Outrage and Indifference: Comparing Sex Scandal Claims against Spacey and Trump

by Nomad

Spacey's Disgrace

In the past couple of weeks, there's been understandable outrage over revelations regarding House of Cards actor Kevin Spacey.  

This sordid tale began when a fellow actor, Anthony Rapp, alleged that Spacey at an after-hours party attempted to seduce the then- 14-year-old Rapp. 

Aristotle on Justice and the Ordering of Society

by Nomad

When you look at the classical statues depicting Justice, there is the familiar image of a woman, blindfolded. The truism is, of course, true justice is blind to the distinctions of class, race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. In an orderly society- whatever that is- justice should prevail regardless. Otherwise it is a kind of pseudo- justice, merely a illusion of justice. 

However, Justice is not only blind to the distinctions of groups but also to the distinctions of individuals. The embodiment of justice also carries a measuring scale to show that justice must be balanced between individuals. Prejudice is the destroyer of justice. The scale, a once-common device, uses a recognized standard on one side. The image therefore is about the equality, in other words, there must be a single standard for all citizens. 

It is critical- in the name of fairness- that laws must be applied universally. There can be no law for the poor that doesn't also apply to the most wealthy. There cannot be one law for Christians and another for any other religion, nor a law for believers and another for non-believers.

Without that underlying concept, the idea of justice, as noble and an enduring as it may be, simply becomes a means of public control by overlords who have no reason to fear prosecution or punishment for their crimes. 

Miscarriage of Justice in Mississippi: The Michelle Byrom Case

by Nomad

The decision to execute Michelle Byrom has been called "gravely inhumane." As the date of her execution approaches, people have begun to ask how the state of Mississippi can justify the judicial murder of an innocent woman.

Fifty-six year old Michelle Byrom would become the first woman in 70 years to be put to death in Mississippi but that's not why her case deserves a closer look.  By any standards, this case represents a clear-cut case of miscarriage of justice. A writer for The Atlantic describes the situation like this:

This woman was horribly abused her whole life, up to and including her life with the murder victim. She was rendered mentally ill by this abuse. For 15 years, prosecutors and judges have known that it was her son who shot his father. And yet still the state relentlessly has sought to impose the death penalty. Mississippi wants its pound of flesh. But why from Michelle Byrom? What would it prove?

That moral outrage was echoed by The Natıonal Coalıtıon To Abolısh The Death Penalty. The organization has cataloged the multitude of problems with the Byrom murder trial. 

Michelle Byrom was charged with hiring her son’s friend, Joey Gillis, to kill her abusive husband in June 1999. She certainly had enough of a motive. After being sexually abused by her stepfather, Michelle was in many respects the perfect victim for a man like Edward Byrom, Sr. They had begun their relationship when she was only 15 and for 40 years, the often savage abuse became a regular feature of her life. In many ways, it was the only life she had known. 

Nevertheless, despite this motive, Michelle did not kill her abusive husband. 

It is clear now that her son killed his abusive father. Her son confessed in letters to her and to a court-appointed psychologist that he committed the crime. Byrom’s son is free on parole, and the man she supposedly hired is free.... Edward Byrom Sr. was shot in his home, with his own gun.

Michelle was in the hospital with double pneumonia at the time of the murder. Even though Michelle was heavily medicated and in the hospital, the police pressured her to confess to the murder to save her son from "taking the rap." The pressure continued on this mentally ill woman until she confessed and added details about the supposed murder-for-hire.

Comparing Justice: Breivik, Manning and Calley

by Nomad

Let's take a look at three very different crimes and three very different forms of justice. What can we learn from the comparisons between a mass murderer, a whistleblowing soldier and a soldier that committed war crimes? How does justice reflect a society's values and what does it say about a nation's values?

How a nation hands down justice and who it punishes and how it punishes reveals a lot about its values and its people. In fact, I would say that it's a defining benchmark. Where the courts are corrupt is where civilization ends. And where it is justice prevails is where fairness and civilized society flourishes. The law of the jungle was not after all intended to be a model for humanity.

As George Washington reminds us:

The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government.

With this idea in mind, I thought I'd explore three very different cases to examine how justice was administered and what could be learned about how values change from country to country and over time. 

Breivik in Norway

In the summer of 2011, Anders Behring Breivik conducted a carefully-planned attack on government buildings in Oslo, Norway, which killed eight. While police sifted through the rubble looking for clues, Breivik traveled to camp on the island of Utøya. There he systematically hunted down and murdered 69 victims, mostly teenagers.

According to his 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, Breivik's apparent motive for his acts of terrorism revolved around his far-right militant ideology which included hatred for Islam, feminism, and Zionism.

The tone of the national response to the painful events was set by the prime minister Jens Stoltenberg in his address at the memorial service in Oslo cathedral two days after the tragedy:

"We are still shocked by what has happened, but we will never give up our values," Stoltenberg said. "Our response is more democracy, more openness, and more humanity." Norway, he suggested, would not seek vengeance as America had done after the 9/11 attacks." We will answer hatred with love," he said.

Between Texas and Nebraska: Two Cases of Sex Abuse and Justice Denied

by Nomad

Lone Star State Justice

I saw this news from deep in the heart of Texas about Stanley Marsh III of Amarillo, Texas. It's a pathetic story of the public disgrace of a millionaire and the warping of the justice system. 

The New York Times reports:

Stanley Marsh III, an eccentric millionaire artist best known for his Cadillac Ranch art display along an interstate highway in the Texas Panhandle, has settled lawsuits from 10 teenagers who said he paid them for sex acts, lawyers for both sides announced Saturday.

(Photo: AP Photo/
Michael Schumache, 

Amarillo Globe-News)

In 2011, Marsh suffered a massive stroke, which left him legally incapacitated. His wife, Gwendolyn, his family and legal team have rallied to his defense. 
If one didn't look too closely at the charges, the images of the besieged family might arouse some sympathy. 

There's no question that the once- flamboyant Marsh presently makes a pathetic figure, and certainly, it's not the kind of happy ending any family would wish for. 

His online supporters- and there will be some- would argue that what Marsh did was a comparatively minor crime. It wasn't, they'd say, rape, or sadistic murder or abuse. 
The so-called victims weren't actually children, they could say. And, worst of all, you might hear somebody say, it wasn't such a big deal. At least, the victims were rewarded. (I actually read similar things about female teachers who sexually abused their under-aged male students.)    

According to the lawsuits, Mr. Marsh is accused "of giving the teenagers cash, alcohol, drugs  [Viagra] and, in one case, two BMWs [he crashed the first one], to perform sex acts with him at his office. One of the teenagers said he had more than 100 sexual encounters with Mr. Marsh in his office and at his home in Amarillo."

Not quite as horrendous as the Sandusky case, but pretty dreadful nevertheless.

Aaron Swartz: Thoughts on the Death of an Idealist

by Nomad

The tragic story of Aaron Swartz, and the events that led up to him taking his life,  got me thinking deep thoughts about the age we live in. 

When Stealing isn't

The digital age has clearly thrown many past concepts into disarray. Particularly when it comes to the definition property and the definition of ownership. No small matter because after all, property ownership is the basis of capitalism.
If ownership of property is a concept that has been turned on its head then so has the idea of stealing the property. 
Most people can understand the concept of stealing. 

You got it. 

I want it. 
I take it. 
Now you don’t got it.

As most of us know, stealing normally involves the taking of property that the thief has no right to. It also implies that the original owner is deprived of that property by the act of theft.

So when a top federal prosecutor in Massachusetts in charge of a computer hacking investigation blankly states that “stealing is stealing, whether it was done with a computer or with a crowbar” many people might completely agree. It sounds right. Stealing is stealing, except....

Yet, in the brave new world of the digital medium, (songs, books or images) can be copied endlessly and in seconds, and that copy is exactly the same as the original, without any damage to the original, is it theft or is it something else?

True, while no property is actually lost, its relative value may (or may not) have decreased when everybody has free access to it. 

If somebody broke into your home and made an illegal but perfectly exact copy of your prized Chinese vase, would it be stealing? Would damage to the owner be the same as if somebody had broke into your home and snatched- or smashed- that vase?

What happens if you had wanted to keep my original vase behind closed doors and only let your special friends view it? Or make people pay money to get a peek? Would it be so immoral to make a copy so that the rest of the world could appreciate it? 

According to law, it would qualify as outright theft. That’s the message that the film and music industry, (which has supposedly taken a bit hit from illegal digital copying), has spent millions of dollars in advertising to push: Copying is stealing. 

If you want to argue, you are condoning criminal activity. You are making Beyonce go hungry. Copying a film, they say, is equal to stealing a DVD from a store. You are spitting in the face of Nicholas Cage when you do it. For the industry, the issue is black and white. 

Many technophiles, however, would beg to disagree. 

Few could argue that duplicating somebody else's creation and selling it on the cheap is ethically wrong. True creative artists deserve compensation, after all. Additionally most of us can see the harm done to the actual value of the property if the robber then made millions of copies of the hypothetical vase and gave them away. 

And that is the main problem.

It wasn't a moral or ethical question at all. It's a question of profit-making, pure and simple.

That is what has the "haves" so very upset.

In the Absence of Justice

(Source)

St. Augustine tells us that "In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?" 

As the these articles illustrate, when there are two standards of justice, then there is none at all. You cannot allow the major offenders to loot and steal with impunity while the needy are punished simply for attempting to secure their daily bread. 

And a nation with no justice is an illegitimate state. The expectation of fairness, of being given a fair hearing in a court of law is the lowest standard for a civilized society. 
As Professor of Politics at the University of Oxford Alan Ryan writes: 

Justice is the most "political" or institutional of the virtues. The legitimacy of a state rests upon its claim to do justice.  

Scandal in Lock Down Mode: Rick Perry and the Texas Youth Commission 2/3

(this series first appeared earlier this year at Politicalgates) 

by Nomad

To view  PART ONE . In the second part of this series, I will continue the story of the Texas Youth Commission scandal, how the investigation was handled (or mishandled),  and the excuses that were made .

Doing Whatever He Wanted

It took years for the Texas Youth Commission scandal to get much attention by the authorities and it took still longer to bring the accused to trial. The case had begun in February of 2005 when Texas Ranger Burzynski began looking into the allegations of sexual misconduct of juvenile inmates at a facility. The accused were the West Texas State School principal John Paul Hernandez and the West Texas State School assistant superintendent, Ray Edward Brookins. 

For two years, while Burzynski repeatedly tried to alert law enforcement and justice officials, all action was delayed. Clearly nobody in the governor’s administration wanted to touch the issue, especially not with Rick Perry’s 2006 re-election taking shape. Anybody could see this was dynamite and few people in the governor’s office wanted anything to do with it. Political plutonium, in other words.

An internal investigation by The Texas Youth Commission, the agency responsible for oversight of the youth incarceration facilities, was conducted. 

That report was, however, not released until after the Perry’s successful re-election on February of 2007.