A CALL FOR CONSERVATIVES TO MAKE PRISON REFORM THEIR OWN
In an enormously important Op-Ed in Monday’s New York Times, Ross Douthat calls on conservatives to “… take ownership of prison reform, and correct the system they helped build.” The democrats don’t have the credibility to do it he says, and in many ways he’s right. And few have shown the inclination for fear of being labeled soft on crime. (Witness our California state legislature.)
Here’s how the essay opens:
If you’re a governor with presidential aspirations, you should never, under any circumstances, pardon a convict or reduce a sentence. That’s the lesson everyone seems to have drawn from the dreadful case of Maurice Clemmons, an Arkansas native who murdered four Lakewood, Wash., police officers over Thanksgiving weekend — nine years after Mike Huckabee, then governor, commuted his sentence and the Arkansas parole board set him free.
Even before Clemmons was shot dead the following Tuesday by Seattle police officers, a chorus of pundits had declared Huckabee’s presidential ambitions all but finished. His prospective 2012 rivals — Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin — hastened to suggest that they never considered issuing a pardon while governor. And even observers sympathetic to Huckabee’s decision (Clemmons’s original 108-year sentence was handed down when he was only 16, and for burglary and robbery, not murder) tended to emphasize its folly. Joe Carter, who handled rapid-response for Huckabee’s 2008 campaign, acknowledged that the “prudent tactic would have been to simply refuse to grant any leniency — ever.”
Read the rest. And here’s what the National Review had to say.
DOES YOUR BOSS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SNOOP THROUGH YOUR TEXT MESSAGES?
The Supreme Court has agreed to take its first texting case— a case that originated in California. The question is whether a company—or in this case, a public agency, the police—have the right to monitor text messages if those messages are sent an/or received on an office-issued phone.
Here’s a bit of what Adam Liptak wrote in Tuesday’s New York Times:
The justices agreed to hear an appeal from the city of Ontario, which was successfully sued by police Sgt. Jeff Quon and three other officers after their text messages — some of which were sexually explicit — were read by the police chief.
At issue is whether the chief violated their rights under the 4th Amendment, which forbids “unreasonable searches” by the government. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue, due by June, could set new rules for the workplace in public agencies, and perhaps in private companies as well.
While the 4th Amendment applies only to the government, many judges rely on the high court’s privacy rulings in deciding disputes in the private sector, legal experts say.
Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals broke ground when it ruled the officers had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their text messages. The officers had been led to believe by a supervisor that they could use their pagers for personal use, the appeals court said.
However, the city had a policy that said employees had no guarantee of privacy when they used computers, phones and other devices that were owned by the city.
The 9th Circuit’s ruling has already had an impact.
“It was a healthy reminder to employers that they need to have clear policies in place. And they have to be consistent in following them,” said Mitch Danzig, a management lawyer in San Diego.
The LA Times also reports on the matter.
MORE ON THE SOUTH PASADENA TEENAGER WHO DIED AFTER A PARTY
Jilly Leovy and Robert Faturechi have an update on the seventeen year old south Pasadena student who died over the weekend after a party.
PIPE BOMB FOUND NEAR USC
Yes, you read right. Here’s the information based on what is known
PRO PUBLICA INVESTIGATING POST KATRINA NOPD SHOOTINGS—WANTS CITIZEN HELP
Pro-Publica has launched what they are calling a major investigation, together with the New Orleans Times-Picayune and Frontline. They are looking into the New Orleans Police Department’s efforts to investigate its officers’ use of deadly force in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, efforts which Pro-Publica’s reporters say are deeply flawed.
The reporters write, “Many of the facts surrounding the post-Katrina police shootings are murky. But the available evidence suggests they’re part of a broader pattern of violent encounters between police and civilians, one that is now under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.”
Now Pro-Pubica is calling out for eyewitnesses who may have knowledge of any such incidents to call or email one of their Phone & email tip lines (504-826-3775 and nolatips@propublica.org ).
The first of the series of stories may be found here.
TEXT MESSAGES?
I think this case comes down to one simple fact, which is that the Ontario Police Department, expected Police Officers to pay for any changes over $25/month.
This requirement makes these devices at least partially private, thereby giving the expectation of some privacy.
I personally carry two cell phones with me, one which is the companies and one which is mine, thereby providing a bright line for myself and the company.
When it comes to “unreasonable searches,” a company or agency has a right and an obligation to know how its equipment is being used and whether or not it is being abused or used for illegal purposes. No where in the Constitution is there mention of a right to privacy.
I think Pokey’s right. The fact that officers were paying part of the charges (if they exceeded a certain number) muddies the water, legally—and weakens the Ontario P.D.’s case.
Although, surely the cop has seen enough feature film plots and situation comedies to know that—rule of thumb— it’s just not all that good an idea to send racy texts or emails on the company’s machine.
Regarding Douthat, who is reviled in many conservative circles because he’s not nutty enough, contemporary “conservatism” isn’t capable of making the leap Douthat suggests. It’s too mired in resentments and racism. And the fact that Huckabee, who cut the cop-killer Clemmons loose, is in the presidential sweepstakes complicates any move in a more sane direction because he’s already being eviscerated by the likes of Michell Malkin, which signals that contending candidates will demagogue it (I think Huckabee was probably justified in reducing Clemmons sentence because of his age, although there’s no justification for Arkansas authorities later actions regarding Clemmons, that among other things allowed him to be released on bail in Seattle, despite the Seattle DA’s office asking for help from Arkansas. Problem is, Huckabee routinely gave out some irresponsible clemency, sometimes with political motivations, and he deserves some of what he’s getting – although Clemmons may be the wrong focus. )
Adam Serwer at the American Prospect commented thus:
http://tinyurl.com/y8a7uyp
It should also be noted that Douthat’s argument rests, in terms of evidence and analysis, on Mark Kleiman’s work, who is a flaming liberal by most tests (and also happens to be a tough and clear-eyed realist when it comes to controlling crime and incarceration issues.)
Reg, thanks for noting the Kleiman link. Meant to put that in last night.
Also, good AP link.
Celeste, would you feel any different about this “unreasonable search” if child porn was being sent from the government-owned phones, or does such protection mostly apply to famous movie directors?
It seems to me that the owner of equipment can be legally at risk if its equipment is used improperly, thus it has a duty to monitor use. Also, as we see, improper use reflects poorly on the agency.
Consider use of company-owned vehicles. Does the company have a right to breathalyzer or drug tests of its drivers or gps monitoring of their locations and speeds?
Does a university have a right to monitor professors who are a little “too friendly” with the coeds, even off of the campus?
On these, there is no question. Yes.
An employee should consider his actions surrounding his job and using company equipment as something of legitimate concern to his employer.
“An employee should consider his actions surrounding his job and using company equipment as something of legitimate concern to his employer.”
Celeste never argued otherwise–she said that the private/employer overlap on the equipment possession “muddies the water, legally”. Be accurate, and don’t put words in peoples’ mouths.
I stand by what I wrote in its entirity. A “partially private” position doesn’t exist in any legal concept that I’ve read.
If an employee was ticketed for going 100 mph in a company car, even though he is charged for the personal miles driven, it doesn’t take away the company’s need and right to know.
I think it’s almost bizarre that such a case would go to court – re the text-messaging privacy – for the simple reason that no one in their right mind in the current environment could possibly assume that if you use company equipment for your personal messages that they would certainly and absolutely always be private. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with reasonable use of this gear for some personal messages to family, etc. in the course of a day, but I would just make the assumption that there’s always the possibility of some scrutiny and monitoring and anything that I felt was deeply personal or private, I’d keep off of that system. This is the age we live in. Absolute personal privacy is increasingly non-existent because everything is on-line in some form, can be scrutinized by some authorities somewhere and is potentially linked to some data base that can be excavated.
Of course people have a “right” to privacy. But when you end up trying to claim it in court, it’s already pretty much a moot issue. It’s sort of like arguing whether Tiger Woods has a right to privacy AFTER some cocktail waitress has started talking about an affair. At that point, it doesn’t matter any more. The only way to guarantee privacy regarding things you really want to be private is exercising your judgment when it matters, not assuming that anyone else gives a shit about protecting your privacy or won’t violate it out of some ethical concern for your well-being. And what this has to do with child pornography or Roman Polanski eludes me – I guess some folks just have that sicko stuff on their brain.
Woody gets a lot wrong here, but in the end I think I agree with him.
A better example that might make the issues seem more familiar would be a camera inside a company car monitoring your conversations. You might pay for gas (just like extra minutes), but there’s no question it’s still the company’s car. Is this excessively intrusive? I think so. Is it needed to protect legal liability, generally no. But are companies aloud to do it? I think so.
I’m all for a world where employees are entitled to certain privacy rights while using company property, I just don’t think that’s the world we live in.
After reading Regs’s excellent example about Tiger Wood’s “right” to privacy when texting his mistress of the month. I will no longer be sending e-mail or text to my mistress from my work e-mail or phone.
Oh wait….I’m at work right now !!!!!!!!!!
Celeste,
Please delete this comment about paper supplies for the company copy machine.
“I stand by what I wrote in its entirity.”
It’s irrelevant what you stand by, or “wrote in its entirity”. What you did was build a straw man:
“An employee should consider his actions surrounding his job and using company equipment as something of legitimate concern to his employer.â€
Celeste never said or implied the contrary to that. You implied she did. You’re wrong.
Whether you agree with Celeste’s private/public muddy comment is a different question.
For the record, I disagree with Celeste: there’s nothing muddy about it. It’s stupid to think that you have any privacy in using company-issued equipment. But I guess we shouldn’t expect any different behavior from selfish, lazy, union employees. Oh wait–they’re cops? Cognitive dissonance!
reg: And what this has to do with child pornography or Roman Polanski eludes me
Oh, that’s right. You don’t have a problem with that. Well, others do.
Different but involves privacy issue of cell phones
Supreme Court of Ohio Rejects Search of Cell Phone Incident to Arrest
Go fuck yourself, Woody. Once more you prove that you’re just a shitty little twerp.
reg is so typical of liberals. But, one can only expect cursing and vile language from liberals who get trapped by their inability to reason. Such rebuttals represent the answers of losers.
Blah, blah. You’re a dirty little man who constantly resorts to crap about child molestation, etc. in order to smear people you disagree with. Sick. Perverted. Rancid.
The generally libertarian Volokh Conspiracy, a blog by law professors, is commenting on the over-criminalization of things. The example is the “Honest Services Fraud” section which could make one a federal felon for, say, posting to this blog while at work (your are defrauding your employer, you see). Their post (“Honest Services Fraud: Your Third Felony Today?”) is at http://volokh.com/2009/12/14/honest-services-fraud-your-third-felony-today/.
There seems to be a (welcome) tend blowing in the (blogosphere) wind – of folks questioning both the over-criminalization and the failures of our prison policies.
Prison reform, regrading the health issue, when dealt with by judges who refuse to look at curent stats and money spent is a complete sham.
250 inmates died in our prison system in 2006, 215 in 2008 a drop of almost 15%. More money is being spent on the medical care of life long criminals than the common man.
The whole thing is a sham.
Just for the record:
That isn’t 250 people who died in the system in 2006. The number refers to 250 preventable deaths. (And 215 in 2008). Something of a difference.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t we supposed to be happy that the preventable death toll went down, not pissed off?
I’m sure it must seem terribly unfair, but if we lock people up, we are responsible for their health care, like it or not. And we don’t get to let them die because mismanagement and neglect. The only longterm cure to that little problem is to lock up fewer people.
By the way, I too am for decent medical care for the common man (and woman). But the entire Republican Congress plus Joe Lieberman evidently do not share our POV.
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t we supposed to be happy that the preventable death toll went down, not pissed off?”
Clearly, by certain lights, you are wrong. This may be my favorite, soul-revealing SureFire post yet. Sometimes I think maybe I’ve over-reacted…but, Naaaaah ! I’m wondering what change in policies our friend would propose to get less health care delivered to prisoners and more to the “common man.” Oh wait…it’s all about broadcasting the resentments !!!
reg, I made no reference to you and child molestation. You attacked me and I clarified my position. Maybe you’re feeling guilty about something.
Correction noted. I understand we’re taxed with the medical care of inmates but my point was there’s been a reduction in “preventable deaths” two years running, the money spent is higher here in California than just about any other state and yet the judges looking at the prison health care system refuse to take these facts into consideration when coming up with their ridiclous rulings.
As for you point of view on national health insurance (it’s not about care in my opinion) even some members of his own party don’t agree with the president and his congressional shills. Now with the medicare option gone and the public option as well Liberman is probably on board. Burris isn’t though and I think he was a Democrat last I looked.
What’s that elimination of the public option do, it gives insurance companies a free hand to raise rates if the competition base isn’t opened up, meaning across state lines for one. Add to that no action on tort reform, at least from what I’ve read, so nothing’s been accomplished besides forcing people to buy a product many would probably pass on if they could.
To blame it on the Republicans is to look at only your own partisan view of the issue.
I never said I was pissed off about deaths going down Celeste, just pissed that these idiot judges are a bunch of ideolgical basket cases who base decisions on their own agendas. Reading some of Henderson’s statements make that fact real clear.
Something like 30 states already have tort reform related to malpractice – it does little or nothing to keep down costs of health care. This is a canard – a right-wing talking point fed to folks who are ill-informed at best. And the Health Insurance Exchanges will give individuals choices and access to competiting plans- plus some of the leverage that large employers have in negotiating group coverage – that can’t even begin to be matched under terms of that other idiotic “state lines” canard – which absent any other reforms is really just a deregulation, race-to-the-bottom scheme to make a crappy loser state like Mississippi the arbiter of what kind of insurance can be sold in Minnesota, which has stronger consumer protections and, not coincidentally, better access to health care. It really helps to have at least a little bit of a clue when discussing this stuff.
Here’s a little something else – off topic – for our anti-Obama, economically illiterate goon squad:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021482.php
Hope this helps lift some of the burdens of resentment. The truth will set you free…
Reg is right on the merits, but on the politics, surefire is missing the point. Republicans could have certainly gotten tort reform (Obama has said this explicitly) and perhaps modification of the interstate competition laws if they were interested in trying to craft a healthcare bill. Instead, they made a political decision (that may be right for all I know) that the best thing to do is obstruct.
Just to add a little evidence for my contention that the Republican stance is primarily political, there are 177 House Republicans and another 40 Senate Republicans. Exactly 1 has considered voting for the bill. Just one elected Republican has taken the position that negotiation might improve the bill and then be worth her vote. And I don’t think I’ve seen a single conservative commentator urging Republicans – at any point in the process – to offer support in exchange for concessions. So while there are certainly some who are voting no on principle – they don’t support any healthcare reform or any subsidies even they it improves the long term budget deficit – congressional Republicans have decided for political reasons to say no. I’ll let you puzzle out the moral rectitude of that attitude for yourself.
Also, Celeste, comments are off on the next two posts.
“And I don’t think I’ve seen a single conservative commentator urging Republicans – at any point in the process – to offer support in exchange for concessions”
Actually David Frum has been adamant that the GOP is totally screwing this up by choosing obstructionism – he makes the same point, that they could have gotten some things that they wanted rather than just boycott the bill. He also says that, despite his reservations about the concept and the shape of the bill, it is likely to prove a popular, accepted reform over time that brings health insurance to more people and the Dems will completely own it. Believe it or not, Medicaid was actually a concession to the GOP and conservative Dems in the original Medicare bill (the AMA wanted a program of assistance to poor people, because it got them some way of getting paid to treat the indigent while heading off any move toward universal coverage, which they opposed at the time.)
I’m sure that the studies on health care costs in this area, that some commentators you’d people believe are only about 2 percent or so of the cost of health care’s over all cost, are nothing but a Democrat talking point. Last study I saw regarding it was conducted 10 years ago but at a minumum you’re still looking at 30 bilion dollars and that, in my opinion, is way off.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers says it more like 10% and that roughly 2 percent is caused by direct costs of the lawsuits; an additional 5 percent to 9 percent is due to expenses run up by defensive medicine. I think that number is much more valid.
Now you look at the campaign donations from the lawyers and over 43 million went to Obama and 15 million to Clinton in the last election. Over 2/3rds of the money went to Democrats and Obama got 48%. Let’s not follow the money though and forget we’re dealing with Chicago style politics in the White House because the president says tort reform could have been part of the deal and politicians never lie.
The president isn’t someone I trust, believe or have faith in Mavis. As for the obstrction caused by the Republicans, this is laughable. Both parties engage in these types of actions and just because this has center stage doesn’t change that fact. Just look at what happened to judicial nominees during the Clinton and Bush years.
Studies show that government is much less efficient at the same tasks as private enterprise or charity. Government administrative costs consume 35-55% of the total expenditures. So in the health care debate, for example, if insurance companies make a 2-4% profit on sales, they are still hugely more efficient at delivering health care services than government will ever be.
The only way Reg can talk to someone he disagrees with is by talking down to them. The arrogance and superiority liberals think they have is demonstrated every time he opens his mout to comment. Life must have taken one giant dump on him to have become such a miserable prick.
“The truth will set you free”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021482.php
Reg, I believe you are right on the deficit issue, Bush and the tax cuts are a big part of the cause of the rising debt, that will swallow this country and further ruin our economy. However Obama will get the blame for this because now it is his watch and he could raise taxes (or at least propose raising them).
I am invested in GOLD primarily because I don’t believe Obama and the FED will do anything but spray cash while the dollar burns.
I disagree on the issue of privacy regarding equipment that is only partially paid by the company. Once it is partial, I believe that personal privacy should prevail.
For example:
1) If the company provides me Microsoft Word for me to use on MY personal computer, I would still have the expectation of privacy on documents that I created with word for my personal use on MY personal computer.
2) If I own a cell phone, but the company gives me SIM card to use it.
3) I own a car, but the company pays for $100 of gas per month.
Pokey, I think those are good points, but you’re flipping the primary owner. In this case it’s the employer who owns the device. If it were an individuals phone and the employer paid the overages, I’d agree with you.
surefire, my point was merely that congressional Republicans have decided to obstruct rather than contribute for political reasons. If you want to say the Democrats have done the same thing, I’d prefer if you gave an example or two, but I’m not going to fight you.
2nd, I don’t know why you continue to give questionable statistics without links. It looks like you are hiding your sources. That 35-55% is far higher than standard estimates and even higher than the heritage foundation manages.
http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2505.cfm
I should have said that standard estimates have private insurance as having higher admin costs than medicare
The City of Ontario I believe lost another suit when they planted a camera in the men’s locker room while conducting an internal investigation some years back. The I.A. was over thefts in the locker room I believe. When the locker room was moved the camera was discovered.
Not to smart.
I said all you had to do was look at the obstructive behavior of both parties that took place during judicial nominations Mavis. Since you’re so into links check this one out http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=7337977. I don’t link much beacuse I’m not all that versed in it. You can check my numbers by searching on-line.
Also in 2006 when Sen. Judd Gregg wanted to form an Entitlement Commission to recommend cuts to Medicare and Social Security the Democrats obstructed him as best they could. Now the shoes on the other foot and their ticked.
I remember Reg moaning about the way republicans obstruct here in California. The Democratic leadership in this state is out to lunch. We rank 49th in being “business friendly” which hampers are ability to attract new businesses to the state and that mind set needs to change. I demand than my reps challenge the tax and spend policies that puts us billions of dollars in the hole each year. It’s as simple as that.
“I don’t link much beacuse I’m not all that versed in it,”
You don’t need to be “versed in it”–it’s just pasting a fucking link. It’s not rocket science.
“You can check my numbers by searching on-line.”
That’s lazy–why would anyone need to develop your argument for you?
“which hampers are ability to attract new businesses to the state”
Silicon Valley, the entertainment industry, the Central Valley, tourism, etc. Yeah, business is doomed in California.
Your arguments make no sense.
You don’t have to do anything asshole, neither do I. Only true pussies post under more than one name.
That make sense to you?
“I should have said that standard estimates have private insurance as having higher admin costs than medicare”
That’s because they have much lower fraud rates. Medicare fraud is very high, because of inadequate administration.