For the record, Ramos and Compean were not pardoned; Bush commuted their sentences to what was basically time served, but did not pardon them.

I realize that the distinction between commutation and pardoning may seem insignificant to many, but the two things are actually different in significant ways.

I wish I could get worked up about it, but I’ve seen it too many times before. Oh, I’ll write about it, but I’ll use it as a springboard for a bigger discussion about the way everyone nowadays thinks he’s a mind reader. On the specific issue of prostitution, the problem is that it is to my knowledge the only crime wholly defined by intent; in other “crimes” intent can affect the degree of crime, but not the fact of it (i.e. motive for murder, etc). But with prostitution the intent to profit by sex is the “crime”. It’s therefore impossible to produce any objective evidence for it other than a video or audio tape, and those are never made because no whore in her right mind would ever say “I will do x sex act for y amount.”

Cops have therefore come up with an astonishing array of monstrous, sexist “tests” for prostitution (http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/lack-of-evidence/) which include being unescorted on a street, winking, carrying condoms, being without panties, carrying a digital camera or laptop, wearing “revealing” clothes, paying for a hotel room with a prepaid credit card and a number of others. Sometimes these are used against any woman the cops want to harass (as in the example of Egyptian “virginity tests” used against female protesters), sometimes against women at random (I can provide specific examples from Detroit and New Orleans), and sometimes only against women the cops magically “know” (via their super cop powers) to be prostitutes. Where’s the feminist outcry against this? Nonexistent, and you know why? Because the cops never attack dumpy, frumpy, short-haired, butch “womyn’s studies” majors with these accusations, just women who look and dress in a feminine manner – and in the twisted minds of radical feminists such women “deserve” what they get.

Ramos and Compean. I was unable to find a peasant who has been pardoned by the President while still in jail. So, the system must work, eh?

“Jesus, did he pardon eight people who aren’t even in jail?”

Presidents pretty much exclusively pardon people whose sentences have already been completed for years or decades. The only exception to this rule I can recall is the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich. And Rich was only accused, he had never actually been convicted. He simply decided (probably stupidly) to stay in Switzerland instead of returning to the US.

Oh goody. Just what we need, another fucking law named after somebody.

That is going to be a real problem for her. Also, conspiracy after the fact to impede or obstruct justice.

DOJ announces says it will not pursue federal civil rights charges against the police officers who severely beat Pittsburgh music student Jordan Miles after mistaking a Mountain Dew bottle in his pocket for a gun.

Radley, you’ve read enough of these to know the “we mistook a Mountain Dew bottle in his pocket” is simply a bullshit excuse that they created out of whole cloth during the coverup phase of this crime. Please don’t do them the honor of acting like it’s truthful. A proper phrasing would be something like this:

DOJ announces says it will not pursue federal civil rights charges against the police officers who severely beat Pittsburgh music student Jordan Miles and then claimed that a Mountain Dew bottle in his pocket – which Miles denies having and the police cannot produce – looked like a gun.

Sperarate topic: Is there anyone left who thinks that impairing criminal procedure because of the supposed nature of the crime is OK? OR Promise Keepers yet again proves itself to be somewhat rational.

Shit, if punching is a criminal act, and no amount of consent can alter that, I’d better stop going to my martial arts class.

Who do they think they are, cops?

Also – the only one w/ a legal duty is the puncher – she put him in that state everyone else – moral duty not legal

It’s awesome that they already know who’s guilty of the crime before they investigate. Since the police already know who the “bad guys” are, why do we even need a law that makes it easier for them to prosecute? Why not just allow them to testify on the basic of their psychic abilities?

1. Rape is *defined* as sex without effective consent. That’s the crime, so it’s inapposite here, if you effectively consent to sex, it’s not rape (effectiveness is important, which is where statutory rape comes from: the victim cannot legally give effective consent).

2. Similarly, if I consent to your taking my property, it is not theft because an element of the crime is that it be without consent (e.g., common law larceny was the trespassory taking of the personal property of another with the intent to deprive permanently).

3. The definition of battery is basically the unlawful touching of another person and is not couched in terms of consent.

Something might not *be* a crime if it is consensual, but if something is a crime, consent doesn’t make it not a crime. If lack of consent is a required element of the crime, then the presence of effective consent means it’s not a crime (like rape and theft). But if that element is not present, then consent or its lack is irrelevant (like battery or murder). Prizefighting is interesting because it is illegal, except when licensed (which is why you don’t see UFC bouts in New York, for example).

None of this speaks to how things ought to be existentially, just how they are.

the last paragraph was a massive facepalm moment for me.

“The intent is to target prostitutes, especially underage ones who are forced into the sex trade and trained to evade arrest, Seelig said. The arrest would be the first step in helping them get off the streets, she said.”

i’m speechless….

Now, that the rest of the partygoers conspired to delay his treatment (I might also point out that it is due to more stupid laws about underage drinking. Gosh, laws which criminalize things create reasons to not do the right thing! Who’da thunk?) is also wrong, although I don’t know if it is criminal. But it can’t be decoupled from the fact that consensual things people want to do, prohibited by people who are sure they know better, caused a chain of events that ended up with a dead person.