Category Archives: Rule of Law

But I thought they were AGAINST brassieres (which shows how little I know)

Did anyone else do a double-take this morning upon reading the news about the woman who was extremely indignant about the scrutiny she received after the underwire in her full-figure bra set off the metal detector?

No, there weren’t any pictures. And yes, I thought of Jane Russell, too, but that’s probably unfair either to Nancy Kates (the lady in question) or Ms. Russell…. Anyway, back to the subject at hand… Hey! Boys! Over this way… Pay attention…

Ms. Kates said she would "talk to her family lawyer as well as the American Civil Liberties Union
and the National Organization for Women and decide how to pursue the
incident."

The ACLU I can understand. But isn’t the NOW historically opposed to bra-wearing? Or am I remembering that wrong? Maybe so.

Actually, Michael DID say it was personal

Bonasera

Forgive me for going into Cliff Clavin mode here, but…

I had a little fun with the "Godfather" cliche of business-vs.-personal in my Sunday column. But it’s a little-known fact that in the novel (as opposed to the movie), Michael Corleone did say it was personal, and not business.

The irony is that the "it’s not personal… it’s strictly business" line is probably the most quoted from the movie. It’s used in business, sports, anywhere and anytime American males do something distasteful for which they do not wish to be held morally responsible. It’s like the kinder, gentler, all-American version of the Nazis’ "I vas only followink orders."

Hey, I’ve been guilty of using it, to help me separate personal feelings for a newsmaker from the responsibility to report or comment without reference to those feelings (Hey, he’s a nice guy, but this is business…). But it can be a pious copout, if you’re a real human being.

And that was Mario Puzo’s point. In fact, the central theme of the novel, and of other works by Puzo, such as The Fourth K, was the exploration of the personal as opposed to larger societal obligation, such as to the rule of law. The seduction of The Godfather is that you are invited to care about these characters personally, and forget that they are unapologetic, sometimes murderous, criminals.

Anyway, the central speech in the novel occurs just before Michael goes off to kill Sollozzo and the police captain. He’s speaking to Tom Hagen:

…Tom, don’t let anybody kid you. It’s all personal, every bit of business…. They call itPacino business, OK. But it’s personal as hell. You know where I learned that from? The Don. My old man. The Godfather. If a bolt of lightning hit a friend of his the old man would take it personal. He took my going into the Marines personal. That’s what makes him great. The Great Don. He takes everything personal. Like God. He knows every feather that falls from the tail of a sparrow or however the hell it goes. Right?…

It’s the epiphany around which the whole story is based. But somehow, as great as the movie is, that got left out. We were left with the opposite impression of the point. Odd, isn’t it?

Thumbs up for curfew

Any thoughts on the curfew being announced today for Sandhills, to wit:

    Teens 16 and younger soon will not be allowed at Village at Sandhill after 9 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights unless they have parents or guardians with them.
    The new policy, drafted by shopping center management with help from Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott, is being announced today and is scheduled to take effect Sept. 5, Richland County Councilwoman Val Hutchinson said Thursday…

My thoughts? Well, they’re pretty straightforward. Unless I hear something I haven’t heard yet that makes this case a special exception, I’m for it. I’ve got this thing, you know, about grownups being in charge.

… and what about Aquaman?

More from the organization formerly known as The South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association:

S.C. TRIAL LAWYERS CHANGE NAME, REDEFINE MISSION
Unveils New Name and Logo at 2008 Annual Convention

COLUMBIA, SC – The South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association (SCTLA) announced today they have a new name.   Now called the South Carolina Association for Justice (SCAJ), the name change is intended to reflect their new, broader mission and better represent the purpose of the organization.
    The name change was approved and finalized at the 2008 SCTLA/SCAJ annual convention in Hilton Head which ran August 7-10.
    "The mission of the South Carolina Association for Justice involves more than courtroom battles," said Pete Strom, former U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina who assumed office as President at the convention. "We will also work with elected officials and policy makers to create a legal system that protects everyone, not just the rich and the influential."
     SCAJ’s central mission to protect the rights of people will remain, but the group has expanded its purpose to become "the state’s leading advocate for justice and fairness under the law."  Organizational changes are also underway….

Wait a minute, doesn’t that come awfully close to trademark infringement with the Justice League of America? What do Superman, the Green Lantern and Wonder Woman have to say about this?

 

Top Five courtroom dramas

Got this e-mail yesterday from a local trial lawyer:

Mr. Warthen

Read with interest your brief comments about Ms. Brockovich’s appearance at our convention. Why not come listen to her before you judge? You might actually learn something.

By the way, Jonathan Harr, who wrote "A Civil Action," (the book is much, much better than the movie) spoke by invitation to a group of trial lawyers, hosted by former AAJ president Ken Suggs, a few years ago. Signed my copy of the book! And the lawyer who was portrayed (Jan Schlictmann) has been invited numerous times to speak to our group. Ask your daughter, Elizabeth — we trial lawyers have open minds!

First, I have a daughter who is a lawyer, but her name is not Elizabeth. I’m leaving this lawyer’s name off to protect him from my daughter.

I replied by saying I didn’t know I was "judging," I thought I was just riffing on the blog as usual. And sorry, but I really didn’t like the movie. I did mention another I liked — "Runaway Jury."

This brings us to the fact that we haven’t had a Top Five list in days. How about a Top Five Coutroom Dramas list? Here’s one to start the conversation with:

  1. "12 Angry Men" — Nothing else can touch this, of course. It’s to courtroom dramas what "High Noon" is to Westerns.
  2. "To Kill A Mockingbird" — Very close second, and even maybe a better movie — but only part of it happens in the courthouse.
  3. "A Few Good Men" — Does military justice count? I think so.
  4. "Witness for the Prosecution" — Just to get all snooty and throw in some foreign accents.
  5. "Primal Fear" —  Edward Norton’s breakout, and certainly scariest, performance. Richard Gere almost disqualifies this one, but Norton saves it.

Other candidates?

Erin Brockovich? I didn’t get into that movie, either

A release informs me that the S.C. Trial Lawyers are really excited about their speaker for an upcoming event:

SOUTH CAROLINA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                          
Monday, August 4, 2008

ERIN BROCKOVICH NAMED 2008 SCTLA CONVENTION KEYNOTE SPEAKER
Award-Winning Environmental Advocate to Address 1000 Attendees on August 9

COLUMBIA, SC – The South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association today named award-winning Environmental Advocate Erin Brockovich the keynote speaker for its 2008 Convention at the Westin Resort in Hilton Head, SC from August 7-9.  Mrs. Brockovich will address nearly 1000 of the organization’s members and their guests on Saturday morning at 10 a.m.
    "Mrs. Brockovich is an internationally sought after speaker and we are honored that she has made time in her busy schedule for us," said SCTLA Executive Director Mike Hemlepp.  "Given the great dedication that trial lawyers have had in bringing environmental issues to public attention, this comes at an important time in our association’s history.  It will be a privilege to have her at the convention."
    In 1993, Mrs. Brockovich discovered that the California utility, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, had been poisoning the residents of Hinkley, Calif. with the toxic chemical Chromium 6.  Her tireless research resulted in the largest legal settlement in U.S. history against the company.
    She has won numerous awards and has spoken with many groups dedicated to protecting the rights of consumers and citizens against environmental torts.  In 2000, Universal Studios released the movie "Erin Brockovich" to tell the story of the residents of Hinkley and Julia Roberts won an Academy Award for her portrayal of the title role.
    "We do our best to ensure that our members get the most from the annual convention," SCTLA President John Nichols said.  "Mrs. Brockovich continues a long line of special guest speakers who raise the bar for knowledge and insight in the ever-changing field of law and justice."
    Mrs. Brockovich owns Brockovich Consulting and still works closely with to Masry and Vititoe, the law firm that brought the PG&E litigation after she discovered medical records as part of a pro bono real estate matter.
    The South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association was founded over 50 years ago and is the state’s leading advocate for the protection of citizens’ right to civil justice as guaranteed by the Constitution.
    This event is open to members of the media possessing proper credentials.  Press are asked to check in at the media registration desk and should note that neither Mrs. Brockovich nor her personnel may be recorded, broadcast, televised, filmed, photographed or webcast during the convention.
    For more information, visit www.sctla.org
                ###

Which reminds me, as long as I’m on a tear about such things — I didn’t really get into that movie, either.

I’m not really into spunky underdog movies unless they’re made by Frank Capra, nor do I really get into dogged muckraker movies, unless they’re All The President’s Men. I sort of liked "A Civil Action," but that took a somewhat more ironic, and less worshipful, look at trial lawyering than what the SCTLA is probably looking for in a speaker.

SLED’s antique helo

Sometimes on the edit page, we get into a bit of a rut. There are so many ways in which our inadequate state government is underfunded that for simplicity’s sake we tend to fall back on certain standbys when we gripe about our Legislature’s failure to set priorities in budgeting. When we cite a litany of neglect, we usually fall on:

  • Mental Health — A favorite example is how the lack of state resources for the mentally ill unnecessarily overcrowd our jails and hospital emergency rooms.
  • Prisons — We keep locking up more and more people, and providing less and less resources even to guard, much less rehabilitate, them.
  • Highways — We let them crumble, and we don’t enforce speed limits or other laws.
  • Schools — Too many districts, no follow-through on the promise to do more in early childhood, the neglect of the most troubled and impoverished rural districts, etc.

And that’s a nice overview, as far as it goes. It’s fine for just a representation in passing of the overall problem. We refer to such examples when we’re complaining about everything from poorly considered tax cuts to spending on things the state doesn’t need to spend on.

But we could write about other examples as well, and probably should more often. I was reminded of this by new SLED Chief Reggie Lloyd when he spoke to the Columbia Rotary yesterday. He talked about how everywhere he’s been in either state or federal government, he always seemed to arrive just as the budget screws were being applied.

The wiretaps he spoke of, and which were cited in the brief in today’s paper, were related to this. SLED has the equipment and the authority to do wiretaps in drug and gang investigations. But the people haven’t been trained in how to do it, so the equipment has sat there (to the delight of libertarians, no doubt, but not to those of us who love Big Brother).

But my favorite anecdote was when he was talking about the department’s Huey. When I heard that, I thought maybe I heard wrong: They’re still flying a Huey? But that wasn’t the half of it. This particular Huey was salvaged from the rice paddy it once crashed into in Vietnam. Now, it’s being flown by pilots who weren’t yet born then. Not long ago, SLED did some sort of joint thing with some folks from the Coast Guard, and they all wanted to see the Huey. They had heard about it, but found it hard to believe.

Hamburgerhill

Mayor Bob defends his apartment security plan

Coblebobnew

Mayor Bob came by the office this morning to try to sell us on his proposed ordinance to require security measures at apartment complexes. We talked for about 45 minutes. As you know, we have criticized the city in the past for trying to get the federal government to do the city’s job with regard to crime in poor North Columbia neighborhoods. Here’s what we said March 9:

THE STATE
POLICE OBLIGATED TO PROTECT ALL CITY NEIGHBORHOODS
Published on: 03/09/2008
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: FINAL
Page: A22
IT MAKES GOOD sense for the owner of troubled Gable Oaks apartments to beef up security, but that doesn’t relieve Columbia police of their duty to adequately patrol and enforce the law at the omplex.
    City officials seem to believe it’s largely up to the owner of the apartment complex to provide what amounts to basic police protection.
    They say the onus is on Transom Development, a subsidiary of Atlanta-based SunTrust Banks, to ensure residents’ safety. Some council members want the federal government to require — and help pay for — security at apartment complexes, such as Gable Oaks, that accept federal housing vouchers. Last week, some S.C. House members got into they act by filing legislation that would offer income tax credits in exchange for providing security at low-income, multifamily housing complexes.
    Considering the fact that three people have been killed in or near Gable Oaks since December, it’s understandable that residents and city officials are very concerned. It’s perfectly appropriate for Transom to do all it can to provide extra security for its residents. And it should pay for that higher level of service. Transom plans to do just that; it has agreed to hire security guards and to issue residents parking decals.
    But make no mistake about it, the primary responsibility for protecting residents of Gable Oaks or any other part of the city lies with the city. Gable Oaks is in the city limits, and its tenants are city residents. City residents should be able to expect a certain level and quality of service from the police department.
    We can’t help but believe that if there was a spike in crime in Shandon or Wales Garden — no matter how minor — the city would aggressively patrol the area, get matters under control and pay more attention going forward. Gable Oaks deserves no less.
    But the tone and tack city officials have used when discussing Gable Oaks make it seem as if residents are on their own if the owner doesn’t provide maximum protection. That would be unfair and discriminatory.
    While Gable Oaks is in the spotlight, north Columbia residents have taken this opportunity to express concern that the city neglects their area of town. During a meeting last Monday night, about 50 residents complained of poor police presence, indifferent landlords and a City Council focused more on downtown than north Columbia. There’s no doubt that over the years, the city has paid inadequate attention to certain areas of town, and north Columbia is one of them.
    While city officials say the owner should police Gable Oaks, some acknowledge that tenants from the complex aren’t necessarily the troublemakers. Visitors and people passing through cause some of the problems. That means those people are passing through — or even coming from — other city neighborhoods. And it’s the city’s responsibility to police all its neighborhoods and ensure people’s safety.
    By all means, Gable Oaks’ owner should improve security. But city police shouldn’t take that as a sign they don’t have to be vigilant in policing the area.
    Ultimately, the quality of law enforcement residents in Gable Oaks, or other parts of Columbia, receive will be determined by how committed the city is to help make it safe.

Here are some of the main points that the mayor made to us this morning:

  • The federal government, since it provides subsidies for housing in these complexes, should require security just as it has architectural requirements.
  • The feds have refused twice to ge involved, but suggested the city would be within its rights to require lighting, fencing, private security guards and other measures by ordinance — if the rules applied to ALL apartment complexes in the city.
  • There is some chance the federal position might change with a new administration, but crime-beleaguered residents can’t wait for that.
  • Whatever the philosophical objections (such as our objection that if the crime were in Shandon, the police would deal with it), there is the very real problem of people being exposed to crime. The city has had real-life success stopping crime in Gable Oaks using the approach he is now proposing to apply to ALL apartments in the city, and there is no good reason not to implement something that works.
  • One difference between this and crime involving single-family residences is that an apartment complex is a large business being conducted within the city, and is thereby subject to regulation.
  • Requiring the complexes to provide security is no different from requiring USC to come up with off-duty cops to handle traffic for Williams-Brice Stadium events: If you’re running an enterprise that causes a problem, you deal with the problem.
  • It’s not appropriate for city police to stay in one such business 24 hours a day, at the neglect of nearby areas.
  • Private security guards can enforce rules that city police can’t — such as a complex’s own covenants or lease provisions.

Near as I can recall, those were his main points. Maybe I’ll post video from the interview on Saturday Extra this week. (In fact, I’m sure I will unless something better comes up.)

Oh, and by the way — the mayor shrugged off the friction between him and Kirkman Finlay III (below, from a previous edit board meeting) over the issue. When Warren kidded him that "I thought you were about to rip your tie off," from Adam Beam’s report this a.m. "No," said the mayor, "we were hugging and kissing by the time the day was over."

Finlaykirkman

‘Basic English’ little help on 2nd Amendment

On tomorrow’s page we have a letter from someone on one side or the other of the 2nd Amendment debate (which side is irrelevant to my point) who writes "Anyone who has had any basic English course knows…," and then goes on to make some point or other about what he believes the Amendment to mean.

Here’s the problem with that: Basic English (or hyper-advanced English, for that matter) is little help in making clear sense of the 2nd Amendment. Read it — or try to: Those stray commas — you know, the ones after "Militia" and "Arms" — render it into gibberish.

I love commas; I truly do. I think the modern world is sadly lacking in commas. That’s why I loved this column by Robert Samuelson awhile back.

But apparently, they had a surplus of them in the 18th century — a regular plague, as with locusts. And they descended upon the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, and left devastation in their wake.

Mississippi Burning up the road

And people think we have problems with our troopers. I happened to be driving across Mississippi yesterday, on Hwy 78 between Tupelo and Memphis.

I was just tooling along, getting in touch with my essential Elvisness, and the road between those two foci of the Elvis universe is a perfect place to do it. Hwy 78 is now an interstate-like four-lane with a huge median, rolling across the Delta with almost no traffic, unlike, say, I-20.

So I’m cooling it, with the cruise set exactly to the speed limit (don’t tell Samuel), when suddenly "Whoa, Daddy! It’s the Man!" — a Mississippi state trooper blows past me like I’m standing still.

He was not in what one would call "hot pursuit." No lights, no siren. He was just moving from point A to point B at a high velocity.

OK, fine. Stuff happens. But about 20 minutes later, another Mississippi state trooper flies past me going just as fast.

But get this: This one finds himself blocked by a superannuated RV in the left lane doing about 60, about a quarter-mile ahead of me. So does he sweep around it on the right, seeing as there was no traffic in that lane? No. He tailgates for a seconds, as I start catching up.

When the RV doesn’t immediately pull over, he turns on the blue light. The guy in the RV doesn’t see him right away, and I pass the two of them on the right, still on cruise.

The trooper edges over into the left shoulder just as I’m passing, so the guy can’t possibly miss him. Shortly thereafter, I see the RV pull over in my rearview.

Did the trooper continue on after some felon? No. He turns off his light, engages the afterburner, and zooms past me doing about 90.

He disappears off ahead of me, apparently in a hurry for a donut.

Yeah, we’ve all seen cops in S.C. seeming to use their de facto immunity to speed needlessly. But in Mississippi, such heedless arrogance seems to be Standard Operating Procedure.

Can we drive 55? OK, how about 70?

We all know how frustrated Energy partisan Samuel Tenenbaum gets about his perfectly sensible suggestion that we save the country and the planet, and save ourselves some bucks, by driving 55 mph. He keeps hoping his moment will arrive — will we get sensible at $5 a gallon? Or will it be $6?

Anyway, I was reminded of all that by this letter this a.m.:

Keeping to speed limit will save on gas

Apparently the high cost of gasoline is not yet a problem for the people of South Carolina.

Every
driver knows that higher speeds reduce fuel efficiency. Yet traffic on
our interstate highways continues to roll about 10 mph over the speed
limit.

STEPHEN D. KIRKLAND

This raises the question: Do you think we can summon the political will in this state to enforce the speed limits we have now? The reason traffic "continues to roll about 10 mph over the speed
limit" is that we all know that the de facto speed limit is 10 mph over — and maybe more like 15.

Maybe we can start the movement here. How about it? Can some of y’all who get SO worked up about illegal immigration "because they’re breaking the law" get worked up by speeding? After all, this isn’t just about not having the right paperwork; speed kills.

If we can tap into an emotional well like that, we can save lives, save money, flip the bird to Chavez and the House of Saud and save the planet. Sounds like a good deal.

Background on Beatty and his critics

Folks, it occurs to me as I read comments back here that some of you might not fully understand how Judge Beatty has been targeted by these groups he’s talking about. You might want to go back and read some of what I wrote when he was elected to the court. As I said back then, he didn’t seem to me to be the best-qualified at all. But what I objected to was the grotesque campaign conducted against him, using some of the cheesiest, low-down tactics that have sullied our political branches in recent years.

If you will recall, these critics like to call him a "liberal" judge. They don’t provide evidence of this. What they do is show his picture. Get it? He’s black. Black equals liberal. Liberal equals black. He’s black, therefore he’s the kind of judge we don’t like. It’s moronic, and it’s racist.

To give you further perspective, I urge you to peruse this column of Cindi’s from last year. Yeah, you might think the judge’s rhetoric is over the top. But he sure as hell has had to put up with stuff he shouldn’t have been subjected to. Here’s the column:

THE STATE
ANTI-BEATTY CAMPAIGN A DISTURBING TURNING POINT IN JUDICIAL RACES
Published on: 06/06/2007
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: FINAL
Page: A6
Cindi Ross Scoppe
Associate Editor

THE PHONE message was from a long-time acquaintance who was simply beside himself because I as a woman wasn’t beside myself over the fact that a capable, talented woman wasn’t the odds-on favorite to be elevated to the state Supreme Court.

This wasn’t the only person who mistook my opposition to the below-the-belt attacks on Appeals Court Judge Don Beatty as support for his candidacy. Understandable, I suppose, since I didn’t pick a favorite in the three-way race between what looked to me like three capable judges.

Simply put, I don’t like to offer opinions unless I feel sure I know what I’m talking about, and I didn’t feel like I knew enough about the three would-be justices — only one of whom I had ever said more than "hello" to as far as I can recall — to make an informed choice.

As anyone who watched the circus that surrounded last month’s contest in the Legislature knows by now, others didn’t let their ignorance stand in the way. For the first time in S.C. history, several specialinterest groups not only took a position, and took to the airwaves with it; they demanded that legislators follow their orders — even when the basis for their position was at best flimsy and at worst fabricated.

What’s worse, that spectacle was likely only a taste of what’s to come as South Carolina’s judicial selection process takes on many of the corrupting and degrading influences of public elections.

Let’s get the hot-button stuff out of the way first: I’m not convinced that everybody who opposed the only African-American candidate in the race was doing so for racist reasons; I think much of the opposition to Justice-elect Beatty was a mindless, knee-jerk reaction to the fact that he had been a Democrat when he served in the House in the 1990s.

But the TV attack ad by a fringe group with a demonstrated absence of scruples: That was race-baiting. Not because it showed Mr. Beatty’s face; it would be strange not to show a picture of the person you’re attacking. What made it race-baiting was the way it managed to juxtapose his black face with the image of that extremely white young family just as it called for a judge with "South Carolina values." That, according to

my ad-savvy friends, is classic; anything more blatant would have been a turnoff to all but the most unreconstructed racists.

Distasteful as it was, though, the race-baiting isn’t what makes it important that we examine the ad campaign. There’s nothing new about using race in politics, and besides, we probably won’t see that again in a judicial race, since it’s unlikely that another African- American will be a serious contender for the high court for years to come.

The reason it’s important to examine the ad is that we almost certainly will see further attempts to turn judicial contests into the same kind of "our team vs. your team" contest that has come to define our actual elections. That’s bad enough when serious people are trying to figure out who would make the best governor or who should represent them in the Legislature — positions that are supposed to be filled by politicians. When it comes to judges — who if they have even an ounce of integrity rule based on the law, without conscious regard to their own personal, political preferences — the political language doesn’t even apply.

The ad, a $13,000 effort by Greenville-based "Conservatives in Action" that you can see at http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v= T463tgvvrdg, centers on the same largely irrelevant charges about cherry-picked votes from Rep. Beatty’s legislative career that had been making the e-mail rounds among other interest groups. But it frames them in the context of federal judicial appointments. As the screen fills with a farcical picture of two plump tuxedo-clad men at what apparently is supposed to be their wedding, the announcer intones: "Liberal judges continue to wreak havoc on America, from banning prayer in schools to legalizing gay marriage to restricting property rights. Outof- control judges have hurt our country. So how come some South Carolina Republican legislators are supporting a left-wing politician for our state Supreme Court?"

The announcer is unperturbed by the fact that no one has been able to cite any such liberal lawmaking from the S.C. bench — and particularly not by Mr. Beatty. He informs us that "as a legislator, Beatty opposed a measure to prohibit public funding of abortion; he also voted against gun rights and opposed tax and spending cuts." And finally: "South Carolina doesn’t need an ultra-liberal Democrat partisan on the state Supreme Court. We need somebody who represents South Carolina values."

A spokesman for Conservatives in Action told The Greenville News that the group "very well may" air more TV spots "to educate the public" in future races.

If you’re trying to place that name, think back to those pink pigs that were stuffed into Midlands mailboxes in the days leading up to last year’s Republican primary. This is the secretive group — believed by many to be a front group for the voucher lobbying group SCRG — that failed rather spectacularly in its attempt to unseat Rep. Bill Cotty for the sin of not licking SCRG’s boots.

The Conservatives in Action spokesman said the group would be "watching" the legislators who voted for Judge Beatty. It would make more sense to watch Judge Beatty, to see whether he actually does morph into South Carolina’s first activist justice. But don’t hold your breath: There’s an awfully good chance that would require the group to admit it was wrong about him.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.

All content © THE STATE and may not be republished without permission.

All archives are stored on a SAVE™ newspaper library system from NewsBank, inc.

Proving the innocent innocent, and the guilty guilty

Joe McCulloch called me this morning to give us a heads-up on something. The House agreed on Thursday to recall a bill from committee that would allow people who are convicted of murder, rape and a handful of other violent crimes to have DNA testing done if they can convince a judge it would likely prove them innocent. The bill has passed the Senate, so there’s a chance it could become law this year, if the House approves it this coming week. Here’s the editorial we wrote about it earlier this month:

Post-conviction DNA testing
protects all of us

WHEN THE WRONG person is convicted of a crime, the only clear winner is the actual criminal – although police and prosecutors might appear to be winners, since they were able to score a conviction. The person wrongly convicted certainly doesn’t win, and in fact we do incomprehensibly grave harm to that person. Neither do the rest of us, who are less safe because the real criminal remains free to harm others.
    We don’t have reason to believe that a large number of people are wrongly convicted in South Carolina, but we do know that our laws are not adequate to right the wrong when it does occur. A bill passed last month by the Senate (S.429) would correct part of the problem, by adding our state to the 44 others that allow people convicted of murder, rape and a handful of other violent crimes to have DNA testing done if they can convince a judge it would likely prove them innocent.
    Under current law, there’s no mechanism for such testing; in most cases, judges can’t order DNA testing – or do anything about it if such testing is somehow done and demonstrates the convict’s innocence – unless the solicitor agrees to the request.
    That wouldn’t be a problem in an ideal world, because the job of prosecutors is to do justice, and so they would be just as anxious as anyone to make sure the wrong person isn’t in prison. The reality is different. Prosecutors are human and dislike admitting their mistakes; and besides, they grow cynical from hearing the inevitable claims of innocence from criminals who really aren’t innocent, so with rare exceptions, they fight tooth and nail against those claims.
    One of the main criticisms of laws to facilitate claims of innocence is that they would be abused by prisoners who, with all the time in the world on their hands, will pursue any avenue of appeal that’s opened to them. That’s always a risk, but the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Gerald Malloy, projects that no more than five to 10 requests would be made each year. That’s in part because the bill is a double-edged sword for prisoners who really are guilty: If the DNA testing confirms their guilt, they are subject to contempt of court, revocation of good-time credits and denial of parole requests. Perhaps more importantly, it requires that any new DNA samples be run through state and federal databases, to see whether the prisoner can be tied to unsolved crimes.
    Senators tried to address concerns about the cost by putting an annual limit of $150,000 on the amount of money the state would spend to provide DNA testing for prisoners who can’t afford it themselves. But that doesn’t address the larger potential cost, in increased demand on our already overburdened and underfunded courts. That cost is not a sufficient reason to reject the legislation – but it is reason to give the courts the resources they need to do their job. Another way to hold down the cost might be to eliminate the appeals procedure, and make the judge’s decision on whether to order testing final.
    There is certainly room for debate over precisely how such a program should operate – and we hope that the House will engage that debate before lawmakers adjourn for the year. But we have not heard any convincing arguments why our state should continue to bar the courthouse door to inmates with reasonable claims that a simple test can prove their innocence.

A way to prove the innocent innocent, and the guilty guilty. It’s hard to see why this wouldn’t pass in a heartbeat.

DON’T POSTPONE SMOKING BAN!

Employees of restaurants and bars in Columbia have breathed other people’s poisons far too long.

Thanks to the evil and stupidity that dwells in the hearts of too many state lawmakers, restaurant workers have already become two years more likely to die of lung cancer, emphysema or heart disease.

There is NO excuse for exposing them for three more months.

Don’t even propose it, Mayor Bob. Don’t.

Free Thomas Ravenel

Ravenel2

Did I get your attention? I expect I did. Well, calm down. I’m not here to praise Thomas Ravenel, or defend him.

But I am here to raise the question: Why do we want to pay to feed, clothe and house him for the next 10 months?

This brings me to the larger question — one of the biggest facing the state of South Carolina, in fact: Why do we want to imprison nonviolent offenders? Sure, we may do it cheaper than any other state in the union, but even then it’s a huge waste of resources that could be better spent. And our cheapskate, insecure way of running prisons is going to bite us in the long run (actually, it already does, in terms of recidivism rates).

This is a recurring theme. Today, we raised the question on the local level — Columbia is finally having to own up to the fact that its penchant for locking people up for more offenses than the county does actually costs money.

Of course, T-Rav is neither state nor local, but we pay federal taxes, too. And it’s hard to imagine a better example of someone who could have paid another way. If you have a multi-millionaire partying on cocaine, why not give him a multi-million-dollar fine? As the sage Billy Ray Valentine said, "You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by turning them into poor people." In other words, why isn’t he paying us, instead of the other way around?

That would make a lot more sense than sending him off to commune with Kevin Geddings in Georgia.

Here’s a free psych eval: It you’re planning to whack Jesus, you’ve got problems

Yes, I know that’s an insensitive headline on a number of levels, but sometimes I lose patience with quiet, sober discussions of whether someone has psychological problems when the naked fact is staring us in the face. Take this kid who wanted to blow up his high school. An investigator says he has owned up to planning to kill Jesus. Specifically:

    Townsend testified Schallenberger told a Chesterfield County sheriff’s
detective that "once he got to heaven, he was gonna kill Jesus or
something like that."

We’re going to be paying money to determine whether this kid’s got mental problems?

Killing Jesus in heaven? That’s less likely than Sollozzo getting to Don Corleone when he’s in his bedroom inside the family mall on Long Island — not gonna happen.

Yeah, I know that we’re talking legal definitions of insanity, and that involves all sorts of "how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin" distinctions. But my point is that we know this kid is messed up, deeply and profoundly and tragically. And thank God his parents were alert enough to stop him. The problem, the thing that causes us to call in the experts, is that society still has trouble making up its mind about whether an insane person is culpable. In a sense, almost anybody who commits murder or plans to do so is in a psychologically abnormal state — either temporarily, through anger or fear, or permanently, such as in the case of a psychopathic personality. So we come up with all these rules and tripwires and technicalities, whereby it takes dueling experts and something akin to a coin toss to decide whether the person in question is legally insane according to the ultimately arbitrary rules that we’ve come up with.

The fact is, only God knows to what extent another human being is culpable — no matter how many tests or guidelines or whatever we set up. If we really think we know, we’re crazy. In the end, about all we can do is act to prevent crimes. Which, in this case, seems to have happened. Not that anybody is likely to pat himself on the back over it.

His poor parents…

A black, Jewish Texan walks into a police station…

and ends up cleaning up the whole town.

A reader sent me a link to this article that reminds us of the accomplishments of Reuben Greenberg, who had such a distinguished career as police chief in Charleston. As we mull over just how big a mess the Columbia police department is in these days, and view the latest Highway Patrol video, we might long for such a top cop:

Reuben Greenberg was undoubtedly the ultimate "man bites dog" story, for what could be more unlikely than a black, observant Jew from Texas transforming a city in the heart of the Confederacy from a crime-ridden center of corruption to a uniquely well-managed place that cracked down on crime at the same time it virtually eliminated police brutality — and even rudeness? Greenberg told his cops that their job was not to punish (that was up to the courts), but to make arrests, and in order to do that they had to be on good terms with the citizens. Thus, he said early on in his memorable tenure, he would defend a policeman for using "excessive force" to make an arrest, but he would fire anyone who used abusive language with a citizen.

Great news on smoking bans (I think)!

The S.C. Supreme Court says Greenville’s smoking ban is OK after all — as in, NOT pre-empted by the usual legislative attempts to prevent local governments from governing as local folks see fit:

By MEG KINNARD – Associated Press Writer
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Cities and towns have the power to ban indoor smoking in public places, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision that anti-smoking advocates predicted will spawn more rules against where people may light up in South Carolina.
    The ruling upheld a ban against indoor, public smoking that the city of Greenville imposed last year. Dozens of bars and restaurants had sued, claiming their business would suffer. A judge then quashed the ban, ruling that local governments had to let the state lead the way when it comes to smoking bans.
    In the justices’ unanimous decision Monday, the high court said local governments can impose more stringent regulations…

So, does this mean that Columbia can finally pull the trigger on its prospective ban on smoking in restaurants (but, unfortunately, not bars). It would appear so, since the ban supposedly waited only on a court ruling. A number of other communities had gone ahead with bans of their own. Here’s a list.

The jury’s still out on a statewide ban. But as long as the Legislature doesn’t move to make SURE locals can’t do it (and don’t put it past them for a second; they HATE the governments closest to the people), at least the will of local communities can now be acted upon, and relied upon to stick.

Bud testifies about the constitutional amendment

Just so you know Bud Ferillo thinks about more than spending Belinda Gergel’s money, here’s his testimony to the Senate subcommittee considering whether to amend the S.C. constitution to read that the state "will provide a high quality education, allowing each student to reach his highest potential."

Bud, as you may or may not know, is the guy who made the film, "Corridor of Shame:"

Presentation of Bud Ferillo
Senate Subcommittee
On S.1136
March 13, 2008
9:00 AM
          It is a privilege for me to address the subcommittee this morning, something I have never done before.
          While I served this state, in the 1970’s and 80’s as Chief of staff to House Speakers Rex Carter and Ramon Schwartz and as Deputy Lieutenant Governor under Lt. Gov. Mike Daniel, I come today as a private citizen still in awe of these halls and full of respect for those of you in both parties who serve our state today.
          The Constitution of the State of South Carolina which the legislation before you would amend was adopted in one of the most difficult periods of our state’s history by some of our most unenlightened elected officials. It was the era of Jim Crow and the long shadow of slavery has given way to legalized racial segregation, a cruel, one sided system of rights and privileges for the few over the many. It was not until 1911 that South Carolina attained a majority white population and so the constitution adopted in 1895 was not a declaration of human rights. In fact, it sought to enshrine the benefits of government only to those with political and economic power.
          Our racially segregated public schools remained separate and unequal for another two generations because that was state policy. Even with the Brown decision in 1954, rising from the school desegregation case of Briggs vs. Elliott in Clarendon County, it was not until Governor Hollings declared in 1963 as he left office that “South Carolina had run out of courts” and the state negotiated the admission of Harvey Garnett into Clemson University, followed a year later by the integration of USC and our public school system.
          This difficult history is painful to recall and painful to hear but it explains why we have attained no little progress in securing quality public education for all the children of the state. To be honest, we have not been about the business of providing quarterly education to all the children of South Carolina for very long.
          Even today, sadly, the legal position of our state in the Abbeville vs. State of South Carolina school funding case, still places South Carolina on the wrong side of history. This state continues to claim it has no obligation to provide even a “minimally adequate” education for our children.
          I have come to you today as a witness to the failure of our state to achieve either minimally adequate education or the opportunity for our children to achieve an excellent education which would equip them to contend in a world changing before their eyes at warp speed.
          My plea today is a simple one: I urge the General Assembly to put the issue of high quality public education to the people of this state to decide.
          Our sister states of Virginia and Florida have shown the way by amending their constitutions to require their states to provide high quality education to their children.
          A state’s constitution is its highest standard of governance; it is the document that enshrines our noblest aspirations; it is the final repository of who we are and what we care about as a people. While we were born into an unjust society in South Carolina; we do not have to grow old in it.
          I respectfully urge this subcommittee to favorably report S.1136 so that it might begin its rigorous journey through the legislative process and be given to the people of this state to determine in the general election of 2010. The amendment will serve a useful purpose in setting the highest standards of educational attainment against which future legislative actions and funding can be judged.
          My friend and ally John Rainey, who will address you shortly, and others across this state in a coalition too broad and lengthy to name will soon launch a petition campaign that will allow South Carolinians to participate directly in the legislative process.
          We will soon unveil the web site www.goodbyeminimallyadequate.com where South Carolinians may sign a petition in support of this constitutional amendment. It is our ambitious but accepted challenge to present the signatures of 1,000,000 South Carolinians in support of S.1136 to the General Assembly during the opening day of the 2009 General Assembly.
          We cannot miss this opportunity to involve the people of our state in this process which will, to a large extent tell, us everything about what kind of state we have and what kind of future we will pass on to those who follow.

I’m not entirely sure what practical effect Bud and other advocates believe this wording change will have. I mean, even based on the "minimally adequate" interpretation, all that a court case that started in about 10,000 B.C. has accomplished was a ruling saying South Carolina should do better at early-childhood education, to which the Legislature responded by nodding vigorously, expanding a pilot program, then forgetting about it.

Such a wording change might make a lot of folks feel better, but the fact is that if South Carolina wants to pull up its rural areas to the educational level of the suburbs — which it must do if we’re ever to begin to catch up to the rest of the country — it will do so, whether the constitution mentions education at all or not.

How is crime in Columbia a federal responsibility?

OK, I get it that there should be standards for federally subsidized housing. But "security?" In what sense? Today’s story seems to suggest that those looking to the federal government to require beefed-up security are thinking in terms of — I’m not sure, but it looks like this — landlords having to hire rent-a-cops, or turning subsidized housing developments into gated communities:

Columbia City Council members on Thursday will lobby the state’s
Congressional delegation to attach security requirements to laws
governing apartment complexes that accept federal housing vouchers…

I’ve got another idea. How about if city council members "lobby" their own city administration to enforce the law within the city limits? How about that? Note in this other story today that a lot of folks in that part of town feel like it’s not doing that. Doesn’t the city manager’s responsibility in this matter extend beyond declaring a portion of the city "a community in crisis?"

You would think so. An interesting topic to have in mind as we begin interviews with city council candidates today.