Traffic Ticket Quotas

Finals are now officially over. I am in the post-exam decompression. This includes being a little ill (my body finally has permission to succumb to illness), lots of sleep, and a curious headache.

Of course, my law school had various parties (official and unofficial) involving copious amounts of alcohol. Now, before you think my headache is a hangover: I do not get hangovers and I didn’t have very much to drink.

I needed to be temperate because I had an interview Friday with the state supreme court justice. I believe it went well. I kept them laughing, and it was not about my resume. That’s usually a good sign. I should be hearing about it in a week. I really want this internship, so I am hoping they think I am a “cool guy.”

Then, at a law school party yesterday, I was speaking with a State Patrol trooper. (Yes, law enforcement and lawyers mingle— sometimes). Someone (not me) said, “Yes, but how high is your traffic ticket quota?” The trooper replied with a joke about how she gets a toaster if she could write 100 tickets in a month. Her point, of course, is that there are no quotas for traffic citations.

However, the trooper then went on to betray her defense. She said that the supervisors will question her if she does not write any tickets on a ten hour shift. She framed the situation as, “They ask: what have you been doing for the last ten hours, then?”

The trooper gave an anecdote. One day, she was assigned to the Left Hand Canyon patrol. She drove five hundred miles and had only stopped one car. That is because the Canyon can be a fairly empty place, depending on the time of the year. When she came back to the station, her sergeant noticed she had issued only one citation. The sergeant asked, “What happened? Did you go hiking today instead of patrolling?” The Trooper then needed to explain that the Canyon was particularly empty that day and, as proof that she was on the job, she produced the mileage on her patrol car which had five hundred new miles on it.

This anecdote is precisely one that proves the pressure patrol officers feel in writing tickets. It is true that few police departments are brainless enough to give an exact numerical quota of traffic citations. Yet, if an officer or trooper or deputy faces a likely dress-down every time they have “too few” citations, then that is still pressure to give citations.

What are the chances, now, that this trooper will give you a warning the next time she stops you?

Criminal Law

I was running late. Where is room 206? This place is familiar—it is the law school after all. Yet, something is wrong. Where the hell is room 206? I’m late! The test started 20 minutes ago!
This was my first law school related nightmare. It was not a good a good sign for the day to come.

I just finished my Criminal Law exam. All I can say is that I certainly helped the curve. I am a giving person. I want to help my fellow students because I care. Therefore, I decided to go ahead and screw up the four-credit class’ exam so that I can raise the curve for everyone else.

The exam was that bad. I already knew that I was not cut out to be a prosecutor or a defense attorney. I know criminal law generally and I am pretty good at statutory interpretation. What I could not wrap my head around was the common law of criminal law. What’s worse, we did not spend much time in class discussing the rules but instead looked at focused on theory and international versions of criminal law.

The exam was multiple choice and two issue spotters. I was going to regulate my time, but I arrived at the 75 minute mark (my time limit for the first section) with 10 multiple choice questions left. I therefore faced a dilemma: should I finish the multiple-choice or go on to the essay? I choose to finish the multiple-choice. I calculated that I am a fairly good writer, especially under pressure. Further, the multiple-choice was likely to be the curve-determinate, so it needed to be finished. However, the consequence of that decision was that I was not able to fully cover all the issues in each issue spotter. Finally, the time constraints forced me write, “I see the felony-murder issue here, but I do not have time to fully explore the issue.” And, TIME!

I actually respect and appreciate my crim law professor. He is a great guy and one who really knows what he’s talking about. The problem is entirely on my end. I simply do not think very well in the criminal law framework.

Who knows? Maybe I did better than I thought I did. I can always hope for that…

Halfway Through

I am halfway through finals. I just turned in my Property paper. The Paper topic:

"Teachers teach nonsense when they persuade students that legal reasoning is distinct, as a method for reaching correct results, from ethical and political discourse in general (i.e., from policy analysis). It is true that there is a distinctive lawyers' body of knowledge of the rules in force. It is true that there are distinctive lawyers' argumentative techniques for spotting gaps, conflicts, and ambiguities in the rules.....But these are only argumentative techniques. There is never a 'correct legal solution' that is other than the correct ethical and political solution to that legal problem. Put another way, everything taught, except the formal rules themselves and the argumentative techniques for manipulating them, is policy and nothing more. It follows that the classroom distinction between the unproblematic, legal case and the policy-oriented case is a mere artifact: each could as well be taught in the opposite way."

To what extent is this statement true or untrue? Specifically, use two or more cases we have studied this year (you can use cases from the first semester) to illustrate the extent to which you believe it is or is not true that "the classroom distinction between the unproblematic, legal case and the policy-oriented case is a mere artifact: each could as well be taught in the opposite way."

Here I had a choice. I could stick to my guns and say that his legal nihilism was bunk. Or, I could get a good grade. I choose the latter. I can rationalize it as simply learning to adopt the best interests for my client (here, me) by arguing in such a manner that will appeal to the court (here, Campos).

What was curious was finding what Campos was looking for. He gave us copies of past papers that received top marks. One was written at a fifth grade level. It was a "stream of conscience" of a new associate who was representing one of the clients from one of the cases in the casebook (Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condo Ass. Inc-- the "cat lady" case). The other paper was a discussion of the "decision matrix" (a glorified pro-con list) and did not mention Property Law until the eighth page.

These papers received top marks? Perhaps I should simply turn in a Haiku.
I like hiakus
Sometimes they do not make sense
Refrigerator

Instead, I managed to quote Dennis the Peasant and King Artur from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I also included references to "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright. My crowning achievement, however, was referencing Third Amendment case law.

Yes, I am the master of BS.

A Sad Day

My beloved Colorado Avalanche have lost their bid for Lord Stanley's Cup this year. The evil Red Wings have swept the Avs with an 8-2 victory. My friend Mount Virtus will certainly not let me hear the end of this defeat.

What can I say? The team has never been the same since Roy left. Roy carried the team far more than most people wanted to admit. This is certainly true since the team has lost its defense focus as soon as Ray Bourque left.

Nonetheless, credit should go the the Red Wings for a solid series and playoff run so far.

Congratulations Detroit. (ick, I threw up a little in my mouth...)

There is always next year....

Lesbian-on-Lesbian Action

As an Ancient History major, I have heard a few corny history jokes with "Lesbian" in the punch line.

The term Lesbian originally referred to the people who lived on the Greek island Lesbos. Indeed, they were an important player in the Peloponnesian War. This knowledge, however, does not stop me from snickering every time the "Lesbian ambassador" was mentioned in class. (To be fair, I also snicker when my law professors say "but for" or "duty.")

Now, the AP is reporting that three Lesbians (of the island) are suing a Lesbian (homosexual women) group.

"My sister can't say she is a Lesbian," said Dimitris Lambrou. "Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos," he said.

First, the line "My sister can't say she is a Lesbian":This must bring a chuckle. What more is there to say for that phrase? Second, I love the euphemism, "certain ladies." How politically correct and respectful!

Lambrou said the word lesbian has only been linked with gay women in the past few decades. "But we have been Lesbians for thousands of years," said Lambrou[.]

Lambrou has a point here. The homosexual community has usurped many words for their own identification. Other words have been thrust upon them. Either way, the modern speaker has a minefield to navigate lest he somehow refer to homosexuality. "Gay" once simply meant merry or happy. Lesbian referred to a person from the tiny Greek island. "Queer" simply meant odd or unusual. "Faggot" is really a term for kindling. Indeed, anyone who reads Foxe's Book of Martyrs will get quite a surprise if they did not know the true definition of faggot.

It will be interesting to see how this case turns out. Greece has long been known for its openness to "alternative" sexual choices. Thus, the courts may be reluctant to condemn in anyway the homosexual community. Yet, the Greek people are very proud of the heritage and land too. I would not want to grow up on Lesbos and have my sister thus teased for being a "Lesbian." Which side will win the tug of war?

Murderer On Campus

Fellow blogger Rocky Mountain Neo-Con broke a major story at my alma mater. It seems that the Metro State Political Science Department will be inviting a former Iranian "Revolutionary" (read, "Murderer/Terrorist") to speak to my former school. The full story can be found here and here.

Metro is a great school. The professors care deeply that the students learn the material. Further, the school has a philosophy that the professors need to have real-world as well as academic credentials. But it appears that the Political Science Department is determined to undermine the school's credibility.

I remember Dr. Oneida Meranto (the PhD is suspect: it is in "Native American Studies" and the only school that offers a doctorate in that field is UC Berkley) and her diatribes against "white Christian males." Indeed, she was so radical that even very liberal friends of mine found it difficult to sit through her lectures. Once, when on tour through the American Indian History Museum, one of these liberal students expressed their boredom and lingering doubt that all of the Christians were "that bad." He received an "F" in that course. For his privacy's sake, I do not fully disclose who this person is, but I can personally vouch that he was a solid B student and in now way deserved the F. Indeed, he was a socialist and we rarely agreed on anything. The problem was that he dared to question, even in the slightest, Meranto's philosophy. You can imagine the issues I had when I took her course.

Yet, there are good people in the Political Science Department too. Dr. Norman Provizer taught me more about Constitutional Law than I learned in the course with the same name in law school. He is also an nationally-renowned expert on jazz. Dr. Robert Hazan, the chair of the department, is a kind and generous man who actually gives a fair reading of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, he was born in Turkey and gives an insider's view to politics for the entire middle east.

Perhaps poli-sci simply attracts extremists and weirdos. I cannot explain why my alma mater has so disgraced its name to allow a terrorist to speak to the school. It makes me ashamed to say I went there. Perhaps the school will wake up one day.

Christian License Plates

My friend Dan pointed me to this CNN story. A Florida state representative has proposed a bill to create a new license plate which reads "I BELIEVE" and bears the image of a stained-glass window featuring a cross. (photo credit: AP)

There were some interesting quotes in the article.

The problem with the state manufacturing the plate is that it "sends a message that Florida is essentially a Christian state" and, second, gives the "appearance that the state is endorsing a particular religious preference," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

This is the boilerplate, standard response by the ACLU on any indication of Christianity in the public sphere. My guess is that Mr. Simon had not even seen the proposed plate. Even if he had seen it, his response was not reasoned out based on these peculiar facts. Instead, the response is the product of a kneejerk reaction to any cross seen in public.

What is more interesting is what Rep. Kelly Skidmore (D) said:

It's not a road I want to go down. I don't want to see the Star of David next. I don't want to see a Torah next. None of that stuff is appropriate to me," said Skidmore, a Democrat who voted against the plate in committee. "I just believe that."

Why are there two references to Judaism? This double reference may be a slip of the tongue but it smacks of anti-Semitic animus. She may have wished to refer to either the Star and Crescent or the Koran of Islam. (Often, politicians use the “Big Three” of monotheism when discussing religious access.) Yet, she mentions Judaism twice about a case of a Christian symbol, which is suspicious.

Finally:

Simon, of the ACLU, said approval of the plate could prompt many other groups to seek their own designs, and they could claim discrimination if their plans were rejected. That could even allow the Ku Klux Klan to get a plate, Simon said.

This is a true problem when allowing the state’s imprimatur to be lent to a cause or issue. The actual example (A KKK license plate) is highly unlikely, but often used when someone wants to shut down the free access side of the argument. “Should we let the KKK or Nazis do it too?” is nice and pejorative so as to make the idea seem ridiculous.

Normally, I would say Florida is wasting time and money on the idea. However, the bill has little chance of passing, given the recent history of similar plates. The best way to look at is to realize any day a legislature is arguing about irrelevant topics is a day they cannot pass new taxes.

Disclaimer.

I just scheduled my interview with the Colorado Supreme Court justice. I am so excited. As for other postings for the next few weeks, I may be intermittent due to finals. I hope you understand. Keep checking up on the blog because you never know when I will be posting something in an attempt to procrastinate studying.

Eh...

I'm currently trying to work on the "final" paper for Property. The honor code and paper instructions both prohibit me from discussing the paper topic here for now. (I will divulge it after the deadline has passed.)

The great rule of persuasion is "Know thy judge." That is, know who they are, what they think, and what arguments would work best on them. I have thus been researching Paul Campos. It seems he has made some interesting comments recently that stand against academic freedom. See Brain Leiter's scathing reply to Campos.

Further, the man is a legal nihilist: the law is nothing but arbitrary pronouncements from the bench. There are no rules or logical conclusions. It's all vanity and navel contemplation.

This paper should be interesting.

Genetics and Privacy

Lawmakers are close to passing a bill to prohibit insurance companies and employers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information. (HT: Dan) Their reasons for restricting the use of DNA and genetic encoding information in the determination for insurance or employment stem from a concern of the right to medical privacy and the infancy of medical knowledge on genetics and disease.

The right to medical privacy and the doctor-patient privilege is sacred to our modern society.

The fear is that a company will do a DNA “background check” on its employees or applicants to determine how many useful years of work and an estimate of healthcare costs of a person. Thus, if a person were to be genetically predisposed to breast cancer or a cardiac disease, then the company may not hire that person to save on the bottom line.

The insurance fear is tangential to the employment fear: people with “bad genes” will not be able to buy health insurance because they are “too great a risk” for the insurance companies. Remember, insurance companies are primarily investment corporations that take the premiums of their clients and invest that money in the markets for profit. The more they pay out, the less money they invest and consequently, the less money they make.

Further, medical knowledge on genes and disease is in its infancy.

Some genes seem to flag a greater probability of getting a disease, but that flag is not dispositive. A person can have a “bad gene” and never get ill, and conversely, a person with “good genes” could succumb to breast cancer. There are too many variables to the health of a person (exercise, diet, employment, emotional health, etc.) to use genetics as a deciding factor in employment or insurance decisions.

The reality of our world is that entities crave quantitative data for every decision. Statistics are in vogue with academia, the media, and the man on the street. Every week there is a new statistical study on the effects of caffeine and alcohol on health. USA Today is famous (or infamous) for its colorful charts. The RBI stat in baseball is the most overused and over-analyzed stat in all of sports. Companies are using credit scores in their determination for hiring candidates. In short, our culture has shed its ability to decide abstract ideas based on evidence and philosophies in favor of easy, mathematical decisions based on numbers. Turning to genes and the probabilities of disease are just another story in this line.