|
December 29, 2006
Corruption Is Routine
For those who have been following the Duke "Rape" Case you will know that it is a case of egregious prosecutorial misconduct. And yet there are similar cases every day in the USA. Why don't such cases recieve wide publicity? Simple - if such procedures were shown to be widespread the "justice" system in America would collapse. Ankle Biting Pundits are outraged at the misconduct in the Duke case. Yeah. Sure. The outrage is palpable. No doubt. Now tell me why testilying in drug prohibition cases is so common that we have a name for it? Alan Dershowitz in testimony before Congress said: Police perjury in criminal cases - particularly in the context of searches and other exclusionary rule issues - is so pervasive that the former police chief of San Jose and Kansas City has estimated that "hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests" alone.A few bad apples no doubt. BTW any one notice how alcohol prohibition corrupted our justice system? I thought not. In other words save your phoney outrage for the ignorant. What Nifong (the DA in the Duke case) did is an outgrowth of what goes on in America every day in every jurisdiction. Who will call for a clean up of that? Or is it another case (like Nifong) where jobs depend on it? Christopher Slobogin in the University of Colorado Law Review shows why testilying is so corrosive: Perhaps most importantly, police lying intended to convict someone, whether thought to be guilty or innocent, is wrong because once it is discovered, it diminishes one of our most crucial "social goods" -- trust in government. First, of course, the exposure of police perjury damages the credibility of police testimony. As the aftermath of the Fuhrman debacle has shown, the revelation that some police routinely and casually lie under oath makes members of the public, including those who serve on juries, less willing to believe all police, truthful or not. One comment that a New York prosecutor made about the impact of the Simpson case illustrates the point: "Our prosecutors now have to begin their cases defending the cops. Prosecutors have to bring the jury around to the opinion that cops aren't lying. That's how much the landscape has changed."Here is a bit by Scott Morgan on the corruption of police power in drug prohibition: First, a revealing story of police misconduct from The Journal Inquirer in North Central Connecticut:When this all comes crashing down it is going to hurt America for decades. Just as alcohol prohibition did.A Hartford police detective arrested days after his retirement in 2004 on charges of falsifying an arrest warrant has been granted a special form of probation that could lead to his arrest record being expunged.So basically Sanzo's defense was that this type of misconduct is a matter of routine at his department. And it worked! I don't know if I'm more shocked that a defense attorney would offer an argument so contemptuous towards the Fourth Amendment, or that a judge would actually be persuaded by an attempt to rationalize police misconduct. Here ia another case where the town fathers are trying to steal a man's business based on trumped up drug charges: This is the story of David Ruttenberg, the totally law-abiding owner of Rack N' Roll billiards in Manassas, Virginia, who for years now has been targeted in repeated and fruitless attempts to link his business to drug activity. His livelihood is now almost completely destroyed and most of the cops and public officials in Manassas seem to be in on it. Motivated by an apparent desire to build an off-track betting facility on the property, Manassas police and others have spared no expense in this otherwise inexplicable series of bizarre events.That is a pretty good question. My guess? Often enough so that if this kind of behavior was public knowledge it would bring down the justice system. Public Integrity has pages, and pages, and pages of this stuff. Probably just a few bad apples. Here is just a bit from one of the articles at Public Integrity: It is impossible to know for sure how often a specific prosecutor (or a specific defense attorney, judge, police officer, etc.) bends or breaks the rules. In most jurisdictions, at least 95 percent of the cases that pour in from the police never reach a jury, which means any misconduct occurs away from public view. The only trial those defendants receive takes place in the prosecutor's office; the prosecutor becomes the judge and the jury. The prosecutor is the de facto law after an arrest, deciding whether to charge the suspect with committing a crime, what charge to file from a range of possibilities, whether to offer a pre-trial deal, and, if so, the terms of the deal.Here is an interesting list of serious cases of prosecutorial misconduct. Men and women sentenced to death or long prison sentences because of the prosecutor's desire to win at all costs. Murder is no object. Scary. Here is the case of James E. Richardson, Jr.: In September 1996, a Kanawha [West Virginia- ed.] circuit judge overturned Richardson's conviction based on allegations that state police chemist Fred Zain fabricated evidence and that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence.Which sounds a lot like the Duke case. Except in the Duke case all this is coming out before trial. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 12.29.06 at 10:58 PM
Comments
Rhodium, I am not outraged that we can't solve all problems at once. I'm outraged that the well known and long standing problems are not even being addressed. Nifong is being treated as a "one of" when he is an example of a systemic problem. Go to any of the blogs discussing Nifong. Has one single one pointed out that he is part of a disfunctional system and outlined the source of that disfunction? Point it out to me if there is one. I visit a lot of the places Nifong is being discussed. I haven't seen it. At best they say it is a Durham problem. Or if they are really generous "something is wrong in North Carolina". Or it is the race baiting (whites are bad) academy. Not noticing that blacks are the hardest hit by this sort of thing. I have pointed out the rot is nationwide. I point out that the bad habits are a function of prohibition enforcement. Because it is a status crime there is no one to bring charges. So you have a network of informers. Cops who lie about probable cause. etc. etc. etc. We saw the same kind of decay of the justice system during alcohol prohibition. For the same reasons. The reason for my name calling is simple. Folks are focusing on the trees and ignoring the forrest. Wilfully in my opinion. What major news organization will have the courage to call out the destruction of our justice system prohibition is causing? None so far. BTW my outrage was towards a DA (this post is an expansion of a comment I made at a DA's blog) who was outraged at Nifong and yet couldn't see that the problem is not one bad apple. It is a bad system. I will also note that I talked to a local DA about the problem three or four years ago. She wasn't willing to see it as a systemic problem either. That great lawyer and libertarian Instapundit is against prohibition. When has he ever pointed out the systemic problems America is causing with its adherence to prohibition? Can't recall. Possibly once or twice in the six years I have been reading him. It is certainly no theme. With him it is still "a few bad apples". He writes papers that get published in law journals. If he has done one on the systemic damage prohibition is causing he has never mentioned it at his site. I could go on. However, for now the above is enough. If you take issue with any of it I'd be glad to respond. Let me put it to you: is Nifong an indicator of a systemic problem or is he just "one bad apple"? M. Simon · December 30, 2006 03:39 PM I'm an engineering kind of guy. Quality control. The manufacture of perfect (no defects) products. I'm a great believer in statistical quality control. If a production system is under statistical control you don't look to individuals to improve the quality of the output. You have to fix the systemic defects. Sure it is good that Nifong is getting "reworked". That won't fix the system that is producing the faulty products. Fixing the system is a management problem. In American justice the managers are the citizens. Do they care about faulty justice? Not unless they are individually victims of the system. Even then their focus is on reworking their situation. Not fixing the system. M. Simon · December 30, 2006 03:54 PM FYI: some really scary stuff.
For example in a hand-full of states if you own three or more pieces of equipment useful for drug production such as a hot plate, a filtering funnel or a Pyrex beaker you must register them or you are guilty of a misdemeanor and may be sentenced to up to a year in the county jail. Do you have a drip coffeemaker? Dan · January 1, 2007 12:23 PM Could we make Nifong a verb? so to 'Nifong' someone would be to falsely accuse for political (or other) gain. jeff · January 2, 2007 10:20 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
So you're saying that any of us who are "outraged" at the prosecutorial abuse being committed by Mike Nifong are being "phoney"? You make an incendiary allegation like that and I tune out the rest of what you have to say.
If Mike Nifong suffers public condemnation and humiliation, is forced to resign his position, and (best case scenario) loses his license to practice in his chosen profession, that will be a positive force for reigning in prosecutorial abuse. Actions will have consequences, if only in one instance. And that would be a good thing. Can't we agree?
Your rant is merely an extension of the tired idea (usually propagated by liberals) that if you can't simulataneously solve all problems you're a hypocrite and, as you say, a "phoney". Phoo-ey. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to my opinion of your name-calling.