On Jared Loughner, Guns, Mental Health and Rights

"No personal shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
                                                          U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment

In the  past couple of weeks, I have engaged in a number of debates about Tuscon gunman Jared Loughner and guns, mental health, Loughner getting a gun, and gun control.  Among those I have debated have been people who have urged that mentally ill people should be denied access to weapons, as if this is the first time something like Tuscon has happened.  The debate has usually proceeded along these lines: the shooting was so tragic, how could a man so obviously disturbed get a gun, they should ban such people from getting guns, someone should have reported his problems, no mentally ill persons should be able to get a gun.  There have been hints at banning glocks, high capacity magazines, and other gun control advocacy.

The fact that the people I have been debating are smart, articulate and passionate has never escaped me.  However, there are so many assumptions being made by those I have been debating and some other very smart people in the general commentariat.

One of the biggest errors that has been made is looking at Loughner from a viewpoint of hindsight and the benefit of an investigation.  Evidence has certainly come to light of his drug use, of his probable mental health issues, that Loughner was denied entry into the armed forces, that Loughner had issues at school, that he had a disturbing obsession with Rep. Giffords, various other run-ins with the law, etc.  The list seems endless, but each of these incidents, when viewed by themselves, as the incidents must be considered at the time they occurred, does not reveal to any single participant anything particularly wrong or potentially dangerous (keeping separate Loughner's own private actions).

It is only when viewed in the aggregate, with hindsight, that we see a clear picture of what appears to be a truly disturbed young man.  Many people express shock that all of these people who had dealings with Loughner didn't see his problems.  Why should that be shocking?  As a loner, most of Loughner's interactions with people would have been limited, discrete encounters where he might have seemed,at most, a little weird, but not really anything that would suggest he was capable of murder.

So with hindsight, we see a different person than those who interacted with him saw prior to the shooting.  We now piece together his life with the benefit of a concentrated investigation that no one had the benefit of before.  That he wasn't recognized as a potential threat before the shooting is not particularly shocking.  What seems so obvious now is anything but as the events are unfolding.

Regarding the calls for prohibitions on people like Loughner getting access to guns, again, the benefit of hindsight sheds a very different light on matters.   One of the comments I have heard is that there should be a way to prevent a mentally ill person like Loughner from getting a gun.  Well, like most state, there is a law in Arizona that prohibits the sale to and possession of firearms by people who are a danger to themselves or others.  Arizona's Criminal Code, Title 13 of Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3101 reads (in part):

7. "Prohibited possessor" means any person:

(a) Who has been found to constitute a danger to himself or to others or to be persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored pursuant to section 13-925.

Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3102 reads, in part:

A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:..... 

4. Possessing a deadly weapon or prohibited weapon if such person is a prohibited possessor; or

5. Selling or transferring a deadly weapon to a prohibited possessor; or...

So as you can see, possessing or selling a deadly weapon to a prohibited person, which is defined as someone determined to be a danger to themselves or others is already banned in Arizona.  The law is on the books.

So why wasn't Loughner on the list of prohibited persons is a legitimate question but one that has a simple answer:  No one thought to ask a court for a determination that Loughner was a danger to himself or others.

No one asked, because, as stated above, there might not have been enough cumulative evidence to any one person (outside of possibly his family) to suggest that Loughner was dangerous.  The Arizona criminal code made it a crime for Loughner to possess a weapon only after and therefore not before, a court issued an order that declared him a danger and proscribed treatment.  But getting such a court order is not a simple or necessarily short matter.  The reference in the prohibited possessors definition "pursuant to court order under section 36-540" entails some specific procedures and protections to avoid having people improperly classified a unstable when it should not apply.  Here is what Arizona Revised Statutes 36-540 says,

A. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed patient, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to self, is a danger to others, is persistently or acutely disabled or is gravely disabled and in need of treatment, and is either unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment, the court shall order the patient to undergo one of the following:

...

N. If a person has been found, as a result of a mental disorder, to constitute a danger to self or others or to be persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled and the court enters an order for treatment pursuant to subsection A of this section, the court shall grant access to the person's name, date of birth, social security number and date of commitment to the department of public safety to comply with the requirements of title 13, chapter 31 and title 32, chapter 26.

Clear and convincing evidence is a lower standard of proof than in a criminal context, which is reasonable doubt, but higher than the standard of proof necessary in a civil trial, which is usually preponderance of the evidence or a "more likely than not" standard.  So under Arizona law, Title 13, chapter 31 dealing with guns and gun ownership, to be denied the right to own a gun is contingent on a court hearing and clear evidence of danger to oneself or others.

The only way a mentally ill person can be put on a list to prevent him from purchasing a firearm is for a court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, which involves the collection of documentary evidence and testimony (usually from more than one person).  Only if the judge is satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that the person presents a danger to themselves or others and only if the judge enters an order for treatment can someone's right to or possess a firearm be prohibited.

In the case of Jared Loughner, some would have had to bring his case before the courts to make a determination that he was a danger to others.  The courts cannot issue orders on case not properly before them and the police cannot be empowered to deny rights without a process.

So why all these legal hoops to jump through to prevent a shooting like Tuscon?  Why can't some just make a complaint about a "crazy" person and the courts or police simply put them on the list of prohibited possessors?

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The 5th Amendment reads, in full:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(Emphasis Added).  The bolded and italicized text is what is important here.  "No personal shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."  If the government (including the police and the courts) wants to or must deny anyone, including those suspected of being a danger to themselves or others, their liberty or freedom there must be a proper legal finding and ruling.  Governmental limitations on someone's rights that they would otherwise enjoy can only be imposed pursuant to due process of law, which means a court proceeding, following the proper rules of procedure and the protections all citizens enjoy, even those who are mentally deranged.

Like it or not, the default law of the land is that adult Americans and resident aliens are free to own weapons, including guns (subject to reasonable licensing and registration laws).  That is the default position, that gun ownership is  a freedom established in this country.  If the state is going to take away that liberty, the state must followed a proscribed process of law.  We cannot allow the government, the courts or any police agency and just as importantly, the emotional reaction of the public, to take away rights without giving a fair chance for a hearing.

What happened in Tuscon, while tragic, is not a failure of gun control.  It is a failure, of so many people, to bring Loughner's problems to the attention of the court so that a court could determine, pursuant to procedure, if Loughner was a danger to himself or others.  But such a failure is, for the most part, a blameless failure because we as a society are conditioned to "mind our own business" and "live and let live."  But unless someone, family, friends, or an employer brings the problems to the attention of the authorities, then there is nothing that can be done.  Unfortunately it sometimes takes a tragedy to see the full scope of someone's problems.

In order for Loughner to have been put on the prohibited possessors list in Arizona, five things would have had to have happened:

1. Someone would have had to recognize or suspect that Loughner was a danger to himself or others.  
2. That someone would have had to report the concern of Loughner being a danger to someone to a proper authority, i.e. the courts, police or mental health agency.
3. A proceeding would have to have been initiated by someone asking a court to determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that Loughner was a danger to himself or others.
4. That a court actually found Loughner to be a danger AND ordered treatment of some kind, which would have put Loughner on the list of persons prohibited from owning a gun.
5. That a legal gun seller would have adhered to the law and checked the prohibited possessors list.

Of course, all of this pre-supposes that Loughner would not have illegally obtained a weapon.

In summary, laws exist, even in Arizona, to prevent mentally ill persons from legally obtaining weapons.  The problem is that in order to prevent such an occurrence there must be recognition of a problem, action taken on that recognition and then adherence to a due process of law to deny someone their rights to own or possess a weapon.

Policy debates about wide-spread gun ownership rights is a concern separate and apart from what happened in Tuscon.  Gun control advocates can pursue legal and political channels to change that law, but right now gun ownership is a protected right.  Denying that right to a specific individual, even one with mental health problems or impairments, requires the due process of law.

Emotionally, I feel for those who have suffered at Loughner's hand.  I believe that we all do.  But we are a nation governed by the rule of law, not the rule of emotion.  We cannot allow the washes of emotion to dictate policy, for doing so enacts bad law, and actually creates a government no better than the whims of a tyrant.  I know the law offers no comfort in a situation such as this, but we have laws to prevent the denial of rights based on arbitrary, if understandable, emotional considerations.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

John Edwards Bails on Poor Rural High Schoolers

Joanne Jacobs has a link to the story and a few comments.

I’d suspected Edwards was a phony who adopted populism as a campaign gimmick, not because he really cares about the poor and working class. It bothered me that he spent millions on a huge mansion and that he used his anti-poverty foundation to create jobs for his campaign staffers. I guess we’ll see whether he actually does anything to help the poor, now that his political ambitions are kaput.

Of course it is a gimmick.

John Edwards took a trial attorney career and parlayed it into a poltical career in which he said he "worked for the little guy." Well, North Carolinians have gotten wise to that little bit of hucksterism. He has never cared about the little guy, he has only cared about himself. Caring about oneself is not a bad thing if you are honest about it, but hiding behind an image, when you are regularly found to not really be that image guy, is simply ludicrous.

If I were these students I would seriously consider being a lot more public about it. The problem of course is that they have already benefited from a John Edwards promise to help pay for college. They have made good grades, they have taken all the right classes and they will probably get into college. The problem of course is that they have no means to pay for college. But I suspect some truly generous person (I only wish I had the resources) will probably step into help these kids. After, that is what America is about?

Right John Edwards--helping the little guy?

Of course, John Edwards is about to become a little guy. He has two or three families to support, his D-I-V-O-R-C-E is going to be messy and ugly, and his legal bills will be steep.

The Criminal Justice System and Racism

Heather MacDonald asks: Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist? It is a fair question, and MacDonald answers no, stating that the high percentage of blacks behind bars reflects crime rates, not racism.

If a listener didn’t know anything about crime, such charges of disparate treatment might seem plausible. After all, in 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of all state and federal prisoners, though they’re under 13 percent of the national population. About one in 33 black men was in prison in 2006, compared with one in 205 white men and one in 79 Hispanic men. Eleven percent of all black males between the ages of 20 and 34 are in prison or jail. The dramatic rise in the prison and jail population over the last three decades—to 2.3 million people at the end of 2007 (see box)—has only amplified the racial accusations against the criminal-justice system.

The favorite culprits for high black prison rates include a biased legal system, draconian drug enforcement, and even prison itself. None of these explanations stands up to scrutiny. The black incarceration rate is overwhelmingly a function of black crime. Insisting otherwise only worsens black alienation and further defers a real solution to the black crime problem.

After examining, at length many of hte common charges, that police over-arrest blacks (they don't), that prosecutors and judges over-prosecute and over-sentence black offenders (in fact the opposite is true, in that blacks tend to get more lenient sentences in most crimes including murder), and that the drug wars make more blacks criminals (wrong again), MacDonald concludes:

The evidence is clear: black prison rates result from crime, not racism. America’s comparatively high rates of incarceration are nothing to celebrate, of course, but the alternative is far worse. The dramatic drop in crime in the 1990s, to which stricter sentencing policies unquestionably contributed, has freed thousands of law-abiding inner-city residents from the bondage of fear. Commerce and street life have revived in those urban neighborhoods where crime has fallen most.

The pressure to divert even more offenders from prison, however, will undoubtedly grow. If a probation system can finally be crafted that provides as much public safety as prison, we should welcome it. But the continuing search for the chimera of criminal-justice bigotry is a useless distraction that diverts energy and attention from the crucial imperative of helping more inner-city boys stay in school—and out of trouble.

Often critics of the American criminal justice system will point out that other Western nations have far lower incarceration rates that America. That may be true, but what is their crime rates as well?

How about this question, which MacDonald did not explore, what is the percentage of the black prison population that a). come from single parent households and b). are unwed fathers (or mothers) themselves? Could cultural and socio-economic factors play a greater role than police or prosecutorial conspriacies? Perhaps if those social conditions were addressed then maybe, just maybe, the story would be different?

Hacker Facing 38 Years In Jail

Remember the movie Wargames, when computer geek Matthew Broderick hacks into his school's computer and changes his grade and Ally Sheedy's grade. Amusing, right. Broderick's character in Ferris Bueller's Day Off did a similar thing (I'ms sensing a pattern). Well Omar Khan, an 18 year old student in Orange County teenager hacked his school's computer and changing his grades. He is facing 38 years

If convicted on all 69 counts, including altering and stealing public records, computer fraud, burglary, identity theft, receiving stolen property and conspiracy, Mr Khan could spend almost four decades in prison.

He is currently being held on $50,000 (£25,500) bail and is scheduled to appear in court today.

Mr Khan’s defence lawyer, Carol Lavacol, described her client as “a really nice kid” and said: “There’s a lot more going on than meets the eye.”

. Pretty steep possible sentence for his crimes. Still Khan needs a punishment, but this seems out of proportion.

Haditha Marine Prepares To Sue Murtha

One of the Haditha Marines who has been exonerated, is considering a lawsuit against Rep. John Murtha and Time Magazine reporter Tim McGuirk for the smear that led to the charges against him. Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani's lawyer said they are considering the move.

Chessani has a better shot at McGuirk than Murtha. Murtha is probably going to claim immunity under the Speech and Debate clause, but McGuirk might be on the hook for libel.

Still, just the publicity of pulling Murtha (a former Marine) into court to explain his actions and words is delicious.

Cell Phone Porn

MSNBC carried this story about teenagers sending naked pictures of themselves to boyfriends and girlfriends, only to find them on the internet, complicating authorities' efforts to find truly exploited children.

The story is interesting from that standpoint, that it makes the identification of those who are truly spreading child pornography around by exploiting kids. But this segment of the story worried me:

Many of these pictures are falling into the wrong hands — or worse, everyone's hands, via the Internet — and leading to criminal charges.

Some parents are aghast.

I just don't understand why kids would do a stupid thing like that," said Rochelle Hoins of Castle Rock, Colo., where 18 students in her twin sons' middle school sent around nude pictures of themselves last year. "We did dumb things when we were kids, but not like that," said Hoins, whose sons were not involved.

Similar cases have been reported in New Jersey, New York, Alabama, Utah, Pennsylvania, Texas and Connecticut.

"It used to be that kids would make mistakes, and it was local and singular and everyone knew it was part of growing up," said Catherine Davis, a PTA co-president in Westport, Conn., who had a frank talk with her two sons after several students' nude self-portraits recently spread through the wealthy New York City bedroom community. "Now a stupid adolescent mistake can take on major implications and go on their record for the rest of their lives."

At the outset, I am sure that when self-developing Polaroid cameras first came out, teenagers were taking nude photos of themselves and sending them to boyfriends/girlfriends. Today's teenager is not the first to come up with the idea of sending risque photos of themselves to others, so let's stop with the faux shock of the matter.

Admittedly, what is actually an adolescent mistake should not result in criminal charges, necessarily. The prosecutor who is pursuing charges against some 17 year old boy who, in a fit of anger, posts naked photos of his ex-girlfriend needs to be handled very differently than a boy who takes photos of multiple girls and then attempts to sell them. Should both be punished? Most definitely, but parents and adults in the criminal justice system need to think about proportionality.

Finally, we need to be asking ourselves, what is feeding this trend? Some social conservatives will say that it is the degradation of morals in society, the promiscuity and the prevelance of sex in our "entertainment." Well that could be part of it and it is not without its appeal. But that is looking at the problem for a particular bias.

The "problem's" source is much simpler and very easy to correct.

Stop giving teenagers camera phones.

If you want to stop teenagers from sending nude pictures of themselves around using their cell phones don't give them camera phones. It really is that simple.

While I am not convinced that every teenager needs a cell phone of their own, I am willing to concede that they may need a phone and certainly will want a phone. However, that phone does not need all the fancy gadgets like a camera attached to it. A simple cell phone, with a limited calling plan and no photo/video/MP3 player combination is needed. The increase in these types of pictures being distributed is a direct consequence of camera phones. Generally, most teenagers will not have someone else take pictures of them, to the photos are self-shot and easily distributed and redistributed. Take away the capability and you take away this aspect of the problem.

This is not to say that digital cameras and email won't be used, but that is another matter.

Do You Think The Law Will Be Amended?

Even though a Texas strip club permitted an 12 year old girl to strip and dance nude, the club's license can't be revoked. The ordinance does governing the club doesn't list that as a revocation offense.

Probably because no one would have thought of it.

What? Well At Least They are Asking to Search

But the fallout from this story will no doubt be a lawsuit saying that some people were intimidated into permitting the search.

D.C. police are going door-to-door Monday in one of the city's crime-plagued neighborhoods, asking residents for permission to search their homes for guns and other illegal contraband.

The program, called the Safe Homes Initiative, will offer homeowners and renters limited amnesty for possessing any contraband found by police.

The program is aimed at removing guns and drugs kept by children and young adults in their parents' homes. The homeowners will be asked to sign a form, consenting to the search.

Pretty flimsy excuse for the searches though and full-on Nanny Statism.

Detroit Democrat Mayor Faces Perjury

Unlike the AP, I put Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's name in the Headline. It took them five paragraphs:

Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was charged with perjury and other offenses Monday — and got a stern lecture about the importance of telling the truth — after a trove of raunchy text messages contradicted his sworn denials of an affair with his chief aide.

The 37-year-old "Hip-Hop Mayor" who brought youth and vitality to the job in this struggling city of 900,000 could get up to 15 years in prison for perjury alone and would be automatically expelled from office if convicted.

Ignoring mounting demands that he step down, Kilpatrick said: "I look forward to complete exoneration once all the facts have been brought forth. I will remain focused on moving this city forward."

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy brought charges of perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and misconduct against the popular but polarizing mayor. In announcing the charges, she delivered something of a civics lesson on the importance of telling the truth under oath.

"Some have suggested that the issues in this case are personal or private," said Worthy, a Democrat like the mayor. "Our investigation has clearly shown that public dollars were used, people's lives were ruined, the justice system severely mocked and the public trust trampled on."

Eventually your affair is going to be found out, why deny it under oath. Deny in the press if you like, but lying under oath is worse than the affair. You can bounce back from an affair, you can't bounce back from a perjury conviction.

New York Gov. Used Cocaine

Does any one vet their candidates first anymore? New York Gov. Paterson admits past cocaine use. While he does not appear to be snorting anymore, weren't these questions asked.

What do you think of the pre-revelation damage control out of Albany these days?

They say the government we have is the government we deserve. While past drug use doesn't really bother me that much, it does make me wonder what the heck we have done to ourselves.

Teachers Get Into Fight

With each, in front of their students. Nice, real nice. No word on whether they are still employed, but probably are.

Spitzer May Have Used Campaign Funds for Trysts

From the New York Times:

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether Gov. Eliot Spitzer used campaign funds in connection with his meetings with prostitutes, including payments for hotels or ground transportation, three people with knowledge of the investigation said.

Prosecutors have asked the governor’s lawyers about the travel arrangements for three trips, including his Feb. 13 rendezvous with a prostitute at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. The United States attorney’s office in Manhattan has also asked about the governor’s use of car services during trips to Washington.

The governor’s lawyers have begun consulting with a campaign finance expert who has long worked for Mr. Spitzer’s political organization to see whether campaign money was spent on the trips, including some as recently as last month, a person briefed on the investigation said.

While this is probably illegal--I don't know which funds source was being used and I am not familiar enough with New York campaign finance law to offer an opinion but I find it unlikely that the Times would get that one completely wrong.

It is at least marginally better than using taxpayer funds to pay his prostitutes.

How Is This Permitted to Continue

Shocking is all I can say:

In a report on school violence released yesterday, the commission says schools are the "single most common" site of crimes against children, such as robbery and assault, including rampant sexual violence, some of it by teachers.

It says it has identified several disturbing games that pupils play in response to the violence.

One cited in the report is a game played by seven-year-old children called "rape me, rape me", in which they pretended to sexually assault each other.

"This game demonstrates the extent and level ... brutalisation of the youth has reached, and how endemic sexual violence has become in South Africa," it says.

A fifth of all sexual assaults on young people occur at school. A survey of 1227 female students who were victims of sexual assault found nearly 9 per cent of them were attacked by teachers, the report says.

"An area of serious concern was that of an educator accused of sexual assault or rape, who remained teaching the alleged victim, pending disciplinary measures taken," it says.

Britain's The Guardian newspaper reported the commission also found some boys had committed what they called "corrective rape" on lesbians, justifying the assault by claiming it would make the victims heterosexual.

"There is a growing phenomenon of corrective rape. This refers to an instance where a male learner rapes a lesbian female learner in the belief that after such a sexual attack, the learner will no longer be lesbian," the report says.

The Guardian cited a separate study by the Thohoyandou Victim Empowerment Program that found a quarter of secondary school students thought forced sexual intercourse did not necessarily constitute rape.

Bullying goes on in schools all over the world, but this is just shameful. There are lots of heads that need to roll and more than a few prosecutions that need to happen.

Hat Tip: Besty Newmark.

NRCC Former Treasurer May Have Embezzled $1 Million

The Washington Post is reporting that the National Republican Congressional Committee may have been the victim of the largest political embezzling case in history.

The former treasurer for the National Republican Congressional Committee diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and possibly as much as $1 million -- of the organization's funds into his personal accounts, GOP officials said yesterday, describing an alleged scheme that could become one of the largest political frauds in recent history.

For at least four years, Christopher J. Ward, who is under investigation by the FBI, allegedly used wire transfers to funnel money out of NRCC coffers and into other political committee accounts he controlled as treasurer, NRCC leaders and lawyers said in their first public statement since they turned the matter over to the FBI six weeks ago.

"The evidence we have today indicated we have been deceived and betrayed for a number of years by a highly respected and trusted individual," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the NRCC chairman.

The committee also announced that it has submitted to banks five years' worth of audits and financial documents allegedly faked by Ward, some of which were used to secure multimillion-dollar loans. It is a violation of federal laws to obtain loans through false statements; the crime is punishable by up to $1 million in fines and 30 years in prison.

On Feb. 1, the NRCC announced it had found some irregularities that might involve fraud, fired Ward and called in federal investigators. So how does something like that happen, the same way other cases have, opportunity.

Robert K. Kelner, a lawyer with Covington & Burling, which has been hired to oversee an internal forensic audit, told reporters he is certain only that Ward had made "several hundred thousand dollars" in unauthorized money transfers since 2004. However, he said, the year-end report filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2006 overstated the NRCC's cash on hand by $990,000.

That may be the upper level of what Ward allegedly skimmed from NRCC coffers, Kelner said. But the total will not be known until forensic auditors finish "drilling down" to determine how much money might have been misappropriated and how much may be missing as a result of sloppy bookkeeping, he said.

Kelner said Ward was the only NRCC official empowered to use wire transfers to shift money into any account without a second approval. After transferring the money into accounts he controlled, often for dormant fundraising committees associated with the NRCC, Ward allegedly moved it into accounts for his political consulting business or his personal bank accounts, Kelner said. (emphasis added)

Embezzlement is a crime of trust and opportunity. I have personally worked on one such case involving embezzlement of PAC funds and I can tell you for a fact that the lack of accounting protections directly lead to the embezzlment in that case and the offender was not all that creative. In this case, Ward was trusted to do something important without any sort of protection. When ever one person is involved with money and there is no control, back up or secondary authority, sooner or later the temptation will come up.

The triggering event is not necessarily greed. It could be some personal financial stresser, like unexpected bills or something similar. Then it is tried once and often not caught. The embezzlement continues and eventually the person gets caught. You don't read, in this day, of many people getting away with embezzlement very often. There are simply too many records.

As I said before, cases like this are just so easy to prevent. Don't allow any one person to make wire transfers without a secondary authority. How hard would that have been? Really?

At Least Spitzer Did It One At A Time

At least as far as we know. But the Tehran Police Chief likes his prostitutes in teh half dozen count.

Will Spitzer Be Prosecuted By His Own Law?

From the New York Times:

As New York’s attorney general, Eliot Spitzer had broken up prostitution rings before, but this 2004 case took on a special urgency for him. Prosecuting an international sex tourism business based in Queens, he listened to the entreaties of women’s advocates long frustrated by state laws that fell short of dealing with a sex trade expanding rapidly across borders.

And with his typical zeal, he embraced their push for new legislation, including a novel idea at its heart: Go after the men who seek out prostitutes.

It was a question of supply and demand, they all agreed. And one effective way to suppress the demand was to raise the penalties for patronizing a prostitute. In his first months as governor last year, Mr. Spitzer signed the bill into law.

Now the human rights groups, which credit him with what they call the toughest and most comprehensive anti-sex-trade law in the nation, are in shock. Mr. Spitzer stands accused of being one of the very men his law was designed to catch and punish.

The Irony, the Irony, The IRONY!!!

$8,000 A Year on Escorts

As the Eliot Spitzer implosion continues, the New York Post is reporting that the wayward Gov spent $80,000 over ten years on escorts which begs the question, what was Mrs. Spitzer thinking?

First, had I done something as stupid as Spitzer, my wife made absolutly clear that not only would she not stand next to me, I would probably be lucky if I wasn't hearing from a divorce lawyer within 24 hours that only because she hadn't found a good one. The fact that otherwise smart women like Silda Wall Spitzer would even appear in public while their husband disclosed his infidelity still boggles my mind. It is one thing (a bad thing) but one thing to have an affair, but to have spent $80,000 on escorts or prostitutes is a whole other thing. Yes, the Spitzers can afford the money, but appearing on stage suggests that Silda Wall Spitzer either a) supports her husband (an unlikely scenario) or b) has no existence outside her husband (also unlikely) or c) has a need for people to see her pain. The latter of which makes her as self-centered as him.

Second, how does an intelligent woman not notice $8,000 a year, on average, missing from their accounts. The Spitzers have much more money than I do, but still that is an awful lot of money not to account for. But apparently Eliot Spitzer was moving money around to avoid other matters so hiding $80,000 from his wife was probably a lot easier than hiding it from the government.

Third and finally, how does a smart woman like Silda Wall Spitzer fall for a guy like Eliot Spitzer and stay with him. I can see the former part, most politicians, even before they are politicians, are charming and engaging. But over time, his ambition and ego must have hit home like a sledgehammer, so why did she stay.

The comparisons to Hillary Clinton and dozens of other political wives will no doubt come up. But we still have the question of why Silda Wall Spitzer stood before the cameras.

Maggie Gallagher, writing at Townhall.com had this to say:

I don't have a lot of hope for the public morality. I don't suspect this is the last time a man entrusted with high office will descend into a sex scandal, or even break the law (as Eliot Spitzer did) to get what he wants. (And in his former role as the "Sheriff of Wall Street" -- i.e., a white-collar crime specialist -- Gov. Spitzer was unusually well-versed in the laws that he was breaking: laws against prostitution, against transporting a prostitute across state lines, against "structuring" or moving money to avoid federal reporting requirements, to name just three.)

But can we at least end this barbaric practice of dragging your wife before the cameras while you confess your shameful guilt? If she wasn't there in the hotel room when you did your crime, don't ask her to do your time.

The practice began relatively innocently as something an accused man might do when he denied the allegations . A man's wife at his side showed that she, at least, believed the guy when he said he did not do it.

It was former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, I believe, who began the modern practice (Can we ban it along with waterboarding?) of parading the little wife before the cameras to hold your hand as you confess your guilt. The goal is to get the shell-shocked wife to demonstrate to the public that the offense is forgiveable. If his wife forgives him, how mad can you be?

But the practice requires a man to turn the best instinct of his wife -- to unite behind the family in crisis -- into an instrument of her own public humiliation.

And another thing: Can we end the public practice of trying to shame these wives into divorcing their husbands?

There's a reason we feel impelled to do this these days. Adultery has been redefined as a "private matter," as Spitzer put it in his vain, Clintonian attempt to redirect attention from his crimes to his sin. Because we no longer have any public punishments for adultery, we have turned wives into instruments of the public morality: If she doesn't punish him by divorcing him, he will go unpunished, which is intolerable. (Without some punishment, won't all husbands stray?)

I'm tired of this transference of the sins of the husband onto the wife. Leave the wives alone. Let's forget about standing by the man, but can't we at least agree to stand by the woman?

If Spitzer loves his wife (and I have no reason to suspect he doesn't) why then put your wife through this humilating experience. As I said, it is one thing to cheat on your wife, and a vastly more heinous matter to publicly humiliate her as you public confess your guilt for cheating on her.

This Is Probably Not the Picutre in the Spitzer Household Today

Unless of course, her hands are moving to his throat.

Spitzer Caught on Federal Wiretap in Prostitution Investigation

I joke that Attorney General (abbreviated AG) really meant "aspiring governor" and in teh case of New York's Eliot Spitzer, it was literally true. But as news and information related to Spitzer's idenfication as a client in a wiretap for a prostitution investigation comes to light, Spitzer's term as governor is now limited to the number of days left in his term, if he isn't indicted and resigns firts.

The former top law enforcement official for the state of New York, is looking at the wrong side of the law now.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer, accused in news reports of being involved in a prostitution ring, apologized to his family and the public on Monday at a hastily called news conference. He did not elaborate on the story.

With his wife at his side, Spitzer told reporters that he "acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family."

"I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself," he said. "I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family."

The New York Times reported earlier in the day that Spitzer told senior administration officials that he was linked to a prostitiution ring. The report cited an anonymous administration official.

While he may regain the trust of his family again, the voters of New York are certainly sizing up candidates to replace him and rightfully so. His administration has not exactly been an exemplar of the crusading Attorney General that created his victory.

Spitzer, 48, built his political reputation on rooting out corruption, including several headline-making battles with Wall Street while serving as attorney general. He stormed into the governor's office in 2006 with a historic share of the vote, vowing to continue his no- nonsense approach to fixing one of the nation's worst governments.

Time magazine had named him "Crusader of the Year" when he was attorney general and the tabloids proclaimed him "Eliot Ness."

But his stint as governor has been marred by several problems, including an unpopular plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and a plot by his aides to smear Spitzer's main Republican nemesis.

Spitzer had been expected to testify to the state Public Integrity Commission he had created to answer for his role in the scandal, in which his aides were accused of misusing state police to compile travel records to embarrass Senate Republican leader Joseph Bruno.

Spitzer had served two terms as attorney general where he pursued criminal and civil cases and cracked down on misconduct and conflicts of interests on Wall Street and in corporate America. He had previously been a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, handling organized crime and white-collar crime cases.

His cases as state attorney general included a few criminal prosecutions of prostitution rings and into tourism involving prostitutes.

In 2004, he was part of an investigation of an escort service in New York City that resulted in the arrest of 18 people on charges of promoting prostitution and related charges.

Oh, the irony of it all.

Update: Missed this one, Spitzer may resign tonight.

Lawrence Lessig on Political Corruption

Lessig talks about money and politics.

NRO: Tell me more about your plan to remove money from politics.

Lessig: I wouldn’t call it a plan to remove money from politics. The idea is to really get us back to an earlier place, but the strategy would be that members or candidates would make a pledge. And the pledge would have three components. One, you’re not going to take lobbyist or PAC money, whether it’s PAC money from corporations or PAC money from unions. Number two, you’re going to vote to abolish earmarks. Hard to do to figure out exactly how you’d structure such a proposal, but that’s the commitment — you want the economy of earmarks to disappear. Three, you would support public financing of campaigns. And that’s very vague because I don’t think we actually know right now what would work best or how to do it.

Of his three pronged approach, I don't really like proposal 1 since PAC money is "clean" in that it is well known and documented as to who is giving the money. If a candidate wants to forgoe the money though, that is his or her choice and it is not without precedent. I really don't like option three at all. I can't conceive of any formulation of public financing that would either be 1) affordable for taxpayers or 2) justifiable as a means of countering "corruption." Plus you have the added burden of subsidizing activity, which almost always makes it more expensive.

I would like to see candidates pledge to end earmarks, so in that respect I agree with Lessig. PAC money is open and other features of campaign finance are open and public. You can see, track and make some (not necessarily accurate) inferences about the influence of said funds. Earmarks are usually unseen, unaccounted for and largely unknown. That is their problem. I don't have a problem with appropriations that are included in the bill from the start, vetted in the normal legislative process and are claimed by a Member. But the insiduous earmark, the one added in a conference report, unclaimed by any Member really galls me.

Still, Lessig has been successful on his other endeavors and here's hoping he can get somewhere with earmark reform.