Today is such a day.

The Fresno Bee this morning starts us off with the unsensational headline,

Tattoo ‘hurts…it hurts a lot,’ boy says (Pablo Lopez, “Tattoo ‘hurts…it hurts a lot,’ boy says” (May 26, 2010) The Fresno Bee, A1.)

The story is of a boy who allegedly was forcibly held down and tattooed with a gang tattoo by his father, who is said to be a Bulldog gang member.  Most people to whom I’ve spoken agree — and the story indicates the defense attorneys are also arguing this — that the charge, which is aggravated mayhem, was intended to be used for defendants accused of permanently disfiguring someone, such as by cutting off an arm, ear, or by setting them on fire.

If convicted, the father and his “accomplice” in this crime are looking at life in prison.

That’s right.  Life.  For tattooing his son.

Under California law, tattooing a minor is a crime punishable as a misdemeanor, with a maximum of six months in jail, or a fine, or both.  (CA Pen. Code §653; CA Pen. Code §19.)

But that’s not good enough.  These guys are gang members.  GANG MEMBERS, I TELL YOU!

Sorry.  I was getting into the spirit of things.  When gang members are involved, after all, no punishment is serious enough.  Especially if, on top of being gang members, they happen to commit a crime.  Even a misdemeanor.

If it weren’t for the huge amount of human suffering involved, I’d be delighted to see the District Attorney’s office — and some segments of the public — screaming for yet another relatively trivial crime resulting in life in prison.  I’ve already written elsewhere about the impact this has on our budgets.

The Fresno Bee provides some insight into that problem, too, on page 3:

Pot clinic owner in jail tug-of-war (Paula Lloyd, “Pot clinic owner in jail tug-of-war” (May 26, 2010) A3.

Robert Morse, the owner of a Tower District medical-marijuana clinic, has been sent back to jail yet again by Judge Franson, who appears to be primarily angered over the lack of respect shown his court by Morse.  Morse has repeatedly ignored the judge’s orders.  Now it’s the Sheriff’s turn.

Sheriff Mims, claiming to be acting under a federal mandate, keeps releasing Morse due to jail overcrowding.  The judge keeps sending him back and telling the Sheriff to keep him there until a 15-day sentence handed down by the judge has been served.

Morse can’t be kept because we’re busy locking up “violent” gang members for misdemeanors.  Our prison system is also in a near-meltdown state because of the increasing numbers of people being sent there for what are really societally-disapproved behaviors which, frankly, should not be crimes.

There’s no word yet on whether Judge Franson will add Sheriff Mims to the list of prisoners he wants held for dissing him.

Tattoos are great for at least semi-permanently marking individuals for easy classification.  California hasn’t quite reached the point yet of demanding tattoos for criminals — frankly, they don’t have to, since criminals have been more than happy to tattoo themselves — but for that class of criminals attempting to keep a low profile, the State will have none of it.

The same Fresno Bee that brought me the above stories tells me about a California Assembly bill which will require certain sex offenders to wear Hawthorne’s Scarlet “A” — well, okay, maybe it’s not an “A”; it’s some “distinctive stripe or color,” possibly not even scarlet — on their driver’s licenses.  The stated goal is to make it easier for law enforcement to be “on alert when they stop and question people.”

It will also allow, of course, for anyone else — bartenders, waitresses, sales people checking ID against a credit card, etc. — to know that a sex offender is in their midst.  This will make them safer — the viewer, that is; not the sex offender, who can probably be expected to be subjected to further harassment.  But, hey, it’s a sex offender, right?  It’s not like we’re talking about a person we’d like to entice into acting like the human we don’t think he is!

The bill is backed by that most un-impassioned of California critters, the ones who increasingly structure how our criminal “justice” system works: the father of a 14-year-old girl who was raped and murdered.  Oh, and, that more despicable class of compassionate California critter, who only wants what’s best for California: our politicians.  It’s bipartisan, though (who doesn’t hate sex offenders?): sponsor Pedro Nava is a Democrat, while sponsor Paul Cook is Republican.

The bill is a missed opportunity, though, for solving all the problems discussed in this blog post in one feel swoop.  I’m almost afraid to say this:  So far, nobody has looked at the possibility of balancing the budget by releasing gang members from jails and prisons and providing them with small business loans to allow them to open tattoo parlors under the condition that they provide free forehead tattoos to California’s burgeoning sex offender population.

The sad thing is, the way things are going, some brain-dead “damn the rule of law, gotta support those victims!” politician is bound to latch onto something similar soon.

According to the story, she’s not satisfied with trashing her own department’s budget: she now wants to go after the budget for the rest of the county.

Perhaps the funniest line in the entire story, though, is the quote from Mims about the supervisors:

They overstepped their authority. (Brad Branan, “Mims plans to sue supervisors” (February 6, 2010) The Fresno Bee, A1, col. 4.)

Now there’s an example of the pot calling the kettle black!

The Big Battle

The Big Battle between Mims and the Supervisors is over her attempts to balance a budget, which she allowed to go wildly out of control, by cutting the number of deputies (while maintaining the same number of supervisory personnel) and shutting down large portions of the jail to do so.

A story not long ago in The Fresno Bee (which really should consider changing its name to The Fresno Police Gazette, since the majority of their stories are about law enforcement and crime) indicated that Mims was planning to close down one-half of the jail.  Today’s story notes that last month, in preparation for shutting down even more of the jail, she released 1000 inmates.

As a criminal defense attorney practicing primarily in Fresno County, I’m not opposed to this.  We jail way too many people as it is.  And when someone is accused of a crime, any money they don’t have to pay out for bail can be reserved for…well, me.  So “catch and release” unless and until guilt is proven is just fine by me.  Who knows?  It might even start people to thinking that there’s a difference between an accused person and a convicted person.

But I can’t help wondering as I watch the Mims-versus-the-rest-of-the-world saga unfold what the next election for Sheriff is going to look like!

Mims Embraces “Outsiders”

There’s yet another way Mims’ move demonstrates her propensity to shoot herself in the foot.  The County Board of Supervisors is attempting to enforce the priorities they thought they were funding and which most (although, again, not me!) Fresno County citizens would endorse.  So far, the very public budget fight has been between Mims (presumably a Fresnan) and the Supervisors (also presumably Fresnans).  Call it a “family disagreement.”  But no longer.  The Bee indicates that Mims’ decision to sue may be fueled by “outsiders.”

Fresnans don’t take kindly to “outsiders” becoming involved in Fresno’s affairs.

How serious am I about this?

A recent spate of Letters to the Editor had citizens of Fresno writing to complain about people living in Clovis who poke their noses into Fresno’s business when they don’t even live here!

Many people living in Clovis work in Fresno, shop in Fresno, eat in Fresno and drive in Fresno.  For those outside the Fresno area who may not know this — and those insular-minded Fresnans who have been writing to the Bee — Fresno is the cancerous mole growing on Clovis’ backside.  Or maybe it’s the other way around.

The point is that they’re so closely intertwined that you can’t really tell them apart without a map.  Heck, on maps that don’t clearly outline the boundaries, you can’t tell even then!

Clovis is within Fresno County.  (And the Sheriff’s Department is a county agency.)  And many people living in Clovis, as I already pointed out, have significant ties to Fresno.

So if Fresnans are this upset about Clovisites poking into their business, imagine how they must feel about this additional factoid from the story in the Bee:  The meddling outsiders who apparently helped Mims’ find her balls and encouraged her to sue the Board of Supervisors are other Sheriffs she met while attending a conference over at the coast!

When asked, Mims herself refuses to comment on whether Sheriffs from other counties encouraged her to sue.  As a law enforcement officer well-trained in convincing arrested people to confess because “if you’re not guilty, you shouldn’t have anything to hide,” she knows better than to talk.  Not so the snivel law attorney who intends to defend her:

Other sheriffs are very concerned about what’s happening here.  (Brad Branan, “Mims plans to sue supervisors” (February 6, 2010) The Fresno Bee, A12, col. 5.)

Incidentally, that attorney?  Another outsider! The attorney who will spend the county’s money to defend Mims’ asinine lawsuit is Martin J. Mayer of Fullerton.  (Who even knows where Fullerton is?  I guess Fresno County’s Board will find out when they start sending Fresno’s money there!)

Statewide Posse to Teach Fresno Supervisors — and Us — Respect?

I can understand the law enforcement officers from other counties being concerned about this, though.  After all, if Fresno County insists on some accountability from the Sheriff for the money they give to her — essentially refusing to give her a pot o’ cash to spend as she pleases — then the elected supervisors of their counties might get uppity.  They’ll start wanting some civilian oversight over how law enforcement works.  The next thing you know, ordinary citizens might start thinking that law enforcement does not have absolute authority over the rest of us.   Then what happens to our police state?

As Sheriff Arpaio continues trying to demonstrate: law enforcement has to keep a tight rein on judges, court personnel, supervisors and other obnoxious citizens.

Clearly now is no time for Mims to say to herself, “I’ve already trashed one multi-million-dollar budget, resulting in a decreased ability to deliver necessary services.  Maybe I should stop before I further bankrupt the county.”

We must learn.  She will teach us:  “You will respect mah authoritay!”

This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.   (Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933, as published in Samuel Rosenman, ed., The Public Papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Volume Two: The Year of Crisis, 1933 (New York: Random House, 1938), 11–16.)

Yeah, so?

Today’s Fresno Bee carried a story about the Fresno mayor meeting with police officers, bypassing their union, apparently to discuss how the city might deal with upcoming budgetary shortfalls.  Fresno “is facing a $28 million general fund budget deficit over the next 18 months.”  (George Hostetter, “Fresno mayor meets with police on budget” (January 28, 2010) A3, col. 4.)  The Bee notes that “[a]bout 70% of the general fund goes to police and fire protection, and most of that goes to police.”  (Ibid.)

I’m not at all surprised.  Last night, leaving my office after dark, I had no problem seeing where I was going.  Red and blue lights lit up Van Ness Avenue near my office as the police pulled someone over in front of Club One.  Perhaps a mile away, as I prepared to enter the freeway, two more police vehicles lit up the freeway.  I was no close enough to see what poor citizen had screwed up so badly as to require two vehicles.

Now I don’t know what the number of law enforcement officers in the Fresno area is at any given time.  I do know that I can’t drive from my office to my home without spotting at least two or three law-enforcement-owned vehicles.  (One Sheriff’s vehicle is inexplicably parked less than a mile from my house as some kind of monument.  At least I think it’s a monument; seems that no matter when I pass, it’s always sitting out front of one of the houses in my neighborhood — the same house.)  I also know that on more than one occasion, I’ve been at a restaurant, or walking down the street, and I see the police stop a pedestrian (or a bicyclist) for what appears to be no reason in particular.  (For some reason, I see quite a few stopped bicyclists — and they’re usually African-American — I suspect Fresno and Clovis have laws against BWB (Bicycling While Black).)  If I’m on foot (as I often am downtown), or in the restaurant, I will move to where I can watch and try to listen.  Such heinous criminals are being apprehended that not infrequently one of the officers — there are often between 3 and 5 or more present — will leave the scene, cross the street and ask if there’s a reason I’m standing there.

But I can’t blame the Fresno Police Department for being nervous about people watching them.

All this tells me at least two things, but primarily it tells me we have too many law enforcement officers.  These guys are armed to the teeth and, apparently, they’re definitely not afraid to use their weapons.

Despite this, however, we are of late barraged with Fresno Bee stories telling us of the horrors to come because of cuts within the law enforcement ranks due to budgetary issues.  The story mentioned above was more of the same, complete with the moaning and whining of the president of the Fresno Police Officers Association, who doesn’t like the mayor talking to police officers, presumably because she might ask them to help us deal with the budgetary shortfall in some way that requires them to sacrifice like the rest of us.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  There are bad people out there.  And I’m not just talking about police officers.  So it’s not that we don’t need a police force of some kind.  But power is a corrupting influence.  Of late, we seem to have a surfeit of officers — both corrupt and not-yet-corrupt — patrolling our city like it was some kind of open-air prison, stopping citizens for no good reason other than that the officers apparently don’t have enough to do.  Except when they’re off arresting their wives for scratching their jointly-owned cars.

We don’t need to fear the loss of a few officers.  We probably don’t even need to fear the loss of another hundred officers.  In fact, if the Fresno Bee wasn’t repeatedly beating the drum of fear, we’d probably have nothing to fear at all.

In the end, I think that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert a state that has nearly gone bankrupt because of law enforcement, excessively-restrictive laws and overpaid correctional officers into a nice state in which to live, which can provide real services to its citizens, like education.  Retreating from over-criminalization and the conversion of our state into the giant open-air prison law enforcement wishes it to be is the only real way for this state to advance the quality of life for all citizens.

At any rate, this morning I awoke just before 5, finding that an article I’d been thinking of writing since the day before had fallen perfectly into place: I was ready to write.  I titled the article “Yellow Journalism: The Minority Reports.”

The reason for the title will, I suspect, be evident to those who read it; those who don’t read it, probably won’t care anyway.  (Actually, if you don’t care about that, you won’t care much about the rest of this note, either.  )

Now, mind you, that article was written before I had a chance to see today’s Fresno Bee.  So you can imagine how I felt later in the morning when I opened the Bee to pages B4 and — rats, I threw out the other section of the paper already.

Well, on page B4, The Fresno Police-Gazette — um, er, uh…I mean The Fresno Bee — simultaneously seems to want to chastise Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims and pat itself on the back for a really crappy what they think is a good piece of “journalism.”  In an editorial titled “Mims’ tactics not working,” they complain that Mims’ attempts to extort more money — and those of us with brains think it looks very much like an extortion attempt — from the Board of Supervisors is putting the public at increased risk of being victimized by crime.  They know this because their own analytical reportage has demonstrated that one out of every five people who were released from jail early during a particular period apparently committed new crimes.

As I covered in more detail in my “Yellow Journalism” article, there’s more to it than just that.  However, as I also pointed out in that article, the wrong-headed policies pushed by the “tough on crime” crowd, which apparently has a mouthpiece on this issue in the Bee, mean increased unnecessary costs.

Here’s where the irony creeps in: when I wrote my article, I pulled in, as another “minority report,” the fact that elsewhere in yesterday’s Bee was a story about domestic violence shelters being forced to close due to lack of funds; funds which I suggested were being spent to keep too many people in jail unnecessarily.

And what do I see in today’s Bee?  An editorial complaining about the domestic violence shelters being forced to close down is right next to the editorial complaining that Mims should be keeping people in jail longer, even though 80% of those people probably will not commit any new crimes.

Like the rest of California, The Fresno Bee has lost its mind: It wants to have its cake — sans nail file — and eat it, too.  Like the rest of California, The Fresno Bee apparently believes that jails, guards and domestic violence shelters grow on trees, with no need even to water the trees.

It’s a case of irony, irony everywhere…and not a brain to think.

Truth is, this lack of understanding helps make the world nastier.  And not just for the targets of the wrath of these Law & Order types.

People Are Not All Created Equal

Contrary to the lofty ideals of our all-but-forgotten Declaration of Independence, neither all men nor all women are created equal. The reality of life is that people come with differing abilities, world-views and socio-economic support systems that may help or hinder them as they navigate their lives.  This is true in terms of biology. It is true in terms of one’s social environment. And, not surprisingly, the two “forces” interact.

All people are created with equal in terms of having equally unalienable Rights.  “Among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  So our Founders believed.

What Does “Equal” Mean Anyway?

The modern meaning of the word “equal” really is warped, though, compared with that of the Founders.  In some ways, that’s a good thing; in others it’s not only bad, but undermines the noble recognition of equality to which even we today theoretically aspire.

Colonial American interpretations of “equal” clearly had their bad aspects.  At the most extreme, they clearly (and shamefully) did not consider African-Americans — whether forcibly dragged to our shores and enslaved, or “freeman” — to be equal.  Of course, there was also the problem of women’s rights, or the lack thereof.

On the other hand, the early American idea of “equal” carried with it an idea that today would probably be considered — it we still used this term — “seditious.”  These early Americans felt that the fact that they stood on equal footing with others meant that others did not have authority to tell them how to live their lives.  This idea of “liberty” touted by Locke was the understanding of equality which would underpin the American constitutional thought.

Modern View Runs Roughshod Over Individual Rights

Ironically, the modern view of “equal” runs roughshod over individual rights and has more in common with the classical republicanism which in colonial times competed with Lockean liberalism.  However, as Bonwick noted,

In retrospect it is evident that Lockean liberalism and capitalist individualism became the dominant political economy of the following century, yet they failed to destroy their rivals during the formative years of the American Revolution; in particular the theological moral order remained influential as a means of regulating private and public behavior, as did the more clearly secular principles of classical republicanism. (Bonwick, The American Revolution (1991) p.55.)

This religiously-driven view of equality couples with the concomitant lack of knowledge amongst the general populace with regards to biologically- and sociologically-driven differences in capabilities (not to mention economics!) and causes us to mistakenly adopt “one-size-fits-all” understandings of individual rights and responsibilities.  People become fungible; interchangeable because everyone is identical.

Moreover, they’re all like “us.”

Unfortunately, for many of “us,” “they’re all like ‘us’” means “they’re all like ‘me.’”  Whatever standard I hold myself to, that’s the standard everyone without exception is both capable of achieving and must be held accountable for. Among other things, this kind of thinking gives us really stupid rules like “zero tolerance for [fill in your favorite, or least favorite, vice here].”

But more importantly (and more banally) it leads us to not think things through.  Failing to understand that others aren’t socio-economically similar to “us,” we make two mistakes.  First, we fail to recognize the forces that drive people to do things we’d never do (e.g., drive without a license).  Second, we forget that if “we” did suffer some punishment for doing what we should not do, we could handle it, but not everyone could.  Some people’s lives are made worse and they get stuck in a downward spiral from which they simply cannot break free.  Any attempts to break free — by getting a job and driving to work even though you can barely afford the gas, let alone licensing and insurance fees — drags them further down if they get caught.

And let’s be clear about what this really means: their rights are impaired because of the fear that maybe, possibly, someone else’s rights might be impaired if one of these unlicensed, uninsured motorists cause an accident.

The Failure to Recognize and Accommodate for Differences is Unfair and Hypocritical

The failure to see people as our Founders saw them — as individuals entitled to live out their lives within the limited strictures promulgated by a limited government — is both unfair and hypocritical.  It is unfair because it strips people of property and liberty without taking into account their capabilities (or lack thereof).  It is hypocritical because when the tables are turned, we all judge ourselves by a different standard.

No doubt this is why Jesus himself allegedly taught that we should “Stop judging, so that you won’t be judged.”  (Matthew 7:1, The [Christian] Bible, International Standard Version; other translations, plus explanation of the meaning of the verse available here as well.)

I do not for a moment doubt that the same people writing the Letters to the Editor which inspired this blog article break traffic laws nearly every time they climb behind the wheel of their cars.  I know this because as an attorney who actually has read huge portions of the Vehicle Code and as an individual whose job requires a lot of driving, I see people break these laws every time I go out on the road.

There’s no other way to put this: the letter writers who complain about “implicitly giving support to the breaking of the law and a slap in the face to law enforcement and to law-abiding citizens,” or who think this is “the government going after those who choose to drive illegally, [and] it has nothing to do with their socioeconomic background” are, frankly, full of shit.  Lane changes without signalling, making right-turns from left-turn lanes, running stop lights — which I see at least one city bus doing each week — are not legal.  They are also far more dangerous than driving without a license or insurance.  I’ve seen drunk drivers driving more safely than some of “us” law-abiding citizens.  (Hell, I’ve seen drunk drivers driving more safely than some marked patrol cars!)

And if the government impounded cars for breaking the laws that these letter-writing law-abiding citizens break on a daily basis on the pre-text of taking unsafe lane-changing-turning-without-signaling-crossing-three-lanes-of-traffic-at-the-last-minute-refusing-to-allow-traffic-to-merge-safely drivers off the roads, I suspect there’d be a whole lot of squealing.

If We Want This Kind of Equality, Then Let’s Make It Truly Equal & Socialize Automobile Insurance

We, including these letter-writers, think nothing of the government taxing individuals to build roads.  Without roads, driving would be much more difficult and expensive.  Car repairs alone would help shrink the middle-class.  Ironically, while at best around two-thirds of Californians own cars, virtually all Californians pay taxes to support the building of roads, bridges and other infrastructure elements needed only by people who own cars.

Why do we think this is okay?  Because (as already noted) among other things, roads make driving easier and safer.  Safer roads with less cars breaking down result in less accidents, injuries and lower societal costs generally.

So why do we think taxing everyone to make car insurance available to everyone who wants it is not okay?  Because only poor people cannot afford insurance and we don’t care what happens to them.  We already tax the life out of them.  Poor people pay more taxes generally than rich people as a percentage of their income.

And now, letter-writing law-abiding (hahahaha) citizens see no problem with adding to the burden of the poor by charging them large impound fees when they get caught trying to survive, or selling their cars if they can’t pay these new taxes.

But here’s the problem with mistreating the poor, especially when what we’re punishing them for is being poor in the first place:  It makes the world a nastier place.

Frankly, there ought to be a law against it.