Crime and Punishment

Pretty Long Reach

by

I hail from Columbus, Ohio. It is more than 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) from the US-Mexico border.

Things are pretty hairy down ol’ Mexico way. The government declared war on the drug cartels three years ago. So far there isn’t much progress, even though any gains by law enforcement usually sets off a turf war between the gangs as they try to seize lucrative smuggling routes from suddenly weakened rivals. If the big boys ever get organized instead of simply looking to grab what they can, then I really don’t think the Mexican government has a prayer of winning. Or even surviving.

Read more

Bias Confirmed

by

Megan McArdle, an AGW true believer, seems to think that most of the problems highlighted by Climategate are due to confirmation bias. That is where the experts tend to accept data that is in line with what they expect, while assuming that anything which goes against the prevailing theory must just be faulty in some way.

I’d agree with her except for the way the people involved in the scandal went against the law to delete emails, hatched plans to punish other scientists whose work showed different results, and even worked to discredit scientific journals which dared to publish contrary research.

That sort of willing participation in unethical and illegal behavior doesn’t fit any definition of “confirmation bias” I’ve ever come across. Crooks, liars, cheats and con artists act like that, not respectable scientists who simply put a bit more weight on one side of the scale.

It is certainly true that the history of science is rife with examples of confirmation bias. But, while debate and disagreement might become heated, it is rare to come across a case where one side of the issue actively schemes to silence their opponents through purposely causing them some form of harm.

In this instance, I suppose the AGW dissenters should be grateful that only their careers were damaged.

UPDATE
The Belmont Club has a post that is worth your time.

SEIU Crime Alert

by

Breitbart’s Biggovernment.com scores again, interviewing homecare workers threatened by the SEIU in a union election in Fresno. Obviously there are labor law issues but SEIU’s former counsel and now NLRB member Craig Becker can probably keep the SEIU out of hot water on the labor front. But what about the postal front?

Multiple times on the linked video, the workers said that SEIU representatives took their mail, opened it, and intimidated them into voting SEIU, and then took their ballots. This stinks, but is it a crime? According to postal inspector Hillary Smith, who covers the Fresno area, it certainly sounds like one. Specifically, the crime would be mail theft, which carries a financial penalty of up to $250,000 and up to 5 years in prison.

Filing a complaint for mail theft can be done electronically here. Without complaints, mail theft cannot be investigated. The inspectors have seen the video. They just cannot proceed without a complainant. To date, they do not seem to have received one.

“You Got a License For That Toy?”

by

Some criminals in Australia are using toy guns to rob people.

Well, why not? Gun control laws in Australia are, to my American eyes, rather severe and draconian. Only about one-in-twenty people own guns for hunting or sport shooting. No one is allowed to carry concealed for self defense.

This means that there is pretty much no risk, either to the criminal or victim, if someone paints a toy gun black and uses it to hold someone up. The victim might get scared, but they are certainly in no danger from the gun. The criminal, on the other hand, is also operating without risk of getting shot by any law abiding citizen who is licensed to carry a concealed firearm. Which means this particular crime should prove to be extremely popular.

But that isn’t good enough for government in Australia. It seems that they are now planning on banning toy guns! There will be exceptions if those who want toy guns first get a license.

This paragraph blew my mind…

“NSW Police Minister Michael Daley said new national minimum standards affecting the possession, penalties and safe storage of imitation firearms were at a meeting in Perth yesterday.”

WTF? “…safe storage of imitation firearms…” Does that mean they are planning on locking people up if they don’t lock up their toys?

So what do you think the safe storage criteria would be for the slick, dangerous piece of hardware below?

Clown Gun

I know what you are thinking. The cops are worried about imitation or replica arms, stuff that can easily be mistaken for the real thing. The gun above looks like something a circus clown might use, and is not a serious example.

The only thing I can say in my defense is that the Australian government is beclowning themselves without any help from me.

(Cross posted at Hell in a Handbasket.)

Since When Do Prosecutors Decide the Type of Trial?

by

In his post, “Why Has Holder Decided to Try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a Civilian Court?” [h/t Instapundit], Eric Posner says:

Then what is the answer? It is surely this: the Obama administration has decided to offer a two-tiered system of justice. We might call them the “high-quality” (civilian) tier and “low-quality” (military) tier. The high-quality approach offers greater accuracy; the low-quality approach offers less accuracy. The Obama administration will use the high-quality system against people when it has a strong case, and the low-quality system against people when it has a weak case.
 
This approach makes sense. Endless detention without trial is no longer a politically viable option. The government will make a judgment as to whether a suspect is dangerous or not. If the case is good, the high-quality system will be used. If the case is bad, the low-quality system will be used. In this way, the government can ensure that people it thinks are dangerous will be locked up.

What the hell? Since when do we allow the executive branch to decide the type of trial a defendant receives based on the quality of the evidence the executive branch decides to use? Since when do we give the executive branch any say in how trials are conducted at all?

Read more