From the Archives: Not all terrible acts are perpetrated by terrorists (1996)

This article originally appeared in the Austin American-Statesman on July 31, 1996.

Not all terrible acts are perpetrated by terrorists

Richard E. Sincere Jr.

Without a doubt, the bomb that exploded in Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta early Saturday was the work of an evil person with malicious intentions. A businesswoman was killed, and 111 others injured. Law enforcement officials are justified in using all legal means at their disposal to find and prosecute the murderer.

It is, however, troubling that both law- enforcement agencies and the news media are treating this crime as as a terrorist event. Not all mass murders are acts of terrorism. Not all bombs are planted by terrorists.

Terrorism is fundamentally a political act, to advance a cause. Terrorists mean to create tyranny, either directly or indirectly, so that the political order that they prefer can take the place of the current one. Terrorists can be rebels seeking to overthrow a state; states seeking to overthrow the international order; or states seeking to maintain privilege for rulers and stifle dissent among the people. In every case, the motivation for terrorism is explicitly political.

Whoever planted the bomb in Atlanta was most likely a "lone wolf" who was seeking some sort of personal affirmation by seeing his morbid act reported on television and in the newspapers. He was no more a terrorist than Jeffrey Dahmer, whose murderous and cannibalistic behavior was disgusting and uncivilized, but had no political content.

The danger of elevating the tragedy at the Olympics to terrorist status is that it will give the U.S. government more excuses to erode our constitutional liberties. Already this year a new terrorism law took effect which limits the rights of foreign nationals to appeal deportation proceedings; which grants the FBI and other government agencies broad new authority to listen to our telephone calls; and which limits the right of habeas corpus for those accused of capital crimes. In short, it shrinks the Bill of Rights to a skeleton of what it should be. Another new law, "justified" by the Atlanta bombing, might rip the guts out of our freedoms of association, dissent, and privacy.

Real terrorism is when the Irish Republican Army takes a sledgehammer to the kneecaps of a suspected informer in order to enforce its will in a Catholic neighborhood. Real terrorism is when the Libyan government plants a bomb in a Pan Am jetliner that explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland. Real terrorism is when the U.S. government uses tanks to knock down the homestead of religious dissenters in Waco, resulting in the deaths of dozens. Real terrorism is when Palestinian gunmen kidnap and murder Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

It ill-serves us to redefine simple crimes as terrorism when the result is expanded government power and shrunken human liberty. Such redefinition also, in a perverse sense, glorifies the criminal when our goal should be shame and punishment.

Let's not over-react to the Atlanta bombing. If we do, far more than 112 people will be harmed.

Sincere is the author of "The Politics of Sentiment" and other works.

Guest Post: 5 Laws That Could Send Santa to Federal Prison

by David Rosenthal

While most people know Jolly Old Saint Nick as a friendly figure, he too is not immune from the perils of administrative overreach and overcriminalization.

To get you in the Christmas spirit, here is a list of some of the potential crimes and violations of federal law Saint Nick as he prepares to take flight for 2016.

1. The Reindeer Act

Many have tried finding Santa’s workshop—without success—but children have long mailed letters to the Santa Claus House located at 101 St. Nicholas Drive in North Pole, Alaska. This office location is the first source of trouble for Father Christmas. Under the Reindeer Act, signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937, only Alaska Natives are allowed to own reindeer in Alaska.

While Santa has been operating out of the North Pole for many years, only Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts inhabiting Alaska at the time the United States purchased the land from Russia are considered natives under the act, and Saint Nicholas is from the Greek village Patara in modern-day Turkey. Luckily for Santa, he might be able to avoid the $5,000 fine for violating this provision of the Code of Federal Regulations, but only if he applies for and is granted a special use permit to possess reindeers as a non-native.

2. The Lacey Act
Even if Santa gets around the Reindeer Act, he may face civil and criminal penalties under the Lacey Act if his purchase, sale, possession, or use of reindeer—or any other flora or fauna— violates any state or federal law or the law of any foreign nation, no matter what language or code that foreign law is written in.

Just as some unwitting Americans have been convicted of offenses such as the “importation of Caribbean spiny lobsters from Honduras” in violation of Honduran packaging laws, Santa could be committing a crime each time he crosses borders to deliver flora or fauna.

3. Flying Without a License
Despite Santa’s many years of experience, there is no Mr. Claus listed in the Federal Aviation Administration’s pilot certificates database. If Santa is piloting his sleigh without an airman’s certificate, he is in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46317.

Any pilot who operates an aircraft without a proper license is guilty of a federal crime punishable by three years in prison (the sleigh would almost certainly be deemed an aircraft under 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6)). And that is only for Santa’s role as a pilot. If his sleigh is not deemed airworthy, Santa will be in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7 and subject to additional civil penalties by the FAA.

If Santa’s sleigh is approved, he then must post “within” the “aircraft” a copy of the registration, airworthiness certificate, and other official documents, to be displayed “at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew,” per 14 C.F.R. § 91.203(b); the sleigh’s baggage compartment must be installed subject to Subsection C with a copy of FAA Form 337 authorizing such installation maintained on board the sleigh; and all fuel venting and exhaust emissions must meet additional requirements.

Hopefully Santa has a good compliance team.

4. False Statements
Any white lie that falls within the jurisdiction of the U.S. government could be a federal crime. As Heritage scholars have written elsewhere, there is one general federal statute for false statements that “should be broad enough to reach any fib or whopper that the federal government could have a good reason to prosecute.”

But there are dozens more specific criminal statutes that punish false statements regarding such minutiae as fluid milk products. If Santa parks his sleigh on federal land and encounters a park ranger while coming down the chimney, he’d better not tell a fib about what he’s up to or he could end up in big trouble. (He would also be violating another federal law if he parks his sleigh in a way that inconveniences another person on federal land, but I digress.)

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once observed that, under federal false statement statutes, “the prospect remains that an overzealous prosecutor or investigator—aware that a person has committed some suspicious acts, but unable to make a criminal case—will create a crime by surprising the suspect, asking about those acts, and receiving a false denial.”

Here, once Santa gets off the ground, his real legal trouble is only just beginning. A government agent need only ask Santa if he committed burglary, trespass, or larceny, or ask him, “Are you really Santa Claus?” In that case, Santa really would need a Miracle on 34th Street to stay out of the slammer for lying.

5. IRS Tax Gift
Even if Santa evades capture during his Christmas Eve flight, he then must deal with Uncle Sam upon his return to the North Pole. Under IRS gift tax rules, the giver of gifts above a certain threshold is taxed at a rate up to 40 percent of the value of the gift. While individuals are allowed to make gifts up to $14,000 per recipient without encountering any tax consequences—most toy trucks and dolls would probably fit under this exemption—gifts above the limit must be reported on IRS Form 709.

As such, each time Santa drops off a shiny new BMW for mom or dad, he will be on the hook for an even bigger tax bill on April 15. Willful failure to file a gift tax return can land Santa in prison for up to one year under 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Let no good deed go unpunished.

The List Goes On
While those are just a few examples of how Santa may be held criminally and civilly liable for violating U.S. law, there are several other ways in which he operates in legal gray areas.

For instance, how does Santa compensate all of his elves who are working around the clock to finish making toys before the big day? If they are not receiving proper overtime pay in a safe work environment, Santa will be in violation of numerous provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Finally, given the size of his operation, Santa must be complying with the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate.

If Santa cannot even stay in line with every single government rule and regulation, how is the average American supposed to keep up? Attorney Harvey Silverglate argues that the average American unwittingly commits three felonies a day due to vague laws and governmental overreach.

The American people—and Mr. Claus—deserve better. Heritage scholars have identified a comprehensive strategy to combat the problem of overcriminalization, which threatens liberty by using the criminal law and penalties to attempt to solve every problem in society and compel compliance with regulatory schemes.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Reprinted from The Daily Signal.


David Rosenthal is a visiting legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

From the Archives: Stephen Jimenez discusses Matthew Shepard's murder at Virginia book festival

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on April 1, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Stephen Jimenez discusses Matthew Shepard's murder at Virginia book festival

Investigative journalist Stephen Jimenez discussed his 2013 book, The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard, in Charlottesville on March 20 at the Virginia Festival of the Book. Jimenez participated in a panel called “Shifting Identities” at the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library.

In The Book of Matt, Jimenez explores alternative explanations for the 1998 beating and murder of 21-year-old Matthew Shepard, which at the time was thought to be an unprovoked gay bashing and hate crime.

Shepard's murderers were convicted of second degree murder but not a hate crime. Jimenez looks into a seedy underworld connection between Shepard and one of his convicted killers, Aaron McKinney. Based on his research, Jimenez posits that both Shepard and McKinney were involved in the crystal meth trade in Colorado and Wyoming and disputes the notion that anti-gay animus motivated McKinney and Russell Henderson, who also was convicted of Shepard's killing.

Disrupting the narrative
After the panel, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner interviewed Stephen Jimenez about his research and conclusions.

When the author began working on this story, he had no plans to disrupt the narrative of Matthew Shepard's murder as an anti-gay hate crime.

Almost 15 years ago, Jimenez traveled to Laramie, Wyoming, to write a TV movie about the Shepard murder, spending eight months working on a screenplay that ultimately went unproduced.

At the time, he “believed that the story of this anti-gay murder was really very important and deserved the long form of the television movie but” just as he thought his research for the screenplay was finished, he “started to realize there were other things going on around this crime.”

After extensive interviews with Cal Rerucha, the principal prosecutor of the Shepard case, “I felt I really wanted to look deeper. I also felt – as a gay man as I got into some of the methamphetamine side of the story, as someone who's a survivor of the AIDS era – that methamphetamine was becoming a very, very big problem in urban gay enclaves but also it was moving through a substantial part of the country: through the Midwest, through states like Missouri and Kansas and Iowa and then, in the West, Colorado, Montana, Wyoming. When I realized what methamphetamine was doing, I felt it was critical to tell that part of the story that had been largely excluded.”

'Drug laws have failed'
Asked whether his findings had implications for the wider debate about drug prohibition, Jimenez replied that “I'm quite libertarian when it comes to drugs.”

He explained that he believes that “drug laws have failed miserably” and that there is “a lot of organized crime” involved in the war on drugs.

“It's not by accident,” he added, “that some very vulnerable communities have been set up” as markets for methamphetamine.

“Meth has been a problem on native American reservations,” Jimenez said. “Meth has been a problem in the gay community. Meth has been a problem in economically depressed towns, communities across the country.”

His purpose in writing The Book of Matt, he explained, was to show how “the issues in this case are full of human complexities. Matthew was a human being. The perpetrators were human beings.”

He said “it behooves all of us to understand those complexities if we're serious about dealing with the many different manifestations of violence and hatred in our culture and in the world at large.”

Resistance and acceptance
Although there has been some resistance to his alternative theory of the Shepard murder – which upends the accepted narrative similar to the way Dale Carpenter's book, Flagrant Conduct, changed the accepted story of Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that resulted in overturning sodomy laws in the United States – Jimenez said that reception of his book has generally been positive.

“I just completed a 34 city tour” in which “city number 33 was Laramie, Wyoming. I spoke to a packed theater there on a night when it was 10 below zero. A few hundred people came out.”

There were many comments and questions at that Laramie appearance, he said, but “not one person stood up and disputed my findings.”

While he was touring the country, Jimenez said he encountered “minuscule resistance to what's in the book. In fact,” he added, “it only happened at one book store in Washington, D.C., but everywhere else I spoke in the country, people were very open to the findings of the book.”

Since The Book of Matt began as a movie project, it should come as no surprise that “there have been some initial inquiries” adapting it into a film. While Jimenez has not done anything to pursue that possibility yet, because he's working on other projects, “maybe, with the passage of time, a movie can be made,” he said.

SUGGESTED LINKS

‘Flagrant Conduct’ author Dale Carpenter discusses how sodomy laws ended
First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams talks about free speech in Charlottesville
UVA political scientist analyzes 2012 election, looks toward 2016 GOP nominee
Former U.S. ambassador to Vatican talks diplomacy at Virginia book festival
GOP can regain control of Senate in 2014, says strategist Grover Norquist

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/stephen-jimenez-discusses-matthew-shepard-s-murder-at-virginia-book-festival

From the Archives: Congressmen Bob Goodlatte and Robert Hurt comment on WDBJ-TV killings

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 26, 2015. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site is scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Congressmen Bob Goodlatte and Robert Hurt comment on WDBJ-TV killings

Two Virginia television journalists were murdered during a live broadcast on Roanoke station WDBJ on Wednesday morning. The killer, Vester Flanagan, a former employee of the same TV station, was chased across the state and died of self-inflicted gunshot wounds in a Northern Virginia hospital.

Two Members of Congress who represent the area covered by WDBJ-TV offered messages of condolence.

In a statement issued by his office, Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA6), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said:

“The horrific murders that occurred this morning have impacted the entire Roanoke community. Maryellen and I offer our condolences to the families of Alison Parker and Adam Ward during this very difficult time"

Goodlatte noted that he "had the great opportunity to work with Alison and Adam, and they will be dearly missed by those in our community as well as their loved ones and colleagues at WDBJ. I continue to keep the WDBJ family as well as Vicki Gardner, who was wounded this morning, in my thoughts and prayers."

Gardner was being interviewed on the air as a spokesperson for the Smith Mountain Lake Chamber of Commerce.

Goodlatte continued: "As we continue to learn more about this terrible tragedy, I am thankful for the coordinated efforts of multiple federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in responding quickly."

Congressman Robert Hurt, whose Fifth Congressional District is near Roanoke, offered a similar message in a news release distributed by email to reporters.

“I am deeply saddened by the horrific act of violence that occurred in Franklin County this morning," Hurt said. "Our prayers are with the families of Alison Parker and Adam Ward and the entire WDBJ team."

Hurt also mentioned that Vicki Gardner was in his prayers and he thanked "the local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel who worked diligently to apprehend the suspect and prevent further harm to our communities."

SUGGESTED LINKS

Congressman Bob Goodlatte 'skeptical' about U.S. military intervention in Syria
U.S. Representative Robert Hurt discusses eminent domain and redistricting
Congressman Bob Goodlatte finds ‘common ground’ for libertarians and GOP
Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt speaks out for free trade in Charlottesville
Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt reacts to federal unemployment report

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/congressmen-bob-goodlatte-and-robert-hurt-comment-on-wdbj-tv-killings

At start of Sochi Olympics, State Department issues Russia travel warning

On the same day as the opening ceremonies of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia, the U.S. Department of State distributed a travel alert that, while couched in diplomatic language, seems designed to discourage American citizens from attending the Olympics this month.

Here's how the travel alert -- which I received by email -- begins:

The Department of State alerts U.S. citizens planning to attend the 2014 Olympic Games in Russia that they should remain attentive regarding their personal security at all times. The Olympic and Paralympic Games will take place in Sochi, Russia, from February 7 to March 16, 2014. This travel alert replaces the alert issued on January 24, 2014, and provides updated information on reported threats against the Games, cyber-security risks, identification requirements, and lodging. This Travel Alert expires on March 24, 2014. Full information about the Olympic and Paralympic games for U.S. citizen visitors is available on the Sochi Fact Sheet and the Country Specific Information for the Russian Federation on our website, travel.state.gov. The Department strongly recommends that all U.S. citizens residing or traveling abroad enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) in order to receive pertinent safety and security information.

The State Department advisory goes on to note potential problems with medical care, hotel room availability, terrorism, crime, and cybersecurity and none of the language is likely to promote confidence in anyone's capacity to remain safe in Sochi:

MEDICAL CARE: The Olympics are the first large-scale event to be held in Sochi and medical capacity and infrastructure in the region are untested for handling the volume of visitors expected for the Olympics. Medical care in many Russian localities differs substantially from Western standards due to differing practices and approaches to primary care. Travelers should consider purchasing private medical evacuation and/or repatriation insurance.

Western Russia (Source: Central Intelligence Agency)

LODGING: There may be shortages of hotel rooms during the Olympics. Some hotels are still under construction, and there are reports that some rooms booked in advance have not been available upon arrival. Advertised rates for standard rooms are currently $300-1,000 per night.

TERRORISM: Large-scale public events such as the Olympics present an attractive target for terrorists, and the U.S. government continues to monitor reported threats of potential terrorist attacks in Sochi or in Russia in general. Acts of terrorism, including bombings and hostage takings, continue to occur in Russia, particularly in the North Caucasus region. Between October 15 and December 30, 2013, there were three suicide bombings targeting public transportation in the city of Volgograd (600 miles from Sochi), two of which occurred within the same 24-hour period. In early January 2014, media reports emerged about the possible presence of so-called "black widow" suicide bombers in Sochi. These reports have not been corroborated, and the U.S. government continues to seek further information. Other bombings over the past 10-15 years occurred at Russian government buildings, airports, hotels, tourist sites, markets, entertainment venues, schools, and residential complexes. There have also been large-scale attacks on public transportation including subways, buses, trains, and scheduled commercial flights, in the same time period. On January 11, 2014 Russia implemented a "no liquids" policy for carry-on bags on flights originating within Russia in response to potential security threats against commercial aircraft. In line with the Government of Russia's actions, on February 6, 2014, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration implemented similar precautionary measures for direct flights between the United States and Russia.

In July 2013, Doku Umarov, the head of the Caucasus Emirate (an organization the United States designated as a terrorist organization in 2010, and known in Russian as the Imirat Kavkaz or IK) released a video message rescinding prior directions not to attack civilians and calling for attacks on the Winter Olympics in Sochi. The Caucasus Emirate is responsible for many of the aforementioned attacks. The group has targeted civilians, as indirect supporters of the government, including through attacks on a ski resort, metro system, high-speed rail, airport, and a theater. Westerners have not specifically been targeted, but are viewed by IK as complicit in the Russian government's efforts to control the North Caucasus region. In January 2014, another video was released by a radical Islamist group claiming responsibility for the Volgograd bombings and promising "a present for tourists" in connection with the Olympic Games in Sochi.

Travelers to Sochi should expect increased police presence and enhanced security measures in and around the Olympic venues. There is no indication of a specific threat to U.S. institutions or citizens, but U.S. citizens should be aware of their personal surroundings and follow good security practices. U.S. citizens are urged to remain vigilant and exercise good judgment and discretion when using any form of public transportation. When traveling, U.S. citizens may wish to provide a friend, family member, or coworker a copy of their itinerary.

The U.S. Embassy will continue to monitor the security situation in Sochi throughout the Olympics. In the event the U.S. government receives information of any specific and credible threat, the Department of State will immediately provide information to the public. Information about potential threats to safety and security can be found on the Embassy's website and the Department of State's travel website. Individuals who have enrolled in STEP will receive this information directly via email.

CRIME: U.S. citizens planning to attend the Games in Sochi should remain alert regarding their personal security at all times. Criminal activity in Sochi is similar to other cities of comparable size. However, major events such as the Olympic Games are a prime opportunity for criminal elements to target tourists, and travelers should be alert to the possibility of mugging, pick pocketing, theft, and harassment. Travelers should avoid going out alone at night and carrying large amounts of money or other valuables. Since cash may be the only accepted form of payment outside Olympic venues, consider keeping money in a hotel safe or dividing money and placing it in several different locations on your person. Purses, wallets, cell phones, and electronics should be secured in public, especially while traveling on buses, trains, or other forms of public transportation. Travelers should only use marked taxi services and prearrange transportation through hotel concierge or other reputable services whenever possible. If you are stopped by the police, you may ask to see the officer's identification. Photocopies of passports, visas, credit cards, and other important documents should be kept in a secure location so proper notifications can be made if original documents are lost or stolen.

CYBER SECURITY: U.S. travelers should be aware of cyber security threats and understand that they have no expectation of privacy when sharing sensitive or personal information utilizing Russian electronic communication networks.

Finally, the State Department travel warning notes that the Russian police have a "papers please!" policy, that freedom of expression is limited, and that Russia is not a welcoming environment for gay people:

IDENTIFICATION: Russian police officers have the authority to stop people and request identity and travel documents at any time and without cause. Due to the possibility of random document checks by police, U.S. citizens are strongly advised to carry at all times their original passports, Russian visas, hotel registration, and migration cards (issued at the airport upon entry into Russia.)

PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS: U.S. citizens should avoid large crowds in areas that lack enhanced security measures. Use caution in any areas where protests, demonstrations, or other public disturbances are taking place. Demonstrations intended to be peaceful can develop quickly and unpredictably, sometimes turning violent.

On January 10, Vice Prime Minister Dmitriy Kozak announced that the Sochi authorities have determined that the village of Khost, located seven miles from the Olympic venues, will be the designated area for political demonstrations during the Winter Olympics. Demonstrations must be unrelated to the Olympics and the organizers must receive permission prior to the event from the regional authorities of the Ministry of Interior and the Federal Security Service (FSB). It is also worth noting that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Charter states "no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas."

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER (LGBT) ISSUES: In June 2013, Russia's State Duma passed a law banning the "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations" to minors. The U.S. government understands that this law applies to both Russian citizens and foreigners in Russia. Russian citizens found guilty of violating the law could face a fine of up to 100,000 rubles ($3,100). Foreign citizens face similar fines, up to 14 days in jail, and deportation. The law makes it a crime to promote LGBT equality in public, but lacks concrete legal definitions for key terms. Russian authorities have indicated a broad interpretation of what constitutes "LGBT propaganda," and provided vague guidance as to which actions will be interpreted by authorities as "LGBT propaganda." LGBT travelers should review the State Department's LGBT Travel Information page.

Busy Snow Day: Indictments and Anti-Discrimination

Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

While most of the Mid-Atlantic and northeastern states have been pummeled by the season's biggest snowstorm -- dubbed a bombogenesis by some meteorologists -- political life goes on in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Topic A today has been the indictment by a federal grand jury of former Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, on multiple counts of corruption-related crimes, including honest-services wire fraud, obstruction of a federal proceeding, and making false statements.

(Left-libertarian lawyer Harvey Silverglate has written about the vagueness of the federal "honest services" statute on the Volokh Conspiracy, which just today found a new home at the Washington Post.)

I wrote about reactions to the charges against the McDonnells on Examiner.com. Among other things, the 43-page indictment has an intriguing appendix of sorts:

The indictment includes a colorfully descriptive list of items subject to forfeiture, including a Silver Rolex Watch engraved with "71st Governor of Virginia"; one baby blue striped Peter Millar golf shirt; one Heather Mackenzie water color and frame; two pairs of Foot Joy golf shoes; black Rebecca Minkoff shoes; and 30 boxes of Anatabloc®, the dietary supplement at the center of the scandal that has come to be known as “Giftgate.”

Later in the day -- on the cusp of the evening -- McDonnell made a public statement that was broadcast on NBC12 in Richmond.  He was accompanied by his wife, one of his daughters, and his son-in-law.  It's somewhat refreshing to see the wife of a politician standing by his side as he makes a proclamation of his innocence, without her seething inside about the way he's cheated on her with a high-priced prostitute or an Israeli boy toy.

In other Virginia political news, earlier this week a state Senate committee killed a bill -- SB 248, copatroned by Donald McEachin and Adam Ebbin -- that would have prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in state employment (not private sector employment).

I wrote about this issue on Bearing Drift today, asking whether GOP lawmakers are shooting themselves in the foot when they oppose popular legislation like this.

Four years ago, when similar legislation was under consideration by the General Assembly, I spoke in favor of SB66 as a representative of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia I noted that the RLCVA had endorsed the bill “because we believe it is not the place of the government to discriminate on irrelevant characteristics in employment regarding otherwise law-abiding citizens and taxpayers.”

I added that “if this bill extended to the private sector, I would not support it, and neither would our organization but it is also important to note that the private sector is way ahead of the government in terms of non-discrimination policy. Private businesses recognize that non-discrimination is good business practice. Government is always sluggish and slow to develop ideas like this.”

I noted that this position is at odds with general public opinion, pointing to recent polls by Rasmussen Reports and TargetPoint Consulting. That latter pollster explained:

An overwhelming majority of Americans –including’Republicans – support a federal law that protects gays, lesbians and transgender Americans from discrimination in the workplace. Here – unlike other surveys on similar topics – we asked specifically about federal legislation: 68% of registered voters support federal protection, with only 21% oppose. And indeed, intensity here very much lies with the supporters, as 46% strongly favor the law while only 15% strongly oppose it. When it comes to Republicans, 56% support a federal anti-discrimination law, while only 32% oppose.

That same poll revealed that support for a federal ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) stands at 65 percent.

Read the whole thing here.

Why Is This Crime Not Like the Other?

In a letter to the editor of the Washington Post published January 3 (and the print editions of January 4), Mark S. Allen of Alexandria sets up a hypothetical case in which he robbed a bank 17 years ago, invested the money, raised a family, and lived an otherwise exemplary life until his bank robbery was discovered by police and he had to face the consequences. "Should I be prosecuted," he asks, "or does the fact that I built a model family exempt me from punishment for my crime?"

He then compares this to another man's situation recently described in a Post news article:

Now try this question: How is this different from the situation facing Jorge Penate, who broke U.S. immigration law when he entered the United States in 1997, as reported in the Dec. 30 Metro story “A family’s uncertain future”?

The difference should be apparent.

Crossing a border without proper paperwork is a crime only because the government says it is. Robbing a bank is a crime because it violates the rights of other people (the bank's owners, its creditors and account holders, customers, bystanders).

To compare breaking an arbitrary rule to a clear violation of someone's rights indicates that the letter-writer has not thought his simile through, and that he does not understand what a real crime is compared to one that is politically created.

My Hate-Crimes Op-Ed in the RTD

Tuesday morning's readers of the Richmond Times-Dispatch will turn to the op-ed page, as they normally do before checking out sports or comics, and see a piece I wrote on the new federal hate-crimes law, which has been passed as part of the massive (1,158 pages) Defense Authorization bill and will soon be signed into law by President Barack Obama.

The law is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student who died eleven years ago at the hands of violent criminals. His killers were sentenced to life in prison. They could have received the death penalty, but Shepard's family requested the more lenient punishment.

The crux of my argument in the Times-Dispatch is here:

What is particularly disturbing about the Matthew Shepard Act, however, is that this bill federalizes crimes that properly belong under state or local jurisdiction. It signifies creeping encroachment of federal law on state prerogatives and the dulling of the distinction between the central government in Washington and the various state governments.

Previous federal hate-crime statutes were written when state and local authorities often looked the other way if crimes of violence were committed against members of minority groups. These laws were narrowly focused and meant specifically to prosecute crimes against victims engaged in a federally protected civil-rights activity (such as helping to register African-Americans to vote).

The current bill says the federal government can step in to prosecute a case if "the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence." In other words, if a U.S. attorney dislikes an acquittal or the punishment of someone convicted under state law, he can re-open the case as a federal matter.

By Orwellian logic, this kind of re-prosecution does not violate the Constitution's prohibition on double jeopardy, because the same act becomes two separate crimes -- one state and one federal.

The days when crimes against victims from socially-disliked minority groups were routinely ignored by state and local law-enforcement authorities are in the past. Yes, there may still be exceptions to this welcome trend, and prosecutors who fail to do their jobs properly should be sent packing by the voters. In the majority of cases, however -- including the headline-grabbing murders of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard in the 1990s -- police and prosecutors pursue the perpetrators to the full extent the law allows.

The Matthew Shepard Act is a done deal as far as Congress and the President are concerned. That does not mean we should tolerate it or the further perforation of the lines between federal and state government that is, sadly, sure to follow it.

Update, October 21: The Richmond Times-Dispatch op-ed now also appears on the Independent Gay Forum.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter!

Israel's 'Tragic Paradox'

Somehow I missed commenting on the murders and mass assault in a gay youth center in Tel Aviv earlier this month.

Israelis have not let the incident slip by. A Jewish Telegraphic Agency report noted on Sunday:

Tens of thousands of Israelis demonstrated in solidarity with Israel's gay community at a rally in Tel Aviv.

Saturday night's rally also was a show of support for the victims of last week's shooting at a Tel Aviv community center for gay and lesbian youth in which two were killed and a dozen wounded.

Israeli President Shimon Peres addressed the crowd, which organizers put at 70,000 and police at 20,000.

"The bullets that hit the gay community at the beginning of the week struck us all as people, as Jews, as Israelis," Peres said.

"All people were created in God's image," he added, "and all citizens have equal rights. All men are born equal, and every citizen has the right to be who he is -- to be free and proud.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a personal visit to the gay community center at 28 Nachmani Street in Tel Aviv. According to Ha'aretz:

Netanyahu told leaders of Israel's gay and lesbian community that he would do more to root out manifestations of hate within Israeli society. The premier also promised community leaders that his government would work to address their needs.

"I realize that the gay community has special needs," Netanyahu said. "I want to assure you that we are open and receptive and that I as well as the ministers in my government will advance these important issues, some of which became known to me today."

Netanyahu added that he believed "that the labeling and negation of human beings is wrong in and of itself. We were all made in God's image, we all have basic rights, the first of which is to be respected by our fellow man and to respect others. Unfounded hatred is wrong. Anyone who had experienced that kind of hatred, as an individual or as part of a group, knows how painful and wrong it is. Its something we need to try as hard as we can to root it out of our society."

In an article in The Advocate published yesterday, commentator Jamie Kirchick notes a curious fact that emerges from the attack on a community center that catered to the social needs of gay and lesbian teenagers:

At a Washington vigil held last Monday evening to mourn the victims of the Tel Aviv gay youth center shooting, an official from the Israeli embassy made a keen observation. It was a “tragic paradox,” he said, for “this crime could only take place in Israel out of all the countries in the Middle East because there’s nowhere else in the Middle East where there could be a meeting house for gay young people, which is open and which everybody knows its address.”

Kirchick goes on to point out that

...if there is anything positive to be gleaned from this horrific incident, it has been the reaction of the Jewish state’s citizens. The country’s newspapers have published countless articles about the status of gay people in Israeli society and the persistent problem of homophobia. Even the country’s ultrareligious figures -- perhaps cognizant of how their own teachings may have created an environment in which such an attack could take place -- have condemned the murders.

Then he contrasts the situation in Israel with that in neighboring countries:

Throughout the Middle East, it is usually the governments themselves that are committing the violence against their own gay citizens.

In 2001, Egypt arrested 51 men aboard a gay cruise ship and subjected them to a show trial in which their faces were displayed on national television. Iran executes gays, whose existence its president denies. In Saudi Arabia the punishment for homosexuality is decapitation.

Kirchick reminds his readers for the reason that Israel and the United States have a close relationship: we share "a set of common liberal values, values which Israel’s neighbors simply do not share."

We sometimes forget that liberal values -- including, but not limited to, religious and philosophical tolerance, respect for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and adherence to the rule of (non-arbitrary) law -- are what animate societies like the United States and Israel, and what protect us against the predations of the power-hungry and intolerant. They also separate us from what might be called, perhaps infelicitously, barbarian societies.

Liberal values also include the openness and freedom that sometimes make us more vulnerable to mad acts of terrorism and criminality. These infrequent events are the price we pay for individual liberty.

Years before the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights incorporated the freedoms we challenge into our basic law, Benjamin Franklin wrote (in 1775):

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Consider that the paradox of liberty. It's not just Israel's tragic paradox; it's ours, too.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

Dead End of the Cul-de-Sac?

Perhaps it was because I live on a cul-de-sac that the article in Sunday's Washington Post caught my eye. After all, it had this subhead: "Targeting Cul-de-Sacs, Rules Now Require Through Streets in New Subdivisions."

Even if I weren't in my current living situation, however, I would have detected something in the article that made me uneasy. Written by Eric M. Weiss, it describes a top-down, one-size-fits-all effort by the Virginia government to dictate zoning and planning requirements for new suburban developments, effectively prohibiting the option for creating cul-de-sac streets anywhere in the state.

Here are the opening paragraphs of Weiss's piece, which was featured on Sunday's front page:

Virginia is taking aim at one of the most enduring symbols of suburbia: the cul-de-sac.

The state has decided that all new subdivisions must have through streets linking them with neighboring subdivisions, schools and shopping areas. State officials say the new regulations will improve safety and accessibility and save money: No more single entrances and exits onto clogged secondary roads. Quicker responses by emergency vehicles. Lower road maintenance costs for governments.

Although cul-de-sacs will remain part of the suburban landscape for years to come, the Virginia regulations attack what the cul-de-sac has come to represent: quasi-private standalone developments around the country that are missing only a fence and a sign that says "Keep Out."

Well, yes. Neighborhoods with cul-de-sacs are much safer -- in terms of being protected against crime -- than other types of suburban (and urban) neighborhoods. They also are safer for children and pets because of the absence of fast-moving, through traffic.

The Virginia government's monolithic emphasis on transportation, which is more salient in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads than in other parts of the state, may have the unintended (or is it intended) consequence of making suburban neighborhoods less attractive to potential homeowners who are seeking refuge from the grime and crime of the cities.

Writing in Reason magazine in 2005, Stephen Town and Randal O'Toole told the story of one cul-de-sac neighborhood in England:

Burras Road was a pleasant cul-de-sac of 21 new homes in Bradford, England. Its residents were blissfully unaware that, just east of the site, approval for a proposed new shopping center required the breaching of their cul-de-sac by a bicycle-pedestrian path.

Planners favored this requirement because, they say, cul-de-sacs do not encourage movement and therefore are "auto-dependent" and "anti-urban." Opening up the site would connect residents to local services, and the path would promote walking and cycling.

The path connecting the shopping center to the cul-de-sac opened in 2000. Although there is no evidence that the path has led residents to drive less, it did have a profound effect on their lives. During the next six months, a neighborhood that had been virtually crime-free saw its burglary rate rise to 14 times the national rate, with matching increases in overall crime, including arson, assault, and antisocial behavior.

Because a secondary school was located west of the cul-de-sac, the pedestrian path opened the neighborhood to a constant stream of students and others going between the school and the shopping center. Crime and vandalism became commonplace. "The path turned our piece of paradise into a living hell," one resident complained.

Moving beyond this single anecdote to more thorough research, O'Toole and Town refer to architect Oscar Newman's 1972 book, Defensible Space,

which showed that the safest neighborhoods maximized private space and minimized common zones. Safe areas also minimized "permeability," that is, the ease of entry to and exit from the neighborhood or housing area. Cul-de-sacs are thus a crime-prevention device, and any breaching of cul-de-sacs will predictably increase crime.

Turning to government reports, Town and O'Toole note:

... the British Crime Survey, regarded by the U.K. government as the most reliable guide to crime, found that houses on main roads were at more than twice the risk of being burgled as those in a cul-de-sac. The Department of Justice's Closing Streets cites numerous studies in the U.S. showing that reducing connectivity reduces crime. It also finds that "most research supports the idea that burglars avoid houses in cul-de-sacs."

They also point to a real-world experiment where the conversion of grid arrangements to more closed systems led to a decline in crime rates:

When Dayton, Ohio, asked Newman to apply defensible-space concepts to a neighborhood suffering high rates of drug-related violence and property crime, his solution was to gate numerous streets--in essence, to turn a traditional street grid into cul-de-sacs. Within two years, violent crime in that neighborhood fell by 50 percent and overall crime by 25 percent, even as crime in Dayton overall increased by 1 percent.

While the chances of local governments in Virginia will destroy current cul-de-sac arrangements as well as prohibit new ones is small, planners should keep this information in mind. Do we want our suburban neighborhoods to become what British police refer to as "crimogenic"?

On the lighter side, it is just a wee bit ironic that "Cul de Sac" is the name of a syndicated comic strip by Richard Thompson, whose home base is the Washington Post (and who lives in Arlington, Virginia, one of D.C.'s inner suburbs). What will Thompson's readers think if the cul-de-sac goes the way of the buggy whip and spats?

Read my blog on Kindle!

Update on the Oklahoma Three

On April 2, I posted some video of citizen activist Paul Jacob, who was being interviewed by WINA-AM radio host Rob Schilling about the initiative process, term limits, the taxpayers' bill of rights (TABOR), and related issues.

During the interview, Paul spoke about how he and two colleagues were being prosecuted in Oklahoma in a blatantly political fashion.

Now there is an update on the "Oklahoma Three" (as they're known) and what they may be facing in the weeks to come.

From the web site "freepauljacob.com" comes this news:

On July 23, the Oklahoma Three—Paul and his two co-defendants, Rick Carpenter and Susan Johnson—will have a preliminary hearing in Oklahoma City. At the hearing, the government must establish enough evidence to convince a judge to schedule a trial.

Theoretically, at least. In reality, it is rare for a judge to dismiss a case at this stage no matter how skimpy the evidence or twisted the logic of the charge.

A number of citizens and groups in Oklahoma, as well as in neighboring states, will be attending the hearing, which begins at 9:00 am on Wednesday, July 23. If you’d like to attend the hearing or events being held the day before, or have any questions about it, please email Brandon Holmes at bholmes@samadamsalliance.org.

Paul has been inspired by how pro-initiative citizens in Oklahoma are working to reform the petition process. During the recent legislative session, Attorney General Drew Edmondson vigorously lobbied Senate Democrats to block a bill to do nothing more than create a task force to study the state’s chained and neutered initiative process. Foes of direct democracy managed to thwart that proposal. But the issue isn’t going away.

According to a 2007 poll, 92% of Oklahomans support the right of citizen initiative. Yet, thanks to adverse court rulings or the sheer difficulty of the petition process, voters have been able to cast ballots on only two of 23 citizen initiatives filed this decade. (See The Oklahoman’s editorial about the hamstringing of the process.)

Now Oklahomans for Initiative Rights is doing what the legislature has refused to do—launching its own citizen task force to study the state’s petition process and make recommendations for reform.

The Attorney General’s assault against the Oklahoma Three is vindictive and outrageous. But it may also spur some much needed change. Stay tuned.

Many Americans who have used the initiative process to achieve justice will be watching these proceedings in Oklahoma to see if the rule of law is maintained, or if citizen activism just becomes another in a long list of crimes imposed by the political class on the rest of us.

If Romeo and Juliet Had Lived ...

One of the great stories in Western literature is that of Romeo and Juliet, star-crossed lovers whose family feud led, ultimately, to their double suicide.

What if, however, Romeo had received Friar Laurence's message in a more timely fashion and he and Juliet had been whisked away from Verona without the bite of poison and dagger? That is, what might have happened if the most famous teenage couple of the Renaissance had lived?

A partial answer comes by way of the Rocky Mountain News, which reports a recent response by police in Commerce City, Colorado, to a domestic call involving a 21st-century teenage couple:

When Mom wears one set of gang colors and Dad wears another, conflict over how to raise the baby can cause irreconcilable differences.

At least that's what happened for one Commerce City couple.

Commerce City police were called to a disturbance Saturday at a Hollywood Video on East 64th Street, where a man reportedly was harassing his ex-girlfriend, who was working there.

The man knocked over a computer and a magazine stand and yelled obscenities at her, witnesses said.

He left the store before police arrived.

When officers questioned the woman, they learned that the two had been together for four years and were the parents of a child.

When police asked the woman why the two had separated, she said they have "different ideas about how the baby should be raised," according to a police report.

When officer Daniel Swift asked the woman what she meant by that, she said that the two belong to different street gangs.

"They could not agree on which gang the baby would claim," Swift said.

Whether Montagues and Capulets or Crips and Bloods, doesn't Romeo Jr. deserve an identity?

H/T: Chuck Muth

Campus Tragedies

The news media today are focused on the mass murder on the campus of Northern Illinois University, where a former student shot dead five students (including a graduate assistant who was teaching the class) and wounded several others before killing himself.

The NIU shootings brought to mind last year's massacre at Virginia Tech.

Lost in the reports on what happened in Illinois is a follow-up to a story that first surfaced on Tuesday, when most of the media in Virginia were concentrating on the primary election. On Tuesday in Oxnard, California, a gay eighth-grader was shot and wounded by a fellow student. Today the victim, a 15-year-old boy was declared brain-dead and the 14-year-old shooter will face murder charges as an adult, with the possibility of 50 years in prison.

Jim Burroway has a more extensive report at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Update: Daniel Gonzales posts this additional and timely information, also at Box Turtle Bulletin:

A vigil organized by the Ventura County Rainbow Alliance is being held tonight (Friday). Supporters will gather at the Art Barn (856 E. Thompson) at 7pm and proceed to the pier.

The event is called "Lawrence King Memorial Fund and Vigil."

Who Is Behind Voter-Suppression Phone Calls?

This could just be an elaborate practical joke, but voters scattered across Virginia have reported receiving automated telephone calls designed to cast doubt on their status as registered voters.

Here is a news release distributed earlier today by the Virginia State Police:

News Release No. 4

For Immediate Release: February 7, 2008

STATE POLICE INVESTIGATING VOTER REGISTRATION SCAM

RICHMOND – Virginia State Police in cooperation with the State Board of Elections is investigating more than a dozen inquiries from residents across Virginia about a voter registration scam.

According to the citizen complaints, each one received a telephone call with a recorded message yesterday, Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2008 and today. The recorded message informed the individual that he or she would be receiving a voter registration application packet in the mail. Upon arrival of the packet the individual was being instructed to complete the enclosed form, sign it and mail it back. So far, neither state police nor the State Board of Elections has heard from anyone who has received the application packet.

Registrars from the counties of Amherst, Bedford, Charles City, Dickenson, Halifax, Henrico, Lancaster, Montgomery and New Kent, as well as those in the cities of Charlottesville, Danville, Galax and Martinsville, began receiving calls yesterday from concerned citizens regarding this matter. Upon receiving the inquiries, the State Board of Elections contacted the Virginia State Police and an investigation was initiated.

Anyone who has received such a call and/or a packet is advised to contact the Virginia State Police Administrative Headquarters at (804) 674-2026 or at vfc@vsp.virginia.gov.

“It is not the practice of the State Board of Elections to leave automated recorded messages or ask voters to return their completed voter registration forms to anyone other than to their local registrar,” said Ms. Nancy Rodrigues, Secretary of the State Board of Elections. “Anyone who has a question about their status as a registered voter should contact their local registrar’s office or the State Board of Elections at 1-800-552-9745.” Additional voter registration information is also available at the State Board of Elections Website at http://sbe.virginia.gov.

With any scam, one is advised to never provide personal information, particularly one’s social security number or credit card information, to unknown individuals over the telephone or Internet. If solicited over the phone or Internet for information, attempt to obtain a physical address, rather than a P.O. box or mail drop. Also be watchful of spelling errors, grammar problems or inconsistent information when receiving documents, applications, etc. online or in the U.S. mail.

###

The phone calls imply that the call's recipient is not properly registered to vote, and must therefore fill out and return the forms that will be sent in order to qualify to vote in next Tuesday's presidential primary. Some of those who have received these calls have been registered to vote for 20 years or more.

The State Police press release seems to suggest that the investigation is focusing on the possibility that these calls are a means to commit identity theft. My suspicion is that they are designed to discourage voters from turning out on Tuesday. Who would benefit by that is anybody's guess, but I don't think it's any of the remaining Republican candidates. That leaves two possibilities.

This is a developing story.

Update, February 8, 4:48 p.m: The Virginian-Pilot is reporting that the group behind these telephone calls is "legitimate." Noting the latest findings from the State Police, the newspaper says:

A day after State Police issued warnings about what appeared to be a case of someone trying to pull a scam on Virginia voters, authorities said today that all is well.

The voter registration drive is legitimate....

Women’s Voices Women Vote, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based in Washington, made the calls and sent the mailings, Geller said. The group said it is part of an "unprecedented" effort to get women registered. Trouble was, it also was largely unheard of. The calls to potential voters started coming even before the effort was announced in a press release issued Thursday.

The organization said it is targeting more than 228,000 unmarried women in Virginia and 22 other states in an effort to increase voter registration and participation.

The question remains, why was Women's Voices Women Vote calling voters who were already registered in order to encourage them to register? If they had enough demographic information to determine that the call recipients were single women, shouldn't they also have known they were registered voters?

Martyr for Democracy

Benazir Bhutto was one of the most authentic political leaders I have ever met.

Our single meeting lasted only about two hours, but in that brief time I came to know Mrs. Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan who was assassinated by a terrorist earlier today, as warm, intelligent, and fervently dedicated to the restoration of democracy in her homeland. What's more, she was both modest and unassuming despite her clear intellectual and emotional strengths.

Her modesty was apparent, if through nothing else, then through the setting of our meeting. A colleague and I were invited to meet with her in the living room of a Fairfax County townhouse. She graciously offered us tea, which she served herself; there was no entourage present, no servants, no hangers-on. In the adjacent kitchen, a supporter made dinner while a couple of toddlers watched cartoons on television. Our conversation was periodically punctuated by giggles from a few feet away, and the atmosphere was enhanced by the aroma of a homemade Pakistani meal in the oven.

Through the course of our conversation, Bhutto displayed a firm grasp of international affairs and of U.S. government policy toward the Middle East and South Asia. Her commitment to democracy and her refusal to concede that the Muslim world lacks the capacity to participate in modernity were apparent. She was quiet and reflective yet firm in her well-informed opinions.

Although Pakistan is not my regular "beat" as a writer or consultant, I had been following Bhutto's election campaign with particular interest. Just yesterday, I was part of a team that launched a web site for Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party to raise campaign funds world wide. Less than 18 hours ago, I was distributing a news release that contained an optimistic statement from her with regard to her party's January 8 election prospects.

Needless to say, waking up to the news this morning of Benazir's murder was emotionally numbing. My colleagues and I are still trying to process the information, much of which arrived in chaotic bits and pieces through CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.

Benazir Bhutto -- the first female leader of a government in a Muslim country, Harvard-educated, Western-oriented, wise, and warm -- was truly a martyr for democracy. Her loss is a loss for her family, for the people of Pakistan, and for the world.

Better Late Than Never

City Councilor Dave Norris has announced his intention to vote against a proposed $300,000 appropriation to install so-called "anti-crime" cameras in downtown Charlottesville.

On his blog, Norris points to a British study highlighted on cvillenews.com that states that these cameras, ubiquitous in London and other UK cities, are virtually useless.

I could have told you that.

In fact, I did -- more than two-and-a-half years ago, in a blogpost entitled, "Ubiquitous TV Cameras Don't Reduce Crime, UK Study Says," and published on February 24, 2005.

That post quoted an AP story that reported:

Video cameras have blossomed in Britain since the 1990s. An estimated 4.2 million cameras now observe the country's 60 million people going about their everyday business, from getting on a bus to lining up at the bank to driving around London. It's widely estimated that the average Briton is scrutinized by 300 cameras a day.

For the Home Office-funded study, academics from the University of Leicester studied 14 closed-circuit TV systems in a variety of settings, including town centers, parking lots, hospitals and residential areas. Only the parking lot scheme was shown to cause a fall in crime.

Previous studies of the effectiveness of closed-circuit TV systems have come to similar conclusions.

Those "similar conclusions" are echoed in the London Evening Standard article found by Waldo Jaquith and linked from cvillenews.com:

London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million, figures show today.

But an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and controlled by local authorities and Transport for London, has cast doubt on its ability to help solve crime.

A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any.

In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a record of solving crime that is below average.

The figures were obtained by the Liberal Democrats on the London Assembly using the Freedom of Information Act.

(Politicians and bureaucrats hate it, but we citizens have got to love FOIA.)

Let's hope the other four city councilors follow the lead of Dave Norris and vote against this boondoggle before it's too late.

Now if only we could get rid of that useless transit center on the downtown mall and return the money to the taxpayers ...

Point/Counterpoint on Hate Crimes Laws

Today's Richmond Times-Dispatch features two articles on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. Dyana Mason of Equality Virginia writes from the "pro" side, and I write from the "con" side.

My article was submitted at the invitation of the newspaper's op-ed editor, who contacted me upon the recommendation of Barticles blogger Bart Hinkle (who is also a Times-Dispatch editorial writer).

I had written on hate-crimes laws in the past, both around the time of Matthew Shepard's murder and after the Roanoke gay bar shootings mentioned by Dyana Mason in her article. This is the first time I have addressed the issue based on the current status of hate-crimes legislation in the U.S. Congress.

Noting that there have been several earlier attempts to pass federal hate-crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation-bias in its purview, I write:

The latest iteration of this legislation is the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 3 and now under consideration by the Senate.

One might oppose this bill for the wrong reasons, motivated by an animus against gay and lesbian Americans that refuses to acknowledge them in the law.

One might also oppose this bill for the right reasons, supporting the dignity of gay individuals but objecting on constitutional, legal, and philosophical grounds.

The rest of the article takes those three categories and discusses (as much as one can do within a 700-word limit, even while citing expert opinion from the Cato Institute and Reason magazine) why Congress should, once again, reject hate crimes law as a federal policy. I conclude:

Hateful thoughts may be repugnant to us, but they are not crimes in themselves. And crimes that follow hateful thoughts -- whether vandalism, assault, or murder -- are already punishable by existing statutes.

Passing this bill would also be wrong because it suggests that crimes against some people are worse than crimes against others. Hate-crime laws set up certain privileged categories of people, defined by the groups to which they belong, and offers them unequal protection under the law.

Beyond this philosophical objection, however, federal hate-crime laws – those on the books now, those proposed – are outside the scope of the authority granted Congress by the Constitution. New laws of this type should be rejected; older laws should be repealed.

This is, of course, the basic libertarian position that aims to restrict the size and scope of the federal government.

I am looking forward to seeing if the Times-Dispatch prints any letters to the editor in response to these two articles. In the meantime, gentle readers, please feel free to submit comments here.

Update: Both the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership blog and Equality Loudoun mention these two articles today, with links to the Times-Dispatch op-ed page as well as to this blog.

Additional Update: Coy Barefoot saw the two articles in Saturday's paper and invited me to appear on his WINA-AM radio show. I will be joining Coy on Monday, July 16, from 5:30 to 6:00 p.m.

Yet Another Update: The Independent Gay Forum has reprinted my article from the Times-Dispatch. It is the latest of four articles I have written that have been picked up by the iconoclastic web site.