As we’ve covered before on Donklephant, while the US justice system is one of the best in the world, it is not without flaws. Every once in a while someone gets wrongfully convicted. As John Adams famously said, “It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished”. But what of those who are convicted, and rightfully so, what fate awaits them?

Thanks to the folks at the Criminal Justice Degrees Guide, today we take a look at a day in the life of a typical prisoner along with some other interesting facts, such as:

• What is the ratio of male to female prisoners?
• What is the difference between private and public (government) correctional facilities?
• What are the different types of inmates and how are they treated differently?

Click the image for full-sized version

This is why I can never get on board with judges like Scalia. Is he a smart guy? Of course. But the following? Not so much…

From Callawyer comes this Q&A:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

Here’s what the 14th Amendment says regarding equal protection…

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How can you read the above and not see that it was written broadly so it could be applied broadly? Of course gender isn’t referenced. But why has judge after judge after judge referenced this to strike down law after law after law that seeks to discriminate against nearly any person or group? The idea that we’d have to legislate sexual discrimination on a state by state basis is insane.

But here’s why I take issue with strict constitutionalism: it seems to be anything but. Scalia says above, “Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.” Okay, fair enough. So how can Scalia square those statement with his use of the equal protection clause in Bush v. Gore where he argued that different standards of counting ballots violated the amendment and infringed Bush’s rights? And before you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to explain why it’s okay for that case and not discrimination cases…save your breath. Or, well, you can try, but you’re just proving my point…that we all interpret things differently and the overwhelming consensus is that the 14th amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of who you are in a very broad sense.

Oh…and newsflash…the Constitution isn’t a perfect document. And guess what? The Founders knew that. That’s why they made sure it could be amended. That’s also why they established the judiciary…to sort through the subsequent questions that would arise.

Still, if you want more reasons why Scalia is just plain wrong, read what Jack Balkin has to say.

Well, as was mentioned when it happened, now unlimited, anonymous money can flow into the election cycle via what are now being dubbed “Super PACs”, and these entities can run advertising and say pretty much whatever they want.

From Bloomberg:

These political action committees can take unlimited company, union and individual donations and explicitly urge voters to support or oppose candidates, unlike ordinary PACs and nonprofit groups. Like other PACs, they must register with the Federal Election Commission and disclose donors.

“They can say whatever they want politically in the advertising,” said Michael Toner, a former FEC chairman who’s among the lawyers dubbing them super PACs. “It’s very liberating.”

Who’s behind one of the biggest two? None other than The Architect himself…

American Crossroads, a group advised by Rove, a top adviser to former President George W. Bush, said it has raised more than $17 million. That includes $1 million from Dixie Rice Agricultural Corp., a company led by Harold Simmons, also the chairman of Dallas-based Titanium Metals Corp. A trust controlled by Jerrold Perenchio, former chairman of New York- based Univision Communications Inc., also gave $1 million.

That may be just the beginning. American Crossroads also has an issue-advocacy group that doesn’t have to disclose donors, and it won’t say how much of the $52 million it plans to raise in this campaign will go toward that effort. Other groups aren’t even registering as PACs and will be able to spend millions on ads without disclosing their contributors as long as they steer clear of expressly advocating for or against a candidate.

But don’t feel bad for Dems. They’re in the money game too…

Of the 25 super PACS, at least nine lean Republican and 10 Democratic. There may also be dozens more that haven’t formally outlined their plans to the FEC, said Mary Brandenberger, an agency spokeswoman.

The super PACs include new units of established groups such as the Club for Growth, which supports lower taxes and favors Republicans, and the League of Conservation Voters, which primarily backs Democrats.

Without serious campaign finance reform, we’ll never get to a place where Dems and Repubs can cooperate. It’ll be one attack after another put on by these shadowy groups that candidates use time and time again.

More money, more problems. That’s all there is to it.

Proponents and opponents of gay marriage, the end is nigh.

The ruling today was a thing of beauty, not just because Prop 8 was overturned, but because the language in the decision basically positions Gay Americans as equal to every other American in every single way.

And, the cherry on top of the judicial sundae? A Republican appointed judge wrote a lengthy repudiation of every single conservative talking point against gay marriage.

Why? Because the defense didn’t present any compelling reasons why Gay Americans should be denied marriage rights. In fact, in many cases during the trial they had to admit that gay marriage has absolutely no effect on straight marriage.

More from ABC:

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in a 136-page decision. “Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.” [...]

Lawyers supporting the ballot measure had argued that voters endorsed a “fundamental, definitional feature” of marriage that has historical roots “in this country and, almost without exception, in every civilized society that has ever existed.”

But Walker found the plaintiffs in the case — one lesbian and one gay couple — demonstrated by “overwhelming evidence” that Proposition 8 violates their rights to due process and equal protection under the Constitution.

“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples,” wrote Judge Walker.

Now it’s on to the Supreme Court, where it’s extremely likely that the decision will be affirmed…which will then nullify all of the state amendments that define marriage should strictly be between a man and a woman.

Long story short, it’s a good day for all Americans in the long run, even though many don’t think so today.

Please leave your thoughts below.

Proposition C passed by 70% last night and that has a lot of folks wondering if more states will follow suit to get initiatives like these on the ballot during times when vote turn out is extremely low.

The answer, of course, is yes. Similar initiatives will be on the ballot in Arizona and Oklahoma later this year. And I’d be shocked if they didn’t pass overwhelmingly too.

From NY Times:

“My constituents told me they felt like their voices had been ignored and they wanted Washington to hear them,” Jane Cunningham, a state senator and Republican who had pressed for a vote, said Tuesday night. “It looks to me like they just picked up a megaphone.”

The referendum, known as Proposition C, was seen as a first look at efforts by conservatives to gather and rally their forces over the issue. In the end, though, the referendum seemed not to capture the general population’s attention. Instead, Republican primary voters (who had the most competitive races on Tuesday) appeared to play a crucial role in the vote’s fate.

By the way, guess what else passed by 70% in Missouri during the exact same primary election 6 years ago when Republican turnout was high.

Still, will this ultimately mean anything? My guess is no. Because federal law will trump this vote.

However, one can’t say for certain until the courts have their say.

More from NYT:

Practically speaking, it remains entirely uncertain what effect the vote will have. The insurance requirement of the federal health care law does not come into effect until 2014. By then, experts say, the courts are likely to weigh in on the provision requiring people to buy insurance.

“While we’re disappointed that Missourians didn’t vote against this, we think the courts will ultimately decide it,” said David M. Dillon, a spokesman for the Missouri Hospital Association.

More as it develops.

The title says it all, but here’s a bit more detail…

From NY Times:

Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $550 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of the largest penalties ever paid by a Wall Street firm, to settle charges of securities fraud linked to mortgage investments.

The S.E.C. filed a lawsuit against Goldman in April, accusing the bank of securities fraud. The settlement came just days before Goldman is scheduled to report its second-quarter earnings.

Under the terms of the deal, Goldman will pay $300 million in fines to the Treasury Department, with the rest serving as restitution to investors in the mortgage-linked security. Goldman will not admit wrongdoing, though it will admit that its marketing materials for the investment “contained incomplete information.”

Haha, yeah, it contained incomplete information. Like, “this investment’s goal is to turn you upside down and watch the money fall out of your pockets and into our hands.”

And here’s more from the S.E.C.’s director of enforcement, Robert Khuzami…

“Half a billion dollars is the largest penalty ever assessed against a financial services firm in the history of the S.E.C.,” Mr. Khuzami said in a statement. “This settlement is a stark lesson to Wall Street firms that no product is too complex, and no investor too sophisticated, to avoid a heavy price if a firm violates the fundamental principles of honest treatment and fair dealing.”

Is it bad that this has me smiling ear to ear?

I mean, with the financial regulations bill being passed today and this decision coming day, there’s obviously a new sheriff in town who’s trying to make sure that what went down in 2008 (and the years leading up to the meltdown) will never happen again.

And yes, businesses are crying foul, but meanwhile they’re sitting on record cash hordes, so their complaints ring pretty hollow to me.

Long story short, Goldman Sachs got what they deserved.

The following video is heartbreaking, especially since it happened in my state. Still, this is happening every day in every other state over completely victimless crimes.

Here’s a quick explanation if you can’t watch the video (via Radley Balko)…

SWAT team breaks into home, fires seven rounds at family’s pit bull and corgi (?!) as a seven-year-old looks on. They found a “small amount” of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment. So smoking pot = “child endangerment.” Storming a home with guns, then firing bullets into the family pets as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone’s safety.

Just so we’re clear.

And now…yeah, wow…

And yet people can smoke and drink to their hearts content around their kids and nobody bats an eye.

Here’s E.D. Kain’s take on it…

How can we give our government the authority to trample on its own citizens like this over what is by every sane and rational argument – not to mention every piece of scientific data – an incredibly harmless substance used consensually without any real side-effects? It boggles the mind.

Here’s the original story, which happened back in February…

Whitworth was arrested, and his wife and 7-year-old son were present during the SWAT raid, Haden said. A second dog, which Whitworth’s attorney Jeff Hilbrenner described as a corgi, also was shot but was not killed.

“The family is concerned with what happened,” Hilbrenner said. “We don’t feel like what happened in the home was appropriate. The priority right now for us is the misdemeanor charges.”

Police discovered a grinder, a pipe and a small amount of marijuana, Haden said. Because the SWAT team acts on the most updated information available, the team wanted to enter the house before marijuana believed to be at the location could be distributed, she said.

Long story short…if the right wing, Constitution-loving crowd really wanted to fight tyranny…well…here ya go. This is it. Shock and awe in the face of some pot and some pets.

Between this and their “high frequency trading”…are we seeing karma coming back around on GS?

From NY Times:

Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street powerhouse, was accused of securities fraud in a civil lawsuit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly intended to fail.

The move was the first time that regulators had taken action against a Wall Street deal that helped investors capitalize on the collapse of the housing market.

The suit also named Fabrice Tourre, a vice president at Goldman who helped create and sell the investment.

Of course Goldman is claiming this is unfounded, but I find it hard to believe that the S.E.C. would make such a specific, public pronouncement if they didn’t have some pretty iron clad evidence.

And when you look at the S.E.C.’s claims…it’s pretty damning stuff…

The focus of the S.E.C. case, an investment vehicle called Abacus 2007-AC1, was one of 25 such vehicles that Goldman created so the bank and some of its clients could bet against the housing market. Those deals, which were the subject of an article in The New York Times in December, initially protected Goldman from losses when the mortgage market disintegrated and later yielded profits for the bank.

As the Abacus portfolios in the S.E.C. case plunged in value, a prominent hedge fund manager made money from his bets against certain mortgage bonds, while investors lost more than $1 billion.

According to the complaint, Goldman created Abacus 2007-AC1 in February 2007 at the request of John A. Paulson, a prominent hedge fund manager who earned an estimated $3.7 billion in 2007 by correctly wagering that the housing bubble would burst. Mr. Paulson is not named in the suit.

Goldman told investors that the bonds would be chosen by an independent manager. In the case of Abacus 2007-AC1, however, Goldman let Mr. Paulson select mortgage bonds that he believed were most likely to lose value, according to the complaint.

Goldman then sold the package to investors like foreign banks, pension funds and insurance companies, which would profit only if the bonds gained value. The European banks IKB and ABN Amro and other investors lost more than $1 billion in the deal, the commission said.

“Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio,” Robert Khuzami, the director of the commission’s enforcement division, said in a written statement.

In short (heh!)…while Goldman was selling investments that the housing market would go up, they were betting that the housing market would go down.

But, regardless of whether or not Goldman will ever have to answer for this (buyer beware clauses, etc…), the good news about this announcement is that the S.E.C. is back and doing what they should have been doing all along…policing the market and the players within it.

Flipping through the channels last night, I happened upon this programming masterpiece and lingered because two attractive, lingerie-clad women were making out on a bed. The scene ended and the show was REALLY bad so I moved on.

My beautiful wife looked up from her laptop and said something to the effect of “WTF is wrong with our society that ‘hot girl-on-girl’ action is practically shoved down our throats while gays have to fight tooth and nail to get married?”

She’s right, there’s an interesting dichotomy there – and I’ve been thinking about it all day because I live in NJ and listen to the radio at work. I’ve heard this anti-gay marriage commercial thirteen times today. I despise these commercials and feel sorry for the people desperately clinging to such hate and fear in the name of God. I’ve written to the radio station and my representatives, I vote my conscience and do what I can for change. Now I’m just sharing my frustration with the good folks at Donklephant.

In the annals of Supreme Court history, there are perhaps only a handful of cases that go down in history as more egregious than what happened in Suzette Kelo v. City of New London.

In that case, the Supreme Court approved an eminent domain taking by the City of New London, Connecticut that involved taking the land of the principal plaintiff, and many others, and using it for a commercial development that would be used by Pfizer Corp. for a new corporate business center. It was a decision that was roundly and deservedly condemned at the time and which led to some efforts at eminent domain reform at the state level, many of which were successful.

But, in the end, Suzette Kelo still lost her property, and now, to add insult to injury, Pfizer has abandoned the project that was the subject of the eminent domain proceeding:

The private homes New London, Conn., took through eminent domain from Suzette Kelo and others, are torn down now, but Pfizer has just announced that it closing up shop at the research facility that led to the condemnation.

Leading drugmakers Pfizer and Wyeth have merged, and as a result, are trimming some jobs. That includes axing the 1,400 jobs at their sparkling new research & development facility in New London, and moving some across the river to Groton.

To lure those jobs to New London a decade ago, the local government promised to demolish the older residential neighborhood adjacent to the land Pfizer was buying for next-to-nothing. Suzette Kelo fought the taking to the Supreme Court, and lost, as five justices said this redvelopment met the constitutional hurdle of “public use.”

The private homes that New London, Conn., took away from Suzette Kelo and her neighbors have been torn down. Their former site is a wasteland of fields of weeds, a monument to the power of eminent domain.

But now Pfizer, the drug company whose neighboring research facility had been the original cause of the homes’ seizure, has just announced that it is closing up shop in New London.

Scott Bullock, Kelo’s co-counsel in the case, told me: “This shows the folly of these redvelopment projects that use massive taxpayer subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain.”

One wonders if Suzette Kelo is paraphrasing former Labor Secretary Ray Donovan and wondering, where do I go to get my house back ?

And you know the worst part ? Not only did Suzette Kelo lose her house, but we’re stuck with an incredibly bad precedent that will likely take decade to reverse.

The jokes will be legion, but the policy is sound. And this is a move that Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats can all applaud.

From The AP:The jokes will be legion, but the policy is sound. And this is a move that libertarians, republicans and democrats can all applaud.

From The AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

What does this mean practically?

Well, no more federal raids of medical marijuana shops, fewer non-violent drug offenders in jail and a LOT of very happy stoners. Oh, and we are able to focus a lot of our efforts on important things (terrorism, gangs, etc.), which should save more lives and a lot of money.

Again, this should be applauded from all corners…but I’m waiting to see what the states’ rights crowd has to say about it.

So, it looks like the artist behind the iconic poster of Barack Obama actually did use an A.P. image as a template to create it. Still, there’s a lot to discuss about copyright infringement, Fair Use, etc.

However, first the details from the NY Times:

The A.P. claimed in January that Mr. Fairey owed them credit and compensation for using the photograph. But in February Mr. Fairey sued The A.P., seeking a declaratory judgment that the poster did not infringe on the agency’s copyrights, and that he was entitled to the image under the “fair use” exception of the copyright law. The A.P. countersued in March, saying that Mr. Fairey misappropriated its rights.

Mr. Fairey told The A.P. — and his own lawyers — that he used a shot from an event about Darfur at the National Press Club in Washington event where Mr. Obama was seated next to George Clooney. Instead, the photograph he used was a solo image of Mr. Obama’s head, tilted in intense concentration. Mr. Fairey admitted that in the subsequent months following the suit and countersuit, Mr. Fairey destroyed evidence and created false documents to cover up the real source.

“In an attempt to conceal my mistake, I submitted false images and deleted other images,” Mr. Fairey said in a statement. “I sincerely apologize for my lapse in judgment, and I take full responsibility for my actions, which were mine alone.”

Yes, Fairey lying about this was wrong, stupid, etc. Shame on him for that. But, as the title suggests, that doesn’t make his use of the photo copyright infringement.

Let’s look at The A.P.’s actual claim. They’re saying that you can’t create ANYTHING that uses their content as mere reference material without paying them. They’ve done similar things with bloggers in the past, and their policies are, in a word, nuts. Because they literally expect people to pay to use even a tiny snippet of their writing or posting a picture. Actually, I’m probably in violation of their terms of use right now for using the photo at the top, but that’s where Fair Use comes in…

The government describes it as such…

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Now, there are 4 basic ways that Fair Use can be applied to any given case, and my guess is that Fairey is using the following as his way out, “The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.” What that means is that the use of the copyrighted material doesn’t negatively impact the value of the image.

And here’s where the true irony of this case comes in…nobody even knew about that Obama photo before Fairey made it famous. So he created the market for The A.P., not the other way around.

But wait…there’s more!

Apparently, there’s confusion as to whether The A.P. even owns the photograph!

Again, from NY Times…

Complicating the legal battle, in July, the freelance photographer, Mannie Garcia, filed court papers in July saying that he was the one who was owned the copyright of the 2006 photo; Mr. Garcia’s assignment was to photograph Mr. Clooney, and he contended that he never assigned his copyright rights to The A.P.

So let me get this straight…The A.P. told somebody to photograph Clooney but they’re claiming that ANY photograph taken during that time belongs to them?

Hmmm….pot meet kettle. Kettle, pot. I’m sure you two have a lot to discuss. Maybe you can talk a little about this guy while you’re at it.

If you’re not familiar with the word rescission, this is the practice of canceling policies because people didn’t reveal a preexisting condition. And it’s one of the key reasons why the health insurance companies can claim that there’s $100 billion in health care fraud every year.

Here’s one example of what they consider fraud…

“They said I never mentioned I had a back problem,” said [Sally] Marrari, 52, whose coverage with Blue Cross was abruptly canceled in 2006 after a thyroid disorder, fluid in the heart and lupus were diagnosed. That left the Los Angeles woman with $25,000 in medical bills and the stigma of the company’s claim that she had committed fraud by not listing on a health questionnaire “preexisting conditions” Marrari said she did not know she had.

By the time she filed a lawsuit in 2008, she also got a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and her debts had swelled beyond $200,000. She was able to see a specialist by trading office visits for work on the doctor’s 1969 Porsche at the garage she owns with her husband.

That’s rich, eh? Can’t afford medical bills so she has to trade services for it…to work on the doctor’s vintage car. If that’s not a symbol for everything that’s wrong with how we buy and pay for health care in this country, I don’t know what is.

Of course, finding cases of “fraud” is a lucrative business and the insurance companies are making sure they identify all they can. But sometimes they get caught…

In the past 18 months, California’s five largest insurers paid almost $19 million in fines for marooning policyholders who had fallen ill. That includes a $1 million fine against Health Net, which admitted offering bonuses to employees for finding reasons to cancel policies, according to company documents released in court.

To me, rescission is a patently immoral practice that amounts to private rationing so insurance companies can make more money. Not just make money. Not just stay in business. They are offering BONUSES to people who find fraud.

Folks, the “death panels” are here and while the insurance companies consider rescission a way to identify fraud in their system, I think this entire practice of finding ways to cut people from their insurance (especially in their most vulnerable hour) constitutes a systematic fraud on the public trust and it MUST end.

And that’s why, if we achieve nothing else in this health care fight, we should at least make it illegal for insurance companies to cut people from their policies because of preexisting conditions. That’s THE most important reform measure in this debate, and I hope those of you who continue to push the public option realize that.

So Canada has basically decriminalized marijuana possession and Mexico has added cocaine, meth, heroin and LSD to the mix.

Wonder what’s going to happen in the US in the next decade…especially given the current reality in California where shops are selling pot out in the open?

The Daily Beast has more…

In an effort to garner control in the battle against drug traffickers, Mexico has passed a new law that decriminalizes small amounts of drugs by setting maximum “personal use” amounts on marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, and methamphetamine. A person will no longer be arrested if found with 5 grams of marijuana (or 4 joints), a half-gram for cocaine (or 4 lines), 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams of methamphetamine, or 0.015 milligrams of LSD.

But the Mexican government is quick to point out that the difference between decriminalization and…

“This is not legalization,” assured Bernardo Espino del Castillo of the attorney general’s office. “This is regulating the issue and giving citizens greater legal certainty.” Under the new law, anyone caught with drug quantities below the limit will be encouraged to seek treatment, until the third time a person is caught when treatment becomes mandatory.

You know, I think that’s actually a pretty good policy, with the exception of marijuana being a drug that needs mandatory treatment. I mean, if somebody is walking around drunk a few times, will cops stop them? Of course not. Marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol, but the stigma exists and so it goes.

Also, how many LSD addicts are out there? 5? I mean…come on. Maybe that provision was made for the rich kids in Mexico City and the Turistas in Cancun. Hrmmm…

In any event, I think this a good, common sense step forward to make sure that non-violent drug offenders aren’t rammed-rodded through the system and have to serve unnecessary jail time.

…and the libertarians and liberals did cheer…

You may have heard about this before, and one Florida lawmaker is finally doing something about it.

Yes, I realize these laws are meant to prevent repeat offenses, but either up the penalties for those offenses or just leave them be. Once somebody gets out of prison, that should be it. End of story. If they commit another crime it would be tragic, but we have gone WAY too far with these laws and who can honestly defend forcing people to live under a bridge?

Also, let’s not forget that there are plenty of really stupid sex offender laws out there too. People get locked up for doing some fairly innocent things.

The Economist takes a closer look…

In all, 674,000 Americans are on sex-offender registries—more than the population of Vermont, North Dakota or Wyoming. The number keeps growing partly because in several states registration is for life and partly because registries are not confined to the sort of murderer who ensnared Megan Kanka. According to Human Rights Watch, at least five states require registration for people who visit prostitutes, 29 require it for consensual sex between young teenagers and 32 require it for indecent exposure. Some prosecutors are now stretching the definition of “distributing child pornography” to include teens who text half-naked photos of themselves to their friends.

How dangerous are the people on the registries? A state review of one sample in Georgia found that two-thirds of them posed little risk. For example, Janet Allison was found guilty of being “party to the crime of child molestation” because she let her 15-year-old daughter have sex with a boyfriend. The young couple later married. But Ms Allison will spend the rest of her life publicly branded as a sex offender.

The problem is…these laws will only get harsher because what politician in their right mind will try and soften them? This guy in Florida who’s suing the state is certainly a brave guy, but let’s remember that this has been going on for 2 YEARS. That’s how long it took for this to become enough of an eyesore for somebody to make a case that it’s hurting the economy.

What do you think?

Many of us are already regard the Bush administration as a bad, distant memory, but today we’re reminded of just how morally bankrupt they were.

From Wash Post:

The dismissal of U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico in December 2006 followed extensive communication among lawyers and political aides in the White House who hashed over complaints about his work on public corruption cases against Democrats, according to newly released e-mails and transcripts of closed-door House testimony by former Bush counsel Harriet Miers and political chief Karl Rove.

A campaign to oust Iglesias intensified after state GOP officials and Republican members of the congressional delegation apparently concluded that he was not pursuing the cases against Democrats in a way that could help then-Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R) in a tight reelection race in New Mexico, according to interviews and Bush White House e-mails released Tuesday by congressional investigators. The documents place the genesis of Iglesias’s dismissal earlier than previously known. [...]

The House panel focused most of its attention on Iglesias, a rising star in New Mexico who came to displease his political patrons. Miers told investigators that Rove called her in September 2006, “agitated” about the slow pace of public corruption cases against Democrats and weak efforts to pursue voter-fraud cases in the state. In the call, Miers said, Rove described Iglesias as a “serious problem” and said he wanted “something done” about it. Miers testified that she called then-Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty to pass along the concerns.

Yes, Rove didn’t say “I want Iglesias fired!”, but this is much more than nudge nudge wink wink. Miers admits that Rove said he wanted something done. That was September 2006. Two months later in November, Iglesias’ name was placed on a list for dismissal. In December he was fired.

Rove’s response? As if you even have to read it….

In a statement Tuesday, Rove asserted that he “never sought to influence the conduct of any prosecution” and did not decide which prosecutors were fired. He also accused Democrats of making “false accusations and partisan innuendoes.”

The only problem here with Rove’s hacky answers is the fact that Harriet Miers is now the one supplying the accusations and innuendoes. To me this is game, set, match.

Moving on…

After the release of a study that showed somebody is 23 times more likely to get into an accident, Dems in Congress are working on legislation that would make it illegal across the country.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON — States would be required to ban driving while texting or face the loss of highway funds under legislation being pushed by a group of Democratic senators.

Aimed at reducing driver distraction and highway deaths and injuries, the proposal follows a series of studies showing the dangers of drivers taking their eyes off the road to operate the handheld electronic devices.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws making texting while driving illegal.

“The federal government ought to pass a law banning this dangerous and growing practice to protect the millions of Americans on our nation’s roads. It is a matter of public safety,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who was to unveil the legislation Wednesday along with Democrats Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina.

Here’s more about that study…

The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, which compiled the research and plans to release its findings on Tuesday, also measured the time drivers took their eyes from the road to send or receive texts.

In the moments before a crash or near crash, drivers typically spent nearly five seconds looking at their devices — enough time at typical highway speeds to cover more than the length of a football field.

Even though trucks take longer to stop and are less maneuverable than cars, the findings generally applied to all drivers, who tend to exhibit the same behaviors as the more than 100 truckers studied, the researchers said. Truckers, they said, do not appear to text more or less than typical car drivers, but they said the study did not compare use patterns that way.

Listen, nanny stateism or not, this is legislation that needs to be passed. Those of us who’ve texted while driving know how ridiculously dangerous it is and we’ve all thought, “Man, if something had jumped out in front of me…”

The upside of a federal mandate? I smell a business plan…

The A.P. continues to come up with one dumb idea after another.

I have more on this craziness over at True/Slant.

As we continue to have conversations about reforming the way we cover our health care expenses, especially huge, end of life costs, the following story about euthanasia seems very topical.

More at True/Slant.

This is an incredibly significant step because it paves the way for an actual revolution.

From Times Online:

Iran’s biggest group of clerics has declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election to be illegitimate and condemned the subsequent crackdown.

The statement by the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom is an act of defiance against the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has made clear he will tolerate no further challenges to Mr Ahmadinejad’s “victory” over Mir Hossein Mousavi.

“It’s a clerical mutiny,” said one Iranian analyst. “This is the first time ever you have all these big clerics openly challenging the leader’s decision.” Another, in Tehran, said: “We are seeing the birth of a new political front.”

This has a few practical effects.

1. It puts the Supreme Leader in a nearly indefensible positions and calls into question his authority.
2. These clerics can now claim the moral high ground and possibly unseat the Supreme Leader
3. It’s unlikely that Mousavi will be arrested at this point, even though Khamenei has called for it.

Also, let’s not forget that even though the protests were quashed last week, folks will be coming out in about 20 days to mourn the deaths of the protesters who died during the first round. And this could lead to more deaths, which will lead to more protests, etc. And that’s how the revolution in 1979 happened, so there’s a possibility it could happen again.

More as it develops…