Lowering the Bar

Witches Screwed Again in Connecticut

In other civil-rights news, Connecticut's General Assembly failed again this year to pass a resolution that would have cleared the names of those prosecuted for witchcraft there during the 17th century.

This marks the 361st year in a row that the Connecticut legislature has failed to address the issue.

The Assembly's legislative research service found that about four dozen people were accused (some more than once), convicted (usually just once) and/or executed (once each) during the Connecticut trials.  "In each of the New England colonies," the report states, probably hoping to get you thinking about Massachusetts, "witchcraft was a capital crime that involved having some type of relationship with or entertaining Satan."

First to be convicted of entertaining Satan was Alice Young, accused in 1647 and later hanged, her powers apparently useless against rope.  Others included:

• Elizabeth Goodman, acquitted in 1655 and let off with a "warning";
• Mary Sanford, convicted and hanged in 1662;
• James Wakeley, accused in 1662 and 1665 ("fled both times"); and
• Elizabeth Seager, who was tried, acquitted, tried again, acquitted again, tried again, convicted, and then pardoned by the governor (or possibly Satan in governor's form).

S.J. 26 was requested by some of the accused witches' descendants, a number of whom testified in support of the measure.  Formally titled "Resolution Concerning Certain Convictions in Colonial Connecticut" -- I found it in the legislative index under "Witchcraft," between "Wiretapping" and "Witness Fees" -- the resolution would have noted that:

such accusations were sometimes made simply because a person habitually muttered to himself or herself, or talked to unseen persons, or used vulgar language, or gave evil looks, or was a notorious liar, or was a nonconformist, or caused discord among his or her neighbors . . . .

All of which I think I did on the bus this morning, so I'm glad this doesn't happen anymore.

The resolution then would have declared that the Assembly considers the whole affair "shocking," and -- in the only operative language of the resolution -- that "no disgrace or cause for distress should attach to the descendants of these accused and convicted persons by reason of such proceedings."  There is then a much longer paragraph making absolutely clear that the resolution will have no legal effect whatsoever.

Still, the resolution didn't make it out of committee.  Comments made by Rep. Michael Lawlor, the state judiciary committee co-chairman, suggest that this was partly because time ran short, and partly because they did not really give a sh*t about witch descendants.

"Although that's an interesting bill and important in its own way," said Lawlor, "compared to some of the other things we're having to do, we were trying to prioritize it."  (Translation: eat it, witches.)  "[N]ext year," he continued, "I'm sure the legislature will take it up again and give it some more discussion."  He added, "It's been 350 years.  I don't think another year will hurt."

Lawlor was never seen again.

Link: NBC30.com (Connecticut)
Link: FOXNews.com

Poll: What's the Scariest Part of the Torture Memo?

There has been a lot of buzz over the last couple of days about the newly released memo written in 2003 to provide legal arguments in support of using torture aggressive interrogation techniques.  And there is probably more to come.  In particular, one of the footnotes of this memo mentions in passing that, in a previous (but still secret) memo, the authors had apparently concluded that the Fourth Amendment -- you remember, the one about unreasonable searches and seizures and blah blah blah -- "had no application to domestic military operations."

Depending on your point of view, I suppose that's either evidence that one of our most important constitutional rights was simply argued out of existence, or yet another demonstration that lawyers should not use so many footnotes.

This memo has been formally withdrawn, but the one mentioned in Footnote 10 has not been.

Still, probably nothing to worry about.  What could happen?  But if you are one of those people who is uncomfortable with torture aggressive interrogation techniques and/or likely to object to a simple domestic military operation(s) that is only designed to make the pie of our freedoms higher, then maybe you will be entertained, or distracted, by participating in the following poll.

Link: Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants (Mar. 14, 2003) (posted by NYT)
Link: "Administration Asserted Terror Exception on Search and Seizure," Wash. Post

 

Man Jailed for Curiosity About Groin-Kicking

Last week, 28-year-old Jarrett Loft, of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, was sentenced to sixty days in jail simply for asking seven different women to kick him in the groin.

Isn't that pretty far down the list of things that need to be criminalized?

A court heard evidence that, on seven different occasions last year, Loft approached women in city parks and asked them to kick him in the aforementioned groin.  According to the report, and somewhat surprisingly, only one took him up on it:

One of the women, afraid of what the man might do if she refused, kicked him repeatedly.  Loft, an Oshawa native who moved to Guelph several years ago, thanked her and left on his bike.

He did what now?  Repeated kicks to the groin, and he just tips his hat and says "Thank you, madam, and good day"?  Seems like there are a few facts missing from that story.

There were some missing from the sentencing report given to the trial judge, too.  For example, the article described him as "frustrated" that the report "offered so little insight" into Loft's motivation for doing this.  (Loft's answer: "curiosity.")

It is not at all clear to me what law was broken here.  The women described the conduct as "disturbing," which it certainly is, and said it left them reluctant to use public parks.  But does that explain the charge on which Loft was sentenced -- one count of "mischief to property"?  There was mischief done to somebody's property, that's for sure.  I'm just not sure whose.

After Loft's 60 days is up, he will then have two years of probation, during which he will not be allowed to use parks or the Internet.  Hopefully, his curiosity about this matter is now satisfied.

Link: GuelphMercury.com

Florida Attorney Sanctioned for Insulting Court with "Children's Picture Book"

On Friday, March 7, Bonnie Goldstein of Slate.com wrote about a furious battle going on between a Florida attorney on one side and the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court on the other.

Any bets on how this one comes out?

The attorney is Jack Thompson, who has a long history of trying to police violent and sexual content in the media.  You can reasonably take the position that at least some examples of that are a problem, but Thompson's thinking has evolved way beyond reasonable positions.

According to the Wikipedia article on Thompson, which is heavily documented (132 footnotes), Thompson has been involved in decency crusades since the 1980s, pushing for boycotts of, among others, 2 Live Crew, N.W.A., and Madonna.  Eventually, he took on video games, claiming for example that vibrating PlayStation 2 controllers are designed to encourage violence because the "pleasurable buzz [delivered] with each kill" is a form of behavior-modification conditioning.

Last April, he claimed the Virginia Tech killer had been driven to kill, and trained to do so, by playing the game "Counter-Strike."  "[T]his is not rocket science," Thompson said.  "When a kid who has never killed anyone in his life goes on a rampage . . . he's a video gamer."  That does seem pretty conclusive, although the official report on the Virginia Tech shooting found that none of the games the shooter played "were war games or had violent themes," although he did play "Sonic the Hedgehog."

There is no evidence that any rocket scientists contributed to that report, however.

Thompson has also taken on the Florida Bar, saying that ethics complaints against him are frivolous.  Some of the complaints involve attacks Thompson has made on other attorneys and judges in Florida, and that's what got Thompson in trouble recently.  In what he said was an effort to prove that an opposing attorney's website contains links to pornographic images, Thompson filed pleadings in federal court that included the same images he said he was complaining about.  The court was not amused.

In February, the Florida Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why Thompson should not be sanctioned.  That was prompted by a pleading Thompson filed that he described as a "children's picture book for adults," which he said was necessary because the court couldn't seem to understand his arguments without pictures.  The pictures included swastikas, cartoon squirrels, a judge with the head of a donkey, and an album cover used to argue that the validity of Thompson's position "should now be so clear with this filing that even could see it."

On March 20 -- after Thompson filed a response that called the order "bizarre" and "idiotic" and asking the court to "make [his] day" -- the court sanctioned him.  As a result, Thompson cannot file any more pleadings unless they are "signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar other than himself."  Further insulting pleadings, which are almost certainly forthcoming, may lead to contempt charges.

Link: Slate Magazine
Link: Wikipedia article on Thompson

Wombat-Rape Story NOT An April Fools' Day Item

I guess it is understandable that some readers believe that the previous post, about a New Zealander who was sentenced to community service for falsely reporting he had been raped by a wombat, an assault that he said caused him to "speak Australian," is an April Fools' Day piece.  But, like pretty much everything here, it is true, or at least is based on what I believe to be a credible news report, even if the event itself seems incredible.

Around here, every day is April Fools' Day, more or less, so it's not really a special occasion.

Link:  Learn about April Fools' Day at Wikipedia
Link:  Museum of Hoaxes - Top 100 April Fools' Day Pranks of All Time

Australian Sentenced for False Claim of Wombat Rape

Arthur Cradock of Motueka, New Zealand, was sentenced last week to 75 hours of community service for making a false police report, after he admitted he had not actually been raped by a wombat as he had claimed.  Cradock called police on February 11 to report the assault, but called back later to say he did not need help after all.

"Apart from speaking Australian now, I'm pretty all right, you know," he said in the second call.

Despite this disclaimer, Cradock was still charged for the false report, which in New Zealand appears to be technically termed "using a phone for a fictitious purpose."

Wombats are not fictional, of course, although so far as I can tell there is no recorded incident of one raping a human.  Wikipedia refers to them as "crepuscular," which I thought at first might be related but which turns out to mean "mainly active during twilight."  The plot thickened, though, under the heading "Wombats and Humans."  The article noted that wombats are "sexually mature at 18 months of age," that their "lack of fear means that they may display acts of aggression," and that their "sheer weight makes a charging wombat capable of knocking an average-sized man over."  The article also linked to a description of a wombat attack on a young boy in 2001.

So, while wombats have assaulted humans, and apparently prefer young boys and average-sized men, Cradock's story is at least unlikely given that the marsupials are not native to New Zealand.  Also undermining his claim is the statement by Sergeant Chris Stringer, who told the court that alcohol "played a large role in Cradock's life."

Link: FOXNews.com

Russian Farmer Sues Space Agency for Rocket Damage

Tired of having rocket parts rain down on his village, a Russian shepherd is suing Roskosmos, the Russian space agency, for one million rubles after a 10-foot piece of space trash hit his property, narrowly missing his outhouse.

Boris Urmatov lives in the village of Kyrlyk in southern Russia, evidently right under the flight path for rockets taking off from a Russian launch complex in what's now Kazakshstan.

Residents in Kyrlyk and surrounding villages said that rocket parts regularly drop from the sky there.  "Sometimes it's smooth metal casings, sometimes it's bolts," said a resident of nearby Ust-Kan.  "I remember something like an engine fell once."  Coincidentally, Russian rockets are powered by something like engines.

According to Urmatov's sister, "Something woke him up in the night, like something exploded. Since he's visually handicapped [especially in the dark] he didn't notice the fallen rocket parts" in his yard right away.  "But in the morning in front of the shepherd hut he saw this enormous metal casing, as smooth as an egg," she said. "It nearly crushed the outhouse."

A spokesperson for Roskosmos said it warns residents when there is going to be a launch, I guess so they can avoid using their outhouses during that time.  He also dismissed any concerns about rocket safety.  "Technologically speaking," he said, "these parts are supposed to fall off during a launch. They fly, they fall, they fly, they fall. It's how they work."  I remember the guy who sold me my first car saying something like that.

"If a court determines that, yes, those are rocket parts," he continued, and "they fell on his land, then for sure he will be compensated. No question about it. We live in a civilized, law-abiding country," he said, although they actually live in Russia. "What is abnormal is when somebody gets greedy, and it turns out the parts did not fall on his land, but that they were dragged there. Those moments are not good."

Russian legal experts speculated that instead of compensating Urmatov in rubles, the government would likely move him to Siberia for "safekeeping."

Link: Reuters