed Fridays &
> > > Saturdays.
>
> > So you did see the eclipse. It went right through that city.
> > --
>
Oops. For some reason my lying eyes were determined to read that "7"
as a "10." I know I would have watched Jackie Gleason on a Saturday,
and my parents always tuned into Lawrence Welk. I wasn't on the
basketball team in 8th grade. If the Knicks (basketball) or Rangers
(ice hockey) were playing that night, I was probably watching them on
our old black-and-white, or listening to the radio call. The
Knickerbockers won it all that season, and the Rangers lost in the
Stanley Cup quarterfinals that year. I was a big fan of both.
Kevin
mike weber
wrote:
>Anticoagulants in blood are utterly undetectable -- unless they're
>tested for. And in the scenario I described, how likely is it that
>they'd bother to test for them?
If the spilt blood hasn't clotted to at least some extent, someone's
gonna get suspicious.
And i doubt that anyone is gonna have a prescription for such a heavy
dose of anticoagulants that he becomes a hemophiliac.
--
mike weber (fairp...@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
No use looking for the answers when the questions are in doubt - Fred leBlanc, "The Love of My Life"
David Friedman
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2007 22:46:21 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Anticoagulants in blood are utterly undetectable -- unless they're
> >tested for. And in the scenario I described, how likely is it that
> >they'd bother to test for them?
>
> If the spilt blood hasn't clotted to at least some extent, someone's
> gonna get suspicious.
>
> And i doubt that anyone is gonna have a prescription for such a heavy
> dose of anticoagulants that he becomes a hemophiliac.
Turning to fictional possibilities ... . The obvious plot is one
involving a real murder, or attempted murder--of the fake murderer by
the fake victim. The murderer, having gotten himself convicted and
sentenced to death in order to prove a point, then confidently awaits
the victim's appearance, alive, in court.
And waits, and waits, and waits.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Marilee J. Layman <mar...@mjlayman.com> wrote:
>> Saturday. Little Theatre of Virginia Beach only performed Fridays &
>> Saturdays.
>
>So you did see the eclipse. It went right through that city.
I don't remember, actually.
Keith F. Lynch
> Turning to fictional possibilities .... The obvious plot is one
> involving a real murder, or attempted murder--of the fake murderer
> by the fake victim. The murderer, having gotten himself convicted
> and sentenced to death in order to prove a point, then confidently
> awaits the victim's appearance, alive, in court.
> And waits, and waits, and waits.
Nasty. And as best as I can determine, perfectly legal, and not
technically a murder at all.
Obviously, the fake killer and the fake victim have to have total
trust in one another.
Keith F. Lynch
> If the spilt blood hasn't clotted to at least some extent, someone's
> gonna get suspicious.
> And i doubt that anyone is gonna have a prescription for such a
> heavy dose of anticoagulants that he becomes a hemophiliac.
As I said, it can be made to look like a failed attempt at posioning.
A common rat poison has that effect.
Alternatively, some anticoagulants only work over a certain range of
pH. Change the pH (using something not likely to be tested for), and
the blood will promptly clot.
mike weber
wrote:
>mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If the spilt blood hasn't clotted to at least some extent, someone's
>> gonna get suspicious.
>
>> And i doubt that anyone is gonna have a prescription for such a
>> heavy dose of anticoagulants that he becomes a hemophiliac.
>
>As I said, it can be made to look like a failed attempt at posioning.
>A common rat poison has that effect.
>
>Alternatively, some anticoagulants only work over a certain range of
>pH. Change the pH (using something not likely to be tested for), and
>the blood will promptly clot.
Well, yeah, but "he was poisoned with warfarin and then he was stabbed
and bled all over the place" starts to look like a bad day on the
Orient Express.
Kevrob
> On 12 Mar 2007 21:21:26 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> If the spilt blood hasn't clotted to at least some extent, someone's
> >> gonna get suspicious.
>
> >> And i doubt that anyone is gonna have a prescription for such a
> >> heavy dose of anticoagulants that he becomes a hemophiliac.
>
> >As I said, it can be made to look like a failed attempt at posioning.
> >A common rat poison has that effect.
>
> >Alternatively, some anticoagulants only work over a certain range of
> >pH. Change the pH (using something not likely to be tested for), and
> >the blood will promptly clot.
>
> Well, yeah, but "he was poisoned with warfarin and then he was stabbed
> and bled all over the place" starts to look like a bad day on the
> Orient Express.
>
> --
>
There's a murder case being tried now in Wisconsin. The accused was
released from prison after being convicted of a totally different
crime. After his exoneration, he received a heavy settlement.
Sometime after, a woman went missing on his property, and blood
evidence tied the former ex-felon to her murder. The defense is
trying to argue that the blood was planted by the local sheriff's
office, which had access to his blood sample from his previous trial.
The police/crime labs lost track of at least some of that old sample.
Dueling experts wrangled about whether the testing for a chemical
present in stored blood (EDTA) was accurate, or not. More than I care
to read @ :
http://www.jsonline.com/index/index.aspx?id=101
The defense theory is that the local LEOs, annoyed at having been
proven wrong in their earlier investigation, and the municipality
having had to write a check to someone generally considered a dirtbag,
framed the guy. Presumably, this could have been done, though I have
no opinion on whether it the totality of the evidence allows that
conclusion.
Kevin
Keith F. Lynch
> mike weber <fairport...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, yeah, but "he was poisoned with warfarin and then he was
>> stabbed and bled all over the place" starts to look like a bad day
>> on the Orient Express.
I'm open to suggestions on better ways to fake a murder.
> There's a murder case being tried now in Wisconsin. The accused was
> released from prison after being convicted of a totally different
> crime. After his exoneration, he received a heavy settlement.
I'm familiar with the case. It's interesting that of the hundreds of
exonerees, as far as I know he's the only one to have been charged
with another felony. This is strong evidence that the idea that
people who are falsely convicted of a serious crime were probably
guilty of other equally serious crimes is completely bogus.
Kevrob
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > There's a murder case being tried now in Wisconsin. The accused was
> > released from prison after being convicted of a totally different
> > crime. After his exoneration, he received a heavy settlement.
>
> I'm familiar with the case. It's interesting that of the hundreds of
> exonerees, as far as I know he's the only one to have been charged
> with another felony. This is strong evidence that the idea that
> people who are falsely convicted of a serious crime were probably
> guilty of other equally serious crimes is completely bogus.
> --
>
>
The "he probably deserved to be in the jug for something else"
rationalization sucks because it is essentially unproveable. Yes, an
otherwise "not guilty" guy may be the answer to some cold case or
another, but unless law enforcement has at least enough evidence to
charge, how would we ever know? On the other hand, some of the Death
Row exonerees have spent so much time in prison before release that
they have "aged out" of the typical criminal years, and may even be
too old or sick to be a threat to anyone, even if they would have
continued to be hellions had their charges been dismisssed soon after
their arrests.
What really stinks is that the fellow whose DNA is linked to the 1985
assault is someone police had recently arrested on a sexual offense,
but never considered a suspect. They let him get away, and he is now
serving a 60-year sentence for sexual assault in Massachusetts.
Better police work might have prevented that second crime, and - who
knows? - without having to spend 17 years in state prison, the fellow
who they did convict in WI might have straightened himself out.
Kevin
Keith F. Lynch
> The "he probably deserved to be in the jug for something else"
> rationalization sucks because it is essentially unproveable.
Unless they arrange the laws so that everyone is automatically guilty
of something. Christians claim God's system works that way, and
that one's only hope is to apply for a pardon from the universe's
Chief Executive.
> On the other hand, some of the Death Row exonerees have spent so
> much time in prison before release that they have "aged out" of the
> typical criminal years, and may even be too old or sick to be a
> threat to anyone, even if they would have continued to be hellions
> had their charges been dismisssed soon after their arrests.
Some, maybe, but most exonerees served anywhere from one to ten years,
with a tail out to twenty. Hardly any served thirty or more. So
their very low crime rate is strong evidence that they've always been
law abiding. (I suppose one could argue that prison reformed them,
but the evidence against prison reforming anyone is so strong that
even prison advocates no longer make that claim.)
> What really stinks is that the fellow whose DNA is linked to the
> 1985 assault is someone police had recently arrested on a sexual
> offense, but never considered a suspect. They let him get away,
> and he is now serving a 60-year sentence for sexual assault in
> Massachusetts. Better police work might have prevented that second
> crime, and - who knows? - without having to spend 17 years in
> state prison, the fellow who they did convict in WI might have
> straightened himself out.
That's a common theme in false convictions. The actual culprit goes
on to commit more crimes.
When Randall Dale Adams was tried, and David Ray Harris, the real
killer, claimed that Adams was the killer, and got all the charges
against him (Harris) dropped, Adams' attorney predicted that Harris
would go on to kill again. He was right. Harris was eventually
executed for a later murder.
Harris's jury was especially impressed when he argued that it was the
victim's fault for trying to stop him from raping his (the murder
victim's) girlfriend.
Kevrob
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > The "he probably deserved to be in the jug for something else"
> > rationalization sucks because it is essentially unproveable.
>
>
> > What really stinks is that the fellow whose DNA is linked to the
> > 1985 assault is someone police had recently arrested on a sexual
> > offense, but never considered a suspect. They let him get away,
> > and he is now serving a 60-year sentence for sexual assault in
> > Massachusetts. Better police work might have prevented that second
> > crime, and - who knows? - without having to spend 17 years in
> > state prison, the fellow who they did convict in WI might have
> > straightened himself out.
>
> That's a common theme in false convictions. The actual culprit goes
> on to commit more crimes.
>
The verdict in the Avery case came in this evening. Guilty on 1 count
each of murder and weapons possession by a felon.
Kevin