home

Friday Morning Open Thread

Busy day.

Have a great Memorial Day Weekend.

Open Thread.

< Thursday Open Thread | Quinnipiac FL Poll: Majority Favor Stand Your Ground >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I do not like the looks of what seems to be (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Peter G on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:09:08 PM EST
    happening in the Edwards deliberations.  Carefully going through count after count, for a whole week, is not likely consistent with an acquittal.  Anything is possible, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised, now, by a conviction on numerous (but not all) counts later this afternoon.

    I my view, the jurors are (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:19:49 PM EST
    fulfilling their oath.

    Parent
    No doubt. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Peter G on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:44:34 PM EST
    And in no way inconsistent with what I wrote.

    Parent
    I interpreted your comment (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:19:58 PM EST
    as you hoping for a speedy verdict--acquittal!

    Parent
    also true (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Peter G on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    I am hoping the jury pieces the smokescreen (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri May 25, 2012 at 05:34:50 PM EST
    And figuratively fries his butt.

    Parent
    Contradiction (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by sj on Sat May 26, 2012 at 10:44:33 PM EST
    If they pierce (assume that's what you meant) the smokescreen, then they won't fry his butt.

    Parent
    I have the same bad feeling, long deliberations (none / 0) (#2)
    by Angel on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:33:39 PM EST
    and combing through the evidence...doesn't look good from my perspective.  But maybe, just maybe, there is the lone holdout.  (Does the verdict have to be unanimous?)

    Parent
    On any given count, either a conviction (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Peter G on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    or an acquittal must be unanimous.  Otherwise, we describe the jury as being "hung" or "deadlocked" on that count, a mistrial is declared as to that count, and a retrial of the count(s) becomes possible -- subject first to the prosecutor's discretion and then, in some situations too technical to get into here, to double-jeopardy considerations.

    Parent
    Thanks, I have read that in some cases (none / 0) (#4)
    by Angel on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:20:54 PM EST
    only nine of twelve is required for conviction, but I am guessing that is not so for federal cases?  

    Parent
    Federal criminal cases (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:23:01 PM EST
    Require unanimous verdicts.  States are not required to have unanimity.

    Parent
    Really? Name one. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:01:22 PM EST
    Most every state I know of requires unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trails. Majority jury verdicts of 9-3 are applicable in civil trials, not in criminal cases.

    Parent
    Louisiana and Oregon (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:13:58 PM EST
    Unless they've recently changed their laws.

    Parent
    A contemporary mistrial/retrial case: (none / 0) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    Blueford v Arkansas.  The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a criminal defendant may be retried even though the jury in his first trial had unanimously rejected the most serious charges against him but could not agree thereafter, yielding a mistrial.  The vote was 6/3 that  the constitutional protection against double-jeopardy does not bar re-prosecution of Blueford on all charges, not just the less serious one.

    Roberts, writing for the majority, said the foreperson's report was not a final resolution of anything. Justice Sotomayor (and Ginsberg and Kagan) said the majority had given prosecutor's "the proverbial second bite at the apple."  and that the protections of the Constitution's  double jeopardy clause was needed.

    Parent

    Well, the SCOTUS majority gave ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    ... Gilded Age corporatists a second bite at the apple, overturning a century of campaign finance reform law with their Citizens United ruling. Why not offer prosecutors the same due consideration?

    Hell, why don't they just overturn Miranda and Brady v. Maryland while they're at it, and re-authorize debtors' prisons?

    Parent

    Debtor's prisons, Donald? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:57:13 PM EST
    They already exist even if we don't call them that. Or at least I should say we put people in jail for debt, even though it is often euphemistically called something else:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/06/jail-for-unpaid-debt-a-reality-in-six-states-strategic-defaul t-pushback-watch.html

    And let's not forget child support. It's estimated that up to 50 thousand or so non-custodials per day are imprisoned for unpaid child support or unpaid child support interest. This is almost always done under the "contempt of court" rubric, however a Judge need have no evidence in order to do this. While jailed, interest accrues. Belying the "official" reason , most unpaid child support is owed by NCP's earning 10 K or less per year, and a surprising number revisit prison many times, thus either proving that "jail for contempt" is not a deterrent or that they were broke in the first place.

    Anyway, while I don't expect a conversation maybe you and some others will find this information about debts and prison in the US of interest.

    Parent

    Oh, are we now supposed ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:09:13 PM EST
    ... to feel sorry for deadbeat parents who walk out on their responsibilities and stiff their own children?

    And from your link, this statement stood out:

    "How often are debtors arrested across the country? No one can say. No national statistics are kept, and the practice is largely unnoticed outside legal circles."

    Do we have a problem with overly aggressive debt collection? Absolutely. We have documented evidence of such. But do we really have a problem with debt collectors having people thrown into jail?

    Look, if this is really a problem, then proponents of this issue should be able to cite statistics and probabilities. Instead, we're offered "evidence" in the form of anecdotes, which aren't necessarily accurate accountings of the alleged incidents in question, nor the most reliable means to determine whether there is in fact a real and existing problem.

    Look at actual evidence first, then hypothesize.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Okay, Donald, here are some statistics for (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:29:40 PM EST
    you.

    A paper by law professor Linda Coco entitled Debtor's Prison in the Neoliberal State discusses how the 2005 bankruptcy "reforms" have had a very serious and destructive impact on the ability of people to recover from debt.

    Here is a paper by the ACLU entitled In For a Penney: The Rise of America's New Debtors' Prisons.

    Given how high up you are in the Hawaii Democratic Party, I am surprised you aren't familiar with this. This is an issue that cries out for political action.

    As an aside, your comment sounded a little snotty to me. It came off as if, since you were not aware of this problem, it must not exist and the commenter must be talking through his/her hat. Just my impression.

    Parent

    On the contrary, I said ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 26, 2012 at 07:56:57 PM EST
    ... that if it's a problem, then show me the documentation. I'm fully aware of the stresses that the 2005 bankruptcy law placed upon ordinary Americans.

    If you're going to combat a problem, you not generally going to be successful through legislating by anecdotes. The simple facts of the matter is that anecdotes don't necessarily give you the entire story. Rather, they often comprise only the portion of the story that proponents want you to hear, the part that's favorable to their cause.

    Case in point: Stella Lebeck, the elderly woman who received a large jury award from McDonald for getting burned a number of years ago. Those corporatists who oppose Big Money being held to account will only tell you the part about the "outrageous" jury award, to show that trial lawyers and juries od bleeding hearts are running amock.

    But these same professionally outraged corproatists who seek to put a cap on monetary awards for punitive damages will neglect to tell you the part about how McDonald's back then served its coffee at a scalding 195 degrees, or that McDonald's had been warned that this was a serious safety issue and that hundreds of people had in fact been badly injured by spilled hot coffee (including several infants).

    They won't tell you that Ms. Lebeck suffered 3rd degree burns over the lower portion of her body that required hospitalization and months of painful skin grafts. They won't tell you that Ms. Lebeck sought only to have her medical bills paid, and that the jury chose to calculate the profits McDonald's made on their coffee, and then stripped them of those profits in awarding $16 million to Ms. Lebeck.

    No, the right-wing anecdote instead seeks to portray Ms. Lebeck as nothing but a greedy litigant who wanted something for nothing.

    That's why even though I do like to hear it as a legislative analyst, I don't put too much stock in anecdotal evidence. You need real statistics, which can help analyst like myself identify what the problem actually is, and then help us pinpoint its source. When you legislate by anecdote, you often merely treat a social symptom, which -- all good intentions aside -- may in fact make things even worse.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Data? (none / 0) (#51)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:40:13 AM EST

    Is there empirical data on correlation between length of deliberations and outcomes?

    Parent
    Got to see and hear Howard Dean (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Sat May 26, 2012 at 05:51:24 PM EST
    deliver a terrific commencement address to a class of MBA graduates in Sustainable Management.

    In a speech that began with his condemnation of three failed institutions (the financial sector, the political sector, and the media), he went on to claim full and appropriate credit for the achievements of his Baby Boomer generation while also calling for his own generation to stand aside now and let people under 35 run with the ball. The points he made were sober, grounded, and ultimately visionary and very optimistic.

    Right afterward, he left for Macedonia to do some kind of good work there.

    What a guy!

    Second judge (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:46:25 PM EST
    Strikes down a law barring same-sex partners from getting benefits.

    She says the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act violated constitutional standards when it denied federal benefits to same-sex spouses married under California law and barred domestic partners of state workers from long-term health coverage.

    She also struck down another 1996 law limiting tax benefits for state employees with domestic partners.



    Poor Detroit (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:16:17 PM EST
    It just keeps getting worse.

    Detroit, , whose 139 square miles contain 60 percent fewer residents than in 1950, will try to nudge them into a smaller living space by eliminating almost half its streetlights.

    As it is, 40 percent of the 88,000 streetlights are broken and the city, whose finances are to be overseen by an appointed board, can't afford to fix them. Mayor Dave Bing's plan would create an authority to borrow $160 million to upgrade and reduce the number of streetlights to 46,000. Maintenance would be contracted out, saving the city $10 million a year.

    Other U.S. cities have gone partially dark to save money, among them Colorado Springs; Santa Rosa, California; and Rockford, Illinois. Detroit's plan goes further: It would leave sparsely populated swaths unlit in a community of 713,000 that covers more area than Boston, Buffalo and San Francisco combined. Vacant property and parks account for 37 square miles (96 square kilometers), according to city planners.

    "You have to identify those neighborhoods where you want to concentrate your population," said Chris Brown, Detroit's chief operating officer. "We're not going to light distressed areas like we light other areas."



    Pretty soon, wildlife will return to Detroit (none / 0) (#11)
    by magster on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:42:03 PM EST
    and it will be an urban habitat preserve.

    Parent
    Well, they killed a mountain lion ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    ... in Santa Monica this week.

    I think most dashing and sophisticated urbanites are quite cognizant of the wildlife already living in their midst.

    Parent

    read something interesting (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:27:38 PM EST
    today about jury dynamics, and I wouldn't be that surprised if it were true elsewhere.  I can't really link because you have to be a globe subscriber, but here is the gist of it if people are interested in the study:

    "Men are generally more dominant and garrulous in social settings than women. However, a new study finds that this pattern can change depending on the racial composition of the group"

    "In the all-white juries, the typical gender disparity persisted, with men talking more and being seen as more persuasive than women. In the diverse juries, though, women did more talking and were seen as being just as persuasive."

    Source: Toosi, N. et al., "Getting a Word in Group-Wise: Effects of Racial Diversity on Gender Dynamics," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (forthcoming).

    In the circuit court (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:16:48 PM EST
    In Michigan where I worked, more often than mot, black women (especially older black women) were MUCH harder on black defendants.

    Parent
    You have a good weekend, too, BTD. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:46:27 PM EST
    Our State Democratic Convention opens this afternoon at the Sheraton Waikiki and runs though this weekend.

    Because several of the functions will go late into the evenings, my wife and I reserved a hotel room there for the duration, on the 30th floor overlooking the beach and Diamond Head. It's the first time we've actually stayed in Waikiki since we lived there back when we first got married, before we moved to our present locale in east Honolulu. The girls get the house to themselves this weekend.

    Aloha, everyone. Have a pleasant and safe Memorial Day holiday.

    Been there and done that (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    when my sales territory  included HI and Guam.

    Ah, those were the days...

    Get paid for drinking and your drinking paid for!

    Parent

    We're paying our own way. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:12:39 PM EST
    This isn't a sales or marketing convention. Delegates at political conventions, regardless of the party hosting said convention, generally pick up their own tabs.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You should go to work for the GSA (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:32:02 PM EST
    Vegas is lovely this time of year!

    Parent
    Three Pinocchios (none / 0) (#22)
    by BTAL on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:30:31 PM EST
    for Jay Carney and Obama.  WaPo

    File under the category Lies, damned lies and statistics.


    Whining. 5:29 pm departure from (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Fri May 25, 2012 at 06:16:10 PM EST
    JFK has not yet happened. Install new part @ 7:40 pm per announcement @ gate and see if it's a go. Coulda squeezed in another bit of culture!!!!

    Maher was good last night (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 26, 2012 at 11:21:26 AM EST
    With Krugman and Laffer on.  Only Krugman had a solution to the depression.  Laffer did agree that we are in a depression now, but once again in his opinion government cannot create jobs even though that it was ended the last depression.  Laffer also made sure to let us all know he taught at the University of Chicago, insisting that that is something to be proud of...Oy!

    Tosh.0 had a Toshathon going on for a bit yesterday.  He did a breakdown of a video where someone put a skeleton mask on one sheep, and then it scared all of the other sheep and the rest of the herd kept running away from the poor thing.  One of Tosh's jokes to the video was something like, "Hey, let's watch Bill Maher chase the young girls around the club".  Made me feel good.  Thank you Daniel Tosh for making my ingestion of the old crusted over misogynist Bill Maher last night something to smile secretly to myself about.

    Krugman disappointed me ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Sat May 26, 2012 at 12:30:55 PM EST
    he started well by stating we're in a depression.  But then offered the much debated point we were pulled out of the Great Depression by the pre-war defense build-up.

    There are already enough hawks on both sides of the aisle and this is just red meat to them.

    Even Maher popped out the "we need another Hitler" line in response to Krugman.

    And then Krugman launched an "alien invasion" joke that not only fell flat; but also tacitly suggested that the level of government spending needed is a fantasy.

    Of course, Krugman's poor performance is a help to Obama.  Since Obama won't be campaigning on major government spending, nor will he offer it after he's re-elected.

    Parent

    You're right about where it went (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 26, 2012 at 02:54:17 PM EST
    Very disappointing.  And defense spending often means big fat contracts that pays fat salaries to the top tier of the business awarded and minimum wage jobs for the people who work for them.  The wages paid aren't living wages all over the privatization that supports the military now.  The gate guards here have been privatized, and most gate guards have two jobs trying to survive right now.  I don't know when they care for their kids and sleep, I assume both of those things aren't done well or in a consistent fashion.

    Parent
    Robot and Military, Krugman (none / 0) (#37)
    by brodie on Sat May 26, 2012 at 05:21:47 PM EST
    the liberal economist certainly wasn't advocating for more defense spending or another war -- that's a misreading and distortion of his remarks.  He just noted that ultimately it was WW2 which finally brought us out of the GD quickly, as opposed to the slower recovery pace of FDR pre-war policies.

    He wants new jobs programs now re building infrastructure, perhaps in the form of massive aid to the states.  He's definitely not calling for more Pentagon spending, ferchrissakes.  He's about as across the board Liberal as exists today.

    Parent

    After 10 years of war (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 26, 2012 at 11:17:49 PM EST
    Some people just aren't appreciative of suggestions that it is acceptable stimulus or cracked jokes about needing a new invasion fear.

    Parent
    I'd have to see his actual (none / 0) (#33)
    by brodie on Sat May 26, 2012 at 03:28:32 PM EST
    remarks, but maybe he was saying that WW2 defense spending finally represented the level of govt stimulus necessary to quickly remedy the deep UE problem of the thirties.  

    Krugman knows full well, and has written about it, that after FDR got past his stupid and disastrous deficit reduction policy making in 1937, the economy began growing again once he and Congress began refunding several of his ND programs.  Just that, K might argue, that level of added spending still wasn't enough to rapidly eliminate joblessness as the massive defense spending proved to do.

    He may have expressed his thinking in rather too short hand a way on Maher -- that tends to happen when you're one of four or five people trying to get a word in.

    Parent

    He was the first person to speak ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Sat May 26, 2012 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    in his section.  And he had plenty of time to speak.  Enough time to say what you said above.  He didn't.

    There is some area of debate even over what you said.  But it would have been better than what he said.

    But the show is available online.  Watch it for yourself and decide.

    Parent

    Yeah (YT) he omitted (none / 0) (#36)
    by brodie on Sat May 26, 2012 at 05:10:04 PM EST
    saying that ND programs in the first term and then from 1938-40 did help ameliorate joblessness, and that it would have taken a number of years at that moderate pace of recovery to get out of the GD had WW2 not come along.

    K is advocating, as he did in 2008-9, for a govt stimulus robust enough to quickly tackle UE and bring about a full economic recovery in the short run -- 18 months or so -- as opposed to FDR's pre-war relatively moderately robust policies and Obama's very modest gradualist policies which take far longer for recovery than is necessary.  

    He's saying we already know, or should know from history, what works -- only a level of govt spending that's equal to the crisis -- and that politically in this country it's so bad that we may need some dire Whatever It Takes/Alien Invasion strategies or schemes to bring about the momentum to finally do the right thing.  And that does seem a fair reading of the political situation.

    Parent

    Yes ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:27:00 PM EST
    we all understand what he's advocating.  But, in this case, he advocated badly.

    That is not good.  Hence, my disappointment.

    Parent

    Armando, are you here somewhere..... (none / 0) (#35)
    by bmaz on Sat May 26, 2012 at 04:33:14 PM EST
    I seem to recall you having a looming 1983 trial or something close thereto.  Is that where you have been, and how is it all going?  Well, I hope.

    I have almost always (none / 0) (#42)
    by sj on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:36:40 AM EST
    liked the way he thinks.

    Who is " he"? (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:37:01 AM EST
    (I just started reading Hilary Mantel's "Bring Up the Bodies.". "He" is usually  Thomas Cromwell. )

    Parent
    Me too! Not very far yet, but hope to remedy that (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Sun May 27, 2012 at 06:36:19 AM EST
    today.

    Parent
    I had to chuckle at part of the (very positive) (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sun May 27, 2012 at 06:39:14 AM EST
    review in the NYT. The reviewer said at the one slight improvement needed and done  over Wolf Hall was Mantel more often using 'He, Cromwell,......'

    Parent
    I noticed that (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:31:54 AM EST
    immediately.  Well, after reading the cast list and simplified family trees.  .    

    Parent
    I've always loved books with family trees and maps (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Sun May 27, 2012 at 12:19:22 PM EST
    Best line so far: (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:20:25 PM EST
    p. 24:
    He closes his eyes.  'I didn't have a hatchet,' he says.


    Parent
    Ay-yi-yi (none / 0) (#47)
    by sj on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:59:24 AM EST
    Meant to be a reply to Mr. Tuxedo.  The "he" is Howard Dean.

    Parent