Bail Reform at Work for Granny

by · Jun 17, 2020 12:03 pm

“Bail reform” has been one of the most prominent of the innovations the Left has been pushing.  The theory is that no one should be held in jail simply because he can’t pay cash bail to assure his later court appearance.  That would be the “criminalizing of poverty,” to use one of their favorite phrases.  Moreover, it would interrupt (and often for practical purposes end) the defendant’s employment, such as that might be.  We need to overcome our class-ridden, knee-jerk punitive responses to embrace “real solutions” and compassion.

Heard that before?

OK.  Here, in a video that justifiably has gone viral, is what compassion looks like.

 

Continue reading . . .

Welcome Back, McCarthyism

by · Jun 16, 2020 6:02 pm

If you’re a normal person leading a normal life, you welcome the police in your community (as Kent has noted) and have a high regard for their integrity.  If, however, you’re an academic, particularly at a prestigious place like Yale, Stanford, Harvard or Berkeley, you view police as a racist menace with power that needs to be curtailed if not ended completely.  What’s worse, in a way, is that if you have a minority view on campus  —  if your thinking about police Does Not Conform To The Standard  —  you are the object of derision or worse.  Prof. Jonathan Turley takes note of the sad and ominous state of diversity of thought in academia:

First, it is increasingly rare for any conservative or libertarian to be hired on a faculty, particularly a highly ranking school like Berkeley…In my thirty years of teaching, I have never seen the level of open intolerance for opposing views on faculties as I have seen in the last few years. I have spoken with young law professors across the country who say that they feel that they cannot speak openly to colleagues about such issues because they fear they will be fired or punished by their liberal colleagues. Indeed, many faculty are now quite clear in forcing colleagues either support or stay silent on such issues.

Jonathan’s full piece is here.

What do regular folks think about police presence?

by · Jun 16, 2020 3:48 pm

Far too often, loud people identified as “activists” are treated as representatives, speaking for the people they claim to be concerned about. That is a major mistake. The activists typically have not been elected by anyone. The way to find out what the regular folks think is to ask them. If you can’t ask them all, ask a validly selected representative sample.

Listening to activists, one might think that the people living in certain communities, variously called “poor,” “disadvantaged,” “fragile,” or some other term, want a reduced police presence or even want to abolish the police altogether. As Bill noted earlier, this NYT op-ed by Mariame Kaba, identified as an “organizer,” called for exactly that.

Continue reading . . .

The Supposed Distinction Between Peaceful Protesters and Bomb Throwers

by · Jun 16, 2020 11:37 am

We have been repeatedly admonished to distinguish between peaceful protesters, on the one hand, and rioters and arsonists, on the other.  For many of those in the Defund movement, my guess is that that’s a fair and needed distinction.  But many isn’t everyone.  As we now hear from a leading voice on the Left, Nation magazine, violence and looting are not the mere occasional incident, or a few hotheads or opportunists taking advantage.  Violence is integral to achieving their aims.

The beans get spilled here:  In Defense of Destroying Property

 

Continue reading . . .

The World’s Most Intelligent Virus

by · Jun 15, 2020 3:03 pm

It’s not exactly news at this point that we are beset with a deadly (at least to older people) virus that spreads easily in crowds.  It’s for this reason that we now have enforced social distancing and are strongly encouraged to use face masks in public.

What wasn’t known until recently is that, remarkably, the virus can tell (1) if you want to visit grandma in the hospital or attend your kid’s high school graduation, in which case it will spread like crazy and you must keep your distance (or, frequently, stay home altogether); or (2) if you want to attend an anti-police rally or trash the local monument, in which case it will show Solidarity with the Cause and not spread one little bit!

National Review has the story Continue reading . . .

Supreme Court Turns Down Gun, Immunity, and Sanctuary Cases

by · Jun 15, 2020 7:04 am

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning issued its Monday orders list, announcing the cases it will and will not take. The big news is in the “will not” portion. A large number of closely watched cases were turned down. They include (1) calls to modify the qualified immunity doctrine, which protects police officers, among others, from lawsuits for doing their duty according to the law as they reasonably understand it at the time, even if a judge later disagrees or a court later reverses its precedents; (2) cases on the Second Amendment right to bear arms; and (3) the “sanctuary state” case of United States v. California.

Continue reading . . .

A New Slant on Jury Nullification

by · Jun 15, 2020 5:57 am

Jury nullification is the theory that a jury should be able to render a verdict it believes is just notwithstanding what the law and the facts of the case may require.  Most often, jury nullification is pushed by libertarians in the context of drug prosecutions.  Under libertarian theory, drugs should be legal, and obstinate legislative refusal to repeal drug laws should be nullified by juries’ refusal to convict defendants in drug cases.  An offshoot of the same theory is that juries should acquit because, even if drug laws are arguably acceptable in some circumstances, the punishments, particularly mandatory minimum sentences, are so wildly excessive that a justice-oriented jury should prevent their imposition.

There are numerous problems with nullification theory. Continue reading . . .

Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

by · Jun 14, 2020 1:35 pm

The headline of this post is the title of a featured op-ed in the New York Times.  Unlike the Tom Cotton op-ed for which the Times apologized in a revealing act of genuflection to its far left editorial staff, I doubt there will be an apology for this one.  But very much like Sen. Cotton’s piece, this one tells the truth:  The Left in this country does not want “reforms” in policing, and only wants to pretend to want them until after the election.  Believe me  —  and more importantly, believe them:  What they want is abolition.  And if the Left-leaning politicians win in November, this is the sort of thing you can expect to see filling every Deputy Assistant Attorney General and every Deputy Assistant Secretary position of the dozens Washington has to offer.  It’s hard to imagine the catastrophe to public safety that will ensue. Continue reading . . .

Strong Majority of Americans Oppose Defunding the Police

by · Jun 13, 2020 7:35 pm

An ABC/Ipsos poll finds that 64% of Americans oppose defuding the police, while 34% approve it.  The story is here.  Interestingly, it also notes:

…Democrats stand as the lone faction among the political tribes that approve by a majority of defunding the police (55%) and redirecting it to mental health, housing and education programs (59%).  But Democrats are more divided in their support than Republicans and Independents are in their opposition, with 43% and 41% of Democrats opposing both defunding the police, and using the money for other purposes, respectively.

If I were Donald Trump’s campaign manager  —  which I surely am not  — this would give me a clue about what issues to stress.

Tom Cotton’s Op-Ed and the Ensuing Gnashing of Teeth

by · Jun 13, 2020 1:12 pm

Sen. Tom Cotton, a combat veteran and a leader for sober, law-oriented criminal justice, wrote an op-ed for the NYT arguing that, if civilian police were unable or unwilling to restore order to cities ravaged by riots, arson and looting, the military should be called in.  Immediately there ensued an uproar inside the Times, which then apologized for running the piece.  The Times said the op-ed did not, on reflection, meet its “standards,” never explaining, however, what those standards consist of.  It has since become obvious that they consist, not of honest debate  —  which used to be the standard for the discussion of public issues among opinion leaders  —  but of abject obedience to the new, “woke” party line of the extreme Left.

We are left to wonder whether the Times’ apology is the beginning of the end of journalism as we have known it and, even more ominously, of classical liberalism itself, now to be replaced by an updated version of the Cultural Revolution and enforced conformity of thought.  Ross Douthat, a committed NeverTrumper, explains why he’s worried.