Tag: prosecution

Categories
crime and punishment Tenth Amendment federalism

Atrocity Meets the Commerce Clause

federalism, Capital Building, Commerce Clause, federal, law, prosecution

There may be no better example of an evil, real-world villain needing to get justice (good and hard) than the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter. 

Since he survived the shoot-out, he must now be put on trial.

But by whom?

In Allegheny County Court, Pittsburgh police filed a 34-count criminal complaint against the mass murderer. Meanwhile, the federal government has filed its own charges.

“The federal criminal complaint . . . charges him with 29 felonies, including 11 violations of 18 USC 247, which authorizes the death penalty for fatally obstructing any person’s ‘free exercise of religious beliefs,’” summarizes Jacob Sullum at Reason. “Such a crime can be prosecuted in federal court as long as it ‘is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.’”

Yes, that’s the Constitution’s Commerce Clause being cited. You see, the guns used were — get this — not made in Pennsylvania.

Call it the insanity clause.

“There is no general, overarching federal police power,” Andrew C. McCarthy explains in National Review. “Under the Constitution, the states were supposed to handle virtually all law enforcement, and certainly all enforcement involving offenses committed wholly within their territories — common crimes of violence.”

Why flout this principle? Historian Brion McClanahan says the Republicans, in this case, just cannot help themselves — posing as the “law and order” party, they feel the need to be seen to “do something.” So Attorney General Jeff Sessions tortures the Constitution to intervene where the federal government does not belong.

Not only is the State of Pennsylvania constitutionally authorized to handle the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre, it is more than competent to do so.

The federal government should, for once, stick to its own constitutional business.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Common Sense crime and punishment general freedom jury rights and duties U.S. Constitution

Guess Who Else Nullifies?

Jury Duty

Citizens have more power than they exercise. But folks in government aren’t exactly falling all over each other in the rush to help citizens participate and realize their potential.

Take juries. There are few more awesome responsibilities than sitting on a jury. And one of the things you can do, as a juror, is to refuse to follow the law or the judge, instead making your decision contrary to the immediate, official directive. Disapprove of a bureaucracy’s “legal” prosecution of an individual or group? Judge the law as well as the facts. Acquit.

Glenn Reynolds, writing in USA Today, shows that this practice has a long, honorable history in our country — he not unreasonably mentions how northern abolitionists fought the Fugitive Slave Act — and, if you, the juror, push it, “there’s nothing anyone can do about it…

Of course, prosecutors have essentially the same power, since they’re under no obligation to bring charges against even an obviously guilty defendant. But while the power of juries to let guilty people go free in the name of justice is treated as suspect and called “jury nullification,” the power of prosecutors to do the exact same thing is called “prosecutorial discretion,” and is treated not as a bug, but as a feature in our justice system.

Reynolds concisely makes the case that jury nullification is, itself, a designed feature of our American constitutional tradition, and not nearly so buggy as “prosecutorial discretion.”

Why? Its tendency is to liberate us from usurping government action.

Prosecutors’ “discretion” (on the other hand) gives folks in government more power over our lives. And ruins many.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Jury Duty

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom too much government

Why Police-State Tactics?

Law Corrupted

What do the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and campaign finance law have in common?

Police-state tactics.

Most folks now understand how the War on Drugs and the War on Terror can erode civil liberties — but how does campaign finance law fit in with the other two?

My weekend Townhall column explains.

Several years ago, Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker sought to tame public unions in his state, and against much opposition — quite a bit of it national — not only succeeded in changing law but beat back a recall vote as well.

So Democratic Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm orchestrated a crack-down on conservative groups supportive of Walker’s reforms, complete with night-time SWAT-team raids on the homes of activists who were, they judged, “on the wrong side.”

The thin rationale was possible campaign finance violations, the idea that citizens and their organizations “coordinating” with the governor to advocate for public policies is somehow illegal.

The police state tactics were used because they were available. And obviously thought to be politically acceptable. That the courts have now ruled the means — indeed, the whole probe by prosecutors — unconstitutional doesn’t negate the terrifying fact that the state used such horrific methods to attack peaceful people.

Clearly, people in government have used understandable fears regarding drugs and terrorism to erode our liberties, even when the “crimes” they fight with such illiberal overkill have nothing — absolutely nothing — to do with drugs or terror.

Except the drug that is — and the terror wielded by — out-of-control government.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Law Corrupted

 

Categories
general freedom

Prosecution Loop

I am coming to despise my computer. But I’m pretty sure my disgust at its various malfunctions pales compared to Julie Amero’s.

Julie Amero teaches middle school and was using the computer to present a lesson to her class. And then her computer began looping vile pornography. She tried pushing buttons, but the porn loop just went faster and furiouser.

So she was prosecuted for four felony charges of “corrupting a minor.”

Now, we’re not supposed to sympathize with Ms. Amero. But how can we be so sure that she isn’t the innocent victim? On a Windows PC, the darndest things happen; and if you haven’t programed your browser correctly, horrible porn can pop up on your Mac’s screen, too.

The “computer expert” for the Norwich Police Department testified that she must have clicked the links that led to the prurient loop. But anyone who knows how computers work knows that this testimony was either woefully ignorant or purposely misleading.

Amero lost her first trial but was granted a second, after people across the country came to her aid, offering their testimony about inadvertent porn viewings. Another victory for citizens speaking up.

Now Ms. Amero’s health has taken a downturn, and the prosecutors have recently agreed to go for lesser charges. But they still press on.

If you ask me, the prosecutors are the ones being indecent.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.