Patterico's Pontifications


Chuckie S.: ‘Hat Extraordinaire

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 8:53 pm

Nat Hentoff on Charles Pickering, here.

Hey, Chuckie S. — you ever send your children to a racially diverse public school, like Judge Pickering did?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Justin Levine on the Right of Publicity

Filed under: Law — Patterico @ 6:40 pm

Justin Levine, writing at the SoCalLawBlog, has this thought-provoking post arguing that California’s right of publicity is unconstitutional. He makes a good argument.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh has more.

Torturers of Iraqi Prisoners

Filed under: War — Patterico @ 6:38 pm

Most people who have commented on the torture of Iraqi prisoners have opined that those responsible for the torture should be prosecuted by American authorities and forced to serve long prison sentences.

Let me toss out a different idea for discussion: let the Iraqis prosecute them, and impose whatever punishment they deem appropriate.

Just Keep Distorting the Truth — It’s For a Good Cause

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer,No on 66 — Patterico @ 5:52 pm

Our local Dog Trainer reports here that Bill Lockyer will not appeal the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision holding a Three Strikes sentence unconstitutional.

As I have discussed in a previous post, the first time the Dog Trainer reported on the Ninth Circuit decision, the paper buried on the back pages the fact that the man’s priors were actually robberies. Worse, the paper never described the force used in those robberies (shoving a security guard and driving over another security guard’s foot).

In this latest story, the paper doesn’t even mention that the previous crimes were robberies. The priors are described simply as “two nonviolent shoplifting offenses.” The word “robberies” (or “robbery”) does not even appear in the article.

And so the facts of the case are further fictionalized, so that reasonable citizens (who are foolish enough to rely on the Dog Trainer for their news) get the impression that one can be sentenced to 25-to-life for three petty thefts — an impossibility under California law.

But this distortion of facts is all for a good cause: promoting passage of the initiative to gut the Three Strikes law in November. I’m sure the folks at the Dog Trainer feel that the need to promote this initiative outweighs the responsibility to accurately report the news. Hence the repeated and increasingly misleading distortion of the facts of the Ninth Circuit case.

UPDATE: Re-reading the story, I see I was too kind. Here is the full quote describing the defendant’s past offenses:

In 1991, Ramirez pleaded guilty to two nonviolent shoplifting offenses iand served just over six months under a plea agreement.

(By the way, it looks like the Dog Trainer‘s spell checker is still broken.)

If they had said he had “committed” two nonviolent shoplifting offenses, that would have been inaccurate and a distortion. Saying that he pled guilty to shoplifting offenses is a lie. It was stated that way in their first news story as well, and it’s a patent falsehood.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1892 secs.