Showing posts with label Our Criminals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Our Criminals. Show all posts

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Against Perp Walks - Period

I started to write this post a while back and got distracted. It seems the point, if somewhat less current, is nonetheless still worth making.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn is taken out of a police station in New York
on May 15, 2011.
Photograph © Jewel Samad/AFP/GETTY IMAGES.

I have no particular sympathy for Dominique Strauss-Kahn. He has been accused of sexual assault and indicted on the charges. I trust that he will get a fair trial. The woman involved, of course, deserves a trial that is fair too, in the sense that it takes place without accusing her and without her word being lost in the glare of celebrity and privilege. I wish I were confident that she will get what she is due. It turns out that the sort of aggressive behavior of which Strauss-Kahn is accused is relatively common. That is no excuse either. The outcome of the trial will no doubt send a loud signal to other hotel staff and their employers. The stakes beyond this particular case, in other words, are high.

At The Nation, The New Republic, The Economist various commentators took up the outrage that French politicians and intellectuals have expressed at photographs of Strauss-Kahn on his "perp walk." The complaints are presented as being about how misguided it is to treat a respected member of the elite class as a common criminal. My complaint is that there really is no reason to treat any criminal - common or otherwise - in so humiliating, prejudicial a manner.

What is the use of such photos? They clearly set the agenda - the accused is treated as though he or she is dangerous and guilty in ways that clearly subvert any presumption of innocence. And they depict the police, as symbols of social order, reinforcing their claim to authority, regardless of whether or not it amounts to anything more than arbitrary assertion.

According to news reports such images are legally proscribed in France. If it is necessary, to prevent attempts at escape and to insure the safety of police officers, that prisoners be kept handcuffed and shackled, the policy clearly ought to apply to all regardless of status or wealth. But if such a policy is necessary, there is little reason to allow photographers - paparazzi, really - access to the prisoner. Habeas corpus requires that prisoners be granted access to family and legal counsel, not to the news media. So, beyond subverting the basic presumption of innocence and inflating the, too often mis-ascribed and mis-used, authority of the police what exactly is the point of this practice?

Monday, March 21, 2011

Which is Worse - Photographs of Murder or Murder?

(L. to R.) Spc. Jeremy Morlock, Spc. Andrew Holmes,
Spc. Michael Wagnon, Spc. Adam Winfield.

What's wrong with this story from The New York Times? The topic is a set of photographs that putatively confirm that the fine fellows pictured above engaged in all sorts of bad behavior while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army. Of course, these men have not been convicted of anything. But the story in The Times suggests that the evidence against them is damning. Let the trial proceed as it should.

The first problem with the story is that the news reports do not show the photographs in question. My understanding is that the Army and a U.S. Court have issued orders to suppress publication. I have not found them anywhere on line. Your tax dollars at work. What ever happened to the idea of a free press?

The second problem is that the U.S. Army is continuing an official practice we've repeatedly witnessed when Americans do heinous things. They are apologizing, quite fervently, for the images and the distress they cause instead of the actions that the images depict. Pretty poor aim there soldier.
__________
P.S.: My thanks to Stanley Wolukau-Wanambra for this link to the report in Der Spiegel which published some of the images.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Beck's Campaign Against Francis Fox Piven (3)

"I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income." - Martin Luther King, Jr. Where Do We Go From Here? (1967).
"It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty." - Francis Fox Piven and Richard Cloward The Nation (1966).
In The Guardian today there is yet another story on Glenn Beck's ongoing campaign against Francis Fox Piven. I found it funny that Piven arranged to meet the correspondent from the paper at a NYC restaurant called "Havana Central."

One thing that strikes me about Beck is his ignorance about history. You can find a link to the 1966 essay by Piven (and her husband, the late Richard Cloward) that so exercises Beck here at The Nation. That is where I lifted the statement above - from the first paragraph of the essay. My point today is just to say that Piven and Cloward were advocating a strategy to implement a policy that, as I noted here a year ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. also endorsed. And since Beck has announced his aim to reinvigorate Dr. King's message, how is it that he objects to Piven and Cloward? What better way to end poverty does Beck envision than the one King came to embrace? Beck instead ought to be embracing Piven as an ally in that cause. Maybe that is why he has afforded her all the publicity that trails in the wake of his diatribes.
__________
P.S.: You might find this portrait of Piven and this more recent Op-Ed from The Los Angeles Times - both by Barabara Ehrenreich - interesting.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Nobel politics and Liu Xiaobo

Liu Xiaobo. Photograph: Liu Xia.

I have posted here several time about Liu Xiaobo, currently imprisoned Chinese regime for his political activities. Today has won the Nobel Peace Prize. You can find reports here and here. I think this is a very worthy choice.

There has been a relatively high visibility campaign on Liu's behalf over the past year. Most notably, a group of prominent political figures circulated this statement, with another group following with this letter, publicly urging the Nobel committee to award the prize to Liu. The campaign has itself reportedly prompted an extremely negative response from the Chinese government. And it generated conflict among Chinese dissidents, with some endorsing the candidacy with others opposing it. With all due respect, I think the opponents are shortsighted. What is at issue here is not Liu's personality - whether he is flawless, a saint rather than a political actor - but the extension of democratic principles in the face not just of authoritarian politics but of market forces as well. On this point I recommend this essay by Chinese novelist Ma Jian. And disagreement is just what those principles countenance. In a sense the Nobel committee has created some political space. To the extent that the Chinese people are able to get the news it, of course, offers them encouragement. But the prize can and should be seen not just as holding the Chinese government to account but also, and importantly, as placing pressure on "our" democratic governments to endorse their own principles by speaking out on the prize. It will be interesting to see if any intrepid Western leaders take advantage of the opportunity the committee has afforded them! Any leader who speaks out would not just potentially jeopardize relations with an important trading partner, but open whomever speaks out to scrutiny of their own political practices. I am not holding my breath. Are you?

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

I'm With the Rapist ...

At the Cannes film festival photocall for Palme d'Or contender
Des Hommes et Des Dieux (Of Gods and Men), French director
Xavier Beauvois holds a T-shirt to show his support for Roman
Polanski, who has been under house arrest in Switzerland since
last December. Photograph © Sean Gallup/Getty Images.

I came across this photograph at The Guardian; let's say it falls into the category of the truly astonishing. Roman Polanski had sex with a 13 year old girl, confessed to the crime, and then ran away to avoid serving his sentence. What cause, precisely, is it with which Mr. Beauvais (and his friends) is demonstrating solidarity? Is it the cause of men who rape children? Or is it the cause of justice being applied differentially according to one's financial wherewithal? Just wondering. Perhaps Mr. Beauvais should consider switching to this tee-shirt:

__________
P.S.: And, of course, there are fresh allegations about Polanski's predilections for young girls. While he is innocent until proven guilty, I am sure he will want to have a full airing of the latest charges in court, no?