Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion

This new topic is about the philosophy, policies, principles, objectives, and procedures of criminal law.

Example: Posts 154-66 and 168-70 of the “International Populist Authoritarianism” topic discuss so-called “hate crimes.” That discussion belongs properly to the present topic.

When I attended law school in the 1970s, I learned that there were four main approaches to punishment under the criminal law: deterrence, societal protection, rehabilitation, and retribution. Although it was understood that advanced legal minds thought retribution to be a relic of the past and no longer defensible in theory or in practice, I never heard at that time an argument that retribution was inappropriate because people don’t have free will. The latter position has now, however, become a mainstay of predeterminist theory, with academics like Ted Honderich (see my review here) and Susan Blakemore being apparently motivated to deny free will as a result of their antiretributionist views. In fact, it often seems as though the antiretributionist tail is wagging the predeterminist dog.

These predeterminist opponents of retribution focus on an aspect of retribution that never occurred to me until I recently read their writings: the view (apparently of some on the political right) that retribution should be administered because criminals deserve whatever punishment is administered to them. In contrast, I always understood retribution theory to be based on the obligations of the social contract: that victims of criminal violence gave up their private right of retribution to government. One of the important principles of this relinquishment is that no person should be a judge in his/her own case. Private vengeance is replaced by objective public justice, even though the formulation and administration of the criminal law is often imperfect in practice. See, for example, John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government.

The recent series The Vikings on Amazon Prime shows what happens when private revenge, rather than public criminal law, is the basis of a theory of justice. The last episode of this series depicts a rudimentary transition from private revenge to public justice. It is an interesting question—one that I have not had time to research—how the inhabitants of the Scandinavian countries progressed from a Weltanschauung of private justice to universal laws of public justice.

I think there is a problem when fallible human beings make judgments about what a person “deserves.” That amounts to “playing God” without the omniscience that is usually associated with the concept of God. I do think, however, that criminal punishment is properly predicated on theories of deterrence, societal protection, and rehabilitation. Of course, the courts have to evaluate a criminal defendant’s state of mind (mens rea) to the extent that such assessment is necessary to meet the elements of various criminal offenses. But what the scholars call “desert” should not, it seems to me, be a factor in punishment, except insofar as there may be circumstances that call for mitigation of the normal sentence.

I also think some consideration needs to be given to the historic importance of substituting objective, public justice for private revenge, whether we call this “retribution” or something else. We do not want to go back to the bad old days. This does not mean that we have to adopt the views of the most reactionary thinkers. For example, capital punishment (which, by the way, even Kant supported) could and probably should be abolished.

None of my foregoing analysis requires a view that everything is predetermined and that free will does not exist. To the contrary, such conclusions can be based on political and ethical philosophy rather than on predeterminist metaphysics.

I am posting this comment in both the “Free Will” and “Criminal Law” topics of this Goodreads group.

Retribution is a toothsome topic. I'm fascinated by the ways in which citizens all around the world, exhibit a tendency to equate retribution with the judgment-of-an-Almighty power (or, at the same time, often labeling it 'just good plain common sense').

In the modern big city I find myself in, I've encountered a widespread liking for swift, decisive, justice. The man in the street still favors it.

I've hesitated to post in this section as yet, because I think it would be all too easy to cite sensational current-events, merely. There's a steady stream of bewildering crimes in every day's news, but what conclusions can be drawn?

With this in mind (and also recalling my inquiry about Nazi groups which spawned this discussion branch) here are some criminal justice-related concepts which might dovetail with your remarks above, Alan. Good stuff.

the Stamford Prison Experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanfor...

the 'Quaker' (disputed) Eastern State Penitentiary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern...

the 'Red Light Bandit', a mega-famous case which today is all but forgotten
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_C...

I'm a fan of the Thomas Murton prison reform saga:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mur...

Feliks wrote: "Retribution is a toothsome topic. I'm fascinated by the ways in which citizens all around the world, exhibit a tendency to equate retribution with the judgment-of-an-Almighty power (or, at the same..."

Thanks, Feliks, for this additional information.

Alan, I agree with your statement, "But what the scholars call `desert' should not, it seems to me, be a factor in punishment, except insofar as there may be circumstances that call for mitigation of the normal sentence" (message #2).

I seem to recall media reports about cases suggesting that "factor[s] in punishment" are sometimes broadened to include statements from victims of the perpetrator's crime. Does that happen? What are the legal issues involved in whether it should happen?

Such a procedure would seem to be a step back from "public justice" toward "private revenge" insofar as the state becomes the instrument of "private revenge."

Robert wrote: "Alan, I agree with your statement, "But what the scholars call `desert' should not, it seems to me, be a factor in punishment, except insofar as there may be circumstances that call for mitigation ..."

Yes, there are laws and practices in many jurisdictions where victims of crime can make statements at the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. That's probably an opportunity for retribution to come back ("with a vengeance" one might say) into the system. Having not been a prosecutor or criminal defense attorney, I really don't know much about these procedures except that they exist and that they are sometimes controversial.

I find the concept of 'friend of the court' interesting. Alan Johnson, you could be a 'friend of the court' sometime.

Feliks wrote: "I find the concept of 'friend of the court' interesting. Alan Johnson, you could be a 'friend of the court' sometime."

I prepared and filed several amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs during my three decades as a practicing litigation lawyer. In 2012, I hung up my shingle and went on retirement status with the bars to which I had been admitted. As such, I no longer practice law and am instead an independent philosopher and historian, having researched, written, and published books on Roger Williams (ca. 1603-83) and the Electoral College. I am currently working on a philosophical trilogy on free will (book to be published this year), ethics, and political philosophy.

(Non native English speaker from Latam.)
I googled "toothsome" just because...
I was under the wrong impression, by how the word 'sounds' to me, that it meant something like "difficult" or "uncomfortable"... *the more you know meme*

Anyways, back to the topic.
It's interesting this type of legislation in countries that follow (at least to a degree) Locke's political views.
In Latam (i.e. Latin America) "hate crimes" can be either 'aggravating circumstances' or actual penal types in their own right. Therefore, some new crimes have appeared like "femicide". (In Argentina, example, it's a aggravating circumstances, not a crime per se.)

I find it unnecessary (read: "I'm not entirely convinced by the logic behind it"), but I don't think it necessarily is detrimental. I do not agree with people who claim these are 'thought crimes'... (TBH, child pornography when has a 3D model of a kid or uses drawings or an adult who looks like a kid is more of a "thought crime", since there's no "real harm" in neither one of the above examples.)

Thank you, Malola, for your comment. With regard to child pornography, I understand that (at least in the United States) the idea is that the underlying crime is the criminal exploitation of children and that people who view child pornography are, if effect, "accomplices" in that crime by making it profitable. It's a borderline case, to be sure, but it may not be a "thought crime" as such under this analysis.

Yeah, but CP is a crime of mere activity.
Not a crime of actul harm.
See this example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulat...

Of course, I agree with the prudential value in stopping certain serious issues from happening in the first place (i.e. we set a speed limit in order to avoid people being run over by cars and that clearly is a limitation on my ambulatory freedom); but the actual correlation between CP and actual crimes is arguable.

Though I understand the point of the < " > enclosing "accomplice", as a fellow lawyer (albeit a Roman Law one), I must object to the word.

"It's a borderline case, to be sure, but it may not be a "thought crime" as such under this analysis." = I guess... But I believe there are no such things as thought crimes. How does one manage to have 'priviliged access' to someone else's mind?
Of course, I acknowledge that certain legislations overreach with their 'mere activity' crimes.

Malola wrote: "Yeah, but CP is a crime of mere activity.
Not a crime of actul harm.
See this example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulat...

Of course, I agree with th..."

I was not aware of the simulation game aspect of this, and I don't have a strong opinion about that one way or another, except that I personally dislike all video games, sexual or not. I do think that photographs or videos of actual children in a child pornography context are properly criminalized due to the exploitation of children (who lack power to consent and are often forced into such situations), and I would extend that to the "enablers," i.e., the consumers of such (actual) child pornography. Simulated child pornography (not involving actual children) is a more difficult issue. Criminalizing it might be a "thought crime." I guess the issue is whether it tends to encourage actual crimes involving real children. But then, on that theory, we might have to criminalize all sorts of things, for example all depictions of violence, that are commonplace in today's entertainment milieu. I haven't given the "simulation" issue a great deal of thought, and therefore I don't have a strong view on it at this time.

I fully agree re: video games. I've got 'grown up' friends who sometimes play them forty-eight hours straight, the whole weekend long, consuming coffee to keep going.

The MEF (Media Education Foundation) has an excellent collection of documentaries on this and many other aspects of visual addiction.
https://www.mediaed.org/
I've posted about this before; they're a non-profit entity which makes documentaries available to schools and universities. The documentaries are free to view on the website (albeit at low-resolution). The transcripts and study guides however, are all free.

I'm mildly fascinated by the 'stand your ground' laws in our country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-y...

'Stand your ground' versus the converse principle, 'duty to retreat'.

In New York, street-smarts say that you will be apprehended as an aggressor if you defend yourself against an assault. Victims of violent crime are charged, if they appear to have shown the least bit of forethought, or pre-planned readiness to protect themselves. As you can imagine in my city, strife is rampant in places like public subways and buses. But the only defense against a serious criminal penalty is convincing evidence that you 'acted in panic'.

I don't stew on this very often, though I did when I first landed here and rode the subway 2x daily on my commute. Loony fellow-citizens.

What began to concern me more was the idea of how I would feel afterward if I ever took advantage of the "don't tread on me" attitude which is so widely rampant lately. I don't think I would like myself very much.

Feliks wrote: "I'm mildly fascinated by the 'stand your ground' laws in our country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-y...

'Stand your ground' versus the converse principle, 'duty to retreat'.

In..."

When I lived in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago from 1964 to 1970, I learned quickly from the other students there that if one was approached by a person asking for a quarter, one should not give them a quarter but rather everything in one's pocket. Otherwise . . . .

There was much crime in this neighborhood. I was chased by gangs several times (I learned to run very fast while the attackers were laughing at me). Two of my classmates were homicide victims. Women students were raped routinely. Notwithstanding all this experience, I still remain left of center in my politics. Such issues are, to my mind, quite tragic, and I have never figured out exactly what the solution, if any, is.

The present comment follows up on previous posts in this topic and another topic (see #1 above) about “hate crimes,” “thought crimes,” and mens rea in criminal law and proceedings. For a good example of the application of mens rea in a criminal case, see yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Borden v. United States (here). For those who don’t have the patience to read through all the opinions, the Court’s syllabus at the beginning of the reported case will suffice to illustrate the mens rea concept as codified in criminal law and routinely applied in criminal cases.

It seems to me that the "crime of passion" long recognized by the French, has some intricate, innate substance to it.

Naturally, if you plan harm to someone unsuspecting of your intent ...coldly and deliberately, you will be apprehended and charged with murder should you carry out your ill-will.

But if someone suddenly strikes you --and you immediately strike them back --this is neither calculating or deliberately harm on your part. You return a blow for a blow; cut for cut, as an animal might.

Some legal systems excuse this.

Whereas, if you suddenly, impulsively injur me and I stalk away to brood and plot my revenge..that meets the definition of 'mens rea', yes? Because --according to the law --I have 'had a chance to cool off', and 'make deliberate plans to retaliate'.

In other words (counterintuitive though it may seem to us) rash, and impulsive justice has had some recognition as 'righteous' down through history. When you don't think, when you act on instinct, you may be excused for your crime.

Feliks, I think you misunderstand some of these concepts, because you are not a lawyer and have never gone to law school.

See this Wikipedia article regarding the degrees of murder in American jurisdictions. There is also the right of self-defense, but the parameters of that right vary from state to state, with many states now adopting stand-your-ground statutes.

For mens rea, see this explanation by the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.

French law, which is based on the Napoleonic Code, is different from Anglo-American law. I really don’t know much about French law.

In the west, a primary goal of law is to moderate/control the passions, not excuse them. Here is an apt quote from former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter:

"Fragile as reason is and limited as law is as the institutionalized medium of reason that’s all we have between us and the tyranny of mere will and the cruelty of unbridled, undisciplined feelings.”

The rule of law sometimes assigns a lesser moral culpability to criminal acts committed as a result of passion, as Comrade Dzerzhinsky and Alan have noted, but the primary goal of the rule of law is to control passion and render it benign.

Glad to stand reproved on this point. Always willing to face up to a lack of knowledge on my part. I will explore those links provided and certainly with a humble attitude. Law is surely not my field.

p.s. F. Frankfurter is a very interesting figure in American academia

A better Felix too than your chosen avatar.

I've always been sorry that this oddity rankles you, Brad. Nonetheless, I hope you see that I benefit from your input on this forum and also from your book reviews and site-comments which I read avidly. A phenomenal source of wisdom, as is Alan Johnson, 'the two Roberts', James W, and Gerard in our little group. Amazing individuals. I'm a fan of all of you.

This August 9, 2021 Politico article discusses some of the complicated issues regarding the prosecution of the January 6 defendants.

Randomly curious about something today: how much revenue does crime generate for criminals?

Since the advent of 'e-Bay' and other 'used goods' venues on the internet, the underground or 'barter' economy has become a big deal.

Of course, 'bartering' is a revenue stream which doesn't break any laws except for tax law.

But how much profit goes on in the criminal landscape? What segment of our economy does it encompass?

What prompted this train-of-thought was some mention somewhere of how drug addicts will go to astounding lengths to steal goods for re-sale, in order to maintain their addiction.

But in a modern marketplace where people can find so many goods online so inexpensively, (and have it shipped the very next day) who would bother to purchase illegal goods?

If someone in a doorway said to you, 'Pssst--! Hey, buddy, wanna buy a watch?' wouldn't anyone just laugh, these days?

In other words, has Amazon made any dent in burglary? And people who survive via burglary?

Another question: If cryptocurrency were made illegal, would ransomware attacks still be successful? How could/would people pay to unencrypt their computers if they couldn't pay in cryptocurrency?

It has become clear in recent weeks that there is a strong pro-cryptocurrency faction in Congress that is resisting federal legislation and regulation. This faction includes both Republicans and Democrats. I don't understand the details, but that's generally what I've read and heard on the news.

Huh... This is quite interesting.

WRT Feliks comments, I'm guessing through Amazon, eBay and similar platforms, for example, is easier for certain companies to revise whether IP is being respected.
I would think that indirectly that would put some pressure in avoid IP infringement; therefore it'd create dents in burglary. (Or so it seems to me.) How deep? IDK... Hard to tell. Even if it were deep, I believe thieves can be very... ingenious when thinking about their schemes.

Alan delivered a nice question there as well. I think ransomware wouldn't necessarily stop.
It's too speculative what I'll say, but maybe it'll have the same effect that with other things becoming illegal?? Maybe prices would go up? In this case, I think it'd be harder since there's not an actual thing being pass over.

A North Carolina man threatened the Library of Congress building with explosives on the 19th of this month? I wonder if they someday will ban pick-up trucks from Capitol Hill, the National Mall, and Federal Triangle.

re: comments #30 - #40 under "Ethics and Free Will --> "Facts" and "Values"; "Is" and "Ought"
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Interesting cases with bearing on 'not guilty by reason of insanity' defense pleas, found in the history of Michigan.

(People v Durfee, People v. Martin, People v Coleman Peterson)

https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan...

Hi,

I wonder if I can just briefly circle back around to the topic we discussed above, ('hate crime').

Here's a news story about a racial incident which took place in the state of Michigan. See link below.

Shouldn't the first few paragraphs of this report state that the suspect was convicted for assault, or 'aggravated assault', or 'assault with a deadly weapon'?

What is 'federal hate crime' and why does it intervene at the local, municipal level like it does in this story?

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-wa...

I know you all have already explained 'hate crimes' for me, but don't you agree this gets a little confusing?

Feliks wrote: "Hi,

I wonder if I can just briefly circle back around to the topic we discussed above, ('hate crime').

Here's a news story about a racial incident which took place in the state of Michigan. See .."

The article contains a link to the criminal complaint, which was filed in federal court and contains an allegation that the defendant committed a violation of a federal statute: 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(1). The text of this statute can be located at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te.... The federal government and each state government have different names for their listed criminal offenses. They don’t all use the language identified in the third paragraph of your post. If there had not been a federal “hate crime” component to this offense, the prosecution would probably have occurred in state rather than federal court. The federal court likely had jurisdiction only because the alleged conduct violated that particular federal statute, which involved a “hate crime.” Otherwise, it would have been a routine state court prosecution for assault.

It is a very controversial issue whether federal law should extend to matters that were formerly solely matters of state court prosecutions. I am not an expert on criminal law; I only had a couple of criminal cases in my three decades as a lawyer, and my role in those cases was tangential. Although I don’t have a definite position on this particular issue, my tentative thought is that it is a legitimate exercise of federal power.

Out-of-the-Blue Question Dept

Where do the great thinkers stand on the concept of 'petty larceny'?

As in, minor cheating and sharping; tiny acts of knavery, the everyday avarice and scrounging which takes place in all our minuscule affairs. Surely something not unknown to the commercial-minded Greeks.

But it's especially a part of the American character. We Yanks love to see a dollar lying on the sidewalk; and we pounce on it. The Brits are known for it too.

But I remember once in school, I had a chum who turned white when I offered to share with him something I had purchased online; some software program or suchlike.

At the time, I couldn't get the cut of his jib. We were in school, we were struggling, weren't making any profit from sharing resources. We were all merely trying to graduate; we were a very small class of a dozen students all pulling together on 'team projects'.

I have often felt later that I was bettered by the purity of his reaction; but I still resent it. The American commercial landscape is full of disadvantages and inequalities; full of far worse scammers.

'Hustling for a buck' is part of our national zeitgeist. But where does this put us, ethically?

a fascinating U.S. civil rights / right-to-fair-trial landmark case --one with which I must admit I was unfamiliar, until today--

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsb...

I've heard that lately, with the rise in security around us (cameras, scanners, monitors, i.d., etc) street crime is changing. 'Lone' muggers and individual thieves get around all the new encumbrances by working in gangs. Since a single shoplifter (or smash'n'grab artist) working alone can usually be apprehended, they now work together. A whole gang of thugs will swagger into a store, yank whatever they need off the racks, then stroll out. Stores usually have just one measly security guard --he can't draw his gun and shoot them all down. So they get away with it. One can only hope this trend doesn't expand.

[originally posted under 'authoritarianism because it reminds me of how Germany's urban strife began before and after WWI.]

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: United States v. Tsarnaev, U.S. Supreme Court, March 4, 2022, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...

On March 4, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a death penalty judgment of a U.S. District Court against the survivor (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) of the two brothers who perpetrated the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which had reversed the District Court’s judgment. The majority decision was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas and was joined by five other justices (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett); Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined except as to Part II-C (in which Justice Breyer indicated his concern about capital punishment generally).

In the District Court, Dzhokhar had admitted guilt, and the sole focus was on the sentencing phase of the criminal proceeding. This case involved some complicated legal issues regarding criminal sentencing procedure, which lawyers will appreciate and nonlawyers may be able to follow in general.

It is clear from this decision that the U.S. Supreme Court will not overturn the death penalty anytime soon. Only Justice Breyer mentioned problems that he sees with the death penalty. As we know, Justice Breyer has announced his retirement from the Court, and President Biden has nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace him.

Active shooter today in my part of Brooklyn. That's too close for comfort!

Feliks wrote: "Active shooter today in my part of Brooklyn. That's too close for comfort!"

Given the fact that they haven't yet (as of an hour or so ago per news conference on CNN) arrested the shooter, are the subways closed down?

Good question. I frankly don't know the answer. But if he's in the tunnels it could be quite hard to flush him out.

I didn't take the subway home tonight myself, naturally. So I'll know more tomorrow --right now I'm unwinding from my day. My co-workers will have all the details in the a.m.

Here's my guess though: the subway system is too big to shut down even in a case like this. He could literally be in any part of such a giant system. I don't hear any helicopters overhead.

They might close the route just in this one neighborhood if they think he's still here (and place blues at every station on any route they think he's in); but if there's a chance he fled to a route all the way out in Queens --well they can't shut down that whole borough's trains.

That neighborhood where it happened is a densely Latin quarter; but of course I'm not saying that's any factor. Brooklyn's Chinatown is also nearby; as well as NYPD's good 'ole "Fort Snooze" 68th precinct stationhouse.

Oh well. The truth is, all New Yorkers are very wary of our train system lately. It's gotten to be a scary place again. Crowds are 'on edge' in general; everyone has noticed the increase in rider-rage and the rise in EDPs (crazy people) on the cars and platforms over the past year.

Feliks wrote: "Good question. I frankly don't know the answer. But if he's in the tunnels it could be quite hard to flush him out.

I didn't take the subway home tonight myself, naturally. So I'll know more tomo..."

I know it’s a cliché, but stay safe!

Thanks!

Update: media circus at 36th St Station. I passed by it on my way to work this morning. Lunatic still at large but PD finally has his name and photo and OEM is sending alerts to everyone's phone.

The train station is open, but not stations farther up the line. In the other direction towards my block, the tunnel terminates in a dead end. That's got to be a lot easier to secure.

It's really rare for it to take this long to apprehend a suspect in Gotham. I'm surprised.

Anyway, the PD command post on 36th St is surrounded by more reporters in Brooks Bros herringbone suits than blue suits. Never seen anything like it.

Wonder if it took longer to identify him since everyone on the train was masked. The NYC MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority) is still exerting a mandate in this regard. Commuters would probably do it willingly; a train car holds 162 people 60'x9'x12'.

Nineteen elementary school children gunned down in Texas today? Did I read that right? Happened to be passing a news-stand on my way to the store.

It's crazy to me how commonplace this is becoming. Nineteen children.

And they keep saying we need more security. Excessive security is probably what causes these shooters to flip their lids in the first place.

IMMINENT PROSECUTION OF TRUMP AND OTHERS IN GEORGIA FOR ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS

See the following July 15, 2022 New York Times article titled “Prosecutor Warns Georgia Officials They May Face Charges in Trump Inquiry”: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/15/us.... (In accordance with my New York Times subscription, the foregoing link provides access to this article for fourteen days without charge, notwithstanding the usual New York Times paywall.)

During my three-decade career as a litigation attorney, I did not handle any criminal cases, except for a contribution to an appellate brief in one criminal case. Accordingly, upon reading the above-linked article, I wondered whether Georgia would have personal criminal jurisdiction over Trump, whose only relevant contact with Georgia was a telephone call to its secretary of state. I found the apparent answer to that question in about fifteen minutes online. A Georgia statute appears to confer such jurisdiction: see https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/....

I laughed when I found this answer so quickly. From 1978 to 1981 (both before and after my admission to the bar of Ohio), I had a legal research and writing service for attorneys. I would prepare memoranda on legal questions and draft legal briefs for lawyers to finalize and file in court. For a question like this (before internet searches and before I had access to the rudimentary legal data bases existing at that time), I would have had to travel to a law library and spend an hour or two searching for the answer to this question. Upon finding the applicable Georgia statute, I would then have had to use a copying machine at the library to copy it. Then, I would have had to go back to my office and prepare a memorandum to the attorney, which I then would have sent by snail mail (fax machines and email being not yet available).

Times have changed, but the majesty of the law—as evidenced in the linked well-crafted statute—lives on. The rule of law is a beautiful thing. It is ironic that law is properly being used to prosecute those whose intention was (and is) to destroy the rule of law in order to make way for authoritarianism.

I knew it! Struck by a sudden thought, and a quick search turns up a juicy article from no less than The Atlantic Monthly to bear out my suspicion. Pickpocket crime is on the rise.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...

Even the slang term for these gangs, 'whiz mob' --hasn't changed. That was parlance of the 1920s.

Reference: The Big Con: The Story of the Confidence Man

Here in the Big Apple we're beginning to reap the bitter harvest of "laid-back" legal reforms. Major crime has spiked 40% on the city's subway system.

The transit system is where strangers jostle most and is always an early-warning index for trends.

https://tinyurl.com/2dkp6pdx

https://tinyurl.com/2p8ezym8

In tandem with eased restrictions on weapons, (more guns on the streets) there is a new laxity in sentencing called, 'Bail Reform'. No bail for misdemeanors and other non-violent acts.

https://nyuj.org/resources/new-york-b...

In the past, being held on bail for minor incidents often served to check the momentum of someone building up steam for a major crime. "Broken Window" -style policing. No longer so. Troublemakers can be released the very next day.

There's other changes too, which insist that, "one's criminal history cannot disenfranchise job candidates seeking positions in city government". So, one's co-worker can be a convicted felon; but no one informs you.

What a mess. I don't think any initiative like, ('Cops, Cameras, & Care') will be an effective remedy. The transit system in NYC is uniquely treacherous because visibility is so poor --you can't see someone who is standing right beside you. For that matter, most PD officers I observe supposedly on duty, are ever slouching against a post playing with their phones.

BAIL REFORM

Although I usually don’t like to mix comedy and politics, John Oliver often has in-depth analyses of political issues in his political comedy HBO program “Last Week Tonight.” An example is his October 30, 2022 analysis of bail reform, which is chock full of documentary evidence and sharp logic: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQLqI....

McCarthy calls for House investigations as Republicans slam potential Trump indictment

The foregoing is the title of a March 18, 2023 Politico article at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03.... The Republicans are claiming that the imminent Trump prosecutions are politically motivated. The prosecutors are saying that they are only relying on the law and the evidence and that no person—not even an ex-president of the United States–is above the law.

The question whether Trump is criminally liable for any of his many outrageous actions is a legal question, not a political question. The answer will be determined not by politics but by the US system of justice, in which criminal defendants have ample due process protections under federal and, where applicable, state law. Trump himself has had no compunction about calling for the prosecution of Hillary Clinton and others. I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored. To the extent that grand juries or prosecutors deem it legally appropriate to indict Trump, he will have a right to a trial by a jury of his peers. For him and his supporters to claim, implicitly or explicitly, that he is above the law is simply not consistent with US constitutionalism.

Another question, raised by the speech and actions of Kevin McCarthy and others, is whether Congress may investigate and interfere with the judicial administration of criminal justice. Under the US Constitution, there is a separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches. McCarthy and others are clearly unconcerned with such constitutional niceties that have formed the basis of our republic for hundreds of years.

Trump and his allies have severely tested, in words and deeds, the US commitment to constitutionalism. The United States long ago rejected such doctrines as “the king can do no wrong.” The next few years will determine whether the United States will retain its constitutional democratic republic or will descend into the type of authoritarian order that Trump and his cronies, here and around the world (Putin, Erdogan, et al.), so ardently desire.

I am cross-filing this comment in the “Criminal Law” and the “Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism vs. Rule of Law” topics of this Goodreads group.

ADDENDUM TO MY PRECEDING POST:

This March 23, 2023 Politico article discusses further the issue of separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches with regard to attempts by House Republicans to probe ongoing criminal investigations of Donald J. Trump: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03....

I am cross-filing this comment in the “Criminal Law” and the “Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism vs. Rule of Law” topics of this Goodreads group.

"Blackstone's Ratio"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackst...

'Scrutinize.org' is a website which --at least in one U.S. state (New York) provides the public with judiciary review.

Their goal is to ameliorate cultural bias in judicial decisions.

https://www.scrutinize.org/costofdisc...

KRISTOF ON DRUG CRIMES

Although I am not an economic libertarian, I have long generally favored the libertarian opposition to “victimless crimes.” See, however, the following February 8, 2025 column by Nicholas Kristof titled “We Thought We Were Compassionate, but We Were Too Permissive”: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/08/op... (gift article). This column by a longtime American liberal has caused me to rethink the issue of the criminalization of drugs. Although I still think that marijuana use should not be criminalized, the criminalization of such hard drug distribution and use as fentanyl may be another story.