Knowing what belongs and what doesn't is exactly what we want cops to do, unless of course, it's us that "doesn't belong."
Knowing what belongs and what doesn't is exactly what we want cops to do, unless of course, it's us that "doesn't belong."
The shocker headline splashed across all media venues went something like "New York court declares viewing child pornography not illegal."
In ruling that pit bulls as a breed are "inherently dangerous," the Maryland Court of Appeals pandered to junk science, pseudo experts and marginal racism to discard the fact that nurture trumps nature.
Both in my academic and journalistic lives I regularly write about punishment. As a sideline, I read a lot about the idea of human progress.
The philosophy undergirding our grand scheme of punishment that fits the crime is perfectly logical, has a long historical provenance and is fundamentally flawed.
Many of our basic sensibilities owe to English Common Law. A matter critical to the Trayvon Martin killing has a direct line back to 16th century England.
A wonderful study in contrasts presents all a social scientist and columnist could want: Issues of race, class and how those characteristics combine when confronting authority.
If you've ever lost an afternoon to a marathon of Law & Order reruns, you might think prosecutors just can't wait to strut their stuff in front of a jury. They much prefer to settle cases through plea bargains.
It's a situation that must be reconciled under the heading: When smart people do stupid things.
The trick of being married to danger is to run headlong right up to the lip of the precipice … stopping short of the abyss.
