Crime & Federalism

Published over a decade ago, The Millionaire Next Door forced us to reconsider our conception of a millionaire.  Millionaires were not people you'd see on television, or people who made money through the dot.com era.  They were regular people who, day after day, made mostly sound financial decisions.  They were just like you and me.  The millionaires were not on TV.  They were living next door.

It's time to reconsider our conception of the sociopathic or psychotic personality.  A sociopath or psychopath are not limited to the people you see on television next to photographs of dead children.  They are people who ruin lives in smaller ways - day after day, year after year.  The sociopath is living next door.

People seem to understand that a millionaire is unusual.  Yet, even though 4% of the population is sociopathic or psychotic, people consider antisocial personalities to be unique.

When someone like Bernie Madoff cheats people out of billions of dollars, people are perplexed.  How could anyone have done such a thing?  Perhaps he did not intend to cheat investors.  He just got in over his head.  We project our morality onto the evil:

Good people are rarely suspicious: they cannot imagine others doing the things they themselves are incapable of doing; usually they accept the undramatic solution as the correct one, and let matters rest there.  Then too, the normal are inclined to visualize the [psychopath] as one who's as monstrous in appearance as he is in mind, which is about as far from the truth as one could well get . . . These monsters of real life usually looked and behaved in a more normal manner than their actually normal brothers and sisters; they presented a more convincing picture of virtue than virtue presented of itself - just as the wax rosebud or the plastic peach seemed more perfect to the eye, more what the mind thought a rosebud or a peach should be, than the imperfect original from which it had been modeled.

William March, The Bad Seed.  Fortunately, there is accessible literature that is both respected by the experts and accessible to general public.  Good people can learn to fight back.

The first book is The Sociopath Next Door.  Connecticut lawyer Norm Pattis discussed the book in some detail here.  See, also, "The Sociopathy Project."

Another must-read book is Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us.  In Without Conscience, Robert Hare (the psychologist who wrote the diagnostic criteria for the psychopathic personality) takes us away from the sensational model of the psychopath. 

Hare's picture of the psychopathy is fascinating.  Psychopaths are often charming and intelligent, but seem like visionaries.  The psychopathic personality has the ability to pull you in.  Hare shares with us stories involving trained psychologists who lost everything after being charmed by a psychopath.

Finally, there is Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work.  In Snakes in Suits, Dr. Hare examines psychopathy in the work place.

All three books can be read in a day or two at the beach.  The thoughts they spun and the neural connections they form will last a lifetime.

Why hasn't this lawyer been disbarred?   What is the goal of legal ethics, anyway?  Is it to protect the public from unscrupulous lawyers, or to protect the status symbol of being a lawyer?  In other words, is the goal of legal ethics to protect the public, or to protect lawyers?

SCOTUSBlog has the summary.  I haven't been doing much Section 1983 blogging because there's not much left of the law.  It's been dying, and the vultures are circling.

Richard T. Howell Jr. is a Houston lawyer who got scammed by some Nigerians working out of an Internet cafe.  He is speaking out, presumably to warn other lawyers with bad judgment not to send hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to complete strangers.  He and Gregory Bartko should start giving CLEs.

As is the case with most "victims" of financial frauds, Howell's greed did the thinking for him:

Howell says that with a 33.3 percent fee, the prospect of collecting $3.6 million in unpaid invoices for the client was a big lure. "To me, it sounded like it could be a potentially lucrative client from Japan," Howell says.

I, too, would like to make $1.2 million for doing little work.  Honest work that pays so well is hard to find.  There is no easy, honest money.

The story, however, tries to make it appear that the scam is sophisticated:

The scam is not sophisticated.  Basically, some fake business sends a lawyer an e-mail saying they will pay fabulous sums of money for some simple collections work.  I got one such e-mail.  Lawyers who think they can make six or seven figures for a few hours of work, reply. 

Here is why those lawyers are stupid.  Let's say a foreign company is promising me treasure chests full of gold bullion.  I'm not going to sit on my ass in the United States.  I'll pay them the courtesy of a personal visit.  It's worth spending $10,000 on a business trip for six or seven figures worth of work.  I would trip over myself getting to the airport to visit anyone who wants to give me fabulous riches.  I'd even fly to Dubai.

Yet none of the lawyers caught up in these Nigerian scams did any diligence.  They received an e-mail promising them big money.  That was good enough for them.  They didn't make a personal visit.  They just started depositing checks.  Are you kidding me?

If you send money to Nigerians, you are either a moron or a greedy lout - or both.  You deserve no sympathy.  Moreover, rational clients most certainly should not hire you. 

Lawyers are valued not just for their legal training, but for their judgment.  An attorney is a lawyer and counselor.  A good lawyer can answer not just, "Is this legal," but also, "What should I do?" 

Would you ask, "What should I do," of anyone scammed by a Nigerian?  I might ask, just for kicks.  But I sure as Hades wouldn't value the answer.

The psychopath is unfamiliar with the primary facts or data of what might be called personal values and is altogether incapable of understanding such matters.  it is impossible for him to take even a slight interest in the tragedy or joy or the striving of humanity as presented in serious literature or art.  He is also indifferent to all these matters in life itself.  Beauty and ugliness, except in a very superficial sense, goodness, evil, love, horror, and humor have no actual meaning no power to move him.  He is, furthermore, lacking in the ability to see that others are moved. 

It is as though he were color-blind, despite his sharp intelligence, to this aspect of human existence.  It cannot be explained to him because there is nothing in his orbit of awareness that can bridge the gap with comparison.  He can repeat the words and say glibly that he understands, and there is no way for him to realize that he does not understand.

From The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Clarify Some Issues About the So Called Psychopathic Personality.  Pricey on Amazon, but available for download here.  

If inmates are going to fight each other, anyway, why shouldn't we guards get in on it?

You can read the rest of the story here. 

Everyone will be aghast over these stories.  I'm not surprised.  Prisoners run the prisons.  This is nothing new.  Here, the guards simply got in on the action.

If we actually cared about prison health or welfare, we'd do something other than gasp when articles like these hit the press.  Instead, we'll prosecutor the guards, and then move on.  "It's a good thing we fixed the prisons," we'll tell ourselves over lattes.  Meanwhile, a non-violent drug offender will be gang-raped.

Reporters have personalities.  They have biases.  They vote, they eat, they shop.  Why, then, is the New York Times telling reporters to lie? 

As is often the case in life, the Times seeks to elevate perceived objectivity over actual objectivity.  If the Times were really concerned about its reputation, it'd hire conservative news reporters and editors.  As individuals, we are all biased, and there is little we can do about it.  Organizations, however, can mitigate bias through diversity.

Instead of actually addressing the bias that has ruined the Times, the Times' editors instead tell reporters to not post anything interesting in the reporters' Facebook profiles.  As if that will do anything other than signal to the world that you will are not willing to do anything!

Someone please explain to me why Henry Paulson hasn't been tried for treason? 

Can you imagine a world where American citizens are allowed to smoke Cuban cigars?  I can't.  Cuba is our enemy.  Buying cigars from Cuba is like buying poppies from Al Qaeda.  Thankfully our government, which is going through an economic crisis, still has the resources to prosecute people who smuggle Cuban cigars into this country. 

What's especially pleasing is that the dangerous criminal is 69 years old.  We really can't let people like that roam free.  They  might be able to find jobs or something.  I'd much rather make all old people convicted felons.  This would ensure that they could not get jobs, and thus will remain on government assistance their entire lives.

This is sad.