Crime & Federalism

Being rude to potential neighbors is a federal offense.  I kid you not.

"Donald" of All Deliberate Speed, poses an excellent question.  Namely, should one's career choices reflect one's ethics?  Here's how he phrases it:

I've been wondering recently:  does my choice reflect compliance with some external responsibility, or just a personal preference?  What responsibilities do progressive, liberal individuals who claim to have a commitment to social justice owe to society, the practice of law, and their community upon entering the practice of law?

For me, the answer comes from the Bible.  A lot of people talk about what is righteous, and what is Christian.  Jesus clearly answered Donald's question (for me, anyway):

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.    

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in.    

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.    

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?    

When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?    

Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?    

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Matt. 25:34-40 (emphasis added).  In light of my understanding of Scripture, how can I devote my life working for a firm where my goal is to fight the legal claims of the "least of thee"?

What are your thoughts?  Should your personal morals (whether or not they are religion-based) compel your career choices?

UPDATE: Donald has further thoughts here.

As Attorney General, John Ashcroft zealously employed the death penalty.  In cases where United States Attorneys did not seek death in a death-eligible case, Ashcroft overruled them every time.

In a recent case from Oregon, Ashcroft encouraged a strained reading of federal law to prevent doctors from, pursuant to state law, helping people end their own lives.

In Ashcroft v. Raich (now Gonzales v. Raich), he led the charge to keep sick people from medicating themselves.  And in a previous medical marijuana case, he fought hard to ensure that a sick person could not use the "medical necessity" defense if charged with a federal crime.  That is, the government can argue that a defendant uses marijuana because he's a doper; the defendant cannot argue that he uses marijuana because it's the only medicine that will keep him alive.

These cases tie together in a horrifying way.  You may not live unless the State agrees.  You may not take medication, unless the State gives its permission.  Indeed, you may not die, except by its will.

Somewhere along the road, Ashcroft and his cronies decided that Chuch and State should merge.  "Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the [the Federal Government] doth man live." Deuteronomy 8: 2-3 (KJV) (according to Ashcroft).

Amen!

Blawg Review #7 is available for reading at Jeremy Richey's Blawg.  Checking out a "Blawg Review" is an excellent way to add some dimension to your reading life.

I'm pleased to note that Crime & Federalism will host Blawg Review #8.  And we'd love to include you.  Just check out these submission guidelines and we'll go from there.

Sandefur is going on an indefinite hiatus.  I'll miss him.

According to this story - Jurors Gone Wild - jurors are turning to the Internet for fact and law research.  Given this, is it unethical to blog about pending cases, or to create a homepage for one of your defendants? 

On the one hand, you might create such a site for a defendant with a public image to maintain (e.g., Martha Stewart), independent of any efforts to influence the jury pool.  Plus, prosecutors poison the juror pool (see, e.g., the Ken Lay case), so why can't you neutralize it? 

But what if you know or have reason to know that jurors might rely on the off-the-record information you provide on the website, e.g., that the defendant will go to prison if convicted, and that his health issues would make it impossible for him to survive in prison.  Thus, my question:

Should the bad acts of jurors (re: reading the defendant's website) render it unethical for you to do something that would otherwise be ethically allowed (re: creating the website)?

I think this ethical issue is going to arise in other contexts.  E.g., a lot of law clerks read blogs.  Knowing this, is it unethical to blog about cases pending before clerks who read your blog.  What if you don't know from what circuit your law-clerk-readers hail but rather, only know that some law clerks, in some jurisdiction, read you blog? 

I think we can trust law clerks to not rely on off-the-record information, and I think they'd resent someone trying to feed them information through a blog.  So I'm not talking about whether an attempt to feed them information would work (it'd backfire, I bet).  Rather, would it be unethical?

My family and I were dreading Rudy Guiliani's commencement speech at Middlebury College in Vermont. We brought books to read to avoid having to listen to the drivel.

But I couldn't help but hear him from time to time. Engrossing as are Hawthorne's Tanglewood Tales, Rudy had a microphone, and I was more than a little curious about what sort of stuff he had. Why's he the darling of so many?

His speech came down to the following: Be optmisitic, contribute to the community and prepare. Standard commencement fare. For this he received an honorary doctor of laws?

He did tell one lawyer joke I will share:

A doctor, a priest and a lawyer present themselves at the gates of Heaven.

St. Peter offers the doctor a splendid condominium in paradise. It is recognition for all the lives the doctor has saved.

The priest, similarly, is offered a glorious apartment, his reward for the saving of souls.

When the lawyer approached, a celestial band played and St. Peter offered the keys to a spectacular manison overlooking every good and glorious thing.

"What?" said the priest, incredulous. The doctor merely gasped.

"We haven't had a lawyer here since the fifteenth century," St. Peter replied. "This is a big deal."

Rudy delivered the story with panache. As commencement fare went, he was so-so, and nothing to protest about.

Shooting to kill isn't a sport among police officers, although it sometimes seems that way. No, deadly force, the law enforcement "nuclear option," is justified only in the face of immanent risk of death or serious injury.

That's why some cops are rumored to carry an extra gun. Blast someone into the netherworld, and you'd better have an excuse. "He raised a gun and pointed at me" is about as good an excuse as can be had, even if it is a lie.

In Hartford, Connecticut, events in the shooting death of 18-year-old Jashon Bryant have taken an unusual twist. It turns out a BB gun found at the scene wasn't really there at all. A former confidential informant of the officer accused of shooting the young man planted it. Here's a gift

Of course, the CI claims has hasn't spoken to the cop in years; the cop's lawyer denies speaking to the CI. The CI just happened to be in the area and, out of the goodness of his heart, wanted to help the cop.

Right. An, oh, by the way, did you hear shares of the Brooklyn Bridge are being auctioned on ebay? Find 'em right next to the image of Jesus etched in toast.

Click on thumbnail for larger image.

The preliminary statistics for the California Bar Exam are now available.  Among first-time test takers:

* 54.4% of all first-time takers passed

* 57.7% of applicants who attended California law schools approved by the American Bar Association (ABA) passed

* 58.0% of applicants from ABA-approved law schools outside of California passed

*25.9% of applicants from schools accredited by the State of California but not approved by the ABA passed

*3.7% (!) of applicants who studied law at unaccredited law schools passed.

The State Bar won't publish the pass rates by law school for another four to six weeks.  The July 2004 California Bar Examination pass rates by law school is available here.