"And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God"
-- Micah 6:8

"The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict."
-- American Bar Association Standard 3-1.2(c)

"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
--Pope Benedict XVI, June 2004

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Pro-law and order Blawg

Finally, a scholarly pro-law enforcement perspective in the blawgosphere. Crime and Consequences has a bunch of law school types writing for it, such as Ed Meese and most impressively, James Q. Wilson.

So if you like a much more mannerly take on crimlaw issues than you find here, check out the profs.

4 comments:

Windypundit said...

You freak me out sometimes, man. You're excited that Ed Meese is blogging? Meese Commission Ed Meese? The guy who made all the 7-Eleven's stop carrying Penthouse?

Heck, maybe he's mellowed a bit. I know I'm more conservative. I guess I ought to see what he's up to these days...

Faithmy said...

You thinking Tom was put out by 7-11's small choice of porno?? Have yoiu not read anything he has written?

Windypundit said...

"You thinking Tom was put out by 7-11's small choice of porno??"

Oops. No, of course not. But rereading what I wrote, it sure looks like that's what I meant, doesn't it?

I was trying to make fun of Ed Meese for thinking that such trivia was worth the attention of the Attorney General.

Anonymous said...

I wish people would explain what they meant by “law and order.” I suppose that we are all pro-“law.” I mean, anyone who is anyone is a lawyer, and we are all sworn to uphold the “law.” Exactly what the “law” means is obviously up to debate, as the idiots, the framers, envisioned a system of laws where there can easily be conflicts between a very special, supreme law, known as the constitution and less-special laws know as statutes. This didn’t make much sense, but they were very clear on the supremacy of this constitution. There have been no recent attempts to abrogate the supremacy clause. Instead, there have been attempts to constitutionally prohibit gay marriage. (This failed.)

I am a little unclear as to what the difference between “law” and “order.” Is. I always assumed that “order” meant the institutionalization of the expected norms of society as codified in “laws.” I guess all lawyers are in favor of some “order” or other, since we all swear to uphold the constitution in one way or another.

Now, I looked at that blog, and they had a post on Hill. (If you are not familiar with this case stop reading now.) It contained a few sensible suggestions for legislatures to protect themselves from 1983 challenges by requiring death-row inmates to challenge a predictable manner of execution in advance. I don’t see how this increases the number of laws. Instead, it seems to channel some claims into state courts initially, and, in essence require that the Supreme Court review them. This is a far cry from Meese’s prior politically-oriented silliness regarding pornography.