7thriv

My Culture Made Me Do It!

Law School leftists and their friends in the defense bar are unceasing in their efforts to remove common sense and equal justice from criminal law. The latest is USC law professor Alison Dundes Rentein's theory, as expressed in "Multicultural Jurisprudence: Comparative Perspectives on the Cultural Defense," is that criminal courts should hear evidence regarding a defendant's "native culture" and how it may have contributed the their criminal acts (to read an article about this, go here and then scroll down).

“Cultural differences deserve to be considered in litigation because enculturation shapes individuals’ perceptions and influences their actions,” she writes in the book. She is calling for formal acceptance in the legal community of a cultural defense in which legal systems acknowledge “the influence of cultural imperatives” in illegal acts.

I did not realize that "enculturation" is a real word. Anyway, Rentein helpfully provides some case studies that are intended to support her view, but really don't:

1. A Mexican was convicted for shooting a fellow poker player (hmmm. he seems to have picked up some aspects of American culture, at least). The guy's defense was provocation; the deceased "used an expression considered the worst possible insult to someone's mother in Mexico."

2. An Albanian Muslim was accused of sexual abuse after "touching his daughter's genitals." He was acquitted, but lost his parental rights on other grounds. A lot of info is left out of this: how old was the daughter? Was he changing her diapers? Giving her a bath? Or, was he prepping her for an arranged marriage to the imam? Inquiring minds would like to know.

3. a Thai man received the death penalty (horrors!) for killing two people. He showed "no remorse or other emotion," which is really really important in Thai culture, but no other. Has Rentein ever heard of Omerta? He also would not name the "real killer" because Thai culture teaches the importance of not expanding the "circle of shame." Right, or maybe there is no "real killer" because the Thai was the guy.

All of the above show how silly this all is. And, they also show that Rentein not only lives in an Ivory Tower, but was also raised by churchmice. I mean, come on, does she honestly believe that Mexican "culture" is unique in having obscene words meant to insult someone's mother? Also, at least in the cases of the Mexican and the Albanian, the court DID consider the cultural argument, and rejected it. So, what Rentein really objects to is the result, wherein "cultural difference" was insufficient to free a criminal from his richly deserved punishment.

(just to get a flavor of the snotty preachiness you have to put up with from California progressives, note where she says, in discussing the possibility that the public might not appreciate her insights, Rentein says "'when legislatures deal with culture on a policy level, they tend to ban the custom. Just after Hawaii had the first case on same-sex marriage, we ended up with a law. It's called the Defense of Marriage Act." Um, I thought we were talking about criminal defendants. Also, did DOMA "ban" the custom of marriage? No it did not.)

I think it is appropriate that Renstein's co-editor is from Belgium, as experience has taught me that Belgians - along with Afrikaaners, Palestinians, SS Guards, Hutus, and New Yorkers - tend to fall back on the "it's my culture" excuse when someone calls them on their jerk-off behavior. "Cultural differences" is really just another way of saying "I intend to act like an asshole, but refuse to be called on it." That might work on their girlfriends, but should not be relevant in court.

Do They Have To Re-open?

DMV, other state offices set to close Friday

Great. How about closing the other 4 days? It seems like a lot of the DMV's work could be done on-line. Why isn't it?

Bush Derangement in the Obama Years

Will Ferrill is on Broadway(!) with a stage production called 'You’re Welcome America. A Final Night With George W Bush'.

Laaaaaaaaaame.

W's admirers have let go , but his detractors can't. I mean, Jeez, there's jokes about "freedom fries" here! W's was a Dark Legacy, indeed.

Strike the tent, please. It's over.

Working Boys

As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force. And, of course, the hope is that this will cause the long awaited "questioning of gender roles" that has replaced trade unionism and income redistribution as the prime motivator for many activists on the Left.

First of all, it should no longer be a surprise that women are often more capable and disciplined than men. My law school's student body was majority female and the top 20% in my graduating class was overwhelmingly so. But, come on. If millions of laid-off engineers, construction workers, and Masters of the Universe are sitting around "questioning their gender roles" because they got laid off a few months ago, then America is in bigger trouble than I thought.

I am starting to think the Crash of '08 is beginning to enter the realm of self-parody.

Gravest Hits Hits Grave

Cramps founder and punk pioneer Lux Interior has died. Does this mean the Halloween show is canceled?

The Cramps were one of the foundational bands playing the Unheard Music. Their compatriots were bands like The Ramones, the Violent Femmes, Sonic Youth, and The Fall; bands that returned year after year to the same clubs and small arenas. They never had much in the way of popular appeal, but their posters and T-shirts were ubiquitous style elements for the college hispter set in the Eighties.

You may not feel it, but it's the end of a sort of era.

The Great Man Theory & Its Obverse

The history of the Crash of '08 has yet to play out, but one thing is clear: the 4 month performance of Hank Paulson was absolutely disastrous. A lot happened behind closed doors about which we are only now learning. The latest revelation: The Bank of America-Merrill "Deal", was forced on B of A, which wanted to walk away from the merger when it learned that Merrill had been less than forthcoming about the true state of its business.

Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs man, never wavered from one goal throughout the crisis months: save the Manhattan investment banks, Goldman included. The B of A merger with Merrill was a piece of that, and for Paulson it must have had an undeniable appeal. Rather than saddle the gov't with Merrill's mess, he could force a private company outside of the Manhattan club to take on all of Merrill's obligations. When B of A learned that Merrill - like Lehman and Bear before it - had been lying about its books, it was too late. For B of A.

Spare me the complaints about Kenneth Lewis' fiduciary duties. What, pray tell, was he supposed to do? Under normal conditions, he would have walked away from the deal. In fact, he fully intended to do that. Instead, he was forced to consummate the "deal" by the government which regulated him, taxed him, and held his bank's charter. What would have happened if he had gone "off the reservation" and started talking down the Merrill deal? Nothing good - for B of A, its employees, its customers, and shareholders.

I suspect the average person doesn't think this is a problem, except as it might relate to their tax bill. That's because they can't quite grasp why their economic freedom might be related to the troubles of some overcompensated bankers in NY and NC. But, if the police tried to do this, the ACLU would fill the air with legal briefs. If the Pentagon tried this, the streets would be filled chanting crowds. But, a businessman essentially forced to do a deal at the government's bidding? A deal that only benefits the government and really has no economically rational basis for the business? Not a word. Well, that stinks, and it speaks to the profound ignorance many people - from the Man on the Street to many in the corridors of power - have regarding their economic freedom and how easily it can be lost.

The problem is not what happened to B of A; it's the precedent this sort of behavior by the regulators has set. Our freedom of contract was greatly curtailed in the Thirties. Congress has virtually unlimited power to regulate commerce under a very expansive (read "progressive") reading of the Commerce Clause. Our Fifth Amendment property rights were greatly curtailed just a few years ago with the "Kelo" decision. Now, the ability for our biggest companies to determine the best manner in which to live or die has been repealed by a gov't that seems determined to preserve a failed regulatory-business model in amber.