Wednesday, November 22, 2006
On Civil Liberties and Civil Libertarians
On a couple of occasions, I've been faulted for not paying enough attention to civil liberties issues on this blog, or even being indifferent to the matter altogehter. I think a little bit of an explanation is in order. You see, I generally discuss matters that are in the news and are subject to widespread public attention. The major civil liberties crusades I'm seeing trumpeted by the ACLU and the Hollywood crowd by and large strike me as red herrings. I'm sorry, but trying to tell me that my heart should bleed for an animal like Tookie Williams getting the death penalty following the due process of law, a monster like Mumia Abu Jamal, who killed a police officer in cold blood, or terrorists getting less than first-class treatment strikes me as a little ridiculous. If these are the worst cases of injustice in our country, we're doing pretty damn well. Unfortunately, they really aren't, and the real, genuine, violations that do take place never seem to elicit so much as a peep from those who seem to get so worked up about the treatment of monsters. Specifically, I'm talking about a police procedure known as the no-knock raid.
The no-knock raid is pretty much just what it sounds like. The police have a warrant but don't pre-announce themselves when they show up. They pretty much batter the door down and hold everyone on the premise under custody while they conduct their search. In many cases the police are dressed in either street clothes or paramilitary attire, and the raids seem to always occur at night. In many ways, this is completely understandable from their part. It prevents the target from getting rid of evidence or even preparing to attack the police officers before they enter. That said, the entire approach is becoming increasingly a clear recipe for tragedy.
The most notorious case of the no-knock gone wrong is that of Cory Maye. Police conducted a no-knock raid of the duplex Maye lived in. Unfortunately, they were unaware the building was in fact a duplex, and had intended to conduct the raid on the other unit in the building. Maye had a 18-month old kid and also a .38 pistol. He had no prior record at the time. Now, put yourself in his shoes. It's 11 at night and your kid is asleep in the next room. You're getting ready to head in yourself. All of a sudden, CRASH!! Four guys in all black smash into your home. Its not the best of neighborhoods and you know something is up with the guy in the front. What do you do if you can get your hands on a gun? If you're like Maye, you shoot the guys. Unfortunately, the guy he shot died. And even worse for Maye, he was the Police Chief's son. After, a somewhat suspect trial, Maye got the death sentance (since overturned).
Now, my heart goes out to the Police Chief. Really, it does. Its horrible that anyone should lose their child like that. But none of that changes the fact that Maye was defending his home, and probably had no way of knowing that the guy he shot was a police officer rather than a thug. I can hardly see a good reason that Maye should have been sentance, let alone sentanced to death. Funny, though, I don't see Janet Reno out there filing a lawsuit on the matter. Oh, whoops, she was a booster of the technique. I guess Mr. Maye's civil rights matter less than those of guys who like to kill our servicemen.
And, lest you be confused, the Mayes incident is hardly unique. In 2003, Alberta Spruill suffered a heart attack and died when police burst into her Harlem apartment. In Denver, police killed Ismael Mena for firing on police during a no-knock raid, again finding no drugs in his home or on his body. Just yesterday, police killed a 92-year old woman, when she fired on them as they broke into her home.
With the Supreme Court's openness to the practice, its almost certain we're likely to see more of these sorts of incidents. But, while its constitutional, the no-knock raid is problematic, to say the least. I can't object to them in cases where there is a significant issue of police safety involved. However, these cases seem to be in the minority. Police are using them increasingly to avoid evidence destruction. That seems wrong to me, and it seems like a policy that is likely to make a hash of civil liberties, if practiced so widely. Moreover, in this age of home invasions, its a policy that seems likely to get both police and innocent civilians killed.
I have to say, if civil liberties groups and the Hollywood mourners for Tookie and Mumia are really honest about their grievances, I'd think this issue would take precedence over the defense of monsters.
On a couple of occasions, I've been faulted for not paying enough attention to civil liberties issues on this blog, or even being indifferent to the matter altogehter. I think a little bit of an explanation is in order. You see, I generally discuss matters that are in the news and are subject to widespread public attention. The major civil liberties crusades I'm seeing trumpeted by the ACLU and the Hollywood crowd by and large strike me as red herrings. I'm sorry, but trying to tell me that my heart should bleed for an animal like Tookie Williams getting the death penalty following the due process of law, a monster like Mumia Abu Jamal, who killed a police officer in cold blood, or terrorists getting less than first-class treatment strikes me as a little ridiculous. If these are the worst cases of injustice in our country, we're doing pretty damn well. Unfortunately, they really aren't, and the real, genuine, violations that do take place never seem to elicit so much as a peep from those who seem to get so worked up about the treatment of monsters. Specifically, I'm talking about a police procedure known as the no-knock raid.
The no-knock raid is pretty much just what it sounds like. The police have a warrant but don't pre-announce themselves when they show up. They pretty much batter the door down and hold everyone on the premise under custody while they conduct their search. In many cases the police are dressed in either street clothes or paramilitary attire, and the raids seem to always occur at night. In many ways, this is completely understandable from their part. It prevents the target from getting rid of evidence or even preparing to attack the police officers before they enter. That said, the entire approach is becoming increasingly a clear recipe for tragedy.
The most notorious case of the no-knock gone wrong is that of Cory Maye. Police conducted a no-knock raid of the duplex Maye lived in. Unfortunately, they were unaware the building was in fact a duplex, and had intended to conduct the raid on the other unit in the building. Maye had a 18-month old kid and also a .38 pistol. He had no prior record at the time. Now, put yourself in his shoes. It's 11 at night and your kid is asleep in the next room. You're getting ready to head in yourself. All of a sudden, CRASH!! Four guys in all black smash into your home. Its not the best of neighborhoods and you know something is up with the guy in the front. What do you do if you can get your hands on a gun? If you're like Maye, you shoot the guys. Unfortunately, the guy he shot died. And even worse for Maye, he was the Police Chief's son. After, a somewhat suspect trial, Maye got the death sentance (since overturned).
Now, my heart goes out to the Police Chief. Really, it does. Its horrible that anyone should lose their child like that. But none of that changes the fact that Maye was defending his home, and probably had no way of knowing that the guy he shot was a police officer rather than a thug. I can hardly see a good reason that Maye should have been sentance, let alone sentanced to death. Funny, though, I don't see Janet Reno out there filing a lawsuit on the matter. Oh, whoops, she was a booster of the technique. I guess Mr. Maye's civil rights matter less than those of guys who like to kill our servicemen.
And, lest you be confused, the Mayes incident is hardly unique. In 2003, Alberta Spruill suffered a heart attack and died when police burst into her Harlem apartment. In Denver, police killed Ismael Mena for firing on police during a no-knock raid, again finding no drugs in his home or on his body. Just yesterday, police killed a 92-year old woman, when she fired on them as they broke into her home.
With the Supreme Court's openness to the practice, its almost certain we're likely to see more of these sorts of incidents. But, while its constitutional, the no-knock raid is problematic, to say the least. I can't object to them in cases where there is a significant issue of police safety involved. However, these cases seem to be in the minority. Police are using them increasingly to avoid evidence destruction. That seems wrong to me, and it seems like a policy that is likely to make a hash of civil liberties, if practiced so widely. Moreover, in this age of home invasions, its a policy that seems likely to get both police and innocent civilians killed.
I have to say, if civil liberties groups and the Hollywood mourners for Tookie and Mumia are really honest about their grievances, I'd think this issue would take precedence over the defense of monsters.
Friday, November 17, 2006
The World's Average IQ
dropped a couple of points last night, with the passing of Milton Friedman. There's not really much to add. Anyone versed in Economics knows that Friedman was an absolute giant in the field. About the only figure who compares in any meaningful way would be Keynes, whose ideas Friedman's displaced. Permenant Income hypothesis for consumption? Friedman. Natural Rate of Unemployment? Yup, Friedman. Non-Parametirce ANOVA tests? Still Friedman. The velocity equation? The Chicago School? Hell, Monetarist economics? Friedman.
But aside from his academic achievements, Friedman was one of the century's great advocates for individual liberty. His Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose (written with his wife, Rose) as well as his television appearaces, articles, and public advocacy built an appreciation in thousands, or even millions of people, both for the power of individual arrangements in a market system to organize themselves free of coercion and the moral imperetive of allowing them to do so. He argued this cause with a clarity and excitement that were literally a joy to follow. While some of his causes, such as the legalization of drugs, remain unfulfilled, others like the end of the draft (there's a wonderful interchange between him and Gen. William Westmorland here.) or the negative income tax (via the Earned Income Tax Credit), or the free floating of the dollar are an everyday part of our lives and others, like school choice and vouchers, are quckly gaining increasing public acceptance. His stance and advocacy were all the more remarkable in that he argued them in a time when everyone knew that the age of individual liberty had passed.
In short, we've lost a 5'2" giant, a man who made life just a little more interesting and a little freer for all of us. He'll be missed by even those of us who knew him only through his writings and argument. My condolences go out to his wife and children. Perhaps this might be a good fugue to America's departed Fenwick.
dropped a couple of points last night, with the passing of Milton Friedman. There's not really much to add. Anyone versed in Economics knows that Friedman was an absolute giant in the field. About the only figure who compares in any meaningful way would be Keynes, whose ideas Friedman's displaced. Permenant Income hypothesis for consumption? Friedman. Natural Rate of Unemployment? Yup, Friedman. Non-Parametirce ANOVA tests? Still Friedman. The velocity equation? The Chicago School? Hell, Monetarist economics? Friedman.
But aside from his academic achievements, Friedman was one of the century's great advocates for individual liberty. His Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose (written with his wife, Rose) as well as his television appearaces, articles, and public advocacy built an appreciation in thousands, or even millions of people, both for the power of individual arrangements in a market system to organize themselves free of coercion and the moral imperetive of allowing them to do so. He argued this cause with a clarity and excitement that were literally a joy to follow. While some of his causes, such as the legalization of drugs, remain unfulfilled, others like the end of the draft (there's a wonderful interchange between him and Gen. William Westmorland here.) or the negative income tax (via the Earned Income Tax Credit), or the free floating of the dollar are an everyday part of our lives and others, like school choice and vouchers, are quckly gaining increasing public acceptance. His stance and advocacy were all the more remarkable in that he argued them in a time when everyone knew that the age of individual liberty had passed.
In short, we've lost a 5'2" giant, a man who made life just a little more interesting and a little freer for all of us. He'll be missed by even those of us who knew him only through his writings and argument. My condolences go out to his wife and children. Perhaps this might be a good fugue to America's departed Fenwick.
