Tag: posts

There is widespread – and justified – happiness today that justice was done in the Ahmaud Arbery case. The three men who pursued and killed him because of a combination of bigotry and baseless suspicions have been convicted of felony murder and other crimes.

However, understandable celebration of the outcome should not obscure a troubling aspect of the case. The defendants almost avoided being charged because one of them is a former employee of the prosecutor’s office. Reason’s Billy Binion explains:

[T]he theatrics from the defense have diverted scrutiny away from the seediness of the original prosecutor, Jackie Johnson, who in September was indicted on criminal charges for violating her oath of office and obstructing police when she allegedly showed the McMichaels favorable treatment and ensured they would not be arrested after Arbery’s death.

Such charges against prosecutors are almost unheard of…..

Several months went by before the government applied any rigorous investigation to the case. Johnson, then the Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney, was a big part of that, according to the indictment against her.

The ex-prosecutor, who lost reelection in November 2020, allegedly leveraged her office to “show favor and affection to Greg McMichael,” her former employee, during the state’s initial probe of the case, and got in the way of law enforcement when she ordered them not to arrest Travis.

After recusing herself, Johnson then recruited Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George E. Barnhill to replace her. But she declined to mention that Barnhill had already been involved: He told police the day after the killing that the three men should not face charges. He also had a conflict of interest, eventually disclosing that his son had worked in Johnson’s office alongside McMichael, including on a prior prosecution that Arbery faced. Yet he stayed on the case until April and only resigned at the behest of Arbery’s mother once she learned of his potential bias. (As of September, an investigation into Barnhill’s conduct was ongoing.)

Indeed, had Arbery’s case not received explosive media attention in May 2020, it’s possible that both Johnson and Barnhill’s prosecutorial malfeasance would have prevented charges from being brought against the men.

What happened here was an extreme case of a broader problem of insider favoritism in the criminal justice system. All too often, law enforcement officials turn a blind eye to wrongdoing in their own ranks, or even (as here) that perpetrated by former employees of their organizations.

The “blue wall of silence” that inhibits many cops from testifying against abusive fellow officers is one example. In New York City and some other jurisdictions, police unions give out “courtesy cards” to friends and relatives of officers, so as to allow these people to escape tickets for traffic violations.

I myself was once a small-time beneficiary of law enforcement favoritism. I recounted the story here:

Back in 2001, when I was clerking for the [US Court of Appeals for the] Fifth Circuit in Houston, I was pulled over by a police officer for a minor traffic violation (I thought I wasn’t doing anything wrong, but the officer had a different view…). He asked me to show him my license, which I did….[S]ince I was only living in Texas temporarily, I was still using my Massachusetts license. This wasn’t good enough for the officer. “Son,” he said, “you have to show me a Texas ID.”

I suspected that it was not legal for him to require a Texas ID. After all, what happens if he stops a driver from another state who was just passing through? Would he be required to have a Texas ID as well? Nonetheless, I was very reluctant to get into an argument with a cop;… [I]f I pissed him off, he could saddle me with a more expensive ticket, or worse. Instead, I showed him the closest thing I had to a Texas ID: my ID from the Fifth Circuit.

“You work for the Court of Appeals?” the officer asked skeptically. Such a suspicious-looking character couldn’t possibly be an employee of the criminal justice system! “Tell me the address of the federal court house,” he demanded. After I told the officer the correct address, it dawned on him that I really was a court employee, and not a devious impostor trying to get away with traffic violations. Right away, the tone of the conversation changed, and I was let off with a mild warning (whereas before it seemed fairly clear that he was going to write me a ticket).

The episode shows the favoritism that police sometimes extend to fellow law enforcement employees. Although it had not occurred to me that I could use my exalted status as a law clerk to get out of a ticket, I later learned from other court employees that this kind of police behavior is far from unusual.

Obviously, my case was trivial compared to what almost happened in the Arbery situation. Indeed, the latter was so grave that authorities have taken the highly unusual step of indicting a prosecutor, as a result. But both stories illustrate a broader problem of favoritism in law enforcement.

In fairness, police and prosecutors are far from the only professions who show favoritism to insiders. I’m an academic, and I certainly see such issues in my own industry, as well. But law-enforcement favoritism is particularly troubling, because itoften involves literal matters of life and death, or at least cases where people’s liberty and property are at stake.

There isn’t any simple solution to this problem. The people in the best position to sanction perpetrators of favoritism are usually themselves fellow cops and prosecutors, many of whom are also inclined to favor their own. In this way, law-enforcement favoritism is an obstacle to its own alleviation. But we should at least recognize the ubiquitous nature of the problem, and give greater consideration to possible strategies for reducing it.

The post Ahmaud Arbery Case Highlights Problem of Insider Favoritism in Law Enforcement appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3xiAzPm
via IFTTT

Have you ever stopped to think about why all the food at the traditional Thanksgiving dinner gets put out at the same time? No courses and no servers—just a culinary dump of turkey and all the fixings onto the table and an ensuing feeding frenzy. 

As food historian Rachel Laudan explains, both what gets eaten at Thanksgiving and how it gets served is no accident. When Thanksgiving became a national holiday back in 1863, the Cuisine and Empire author says, its creator explicitly conceived of the day as a repudiation of European customs, particularly those steeped in class-based French origins. Sarah Josepha Hale designed the standard Thanksgiving meal as an affirmation of our (small “r”) republican virtues. Turkey was cheap to procure, pumpkin pie was easy to make, and cranberry sauce was a simple take on the fancy toppings typical in a French court. 

The meaning of Thanksgiving has changed over the years—thanks in part to Julia Child’s successful effort to democratize French cuisine—but even today, “nobody suggests adding truffles to your turkey,” says Laudan, who wrote about the politics of Thanksgiving for the Boston Globe.

Back in 2016, Nick Gillespie interviewed Laudan about the meaning of Thanksgiving, why she is not a fan of “organic” food, and other aspects of culinary history. It’s a great conversation that is every bit as filling as Thanksgiving—and a lot less coma-inducing—and Reason is happy to share it again on the eve of Thanksgiving in 2021.

The post Rachel Laudan: Why Thanksgiving Dinner Is Served All at Once appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30Tobd8
via IFTTT

Gregory McMichael, 65, Travis McMichael, 35, and William “Roddie” Bryan, 52, have been found guilty of the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, a man who the younger McMichael shot and killed after the three cornered Arbery in a Georgia suburb and tried to perform a citizen’s arrest.

All three men were convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony, with the younger McMichael also convicted of malice murder.

The case drew national outrage, though it initially received little public attention. Former Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson ordered police not to charge Travis McMichael and allegedly gave the father-son pair preferential treatment, as Gregory McMichael used to work for her. She eventually recused herself. But the prosecutor she recruited to replace her, Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George E. Barnhill, also had a conflict of interest—his son had worked with McMichael on a prosecution against Arbery, and before him taking over, Johnson failed to disclose that Barnhill had already told police not to place the men under arrest. In September, she was indicted for violating her oath of office and obstruction of police, and an investigation into Barnhill was still ongoing.

The McMichaels and Bryan pursued Arbery in their trucks in February 2020 and told police they did so because they “assumed” he was behind a series of purported burglaries after seeing him trespassing on a construction site. There had been no such robberies in the weeks leading up to Arbery’s killing.

After the men trapped Arbery, a struggle ensued, with Travis firing killing Arbery with a shotgun at close range. Arbery was unarmed.

But no real movement would happen on the case for almost 80 days, until cellphone footage showing Arbery’s final moments made its way to social media, ultimately going viral and drawing renewed attention to the case. Barnhill stepped down from his role in April after Arbery’s mother learned of his conflict of interest, and charges were finally brought against the men in June 2020.

The trial coincided with the proceedings against Kyle Rittenhouse, where a jury last week accepted that the teen acted in self-defense when he killed two men and wounded another during a night of civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Those proceedings were highly politicized along partisan lines, becoming a sort of microcosm for debates around the U.S. criminal justice system, particularly as they pertain to race.

But really, this trial was the trial for those conversations to take place. Arbery was black, and McMichael’s claim that he acted in self-defense when he chased Arbery through a neighborhood and gunned him down appeared much less plausible than in Rittenhouse’s case. That Travis McMichael was motivated by racial animus came from McMichael himself: Bryan told investigators that, after shooting Arbery, Travis McMichael called him a “fucking nigger” as he lay dying.

And while prosecutorial misconduct was rightfully at the center of the conversation around Rittenhouse—with Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger coming under fire multiple times for bending the rules—so, too, should that have been a main topic of discussion in this case, and even more so. For a prosecutor to face criminal charges for job-related malfeasance is remarkably uncommon. Yet that’s what happened here. Had the public never learned about the deaths via a viral clip, it’s possible that Johnson and Barnhill would have prevented charges from ever being brought.

The three men face life in prison.

The post Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William 'Roddie' Bryan Found Guilty of Murdering Ahmaud Arbery appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3E53hGl
via IFTTT

The United States Constitution explicitly calls for copyright and patent laws  to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by “authors and inventors.” But would getting rid of all intellectual property laws actually encourage more creativity and innovation by inventors, writers, and artists?

That was the topic of a November 15 Soho Forum debate held in New York City.

Stephan Kinsella, who’s spent 28 years as a practicing patent law attorney, argued in favor of the proposition that “all patent and copyright law should be abolished.”

He believes that government-created intellectual property laws empower patent and copyright trolls and powerful corporate interests while limiting the free flow of information, thus reducing the rate of innovation and creativity.

Richard Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, says that our current system isn’t perfect but sees copyright and patents as a natural extension of private property rights and believes that it should be defended by libertarians accordingly. 

The debate took place in New York City in front of a live audience and was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by John Osterhoudt. Production by Caveat. Photos by Brett Raney.

The post Abolish Intellectual Property Rights? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3FJLpRx
via IFTTT

Politicians from across the political spectrum are increasingly shifting the costs of transportation services and infrastructure from the people who use them to taxpayers. The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill signed into law last week by President Joe Biden will only make the problem worse.

For a conservative example of this phenomenon, witness Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ announcement on Monday that he would be asking the state legislature to “zero out” the 26.5 cents in per-gallon taxes the state currently levies gas—a measure he pitched as a necessary relief from the inflationary effects of President Joe Biden’s policies.

“We’re in great financial shape, we have surpluses. We have the ability to do what we need to do from a standpoint of infrastructure,” said the governor at a Daytona Beach press conference, adding in response to a question that this gas tax holiday would not involve cutting funding to road projects.

A few days prior, newly-elected progressive Boston Mayor Michelle Wu announced that she would be asking the city council to approve $8 million in funding to expand the city’s fare-free bus line pilot program

“This expansion of fare-free bus service is an important example of how municipal leadership can not only immediately improve the lives of Bostonians, but also set us on a path to a more just transit system for future generations,” said Wu last Wednesday.

Both announcements differ in the amount and intended beneficiary, but on the fundamentals, they couldn’t be more alike.

Rather than charge drivers and bus riders directly for the transportation infrastructure they’re using, both Wu and DeSantis instead want to heap that burden on taxpayers in general.

The $8 million that Wu needs from the city council represents the fares that people who currently ride the bus are willing to pay for it. Her plan is to voluntarily say “no thanks.”

DeSantis’ gas tax holiday is framed as relief from both taxation and inflation. Many a conservative and/or free marketer might think it’s a more small government proposal than offering free bus rides. Hardly.

If the governor sticks to his word about not cutting infrastructure spending, then he’ll have to find new funding to plug the lost $1 billion in revenue. That means shifting the burden from gas tax-paying motorists and onto everyone—whether or not they drive.

Federal largesse makes both politicians’ plans easier.

Wu has asked the city council to make $8 million in federal funds available for her free bus route plan. Although DeSantis has been less explicit about how he will fund his gas tax holiday, it appears that his plan is benefiting from federal spending too.

The budget the governor signed into law in June directs $1.75 billion of the federal COVID-19 relief to the state’s highway fund. That obviously gives him more room to shower a tax subsidy on motorists than if Florida’s roads had to rely on state revenues alone.

Moving from a system of user fees to general taxing and spending is a bad idea when it comes to infrastructure for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it’s unfair to taxpayers who now have to shell out more money for transportation services, be it buses or roads, they don’t necessarily use. The federal funding propping up Wu and DeSantis’ plans makes this even worse. Taxpayers across the entire country are being asked to subsidize transit in Florida and Boston.

Fare-free transit has the added problem of diminishing whatever incentive transit agencies have to provide decent, effective service to riders. An agency that gets the exact same amount of revenue regardless of how many people ride the bus sees no upside to making its riders happy.  If anything, additional users become just another cost or inconvenience, while the politicians making funding decisions become the real customers.

Gas tax revenue, meanwhile, provides transportation officials with at least some knowledge about how much road motorists are willing to pay for. (Tolls and mileage-based user fees would be a more direct, efficient means of providing that information.)

But DeSantis’ proposed gas tax holiday completely, albeit temporarily, severs the link between road funding and road usage. Without the information the link between funding and usage provides, it becomes easier for the state’s Department of Transportation to build roads that no one is willing to pay for while neglecting maintenance on lanes where people actually drive.

The recently enacted $1.2 trillion infrastructure law will only incentivize states and localities to move away from a “user pays, user benefits” approach to transportation spending to get worse in the coming years.

The law contains $550 billion in new spending, including $110 billion for roads and bridges and $39 billion in additional transit funding.

The bill does not raise gas taxes, or make tolling easier. It also only contains a small pilot mileage-based user fee program. That means the extra road funding included in the bill is effectively a subsidy for highways that’ll have to be paid for by taxpayers in general. The additional $39 billion in transit funding meanwhile will go toward transit systems that, in many cases, are still seeing massively reduced ridership from pre-pandemic levels, and therefore massively reduced farebox revenues.

In both cases, we’ll see more transportation infrastructure and fewer user fees to cover them.

The post Politicians On Left and Right Want Someone Else to Pay for Transportation appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nNo6Ab
via IFTTT