Law & Law Enforcement

An Ethics Alarms Comment Of The Day Spectacular: “Ethics Quiz: The Rehabilitated Manson Cult Murderer”

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

It’s a conundrum: the more comments a post attracts, the more optimistic I am that I’m not wasting my time. But once the number of comments tops about 20, the chances of them being read diminishes rapidly. Generally I am a poor judge of which posts will generate the most dialogue; this time, I wasn’t surprised. The question of whether one of the Manson cult murders should be paroled raises ethics issues general and specific, including some that have caused arguments for centuries. Not only has it sparked 87 comments to date, the topic inspired so many Comment of the Day-worthy posts that if I posted them individually they would swallow the blog.

So, in order both to facilitate reading the highlights of the discussion and to give the best of the best exposure to a larger audience, what follows are the Comments of the Day by on the post “Ethics Quiz: The Rehabilitated Manson Cult Murderer,” by Steve-O-in NJ, Steve Witherspoon, Humble Talent, Ryan Harkins, Tim Levier, Alicia, Extradiminsional Cephalopod and Tom P. though I recommend reading all 87, even if they include two esteemed EA commenters taking shots at each other like the Earps and the Clantons. (You might want to read the original post, too.)

First up is Steve-O-in NJ:

Life in prison should mean life in prison. Some crimes are just so bad that the person who committed them should never be allowed to rejoin society. I think Charles Manson is the most undeserving recipient of the mercy that came with the temporary abolition of the death penalty whoever existed. I also think his followers, who, young as they might have been, we’re still old enough to be responsible for their actions deserved the same fate.

Don’t get me wrong, 54 years in prison is a damn long time. It’s longer than I’ve been alive, and the idea of spending all that time staring at concrete is very unpleasant. However, the families of those victims who were butchered should not have to see this person walking around free. Too often the victims and their families get forgotten in all of this. The victims here did not a thing. It isn’t as though they had bad blood with the offenders or had done something to the offenders. This is a case of someone who is as close to evil as any human ever was working his spell over other humans who let him work his spell on them and using that control to destroy lives who he really had nothing to do with and no reason to destroy. This is also a case of individuals who could still tell the difference between right and wrong choosing to go as wrong as any human possibly could. I say let this woman rot in prison for the rest of her days, I believe she should only be released if she is in the throes of a terminal disease and doesn’t have very long to live. Then by all means, release her to die.

Now Steve Witherspoon…

Continue reading →

Exhibit A On How Academia And The Public Sector Corrupt Each Other: The Berkeley-Chesa Boudin Affair

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

What is most amazing about this story is how transparent U. Cal at Berkeley is, even proud, about it. Amazing and alarming. The American far left is so confident now that it doesn’t attempt to disguise its most radical and destructive impulses.

Here’s the short version: the most radically progressive city in the country essentially fired its even more progressive district attorney for allowing the city to begin a death spiral into lawlessness. So despite that failure—indeed perhaps because of it— he was just named the founding executive director of the new Criminal Law and Justice Center at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law.

The city is San Francisco, and the former DA is Chesa Boudin. Boudin, who has been discussed here before, is really an antimatter prosecutor: he doesn’t believe in prosecution, law enforcement, or laws, really. The son of Sixties radicals, members of the violent Weathermen group, his mission in life is to “dismantle the system,” as they used to say (and are now saying again) on college campuses. Among all the so-called “Soros prosecutors” allowing cities to decline into urban hellscapes where shoplifting is considered a right and police are hesitant to police, Boudin was the worst by far. Imagine what it says about our elite educational institutions that one of them, after seeing him removed for placing his ideological delusions above his duty, said, “Hey! This is the perfect guy to head up our new criminal justice center in our law school!”

It boggles the mind, or would, if we had not already observed the rapid and so-far unimpeded ethics rot in academia. Here’s part of Berkeley’s announcement:

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Rehabilitated Manson Cult Murderer

/ Jack Marshall / 87 Comments

The Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles ruled 2-1 yesterday that Leslie Van Houten, one of the Manson cult members who murdered Leno LaBianca, an LA grocer and his wife, Rosemary in 1969, should be released from prison on parole. The ruling reverses an earlier decision by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who rejected parole for Van Houten in 2020. Van Houten was 19 at the time of the LaBianca murders. She has been recommended for parole five times since 2016. Newsom’s predecessor, former Gov. Jerry Brown, rejected the first set of paroles; Newsome has continued the pattern.

Now Van Houten is 73, still serving a life sentence .Newsom has said that she still poses a danger to society, which seems ridiculous. The court stated that there is “no evidence to support the Governor’s conclusions” about Van Houten’s fitness for parole. “Van Houten has shown extraordinary rehabilitative efforts, insight, remorse, realistic parole plans, support from family and friends, favorable institutional reports, and, at the time of the Governor’s decision, had received four successive grants of parole,” the judges wrote. “Although the Governor states Van Houten’s historical factors ‘remain salient,’ he identifies nothing in the record indicating Van Houten has not successfully addressed those factors through many years of therapy, substance abuse programming, and other efforts.”

Newsom can still request that California Attorney General Rob Bonta petition the state Supreme Court to stop her release. The real question is whether one believes in rehabilitation or not. Hers was certainly a horrible crime. Van Houten and other cult members carved up Leno LaBianca’s body and smeared the couple’s blood on the walls of their home the day after other Manson followers, not including Van Houten, slaughtered pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others in one of the most infamous mass murders in U.S. history.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is...

Should Leslie Van Houten be paroled?

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote Of The Month: Heather Mac Donald

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

“When government abdicates its responsibility to maintain public safety, a few citizens, for now at least, will step into the breach. Penny was one of them. He restrained Neely not out of racism or malice but to protect his fellow passengers. He was showing classically male virtues: chivalry, courage and initiative. Male heroism threatens the entitlement state by providing an example of self-reliance apart from the professional helper class. And for that reason, he must be taken down.”

—Heather Mac Donald, in her scorching essay, “Daniel Penny is a scapegoat for a failed system”

That paragraph continues,

A homicide charge is the most efficient way to discourage such initiative in the future. Stigma is another. The mainstream media has characterized the millions of dollars in donations that have poured into Daniel Penny’s legal defense fund as the mark of ignorant bigots who support militaristic white vigilantes.

There is no way law enforcement can or should avoid at least exploring a manslaughter charge when an unarmed citizen is killed after a good Samaritan intervenes in a situation that he or she sees as potentially dangerous. Nevertheless, what appears to be the planned vilification of ex-Marine Daniel Penny by Democrats and the news media to put desperately-needed wind back in the metaphorical sails of Black Lives Matter and to goose racial division as the 2024 elections approach graphically illustrates just how unethical and ruthless the 21st Century American Left has become. (I know, I know, we don’t need any more evidence…). Mac Donald’s essay is superb, as many of hers often are. Do read it all, and them make your Facebook friends’ heads explode by sharing it.

Here are some other juicy and spot-on excerpts:

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Ty Cobb (No, This Is NOT A Baseball Post)

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

That stylish-looking gentleman above is Ty Cobb III, a descendant of the iconic baseball player, himself a rather infamous ethics dunce. I never quite figured out Ty III’s relationship to Ty the First, but that is neither here nor there. I wish I didn’t have to write this post: I know Ty a bit, for we were in the same class at Harvard (where he already was sporting that handlebar mustache), and I knew many of his friends a lot better than I knew him. He is a nice guy, a funny guy, and by all accounts a terrific lawyer. He may have been the best lawyer ever associated with Donald Trump: Ty joined the White House staff to manage legal matters surrounding the Mueller investigation—yes, the Russian collusion scam run by the Democrats, the FBI, and the news media. He reported directly to Trump, and he was extensively quoted during the media frenzy over that disgusting set-up.

On May 2, 2018, Cobb announced that he was retiring as White House special counsel, and later that year, said that he did not think the Mueller investigation was a “witch hunt,” later saying in an ABC News interview on March 5, 2019, that he thought Mueller was “an American hero.” I almost blew my ethics whistle then; I didn’t: I should have. As a lawyer the public identified with President Trump (though his client was the office, not the man), Ty’s apparent vouching for the investigation was bound to be taken by the public (and certainly the news media) as a hint that someone on the inside with legal expertise knew Trump was guilty. I know I looked at it that way.

Now he’s done it again. Cobb told the news media that the “feds are coming fast” for Trump, and predicted that the investigation into the his alleged mishandling of classified documents will land him in prison. Spewing his opinions like an oil gusher, Cobb said,

Continue reading →

Another “Great Stupid” Milestone: Mayor Adams’ Plan To Stop Shoplifting

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

If you are not fully informed in Ethics Alarms lore, the term “The Great Stupid” for the ridiculous period Western Civilization is trying to survive came from a lucky conversation your host had many decades ago with futurist Herman Kahn, then generally regarded as the smartest man alive. One of the topics we discussed was the Sixties, and Herman observed that throughout history there have been periods where whole cultures suddenly forgot the lessons of the past. This resulted in what in retrospect looked like extended periods of stupidity, with people and governments engaging in destructive conduct and embracing wildly foolish policies until they re-learned what they had forgotten, usually after catastrophic results. I am quite confident that Mr Kahn would agree that this is just such a period.

New York City mayors have been major players in the most recent descent of stupidity across the land, and while Mayor Eric Adams couldn’t be a worse mayor than his predecessor if he just lay on his office rug twitching, he certainly tries. Recently, as his city (like so many Democrat-run metropolises) grapples with an exploding crime rate, Adams announced the following plan to deal with rampant shoplifting:

Continue reading →

“Gee, What A Surprise: Pot Isn’t Good For Teenagers”…The Sequel

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

In the same vein as the rueful post from two days ago, Ethics Alarms offers this excerpt from today’s Sunday Times without further comment, because none should be necessary…

Continue reading →

Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Cal)

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

That clip from yesterday has “gone viral,” as it should. It is also signature significance for an incompetent member of Congress and a party with no ethical standards.

First of all, why the Democrats think it is responsible or wise to treat FBI whistleblowers with the kind f contempt usually reserved for pedophiles, human traffickers and Klan members is a mystery. Then there is the grander question of why the news media is supporting the Democrats in this: after all, at issue is a corrupt and out-of control law enforcement agency.

Second, and most embarrassing of all, is the ineptitude of Rep. Sanchez and her staff, which obviously was ordered to do a deep dive into the social media accounts of the whistleblower witnesses in the Weaponization committee hearings to find dirt that could be used to discredit them. They found the wrong Twitter account, and yet Sanchez, adopting the accusatory approach and tone of Joe McCarthy, used a tweet from it anyway, demanding to know if the witness “agreed” with the mystery tweeter’s sentiment. Then Sanchez ended her self-humiliating questioning as if she had proven something other than the fact that she is an unapologetic fool.

What she should have said, when the witness told her she had the wrong account, was “I’m sorry,” then shut the hell up. I was immediately reminded of the memorable line delivered by Albert Finney (as attorney Ed Masry) at the end of “Erin Brockavich.” I wish the witness being abused by Sanchez had slightly rephrased it, and asked, “Do they teach members of Congress to apologize? Because you suck at it!”

Ethics Dunce: The American Bar Association

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

What do you call an esteemed legal organization that willfully encourages its members to violate its own ethics rules? There are two acceptable answers: 1) An Ethics Dunce, and 2) The American Bar Association.

That is a screenshot above of an email that arrived yesterday.

“Congratulations on Your 2023 nomination,” it began. “This year marks our 9 year anniversary of “Recognizing Excellence in the Practice of Law™”. Our Selection Committee is hereby extending to you an invitation to join this elite group¹.  Accept your invitation and join by May 23rd, and your name will be included in our roster announcements published in “The National Law Journal” and the Sunday “The New York Times” print edition on May 28th. Please note that only 56 spots remain available. Less than 1% of lawyers in the United States are recognized as Lawyers of Distinction.”

I am many things, but a “lawyer of distinction” I am not. I haven’t practiced law for more than a decade; legal ethics is not the practice of law. Lawyers of Distinction is, to cut to the chase, a scam, and one that is used by lawyers to deceive clients. For the National Law Journal to provide cover for the unethical advertising scheme is bad, but a while back the ABA included an advertisement for “Lawyers of Distinction” in the ABA Journal. The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, followed by most jurisdictions, specifically forbids misleading and deceptive advertising, which a lawyer announcing that he or she was “chosen” as a “lawyer of distinction” definitely is. The association attracted a lot of criticism for running the ad, and may not have sunk so low again: I don’t know, because I no longer receive the ABA Journal, but once was enough for me.

Continue reading →

Unexpectedly, The Biden Administration Policy Of Using Diversity/Equity/Inclusion And Hyper-Partisanship As Criteria For Law Enforcement Appointments Results In An Unethical US Attorney

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Who couldn’t see this coming? The bipartisan effort to politicize the justice system, recently brought into focus by Durham Report, resulted in a spectacularly unethical and corrupt U.S. Attorney, Rachael S. Rollins, the Biden selection for the job in Massachusetts. A 161-page report issued by Justice’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, found that Rollins has been a whirlwind of unethical conduct, misusing her office to help a political ally, defying ethics rules to get free tickets to Boston Celtics games, her acceptance of flights and a resort stay paid for by a sports and entertainment company, and lying under oath to investigators, among other misdeed. The New York Times calls the IG’s work “one of the most extraordinary public denunciations of a sitting federal prosecutor in recent memory.” The U.S. Office of Special Counsel released its own findings on Rollins’ sleaziness, concluding that she had violated the Hatch Act, which restricts political activity by federal officials.

Continue reading →