Scienter and all that stuff

Re. "Scienter" and all that stuff.


Not being handicapped by a legal education, let me tell you how
I believe it really is:

The facts and the law only matter when the government doesn't have
a hard on for you.  If the government wants to get you [and, perhaps, 
if you're not a millionaire "sports figure"] it will get you. The 
crime bill just makes the task a bit easier.

Example 1:  Branch Davidians were sentenced to long prison terms for
possessing weapons during commission of a crime, even though they were 
acquitted of the crime they were accused of committing while being in
possession of the weapons.

Example 2:  The jury brought in the "wrong" verdict for the L.A. cops who
beat Rodney King, so the feds just stepped in and tried 'em again.  The 
constitutional prohibition against trying people twice for the same crime 
didn't bother the feds a bit.  I know, I know, they were convicted of 
"violating the civil rights of".   What's the difference?


Pardon me for my lack of respect for the system.  It went out the 
window when a bunch of drug cops broke into my 71 year old father's 
apartment by mistake and beat him unconscious for objecting.  Outside
of F. Lee Bailey's circle, cops and courts can basically do what they
want, ignore your protests, and *get away with it*.  The only 
difference between a "crip" and a cop is the color of the uniform.





> The facts and the law only matter when the government doesn't have
> a hard on for you.  If the government wants to get you [and, perhaps, 
> if you're not a millionaire "sports figure"] it will get you. The 
> crime bill just makes the task a bit easier.

This is quite accurate.  Howard Zinn makes the same point in
_Declarations of Independence_.  He describes an incident during the
'60s when a group of black civil rights demonstrators approached him
and asked if they would be within their legal rights conducting a
demonstration on a public street.  Zinn responded that they would be,
but that their legal rights were irrelevant; the police would arrest
them anyway.  After citing a number of such examples, he concludes
that law is made not by legislators and judges, but by the policman's
club.

   - Mark -


--
Mark Chen 
chen@netcom.com
415/329-6913
finger for PGP public key
D4 99 54 2A 98 B1 48 0C  CF 95 A5 B0 6E E0 1E 1D

In article <9409201859.AA00254@doom.intuit.com>,
Mark Chen <chen@intuit.com> wrote:
>> The facts and the law only matter when the government doesn't have
>> a hard on for you.  If the government wants to get you [and, perhaps, 
>> if you're not a millionaire "sports figure"] it will get you. The 
>> crime bill just makes the task a bit easier.
>
>This is quite accurate.  Howard Zinn makes the same point in
>_Declarations of Independence_.

Where does Steve Jackson fit into this theory?

I don't think it's nearly as black & white as you suggest:  Our systems
are not monolithic and some consitutional and democratic principles do
still have some sway.  Noam Chomsky discusses this when he talks about
reasons for optimism.

Which is not to belittle the orginal point that we have reason to be
paranoid: it's just to say that we don't have total justification for
despair, either.
-- 
L. Todd Masco  | "A man would simply have to be as mad as a hatter, to try and
cactus@bb.com  |  change the world with a plastic platter." - Todd Rundgren

L. Todd Masco writes
> I don't think it's nearly as black & white as you suggest:  Our systems
> are not monolithic and some consitutional and democratic principles do
> still have some sway.  Noam Chomsky discusses this when he talks about
> reasons for optimism.

Of course Noam Chomsky is optimistic - he favors limitless and absolute
state power and the forcible and violent silencing of all those who
deviate from political correctness.

If I was campaigning to make a the US a totalitarian terrorist
state, I would be full of optimism.

James A. Donald writes:
 > L. Todd Masco writes
 > > I don't think it's nearly as black & white as you suggest:  Our systems
 > > are not monolithic and some consitutional and democratic principles do
 > > still have some sway.  Noam Chomsky discusses this when he talks about
 > > reasons for optimism.
 > 
 > Of course Noam Chomsky is optimistic - he favors limitless and absolute
 > state power and the forcible and violent silencing of all those who
 > deviate from political correctness.

Yeah, right.  Support that statement.  That's very much against what I
know him to have stated his beliefs are.

(Why do we have to classify people as saints or demons?  Address arguments
 on their own merits, not on as hominems against the speaker)
--
L. Todd Masco  | "A man would simply have to be as mad as a hatter, to try and
cactus@bb.com  |  change the world with a plastic platter." - Todd Rundgren