Saturday, September 26, 2020

The curious case of Breonna Taylor.

While much of the racial unrest ongoing in America can be traced back to racial bias and use of force by some white law enforcement officers (LEO), the Louisville Breonna Taylor case is of a different elk. Breonna’s case highlights the other bias in American law enforcement – the presumption of guilt.

While the rule of law dictates an individual accused of a crime is to be treated as if innocent until proven guilty. An individual suspected of a crime is not often afforded the same assumption. Race is not as much a factor. It’s applied across the board.

The most glaring evidence of this is a legal instrument called the ‘no-knock’ warrant.  While its existence is warranted in cases where first-person evidence is overwhelming, it is not something that should be widely allowed. However, judges tend to listen to experienced detectives and LEO more often than question them. For instance, each of the five (5) no-knock warrants Louisville detectives received that fateful night had identical language seeking to justify no-knock entry: 

"These drug traffickers have a history of attempting to destroy evidence, have cameras on the location that compromise Detectives once an approach to the dwelling is made, and have a history of fleeing from law enforcement."

While compelling on its face, the fact of the matter was that not one statement in this justification was true of the Taylor residence.  She had no drug history at all. She had no cameras. She was never arrested or pursued by police in her life - out alone have a history of flight.

To make matters worse, police admitted they thought she was alone. The principle subject in the investigation, who had previously been seen at Breonna’s apartment, was already in custody. So 'flight' was starkly inconsistent with facts. This, in and of itself, should have made the no-knock request suspect - if not outright denied - by a judge. 

Effectively, the detectives in this case lied to the judge. The judge rubber stamped the common language in the request. And those lies and actions meant the death of Breonna Taylor.

While the system failed Breonna Taylor – her death rests as much with the other occupant of the apartment: Kenneth Walker – Breonna’s boyfriend.  And the evidence from the scene is quite troubling to someone who was trained in weapons and engaging non-combatants. 

A key concern is that plain clothes detectives – with no body cameras - were serving the warrant and were the first into the apartment. Walker fired his handgun at the first detective through the door. 

Breonna’s body had ten (10) gunshot wounds. Walker had not a scratch.

These facts alone suggest to me that the officers (still assuming Breonna was alone) thought she was firing – but the fire was actually coming from behind her in a narrow hallway. I believe it is quite possible, even probable, that Walker, intentionally or not, used Breonna as a human shield. Walker then hit the floor as soon as he realized his mistake. But it was too late for Breonna.

This incident goes way beyond any racial or political division. This is the starkest example I have witnessed of what is wrong with the American system of justice, our current gun laws and our ethos as a country.

By the numbers – from the final toll to the decisions leading there:

  1. Walker had a handgun – legally. He was never trained or certified in its use. 
  2. Rather than employing SWAT trained personnel (that are trained to distinguish between unarmed bystanders and armed combatants) the police allowed plain clothes detectives to breach the scene.
  3. No cameras - by the resident or the LEO - were in use.
  4. The warrants issued were bogus. Details of the request were not only inaccurate; they may have been blatantly illegal in their lack of articulated facts with regard to Breonna Taylor. The Detective submitting the request is, in my estimation, responsible for all that followed.
  5. The judge needs reprimand – if not outright disbarment - over her lack of scrutiny and her acceptance of the same exact language as justification for five (5) different warrants. Each without specific cause of action for each location.  
  6. Detective’s assumption that Breonna Taylor was guilty (of ‘something’) – without any first-hand evidence – may be the leading indicator of racial bias in this tragedy.

All sides need to answer questions here. Would protesters be marching if Breonna were white? Would detectives seek a no-knock if she were white? Would Walker have fired his weapon if he were professionally trained? Would a SWAT team have reacted differently? What if there had been a different judge? 

Some questions are just that. Rhetorical. They are meant to cause concern. Promote change. They have no immediate answer.

However, unanswered, these questions can help reshape a justice system that is losing its foundation in the Rule of Law and the presumption of innocence. 

JWB

Update: Shortly after the incident, the Louisville Mayor moved to eliminate no-knock warrants, require all LEO to wear body cameras and approved a monetary settlement with Taylor’s family in the amount of twelve million dollars. Protests persist.


Tuesday, September 22, 2020

Ginsburg – Supreme Court Justice

Fiery & fair. Tough but prudent. The late Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933-2020) once said "Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication. Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable.”  

Such views made her: ”... a jurist who seeks to build cautiously on precedent rather than pushing the Constitution towards her own vision.” (Legal scholar Cass Sunstein).

This post is not an attempt to educate or pontificate on The Honorable Ms. Ginsburg, but more to call out the ‘unmeasured emotions’ of the latter day Republican Conservative movement.

In 2016, 269 days before the U.S. national election that would replace Barak Obama with Donald Trump, and 350 days before Trumps inauguration, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died.  He was considered by many as a stalwart conservative. 

The U.S. Senate, the congressional body charged with ratifying the President’s Supreme Court nominee, refused to do so. For over a full year the court was eight justices instead of the prescribed nine.  

Justification for the Senate’s failure to do their job was blatantly obvious. Leadership had a lame duck President and the death of Scalia meant a liberal nominee was to be vetted in his place. Since they had no legal objection to any nominee put forward, they would lean instead on parliamentary politics.

If there was ever a sure way to dismantle a democracy it is turning the rule of law into a political yardstick. Justice Ginsburg knew his all to well and battled cancer that should have sidelined her years ago, just to see the wrongs of 2016 reversed. She lost that battle with 46 days left before the 2020 election.

In 2016 as the Republican Senate used political bully tactics, Ginsburg proclaimed “Senators refusing to vote on President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court should recognize that a president is elected for four years not three.

If there is any justice left in American politics, we will find a way to return the SCOTUS to a body of legal scholars that are charged with interpreting the Constitution of the United States and not a chamber of politicians making good on promises.

One such possible solution is contained in the two year NPR funded study on governance (Q2 2020) that recommends an 18 year term limit for Supreme Court Justices - that ensures each administration has at least one justice to replace in each 4 year tenure. That gives a more measured process for replacement and mitigates the long term political influence of 'stacking the court'. 

Whatever the solution, we must wrench control of the court from political interests and return its focus to preservation of the Rule of Law and upholding he Constitution of the United States.

In 2016 the will of the people, the House of Representatives, the President of the United States, and by the declaration of Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme court itself, was circumvented by one individual: The Senate Majority Leader.

This can never happen again.

JWB


Sunday, September 20, 2020

The Case for Socialism

 Blasphemy! 

Yes, I know. My parents are spinning in their graves.  As most of my conservative friends are penning a stinging rebuke as they read this - I ask only that you read first and react later:

I recently did a study on a combination of global social measurements of social 'well being'. Among the measurements were:

  1. Life
  2. Liberty
  3. The pursuit of happiness
One would expect that the nation that coined these truths to be self evident would rank among the world's best. Not even close.

I also added one additional category: Educational excellence.

Below you will see the results of my study. Each graphic is authentic and the sources are the most authoritative & respected I could find. In each graphic I chose the same number of countries to illustrate: The top 25 in each category. Due to the limited space in the blog text area, you may need to enlarge (ctrl+) or expand to get a clear rendering. 

LIFE:

The annual Quality of Life report [1] is widely used by scholars and political scientists. It factors 30 categories in the index. 

Top honors go to Australia. The U.S. is NOT Listed in the top 25.


The take-away for this score, is that Quality of life is pretty subjective, and it can be influenced by the size of the country as much as social policy. For instance countries like Marcao, Malta, Cyprus, Switzerland, and city states such as Hong Kong (no longer a country unto itself) and Singapore are prevalent in this list.

I also notice high scores in categories of Security, Rights and Stability in the top 25.

LIBERTY:

The Human Freedom index [2] is compiled by the renowned Cato Institute and it also a source of factual consideration for Political Scientists and Academia.  With New Zealand #1, the U.S. ranked 15th. 

You see a few rankings duplicated (11,15) because the aggregate score was a virtual tie for the ranking.


Again smaller countries and those with progressive governments dominate the top 10.

HAPPINESS:

While understanding that 'happiness' is probably the most subjective of the measurements, when all people of all countries are asked the same questions in the same way - it is as much reality as it is perception. Here the annual World Happiness report [3] finds Finland at #1 while the U.S. Ranks 18th.



EDUCATION:

I admit cheating on this graphic. I pulled the top 26 countries rather than the top 25 - so I could include the U.S. at # 26 in the Education Rankings report [4].


While China continues to outshine in education due to their communist doctrine, they are not high on any other measure.  Also, the data coming out of China & Hong Kong has always been suspect as it is subject to government censorship. Therefore, I consider their education score to be an outlier in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

What struck me most is which countries are in consistently in the top 10.  I chose a few at random, but found a striking similarity: They were all Democratic Socialist in nature - or a progressive form of democracy. Many Scandinavian countries are consistently in the top 10. I wondered: What makes them so special?

I concentrated on democratic countries with a free market economy [4] (aka Capitalist). A few examples show consistent excellence in governing in each of the four categories:

Finland: Tops in education among democracies, Finland is also #1 in the Happiness Index; #8 in the Freedom Index; and #23 in the Quality of Life index. 

Finland, like other Scandinavian countries, has a comprehensive social safety net that helps ensure that people have what they need to live productive, healthy, and happy lives. If your definition of socialism is individuals and businesses paying high taxes to ensure that wealth is being distributed equitably across the population, then yes, Finland is socialist.

However, Finland runs on a free-market economy, something that is contrary to how many people perceive socialism. If your definition of socialism is heavy government regulation of business, then no, Finland is not socialist. In fact, government regulations are so low that Finland does not even have a minimum wage.

The best way to look at Finland’s economy and politics may be to see it as a blend of capitalism and socialism. Some people refer to this as “compassionate capitalism,” meaning that markets can run freely, with minimal government regulation and interference; the role of the government is to ensure social welfare by providing generous benefits to the population through the revenue generated by taxes. Those benefits include free schools, including college, for all students and generous maternity and paternity leave for new parents. 

Unlike in the U.S. where the government tries to protect social wealth as much as, if not more than, social welfare.

Switzerland: #11 in education among democracies, #3 on the Happiness Index, #2 on the Freedom Index, and #5 on the Quality of Life index, Switzerland is another successful democratic socialist country.

Switzerland’s economy is almost entirely made up of small- and medium-sized businesses because its government promotes policies that are very friendly to entrepreneurship. The education model in Switzerland is also very friendly to businesses, as students are required to gain job training as part of their academic education. It also has relatively low taxes – the average tax rate for individuals is less than 9%, significantly less than in the United States, and even less than countries that are generally classified as socialist.

Healthcare in Switzerland can be understood as somewhat socialist. A public insurer cannot turn anyone down for any reason, including a pre-existing condition. However, the insured individual, rather than the employer or the government, is required to pay the premiums. Education in Switzerland is free, and students who pursue an academic route, rather than a vocational one, are given free admission to universities.

Australia: #9 in education among democracies, #12 on the Happiness Index, #5 on the Freedom Index, and #1 on the Quality of Life index, Australia is a huge country - with a population of New York.  Most of Australians live in coastal cities and the center of the country is one big dry expanse. 

Australia is not considered socialist by most. Except for some U.S. conservatives that see the Australian form of Medicare for All as a socialist doctrine. Many believe that Australia's #1 performance in the Quality of Life index is a consequence of their national Medicare system.

And so...

I leave you with this: The data - a lot of data - indicates that a compassionate capitalist government that focuses on social policy rather than economic policy has the upper hand.  

Got better ideas? Let me know.


JWB

<><><>

[1] Quality of Life, World Data, extracted Sept 20, 2020, from https://www.worlddata.info/quality-of-life.php

[2] Civil Liberty and Freedom Report, Cato Institute, extracted Sept 20, 2020, from https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new

[3] World Happiness Report, extracted Sept 20, 2020, from https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/ 

[4] Education Rankings by Country, World Population Review, retrieved Sept 20, 2020 from: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/education-rankings-by-country

[5] Democratic Socialist Countries 2020 by Population, World Population Review, retrieved Sept 20, 2020 from: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democratic-socialist-countries#dataTable