Monthly Archives: January 2007

An Out Of Control Prosecutor

Legal, Police Watch

Many of my fellow contributors have written about the abuses of police departments in various parts of the country, but the Duke University Lacrosse case highlights another problem in our legal system, the out of control prosecutor:

RALEIGH, N.C. — The state bar has added ethics charges to a complaint filed against the prosecutor who brought sexual assault charges against three Duke lacrosse players, accusing him of withholding DNA evidence and misleading the court.

The new charges by the North Carolina State Bar against Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong were announced Wednesday and could lead to his removal from the state bar, according to a copy of the updated complaint.

Nifong’s office arranged for a private lab to conduct DNA testing as part of the investigation into allegations three men raped a 28-year-old woman hired to perform as a stripper at a party thrown by the lacrosse team last March.

Those tests uncovered genetic material from several men on the woman’s underwear and body, but none from any lacrosse player. The bar complaint alleges those results weren’t released to defense lawyers in a timely fashion and that Nifong repeatedly said in court he had turned over all evidence that would potentially benefit the defense.

In other words, Nifong had in his hands evidence that pretty much excluded then men he was prosecuting for rape from even having had sexual intercourse with the accuser. And he choose to not only not release them to the defense as required by law, but to lie about it to a Judge.

And it’s even worse than that, because Nifong apparently had exculpatory evidence in hand before he even filed charges:

[A]ccording to the bar complaint, testing conducted at DNA Security Inc. had concluded by April 10 that none of the samples provided to police by 46 lacrosse players matched any material recovered from the accuser’s “rape kit.” A week later, Nifong charged Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann with rape.

If these allegations are true, then Nifong should most certainly be disbarred. Whether there remain grounds after that for criminal prosecution or civil liability is uncertain. In either case, though, it’s clear that an out of control prosecutor can be as much a danger to civil liberties as a cop with an itchy trigger finger.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

A Crime That Can’t Be Defined

Individual Rights, Police Watch

It seems that police in Atlanta, Georgia have been arresting a lot of people for violating a law that gives them an extraordinary degree of discretion:

Adrienne Carmichael didn’t understand how little it could take for her 17-year-old son to land in jail on a disorderly conduct charge.

“I thought [disorderly conduct] was if you got out of control with an officer,” she says.

But a broadly worded category of the crime – known as “DC-6” – has emerged as a heated controversy in some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods, because it appears to allow police to arrest people simply for hanging out. Residents claim the charge amounts to an excuse for harassment.

DC-6 is the most frequent non-traffic offense cited by Atlanta police. As of Dec. 18, 7,551 DC-6 arrests — about 22 a day — were made in 2006, outpacing criminal trespass at 5,407 and drinking in public at 4,621.

What, you might logically ask, is DC-6 and how can the citizens of Atlanta be sure they aren’t violating it ?

Well, that’s an interesting question:

According to the DC-6 ordinance: “It shall be unlawful for any person [to] … be in or about any place where gaming or the illegal sale or possession of alcoholic beverages or narcotics or dangerous drugs is practiced, allowed or tolerated[.]”

What that means, essentially, is that a person can be arrested simply for being in what police designate as a “known drug area” — even if he or she just walks down the street or chats with a neighbor. That’s problematic, says American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Gerry Weber, because the law is so ambiguous that it invites discriminatory enforcement and therefore may be unconstitutional.

“It’s one of those catch-all laws that police use when they can’t think of any other charge,” Weber says. “It’s a street-clearing device.”

(…)

A police employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, says there’s no official list within the city that would designate a location as a hot spot for illegal activity. Instead, the employee says, identifying known drug areas is “all up to the officer’s discretion.”

And that is precisely the problem. If a criminal statute is so broad that it allows an officer to essentially define a violation by what he sees in front of his or her eyes, there is no way that it can be reconciled with the idea that state has to have probable cause that a crime has been committed before it can even take someone into custody. The next step for someone who has been taken into custody for commiting a crime should be to contact a criminal defense lawyer who can best present your defense so you have a better chance of being found not guilty. Note that not all decisions may go your way, but by contacting the best lawyers in your area can give you the best chance possible.

H/T: Dvorak Uncensored

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

The Case Against Forced Vaccination

Government Regulation, Individual Rights

In Wednesday’s Washington Post, Courtland Milloy responds to readers who have criticized his stand against forcing parents to immunize their pre-teen daughters against the human papillomavirus (HPV):

Let’s get something straight: I am not against a vaccine that prevents strains of the human papillomavirus, as some readers have contended. According to the American Sexual Health Organization (ASHA), nearly 80 percent of sexually active adults have been or will be infected with human papillomavirus. While for men, it generally just goes away on it’s own, HPV in women is another matter entirely as certain types can result in cervical cancer. Why I would be for cervical cancer? I certainly am not. However, as my previous column on this subject indicated, I am opposed to the government mandating the vaccine. I say leave the role of strong-arm drug pusher to the thugs on the street.

There is no reason that a voluntary program, based on an informed and sensitive health education campaign, would not work. New Hampshire, consistently one of the nation’s healthiest states, has a voluntary HPV vaccine program, with plans to vaccinate 63,000 girls ages 11 to 18 over the next four years.

Instead of forcing parents to vaccinate their children, New Hampshire health officials engage in a widespread education program directed at doctors, nurses, and, ultimately, parents aimed at educating them on the reasons why the HPV vaccine might be a good idea for their daughters:

The New Hampshire approach encourages residents to take more responsibility for their lives. With the government acting as partner — instead of some antebellum massa — parents are encouraged to make choices that are in the best interest of their children. And guess what? They usually do.

So far this month, about 3,300 doses of the HPV vaccine have been made available to the girls in New Hampshire. State health officials say they are receiving feedback and determining where demand is greatest and how soon to order more vaccine. “We are at the beginning of the process, but from the anecdotal evidence, there appears to be a great demand from parents,” Moore said.

And, while one can argue that the state shouldn’t be involved in the health education process at all, at least you can say that, in New Hampshire, when a parent chooses to have their daughter vaccinated against HPV, it is a voluntary choice made on the basis of informed opinion rather than a choice made because the government told you that you had to do it. There is something to be said in favor of that approach.

Of course, some will argue that New Hampshire’s lessons don’t apply to urban areas like D.C., but Milloy points out how wrong they are:

So are New Hampshire residents somehow smarter and better able to develop effective public health programs? Are they more concerned about their children than the rest of us? Hardly. What they have that we do not is the right attitude. They take their state motto seriously: “Live Free or Die,” while too many of us are content to live and die as slaves.

You’ve gotta love New Hampshire.

Related Posts:

Should The Government Force You To Vaccinate Your Children ?
More Thoughts On Forced Vaccination

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

State Of The Union: A Reaction

Economics, Politics

It’s been a few years since I’ve actually taken anything any President says in a State of the Union address seriously. Nonetheless, there are a few things that President Bush said tonight that I have to question:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Faced with a widely unpopular war in Iraq and a Democratic Congress, President Bush in his State of the Union address urged lawmakers to work with him to “achieve big things for the American people.”

(…)

The U.S. should reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent over 10 years, Bush said. His plan includes tightening fuel economy standards on automakers and producing 35 billion gallons of renewable fuel such as ethanol by 2017.

One official has said that would equal taking 26 million vehicles off U.S. roads.

“For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists — who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments…raise the price of oil … and do great harm to our economy,” Bush said.

Bush repeated his call for Congress to give him the power to set average fuel-economy standards for passenger cars.

Not one word, of course, about ending Federal regulation of the energy industry. Or allowing power companies to actually build a nuclear power plant for the first time in nearly 40 years. Instead, we get empty rhetoric about reducing dependence on “foreign oil” that fails to recognize the fact that the reason that American demand for oil and gasoline continues to grow is because the economy continues to grow. Even higher fuel prices create unseen benefits because they make the idea of alternative fuels that were unrealistic in the days of cheap oil and gas seem much more realistic.

On the whole, these are not bad things. The problem with the President’s proposals, as is usually the case with so-called energy policy, is that it starts with the assumption that Washington, not the market, is the proper place to decide America’s energy future. If the President truly wanted to end America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy, he’d eliminate government regulation of the entire field of energy production and let the market figure it out.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Another Reason To Homeschool

Education

Why? Because if you miss a parent-teacher conference, you’re guilty of a misdemeanor:

Sec. 26.014. FAILURE TO ATTEND PARENT-TEACHER CONFERENCE.
(a) A parent of a student commits an offense if:
(1) the parent receives written notice by certified mail of at least three proposed dates from which the parent can choose for scheduling a parent-teacher conference between the parent and the student’s teacher;
(2) the parent:
(A) fails to respond to the notice; or
(B) schedules a parent-teacher conference on one of the dates proposed in the notice or on an alternative date agreed to by the parent and teacher and fails to:
(i) attend the scheduled conference; or
(ii) before the scheduled conference, notify the teacher or an administrator of the campus to which the teacher is assigned that the parent will be unable to attend the conference;
…

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Yep. Skip a parent-teacher conference, and you’re headed to court!

Thankfully, there’s an exception for a “reasonable excuse”, although it’s not clear what’s “reasonable” or who decides. But hey, if Texas still had blue laws, maybe these parents would have better time management…

Ridiculous. If we had a free market in education, this would be simple. If you don’t make it to parent-teacher conferences, the private school your child is attending can threaten to expel, or threaten to issue its own fine, etc. But when the government is involved, you’re headed in front of a judge, buddy!

Hat Tip: Cato@Liberty

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/
1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 35