Alaskablawg

Recent Movies

I've had the pleasure of seeing 2 really good movies recently: Ratatouille and Pan's Labyrinth. They are good for different reasons, but I would recommend both of them.

Ratatouille is the next good movie from Brad Bird. He does more with animation than many directors do with live actors. I must admit that part of the reason I enjoyed the movie is that it is so heavily focused upon good food. Well, Thomas Keller consulted, so what can you expect. But the movie succeeds because it is not merely a 'follow your dreams' movie, although it is that. It has several other subplots, the 'acting' is genuine (so to speak), and the graphics are stunning. Watch this movie and then re-watch some old Pixar, such as Toy Story. The graphic difference is incredible. Is it an in-depth movie about the human condition? No, but it is entertaining and competently done, but is something to say.

Pan's Labyrinth, on the other hand, is a much darker movie. A Mexican film, it is known outside of English speaking countries as the Labyrinth of the Faun because Pan has connotations that the director did not want. Set in fascist Spain in 1944, the film function on one level as a simple tale of a girl who loves fairy tales living in a very dark time. Her father has died and her mother has married a brutal Captain in the Spanish army. She and her mother go to the mill where her step-father is in charge of a small garrison assigned with the charge of rooting out local resistance troops. The girl learns that she may be the lost daughter of a powerful fairy king who ran away to the mortal world. She has to prove her worth, though, by finishing three tasks before she can be accepted back.

Put this way, this story sounds trite, something for children. Indeed, when the film first came out in Mexico parents brought their kids, believing it to be a 'fantasy' story. It is not. The movie has some rather graphic violence. The movie's main interest, though, is a focus upon obedience. How much do we really value obedience? Is unquestioning obedience better than questioning obedience or even disobedience? It has been several days since I finished watching it, but I find my mind returning to it several times to ponder how various events support the director's theory. That alone should show that it is worth watching.

Increasing Earnings

There is one major and obvious difference between life as a public defender and life in private practice: how (and when) you are are paid. As a PD, I never had to worry about whether a client had enough money, or if I would get enough clients, or whether I was going to get paid. Of course, I also did not have the ability in my job to turn away cases, for whatever reason. So, I now sit up and pay attention when I see something that could increase the bottom line.

Realizing that, I think that this afternoon, I am going to go hit the bars increase my earning potential.

Death Penalty in Iowa

From Steve at CrimLaw (Ken's apparently cavorting through Kentucky, sampling many fine single-barrel bourbons. He says that he's visiting family, but I think we all know the truth) comes news that Iowa is debating whether to re-instate the death penalty. The death penalty would only apply in cases of persons charged with kidnapping, torturing and killing children. Apparently articles like this one don't really matter to those GOP legislators in Iowa. Who cares that we have executed 1000 people since 1976, but have exonerated 122 people. Now, maybe it's just me, but it seems that a 10:1 ratio of executed to exonerated suggests that there may be some more problems with our judicial system than we wish to admit. Yesterday's verdict in my case, of course, has nothing to do with this statement (sarcasm off).

For several years in the late '90s, Alaska legislators would propose bringing up the death penalty. Inevitably it was proposed for sick bastards that torture and kill the kids. Fits right in with the idea that if something is "for the kids", then we all give up our freedom and common sense. Anyway, a whole slew of people would come down and testify, all praising this idea to 'restore justice', to 'promote healing among victims' families', or to show our commitment to 'the children'. One of the last people to speak would be the public defender, either the head or the deputy, generally because they are invited to speak whenever a substantive criminal bill is proposed. And they would inevitably tell the legislature the bill that would be paid if Alaska wished to re-instate the death penalty. (Consider New Jersey. It's spent $250 million to prosecute death penalty cases and so far has executed - get read for it - nobody! Read the article.) The proposals inevitably died and Alaska still does not have the death penalty. I wish I could say that it was a commitment to justice, a realization that our justice system still convicts innocent people or that our justice system punishes the poor and minorities more than whites. But no, it's because of the cost. Well, good luck, Iowa. You're going to need it.

Hurricane Katrina

There have been lots of postings about Hurricane Katrina and the absolute devastation that is has wrought throughout the Southeast. I do not want to really add anything about the political blame game or anything else. I do, however, want to point out that the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has set up a relief fund particularly for attorneys in this situation.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose all of my files, my evidence, my work. Louisiana has such a horrible record regarding criminal defense issues anyway that I cannot imagine this helping the situation any. Anyway, this particular charity is geared toward attorneys in general, criminal defense attorneys in particular.

DOJ Priorities

The Department of Justice has recently announced a change in its priorities: it will be targeting porn. Not child porn, but porn between consenting adults, particularly over internet distribution.

I hardly know where to begin. First, the First Amendment says that Congress shall make 'no law'. It does not say 'No law except...." It says, "No law." Second, porn's been around, in various permutations, for literally millennia. The drug war should show clearly that government cannot eradicate a market. It can only raise prices and increase its power. But then, when the government is arguing that Prohibition (no, not drug prohibition, but alcohol prohibition, as in 18th Amendment prohibition) was a success, it stands to reason that they would not understand either economics or history.

Last, do we really want DOJ spending its time prosecuting porn? I mean, shouldn't they be going after terrorists or something? There are a number of reasons to oppose what our government is doing in Guantanamo Bay, but very few people would argue that our government's efforts to find out about potential terrorist plots before they happen are impermissible.

For more information about the government's past battles about porn, check out this book (you can read my review here).

'Welfare Queens' get government money for Not Working!

Cicero over at To The People (link from Radley Balko) has a really good post about Welfare Queens and Congress' enabling them even further.

Apparently, there is a law that docks the pay of Senators and Representatives when they don't show up to work. This law is rarely enforced. So, because it is rarely enforced, Senator Allard (R-Co) wants to get rid of it. It's not clear whether the change would affect all members of Congress or just Senators. Cicero gives a good link to tell Senator Allard just how much you appreciate this idea.

Phyllis Dintenfass

If Ms. Dintenfass's name does not ring a bell, she is the 62 year old woman who got irritated when a pointless TSA search got a bit too friendly. So, when she was groped by a female TSA officer, she groped back in self defense. The feds are not really known for their understanding, sympathy, compassion, humor, or efficaciousness. Ms. Dintenfass was quickly prosecuted. Unfortunately, she was found guilty. Wendy McElroy has more details.

I need a sick-of-having-my-civil-liberties-violated day

Blondie has an interesting question, the timing of which is ironic given the T-shirt post below: would you consent to a bag search?

I would love to say 'hell no', but I know that I would. Probably, I would do it if I needed to get somewhere in a hurry. I do not think that the searches will make anybody safer. It's sort of like airport searches. They are not really going to protect us, but the feds can point out that they are doing "something". Since I have to get on a plane fairly frequently, I have a gut suspicion that I would just ride the subway anyway, unless the delay got to the point that it was not worth it.

But, I must say, I would not go gently into that good night. When I was at NCDC, I picked up a button that says, "Oh well, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway." It probably counts for nothing, but it makes me feel better to wear it through airports.

Great T-shirts

These T-shirts were created in response to the NYPD's new policy of random searches of people getting on the subway. However they got started, they're great shirts and part of me wants to get a bunch to give to potential clients. If the shirts were followed, I have a feeling that my job would get a lot easier.

And if you decide that you want to get one, I would suggest that you also get this yellow ribbon sticker for your car.

On the other hand, if you are just a sick bastard (like me), you will probably like this shirt. (there are a number of others at this site that are really funny, but there are quite a few that are offensive, even to me. So, be forewarned. Link via Blondie from way back when.)

Nancy Grace Fan Club

It's been a while since I've talked about ole' Nancy. I thought that faithful readers of this blawg and loyal Nancy fans (I think it would be hard to find more mutually exclusive groups) will enjoy this site. (Link courtesy Norm Pattis.)

A number of hits to this site have come from people Googling Nancy Grace and also Cabellas (this is the really bad drug dog sniff search earlier this year. I think people are instead looking for Cabela's, which I certainly understand. Next time, use only one 'L' and click on the above link.) This posting may raise my hit counter.

In the meantime, if you are directed here because you truly are part of the Nancy Grace Fan Club, ask yourself some questions:

Why are you fans of someone who has consistently advocated convicting someone before she knows all of the facts? (She was wrong about the runaway bride. She was wrong about Richard Jewell. And she was wrong about the handyman in the Elizabeth Smart case. In each case, she 'knew' what had happened before any evidence had come in.)

Why are you fans of someone who has been personally named in three (3!) separate appellate opinions as having violated the rules of evidence? If you had a friend, neighbor, family member or someone close to you charged with a crime, would you want the DA to hide evidence? Would you want the DA to try to inflame the jury in order convict on something other than the evidence? If you would not want such for your friends, why do you want it for people you do not know? Is this just inconsistency or is it hypocrisy?

I am one of those defense lawyers that Nancy Grace despises. I've done this job for a long time. I've practiced in large communities and in small. And I really do not recognize the world Nancy appears to inhabit. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of prosecutors that even come close to Nancy's attitude. A prosecutor with that attitude spends a lot more time in trial than other attorneys, generally with very little to show for it.

In reality, most of my clients were regular people who did stupid things. I do my best to make sure that we are human beings and treat them fairly, to make sure that they get a sentence that is appropriate, and to make try, in some small part, to prevent a rush to judgment. Why is that so wrong?

If you think that this job is reprehensible, there are a number of societies you can go join where defense lawyers are a lot more toothless than they are here: Iran, China, and North Korea come to mind. The fact that all of those countries are horribly repressive regimes that violate basic human rights is no coincidence. Winston Churchill once said (and I'm paraphrasing here, so don't ding me if I don't get the quote exactly right) that one can judge how civilized a society is by the way it treats it criminally accused. Based on that, it does not appear that Nancy Grace is very civilized. So why are you a fan?