14 November 2018

In Defense of Crime

One must remember that crime and criminal are arbitrary classifications:  they are what the legislatures say they are.  One is not classified as a criminal unless one has been caught committing a crime.  Committing crimes undetected allows one to not be classified as a criminal:  you have to be caught to be a criminal.

If you are charged with a crime and the case is dismissed or you are acquitted at trial, you are still considered a criminal because the police arrested you and charged you with a crime; they certainly would not have done that if you hadn't both committed the crime and been stupid enough to be caught at it.  Sometimes one has to think that the actual classification as a criminal, the detention, and the jail time are by themselves enough to classify one as a criminal.  Courts, lawyers, trials, are really not relevant to whether a person is considered a criminal.

If one is arrested and taken to jail, one has been punished without any input from a judge or prosecutor or other person involved in what we call the criminal justice system.  You can't tell me that being taken to jail is not a punishment.  And if you can not make bond, and sit in jail for an extended period of time, you probably lose your job, your apartment, and more than likely your wife and kids who have been kicked out into the streets, or moved back in with her parents as the only place she has to go.

As a criminal defense attorney, my practice is, when first looking at a case, to determine one thing:  Can they prove you did it?  If it doesn't look like they can prove it, or their case is iffy at best, I say "Go to trial."  What do you have to lose?  The answer to that is nothing.   You have nothing to lose by going to trial.

I often say to my clients, or I should say in a form of a question, "Why do you want to make it easy for them to put you in jail or prison?"  "Why would you agree to plead guilty in return for a recommendation of probation, a probation you can't possibly make.  "Screw that--go to trial."  Defendants should realize that prosecutors are busy people; they have a lot of cases.  Trials are work; they really don't want to spend their time and energy preparing for trial and then actually trying a case which is stressful and uncertain.  That's not how they want to operate.

If every defendant on one court service day would say "I'm not pleading, I want to go to trial, the whole system would break down in one day; the system would implode; it couldn't handle it.  The only way that our "criminal justice system" functions is if 99% of the people charged with a crime plead guilty.  This is why we call it "the administration of justice".  Justice is being administered.  You are charged with a crime, the police will be supported by prosecuting every case they bring before the court and given to the prosecutors and there you have it.  There is not independent evaluation of whether you did the crime charged, or whether there is any proof that you did the crime charged, or that they will be able to find any of their witnesses needed to prove the charges.  Usually the witnesses hate the police as much as you do and don't want any part of a trial whether as defendant or witness,

I had two cases dismissed today.  In one case, the witnesses who we deposed couldn't identify the defendant which was necessary to prosecute the case.  The second case involved a victim from out-of-state who basically disappeared and would not respond to communications from the prosecutor.  Without a victim it was going to be very difficult to prosecute.  It may have been possible to put on a case with the witness, but not much sympathy would apply to the victim if he didn't show up and tell the jury his version of the events.  In both cases we had scheduled a trial and they would have gone to trial if the prosecutor had persisted.  I can't tell you if either defendant would have been acquitted, but it was likely.

20 December 2016

 Joseph O'Neil, The Dog

     Joseph O'Neil's book is interesting in several respects:  His illustration of Dubai and his characterization of the super wealthy.  Dubai and the super wealthy are, in The Dog, totally compatible and appropriate for one another--vacuous, with no substance.  The character through which we view both, is a commentator, a viewer, a critic living in an environment described as the equivalent of an airport.  Visualize your self waiting for a plane at an airport without any connection to anyone there but a destination.  This is Dubai, a gigantic airport. 

     As the 2016 election recedes behind us, a lengthy quote from the book is apropos.

      "To 'surf' even non-pornographically is to ride one two-foot wave of imbecility after another.".... "I think it's the phenomenon of these commenters--who must be taken to represent the masses, a body from which nobody is excluded--in combination with my new intercontinental perspective, that has left me with a most unfortunate impression that my fatherland--inescapably the United States of America--is, or has become, a strange, gigantically foolish place that sooner or later will be undone by the calamitous mental life of its population, whose bizarre domination by misconceptions is all to well incorporated by its representatives in Washington, D. C."

     The book is worth reading, if for no other reason, that it will depress you once again with the fact that no amount of education can defeat the mass mind.  As to facts, "A fact is where it all starts to go wrong." p. 149 of the Pantheon Books edition. Out national debate this election season has had no relation to the facts; facts are deemed irrelevant and annoying.

     The portrayal of the super wealthy is a portrait of total squander, unconcern for lesser beings, and the requirement that any inconvenience be born by those who serve them.   In  The wealth of Dubai is unseen except for the buildings in the desert, but also the control emanating from unseen sources.    Our protagonist's  job interview is at the Claridge Hotel which happens to be in London at 10:00 the next morning requiring an immediate cab to the Kennedy for a flight to London overnight.  Our man arrives at the Claridge Hotel on time only to see the person who requested his presence speed off in an auto on other business cancelling the meeting of our traveler who then flies back to New York without the interview.  This view of our friends, the super wealthy, who we would all like to emulate does not change throughout the book.

     Hence the name of the book, The Dog, which is what our man is--a pet.

18 December 2016


     I presume that we all have little things that have become large annoyances.  I have two that I endure daily and from the same source.  My immediate family and associates find my annoyance amusing.  This I believe shows a shallow understanding and lack of judgment.  We have a local radio station which my daughter and I listen to on our morning trip to either school or the bus.  The call letters for this station will not be divulged for the protection of the weather person from others who might also be annoyed and would be unable or unwilling to simply express their displeasure verbally.

     I personally find it difficult not to express mine in the car when driving in the morning as the weather guy gives us his version of the current weather and the day's forecast which includes his pronouncement of how I feel as I'm sitting in the car listening to him.  First, the weather person does not know me; he does not know my circumstances; and, he certainly does not know how I feel.  He does presume to know however.

     When describing the weather conditions, he will matter-of-factly relate that the temperature might be 25 degrees for example; but in the same breath and with obvious gusto and pleasure he will then tell me it feels like 10 degrees.  My response to this is no, it does not feel like 10 degrees, it feels like 25 degrees.  He, and many others, apparently have determined that the actual weather is irrelevant; that what I really need to know is how I'm feeling at that moment.  If I were standing outside, clothed or unclothed, I would be aware that the wind is blowing.  It remains the same temperature whether the wind is blowing or not.  I might be standing behind a building out of the wind; I might be in my care with no wind whatsoever; I might be in my garage ready to get into my car.  Under these circumstances, the wind velocity is irrelevant--I don't need to know it.

     All reporters of whom I am aware, find it in their interest to make things seem worse than they are or will be.  This is especially true of meteorologists and other weather people one sees reporting the weather conditions on TV or listening to on the radio.  It must sell.  More people listen, the betters the ratings, the more advertising sold. But, there is a second very irksome habit of this same weather person for which there is no excuse.

     Secondly, it is not suppose to be 30 degrees on the day in question rather than 25 degrees.  Invariably, the weather person in question will tell us, the listeners, that it is suppose to be 30 degrees today.  This is a false statement.  There is no "suppose to be" temperature.  What this man refers to is the average temperature for the day in question.  There is nothing mandatory or required of a certain temperature on a certain day at a certain time-there is an average!  Because one can not predict what the weather will be on a given day with exactness; nor can one determine from year to year what a given day holds, we have averages.  Averages are very useful things: they give an idea of what to expect at any time of the year.  The average temperature may be important to know-in advance-so that if any weather planning is necessary, it can be done.

     These are my two irritants from the same source.  If I ever encounter our local weather person, we shall have a discussion of these items and hopefully I will be able to convey an understanding to said person that how I feel is not his concern and of his misunderstanding of the concept of average.

17 August 2016

A Note on Drop City

     T. C. Boyle has given what appears to be a realistic view of a hippie commune of the 60's and 70's.  Having never lived in one but growing up in the 60's, it has a ring of truth.  The other half of the book is about a character and new wife who live off the land in Alaska.  They become neighbors when the commune's commune is bulldozed by the authorities in California and the financer of the commune's uncle moves from Alaska to Seattle.  The juxtaposition of the book is living in isolation alone or in a pair and the living in a commune where everything is shared.  Two extremes meet; neither one very appealing.

     Living off the land is one of those fond illusions of those who want to play mountain men or pioneers where they do nothing but shoot a buffalo or two and the women do all the actual work.  It works for a few, but an entire country doing it and there are no buffalo to shoot anymore and you may actually have to raise a cow or two to get you through the winter.   There is nothing romantic about raising a garden in Alaska where the mosquitos will carry you away if you stop moving and you have to keep your dogs healthy so they can pull the dog sled through miles of brush checking your traps for protein.

     Then you have the commune where many take no responsibility to keep things together or to do any work, where there is little sanitation and no amenities, where passers-by and gawkers come on weekends to romanticize a life style they know nothing about but think there would be plenty of sex and that would make up for all the other deficiencies. It is clear from the book and our history of utopian settlements that someone has to be in charge. Neither of the alternatives presented by Boyle are very attractive when you get past the idealized version you have in your head about either.

16 August 2016

 A Note on The Beautiful Bureaucrat

     Helen Phillips presents a really bleak existence for Josephine and Joseph moving to the city from a rural life finding jobs, requiring entries into a data base, subletting apartments,  completely unanchored.  The job does acquire meaning when Josephine, the narrator, learns the significance of the entries she makes marking the death of a person when that person becomes her husband.  It is difficult to imagine a more bleak and sinister existence than imagined by Ms. Phillips.  

     I did find the reflection of Josephine interesting when learning she was pregnant.  The thoughts and feelings of a woman first learning she is pregnant is something I had not read previously anywhere.  The trip to the local clinic was well-described and not somewhere one wants to spend a lot of time.

     Other than severe halitosis, her boss is not described other than purposefully not described as a person with no personal characteristics other than bad breath and an insistence that Josephine make her quota of data entries each day in a room with no windows, no pictures, no nothing but a computer for data entry and a stack of files.  Occasionally there is some interaction with other employees in a mostly deserted hallway building with locked doors.  Most of the interaction, what little there is, occurs in the bathroom.

     If a person were to live a life where nothing happens, nothing interesting exists, one's efforts are limited to having enough money to eat and sleep, just about anything is an improvement.   Something needs to happen whether good or bad; it really doesn't matter which.  The entries into the data base made by Josephine presage the death of the person whose name they enter.  When her husband's name appears, it causes her to act.  She initiates action, something is happening.  It doesn't turn out so well, but at least her brain is activated.

06 July 2016

     A quote from Christoper Moore's Bite Me, "working out is narcissistic bullshit".  I do like that thought, not that I haven't ever worked out; that is, if you include jogging as working out.  I have jogged in my lifetime, but I'm trying to think if I ever worked out as in "working out" and I can't remember a single instance.  Now if you are city folk and have no method by which you can obtain proper exercise like mowing the yard, gardening, digging, cutting, etc., then I suspect the temptation to "work out" is strong.  One's body does need a certain amount of activity to function properly and if you sit at a desk all day, you may not get what you need.  However this obsessive "working out" does seem to have an element of narcissism in it.  We need to look buff you know.

      Now I have known a number of inmates who muscle up while in prison, but I expect that is from boredom more than anything; either that or self-protection.  I give them a break.  I wouldn't call that narcissistic but more of a necessity.  In any event, go Christopher.

03 July 2016


     Being a vampire is not what it is cracked up to be.  I mean, really, you can't come out in the daytime which would be a drag for sure.  Yes, you do have super human powers and can live for hundreds of years if you make it the first year.  Apparently not all people who are turned can survive as vampires which is interesting to know.  In Christopher Moore's novel, most of the undead don't make it through the book thanks to some temporary vamps, two cops,  a vampire vigilante squad, and a really short Japanese guy who doesn't speak much English but has a big sword he uses to dispatch vampire cats and an occasional vampire.  

     The Emperor of San Francisco also has a hand in defeating the horde of vampire cats.  The Emperor is a street person who has the inside scoop of where the vampire cats hold up during the day usually with Chet a very big vampire cat slowly becoming human.  All in all, Bite Me, is a little hard to follow with all the characters including vampires, vampire wanna-be's, non vampires, people trying to kill vampires and save San Francisco, vampires turning to mist and intermingling, etc.

     But as the subtitle to the book suggests, it is a love story.