Tom Cavanagh and Restorative Justice

On January 27, 2013 By southwerkIn Editorial

Tom Cavanagh and Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice, Culture of Care in Schools, and Restorative Practices in Schools: Increased interest since Friday’s events

Interest in the work of restorative justice in schools has increased since the events of last Friday. Here is an outline of what I offer schools. Restorative Justice in Schools Educators and policymakers’ interest in Restorative Justice is growing as they learn that the results of zero tolerance policies are not working. In fact, the capacity of students and teachers to respond to wrongdoing and conflict in a nonviolent way is lacking. As a result, some schools have adopted restorative justice practices. However, these practices are generally used outside of the classroom. This training is unique in that it focuses on building the capacity of teachers and students to respond in a caring and peaceful way to wrongdoing and conflict in the classroom.

Restorative Justice, Culture of Care in Schools, and Restorative Practices in Schools: Increased interest since Friday’s events

I have taken an interest in the Restorative Justice movement. I am well aware that it is not a panacea for society’s problems in criminal justice but it seems to me like a useful tool for community maintenance and building.

Mr. Cavanagh provides a service that teaches schools how to use restorative justice. This is a very positive step. As he remarks above, the no-tolerance policies of the last few years have been disasters. I’m not going to mince words about no-tolerance. it removed judgment and intelligence in discipline to avoid controversy. It is the job of administrator in schools to deal with controversy. Tossing out thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of students, is a disaster for the country and for them.

The field of criminal justice is full of difficulties. It is full of controversy and ridiculous coverage by the media. We need new ways of thinking. It’s time.

James Pilant

From around the web –

From the web site, Restorative Justice Online:

What is restorative justice?

Restorative justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused or revealed by criminal behaviour. It is best accomplished through cooperative processes that include all stakeholders.

Practices and programs reflecting restorative purposes will respond to crime by:

identifying and taking steps to repair harm,
involving all stakeholders, and
transforming the traditional relationship between communities and their governments in responding to crime.

From the web site, Restorative Justice Online, there is a useful introductory tutorial on the subject.

From the web site, National Association of Youth Courts, we find a paper by Tracy M. Godwin. Here is an explanation of the paper’s purpose.

This paper provides a brief overview of restorative justice principles and addresses several key issues the focus group members identified that serve as a promising foundation from which teen courts can begin to move toward integrating more restorative justice-based practices within their programs. Key issues discussed include how youth courts can rethink the role of victims and the community within their programs, how youth courts can alter the way that their proceedings and practices are structured, and how youth courts can rethink and redefine sentencing options so that they are based on the restorative justice philosophy.

And finally, from the web site, And Yet It Moves:

And still the question remained… what exactly should I do about it? Obviously they lose the credit for the assignments, but what else? What is an appropriate punishment? This is where Restorative Justice provided an interesting and useful answer. My understanding of the process, limited to just my experience using it today, is that it centers around a series of questions that the transgressor tries to answer:

“What happened?”
“What were you thinking about at the time?”
“What have you thought about since?”
“Who has been affected by what you have done? In what way?”
“What do you think you need to do to make things right?

What I like about this approach is that it puts the work of figuring out the situation and facing its full complexity on the transgressor. Instead of the authority figure giving a lecture or handing down a punishment that the student endures, they are forced to grind through the whole thing themselves. Of course, as they work on it I can set the bar higher if an answer isn’t satisfactory, and I did have to do that several times today.

For example, one student started out equivocating on the very first question, “What happened?” And instead of getting into an argument about it, I just said, “Well, some of the evidence I have indicates that you’ve done more than just use the posted solutions for ideas or reference.” I put the results of my diff on the table and then I let him try again at answering the question. So this is not a way that people get off the hook for what they’ve done.

On January 26, 2013January 26, 2013 By southwerkIn business ethics, Opinion

I am a proponent of Restorative Justice. I have a friend in Ireland. I’m going to see how he feels about the subject. I have discovered that having a common language is no guarantee that you are saying the same things.
James Pilant

Human Rights in Ireland

diarmuid

We are pleased to welcome this guest post from Diarmuid Griffin, Lecturer in Law at NUI Galway. You can read more about Diarmuid on our Guest Contributors Page.

The National Commission on Restorative Justice published its final report in December 2009. The Commission, announced in March 2007, was set up to examine the wider application of restorative justice within the criminal justice system. The Commission was established following the report of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights which recommended the development of a restorative justice programme for adult offenders in the Irish criminal justice system.

Restorative justice programmes can already be seen in operation in Ireland for juvenile offenders through the Garda Diversion Programme or a court-referred Probation Service Conference and ad hoc programmes dealing with adult offenders in Nenagh and Tallaght. While there are various different models of restorative justice, the practice generally involves…

View original post 734 more words

The Ethics Sage Explains the Sandwich Generation

On January 26, 2013 By southwerkIn Editorial

The Ethics Sage Explains the Sandwich Generation

Sandwich Generation – Ethics Sage

In the early 1990’s very few had even heard of the term “sandwich generation.” Most thought it was connected to a sandwich eaten by children who were “latch key” kids. Instead, sandwich generation refers to those people who are sandwiched between aging parents who need care and/or help and their own children. It could be the parents have “boomerang” adult kids who come back home after school and/or unsuccessful attempts to get a job. At the same time, one’s parents need in-home care, 24/7 adult supervision or independent/assisted living.

The task is not easy to become elderly or a parent to your parent(s). After all, our society “says” adults should be able to take care of themselves. But, as more live well into their 80s and 90s and families are dispersed across the country, everyone is going to be involved somehow, some way, in elder care. If not today, then tomorrow.

Being a Sandwich Generationer – an elder/parent caregiver – is a new role on the stage of life for which no one can ever rehearse. Becoming a parent to an aging parent presents extraordinary challenges. The challenges to elders are just as daunting. To lose control of one’s life – even the little things – can be shocking and frustrating.

Members of the sandwich generation face difficulties in allocating time and money and often describe themselves as being pulled in two directions. Emotional difficulties, especially depression, and marriage conflicts are common problems for those in this situation.

Sandwich Generation – Ethics Sage

Steven Mintz, the Ethics Sage, as usual, presents a timely subject. One of the cruelties of the beltway obsession with cutting Social Security and Medicare is the lack of concern over the effect on millions of Americans. Not only do these government programs keep many out of poverty, they enable the children of the aged to better take care of their parents saving millions, and probably, billions of dollars the would have to fall on the various government agencies. Those programs spread the weight of aging more through society.

I have strong sympathy for those caught in the “sandwich.” The emotional and financial costs can be devastating. I tell my students that this stage of their lives will be a major test of their character.

James Pilant

From around the web –

From the web site, Another Boomer Blog:

It appears I am about to find out what it is like to be a part of the sandwich generation where one cares for a dependent elder while dealing with the younger generation as well. Mind you, it is not my elder relative, but the gently crumbling father of a good friend who is in need of tender care and direction. I hardly ever hear from my friend anymore since she’s so busy with work and parenting the prior generation. So next week I will run off to the transitional center and the elegant elder and I shall endeavor traveling to the eye doctor.

From the web site, The Sandwich Generation and Aging with Grace:

So, dear ones, I invite you to join me on this BLOGIN’-JOURNEY that explores what it means to be a participant in the Sandwich Generation. I hope I discover, and therefore help you discover, tips, information and humor to cope with the oncoming, currently happening or post-parent-now-what phase that happens in this process of ALL the Boomers aging – gracefully please – and what joys can be found from every moment, yes, every moment of the journey.

And finally, from the web site, The Voice of the Caregiver:

The “Sandwich Generation” was a term officially added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary in July 2006. What does it mean? It’s defined as a generation of people who care for their aging parents while supporting their own children. Today, according to the Pew Research Center, just over 1 out of every 8 Americans aged 40 to 60 is both raising a child and caring for a parent, in addition to between 7 to 10 million adults caring for their aging parents from a long distance. While serving as a caregiver to a loved one, of course it’s not only important to protect their health and well being, but also to protect your own.

Forensic Reform, A Critical Criminal Justice Issue

On January 24, 2013 By southwerkIn Opinion

Forensic Reform, A Critical Criminal Justice Issue

Forensic Reform: On the Agenda in the New Congress « Failed Evidence

I’ve written a number of times (here and here an here, for example) about the problems with forensic science laboratories in this country. Just in the last few months, we’ve seen scandals hit labs in Massachusetts, St. Paul, Minnesota, and in Mississippi. It seems that the parade might never end.

But today, news emerged that indicates that, just maybe, forensic reform might be on the national agenda.

The new Congress will, of course, be preoccupied with budget and fiscal matters, and also with the President’s efforts on gun control and an expected push for immigration reform. But Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has announced that he intends to put forensic reform onto the long list of issues he will examine. According to The BLT (the Blog of the Legal Times, which covers law and government in Washington), Leahy’s committee will be working on an ambitious agenda: immigration, national security and civil liberties issues (including the use of drones in both foreign and domestic contexts), and gun control policy, but that isn’t all. “The committee will also focus on promoting national standards and oversight for forensic labs and practitioners,” BLT says.

Forensic Reform: On the Agenda in the New Congress « Failed Evidence

It is time for national standards in the field of forensic science. We have had forensic labs across the country involved in serious scandals and forensic testimony in some jurisdictions more comic than useful.

“David A. Harris is Distinguished Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.” His blog, Failed Evidence, Why Law Enforcement Resists Science, is a continuing statement for a vital reform.

James Pilant

From around the web –

From the web site, Think Markets: (An article by Roger Koppl)

A front-page article in yesterday’s Washington Post underlines the importance of establishing a substantive defense right to expertise in the US.

The article says, “Justice Department officials have known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of potentially innocent people, but prosecutors failed to notify defendants or their attorneys even in many cases they knew were troubled.” The DoJ begin investigating in the 1990s “after reports that sloppy work by examiners at the FBI lab was producing unreliable forensic evidence in court trials.” As the Post article chronicles, the investigation was very narrowly drawn in spite of evidence that problems were likely more widespread. When problems were identified, the FBI gave notice to the relevant prosecutors, but not to defendants or their legal representatives. To judge by the sample the Post was able to track down, prosecutors notified defendants in only about half the cases. This is not the first case of slow or inadequate notification.

Oversight is a common prescription from those who recognize problems with the system. I have expressed my preference for a different approach, one that chooses checks and balances over hierarchy. The Post article points to a big problem with oversight. It quotes University of Virginia School of Law professor Brandon L. Garrett saying, “You can have cautious standards, but if no one is supervising their implementation, it’s predictable that analysts may cross the line.” Garrett favors oversight, and he seems to be calling for more of it in the quote.

From the web site, Wobbly Warrior’s Blog:

The FBI announced some time ago that their “bullet lead analysis,” in use for approximately four decades, was of no value. They sent letters informing the @2,500 involved prosecutorial entities. Those prosecutorial entities did nothing. Law enforcement nationwide was aware of the FBI’s admission, and did nothing. The American Bar Association was aware, and did nothing. Aware that no reasonable reaction to their announcement had transpired, despite their color-of-law mandates, the FBI took no further action; a second letter to the actual inmates involved would have cost next to nothing.

There are only carrots and no sticks for law enforcement, prosecutors and agencies responsible for their oversight to ignore forensic advances. Case law and legislated immunities allow all to put their personal career paths ahead of delivering justice, and the vast majority demonstrably choose to appear to have always been right in arrests and prosecutions, regardless of the harm done.

The worst case law immunities were born of Imbler v Pachtman and Van de Kamp v Goldstein. Both clearly establishes unequal justice; fines, suspension and/or disbarment are punishments unbefitting deliberately framing an innocent. And as light as those punishments are, the Bar rarely administers them. Recent USA Today articles addressed the rarity without noting that Congress needs to override civil immunities – they are unconstitutional, and they have killed. I refer to Imber v Pachtman as the Bicentennial Blight. It needs to be eradicated, its damage is bloody and incomprehensibly voluminous.

And finally, from the web site, The Truth About Forensic Science:

Senator Leahy’s forensic science reform bill appears to be short on specifics and long on template. Problems with forensic science are no doubt ‘low-hanging fruit’ for political purposes. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that the 2009 NAS report is in fact on Washington’s radar.

The Bill’s primary concern is with the following NAS report findings: problems with scientific validation of processes, and lack of uniform and unassailable standards regarding accreditation, certification, and testing procedures. Notably missing is perhaps the most discussed recommendation of the NAS report: the call to take forensic science laboratories out of the hands of law enforcement. Bias (intentional and otherwise) is likely at the heart of many if not all of the issues in forensic science. While there is no easy solution, this particular recommendation is no doubt the gorilla in the room that needs attention.

The ‘Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act of 2011’ seeks to establish an Office of Forensic Science and a Forensic Science Board. By the way, this Office is proposed to be within the Office of the Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Justice. This may be a naïve observation, but placement of the new Office within the AG’s office at least academically again ignores the NAS suggestion of separation from law enforcement. Apparently there needs to be no further discussion of this issue according to Leahy’s Bill.

The Ethics Sage Discusses Birthing Tourism

On January 22, 2013 By southwerkIn International

The Ethics Sage Discusses Birthing Tourism

The Ethics of ‘Birthing Tourism’ – Ethics Sage

Is it ethical to establish a “maternity hotel” in the United States to accommodate Chinese women who want to give birth to their children in the U.S. solely to reap the benefits for their child of U.S. citizenship? The question is real as “birthing tourism” in the U.S. has become the destination of choice. According to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution (ratified in 1868), anyone born in United States automatically becomes an American citizen and obtains access to public education, university loans, voting, and so on.

The Ethics of ‘Birthing Tourism’ – Ethics Sage

Steven Mintz has a good article on “birthing tourism,” the practice of visiting the United States to give birth to citizens. It’s a fascinating article and should a college student be accidentally peering at my site, an excellent topic for a paper.

James Pilant

From around the web –

From the web site, Omnitalk:

Once that child is 21, a petition can be filed to obtain legal U.S. residency for the parents. Another immigration loophole that no one had bothered to close.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics the mothers of 7,719 children born in the United States in 2010 reported that they lived overseas, an increase of almost 55 percent since 2000.

And this practice has become even more common in California, where there are now more than 40 maternity operations hosting around 1,000 foreign women in the Los Angeles area alone, according to the Bee.

From the web site, Canadian Immigration Rights:

The Harper government is considering changes to the citizenship rules to target so-called birth tourism — where a foreign national comes to Canada to give birth so the baby can get Canadian citizenship.

But critics say closing the loophole will deter bona fide immigrants and harm the economy in the long run.

“We don’t want to encourage birth tourism or passport babies, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told the CBC’s Power and Politics in an interview. “This is, in many cases, being used to exploit Canada’s generosity. The vast majority of legal immigrants are going to say this is taking Canada for granted.

“We need to send the message that Canadian citizenship isn’t just some kind of an access key to the Canadian welfare state by cynically misrepresenting yourself.… It’s about having an ongoing commitment and obligation to the country.”

Lance Armstrong, American Villain

On January 19, 2013 By southwerkIn White Collar Crime

Lance Armstrong, American Villain

Lance Armstrong’s Oprah interview: His threats and bullying are the real story. – Slate Magazine

Armstrong couldn’t deny all the lawsuits he had filed and all the times he’d accused people of lying. So he attributed these intimidation tactics to fear, a rough childhood, and his cancer. He had vilified witnesses who told the truth because he saw them “as a friend turning on you.” He had attacked any threat because when he was a kid, his family “felt like we had our backs against the wall.” And, tragically, “my diagnosis … turned me into a person” who was resolved to “win at all costs,” since cancer compels you to “do anything I have to do to survive. … And I took that attitude, that ruthless and relentless and win-at-all costs attitude, and I took it right into cycling.”

That seems to be the game plan Armstrong brought to this interview. Downplay your power over others. Deny issuing explicit orders to dope. Convert any such story into a matter of setting a poor example. Take responsibility for yourself, but suggest that others—those who claim you pressured them—must do the same. Recast your threats, retributions, and demands for silence as products of a hard life. Reduce your sins of coercion to a sin of deceit. When Winfrey asked Armstrong “what made you a bully,” he answered: “Just trying to perpetuate the story and hide the truth.”

That’s Armstrong’s message: Everything he did, no matter how domineering, menacing, or manipulative, was a desperate effort to protect a single lie. “I tried to control the narrative,” he says. And he’s still trying to control the narrative. Which is a good reason not to believe it.

Lance Armstrong’s Oprah interview: His threats and bullying are the real story. – Slate Magazine

Armstrong seemed to be exposing himself the most when he confessed to bullying Emma O’Reilly, the former massage therapist who tried to expose Armstrong’s doping in 2003. “We ran over her, we bullied her,” he said. But then when Oprah asked if he’d sued O’Reilly, he couldn’t remember even the basic details—who he’d sued, for example. His admissions stopped exactly at the point when it turned from a character trait to real adult, legal action, which caused actual measurable harm in another person’s life. Yes, sure, we agree with Lance Armstrong he was a bully. As team leader and megastar cyclist, he had far more power than the people around him, and he used it to make their lives miserable when they did things he didn’t like, especially exposing the cheating and lying that allowed him to build his own myth and stay on top. But bullying hardly covers it. More like, “he assaulted people with intent to absolutely destroy,” as a Twitter user named Brian G. Fay wrote to me last night.

Lance Armstrong was a bully, but that hardly covers it. – Slate Magazine

Yes, cycling is corrupt. If there is any one individual who made it impossible to compete without cheating, it’s Lance Armstrong.

I don’t think, people are getting the picture here of a long term criminal conspiracy to subvert a sport. Yet, that is exactly what was going here. Armstrong is the Bernie Madoff of cycling. He didn’t just cheat, he used such a wide variety of banned substances, the only way he could’ve broken the rules further was by riding a motorcycle, or putting in a double.

He didn’t just steal money. He stole our ideal of what a sports figure should be. He cheapened heroism, and made a world of high athleticism, cheap and tawdry.

His victims include those who deserved those medals, those endorsements, the keys to the city and the honorary degree. We’ll never know their names or respect their accomplishments because he stole their glory.

He’s a villain, and he deserves to be treated like one.

James Pilant

From around the web –

From the web site, Poems and Sundry Writings by Rebekka Roderick:

Just go away and shut up already. You have done more than enough damage. Just fuck off. Everybody is tired of your BS. Just go. We know you don’t mean what you say. We know you’re just a liar who kept lying right up until the entire house of cards was pulled down, torn up and set on fire. I know this because I was a similar person the last few years, lying to and cheating on and not appreciating the man that loved me unconditionally. I was not a tad bit remorseful, contrite or altruistic about it at all until the ultimate realization of all the pain I had caused him and the awareness that I had let go of somebody that I was important to, a once in a lifetime thing, hit me in the face.

From the web site, Live STRONG Blog:

We expect Lance to be completely truthful and forthcoming in his interview and with all of us in the cancer community. We expect we will have more to say at that time. Regardless, we are charting a strong, independent course forward that is focused on helping people overcome financial, emotional and physical challenges related to cancer. Inspired by the people with cancer whom we serve, we feel confident and optimistic about the Foundation’s future and welcome an end to speculation.”

From the web site, Growing Dogwood:

I never bought the fact that he was not using. Call me a skeptic if you must, but it never made sense that that these athletes could do what they did and then turn around and do more the next day – for three weeks. Sorry, I think they’re all using. With that said, what’s the problem? How different is the use of PED’s from say the actress that has plastic surgery to enhance her performance? I would never endorse or do either, but I guess I just don’t want success that badly. At the same time I am not in any position to judge anyone’s decision on what they do.

As far as I care what he did is still a great accomplishment. Like I said, everyone was cheating and he was clearly the best cheater. So hats off to Mr Armstrong on those seven yellow jerseys.

From the web site, [un]-conscious stream- [ing]:

Meaning that to look at the whole picture of a person is to see the truth about their material reality. Peter used the idea that behind closed doors, Hitler may well have been a ‘really nice guy’, when he was playing the piano and people were drinking tea and having dinner with the polite house painter. But the material reality of Hitler – the totality of his existence, the big, whole picture was that he sanctioned and ordered the ethnic and elitist ‘cleansing’ of Germany and the killing of over six million Jews.

Which led me to the thought that, if Lance does admit to the doping allegations, then no matter who interviews him, we have already seen the ‘real Armstrong’. The ‘real Armstrong’ is in the totality of his material reality, not in the soft, contrite and repentant man that we might see on a tv screen attempting to win back the favour of the public.

If the allegations are true, the ‘real Armstrong’ has already revealed his hand and shown his true colours: someone who is ruthless, prepared to systematically cheat his way to the top of a sport, push others out, lie repeatedly about it, bully his way through to rule the peloton and bully a number of journalists on the way as he churned out untruth after obfuscated distraction over and over again (I’ve heard many of the interviews over the years). Someone who has to be in control and on top and will stop at nothing to get there.

And finally, from the web site, Getting Back in Shape:

That pretty much sums up my feelings towards this whole confession. He sued dozens and dozens of people that said he was doping. Test after test proved without a doubt he was doping all those years. Eventually once the USADA took all his Tour De France wins away, banned him from the sport for life, and all his sponsors dropped him, did he finally admit his guilt. Really, what choice did he have? That is as rock bottom as one can get. Some might commit suicide, others might just live in a cave the rest of their life. He obviously is the type that wants to move on, and this was the only thing that could be done. If not, he would be treated horribly anytime he was seen in public, I’m sure of that. Disgraced is a good word I would use. But on the flip side, he did play a part in raising millions and millions for cancer research. And if so many other people are doping just like he was, it still shows his performance was superior to theirs. Coming back from being diagnosed and treated for cancer, that is very impressive.

Income Inequality and Hubris

On January 16, 2013 By southwerkIn Economic Justice

Income Inequality and Hubris

What They Really Think About Us | homophilosophicus

Surviving the post-apocalyptic landscape that Ireland has become in the wake of the Celtic Tiger is difficult enough for most people. The economic downturn and the past number of lean years and a governmental programme of austerity have exposed the serious divisions in Irish society. The years of plenty have spawned no small number of Tiger Cubs who feel no shame in flaunting their wealth and privilege in the faces of those who have been most affected by recession and hard times. As economic depression speeds the transfer of wealth from the working poor to the idle wealthy the mood of triumphalism in Ireland’s bourgeoisie reaches fever pitch. All the while the class war moves on from one middle class offensive to another: cheap ‘reality’ television shows depicting the fecklessness of the working classes, the publication of one ‘rich list’ after another, and the continual and propagandistic highlighting of social welfare fraud in the lowest economic brackets of Irish society. At no time since the Great Famine has the inequalities in this society been as acutely felt as they have these past few years. The poor have been despoiled of any platform from which to defend themselves as the attacks against them become ever more comprehensive and savage. Yet right in the heart of this darkness a red rag is waved before the bull. A young and wealthy woman was caught on video ranting and raving about the ‘losers’ who worked for minimum wage, and how she was ‘too rich’ for them.

What They Really Think About Us | homophilosophicus

Hubris is pride on a cosmic scale, and that is what we have here. I’ve heard this kind of thing myself. And, of course, here in the United States, we can see Honey Boo Boo on television, an American we can only understand through subtitles, a savage caricature of lower class Americans, who apparently doesn’t even realize she is being made sport of. I have heard those well off say the most amazing things about the unemployed, the poor and the homeless. They never seem to find it in their hearts to consider them fellow Americans but merely find them wanting in every regard.

But there is a just God, and there will be a reckoning in this world or the next.

James Pilant

From around the web –

From the web site, Inequalities:

On one level, the question of whether benefit cuts lead to higher income inequality is simple to answer. Poorer people are more likely to claim benefits, ergo cutting benefits has less effect on people with high incomes – and from the 2010 Emergency Budget to the 2012 Budget, there were £19bn of net cuts due by 2014-15.[1] Prof John Hills, the former chair of the National Equality Panel, calculates that £1000 of deficit reduction spread equally over all benefits and services will cut incomes of the poorest fifth by 12%, but less than 1% for the richest fifth.[2] In contrast, deficit reduction through equal rises across all taxes has roughly the same effect (a 3.5% reduction) on all.

However, the answer becomes more complex when we see the different ways that deficit reduction can be enacted. Both benefit cuts and tax rises can be particularly targeted on the poor or rich; the Coalition can point to greater means-testing of Child Benefit as a benefits cut that is not targeting poorer people. (This ignores the long-term political impacts of cutting universal benefits, (Baumberg, 2012)). David Cameron has therefore argued (back in March 2009) that “fiscal responsibility needs a social conscience, or it is not responsible at all.”

From the web site, Dinmerican:

One can begin to unpack Lim Ewe Ghee’s logic by questioning if the hard earned innovations that triumph in a market economy, by virtue of the wealth they generate, do in fact serve us better.

For one, there are a lot of things a free market economy would welcome that is profitable without necessarily improving society as a whole. Cigarettes are widely purchased and consumed without leading to improvements in anyone’s health or finance. Whatever virtues there may be of having, among other things, pornography, prostitution or firearms in the open market cannot be confirmed purely on the basis of their potentially high demand.

How and why such things can be said to “serve humanity” must take into consideration a host of other factors, above and beyond what market forces or individual whims suggest.

One can extend that line of thinking to even more basic goods. The genetic modification that now routinely goes into the manufacturing of our everyday meats and vegetables has all to do with the necessity of rapid production in a competitive profit driven food economy.

The motivation in such cases is not the happiness, well-being or health of others, but the size of the product and the speed and quantity of production. So by that logic, it does not matter that the meat we eat is injected with cancer causing chemicals so long as an edge is gained by the producer to triumph in a rapidly competitive market.

Aaron Swartz is Dead

On January 15, 2013 By southwerkIn Economic Justice

Aaron Swartz is Dead

Aaron Swartz suicide: Prosecutors have too much power to charge and intimidate people for their crimes. – Slate Magazine

The underlying point Boyd is making, I think, is that the government doesn’t understand hackers and isn’t good at distinguishing between miscreant vigilantes like Swartz who are trying to free information systems and profit-driven or diabolical hackers who are trying to bring down those systems. That’s when an expansive law like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act becomes dangerous. Prosecutors persuaded of their own righteousness, and woodenly equating downloading a deliberately unprotected database with stealing, lose all sense of proportion and bring in the heavy artillery when what’s in order is a far more mild penalty.

I’d like to tell you that the prosecutorial overreach that took place in Swartz’s case rarely happens. But that’s not true. There are many principled prosecutors who only bring charges they believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But there are also some who bring any charge they can think of to induce a defendant who may be guilty of a minor crime to plead guilty to a major one. These cases usually are hard to call attention to: They’re not about innocence, easy and pure. They’re about the muddier concept of proportionality. If any good at all can come from Swartz’s unspeakably sorrowful death, maybe it will be how this case makes prosecutors—and the rest of us—think about the space between guilt and innocence.

Aaron Swartz suicide: Prosecutors have too much power to charge and intimidate people for their crimes. – Slate Magazine

There are some real villains here. The federal prosecutor, Carmen M. Ortiz and, of course, MIT.

I’m disgusted by the government’s and MIT’s actions in the case. There is nothing that Swartz did that was worthy of a day in prison much less 35 years of prison time. MIT did everything they could to actively push the case while giving the public the impression that they weren’t. Nice try, but the simple fact is, that without MIT’s heavy cooperation, the government would have had great difficulty making a case at all.

A few days ago, the government decided not to prosecute HSBC, a bank, that laundered nine billion dollars of money for drug cartels but they were pursuing a case against a man who “stole” documents that should have been accessible to the public for free, a man who sought no monetary profit at all.

James Pilant

I find these remarks by Lawrence Lessig to be dead on point:

Here is where we need a better sense of justice, and shame. For the outrageousness in this story is not just Aaron. It is also the absurdity of the prosecutor’s behavior. From the beginning, the government worked as hard as it could to characterize what Aaron did in the most extreme and absurd way. The “property” Aaron had “stolen,” we were told, was worth “millions of dollars” — with the hint, and then the suggestion, that his aim must have been to profit from his crime. But anyone who says that there is money to be made in a stash of ACADEMIC ARTICLES is either an idiot or a liar. It was clear what this was not, yet our government continued to push as if it had caught the 9/11 terrorists red-handed.

Aaron had literally done nothing in his life “to make money.” He was fortunate Reddit turned out as it did, but from his work building the RSS standard, to his work architecting Creative Commons, to his work liberating public records, to his work building a free public library, to his work supporting Change Congress/FixCongressFirst/Rootstrikers, and then Demand Progress, Aaron was always and only working for (at least his conception of) the public good. He was brilliant, and funny. A kid genius. A soul, a conscience, the source of a question I have asked myself a million times: What would Aaron think? That person is gone today, driven to the edge by what a decent society would only call bullying. I get wrong. But I also get proportionality. And if you don’t get both, you don’t deserve to have the power of the United States government behind you.

For remember, we live in a world where the architects of the financial crisis regularly dine at the White House — and where even those brought to “justice” never even have to admit any wrongdoing, let alone be labeled “felons.”

From around the web –

From the web site, Shikhar Tech Labs:

This is the most shocking news for the Computer and Internet industries, a deafening blow for all those campaigners who demand internet freedom and for technology enthusiasts in general. Aaron Swartz is dead. Worst still is the fact that he has committed suicide. As the web mourns the demise of a computer prodigy whose body of work had very few parallels, the injustice done to him by the US prosecution and the MIT is very visible and very disheartening, and that’s putting it mildly.

Aaron was facing criminal charges for stealing more than 4 million articles from JSTOR, an online archive and journal distribution service. And if found guilty he faced 35 years in prison and a $1 million fine. But then he was also the face of the struggle against US laws of SOPA and PIPA as well as other government imposed sanctions that threatened to restrict internet freedom and which have been opposed by all major internet organizations including Google and Wikipedia.

A lot of people close to Aaron smelled foul play on the part of the US prosecution and the MIT because even JSTOR decided not to press charges against Aaron.

From the web site, Inundated, Things Matter Only When It Hits Hard:

The Guardian quoted the statement given by Aaron’s family, “Aaron’s death in not simply a personal tragedy. It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach.”

As Aaron said, ” Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves.” It is really painful to see someone brilliant – in fact, an enfant terrible going by what Aaron had done in a span of handful years – heeding to Plato’s injunction, “The punishment suffered by the wise who refuse to take part in Government, is to suffer under the Government of bad men”, ” making an attempt to change the modern powerful structures, go down.

RIP.

P.S : One of the talks by Swartz How to Get A Job Like Mine, basically his personal story, bookmarked in my folder some time back, is a real classic with “just the facts.”

From the web site, American Everyman:

As I wrote a while ago, the feds decided to push for internet censorship via their last best hope: the free markets.

Big telecom companies are coming up with their own means by which to wipe certain people with certain ideas off the “internets”. I guess it’s payback for all that retroactive immunity they got from the Bush and Obama administrations when they could have been sued out the ying yang for allowing the feds to spy on us.

On the same day Aaron supposedly took his own life, Torrentfreak released a Verizon document detailing their new 6 strikes and your out plan.

The idea is basically this: Verizon will tell it’s customers when someone files a claim against them for copyright infringement. Verizon will give their users “x” amount of warnings then reduce their internet speed to something like a dial-up connection which will basically take them off the web for all intents and purposes.

As Aaron pointed out in a lecture he gave a year or so ago, the use of the ubiquitous “copyright infringement” charge is a dangerous and sweeping tool to use to shut down certain people. Everything is copyrighted by someone out there and the laws governing how much of what one can use are mirky at best.

Verizon claims they will set up a review panel with the American Arbitration Association and if you pay them $35 bucks they will review your case and find in favor of Verizon.

I find it very odd that Aaron just happened to take his own life when Verizon was about to launch this new SOPA/PIPA program of theirs own their own customers. I also find it odd that he was going to try his hacking case in court which would have brought tons of negative publicity down on JSTOR, portraying them as the guardians of knowledge for the elites.

Geoff Burch and Frito-Lay

On January 14, 2013 By southwerkIn Opinion

Geoff Burch and Frito-Lay

Geoff Burch – American vs UK Business – funny because it’s true! – YouTube

This brief video is very funny and something of a compliment to the Frito-Lay company and its marketing practices. Of course, Geoff Burch is well known both in comedy and business circles for his wit and judgment,

James Pilant

From around the web –

From the web site, Make It Balance:

As part of the staff mentoring process that we undertake at Balance, Ashley has recently asked me to read a book called The Way of the Dog by Geoff Burch. The reason behind this was to try to help me to develop management skills and thinking, rather than just being a number cruncher!

When I started to read the book I was in for a bit of a shock…there were no technical management terms (as I would have expected), in fact the book was written as a story.

The story was about a double glazing salesman called Derek who wasn’t very good at his job. One day, Derek was magically transformed into a sheepdog! Derek almost instantly fell into a bad crowd of sheepdogs (in this new world it was every sheepdog for himself)!

From the web site, Lee Duncan, the Double Your Business Coach:

Even the best idea without enough follow-through will end in failure, but a poor idea with total commitment to follow-through will get good, or even great, results. Hence business success is so often 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.

This came back to my mind this evening while I watched “All Over The Shop”, the BBC2 programme featuring business coach Geoff Burch visiting retailers in a selected city (Bristol this time) to give them tips to improve their fortunes. Of the three shops I saw him visit, one of them did very little, even though the changes suggested were clearly going to improve his sales.

And finally, from the web site, Madalina Antohe, A Blog About Life As It Is:

I do not have a lot of favorite writers, but there are a few whom I just love. One of them is Geoff Burch. So far I’ve read 4 of his books and learnt something from each of them. But my ultimate favorite book written by him is The Way of the Dog. Let me explain.

First of all, you should know that GB’s style is a bit unusual to those used to reading self help and business books. Funny is a bit of an understatement. And describing him as a person thinking outside the box (such a cliché) is just a way of underestimating the power of his charm. Did I mention that he wanted to name this book Doing’ it Doggy Style?

Enough about the author who, by the way, is brilliant.

Police Firing – Who Decides?

On January 13, 2013 By southwerkIn Opinion

Police Firing – Who Decides?

Jason Silverstein: Should Citizens Have the Right to Fire a Police Officer?

Here are the facts. On September 22, 2011, Officer Richard Schoen stopped Jeanine Tracy, because she made a sudden lane change without the proper signals. She was handcuffed for disorderly conduct and driven to District Seven police station. During the ride, she cursed, spat at the car’s partition, and stomped on the backseat. When they arrived at the station, she did not get out. With his left hand, Schoen grabbed her shirt. With his right hand, he punched her repeatedly in the head. He grabbed her by the hair, dragged her out of the car, threw her on the ground, and struck her with his knee. These are the facts and we know they are facts, because there is video from the squad car’s dashboard camera.

Here’s what happened next. Schoen was fired on May 1, 2012, because he violated the department’s code of conduct. That code says a police officer must use the minimum force necessary to accomplish his or her purpose. But the story doesn’t end there. Schoen had been a police officer for nine years. He had a positive record, and only praise from superiors. Before he joined the MPD, he gave ten years of his life to military service. So, when he appealed the case to the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission, they held a two-day hearing. On December 3, the Commission reinstated him, deciding sixty days without pay was a better punishment.

Jason Silverstein: Should Citizens Have the Right to Fire a Police Officer?

Police Firing – Who Decides?

Briefly – The police department fired Schoen for excessive use of force. The Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission reinstated him with a three month suspension. Then after public protests, the Commission decided that firing was more appropriate. So, who decides?

I teach criminal justice courses, and this is a fascinating piece of writing and it is an interesting if painful situation. I don’t take any pleasure from watching police officers punch handcuffed individuals. And I do understand that being cussed at by a suspect who is stomping and spitting for five minutes is going to get on my last nerve.

Should the public have influence over hiring and firing decisions concerning police officers?

The situation here was complex but I find the amount of citizen action appropriate and the commission response appropriate. However, it is easy to see where there could be situations where police were more immune to public discontent or where public opinion was allowed to influence matters of professionalism. I’d like to see some more writing long these lines.

James Pilant

From around the web –

From the web site, JSOnline (Journal Sentinel Online):

In 2009, Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Sgt. Scott Krause punched a handcuffed suspect in the face in the back of a squad car. In 2011, Milwaukee police Officer Richard Schoen did the same thing. Both incidents were captured on squad car video.

Krause was fired, convicted of a felony and served 18 months in prison.

Schoen ended up with a 60-day suspension and no criminal charges.

Amid an outcry from elected officials and members of the public, the Fire and Police Commission will meet Tuesday to review its decision to overturn Chief Edward Flynn’s firing of Schoen. But civil rights advocates continue to question the decision by the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office not to charge him in an incident they say is strikingly similar to the earlier case against Krause.

There are a few obvious differences in the cases: Krause worked for the Sheriff’s Department and struck a white male. Schoen worked for the Police Department and struck a black female.

If Schoen had been convicted of felony misconduct in public office, as Krause was, the commission would not have had the discretion to reinstate him because people convicted of felonies cannot serve as law enforcement officers in Wisconsin.

From the web site, Urban Milwaukee:

We all recognize the difficult job with which Milwaukee police officers are tasked. The City of Milwaukee spends significant taxpayer resources on ensuring the department can deliver quality, professional services. When officers get it right, we must applaud them. When officers exercise the kind of brutal disregard for regulations and human well-being displayed by Officer Schoen, we must hold them accountable. This ensures the protection of our citizens’ most basic rights, as well as the ability of the rule-abiding, vast majority of police officers to ensure residents’ safety.

And finally, from the web site, JSOnline:

The digital video recorders installed in Milwaukee Police Department squad cars are experiencing “unacceptable” rates of failure and 136 will have to be replaced at a cost of up to $900,000.

As a result, the Common Council will consider a plan to spend that money from the city’s contingency fund to replace the devices purchased in 2006 and 2007.

The disclosure comes as videos from those devices have played a critical role in at least two recent cases involving allegations of police misconduct.

In one high-profile case, Derek Williams died in July 2011 after gasping for breath and begging for help for about eight minutes in the back of a Milwaukee police squad car. The incident was recorded on the car’s digital video recorder.

An inquest into Williams’ death will be held Feb. 11.

In another case, the Fire and Police Commission voted to fire Officer Richard Schoen this week after a squad-car video showed he punched a handcuffed woman in the face. The decision was a reversal of a decision to suspend the officer for 60 days.

That video shows Jeanine Tracy stomping her feet, spitting and cursing before Schoen punches her, drags her out of the car by the hair and strikes her in the stomach with his knee after she is on the floor of the police garage.

Pilant's Business Ethics Blog

Author: southwerk

Tom Cavanagh and Restorative Justice

Tom Cavanagh and Restorative Justice

What is restorative justice?

The Ethics Sage Explains the Sandwich Generation

Forensic Reform, A Critical Criminal Justice Issue

The Ethics Sage Discusses Birthing Tourism

Lance Armstrong, American Villain

Lance Armstrong, American Villain

Income Inequality and Hubris

Aaron Swartz is Dead

Geoff Burch and Frito-Lay

Police Firing – Who Decides?

Police Firing – Who Decides?

Police Firing – Who Decides?

Tom Cavanagh and Restorative Justice

What is restorative justice?

Related articles

Share this:

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Lance Armstrong, American Villain

I went online and had a look at the various opinions about Lance Armstrong. To my surprise, my first searches pulled comments on his behalf. And then worse, there were the “so-what” comments. “Everybody does it.” “The sport of cycling is corrupt.”

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Share this:

Police Firing – Who Decides?

Police Firing – Who Decides?

Related articles

Share this: