The Rule of Law

A Man for All Seasons Paul Scofield.jpgIn an insightful scene from the Academy Award-winning movie A Man for All Seasons, one of Sir Thomas More’s apprentices — Richard Rich — confronts Thomas while he is chatting with his wife, daughter, and his daughter’s fiancee, Will Roper, who is an aspiring lawyer.

Rich proceeds to beg Sir Thomas for a political appointment, which Thomas refuses. Sir Thomas knows that Rich is tempted by corruption and would never be able to resist the bribes that he would be offered in such an appointment. During an earlier scene in the movie, Sir Thomas attempts to persuade Rich to pursue a career as a teacher, where he could avoid such temptations and potentially achieve true fulfillment.

An embittered Rich proceeds to leave Sir Thomas and his family to take a political job with Thomas Cromwell, who King Henry VIII has ordered to pressure Thomas to take the King’s oath forsaking Catholicism and the Pope. It is obvious to everyone in the room that the resentful Rich will ultimately betray Sir Thomas, which indeed he does later in the story.

When Sir Thomas’ wife and daughter, as well as Roper, demand that Sir Thomas arrest Rich because of what he will probably do (i.e., betray Thomas), those demands lead to the following exchange in which Sir Thomas lucidly explains the importance of maintaining the rule of law and not trumping up charges even in regard to an unsavory man who will betray him:

Math of the Incarceration Nation

man_in_prisonThe appalling U.S. incarceration rate has been a frequent topic on this blog, so this Veronique de Rugy/Reason.com piece on the troubling numbers involved in the U.S. prison systems caught my eye:

In 2009, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 1,524,513 prisoners in state and federal prisons. When local jails are included, the total climbs to 2,284,913. These numbers are not just staggering; they are far above those of any other liberal democracy in both absolute and per capita terms. The International Centre for Prison Studies at King’s College London calculates that the United States has an incarceration rate of 743 per 100,000 people, compared to 325 in Israel, 217 in Poland, 154 in England and Wales, 96 in France, 71 in Denmark, and 32 in India.

Incredibly, de Rugy reports that research indicates that approximate 60 per cent of those prisoners are non-violent offenders (i.e., mostly possession of illegal drug defendants). What is one of direct costs of the drug prohibition policy?:

[S]tate correctional spending has quadrupled in nominal terms in the last two decades and now totals $52 billion a year, consuming one out of 14 general fund dollars. Spending on corrections is the second fastest growth area of state budgets, following Medicaid. According to a 2009 report from the Pew Center on the States, keeping an inmate locked up costs an average of $78.95 per day, more than 20 times the cost of a day on probation.

And, as de Rugy goes on to point out, these direct costs don’t even approach the indirect costs of locking up non-violent offenders with hardened criminals and leaving the children of non-violent criminals without the support of a parent during the prison sentence.

A truly civilized society would find a better way.

Defending John Edwards

john_edwards-.jpg

Longtime readers of this blog know that I’m no fan of John Edwards. He represented much of what is bad about American political leadership.

However, it occurs to me that any federal indictment that is premised on the allegation that “[a] centerpiece of the Edwards’ candidacy was his public image as a devoted family man” should not be a criminal matter.

The fact that Edwards is an easy target should make no difference. While it is clear that Bunny Mellon and Fred Baron financed the cover-up of Edwards’ mistress and love child, it’s far from clear – and simply not provable beyond a reasonable doubt – that this financing constituted illegal political contributions rather than simply payment of Edwards’ personal expenses that would have been made regardless of whether he was a candidate.

The bottom line on all of this is that the financing of a cover-up to save Edwards’ marriage and preserve his public image is not a crime.

If the Federal Election Commission wanted to make an issue out of this, then it should have brought a civil action against Edwards.

But this has no business being a criminal case.

Even for someone like John Edwards.

Appalling hypocrisy

jim_tressel_downtroddenSo, let me get this straight.

Ohio State University throws its most successful football coach since Woody Hayes under the bus because he knew about compensation being paid to Ohio State football players, whose talents the institution exploited for enormous profit.

Meanwhile, numerous commentators castigate Ohio State and its coach for being cheaters when, in reality, virtually every big-time college football program engages in similar violations of the NCAA’s dubious regulation of compensation to players who create enormous value for NCAA member institutions. Some institutions are simply better at hiding their violations than others.

I don’t know Coach Tressel, but I’d be willing to bet that he is a good man who simply responded to the perverse incentives of a corrupt system.

Big-time college football is an entertaining form of corruption (see also here). But the corruption is the NCAA’s regulatory scheme, and throwing decent men such as Coach Tressel to the wolves will not change that.

South Park’s analysis is spot on:

Geithner as matinee idol

TimGeithnerAs regular readers know, I have long thought that Timothy Geithner is in over his head as Treasury Secretary.

So, it stands to reason that many people continue to listen carefully to what he says, this time at the opening of the new HBO film based on Andrew Ross Sorkin’s book about the most recent financial crisis, Too Big to Fail.

“You can’t prevent people from making mistakes,” observed Geithner philosophically. “Taking too much risk and making stupid mistakes may not be a crime.”

Yeah, right. Try to persuade Jeff Skilling of that.

The reality is that there isn’t much difference between the way in which Geithner and Skilling reacted to their respective crisis. Yet one remains in one of the most powerful positions in government, while the other wastes away in a prison cell.

There is simply no rational basis for the disparate treatment of these two men.

The Mystery of Chronic Pain

Elliot Krane lucidly explains the difficulties involved in diagnosing the causes of chronic pain.

Who can watch and listen to this video and still support our society’s inhumane policies toward those who suffer from chronic pain?

A truly civil society would find a better way.

“In Prison Reform, Money Trumps Civil Rights”

PD*29534905That’s the title of this important NY Times op-ed by Michelle Alexander, who who is the author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New Press 2010). The entire op-ed is essential reading, but this excerpt focuses on one of the reasons why reforming the policy of overcriminalization has become politically difficult:

Those who believe that righteous indignation and protest politics were appropriate in the struggle to end Jim Crow, but that something less will do as we seek to dismantle mass incarceration, fail to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge.  If our nation were to return to the rates of incarceration we had in the 1970s, we would have to release 4 out of 5 people behind bars.  A million people employed by the criminal justice system could lose their jobs . Private prison companies would see their profits vanish. This system is now so deeply rooted in our social, political and economic structures that it is not going to fade away without a major shift in public consciousness.

Sentencing expert Doug Berman comments insightfully:

However, I strongly believe that liberty, not fairness, needs to be the guiding principle in this major shift.  After all, one big aspect of the modern mass incarceration movement has been an affinity for structured guideline reforms and the elimination of parole all in order to have greater fairness and consistency at sentence. 

What we have really achieved is less liberty as much, if not more, than less fairness.

 

No more exaggerated fish stories?

freshwater-fly-fishing-b06So, you mean to tell me that now even exaggerated fishing stories are criminal?

That’s what the Texas Tribune is reporting (H/T Scott Henson):

Fraudulent fishermen better reel it in. The Senate passed a bill today to make cheating in a fishing tournament up to a third-degree felony, sending the measure on to the governor.

HB 1806 expands existing law to all fishing tournaments, from fresh to salt water. It would make it an offense for contestants to give, take, offer or accept a fish not caught as part of the tournament. It would also be an offense to misrepresent a fish.

“I’ve never altered the length of a fish,” says Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, the Senate sponsor of the bill. But he’s been told fishermen will cut the tail off a fish so it will fit the minimum length requirement. That way, they can add more fish to their bucket.

For minor tournaments, cheaters could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor and face up to a year in jail or a maximum $4,000 fine. But if the prize is more than $10,000, contestants could be charged with a third-degree felony, spend two to 10 years in prison and pay up to a $10,000 fine. 

As Henson observes, Senator Hegar and the Texas Legislature apparently have not noticed the onerous overcriminalization that they and other legislative bodies have been imposed on U.S. citizens:

Texas had 2,383  felonies when the session started. No telling yet how many new ones the Lege will pass this year, but Grits’ pre-session prediction was 55. Nobody really tallies them all comprehensively until the parole board must assign new felonies risk categories later this year. But there are a bunch of them. You’d never know the Lege is broke because they seem to think more incarceration can solve any and every social problem: Even dishonest, exaggerating fishermen.

A truly civil society would find a better way.

Warren Buffett, self-preservationist

warren_buffett2Professor Bainbridge surmises that Berkshire Hathaway’s Warren Buffett threw David Sokol under the bus in connection with the Berkshire audit committee report on Sokol’s front-running stock purchases, which may be the subject of criminal investigations at this point. Frankly, the Professor makes a good case.

However, no one should be surprised if that was Buffett’s purpose. As noted here, here and here, there is certainly precedent for Buffett offering up sacrificial lambs to protect himself and Berkshire. That precedent certainly had consequences for the ones who were fingered, too.

Meanwhile, Jeff Skilling remains living in a Colorado prison under the cloud of a 25-year prison sentence, partly because he was unwilling to emulate Buffett’s behavior.

Neither Warren Buffett nor David Sokol is a criminal. But neither is Jeff Skilling. What is criminal is a system that offers perverse incentives for risk-takers who generate jobs and wealth to finger others to protect themselves from the government’s arbitrary exercise of its prosecutorial power.

Bruce Schneier on security theater