Judge shuts out Trillanes
How right Judge Pimentel is not to "parrot" the special treatment to Erap and Nur. Enough of this insanity of special treatment for special prisoners-- it makes a mockery of the concept of blind justice. Maybe the Sandiganbayan should learn a thing or two from Pimentel.
But, of course, comes the criticism: Beltran: `Ruling on Trillanes betrays govt fears'. Immediately, Pimentel's decision is politicised-- the one instance where a judge makes a decision not based on politics but on the rule of law, he gets politicised. (Ok, I can't know whether or not Pimentel decided sans political considerations, but his reasoning-- or the snippets published-- seems to be in the right place.) I guess cases involving politicians will always be politicised.
Now the administration can lay claim to rule of law and equal application of justice, while the opposition is reduced to politicising the judiciary. Sigh. Comments like Beltran's based on partisan knee-jerk just help prop up this bankrupt administration. Paraphrasing Burke: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to constantly put their feet in their mouth.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Quote of the Day
"No disciple of any school of economics can afford to close his eyes to a new discovery, obtained from another point of view, which will not fit in with his own ideas, nor must he treat it as unimportant, if not incorrect."
Henry Schultz
28 December 1926
The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 35 No. 5 (Oct. 1927), pp702-706
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Law & Order: Trial by Technicality
The Supreme Court recently announced that it will amend the rules on criminal procedure, possibly even the rules on evidence. Reforms of any kind-- legal, economic, political-- give us a chance to compare what is and what ought to be. Now, I'm nowhere near an expert in legal theory and am not a practitioner of law, but I'd like to take a look at some of the rules on evidence, particularly the so-called poisonous tree. Please bear with me if I mix up my legal terms or processes; feel free to educate me. To lay my point let us consider a hypothetical but very likely situation:
[thun-thun]
An eight-year-old girl goes missing in the park; a few metres from where she was playing, blood and several teeth are found by passers-by. SOCO confirm that the blood and teeth belong to the missing girl. SPO4 Lenny Brusko investigates-- there are no witnesses to the attack and abduction, and there is no evidence in the scene that can point to any suspect. However, some witnesses say they saw Manny Yakis-- a known violent sex offender who recently got out of prison-- walking in the park on the day the girl disappeared, but no one can say that there was any contact between the two. Brusko, after 30 years on the job, has a hunch that Yakis is their guy.
Brusko invites Yakis for questioning. Yakis is careful with his answers, giving Brusko nothing but leering eyes and tonnes of frustration. Jack Makoy, the fiscal who will prosecute the case, says they don't have enough evidence on Yakis to secure an arrest or search warrant. With no other leads to follow, Brusko stakes out Yakis' apartment.
After three days of staking out and no other sources of evidence in sight, Brusko is getting very worried, believing that the girl is being harmed in the apartment. Claiming he heard a scream from inside Yakis' apartment, Brusko breaks down the door and finds the body of the missing girl, along with the club that broke several of her teeth in the park, the plastic-lined duffel bag which he used to cary the girl, and the kitchen knife he used to stab her. Brusko immediately arrests Yakis, knocking the perp unconscious in the scuffle. The coroner identifies the cause of death as loss of blood due to multiple stab wounds-- she has been dead for two days. Yakis' semen is found on the girl's body. Confronted with this evidence, Yakis, alone with Brusko and a camcorder in the interrogation room, confesses to the crime. He is then assigned a public attorney for his trial.
During the arraignment, Yakis' defense attorney files a motion to throw away all evidence gathered from Yakis' apartment because they were found in a warrantless search-- he can prove beyond any doubt that the scream Brusko supposedly heard never happened. The attorney also files a motion to throw away the confession because (1) this was brought about by evidence from the warrantless search and (2) Yakis wasn't informed of his rights when he was arrested because Brusko knocked him unconscious. Noting that the police and prosecution have no other evidence on Yakis aside from those gathered in his apartment, the defense attorney files a motion to dismiss the case due to lack of evidence.
Under current rules of evidence, the judge has no choice but to grant the defense attorney's motions to throw away all evidence on Yakis because they are all fruits of the poisonous tree-- they are all tainted evidence. Brusko conducted a warrantless search and lied about exigent circumstances, and Yakis' confession was obtained without him knowing about his rights. The judge will have to dismiss the case due to lack of admissible evidence because he will have to pretend that he never saw the girl's body and the perp's confession. Even if the judge rules that double jeopardy does not apply, Yakis will remain free unless Brusko can find evidence that is not in any way linked to the contents of the apartment.
I clearly understand the need to prevent agents of the State from committing abuses such as warrantless arrests and searches. No one wants to see overzealous detectives overstep the rights of the accused-- allowing one noble detective to overstep the lines will lead to other less noble ones doing the same and before we know it it's as if the Magna Carta never existed. There is a clear need to protect people from the State's agents given their immense powers.
But is it really in the interest of justice and human rights to overlook what we know is true? In the case above, two people committed crimes: Yakis and Brusko. If the judge does not admit the evidence and dismisses the case, Yakis and Brusko will both go free (ok, Brusko will have a bad day, maybe a stern warning from his boss) but the real victims-- the girl and her family-- will be denied justice. How can a wrong correct two wrongs?
I understand that the purpose of the doctrine on tainted evidence is to prevent abuses by agents of the State. But instead of completely ignoring the truth, even from tainted evidence, why not simply criminalise acts that taint the evidence? Say, life in prison for a warratntless search or illegal wiretap, or the errant cop joins the perp in jail for the duration of the latter's sentence. This way the criminal goes to jail along with the abusive agent of the State, giving justice to both the victims and the criminal justice system.
I'm not arguing that the end justifies the means; on the contrary, agents of the State who abuse their power should be punished harshly, even as harsh as the criminals they convict. But I think it's wrong to deny the truth-- to pretend that what we know as true does not exist-- just to punish those who abuse their police powers. In fact, the present doctrine on tainted evidence is incentive incompatible-- those who abuse their powers (i.e., agents of the State) are not held personally liable for their actions. Their punishment, if you can call it that, comes mainly in the form of dismissed cases. There is a mismatch between the crime, which is a personal decision by the abusive agent, and the punishment, which is borne by society in the form of a dismissed case (not to mention a criminal on the loose). We want agents of the State to do their jobs well, within the bounds of the law, and respecting the rights of the accused-- I think the prospect of a long prison term provides more of a deterrent against abuse than potentially dismissed cases.
I can't see how ignoring facts, wherever they're from, helps the cause of justice. It's weak as a deterrent and does not really hit abusive agents of the State where it hurts. Now that we are considering revising the rules on criminal procedure and evidence, what is the philosophical reason not to change the doctrine on tainted evidence and fruits of the poisoned tree? Aren't justice and the justice system served by considering the facts-- all facts-- and punishing all who did wrong?
As I said earlier, I'm nowhere near an expert in legal theory and am not a practitioner of law. If you are, and you think I'm way off, please educate me.
[thun-thun]
An eight-year-old girl goes missing in the park; a few metres from where she was playing, blood and several teeth are found by passers-by. SOCO confirm that the blood and teeth belong to the missing girl. SPO4 Lenny Brusko investigates-- there are no witnesses to the attack and abduction, and there is no evidence in the scene that can point to any suspect. However, some witnesses say they saw Manny Yakis-- a known violent sex offender who recently got out of prison-- walking in the park on the day the girl disappeared, but no one can say that there was any contact between the two. Brusko, after 30 years on the job, has a hunch that Yakis is their guy.
Brusko invites Yakis for questioning. Yakis is careful with his answers, giving Brusko nothing but leering eyes and tonnes of frustration. Jack Makoy, the fiscal who will prosecute the case, says they don't have enough evidence on Yakis to secure an arrest or search warrant. With no other leads to follow, Brusko stakes out Yakis' apartment.
After three days of staking out and no other sources of evidence in sight, Brusko is getting very worried, believing that the girl is being harmed in the apartment. Claiming he heard a scream from inside Yakis' apartment, Brusko breaks down the door and finds the body of the missing girl, along with the club that broke several of her teeth in the park, the plastic-lined duffel bag which he used to cary the girl, and the kitchen knife he used to stab her. Brusko immediately arrests Yakis, knocking the perp unconscious in the scuffle. The coroner identifies the cause of death as loss of blood due to multiple stab wounds-- she has been dead for two days. Yakis' semen is found on the girl's body. Confronted with this evidence, Yakis, alone with Brusko and a camcorder in the interrogation room, confesses to the crime. He is then assigned a public attorney for his trial.
During the arraignment, Yakis' defense attorney files a motion to throw away all evidence gathered from Yakis' apartment because they were found in a warrantless search-- he can prove beyond any doubt that the scream Brusko supposedly heard never happened. The attorney also files a motion to throw away the confession because (1) this was brought about by evidence from the warrantless search and (2) Yakis wasn't informed of his rights when he was arrested because Brusko knocked him unconscious. Noting that the police and prosecution have no other evidence on Yakis aside from those gathered in his apartment, the defense attorney files a motion to dismiss the case due to lack of evidence.
Under current rules of evidence, the judge has no choice but to grant the defense attorney's motions to throw away all evidence on Yakis because they are all fruits of the poisonous tree-- they are all tainted evidence. Brusko conducted a warrantless search and lied about exigent circumstances, and Yakis' confession was obtained without him knowing about his rights. The judge will have to dismiss the case due to lack of admissible evidence because he will have to pretend that he never saw the girl's body and the perp's confession. Even if the judge rules that double jeopardy does not apply, Yakis will remain free unless Brusko can find evidence that is not in any way linked to the contents of the apartment.
I clearly understand the need to prevent agents of the State from committing abuses such as warrantless arrests and searches. No one wants to see overzealous detectives overstep the rights of the accused-- allowing one noble detective to overstep the lines will lead to other less noble ones doing the same and before we know it it's as if the Magna Carta never existed. There is a clear need to protect people from the State's agents given their immense powers.
But is it really in the interest of justice and human rights to overlook what we know is true? In the case above, two people committed crimes: Yakis and Brusko. If the judge does not admit the evidence and dismisses the case, Yakis and Brusko will both go free (ok, Brusko will have a bad day, maybe a stern warning from his boss) but the real victims-- the girl and her family-- will be denied justice. How can a wrong correct two wrongs?
I understand that the purpose of the doctrine on tainted evidence is to prevent abuses by agents of the State. But instead of completely ignoring the truth, even from tainted evidence, why not simply criminalise acts that taint the evidence? Say, life in prison for a warratntless search or illegal wiretap, or the errant cop joins the perp in jail for the duration of the latter's sentence. This way the criminal goes to jail along with the abusive agent of the State, giving justice to both the victims and the criminal justice system.
I'm not arguing that the end justifies the means; on the contrary, agents of the State who abuse their power should be punished harshly, even as harsh as the criminals they convict. But I think it's wrong to deny the truth-- to pretend that what we know as true does not exist-- just to punish those who abuse their police powers. In fact, the present doctrine on tainted evidence is incentive incompatible-- those who abuse their powers (i.e., agents of the State) are not held personally liable for their actions. Their punishment, if you can call it that, comes mainly in the form of dismissed cases. There is a mismatch between the crime, which is a personal decision by the abusive agent, and the punishment, which is borne by society in the form of a dismissed case (not to mention a criminal on the loose). We want agents of the State to do their jobs well, within the bounds of the law, and respecting the rights of the accused-- I think the prospect of a long prison term provides more of a deterrent against abuse than potentially dismissed cases.
I can't see how ignoring facts, wherever they're from, helps the cause of justice. It's weak as a deterrent and does not really hit abusive agents of the State where it hurts. Now that we are considering revising the rules on criminal procedure and evidence, what is the philosophical reason not to change the doctrine on tainted evidence and fruits of the poisoned tree? Aren't justice and the justice system served by considering the facts-- all facts-- and punishing all who did wrong?
As I said earlier, I'm nowhere near an expert in legal theory and am not a practitioner of law. If you are, and you think I'm way off, please educate me.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Loss of Political Capital
Vote dashes Bush immigration plan (on BBC)
It is unfortunate that in the one issue where Bush is acting in a non-partisan manner, where his views are balanced and his actions tempered, he is torpedoed by his own party. In the one issue where there is a tinge of the "compassionate conservative" in him, the, um, uncompassionate conservatives win the day. Too bad, he lost so much political capital over Iraq that he can't even get his good policies out.
It is unfortunate that in the one issue where Bush is acting in a non-partisan manner, where his views are balanced and his actions tempered, he is torpedoed by his own party. In the one issue where there is a tinge of the "compassionate conservative" in him, the, um, uncompassionate conservatives win the day. Too bad, he lost so much political capital over Iraq that he can't even get his good policies out.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Anti-Americanism explained
The BBC is having a series on anti-Americanism to be aired over Radio 4 in the UK. Based to the article, it seems to challenge the concept of anti-Americanism as a reaction to American foreign policy, putting it in the same hate box as anti-Semitism or racism. The correspondent, Jim Webb, "argues anti-Americanism is often a cover for hatreds with little justification in fact". He travels to Paris, Caracas, Cairo, and Washington to study this phenomenon. Too bad I don't get Radio 4 in this part of the world-- it would've been good to listen in.
It is apparent in the article that the series has a benign veiw of America, attributing anti-Americanism in Paris as a reaction to America's "kind of democracy that celebrates and encourages ordinariness" (i.e., the elitist and cultured French aristocrat versus the egalitarian but uncouth American cowboy). But whatever the etiology of French anti-American sentiment is, what I'm more concerned about is the sentiment as a reaction to American foreign policy-- is it well placed? Webb discusses it early on in the article. After seeing an anti-American protest in London, he observes:
"A pattern was emerging and has never seriously been altered. A pattern of willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion - or to magnify those indiscretions - while leaving the murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched. "
What Webb fails to comprehend is that this strong reaction to America's "tiniest indiscretion" is actually an acknowledgement that it is expected to have moral ascendancy. The world demands more of America and is very disappointed when it acts like other thuggish countries.
More than any other country in the world and more than any other superpower in history, America has trumpeted itself as the beacon of democracy and human rights. The British never claimed to spread democracy in India-- it was honest that it's all about expanding the British Empire. America, on the other hand, never owned up to its imperial past, pointing to Manifest Destiny as the reason for denying the nascent Filipino government its independence.
America prides itself in its democratic ideals and its wide open arms to all peoples. It claims to defend human rights and civil liberties, and promises to defend the world against oppressive regimes. And, to a large extent, the world believed that. That is why the world bristles at America's "tiniest indiscretions"-- it cannot claim to defend democracy and human rights and democracy while destroying them with its actions. America has proclaimed itself to be the good guy, the defender of the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Its actions have shown us otherwise. That is why there is so much anti-Americanism in the world-- it's a reaction against hypocrisy. That is why America is so easily condemned for its "tiniest indiscretions".
There is one thing the world hates more than murderers, dictators, and thieves. It is self-righteous murderers, dictators, and thieves.
It is apparent in the article that the series has a benign veiw of America, attributing anti-Americanism in Paris as a reaction to America's "kind of democracy that celebrates and encourages ordinariness" (i.e., the elitist and cultured French aristocrat versus the egalitarian but uncouth American cowboy). But whatever the etiology of French anti-American sentiment is, what I'm more concerned about is the sentiment as a reaction to American foreign policy-- is it well placed? Webb discusses it early on in the article. After seeing an anti-American protest in London, he observes:
"A pattern was emerging and has never seriously been altered. A pattern of willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion - or to magnify those indiscretions - while leaving the murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched. "
What Webb fails to comprehend is that this strong reaction to America's "tiniest indiscretion" is actually an acknowledgement that it is expected to have moral ascendancy. The world demands more of America and is very disappointed when it acts like other thuggish countries.
More than any other country in the world and more than any other superpower in history, America has trumpeted itself as the beacon of democracy and human rights. The British never claimed to spread democracy in India-- it was honest that it's all about expanding the British Empire. America, on the other hand, never owned up to its imperial past, pointing to Manifest Destiny as the reason for denying the nascent Filipino government its independence.
America prides itself in its democratic ideals and its wide open arms to all peoples. It claims to defend human rights and civil liberties, and promises to defend the world against oppressive regimes. And, to a large extent, the world believed that. That is why the world bristles at America's "tiniest indiscretions"-- it cannot claim to defend democracy and human rights and democracy while destroying them with its actions. America has proclaimed itself to be the good guy, the defender of the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Its actions have shown us otherwise. That is why there is so much anti-Americanism in the world-- it's a reaction against hypocrisy. That is why America is so easily condemned for its "tiniest indiscretions".
There is one thing the world hates more than murderers, dictators, and thieves. It is self-righteous murderers, dictators, and thieves.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Re: Filipino Theory of Value
My good friend Out in Four had an interesting thesis in his blog. I wrote this as a comment, but it got too long so I'll just it post here.
---
It is always interesting when anthro and econ meet. A few comments:
1. Material conditions and language do not work in a single direction (i.e., material conditions affecting language); it's more of a two-way interaction. Material conditions do affect the language (e.g., our many words for rice-- palay, bigas, sinaing, bahaw), but the language also affects the way we perceive the world (e.g., our word for sickness is sakit, which is also pain, so mental health is often neglected or trivialised). And this is most true for abstract concepts. Therefore, even if you find significant correlations, it will be difficult to establish causality. Did the language develop because they traded, or did trading develop because the people were open to it?
2. Note that most of pre-Hispanic trade was barter rather than in money, so "expensive" might be a very different concept for the early Filipinos (it would be more akin to marginal rates of substitution rather than actually being "expensive").
3. In any study of culture you will always find exceptions, so explaining them within the theory would be very difficult. And unlike other statistical anomalies, it wouldn't be possible to explain them away as outliers-- how does one consider a language or culture as an "outlier"? Could we disregard an entire Weltanschauung because it isn't like any in the rest of the world?
4. Filipino (i.e., Tagalog) is part of the Austronesian family of languages, so a lot of our words would be the same with, say, Bahasa; however, trading circumstances would be vastly different across groups. In many cases, there is more diversity between languages within the Philippines than between other countries (e.g., compare Ivatan and Panggalatok vs. Tagalog and Bahasa). So the results will be driven by how the sample is selected. The results will be different if we compare the different Austronesian languages or if we include, say, Indo-Eurpoean languages into the mix. Not to mention that a lot of our words came from Chinese and Indian (including mahal), so the lines get even more blurred. Cross-section analysis can't be done on data where the supposedly random samples are talking to and influencing each other.
5. Also consider the case of the Maranaos and the Maguindanaos-- almost identical languages, religions, social structures, etc., but the former are prolific traders and the latter are not.
Bottomline, your thesis is interesting, but very difficult to test. Obviously, I'm very much into the study of econ and anthro (the two extremes of the social sciences, actually) and have given this some thought-- studying both makes one aware of the limitations of each. The way I see it, Economics has a long way to go before it is crowned Queen of the Social Sciences.
---
It is always interesting when anthro and econ meet. A few comments:
1. Material conditions and language do not work in a single direction (i.e., material conditions affecting language); it's more of a two-way interaction. Material conditions do affect the language (e.g., our many words for rice-- palay, bigas, sinaing, bahaw), but the language also affects the way we perceive the world (e.g., our word for sickness is sakit, which is also pain, so mental health is often neglected or trivialised). And this is most true for abstract concepts. Therefore, even if you find significant correlations, it will be difficult to establish causality. Did the language develop because they traded, or did trading develop because the people were open to it?
2. Note that most of pre-Hispanic trade was barter rather than in money, so "expensive" might be a very different concept for the early Filipinos (it would be more akin to marginal rates of substitution rather than actually being "expensive").
3. In any study of culture you will always find exceptions, so explaining them within the theory would be very difficult. And unlike other statistical anomalies, it wouldn't be possible to explain them away as outliers-- how does one consider a language or culture as an "outlier"? Could we disregard an entire Weltanschauung because it isn't like any in the rest of the world?
4. Filipino (i.e., Tagalog) is part of the Austronesian family of languages, so a lot of our words would be the same with, say, Bahasa; however, trading circumstances would be vastly different across groups. In many cases, there is more diversity between languages within the Philippines than between other countries (e.g., compare Ivatan and Panggalatok vs. Tagalog and Bahasa). So the results will be driven by how the sample is selected. The results will be different if we compare the different Austronesian languages or if we include, say, Indo-Eurpoean languages into the mix. Not to mention that a lot of our words came from Chinese and Indian (including mahal), so the lines get even more blurred. Cross-section analysis can't be done on data where the supposedly random samples are talking to and influencing each other.
5. Also consider the case of the Maranaos and the Maguindanaos-- almost identical languages, religions, social structures, etc., but the former are prolific traders and the latter are not.
Bottomline, your thesis is interesting, but very difficult to test. Obviously, I'm very much into the study of econ and anthro (the two extremes of the social sciences, actually) and have given this some thought-- studying both makes one aware of the limitations of each. The way I see it, Economics has a long way to go before it is crowned Queen of the Social Sciences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)