« "Student's Privacy Rights Violated in Pa. 'Sexting' Case, ACLU Suit Says" | Main | Interesting talk in Oklahoma about creating a "Christian Prison" »

May 21, 2010

Lots of good reading around the blogsphere

A busy week with travel and grading commitments has largely kept me from making the usual blog rounds this week.  But here are a list of a few old faithfuls that have lots of good reading for criminal justice fans to catch up with over the weekend:

May 21, 2010 at 07:13 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lots of good reading around the blogsphere:


Do any reflect mainstream views or are they all left wing, freak, rent seeking propaganda organs of the criminal cult enterprise? I do not want to waste time on cult criminals running their con.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 21, 2010 7:16:55 PM

SC --

I don't know about rent seeking, etc., but Kent Scheidegger runs Crime & Consequences and has graciously added me as a guest blogger. Every now and again, one blog or another of ours will be picked up on by the Volokh Conspiracy, SCOTUSblog, Alltop, the Federalist Society or PowerLine. We welcome viewers and invite comments. And thank you, Doug, for including C&C on your list.

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 21, 2010 11:16:06 PM

Mr. Otis: I have no doubt of the intellectual challenge, excitement and edification to be found at Crime and Consequences. Will check it out.

There is a rebuttable presumption about all lawyers, including conservative ones, such as Scalia. It is, there is no right or left, only the rent, as the core aim of the lawyer, i.e. jobs and empowerment. All uttered philosophies are masking ideologies, and the real aim will never be uttered.

Here are some indicia the presumption is wrong about an individual lawyer in the criminal law.

1) Mention of "crime victim." It is the rare lawyer that can utter that phrase, without falling to the ground in an apoplectic fit of coughing and nausea. I invite all the lawyers to test this effect, preferably in private, with well equipped rescue trained people around. Most who can do so in the context of impact statements. These are trivial, self-evident, and lawless, but will likely require government sponsored representation. That is a potential font of massive lawyer employment.

2) Ordinary, bad but harmless conduct is over-criminalized. Mala prohibita increase risk to others. There is an oversupply of criminal laws covering conduct that does not even do that.

3) Support for self-defense by the public (without extensive legal procedures).

4) Incapacitation as the priority among the five aims of the criminal law.

5) The law is an empirical field, not a supernatural one. That extreme and huge decisions are made without empirical validation is a mass crime against humanity. Punishment is its sole tool, and lawyers know nothing about its technical aspects. Psychology is its basic science, not Scholasticism. There ain't a single finding in any field of practice from the 13th Century that is viewed as correct today.

6) Admission that it is the person that is the source of 1000's of crimes across a lifetime. And the status crime of being a career criminal should result in some permanent remedy, not necessarily murder.

This is a partial list. I do not expect any human being to argue against self-interest. That brings up another indicator of superior awareness: acknowledgment of an irremediable conflict of interest in all professionals. They fix our problems but are put out of business by prevention.

Therefore policy about any field should not be set by the professionals themselves. Conflict of interest and rent seeking are both middle class euphemisms for armed robbery. Doctors should not make health policy. Lawyers should not make legal policy. All you get is expensive self dealing and failure. One could argue about trading places. Docs make legal policy. Lawyers make health policy. Both groups have been made crazy and extreme by their respective trainings and indoctrinations. I would be more comfortable with randomly selected people from any jury pool sitting as judges, legislators, and policy setters in the executive. Once one has become an expert from technical teaching by experts, experience, learning, they have to leave, as too insider and corrupted.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 22, 2010 8:56:21 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB