by TChris

Sharon "Bad" Luck robbed a bank in Fort Worth, then went to her own bank in Burleson to deposit the stolen funds into her account. Unfortunately for Luck, the dye pack that the Fort Worth teller handed her with the money exploded in her purse as she entered the Burleson bank, leading to her quick capture.

Last week's winner.

by TChris

Supreme Court Justice David Souter was attacked while jogging alone at about 9:00 p.m. yesterday. He was treated for minor injuries and is feeling fine.

Following up on TChris's earlier post on Sinclair Broadcast Group's decision not to air Nightline tonight, we also urge you to read American Progress Report:

Tonight, ABC's "Nightline" will pay tribute to U.S. troops killed in Iraq by airing a 40 minute special – the names of the fallen will be read by anchor Ted Koppel as their photographs appear on screen. But Sinclair Broadcast Group – the country's largest owner of TV stations – will not allow its ABC affiliates to air the show. In a statement, Sinclair claims the special "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq." While Sinclair claims it is pre-empting Nightline because it is an attempt to "influence public opinion," the record shows that Sinclair media has repeatedly leveraged its control over the airwaves to manipulate public opinion in favor of President Bush's right-wing agenda.

SINCLAIR REQUIRES JOURNALISTS TO READ PRO-BUSH STATEMENTS: In September 2001, Sinclair Broadcasting required its affiliates to air messages "conveying full support" for the Bush administration. At a Baltimore affiliate, WBFF "officials required news and sports anchors, even a weather forecaster, to read the messages, "which included statements such as "[the station] wants you to know that we stand 100% behind our President." Several WBFF staffers objected on the grounds that reading the statements would "erode their reputations as objective journalists" because it made them appear to be "endorsing specific government actions."

The conservative Democrat, Diane Feinstein, has coupled with uber-right Senator Orrin Hatch to create S. 1735, an ill-advised anti-gang bill which may make it to the floor of Congress for a vote this coming Thursday. We'll be arguing against this bill until then. We urge you to stand up for sane juvenile justice measures and oppose the political pandering and fear-mongering of S. 1735.
Here's why:

Less than 18 months after the Senate passed rational and balanced federal juvenile justice legislation, two Senators have introduced a harsh, punitive new bill that would expand the use of the death penalty and create new, ill-defined crimes.

Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have introduced the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003 (S. 1735), a measure that includes dangerous provisions that would expand the use of the death penalty to additional crimes and create additional federal "gang" crimes that lack clear definition.

Under this proposed legislation, people could be convicted and sentenced to death for ill-defined illegal "participation" in a "gang," which could be as few as three people. The law’s loose definitions and expansion of the death penalty would increase the probability that people are wrongly convicted and possibly even executed. In addition, prosecutors, not judges, would have discretion to send juveniles into the adult correctional system, and experiment that's been tried with disastrous effects in California and Florida.

The Hatch-Feinstein bill has raised concerns from a wide variety of groups, including the ABA, death penalty and juvenile associations. Read why here. Their leading concerns are (1) the expansion of the federal role of prosecuting juveniles as adults and (2) the unnecessarily broad federalization of street crimes now generally prosecuted at the state level - including several provisions that make
state murder offenses death-eligible under federal law - and a provision (section 105(e)) that eliminates the "intent to cause death or serious bodily harm" requirement of the existing federal carjacking law (18 U.S.C. 2119) - thus making nearly every car theft a federal offense.

Read this letter sent to Hatch and Feinstein by the Children's Defense Fund, the National Urban League, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and scores of other groups

In an effort to address these and other concerns, Senators Durbin, Feingold, Leahy, and Kennedy have introduced an alternative bill, S.2358, the ANTI-GANG Act. Some of the differences between the two bills are discussed in this section-by-section summary and Senator Kennedy's floor statement.

by TChris

This seems like a sound approach to traffic enforcement that may have a practical application in the U.S.

The Lagos transport chief said 608 Nigerian motorists were tested for insanity after they were caught driving against the flow of traffic on city streets, local media reported on Wednesday.

"One person was found to be insane, while 20 people were found to have very low intelligent quota, which connotes they were not fit to drive cars along Lagos roads," Banire was quoted as saying in Wednesday's Punch newspaper.

The other 587 just didn't care.

by TChris

The jury hearing charges against Jayson Williams -- the NBA player turned analyst who shot his driver with a shotgun -- found Williams not guilty of aggravated manslaughter and could not reach a verdict on the charge of reckless manslaughter. Williams was convicted of four lesser charges that related to tampering with evidence and trying to conceal his role in the shooting. An excellent result for Williams and his lawyer, Billy Martin, given the facts of this difficult case.

Sentencing has not yet been scheduled. TalkLeft background on the case is here and here and here.

by TChris

It is hard to imagine that anyone would be offended by Nightline's decision to broadcast the names of U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq. Nonetheless, the Sinclair Broadcast Group, one of the largest owners of television stations in the country with 62 stations reaching nearly a quarter of all U.S. TV viewers, considers this respectful tribute to the fallen a "veiled political effort to undermine the war." Sinclair apparently considers it unpatriotic to show Americans the consequences of their President's decisions.

Sinclair's vice president of corporate relations claims the broadcast represents biased journalism. Was it "biased journalism" when Sinclair stations showed the President landing on an aircraft carrier to declare (prematurely, as it happens) an end to major hostilities in Iraq while standing under a banner reading Mission Accomplished? Are the dead less newsworthy than the President's propoganda?

Sinclair's decision has little to do with journalism and a lot to do with politics. Sinclair's top executives have donated to Bush's (but not to Kerry's) campaign. Sinclair has given more than $65,000 to GOP candidates in 2004 alone. Could that explain why they want to keep their viewers from seeing the soldiers who died under the President's command?

John McCain calls Sinclair's action "deeply offensive" and "unpatriotic." It is, but just as offensive is the administration's continuing support for the consolidation of media ownership. The more stations Sinclair owns, the fewer people see news coverage that might disturb the President. That might be good for the administration, but it's a disaster for a democracy that depends on informed voters.

by TChris

Another embarrassment for the Bush administration:

The head of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, Paul Bremer, warned six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the Bush administration seemed to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism and appeared to "stagger along" on the issue.

Bush can't very well accuse Bremer of seeking publicity to promote a book, or of developing a sour grapes attitude after losing a job. What new spin move will the White House show us to deflect Bremer's criticism?

by TChris

Dress codes have their place, but dress codes imposed by a public employer shouldn't be allowed to interfere with religious freedom. Former New York police officer Jasjit Singh Jaggi, a Sikh who had been assigned to traffic enforcement, prevailed in the first round of his claim that the NYPD violated his civil rights by prohibiting him from wearing a beard or turban.

The Department argued that wearing a turban compromised public safety but couldn't muster enough evidence to convince an administrative judge that turbans are dangerous. The judge recommended to the state human rights commission that Jaggi be reinstated to his position.

by TChris

Improperly suggestive questioning of young children can easily lead to false accusations of sexual abuse. (A state-of-the-art reference on the subject of interviewing children is Investigative Interviews of Children by Debra Poole and Michael Lamb.) John Stoll, a victim of false accusations of sexual abuse prompted by improper questioning of children, will soon be freed after twenty years of confinement.

Four of Stoll's accusers, now adults, testified in January they were manipulated by investigators who dogged them for hours until they fabricated the stories. A fifth witness testified that he has no memories from that part of his childhood.

Stoll was represented by lawyers from the California Innocence Project. They deserve to be congratulated for their excellent work.

Another man who may have been victimized by false accusations -- Gerald "Tooky" Amirault, who ran a daycare center near Boston with his sister and mother, all of whom were convicted of child molestation -- was released on parole today after spending 18 years in prison.

by TChris

Although George Orwell warned about government surveillance of the innocent and the loss of privacy in his landmark novel 1984, governments continue their diligent efforts to transform fiction into reality. If you drive through Manalapan, Florida (an exclusive Palm Beach community), be aware that Big Brother is watching you.

Cameras will snap pictures of drivers [as they pass the town's "waterfront mansions"], their cars and their license plates and a computer will run the tag against a criminal database. If anything suspicious is found, a dispatcher is alerted and can call for police.

Assuming that a "criminal database" is simply a list of people who were once accused or convicted of crimes, it doesn't seem "suspicious" that people on the list might travel through Manalapan. Courts consistently hold that the police can't stop or detain drivers simply because they have criminal records.

Another Florida surveillance system proved to be a waste of money.

Tampa police used ... face-recognition technology during the 2001 Super Bowl and in the nearby entertainment district of Ybor City. That system is designed to recognize the facial characteristics of potential terrorists and criminals by matching people on the street with a database of 30,000 mug shots. But Tampa police scrapped the Ybor City program in August, citing its failure over two years to recognize anyone wanted by authorities.

The Manalapan system is likely to equally wasteful, but any system that tracks the movement of innocent people is a frightening proposition.

by TChris

Roy Moore, the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who lost his job by insisting that his desire to display the Ten Commandments on public property was more imporant than the Constitution, lost his latest bid to get the job back. Seven retired judges, serving in lieu of the Alabama Supreme Court over which Moore once presided, rejected his appeal from an ethics panel's order removing him from office.

Moore argued that federal courts have "no right to interfere in states' acknowledgments of God," a position that reads the Supremacy Clause out of the Constitution. Federal courts have not only the right but the duty to enforce constitutional protections when confronted by state officials who prefer to ignore them.

Unfortunately, we haven't heard the last of Moore.

Moore is behind a bill before Congress that would prohibit federal judges from hearing cases involving acknowledgments of God. The measure was expected to be heard by the House Judicial Committee later this year.