Citizens United, President Obama and Justice Alito

The last 10 days or so have been pretty big from a legal/political standpoint. We had what could be a huge decision from the Supreme Court, and also the State of the Union address from President Obama. To make matters even more interesting, certain occurrences during last night's speech could very well inflame the issue even more. Full disclosure: I did not watch the speech last night. For one thing, I was working. More importantly, I'm dreadfully tired of talk with no action. Besides, surely I can get an unbiased, non-partisan account of what happened from the myriad news sources on the television and the interwebs...

In any case, during the speech President Obama expressed his disappointment in the Citizens United case and lamented what he saw as the likely outcome of the decision. That a sitting president has a bone to pick with a Supreme Court decision is not really news. Some outlets suggest that the forum for said criticism was unconventional. However, the reaction from Justice Alito, sitting front and center for all the cameras to see, clearly indicated that he didn't take kindly to the criticism. At first he appears to be struggling with a vile taste in his mouth, after which it looks like he mouths the words "not true." What exactly he was referring to as "not true" is open for debate.

That a Supreme Court justice would react to anything said during a president's speech is highly unconventional and raises some interesting questions about the court's alleged apolitical-ness (a real word? probably not). Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has an interesting article today discussing the situation and what it means for a court that already credibility issues in the eyes of the public.

Also, since Murphy has yet to treat the Citizens United case directly, here are two articles discussing the legitimacy of the decision. One of them is another article from Greenwald, concluding the decision was at least partially correct. The other is from Lawrence Lessig and is a response to Greenwald's column.

Positive Signs for Criminal Justice Reform

The New York Times website has an interesting article examining some new and novel approaches to law enforcement, criminal punishment and community outreach. With states facing increasingly tight budgets, the expanding prison population has become a serious issue in the search to trim expenses. Far too often the answer in these situations is to cut programs and services in the jails and prisons themselves, creating deplorable conditions for inmates and opening states and municipalities to charges of constitutional violations.

As an alternative to dubious cost-saving measures in corrections facilities, some criminal justice scholars have begun to assess current punishment and deterrent schemes in hopes of developing more effective methods of keeping people out of the facilities all together. The Times article looks at several projects formed by scholars and judges designed to increase consistency, certainty and fairness in the criminal justice system.

In one study, researchers brought together parties on both sides of the system; the police, lawbreakers and potential lawbreakers, and members of the community. At these meetings, individuals who might find themselves afoul of the law were informed that infractions would result in swift and certain punishment. By removing the often arbitrary and capricious nature common to the criminal justice system, officials were able to foster a perception of fairness in the minds of the potential lawbreakers. That perception of fairness and certainty appears to have led to reduced crime rates.

Although these studies and pilot programs have been limited to specific cities and neighborhoods, the results are promising. Furthermore, the approach advocated by these programs "should appeal to liberals (it doesn’t rely on draconian prison sentences) and to conservatives (it stresses individual choice and moral accountability)." Hopefully the appeal is powerful enough to bring about the changes to our criminal justice system that are so desperately needed.

Understanding a world of different laws

The University of Ottowa has created an interesting resource for looking up basic information about the different legal systems across the globe. With a click, you can find out if a particular jurisdiction has adopted a common law, civil law, Muslim law, or other traditional law legal system. The site also provides basic information on issues such as language and GDP.

Roeder Murder Trial Delayed

The emotionally and politically charged trial of Scott Roeder, accused of killing abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, became even more tense last week when Judge Warren Wilbert indicated that he might be receptive to evidence supporting a theory of voluntary manslaughter instead of first degree murder. The trial was delayed yesterday in order to hold a hearing on the question. Under Kansas law, voluntary manslaughter is defined as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.” Defense attorneys are arguing that Mr. Roeder honestly believed that in killing Dr. Tiller he was preventing the deaths of unborn children.

The fact that the judge would even consider such a defense has set off howls of protest in the pro-choice camp and left pro-lifers pleasantly surprised at the unexpected victory. Pro-choicers argue that permitting such a defense will embolden others who wish to do violence to abortion providers and legitimize the use of violence. See the New York Times article here.

Strategic Default as Panacea?

We're back. At least until we decide to take another excessive holiday sabbatical, and by 'excessive holiday sabbatical' I mean from the beginning of November until after the New Year.

Surely you're wondering what could possibly be so interesting as to drive Murphy out of his/her spiderhole and return to posting. The answer lies in a New York Times article discussing the increasingly popular practice of voluntarily walking away from an underwater mortgage, also known as strategic default. In the article, the author points out how individuals are treated differently than institutions when abandoning a crummy investment.

Whereas an institution defaulting on a bad investment is viewed purely as a reflection of profit-based decision-making, the homeowner is still subject to a stigma if he/she walks away from a virtually worthless house. In fact, the stigma is even reinforced by the federal government in the way government credit counselor advise against defaulting on underwater mortgages. Why the different treatment? Why in one situation is cutting ones losses viewed as purely a business decision, and in the other a referrendum on an individual's moral character? The author goes so far as to suggest that changing the way mortgage default is viewed might actually speed the recovery of the lame housing market.

Read the article and see what you think. Should strategic default on a home loan be subject to any greater moral opprobrium than similar practices in the business world?