PDA

View Full Version : Law in America



midcan5
10-07-2013, 01:57 PM
The application of law in America is another item in which class and money matter, often more than the law. Long ago I sat in jail next to a poor black man, we were both there for the same reason, traffic violations we could not pay. My single call to my employer at the time, performed magic. I was suddenly almost graciously let go. I'm sure my black friend spent his time in jail. If I had a wayback machine, he too would be graciously forgiven. That teenage experience changed forever my view of law. Being in large poor family, it was only one of several meetings with the law. Interesting piece below and please don't misunderstand me, sometimes the law gets it right as they did in 'National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius' and 'Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services.'


"If middle and upper-class American communities were policed in the same manner working-class and working-poor communities are — that is, if standard operating procedures, applicable criminal codes, and the U.S. Constitution were applied equally, at both the arrest and prosecution stages, against citizens of all socioeconomic classes—a substantial percentage of our nation’s criminal statutes would soon be appealed, repealed, or dramatically amended." You Won?t See This on TV | Boston Review (http://bostonreview.net/us/seth-abramson-criminal-justice)


"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." Henry M. Robert

Chris
10-07-2013, 02:01 PM
Remarkable, isn't it, how cheaply our corrupt and crony government sells its favors.

midcan5
10-11-2013, 04:11 PM
Remarkable, isn't it, how cheaply our corrupt and crony government sells its favors.

While I sorta agree with you, government is an idea run by people, guess who makes the rules and often screws up.

Alyosha
10-11-2013, 04:21 PM
While I sorta agree with you, government is an idea run by people, guess who makes the rules and often screws up.

So even though you feel that:

"If middle and upper-class American communities were policed in the same manner working-class and working-poor communities are — that is, if standard operating procedures, applicable criminal codes, and the U.S. Constitution were applied equally, at both the arrest and prosecution stages, against citizens of all socioeconomic classes—a substantial percentage of our nation’s criminal statutes would soon be appealed, repealed, or dramatically amended."

is true and won't change anytime soon, you will still go with it because it is better than no police.

Okay.

Chris
10-11-2013, 04:22 PM
While I sorta agree with you, government is an idea run by people, guess who makes the rules and often screws up.

So the less there is of it the better.

Alyosha
10-11-2013, 04:24 PM
So the less there is of it the better.

Statists believe fairies and elves run the government.

Chris
10-11-2013, 04:26 PM
Statists believe fairies and elves run the government.


And angels. Madison: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

jillian
10-11-2013, 06:59 PM
Remarkable, isn't it, how cheaply our corrupt and crony government sells its favors.

that has nothing to do with cronyism

jillian
10-11-2013, 07:00 PM
So the less there is of it the better.

to gubmint haters

Codename Section
10-11-2013, 07:03 PM
to gubmint haters

And some gubmint lovers are so willing to accept that they need it that they'll let it get away with horrible things like spying without warrant, selling guns to cartels, throwing coups in North Africa, starting wars where thousands march off to die, and dropping bombs from the skies and killing a village of children to get one bad guy.

jillian
10-11-2013, 07:04 PM
And some gubmint lovers are so willing to accept that they need it that they'll let it get away with horrible things like spying without warrant, selling guns to cartels, throwing coups in North Africa, starting wars where thousands march off to die, and dropping bombs from the skies and killing a village of children to get one bad guy.

no. i like good government.. not bad government.

and people do horrible things without the gubmint... columbus wasn't exactly nice to the indigenous population when he got here.

Codename Section
10-11-2013, 07:10 PM
no. i like good government.. not bad government.

And ours has gone bad. Even the good things it does it screws up to the point where rich people benefit and the middle class is shut out.




and people do horrible things without the gubmint... columbus wasn't exactly nice to the indigenous population when he got here.

Columbus was on a mission from and funded by the Spanish government.

jillian
10-11-2013, 07:13 PM
And ours has gone bad. Even the good things it does it screws up to the point where rich people benefit and the middle class is shut out.

that isn't "screw up" that is an intentional effort by monied interests. i saw a list today of people who donated huge amounts of money to ted cruz to blow up the government... most of them are hedgefund managers.


Columbus was on a mission from and funded by the Spanish government.

the spanish government didn't tell him to murder the indigenous population

see, here's the thing. i respect the legal system. that doesn't mean i don't think there are things that can be changed and made better

Codename Section
10-11-2013, 07:19 PM
that isn't "screw up" that is an intentional effort by monied interests. i saw a list today of people who donated huge amounts of money to ted cruz to blow up the government... most of them are hedgefund managers.


Obamacare is screwing up people's premiums and you know it. Some poor people will be helped but it's a gimme to insurance companies. There was even a Democratic Senator (I'll find the link) who was lunching with those assholes and Sotomayer and that other one--both worked on it and didn't recuse themselves.

I'm so fucking sick of being lied to, jerked around, and the absolute destruction this government is causing at home and all over the world.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. JAG thinks Gitmo is a joke. We're actually using weapons that will save us money, but kill more villagers when we drop drone bombs. Women and children versus $$. Let's save some fuel and funds on bombs and use that one.

All the spying and fucking DHS funding paramilitary police, I'm just sick of it all. Death and nothing but death. For what? Seriously jillian.

What have we accomplished? Is anyone any safer?

jillian
10-11-2013, 07:22 PM
Obamacare is screwing up people's premiums and you know it. Some poor people will be helped but it's a gimme to insurance companies. There was even a Democratic Senator (I'll find the link) who was lunching with those assholes and Sotomayer and that other one--both worked on it and didn't recuse themselves.

I'm so fucking sick of being lied to, jerked around, and the absolute destruction this government is causing at home and all over the world.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. JAG thinks Gitmo is a joke. We're actually using weapons that will save us money, but kill more villagers when we drop drone bombs. Women and children versus $$. Let's save some fuel and funds on bombs and use that one.

All the spying and fucking DHS funding paramilitary police, I'm just sick of it all. Death and nothing but death. For what? Seriously @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719).

What have we accomplished? Is anyone any safer?

i always thought the things they did after 9/11 in terms of eroding the 4th amendment were opportunistic, unnecessary and unconstitutional

but we have a court that won't correct that.. the same way the didn't correct the destruction of our electoral system with unlimited amounts of money

gitmo is unsustainable. and, to be fair, this president wanted to shut it down. the right passed legislation prohibiting him from using any funds to close it down and move people. he tried to keep his promise on that issue.

Peter1469
10-11-2013, 07:27 PM
i always thought the things they did after 9/11 in terms of eroding the 4th amendment were opportunistic, unnecessary and unconstitutional

but we have a court that won't correct that.. the same way the didn't correct the destruction of our electoral system with unlimited amounts of money

gitmo is unsustainable. and, to be fair, this president wanted to shut it down. the right passed legislation prohibiting him from using any funds to close it down and move people. he tried to keep his promise on that issue.

that was bipartisan.

Codename Section
10-11-2013, 07:29 PM
i always thought the things they did after 9/11 in terms of eroding the 4th amendment were opportunistic, unnecessary and unconstitutional

but we have a court that won't correct that.. the same way the didn't correct the destruction of our electoral system with unlimited amounts of money

gitmo is unsustainable. and, to be fair, this president wanted to shut it down. the right passed legislation prohibiting him from using any funds to close it down and move people. he tried to keep his promise on that issue.

Jillian no offense but that is such bullshit. It has fucking nothing to do with funds. He's the goddamned CIC! He can say move the prisoners. He had 3 years to do it before they ever said no funds for Gitmo trials here. Have the trials there. They'd be just as bullshit.

We aren't having them because then the American people would know that half of them were regular people we held for a decade and then we/if we were to ever send them back, it would cause AQ and the Taliban to rally because we just held innocent people hostage without trial.

So morality goes out the window for the mission. Like always.

So I don't want to hear your free passes for him. He is just as bad as Bush. Just as bad.

What about how he was going to prosecute the torturers? Why didn't he? Wanna know why? Because they still do it.

Sorry, I'm just having a rough one tonight and I don't want to hear any partisan excuses. We are death dealers--thanks to Bush and your president, too.

Dr. Who
10-11-2013, 07:58 PM
To be honest AQ was created by the CIA to undermine the Russians (Soviet Union) back in the day in Afghanistan. After so much US and other western interference in the ME, AQ has not only taken on a life of its own, it has proliferated to every part of the ME and Africa that has been the victim of western exploitation. The west can only prop up so many dictatorships and exploit so many people before there is retaliation. The leaders of AQ use Islam to sell martyrdom to the people in the name of religion, but I think the real agenda is to remove western influence and exploitation. Is it altruistic? Probably not. The various leaders of the warring factions likely want to reap the wealth from oil before it loses it's relevance in the modern world. Their motive doesn't change the fact that the people in those regimes wouldn't be embracing jihadism if they were not being exploited by the west such that the wealth from their natural resources does nothing to benefit the people, but instead flows to extra-national corporations.

Chris
10-11-2013, 08:11 PM
that isn't "screw up" that is an intentional effort by monied interests. i saw a list today of people who donated huge amounts of money to ted cruz to blow up the government... most of them are hedgefund managers.



the spanish government didn't tell him to murder the indigenous population

see, here's the thing. i respect the legal system. that doesn't mean i don't think there are things that can be changed and made better




that isn't "screw up" that is an intentional effort by monied interests.

Precisely, government favors are not purchased cheaply, not since the 16th amendment which allows government to bypass business if they need to and syphon parasitically directly off the people.

They buy it from Cruz, they buy it from Obama, what's the difference?



no. i like good government.. not bad government.

As we saw recently Americans tend to like the idea of government, just not the reality.

Mr Happy
10-11-2013, 08:23 PM
"If middle and upper-class American communities were policed in the same manner working-class and working-poor communities are — that is, if standard operating procedures, applicable criminal codes, and the U.S. Constitution were applied equally, at both the arrest and prosecution stages, against citizens of all socioeconomic classes—a substantial percentage of our nation’s criminal statutes would soon be appealed, repealed, or dramatically amended." You Won?t See This on TV | Boston Review (http://bostonreview.net/us/seth-abramson-criminal-justice)

I disagree. One of the reasons more poor people get in trouble with the law is because they break the law more often, due to a number of reasons. Maybe a penchant to rob, burgle or steal cars; they need money because they have less; they tend to drink more which leads to more crime etc etc.

This is why socially minded people believe attacking poverty is so important and getting people out of the 'cycle'.

This is just a simplistic take BTW...there's more to it..

jillian
10-11-2013, 10:24 PM
I disagree. One of the reasons more poor people get in trouble with the law is because they break the law more often, due to a number of reasons. Maybe a penchant to rob, burgle or steal cars; they need money because they have less; they tend to drink more which leads to more crime etc etc.

This is why socially minded people believe attacking poverty is so important and getting people out of the 'cycle'.

This is just a simplistic take BTW...there's more to it..

That's part of it. But there is also unequal enforcement. For example, suburban white kids do and sell pot as often as urban black kids do and sell pot. Yet black kids go to jail for doing and selling pot far more often than white suburban kids. Why? because they are constantly stopped... they're constantly searched. And when they are arrested, the urban black kid is jailed far more frequently than the white suburban kid who is arrested. In part that's because there's more money for better lawyers for the white suburban kid. In part it's the instinct of law enforcement to say "oh, the kid comes from a 'good family' so let's give him a break. the black kid from the poor family who can't afford the good lawyer gets legal aid with their thousands of files... who says 'cut a deal'... at which point the kid goes into the system which is basically a school for criminal behavior.

There's an interesting book out called The New Jim Crow which talks about how that type of unequal enforcement has societal impact far beyond the arrest of the individaul.

so yes, you're right about certain behaviors... but there are other considerations.

Alyosha
10-12-2013, 08:00 AM
That's part of it. But there is also unequal enforcement. For example, suburban white kids do and sell pot as often as urban black kids do and sell pot. Yet black kids go to jail for doing and selling pot far more often than white suburban kids. Why? because they are constantly stopped... they're constantly searched. And when they are arrested, the urban black kid is jailed far more frequently than the white suburban kid who is arrested. In part that's because there's more money for better lawyers for the white suburban kid. In part it's the instinct of law enforcement to say "oh, the kid comes from a 'good family' so let's give him a break. the black kid from the poor family who can't afford the good lawyer gets legal aid with their thousands of files... who says 'cut a deal'... at which point the kid goes into the system which is basically a school for criminal behavior.

There's an interesting book out called The New Jim Crow which talks about how that type of unequal enforcement has societal impact far beyond the arrest of the individaul.

so yes, you're right about certain behaviors... but there are other considerations.


They are unequally stopped due to the federal grant money being reserved for conviction rates. It's hard to get a conviction for drugs when the person's parents just hired a famous private attorney who will cost the city $$$ to take it to trial. They don't want trials for simple drug busts because of America's sentiment on the War on Drugs. Juries don't care. So, they go into poor neighborhoods and grab people who will take a plea.

When you incentivize convictions you will end up with all sorts of fuckery out of police.

Or do you not agree?

Alyosha
10-12-2013, 08:02 AM
I disagree. One of the reasons more poor people get in trouble with the law is because they break the law more often, due to a number of reasons. Maybe a penchant to rob, burgle or steal cars; they need money because they have less; they tend to drink more which leads to more crime etc etc.

This is why socially minded people believe attacking poverty is so important and getting people out of the 'cycle'.

This is just a simplistic take BTW...there's more to it..

We have so many laws that we all break more than a few each day.

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx


• Violation of Foreign Law (The Lacey Act)
Hypothetical: You are a small business proprietor who supplies restaurants with fish and produce. One shipment of lobsters comes in unusual packaging—usually sent in cardboard boxes, these lobsters arrived in clear packaging. By purchasing this shipment, you have arguably committed a federal felony. The imported lobsters originated in a country that bans the shipping of lobsters in clear plastic bags, and the U.S. Lacey Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_16_00001861----000-.html) makes criminal an importer who violates “any foreign law”—regardless of whether you knew of the foreign regulations.

Real-life example: American businesswoman Diane Huang was convicted under this far-reaching provision, despite her unawareness of the supposed Honduran law banning the shipment of lobsters in clear plastic bags. Lack of criminal intent, the Washington Legal Foundation (http://www.wlf.org/Litigating/case_detail.asp?id=260) argued on behalf of Huang and her co-defendants, should make the government’s criminal charges inappropriate. To make matters worse, the Honduran law governing such shipments was not valid at the time of Huang’s arrest—a fact that the Honduran government pointed out to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, the federal court found Huang guilty in March 2003 and imposed a two-year prison sentence.

Chris
10-12-2013, 09:17 AM
I disagree. One of the reasons more poor people get in trouble with the law is because they break the law more often, due to a number of reasons. Maybe a penchant to rob, burgle or steal cars; they need money because they have less; they tend to drink more which leads to more crime etc etc.

This is why socially minded people believe attacking poverty is so important and getting people out of the 'cycle'.

This is just a simplistic take BTW...there's more to it..


The problem with attacking poverty is it's done materialistically and only serves to keep poor people poor but indebted to the government that hands out the welfare.

Chris
10-12-2013, 09:19 AM
That's part of it. But there is also unequal enforcement. For example, suburban white kids do and sell pot as often as urban black kids do and sell pot. Yet black kids go to jail for doing and selling pot far more often than white suburban kids. Why? because they are constantly stopped... they're constantly searched. And when they are arrested, the urban black kid is jailed far more frequently than the white suburban kid who is arrested. In part that's because there's more money for better lawyers for the white suburban kid. In part it's the instinct of law enforcement to say "oh, the kid comes from a 'good family' so let's give him a break. the black kid from the poor family who can't afford the good lawyer gets legal aid with their thousands of files... who says 'cut a deal'... at which point the kid goes into the system which is basically a school for criminal behavior.

There's an interesting book out called The New Jim Crow which talks about how that type of unequal enforcement has societal impact far beyond the arrest of the individaul.

so yes, you're right about certain behaviors... but there are other considerations.



So much for rule of law. What does a legal positivist say about that unequal and unjust treatment before the law?

jillian
10-12-2013, 09:25 AM
So much for rule of law. What does a legal positivist say about that unequal and unjust treatment before the law?

You mean someone who doesn't believe in pretend law in the air?

The law requires equal treatment. What you do is vote out people who don't honor that..... Like NY just did when it didn't vote for the DA under whom stop and frisk started..... And voted for the mayoral candidate who came out against it early.

Chris
10-12-2013, 09:43 AM
You mean someone who doesn't believe in pretend law in the air?

The law requires equal treatment. What you do is vote out people who don't honor that..... Like NY just did when it didn't vote for the DA under whom stop and frisk started..... And voted for the mayoral candidate who came out against it early.


Rule of law demands equal treatment, in reality the law does not reflect that as you amply demonstrated. What the law is and what it ought to be are two different things, and here clash with each other. What happened? What brought this about?

jillian
10-12-2013, 09:47 AM
Rule of law demands equal treatment, in reality the law does not reflect that as you amply demonstrated. What the law is and what it ought to be are two different things, and here clash with each other. What happened? What brought this about?

No. Practice doesn't demonstrate what the law requires. You change the practice. The law requires equal treatment

and don't cross out what I say. If you insist on using hyperbole like "legal positivist" constantly, then you are talking about law in the air

of course, you're perfectly fine with "legal positivism" when it's imposed on women and their ability to exercise dominion over their own bodies.

Chris
10-12-2013, 10:05 AM
No. Practice doesn't demonstrate what the law requires. You change the practice. The law requires equal treatment

and don't cross out what I say. If you insist on using hyperbole like "legal positivist" constantly, then you are talking about law in the air

of course, you're perfectly fine with "legal positivism" when it's imposed on women and their ability to exercise dominion over their own bodies.



I was commenting specifically on your post 21 (I like good government, not bad government) where you amply demonstrated the law is not working.

Rule of law is not so much about what the law is but how is it administered. Clearly, just because we posit laws, doesn't mean we have rule of law. What we have is rule of men.

I crossed out what i was not responding to. And do so again.

Legal positivism is law in the air, it's meaningless, which is why I cannot understand why you would argue and defend it. I dismiss it as vacuous self-serving snake-tail swallowing nonsense, and argue instead for rule of law.

Alyosha
10-12-2013, 10:25 AM
You mean someone who doesn't believe in pretend law in the air?

The law requires equal treatment. What you do is vote out people who don't honor that..... Like NY just did when it didn't vote for the DA under whom stop and frisk started..... And voted for the mayoral candidate who came out against it early.


How many years did that go by before it happened? Countless black males now have records that will make it impossible for them to get jobs.

Government can, sometimes, correct itself but most often it does not and continues to grow. Look at Florence, now the SCOTUS has decided that even for speeding someone can have a body cavity search. That bit of caselaw will expand until we're all fucked and the chances of it being revisited under a less draconian court are small.

We'd not have to have a body of Congress willing to write legislation that repeals laws and so far only Rand Paul and Patrick Leahy are willing to do this.

Basically, we're in for a bumpy ride.

Cthulhu
10-14-2013, 11:53 AM
Statists believe fairies and elves run the government.

Well, they are right in their belief.

We are governed by dark elves and the unseenlie fey courts.

Mister D
10-14-2013, 12:46 PM
Well, they are right in their belief.

We are governed by dark elves and the unseenlie fey courts.

Damn. Haven't heard about dark elves since I stopped playing D&D and Warhammer so many years ago...