Politics: A new beginning

[ltl/fb]

Would someone who has the ability to email the text of an article from the WSJ please PM me? Thanks.

Edited to add, from today's edition, in case that matters.

[sgtclub]

So the latest theory is that Gore's backing of Dean rather than a Clinton blessed nominee is a signal that he's not finished yet in politics and may take on Hillary in 2008. Thoughts?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So the latest theory is that Gore's backing of Dean rather than a Clinton blessed nominee is a signal that he's not finished yet in politics and may take on Hillary in 2008. Thoughts?

I agree. I alluded to that in an earlier post when I said that I bet Hillary is pissed that Gore did that.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So the latest theory is that Gore's backing of Dean rather than a Clinton blessed nominee is a signal that he's not finished yet in politics and may take on Hillary in 2008. Thoughts?

He wants the Dean Machine after Dean loses.

(Adding: ) If Dean wins, he wants a job.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
(Adding: ) If Dean wins, he wants a job.

Do you really think he would take job? Doesn't that diminish his standing in the party?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
If we prosecuted every reckless running of a stop sign, every incident of speeding, and every "oops, I was on my cell phone" that resulted in injury or death, we'd have complete gridlock in the courts.

And, no, it's not that everybody who does these things knocks it down with a plea. We just flat-out don't charge these things.

Huh. I live in a jurisdiction derided for its liberalism, and yet I see continuing encroachment by the criminal courts upon negligence law, where the conduct can be characterized as "reckless," which is basically every negligence case. Like the nation's most progressive prosecutor charging a landlord and some dog owners with murder. You must live in an especially soft jurisidiction, 'cause the writing on the wall says that criminalization of negligence is the wave of the future, the way that federalization of crime was the hot topic in the mid-'90s notwithstanding the New Federalism.

BTW, I have a hard time seeing the charging of a congressperson as "politically motivated." The guy was definitely guilty of the stop sign running and the reckless driving, but the chance of an acquittal on manslaughter was high (see the radio reports about gasps in the courtroom when the verdict was read), and the local DA didn't have a whole lot to gain just by charging the guy. He had to win. He did. Boo-hoo for Janklow. He killed a guy, and then slurred responsible diabetics with his defense.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Just south of Trenton, N.J., there was a bit of a problem. An unidentified bird flew into the engine of the train, subsequently destroying the engine … and the bird.

"Unidentified"? Somebody alert Tom Ridge.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
BTW, I have a hard time seeing the charging of a congressperson as "politically motivated."

I didn't see this as a political issue, either, just as an over-reach of prosecutorial discretion. The expansion of crim to negligent behavior seems strange in a time when we are seemingly decriminalizing (or at least de-emphasizing) some intentional behaviors.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I didn't see this as a political issue, either, just as an over-reach of prosecutorial discretion. The expansion of crim to negligent behavior seems strange in a time when we are seemingly decriminalizing (or at least de-emphasizing) some intentional behaviors.

If your remember from One L, crime use to require actus reus and mens rea. The mens rea is diminishing to nothing, and now it's all about the effect of the behavior, regardless of the criminal intention. Like mentally ill mothers killing their children or grandfathers forgetting the babies in hot cars --- it no longer matters whether they knew they were doing a bad thing; if the thing is bad enough, that alone is enough to justify punishment.

That said, I still think speeding and running a stop sign is appropriately punishable in criminal court, because it was intentional, giving rise to known or obvious risks to others.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
On a related subject, how do the pop-up blocking programs seem to be working? My home computer is virtually unusable at this point because of fucking pop-up ads.

The ad blocker program in the Norton Internet Security package Seems to have stopped about 100% of pop-ups for over a year. If I didn't also surf the Net at work, I'd forget that there were such things as pop-ups.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
That said, I still think speeding and running a stop sign is appropriately punishable in criminal court, because it was intentional, giving rise to known or obvious risks to others.

As an act in violation of law, certainly. We give out tickets for that.

But, as an act of reckless, wilfull, or depraved indifference?

I think that's reaching. Over-reaching, even.

Maybe if he saw the bike, saw the stop sign, and decided that he would try to beat the bike through the intersection. But not merely blowing through the sign.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The ad blocker program in the Norton Internet Security package Seems to have stopped about 100% of pop-ups for over a year. If I didn't also surf the Net at work, I'd forget that there were such things as pop-ups.

S_A_M

I use Pop-Up Stopper, a free download. It's one of the few pop-up blockers that does not include spyware, it works every time (I never see a pop-up), and it takes minimal resources to run.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
As an act in violation of law, certainly. We give out tickets for that.

But, as an act of reckless, wilfull, or depraved indifference?

I think that's reaching. Over-reaching, even.

Maybe if he saw the bike, saw the stop sign, and decided that he would try to beat the bike through the intersection. But not merely blowing through the sign.

By that analysis, even drunken driving resulting in death or serious bodily injury would not be a felony. NTTAWWT. Oh, wait, yes there is.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I still think speeding and running a stop sign is appropriately punishable in criminal court, because it was intentional, giving rise to known or obvious risks to others.

Running a stop sign may or may not be intentional. He may not have seen the stop sign. If that were the case, it was not intentional.

Speeding is usually intentional, but again, may not always be. For instance, if someone's stilletto spiked heels got caught under the gas pedal.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
But he DID get special treatment. He got treated especially badly.

Accidents happen every day. That's negligence. But, caving to public pressure, they nailed him for gross negligence, willful indifference, and the like. Historically, past driving records don't suffice for that. Further, he was driving like every other bozo in a state with miles to nowhere and eight-foot corn.

He should bleed in the civil suit. But, this shouldn't have been a criminal matter.

I can't comment on the prosecutorial practice out in the Great Plains -- and the driving culture may well be different there. However, where I come from people do blow through stop signs from time to time at high rates of speed -- and when they kill somebody, they are generally prosecuted for the killing. I think that is the right answer.

(OTOH -- it may be easier to make the mens rea -- reckless indifference to human life -- when the driver is blowing through stop signs at 60+ MPH in a urban area or a close-in suburb than when he's surrounded by corn fields.)

I would say that the issue of negligence versus recklessness hinges in part on the amount by which he exceeded the speed limit. A driver's past history is also certainly relevant to the chraging decision -- and I think one can make a decent public policy argument that Janklow's high office combined with his record made it all the more important to prosecute the case.

S_A_M