People v. State

In the course of the most recent inter-blawg squabble over what role, if any, the pursuit of Justice plays in the job of the criminal defense attorney, Norm Pattis and Mark Bennett perceived incongruity in someone who writes a blog called “People v. State” implying that some defendants might actually deserve what the State is trying to do to them and that making things difficult for the State is not its own justification. (I implied in one comment, consistently with the common observation of criminal defense attorneys that the majority of their clients have done something close to what they’re charged with, that only a minority of defendants don’t deserve what the State is trying to do to them, when in fact I think that a majority of defendants fit in this category.)

But even in an ideal society in which the State was no more (but which was not so ideal that crime was no more), law and processes for addressing transgressions of the law would still necessarily exist. (See, e.g., John Hasnas’ The Depoliticization of Law, David Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom, and Randy’s Barnett’s Is Limited Government Possible?) My opposition to the State, as reflected in the title of this blog, does not amount to an opposition to law and legal processes. (To the contrary, it is grounded in respect for Law.) Even the “law” and the processes developed by the State, unjust as it is in its inception and principle, can occasionally produce what appears to be a fair approximation of worldly “justice,” assuming a conscientious prosecutor, judge and jury, and a competent and effective defense attorney.

The evil of the State is its defining idea that the agents-without-principals who act in its name are somehow magically authorized to do what would be a crime if committed by anyone else. It’s the false and blasphemous idea that the State is above the Law. It’s the State calling “taxation” what is in reality extortion and armed robbery. It’s the State calling acts which violate no other person’s rights “crimes,” and calling its kidnapping and criminal confinement of people for such acts “justice.”

Whatever agents of the State actually have the right to do (e.g., respond appropriately to real crime), the rest of us have as much right to do. But one of the greatest obstacles to us exercising those rights is the financial interests of those in the employ of the State. As Thomas Knapp recently and colorfully put it:

Left unsaid, but becoming increasingly clear even to those who generally take little interest in matters political, is the fact that every operation of government is, by definition, an exercise in “class warfare” — a raid by a political class whose very survival depends on its continued ability to loot your wallet, your wealth, your work.

Like everyone else, the political class has to eat.

Unlike everyone else, the political class proposes to eat us.

Now that the pesky mosquitoes have mutated into gnawing rats and threaten to grow into rabid wolves, more and more Americans are finally starting to take notice.

It’s class war, to the death, like it or not — a war for survival, the political class or us. Personally, I’m for us.

For an example of this class warfare close to home, ponder the brazenly self-interested reaction of the president of South Bend’s police union to the city attorney and his neighbors hiring private security guards to patrol their neighborhood:

City Attorney Chuck Leone said Thursday that he, along with a handful of neighbors, hired the services of security guards to serve as the “eyes and ears” of neighbors who had grown frustrated by break-ins.

. . .

Both Leone and the owner of the security company confirmed the guards were hired with private funds, not city money, but that did little to ease the concerns of David Beaty, president of the city’s Fraternal Order of Police.

“What kind of message does that send to your police officers?” Beaty said. “It’s a slap in the face that he doesn’t think we are capable of doing our job.”

. . .

Beaty said he knows Leone and his neighbors did want a stronger police presence in their neighborhood, because the city attorney asked Chief Darryl Boykins to increase patrols in the area.

That request was granted, Beaty said. This week, two officers were paid overtime to provide additional patrols in the area, which includes the homes of Mayor Stephen Luecke and mayor assistant Tom Price.

“It’s setting a double standard,” said Beaty, who said other areas of the city have seen increases in burglaries but haven’t always received the extra patrols.

“How did their burglaries rise to that level?” Beaty said. “Were their homes being invaded? No. Guns being put to someone’s head? No.

“So why do the people in that neighborhood get the luxury of extra patrols that we don’t give to everyone else?”

Beaty said the FOP is against anyone hiring private security to patrol neighborhoods but that Leone or his neighbors should have at least hired off-duty officers, who are better able to respond to an emergency.

Follow