Author Archives: Stephen Littau

200 Innocent and Counting

Back in January I wrote a post about how our criminal justice system needs significant reform. A truly wonderful organization founded in 1992 called The Innocence Project is trying to bring about similar reforms I wrote about as well as a few others. Thanks in part to the efforts of The Innocence Project, 200 wrongfully convicted are now free. Of the 200 exonerated, 14 were on death row (This in itself is making me lean a lot more against the death penalty).

While the fact that these individuals have regained their freedom is very good news, this also raises a whole lot of other questions. For these 200 individuals, there is the question of “now what?” meaning, what are they going to do with the rest of their lives and how do they reintegrate into society? Some states offer the wrongfully convicted compensation for time served while others won’t even apologize. Another question raised is “how many more are doing time for crimes they did not commit?” It’s not hard to imagine that these 200 cases are representative of a much larger number. Perhaps even more important questions are “how does this happen in our system which promises liberty and justice for all?” and “how do we fix the system?”

To the last two questions, The Innocence Project has found some answers. The top seven reasons why these individuals were convicted: eyewitness misidentification, unreliable or limited science, false confessions, forensic science fraud or misconduct, government misconduct, bad informants or “snitches,” bad lawyering, or a combination of these causes. While challenging, all of these causes can be reexamined and be reformed with some imagination and common sense.

The Innocence Project has some proposed solutions to these problems such as reforming the methods for eyewitness identification, interrogation reforms such as recording interrogations, preserving DNA and other evidence even after convictions, crime lab oversight, criminal justice reform commissions, and perhaps most importantly, exoneree compensation. If we demand justice for both the victims and the accused, none of these reforms should be too much to ask.

Recommended Reading: 200 Exonerated: Too Many Wrongfully Convicted [pdf]

Not Even to Save the Life of the Mother

Today on The Sean Hannity Show, Republican presidential hopeful Sam Brownback cleared up his position on the abortion issue. Normally this is not an issue which I like to discuss because I believe there are so many more important issues and I believe that this issue has taken up way too much of the political debate over the past several decades. But what Sam Brownback said in response to one of Hannity’s questions stunned me.

Toward the end of the interview, Hannity asked Brownback if he believed there should be any legal exceptions for abortion such as rape, incest, or the life of the mother. These seem like reasonable exceptions even to the most pro-life (or anti-choice) proponents but not to Sam Brownback. Even Sean Hannity who is very pro-life and very Catholic seemed to be a little taken back by his response.

Brownback clearly stated that there should be absolutely no legal exceptions for abortion. He admitted such a situation would be tragic but also said that “it’s not the baby’s fault.”

This attitude of Brownback’s is completely indefensible. While I do not believe any woman who is a rape victim should be legally required to bring a pregnancy to term, there is still some room to debate whether or not having an abortion is moral. But to say that the government must require a woman to potentially sacrifice her own life for the sake of her baby is absolute violation of her liberty. No person should ever be required by law or expected to sacrifice his or her life or limb for the sake of another for any reason (I similarly am opposed to military drafts for the same reason). If a person is to sacrifice his or her own life, it should only be done voluntarily.

My question to Senator Sam Brownback and his fellow travelers: What is so “pro-life” about taking a woman’s right to life away?

NOTE: I have not been able to locate the trascript of the interview at this time. If I should come across it, I will add the direct quote to the body of this post.

Quotes to Ponder: Capitalism

Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: “No man should have so much.” The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: “All men should have as much.” -Phelps Adams

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. -Winston Churchill

Barney Frank: Libertarian Impersonator

When I think about lawmakers with libertarian leanings, Massachusetts’ Barney Frank (D) isn’t one that normally comes to mind. With the way Frank responded today in regard to the bill passed by the last G.O.P. controlled congress and assuming I knew nothing else about him, I would think him to be ideologically similar to Ron Paul (but I do know better and clearly he isn’t). Barney Frank does apparently have a bit of a libertarian streak, when it comes to internet gambling at least. Perhaps he would like to click here and play a game of bingo or two whilst he’s at it?

Here are a few of Frank’s statements he made today on the House floor:

“What kind of social, cultural authoritarianism are we practicing here? I think it is a great infringement on liberty. When it comes to an individual decision on how to spend your own time and money, that’s not my position. That’s not my business. I am skeptical of people who want to protect people from themselves.”

“[T]he fundamental point is this. If an adult in this country, with his or her own money, wants to engage in an activity that harms no one, how dare we prohibit it because it doesn’t add to the GDP or it has no macroeconomic benefit. Are we all to take home calculators and, until we have satisfied…that we are being socially useful, we abstain from recreational activities that we choose? This Congress is well on the way to getting it absolutely backwards. In areas where we need to act together to protect the quality of our life, in the environment, in transportation, in public safety, we abstain; but in those areas where individuals ought to be allowed to make their own choices, we intervene.”

“People have said, what is the value of gambling on sites like pussy888 918kissmalaysia.app? Here is the value. Some human beings enjoy doing it. For many, that is value enough. Shouldn’t that be our principle? If individuals like doing something like going online to play uudet nettikasinot or other games, and they harm no one, we will allow them to do it, even if other people disapprove of what they do.”

The very idea that adults should be trusted to make their own decisions provided they do not harm a non-consenting other adult…what a concept! If only he would apply this thinking to other such government interventions such as the war on (some) drugs, obscenity laws, prostitution, and blue laws.

One would think that the so-called party of limited government (don’t laugh, I’m referring to the Republican Party) would be on board with Barney Frank on this issue but sadly this is not the case. Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter, for example, wants to restrict gambling even further both online and offline. Frank’s position on this issue is currently unpopular in both political parties and his proposed legislation faces certain defeat.

It’s too bad that our elected officials have caved to pressures from moral busy-bodies of all stripes. I have never personally participated in online gambling through a site like judi online spbobet.com and the many others you can access through the internet, but what business is it of mine if my neighbor does? The answer is of course that it isn’t any of my business at all and certainly not the business of the federal government.

Defending Yourself

In the post I wrote last week, In Defense of Self-Defense, I lamented how our culture is changing from one which once saw moral justification in self-defense to one which values self-sacrifice. I also shared some of my in-expert opinions on how the students and faculty at Virginia Tech might have protected themselves from becoming victims of a crazed gunman.

I have since found a Slate article, Fight or Flight at Virginia Tech: What Should You Do When Confronted with a Gun-wielding Madman? The article’s author consulted with self-defense experts Richard Kobetz of Executive Protection Institute and John Whitman of Krav Maga Worldwide. The most obvious thing you should do, as the article points out, is to run (ideally in a zigzag pattern) or find an escape. Short of escaping, you might have to fight back. As a public service to the readers of The Liberty Papers, here are a few excerpts on how you can fight back if you find yourself in this type of situation.

To disarm a gunman, you’ll need to take his focus off his weapon and his plan of attack. To do this, you might throw chairs, laptops, or fire extinguishers at him, or set off the sprinkler system or fire alarm. Then, you’d want to pick up a desk or some other shield and charge right at the killer. There’s a chance you’ll be killed in the process, but if two or three people rush at once, there’s also a chance that somebody will take him down. (Unarmed civilians who band together have a much better chance of surviving an attack.)

If you’re already within a step or two of the gunman, you might be able to grab his weapon. If he’s facing you, quickly reach up and take hold of the barrel, and then aim it away from your body. The move should be as clean and economical as possible. The gunman will reflexively pull the gun back away from you. Go with him: Keep gripping the gun and push your weight forward. Then, punch him in the face or the throat as hard as you can. Hit him on the nose, jab your fingers into his eyes, or strike him with the heel of your open palm. Then use your free hand to grab the nonbusiness end of the gun. With two hands on the gun, you can knee the killer in the groin or head-butt him. A better idea might be to twist your hands like they are revving a motorcycle engine. The weapon will pivot and break the gunman’s finger inside the trigger guard.

The article points out that the above strategy would have had to been modified in the case of the Virginia Tech massacre since the gunman had a gun in each hand. If this is the case, you should grab both hands while kicking until others can help you. I urge everyone to read the whole thing; taking this advice could possibly save your life.

Hat tip: Boortz

1 112 113 114 115 116 119