Showing posts with label "justice". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "justice". Show all posts
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Finally
They'll appeal, but the men tried for the murder of Stephen Lawrence have been found guilty. As I described here, this means a lot in ways in which I find it hard to express. Not closure, but some vague sense of justice. Vague being the operative word here, not justice, unfortunately.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Good Court, Bad Court
This week has seen two diametrically opposed dolings out of "justice" in courts in the USA.
In Massachusetts, Judge Tauro held that DOMA unconstitutionally interfered with a) the rights of married couples within Massachusetts, who were legally married under state law but unable to exert those rights federally (tax, etc.) because of DOMA's definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman (violating the due process clause); and b) Massachusetts' ability to implement its own laws (violating the Tenth Amendment). This is the initial victory that a lot of marriage equality advocates were hoping for, planning to build on slowly but surely in the style of the civil rights movement toward desegregation, rather than the big federal Prop 8 trial in California (a really interesting article about that here).
In L.A., however, something much worse happened. I don't know if you know about Oscar Grant. He was an African-American man who while being held down by the police, was shot in the back by a transit policeman on the BART - the train system in San Francisco. I watched the video shot by witnesses once - I don't ever need to see it again, but if you google it, you will find it. The police tried to take away the phones and cameras that shot the footage. What is chilling about this is that for this officer's "safety" and a fair verdict, the California authorities moved the trial from Oakland, where it should have happened, to L.A. L.A. where, apparently, there has not been a guilty for murder verdict in a police-shooting-a-civilian since 1983. 1983. Because that's "fair," you see. And, despite the fact that he reached on the wrong side for his taser - he in fact reached for his gun - somehow the jury bought it that it was involuntary manslaughter. Watch the video, and see what you think. But honestly, I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. That poor man, and his poor family. There aren't words, really, to describe how awful it is. And it's also hard not to come to conclusions about how justice depends on what colour you are.
In Massachusetts, Judge Tauro held that DOMA unconstitutionally interfered with a) the rights of married couples within Massachusetts, who were legally married under state law but unable to exert those rights federally (tax, etc.) because of DOMA's definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman (violating the due process clause); and b) Massachusetts' ability to implement its own laws (violating the Tenth Amendment). This is the initial victory that a lot of marriage equality advocates were hoping for, planning to build on slowly but surely in the style of the civil rights movement toward desegregation, rather than the big federal Prop 8 trial in California (a really interesting article about that here).
In L.A., however, something much worse happened. I don't know if you know about Oscar Grant. He was an African-American man who while being held down by the police, was shot in the back by a transit policeman on the BART - the train system in San Francisco. I watched the video shot by witnesses once - I don't ever need to see it again, but if you google it, you will find it. The police tried to take away the phones and cameras that shot the footage. What is chilling about this is that for this officer's "safety" and a fair verdict, the California authorities moved the trial from Oakland, where it should have happened, to L.A. L.A. where, apparently, there has not been a guilty for murder verdict in a police-shooting-a-civilian since 1983. 1983. Because that's "fair," you see. And, despite the fact that he reached on the wrong side for his taser - he in fact reached for his gun - somehow the jury bought it that it was involuntary manslaughter. Watch the video, and see what you think. But honestly, I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. That poor man, and his poor family. There aren't words, really, to describe how awful it is. And it's also hard not to come to conclusions about how justice depends on what colour you are.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Friday, May 15, 2009
But This Is Different...
There's been liberal handwringing at the President's refusal to intervene in the case of Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point-educated Officer (this seems to be important, it comes up in everything - like he wouldn't matter if he was a grunt who came through community college?) who is an Arabic language specialist who came out on the Rachel Maddow show a few weeks ago, and has been fired by the U.S. military. Jon Stewart's mini-takedown is below and, while I agree with his anger, I don't think the presentation (from the media in general) is entirely fair.
One thing I will say first: I think the Obama Administration is going about this wrong, I think they should be absolutely pushing for legislation to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And perhaps, as Feministing says, he could suspend investigations into sexuality (although that wouldn't have helped Choi, who came out on television -harder to ignore, perhaps). But my point is that in one sense Obama's right that it is not his place to do this - because it needs legislation. It's a LAW. It's not some stupid Executive Order (unlike those ridiculous healthcare provider conscience things that Bushy Boy pushed through and Obama revoked), it's a law that was passed by both chambers and signed by the President. The President, as we've heard everyone (rightly) argue about the torture laws, does not get to pick and choose which laws to obey. He doesn't get to write an Executive Order and somehow, magically, it's not the law anymore. He does need to stick his boot up the arses of Congress to work on this. No doubt. But he has a constitutional mandate to execute and take care the laws are obeyed.
Yes, this is awful and it's an absolutely ridiculous, damaging, dangerous and unsafe law, but when Bushy Boy and Cheney et al. were violating and ordering violations of the laws of war, of the UCMJ, of the Convention Against Torture, this was thrown against them constantly - you can't disobey the law. To willfully misquote Lincoln, it's not all the laws but one. Now that the disobedience is something liberals want, Obama is supposed to disobey separation of powers? I thought he won, at least in part, because he represented a return to order and to respectful adherence to the Constitution and the structural balancing of powers.
To repeat, again, he needs to throw his weight behind repeal of this. Their inaction is a disgrace. But make sure when you criticise him, it's for the right reasons.
One thing I will say first: I think the Obama Administration is going about this wrong, I think they should be absolutely pushing for legislation to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And perhaps, as Feministing says, he could suspend investigations into sexuality (although that wouldn't have helped Choi, who came out on television -harder to ignore, perhaps). But my point is that in one sense Obama's right that it is not his place to do this - because it needs legislation. It's a LAW. It's not some stupid Executive Order (unlike those ridiculous healthcare provider conscience things that Bushy Boy pushed through and Obama revoked), it's a law that was passed by both chambers and signed by the President. The President, as we've heard everyone (rightly) argue about the torture laws, does not get to pick and choose which laws to obey. He doesn't get to write an Executive Order and somehow, magically, it's not the law anymore. He does need to stick his boot up the arses of Congress to work on this. No doubt. But he has a constitutional mandate to execute and take care the laws are obeyed.
Yes, this is awful and it's an absolutely ridiculous, damaging, dangerous and unsafe law, but when Bushy Boy and Cheney et al. were violating and ordering violations of the laws of war, of the UCMJ, of the Convention Against Torture, this was thrown against them constantly - you can't disobey the law. To willfully misquote Lincoln, it's not all the laws but one. Now that the disobedience is something liberals want, Obama is supposed to disobey separation of powers? I thought he won, at least in part, because he represented a return to order and to respectful adherence to the Constitution and the structural balancing of powers.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Moral Kombat | ||||
| ||||
To repeat, again, he needs to throw his weight behind repeal of this. Their inaction is a disgrace. But make sure when you criticise him, it's for the right reasons.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A Touch of Evil
Yesterday, Dick Cheney appeared on The News Hour on PBS to talk about his legacy.
I thought it would make me furious, livid, any synonym for irate you can conceive. I really wasn't sure I'd make it through it all. I listened to it via podcast today. I was hoping it would fire me up for my squash match. Yet it just made me want to cry. It was revolting. The nadir for me, at least, was the part in which he justified the torture, as defined by Susan Crawford, the official in charge of prosecutions at Guantánamo, in part because all the individual techniques were authorised. He couldn't know exactly how they were all being implemented, but they were authorised, so he's in the clear. Yes, they were, by a legally faulty and morally bankrupt memorandum that the Office of Legal Counsel wrote to justify torture. A memorandum that featured so many errors the subsequent head of OLC had to revoke it, something that almost never happens to OLC memos.
It didn't make me angry, just sick to my stomach.
I thought it would make me furious, livid, any synonym for irate you can conceive. I really wasn't sure I'd make it through it all. I listened to it via podcast today. I was hoping it would fire me up for my squash match. Yet it just made me want to cry. It was revolting. The nadir for me, at least, was the part in which he justified the torture, as defined by Susan Crawford, the official in charge of prosecutions at Guantánamo, in part because all the individual techniques were authorised. He couldn't know exactly how they were all being implemented, but they were authorised, so he's in the clear. Yes, they were, by a legally faulty and morally bankrupt memorandum that the Office of Legal Counsel wrote to justify torture. A memorandum that featured so many errors the subsequent head of OLC had to revoke it, something that almost never happens to OLC memos.
It didn't make me angry, just sick to my stomach.
Friday, August 08, 2008
The ICTR - 8 August*
We woke bright and early for a good breakfast before heading down to the ICTR for the day. Again, a good breakfast, which was pretty necessary for an intense day. We arrived and sat at the wrong gate for about twenty minutes, before TC realised and we headed to the VIP gate. Oh yes, indeed, the VIP gate. Turns out we were to go on the tour / Q&A session with a group of students from the University of Nairobi, and they turned up about twenty minutes after us - just enough time for TC and I to write down the titles of several important but depressing books we wanted to read. The library at the ICTR is not catalogued along the normal lines of a law library, but based on the special needs of the workers at the ICTR. I had been shamed by the guy sitting next to me on the flight to Nairobi who was off to Kigali to look for sustainable engineering projects for his university to share in, and reading the Romeo Dallaire book that I keep meaning to read but cannot face, having read extracts from it in the week of the tenth anniversary of the start of the genocide (I think in the guardian). So I think I overcompensated when going through the collection in the library in Arusha. Still, necessary.
We had a talk from the very sweet librarian, and then had a look around a courtroom. Stupidly, we had arranged to go when the court is not in session - that starts again on the 18th, when my professor will also be there, so it was annoying timing. Therefore, we watched a fairly out of date video, and had a Q&A with someone - who had to fill in at the last minute.
That was... difficult. After a brief talk about the ICTR, the floor was open to us and the Kenyan students - doing their masters in Conflict Management / International Studies were extremely hostile to the ICTR. Extremely. It was so interesting. They cited the money (the expenditure could have built roads in all of East Africa, said one, which I think is probably true!), that it was a way to assuage the guilt of the international community who stood by and did nothing to prevent the genocide (I think that's almost certainly true). It certainly is not a deterrent - Sudan is clearly an example of that. The prisoners get to choose their own meals - many Rwandese cannot say that. Conjugal visits also stirred up some anger - and the SUVs in the car park, the number of non-Africans (although, as the ICTR guy pointed out - the guy who's probably been there the longest and so made the most money is a Tanzanian judge).
But the major problem - the lack of justice for Rwandese. I didn't realise that although there is a mandate for outreach, the UN provides no direct budget for it. That's appalling, if true. Further, during the time it has taken for the trials of around 40 men (and one woman), there have been 5,000 Rwandese trials of the perpetrators. That shocked everyone - and there was a real sense of imperialism, that the white folks of the UN were coming in to tell the Rwandese they were incapable of delivering their own justice.
There... it's hard to argue against it, but as a (would-be) lawyer, I do believe there are differences in the people they're trying at the ICTR. The ground-breaking nature of the Nahimina case - the media ones, where the radio and newspaper owners were put on trial - plus the trying of heads of state - these have profoundly changed legal concepts: of civil liberties (particularly the US-centric view that free speech, including freedom of the press is the most important thing in the world), of sovereign immunity for civil leaders. Things are fundamentally different now because of them. At least legally. But it did make me think that it would have been worth investing in infrastructure to make it happen in Rwanda. Or transfer it once the country was getting back on its feet. Particularly with their real attempts to overhaul the constitution, increase female participation in politics, and change the structure and unity of their country.
Essentially, Friday completely undermined and refined my views of what I saw rather simplistically and legally.
The rest of the afternoon was rather different. A meal in town (awesome chapatis at the Jambo Coffee Shop, with fabulous arabic coke cans - plus, Jambo is my favourite favourite swahili word), then a wander around trying to find the bus office to buy tickets for the trip to Dar. That was... hairier than I'd like. Arusha is full of guys who know someone and know better than you what you want to do, and how much you ought to pay for it. This involved some grabbing of our arms, with that guy following us for ten minutes to the bus ticket office, and shouting at us when we left for "lying" to him. That was... unpleasant. Also, our lonely planet guide is out of date, the map for Arusha is pretty poor, and the office had moved, so we had to ask repeatedly where to go and felt pretty lost. Of course, if we'd gone in a taxi, we'd have been ok, but that seems pretty wussy, and we're still in a fairly independent state of mind.
Nonetheless, we were fine, basically, and got back in one piece, despite some guy using my camera I thought to look at pictures but I realised that he was using it to zoom in on TC's arse. He seemed to like it, but it was a tad sleazy... Still, we'd learned how to say "two waters" in Swahili, which is an improvement on the zero words we had. Then it was beers, pizza, and a far too late night considering that we had to get up at 4.45 to ensure we got the bus in time the next morning... ugh. And more on that journey in the next post...
We had a talk from the very sweet librarian, and then had a look around a courtroom. Stupidly, we had arranged to go when the court is not in session - that starts again on the 18th, when my professor will also be there, so it was annoying timing. Therefore, we watched a fairly out of date video, and had a Q&A with someone - who had to fill in at the last minute.
That was... difficult. After a brief talk about the ICTR, the floor was open to us and the Kenyan students - doing their masters in Conflict Management / International Studies were extremely hostile to the ICTR. Extremely. It was so interesting. They cited the money (the expenditure could have built roads in all of East Africa, said one, which I think is probably true!), that it was a way to assuage the guilt of the international community who stood by and did nothing to prevent the genocide (I think that's almost certainly true). It certainly is not a deterrent - Sudan is clearly an example of that. The prisoners get to choose their own meals - many Rwandese cannot say that. Conjugal visits also stirred up some anger - and the SUVs in the car park, the number of non-Africans (although, as the ICTR guy pointed out - the guy who's probably been there the longest and so made the most money is a Tanzanian judge).
But the major problem - the lack of justice for Rwandese. I didn't realise that although there is a mandate for outreach, the UN provides no direct budget for it. That's appalling, if true. Further, during the time it has taken for the trials of around 40 men (and one woman), there have been 5,000 Rwandese trials of the perpetrators. That shocked everyone - and there was a real sense of imperialism, that the white folks of the UN were coming in to tell the Rwandese they were incapable of delivering their own justice.
There... it's hard to argue against it, but as a (would-be) lawyer, I do believe there are differences in the people they're trying at the ICTR. The ground-breaking nature of the Nahimina case - the media ones, where the radio and newspaper owners were put on trial - plus the trying of heads of state - these have profoundly changed legal concepts: of civil liberties (particularly the US-centric view that free speech, including freedom of the press is the most important thing in the world), of sovereign immunity for civil leaders. Things are fundamentally different now because of them. At least legally. But it did make me think that it would have been worth investing in infrastructure to make it happen in Rwanda. Or transfer it once the country was getting back on its feet. Particularly with their real attempts to overhaul the constitution, increase female participation in politics, and change the structure and unity of their country.
Essentially, Friday completely undermined and refined my views of what I saw rather simplistically and legally.
The rest of the afternoon was rather different. A meal in town (awesome chapatis at the Jambo Coffee Shop, with fabulous arabic coke cans - plus, Jambo is my favourite favourite swahili word), then a wander around trying to find the bus office to buy tickets for the trip to Dar. That was... hairier than I'd like. Arusha is full of guys who know someone and know better than you what you want to do, and how much you ought to pay for it. This involved some grabbing of our arms, with that guy following us for ten minutes to the bus ticket office, and shouting at us when we left for "lying" to him. That was... unpleasant. Also, our lonely planet guide is out of date, the map for Arusha is pretty poor, and the office had moved, so we had to ask repeatedly where to go and felt pretty lost. Of course, if we'd gone in a taxi, we'd have been ok, but that seems pretty wussy, and we're still in a fairly independent state of mind.
Nonetheless, we were fine, basically, and got back in one piece, despite some guy using my camera I thought to look at pictures but I realised that he was using it to zoom in on TC's arse. He seemed to like it, but it was a tad sleazy... Still, we'd learned how to say "two waters" in Swahili, which is an improvement on the zero words we had. Then it was beers, pizza, and a far too late night considering that we had to get up at 4.45 to ensure we got the bus in time the next morning... ugh. And more on that journey in the next post...
*Weird how being back where British English is predominantly spoken so quickly changes my thought processes, including how I think of dates. .
Thursday, May 01, 2008
M'aidez!
New month, same old anger. This time, it's directed at Oklahoma. A new law means that all women seeking abortions are required to have an ultrasound against their will, and against their doctor's will. Those ultrasounds include vaginal. That's right ladies, the surgical procedures that you can be forced to have against your will are caesarians, and an ultrasound probe stuck up your cooch. Charming. Charming.
Which is why our reliance on the Supreme Court to do the right thing is even more sad. And why this Boston Legal clip is even sadder... because it's just never going to happen.
Which is why our reliance on the Supreme Court to do the right thing is even more sad. And why this Boston Legal clip is even sadder... because it's just never going to happen.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Watersports
SPOILER ALERT: Of my very few readers, I know one hasn't read To Kill a Mockingbird and I also know he plans to read it soon. So, sweetheart, maybe you should skip this first paragraph. Other SPOILER: this is self-righteousness incarnate, so mum, please ignore the tone!
I've just finished re-reading To Kill a Mockingbird. There, the vague moral victory in the court case is that Atticus makes them doubt that a guilty plea is right. This is Alabama, in the 1930s, all too believable.
Therefore, this makes a Mississippi Supreme Court's decision in 1922 seem even more remarkable, particularly in light of Attorney General Mukasey's all too predictable sanction of waterboarding techniques. Why on earth anyone thought he'd be different from Gonzales, I really don't know. Oh, yes he is different - he doesn't come across as quite so slimy.
A (nerdy, clearly) law type has uncovered White v. State, which was a case whereby a young black man confessed to the murder of a white shopowner. Only problem - he was tortured. Well, not if you're Michael Mukasey, but yes if you're the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Just think about it - 1922, a Mississippi court orders a retrial because the confession of a black man was obtained under torture by white men. Having just seen the Kara Walker exhibition at the Whitney, I understand a little more deeply (although confusedly, it must be said) the swirling, depthless hatred and misunderstanding and misery of relationships between white and black throughout American history. Nonetheless, despite that, the Court was able to distinguish between what was right and wrong in this instance. I'll give you a few excerpts (emphases are all mine):
And I'll leave you with my favourite sentence from the judgment:
I've just finished re-reading To Kill a Mockingbird. There, the vague moral victory in the court case is that Atticus makes them doubt that a guilty plea is right. This is Alabama, in the 1930s, all too believable.
Therefore, this makes a Mississippi Supreme Court's decision in 1922 seem even more remarkable, particularly in light of Attorney General Mukasey's all too predictable sanction of waterboarding techniques. Why on earth anyone thought he'd be different from Gonzales, I really don't know. Oh, yes he is different - he doesn't come across as quite so slimy.
A (nerdy, clearly) law type has uncovered White v. State, which was a case whereby a young black man confessed to the murder of a white shopowner. Only problem - he was tortured. Well, not if you're Michael Mukasey, but yes if you're the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Just think about it - 1922, a Mississippi court orders a retrial because the confession of a black man was obtained under torture by white men. Having just seen the Kara Walker exhibition at the Whitney, I understand a little more deeply (although confusedly, it must be said) the swirling, depthless hatred and misunderstanding and misery of relationships between white and black throughout American history. Nonetheless, despite that, the Court was able to distinguish between what was right and wrong in this instance. I'll give you a few excerpts (emphases are all mine):
the hands of appellant were tied behind him, he was laid upon the floor upon his back, and, while some of the men stood upon his feet, Gilbert, a very heavy man, stood with one foot entirely upon appellant's breast, and the other foot entirely upon his neck. While in that position what is described as the “water cure” was administered to him in an effort to extort a confession as to where the money was hidden which was supposed to have been taken from the dead man. The “water cure” appears to have consisted of pouring water from a dipper into the nose of appellant, so as to strangle him, thus causing pain and horror, for the purpose of forcing a confession. Under these barbarous circumstances the appellant readily confessed that he knew where the money was, and told them that it was out at the “dredge ditch.” They then took the appellant to the dredge ditch to find the money, but there was no money found there or anywhere else so far as this record shows.So in a nutshell: they tortured him AND it failed to provide the required information.
And I'll leave you with my favourite sentence from the judgment:
Confessions induced by fear, though not aroused by spoken threats, are nevertheless involuntary, because the fear which takes away, the freedom may arise solely from the conditions and circumstances surrounding the confessor.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Lashings
So, say you're walking down the road, you're bundled into a car, at which point you are held down and gang-raped fourteen times.
If you're in a country where the hudood or hudad is law, as Pakistan was, you'd be bloody lucky to get a conviction, given that as a woman you require four male adults to testify to witnessing the rape; while a gang rape may have those four male witnesses, they're also probably the perpetrators.
Therefore, that there was a conviction - particularly coming as I do from a country where the rape conviction rates currently stands at 5% - was a good thing. That the rapists were only given five years - pretty disgusting but there you go. It's still a good result, right?
Oh, but what you didn't bargain for, maybe, is that you - the victim who was raped just the FOURTEEN TIMES - will receive lashings and a jail sentence for having been in a car with a man to whom you were not related, either by blood or marriage. Yet that is exactly what happened to this woman in Saudi Arabia. Originally she only had the lashings - she was given the jail sentence (and a doubling of lashings, just for extra spice) as punishment for trying to "manipulate" the judges. Now, I don't know the circumstances of this case; maybe she wasn't grabbed and forced into the car, maybe she got in of her own free will. Yet somehow the judges felt the need to punish her beyond the trauma and misery that came with the rape.
"Gah" seems inadequate. But what isn't in this situation?
If you're in a country where the hudood or hudad is law, as Pakistan was, you'd be bloody lucky to get a conviction, given that as a woman you require four male adults to testify to witnessing the rape; while a gang rape may have those four male witnesses, they're also probably the perpetrators.
Therefore, that there was a conviction - particularly coming as I do from a country where the rape conviction rates currently stands at 5% - was a good thing. That the rapists were only given five years - pretty disgusting but there you go. It's still a good result, right?
Oh, but what you didn't bargain for, maybe, is that you - the victim who was raped just the FOURTEEN TIMES - will receive lashings and a jail sentence for having been in a car with a man to whom you were not related, either by blood or marriage. Yet that is exactly what happened to this woman in Saudi Arabia. Originally she only had the lashings - she was given the jail sentence (and a doubling of lashings, just for extra spice) as punishment for trying to "manipulate" the judges. Now, I don't know the circumstances of this case; maybe she wasn't grabbed and forced into the car, maybe she got in of her own free will. Yet somehow the judges felt the need to punish her beyond the trauma and misery that came with the rape.
"Gah" seems inadequate. But what isn't in this situation?
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Shoot 'Em Up
This week I have used my powers, such as they are, for good. No, really.
For those who are not familiar with the evils of law citations, last year I spent a great deal of time in the library doing something known as bluebooking. You check people's cites, make sure the content is accurate, and that it follows the right format. There are many, many, many rules. It sucked the life out of me last year, but undoubtedly helped me get a job, so, you know, not too many grumbles.
It also came in handy when I helped citecheck an amicus brief for a Supreme Court case. No, seriously. My red scribblings on a piece of paper have formatted and checked a Supreme Court brief for content. Ulp. ULP. The case is going to be argued very soon, this term, and supports petitioners' contentions that the three-injection method of execution is cruel & unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. This is based on a lot of scholarship of a prof at my school, whose latest article (The Lethal Injection Quandary: How Medicine Dismantled the Death Penalty) is briefed here and is excellent. It really does explain the utter lack of research or reason behind the lethal injection - except that it makes people feel more comfortable about the death penalty. Another prof had an interesting take on this yesterday, arguing that if society is going to have a death penalty, it shouldn't hide behind ideas of humaneness and false reassurances that the person doesn't suffer or this isn't a violent taking of life. Instead, use a firing squad. Of course, having read that brief I could have told him that both Idaho and Utah actually do have firing squad options. Seriously.
While I see where he's coming from, I like this continual undermining of excuses and reasons for certain methods of the death penalty - I'm hopeful, although not too much, that it will eventually be undermined entirely. It's not soon enough, obviously, but it may bring about a sea change in what people view as acceptable punishment.
For those who are not familiar with the evils of law citations, last year I spent a great deal of time in the library doing something known as bluebooking. You check people's cites, make sure the content is accurate, and that it follows the right format. There are many, many, many rules. It sucked the life out of me last year, but undoubtedly helped me get a job, so, you know, not too many grumbles.
It also came in handy when I helped citecheck an amicus brief for a Supreme Court case. No, seriously. My red scribblings on a piece of paper have formatted and checked a Supreme Court brief for content. Ulp. ULP. The case is going to be argued very soon, this term, and supports petitioners' contentions that the three-injection method of execution is cruel & unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. This is based on a lot of scholarship of a prof at my school, whose latest article (The Lethal Injection Quandary: How Medicine Dismantled the Death Penalty) is briefed here and is excellent. It really does explain the utter lack of research or reason behind the lethal injection - except that it makes people feel more comfortable about the death penalty. Another prof had an interesting take on this yesterday, arguing that if society is going to have a death penalty, it shouldn't hide behind ideas of humaneness and false reassurances that the person doesn't suffer or this isn't a violent taking of life. Instead, use a firing squad. Of course, having read that brief I could have told him that both Idaho and Utah actually do have firing squad options. Seriously.
While I see where he's coming from, I like this continual undermining of excuses and reasons for certain methods of the death penalty - I'm hopeful, although not too much, that it will eventually be undermined entirely. It's not soon enough, obviously, but it may bring about a sea change in what people view as acceptable punishment.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Read It and Weep
There are no words to describe how angry I am right now, having read this. However, it fits in beautifully with the book I started last night, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex. The problems with forcibly piercing your thirteen-year-old daughter to stop her having sex with your OWN THIRTY YEAR OLD BOYFRIEND? It's distressing enough, but jurors agreed this wasn't child abuse. Do you think these are the same jurors who would convict someone for forced FGM? How is this different? Oh, yes, those FGM folks are Muslim and brown. That must be the only difference, because it seems bloody similar to me.
Kitten war. I need kitten war.
Kitten war. I need kitten war.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Courting Disaster
I went to court today on a pro bono case. Obviously, the details are not for public consumption.
However, I will again share my thoughts on what a terrifying experience it is. As a basically law-abiding citizen* I am petrified by going to court.
Of course, these things are correlated but perhaps in different ways. Either it's a genuinely terrifying thing, and hence I'm scared, despite my good behaviour; or, alternatively, I am a good citizen because I'm terrified in the first place.
Having read the horrific NY Times series on New York judges,** and having taken the most wonderful Anti-Discrimination Law class, I can see that some people, and particularly some groups of people, are disengaged and disconnected from the system because it does not take their concerns, worries and lives seriously enough. I honestly believe that's true. Which is sad, because I think that being a judge - other than time management and having to be very careful about the people you choose to have around you - would be an extraordinarily interesting post in which you could really make a positive difference in someone's life.
DISCLAIMER: The judge this morning was sharp and smart; there are some good ones out there, definitely. However, what worries me is the appointment system and the abuse of power that does take place.
* I have been known to jaywalk, not present my ID when in drinking establishments, and surreptitiously sneak a beer in the open air.
** If you have Times Select and fancy a scary bedtime story, I suggest you find it.
However, I will again share my thoughts on what a terrifying experience it is. As a basically law-abiding citizen* I am petrified by going to court.
Of course, these things are correlated but perhaps in different ways. Either it's a genuinely terrifying thing, and hence I'm scared, despite my good behaviour; or, alternatively, I am a good citizen because I'm terrified in the first place.
Having read the horrific NY Times series on New York judges,** and having taken the most wonderful Anti-Discrimination Law class, I can see that some people, and particularly some groups of people, are disengaged and disconnected from the system because it does not take their concerns, worries and lives seriously enough. I honestly believe that's true. Which is sad, because I think that being a judge - other than time management and having to be very careful about the people you choose to have around you - would be an extraordinarily interesting post in which you could really make a positive difference in someone's life.
DISCLAIMER: The judge this morning was sharp and smart; there are some good ones out there, definitely. However, what worries me is the appointment system and the abuse of power that does take place.
* I have been known to jaywalk, not present my ID when in drinking establishments, and surreptitiously sneak a beer in the open air.
** If you have Times Select and fancy a scary bedtime story, I suggest you find it.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Thoughts Running Through My Mind
First: Yay - we won the cricket!
Second: I don't understand this article at all. How do you "take a break" from being a feminist? Either you are one, in which case it informs your understanding of matters in the world, your reaction to them, or you're not because you don't believe in it. Yes, there are different methodologies, different beliefs as feminists - I struggle frequently with my contradictory thoughts over pornography and the sex industry, for example. But I really don't understand this and the law professor proposing it doesn't seem to justify it, either. Answers on a postcard, please.
Third: This article is also interesting for an illustration of perhaps why feminism is still a necessary part of my life - the time when we are not divided into trollops and angels will be a blessed one. Furthermore, it echoes something that I've found here in Costa Rica - unions dominated by men, who require a classless society but don't really want the wimminfolk involved in anything, sweetheart.
Fourth: the case of the boy who raped a girl and got a 2 year supervision order is one of the most revolting things I have read recently. Impressively appalling. I understand that there are problems with institutionalising young people who have committed crimes, but it really is a disgrace. If even the readers of The Daily Mail are appalled by this, it must really be bad.
Fifth: This story, about a rapist finally caught after twenty years - a "pillar of the community", married with children - was interesting both because of how he was caught using new DNA techniques, but mostly for the interview with one of the victims. She was... just incredible to listen to. After the horrors of what had happened to her, she was mostly concerned for her daughter - who, when this resurfaced as a cold case, was the age at which the woman had been raped - and whether or not her partner could cope with it. She was so matter of fact about it all, about the fear she had. No one should EVER have this sort of power over another person. The most interesting thing was her reaction to finally seeing him... the relief that he didn't have that power anymore, instead of reacting angrily to the fact that such a feeble little man managed to have sway over her life for so long, and could damage her in that way.
Sixth: I love me some Woman's Hour. We all know that - I make no bones about it (where ON EARTH does that phrase come from?) . However, this was absolutely ridiculous: a debate on what annoys men and women about each other. It's frothy rubbish anyway (Fridays are always worse on Woman's Hour because Jenni Murray doesn't do it). What was extremely annoying was that this was advertising some ridiculous person's "husband training school" - she'd started writing a book about it and decided to do it in real life. They are not cocker spaniels to be taught to piss outdoors. They are men and, for the majority of women, our partners in the home and bedroom. They are for all of us, hopefully, our friends, colleagues, sons, brothers... It makes me EXTREMELY angry to read things like this, because this is what people think feminism is about, when it's as far away from what I believe as could possibly be my feminist viewpoint. It has become some sort of mainstream, accepted position to denigrate men in this way, and it belittles us all, quite frankly.
Furthermore, an important point about relationships: they are supposed to feature compromises. How can you compromise with someone you think lives in a disgusting manner, as this woman claimed, simply because her husband left dirty dishes in the sink - SHOCKER. Yes, things annoy us about living with other people - we are all idiosyncratic individuals. But... for Pete's sake, this was ridiculous.
And I know I shouldn't be so angry at rubbish like this, but it's irritating and fuels anti-feminism...
Anyhoo, that's me for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
