What is Criminal Justice?

There is growing evidence that some people possess a “bad” gene which predisposes them toward criminal behavior.  That has ignited discussions among criminologists and the legal community as to whether those people deserve leniency.

Formally, criminal courts, when sentencing someone convicted of a crime, are to consider three factors: the prospect of rehabilitation, the need for deterrence and the punishment for the deed.  Note that only the third factor concerns what would traditionally be a matter of justice – the wrong doer receiving what he “deserves” or in the ancient construct:  an eye for an eye.

A person’s mental disability or deficiency, therefore, would seem to be an appropriate consideration when assessing what the defendant deserves.  After all, the law allows insanity, in the sense of not knowing the difference between right and wrong, to be a complete excuse for a criminal act.

But there is a major problem with that perspective.  Everyone, shy of the insane, comes into the criminal system with some deficiency.  It could be an absence of competent upbringing, addictions, personality defects, etc.  But do any of these absolve the person of all responsibility in the sense of depriving him of free will, at least to some extent? 

If so, no one deserves punishment, deterrence is meaningless since choice would be illusory, and treatment for “antisocial behavior” is the only option.  Welcome to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. 

If justice does demand individualized consideration, would it be fair – just – to treat a person with all the benefits of intelligence, good education and a happy childhood the same as someone who is lacking in all such advantages?

No.  However, the legal system, as noted above, has more concerns than the delivery of justice. 

Deterrence is more than a term of criminologists.  The objective is to prevent/discourage certain conduct by warning those tempted to engage in it of the cost to be paid for doing so.  Yet the level of the penalty usually involves a calculation of what is fair or just.  Thus, the threatened punishment for speeding (a fine) is usually not the same for car theft (jail).

There’s yet another complication to consider in fashioning an effective deterrent.  How do people react to society’s efforts to discourage conduct since not everyone will act the same?  For some, societal disapproval will suffice; for others the risk of serous jail time is ignored (e.g., “I don’t think about getting caught” or “they’ll never catch me”).

So what about the defendant whose bad genes predispose him to anti-social, criminal conduct?  Justice does indeed require consideration of factors beyond the person’s conscious control.  But the community‘s welfare requires the discouragement of such behavior.  In that sense, a stronger deterrent would be required for the possessor of bad genes than for the person without.  The unafflicted is more likely to be scared away from bad behavior than the individual genetically inclined to engage in it.

In that regard, an effective deterrent (the penalty to be imposed) might need to be harsh (from the perspective of a normal wrong doer) in order to get the attention of the would-be gene-defective person.

Is that justice?  No.  But society is understandably concerned with more.

Would Hillary Be Better Than Donald For America’s Foreign Policy?

There is a sentiment among conservatives skeptical of Donald Trump that as horrible as Hillary would be for domestic leadership, at least she would be more dependable in advancing America’s national interest overseas.

This position has some superficial merit.  Against the GOP nominee’s affection for Russia’s dictator, for instance, Mrs. Clinton is viewed as being decidedly more hawkish than our incumbent president and Trump.  According to Obama Administration insider accounts, including from former Defense Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, she argued for the use of military force to advance U.S. interests in Syria and opposed the complete pull-out of American forces from Iraq so dearly desired by President Obama.  On neither of these important matters did she prevail.

Does she deserve credit for trying?  Yes.  But does a “hawkish” perspective while in another chief executive’s administration mean that this would carry over into hers?  That’s a different question.

Hillary Clinton has proven to be very amenable to criticism from the Left.  She responded to the challenge of Bernie Sanders by moving to co-opt his positions.  She has heaped fulsome praise on Barack Obama, including his foreign policy, and pledged to continue his programs (“third Obama Administration”?).

Would Hillary forsake her dovish base in order to allow her “firm, resolute” side, her supposed real self, to come forth?  Maybe.  Certainly her commitment to loyalty –like truth – is a problematic thing.

But the former Secretary of State is not known for political courage.  If she thought – in inner councils – that Barack Obama was wrong on certain significant issues, she obviously neither went public with her concerns nor resigned because she couldn’t carry out policies with which she strenuously disagreed.  To have done so, of course, might have endangered her quest to replace President Obama.  Does that mean she was willing to sacrifice America’s safety for her own ambitions?

Courage would be required in abundance to confront the onslaught that would befall President Clinton from the Left and its media handmaidens if she were to reassert America’s authority in the world.  A skeptic is justified in doubting that she would display it.

Readily understandable antipathy towards Donald Trump generates a hope that maybe Hillary Clinton won’t be as bad for America’s standing in the world.  That appears to be a hope grounded in wishful thinking. 

Hillary Acts to Shore up Trump’s GOP Support

Maybe Hillary Clinton really doesn’t want to become President. 

Consider this.  Many otherwise stalwart Republican voters, The Sensible Conservative included, have been distressed by Donald Trump’s evident ignorance of foreign affairs and his peculiar fascination with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.  That has caused some on the Right to wonder if the Democratic nominee, even with all the deserved hostility she generates, might actually be the lesser of two evils for America.

The number of conservatives entertaining such thoughts, thanks to Hillary, has been sharply reduced in recent days.

[But last week’s announcement that eighty-eight retired generals and admirals support Trump does reassure some skeptics that maybe the New York businessman won’t be so dangerous for the U.S. after all.]

First, she declared that no additional U.S. troops would be used to fight ISIS, America’s mortal enemy.  That sounded like Barack Obama’s promise to remove all American soldiers from Iraq regardless of the consequences for our national interest.

Second, and even more damaging, she characterized half of Trump’s supporters [who are primarily Republicans, of course] as being a “basket of deplorables” because, in her view, they are afflicted with a variety of phobias (against homosexuals, Muslims, etc.).

Why else would this intelligent, calculating person say such foolish and insulting things? 

The effect could hardly have been unexpected.  Hillary’s words are driving people to Trump’s standard.  Maybe he – not she – is the lesser of two evils.

On a broader note, her comments illuminate a fact long noted by conservative commentators.  The Left does not respect disagreement with its political views.  If you think your stance on any issue is indisputable for any well-meaning, good and intelligent person, then for someone else to oppose it, that means that person lacks those positive traits.  In short, that individual is bad and/or stupid.

 

The appeal of such a world view must be terribly appealing.  Who doesn’t like to feel superior to others?  That attitude certainly underlies the arrogance and intellectual intolerance so often displayed by the Left.  The “Hillary Clintons” of the world are so enlightened that it can be impossible for them, apparently, to conceal their contempt for the multitude of Americans who are not.

Defending the Indefensible – Clinton Surrogates in Action

The plight of Hillary Clinton’s “email conduct” defenders brings to mind my efforts as a criminal defense attorney obligated to support a defendant at sentencing by “putting lipstick on the pig”.  The effort has to be made but one certainly doesn’t expect it to be effective.  Some examples:         

Over the Labor Day weekend, Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine said Hillary Clinton’s failure to recognize that her emails, sent and received, contained “classified” (secret) information was understandable.  “I know,” the Virginia Senator remarked, “from my experiences on Capitol Hill seeing much classified material that it can be hard to distinguish between what is and what isn’t”.

Of course.  But the Democratic candidate for President told the FBI that emails dealing with prospective drone targeting of terrorists in Afghanistan didn’t raise security concerns because, although they were marked with a “(C)”, she thought that that was simply a paragraph indicator.  Oh, my!  Didn’t the content suggest something else?  [In actuality, it meant “classified”].

Nice try, Senator Kaine, a fellow attorney, but the lipstick is already smeared.

 

On the same day, former Obama Administration official Tom Perez came to Mrs. Clinton’s defense by observing that security classifications were sometimes incorrectly made.

Ok.  So if it’s possible that Hillary Clinton might be telling the truth sometimes, does that mean she’s not a liar?  And to use another analogy, if I can show you that a person is involved in ten events “generating smoke” and that in one of those occasions there was actually no fire, that’s proof that there’s no fire involved in the others, either.  Right?  Sure… 

The lipstick is no longer visible on the poor pig.