Category Archives: Crime

UPDATE II: ‘The Myth That Democracy = Freedom’ (Man Up As I Have!)

Constitution, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Democracy, Ilana Mercer, libertarianism, Political Correctness, Race, Racism, South-Africa

Written by Professor Tom DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln, on the hugely popular, iconic, website of LewRockwell.com, there is a wonderful review of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.

“One thing that Into the Cannibal’s Pot demonstrates is that democracy alone is not at all desirable if it is not attached to a culture that highly values the protection of life, liberty and property. The new rulers of South Africa do not. South Africa competes with Iraq and Colombia for the title of ‘the most violent’ country of the world. The homicide rate in South Africa today is twenty times what it is in the U.S., as Mercer documents. A rape occurs every twenty-six seconds. The annual murder rate in South Africa has increased three-and-a-half fold since the ending of the reprehensible apartheid regime. There are more than 52,000 rapes/year in South Africa today, ten percent of which victimize infants because of the bizarre superstition that is widely believed there that sex with a virgin is a cure for AIDS…”

MORE.

A question that a reader had posed concerned secession. The reader took secession in the South African context (my book cites a classic book by that title published by the Mises Institute, and edited by David Gordon) to include only the Afrikaners. Of course, secessionists may include all people who are deemed desirable, no matter their color, religion or creed.

As I said on a radio show the other day, a secessionist state could incorporate any individual approved by by private property owners—blacks, whites, colored, Indians, pygmies, farmers, accountants, whomever—anyone with the skills and disposition property owners and their proxies saw fit to include in the arrangement. But a seceding state would defend itself vigorously against bad elements. I also wrote that it was not for me, an expat, to give territorial content to that state.

In addition, I made the point in the book that the much-revered South African Constitution is a horrible document; it has a section devoted to the “Limitation of Rights.” That section provides philosophical imprimatur to the destruction of property currently under way. I also make it clear that, whereby our overlords who art in DC flout the will of our Founding Fathers and our constitution—South Africa’s ruling, dominant-party-in-perpetuity is faithful, in a sort of sick way, to that country’s foul constitution and to the will of the majority.

UPDATE I (July 22): Westie: Would you put this exact comment you wrote hereunder on Amazon, please? The best way to raise awareness of the issues and the book’s angle is via Amazon. I appreciate and reply to every comment I get (a LOT!). But readers here already know the power of this pen. Let others know via Amazon.

UPDATE II (JuLy 23): MAN-UP AS I HAVE.

Cuan: As one of the few privileged individuals who’ve received a book for the purpose of writing multiple reviews—in the plural—is there any chance that you might actually finally share these insights where they will make a difference, on Amazon!!!??? That was an expectation that came with a review copy from a cash-strapped operation such is mine. It is the least a reviewer can do: simply copy and paste to Amazon these insights you keep posting on BAB (and others send to my email). On this forum, we understand what you and others keep repeating. What good does it do to speak in an echo chamber; to preach to the converted? What will it take to get you and the rest to do the right thing by this book and its mission?

This woman has manned-up. A few good men have. But where are the rest, especially the South Africans, who are best able to affirms their experience as captured in this book, at great cost (professional and other) to its author?

British Parliamentary-Police-Press Complex Splutters

Britain, Crime, English, Journalism, Law, Media, The State, The Zeitgeist

In the US we have a military-media-industrial-congressional-complex. These branches share a symbiotic relationship. For example, when the top brass in government or in the military want to launch a war on another people (Iraq, for example), or on their own (The Transportation and Security Administration), they entrust the ratings-craving (and craven) television networks to do their bidding.

In the UK they have a similar set-up, call it, for our purposes, the parliamentary-police-press complex. As in the US, its mission is to keep the populace preoccupied with puerile nonsense. The already pathetic British press, it turns out, was going above the call of duty in emulating the government: News of the World, a News Corp, Rupert Murdoch British tabloid, has been hacking the phones and voicemail of interested parties.

Not unlike the government that is currently quizzing it.

Today, Rebekah Brooks of the tumbleweed hair apologized for the editorial direction she took.

It has to be clear that this is a dance of statists.

Positive-Law Arguments For The Anthony Outcome

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Justice, Law, libertarianism, Natural Law

Of course, “Caylee’s Law,” Radley Balko points out, is a horrible idea. Stupid too. However, to neglect real evidence because one is against the death penalty is as horrible and stupid, if not more so. These are separate issues.

Alan Dershowitz has been arguing that the Casey Anthony verdict is an embodiment of “our legal system.” In making this case, Dershowitz alludes, curiously, to the positive law, not to any natural-law aspect of the American legal system, or to this woman’s prosecution.

To support his view of the impetus of America’s legal system, Dershowitz (on Huckabee), for example, touted the Exclusionary Rule as exemplifying his view of the impetus of America’s legal system. (I say “curiously,” because libertarians seem not to be distinguishing positive- from negative-law arguments in support of the jury’s innocent ruling.)

The Exclusionary Rule is a technicality tarted up as a real right. Hardly libertarian—at least not if one is a proponent of the natural law.

In the same vein, a procedural violation of the Fourth Amendment, say, an improper search, can get evidence of guilt—-a bloodied knife or a smoking gun—-barred from being presented at trial. Fail to Mirandize a murderer properly, and his confession will be tossed out. Such procedural defaults are very often used to suppress immutable physical facts, thus serving to subvert the spirit of the law and natural justice.

More minted “rights” are “consular rights.” A procedural default such as the failure to apprise a defendant of his consular contacts is never a violation of a natural right. “Consular rights” are of a piece with Miranda rights and the Exclusionary Rule. Again, these are technicalities tarted up as real rights.

Might these gaps of understanding between libertarians touch on the distinction, in our multi-factioned movement, between the hardcore, life-liberty-property classical liberal, and civil libertarianism and “libertarianism lite”?

Dershowitz is a civil libertarian who once conflated the natural law with the law of the jungle.

UPDATE III: Jeff Ashton: Class Act in the Classless Casey Anthony Case

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Law, Logic, Pop-Culture, The Courts

What a class act is Florida’s Assistant state attorney Jeff Ashton. What magnificent closing arguments he delivered in the case of the through-and-through sociopath, Casey Anthony. What a stellar presentation of evidence, rebuttal of the defense’s pie-in-the-sky’s clashing theories of the crime, and slap shod, ad hoc, invent-as-you-go narrative.

Ashton etched in evidence an identikit of the classic sociopath. Casey Anthony had never told the truth in her short life; had never done a day’s work in her life, and expected constant gratification and thrills at every turn. It’s a great shame that a man with as rigorous a mind as Ashton’s is retiring. I don’t blame him. Reason and reality, increasingly, will be lost on younger juries, who now inhabit a parallel, electronic universe where idiocy is normalcy.

One criticism of Ashton: His slurping of bottled water was annoying; he ought to have been supplied with glasses of water for his hard work.

Another is his theory of the day of the crime. It was well-done, but a little narrow for the morons in the jury box to grasp. Mommy dearest departed with her daughter, who was never again seen alive. It is, however, possible, even likely, that this wanton woman, a sociopath—who kept telling her parents she had a job, a babysitter, but had neither and was lying and stealing to keep herself in the loop of club life—lost it with the child, and climbed into her in a fit of rage.

The murder of Caylee Anthony was no accident, but it could have been committed in an unplanned manner too. Casey is clever, but she is also a bitch in rage (and in-heat). The child was probably spirited and willful, and this woman (now letting down her hair, primping and preening as though on a red carpet) had had enough of her child’s willfulness, and of the responsibility her (pretty liberal) parents attempted to foist on their difficult daughter.

“I have never been able to figure out why someone would cover up an accident by putting three pieces of duct tape over the nose and mouth of a child and then dumping him in a swamp. When children die of accidents, people call for help; that’s how it works in the real world, not in fiction.” (Ashton on CNN)

Rather than do the job with which they were entrusted, and deduce a logical sequence of events from the powerful evidence provided by the prosecution, the Millennial moron juror interviewed took elements of the profile and the evidence as discrete, atomistic items rejecting her duty to apply some deductive thinking. As I’ve said, short of a YouTube clip, nothing would have convinced these clods of the Anthony woman’s guilt.

Casey’s victory is about “winning”… in the Age of the Idiot.

[I can’t find transcripts of Closing. Can anyone send these?]

UPDATE I: I give your Dean Eckstadt, alternate juror. He instantiates most everything I said about the Millennials, some of who sat on this case. “Like, from the pictures, she seemed a good mother to me. Like she’s innocent. Like, it is what it is.”

I called this justice in the age of YouTube and I told you that there is something deformed about many younger Americans’ mindset and mentality, some of whom debuted on the jury. I’ve witnessed it in the young people with whom I am forced to deal in my interactions—narcissistic, informal, disrespectful to their elders and betters; they conflate how they feel with how things should work, they are the center of the universe, lazy, often incompetent, slow, can’t follow any logical, sequence or algorithm, conflate the personal and the professional. On and on. In short, Dean Eckstadt.

Behold another such specimen: Russel Heuckler. Not as young but as limited.

UPDATE II (July 11): In Florida, there are two possible penalties for first-degree murder — life in prison without parole or the death penalty.” Also, as I understand it, there are two phases to a trial. The other, highly opinionated, young female juror doing the rounds, indicated that what weighed on her ability to deliberate was the fact that the prosecution had sought the death penalty. She was, however, prohibited from judging the evidence with the recommended penalty in mind. Moreover, the jury did not have to recommend the death penalty. When the sentencing phase commenced, they could have recommended life in prison. Not unexpectedly, Mike Huckabee was not apprised of this distinction. The man is a simpleton. Always has been.

In any event, the jurors currently proudly touting their exquisite sensitivity had flouted the Judge’s instructions in the matter of distinguishing the deliberation from the penalty phase of a trial. To these simple, Millennial minds, everything was enmeshed. And, of course, there was no footage of the act…

UPDATE III (July 11): And Greta keeps a straight face. I give you the YouTube youth vote on Jury Duty.