Certain areas of Islamic law remain archaic. However, it appears that at least technological progress is being made in the area of Islamic divorce law.
Advances in Islamic divorce law
Reply
Category Archives: Legal – General
The improving conversation about PED’s in baseball
As I noted earlier in this blog, the Mitchell Commission Report is a sloppy hatchet job. However, the report has had the beneficial impact of prompting more reasoned voices to emerge regarding the use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in professional baseball to offset the mainstream’s media’s typical demonization of the players. Here are a few examples:
Eric Walker’s new website Steroids and Baseball is worth a look. Walker provides an interesting analysis of power hitting performance over the modern eras using a time series of power factor statistics. Based on putting the time series together at critical points where there is a change in the baseball or an interruption in personnel from a war, Walker shows that you get a series that does not show any meaningful increase in power hitting as measured by the power factor. Indeed, the power factor in the so-called steroid era is no higher than in other eras after subtracting the cumulative effects of changes in the baseball in preceding eras from the time series. In addition, Walker surveys research on the benefits and costs of steroids on athletic performance and health, and again concludes that the results are not all that clear.
Meanwhile, Radley Balko links to an article by sportswriter Dan Le Batard noting a point that I’ve frequently made in my prior posts on PED use in baseball — the motivation behind the use was to improve the capacity of the user’s body to hold up under the physically brutal and pathologically competitive nature of MLB. Balko concludes with the following wise advice:
At some point, athletes, rules makers, fans, and ethicists are going to have to drop the hysterics, and begin a serious conversation about all of this. Shaming, prison, and witch hunts aren’t going to make these issues go away.
Following up on Balko’s thoughts, this Shawn Macomber/American Spectator article reports on a recent panel discussion over PED use in which Balko participated. Another participant in that panel discussion was Norman Fost, professor of pediatric medicine and director of the Program in Bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, who is the subject of this Chicago Tribune profile. Fost believes that steroids should be available, under a doctor’s supervision, to any pro or amateur adult athlete who wants them:
In all the health and morality questions about steroids, Fost said:
“It’s as though the drug hysteria serves as a distraction from more serious issues. You’d be hard-pressed to find a single death associated with steroid use, yet the TV cameras keep showing [Red Sox manager] Terry Francona drooling disgusting spit from something [chewing tobacco] that has a very high cancer rate associated with it.
“You have 400,000 deaths a year due to tobacco and tens of thousands of alcohol-related deaths, a substance heavily promoted by Major League Baseball, yet the president and Congress and the press have virtually nothing to say about tobacco and alcohol in athletics, but lots to say about steroids. A football player spending more than three years in the NFL has an 80 to 90 percent chance, according to one study, of some permanent disability, but the NFL produces films focusing on the most vicious hits. The dangers to health in sports today come not from enhancement but the sport itself.”
Similarly, Malcolm Gladwell builds on his earlier posts on the issue of PED’s in baseball with two more posts (here and here) in which he notes the following:
It is perfectly legal for an athlete to undergo “performance enhancing” eye surgery, that moves him from, say, the 50th to the 95th percentile in sight. It is not legal for that same athlete to take “performance enhancing” hormones that move his testosterone from the 50th to the 95th percentile–even thought the additional advantage of the eye surgery may be greater than the additional advantage conferred by the exogenous testosterone. Now, there may be a perfectly valid distinction between those two interventions. But what is it? Shouldn’t it be spelled out before we drum Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds out of the Hall of Fame?
Similarly, it is perfectly legal for an athlete to get painkillers after an injury, so he can continue playing (and, I would point out, risk further injury.) It is not legal for that athlete to take Human Growth Hormone, in order to speed his recovery from that same injury. Again, why? What is the distinction? Why is it okay to play hurt but not okay to try and not play hurt? There may be a perfectly valid reason here as well. But don’t we need to spell out what it is?
I realize that the people running major league baseball and the NFL are not philosophers. But the intellectual sloppiness with which this current crusade has been conducted is appalling.
Indeed, last week’s Congressional hearing over the Mitchell Report included an exchange toward the end that highlighted MLB’s long tradition of indulging use of another type of PED — amphetamines.
Moving on to the legal front, this Maury Brown blog post notes that Rusty Hardin — whose strategy of defending Roger Clemens has been a head-scratcher from the beginning — probably ought to quit giving interviews:
T.J. Quinn: Well, when someone sat and looked at just the numbers for Rogerís career, what conclusions do you think they drew?
Rusty Hardin: Oh, I think, I think they drew incredibly stupid inclusions, uh, conclusions, if they concluded that somehow you can look at his performance and it fits in. For instance, everybody talks about his, uh, doing it in order to extend his career. Think about it, T.J. The guy is supposed to have taken steroids in ë98. In ë97 he won the Cy Young. ë98 he won the Cy Young.
T.J. Quinn: Brain McNamee’s, you know, his story was that Roger had already been taking steroids when he approached him in 1998, which would suggest?
Rusty Hardin: I didn’t remember that. You may, if you’re right about that, I didn’t know that.
T.J. Quinn: Thatís what he said. That was in the Mitchell report and I think his lawyers addressed that as well, that Brian McNamee said, ìI never suggested that Roger take them. He was taking them.So that wouldn’t that explain?
Rusty Hardin: [OVERLAPPING] I never read that. Are you real sure of that?
T.J. Quinn: Quite.
And while many commentators are suggesting that Clemens’ alleged PED use is unprovable beyond a reasonable doubt because it boils down to a swearing match between Clemens and his chief accuser, that is not a prudent bet to make. My experience is that lawsuits and investigations have a funny way of discovering people who have knowledge about swearing matches.
Finally, does anyone else get the impression that Houstonian Chuck Knoblauch may need the same type of mental block that he had while throwing a baseball from second to first base in regard to his upcoming Congressional testimony?
On ham sandwiches and Texas Supreme Court Justices
The old saw is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if asked to do so by the district attorney.
However, in Houston, a grand jury will indict a Texas Supreme Court Justice even if the DA doesn’t ask it to do so.
As noted in this earlier post, Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina, his wife and several family members have been in the cross-hairs of an arson investigation since their house and a couple of others in the neighborhood were damaged in a June 28, 2007 fire. A Harris County grand jury today indicted Justice Medina on a tampering charge and his wife on arson charges in connection with the fire.
However, in an unusual development (to say the least), the grand jury brought the indictment against the recommendation of the DA’s office. Embattled Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal will request that the indictment be dismissed immediately because the DA’s office has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to make a case that would withstand a defense motion for a directed verdict.
That’s all well and good, but my question is this: If the DA’s office knew going into the grand jury that they did not have sufficient evidence to make a case against Justice Medina, then why on earth did they bring the case before the grand jury at this time? Inquiring minds want to know.
The fascinating “Flea”
Eric Turkewitz interviews Dr. Robert Lindeman, the Boston-based pediatrician who caused quite a stir last year when the Boston Globe broke the story that he was the anonymous blogger nicknamed “Flea” who was blogging a medical malpractice trial while participating as a defendant. One of Dr. Lindeman’s answers even has a Houston twist:
A hypothetical question: You’ve been called for jury duty and the case involves a question of medical malpractice. What will you tell the attorneys during the jury selection process about your ability to sit impartially?
Answer: “I will tell them that Roger Clemens will admit to using performance-enhancing drugs before I will able to sit impartially on a malpractice jury.”
Stoneridge redux
The blawgosphere’s analysis has been extensive and insightful in regard to the Supreme Court’s important decision Tuesday in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta (previous posts here), which upheld the Central Bank rule against holding third parties secondarily liable for damages for providing financing to a company that is found to have defrauded its investors. The Point of Law.com blog, which has been a leader in providing a forum for discussion of the issues in the case, provides links to many excellent commentators, including Professors Bainbridge and Ribstein, the latter of whom has this follow-up post to his initial one that is well worth reading.
Although the issues and policy implications involved in Stoneridge are easy to understand for those of us involved in business, it’s interesting how many people who are not involved in business on a day-to-day basis have asked me about the case and why I think it’s so important that the Central Bank rule be upheld. Why shouldn’t the banks that facilitated a company defrauding its investors not have to contribute something into the compensation pot for the investors, they inquire?
I have found that directing the folks asking that question to the practical example presented in this earlier post usually does the trick in explaining why erosion of the Central Bank rule is a manifestly bad idea.
I wonder what she thinks about the guys over at the Masonic Temple?
Putting Chuck Rosenthal’s troubles aside for a moment, does anyone else think it’s time to clean house at the Harris County District Attorneys’ Office?:
Republican district attorney candidate Kelly Siegler told a judge last year that members of Houston’s Lakewood Church are “screwballs and nuts” and that she works to keep them off of juries.
Siegler made the comment while defending herself from a defense attorney’s suggestion that she struck a man from the jury pool in a capital murder case because he is black. It wasn’t the man’s race that prompted Siegler to eliminate the man from the jury pool, she said. It was the fact that he attends Joel Osteen’s megachurch.
“To start with, he’s a member of Lakewood Church. And we have had a running agreement, my partner Luci Davidson and I have, since we started, that people who go to Lakewood are screwballs and nuts,” Siegler said, according to the court transcript. “I’m very familiar with that church. We try our hardest not to put anybody who goes to Lakewood regularly on any jury, he’s a pretty devout member of Lakewood Church. That’s one reason that scared me about the man.”
Siegler went on to give other reasons why she didn’t want him to be on the jury including his membership in the NAACP, a group that opposes the death penalty.
Siegler confirmed today that she complained about Lakewood attendees on the record, but said the comment was taken out of context.
“I was talking to a juror who, in my opinion, was very weak on the death penalty,” Siegler said. She said she was obligated to give her reasons for striking the juror, “weak or strong, good or bad,” which indicated that he would be weak on the death penalty.
Siegler also said she had never been to Lakewood, and was talking about things she heard about the church. [. . .]
Siegler attends Chapelwood Methodist church. [. . .]
The jury eventually sentenced [the defendant that Siegler was prosecuting] to death.
And that comes from one of this DA’s office’s “best” prosecutors. Summing up the absurdity of what has been going on in Houston over the past couple of weeks, Slampo provides a multiple choice test to determine how well you have been keeping up on developments.
The irony of what brought Rosenthal down
Isn’t it ironic that tough-guy district attorney Chuck Rosenthal was ultimately brought down as a result of his refusal to stand up to the Harris County Sheriff’s Department?
As this Peggy O’Hare/Chronicle article reports, Rosenthal made the appalling decision to prosecute two brothers who were wrongfully arrested and roughed up by sheriff deputies for committing the heinous “crime” of unobtrusively videotaping from a neighboring property some questionable conduct of the deputies during a drug raid. What on earth was Rosenthal thinking in allowing such an absurd prosecution to go forward? No wonder he is in the middle of a wrongful arrest civil lawsuit.
By the way, the four deputies who wrongfully arrested the two brothers remain employed by the sheriff’s department. And the Attorney General is now looking into Rosenthal’s emails.
No sympathy
This NY Times article from the other day reports on the increasing numbers of lawyers and doctors who are plagued by self-doubt (who’d have ever thought that?). Mr. Juggles over at Long & Short Capital has no sympathy:
To the lawyers:
In case the Neiman Marcus purchases succeeded in lifting your morale and left you with the impression that what you did counted for something, please let me add some critical information: It doesnít. This is why you are paid, on an hourly-adjusted basis, like a recent (2nd tier) college graduate.
To the doctors:
The fact that I was able to diagnose my own illness after 15 min on WebMD speaks to the value of your knowledge. Perhaps our relationship would be more productive if you would stop making me wait 3 days for an appointment (and 90 minutes once I get to the office) to diagnose a sinus infection that I already know I have. Give me the antibiotics without the self-importance. I will come see you again when I have something you can actually be helpful with. For instance, after I break my arm trying to carry my bonus home, I will come see you and you can set the cast. Until then, please stop whining.
Dr. Pou’s fog of Katrina
This Dr. Susan Okie/New England Journal of Medicine article (H/T Kolahun) provides the most extensive analysis to date of the circumstances surrounding the tragic deaths of the nine New Orleans area hospital patients during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that led to the egregious prosecutorial decision to bring criminal charges against one of the treating physicians, former University of Texas Medical School physician, Dr. Anna Pou (previous posts here). Dr. Okie addresses the key question of why these nine patients died “. . . in light of the eventual evacuation of about 200 patients from [the hospital], including patients from the intensive care unit, premature infants, critically ill patients who required dialysis, patients with DNR orders, and two 400-lb men who could not walk.” It’s an important question to address, but not in the context of a criminal case.
The fog of war analogy is certainly appropriate. Even with as good information as we have about the horrific conditions at the hospital in the aftermath of Katrina, it’s still hard to imagine how difficult it was making even basic decisions in the face of the breakdown of civil society and infrastructure. What we do know is that Dr. Pou, who was not experienced in providing emergency medical services in what amounted to a heavy combat war zone, was no ethicist on mission to make a political statement. Rather, she was simply a physician doing the best she could to make the right decisions under the worst circumstances imaginable. It should not surprise us if, with the benefit of hindsight bias, some of those decisions would not have been the ones that a reasonable physician would have made under better conditions.
The Great Debaters
My younger daughter, my wife and I took in Denzel Washington’s new film the other night, The Great Debaters. Although the story was somewhat formulaic and the movie certainly not perfect, we found the movie to be hugely entertaining. The acting is superb, particularly the reliable Mr. Washington and newcomer Denzel Whitaker, a delightful young actor who literally steals the show as the youngest of the college debaters. Mr. Washington, who also directed, wisely decided to tell the story through Mr. Whitaker’s character (James Farmer, Jr.), and Mr. Whitaker is more than up to the task. What a talent!
Interestingly, the always-excellent Forest Whitaker plays James Farmer, Sr., the father of the young Mr. Whitaker’s character in the movie. However, despite their common last name, the two are not related.
At any rate, in discussing the movie on the way home afterward, my daughter observed that it sure is a good thing that the horrific racism depicted in the movie is not condoned in American society anymore. My reply was that brutal discrimination of blacks is still not as uncommon as we like to think. Scott Henson and Radley Balko comment on the unacceptable revelations of, at minimum, prosecutorial negligence in Dallas. Where is the outrage?