Crime
Psychology Today has an article this week by criminologist, Stanton E. Samenow, Ph.D. In the piece, Samenow argues that criminals experience what he calls genuine sentimentality, which can make them appear as good people both to others and themselves. They may engage in things like loving their mothers, or participating in charitable organizations, or thoughtful acts of kindness. However, Samenow points out that criminals have the ability to “switch off” this sentimentality when committing crimes. A criminal can, for instance, love his mother, then hit her for nagging him, then go back to loving her without remorse. These periods of sentimentality, rather than offering a template for better behavior for the criminal, actually “fortify the offender’s view of himself as a good person and thereby provides greater license for crime.” The sentimentality is the version of many defendants that show up to sentencing hearings in court, to meetings with social workers, and to problem-solving court meetings. Decision-makers in the criminal justice system must understand the reality of what Samenow describes, or risk being manipulated. You can read the article here.
Free speech
Last week, the presidents of Harvard, MIT and UPenn made fools of themselves in front of the U.S. House Education Committee. The three presidents refused to say that active calls for the genocide of Jews violated their campus speech codes. This week, the UPenn president resigned over the matter.
At the hearing, instead of saying that calling for the genocide of Jews violates the Ivy League colleges campus speech codes, all three professors defended the speech on First Amendment principles. This is not a wholly unreasonable position. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution broadly protects speech, even abhorrent speech. What was bad about the presidents’ conduct at the hearing was the hypocrisy they displayed. These college presidents’ newfound love of the First Amendment apparently only applies to leftist speech. As Heather MacDonald points out in an essay this week in City Journal, recent history is replete with these very higher education institutions, and many others, cracking down on conservative speech. Outside speakers, faculty and students have been shut down, cancelled, and fired for “assertions that sex is biological and binary, that racial preferences harm their beneficiaries, that diversity bureaucracy inhibits academic freedom, and that an open-borders immigration policy damages the country.” On a college campus, a microaggression is a violation of campus speech code, but calling for the murder of all Jews on Earth is not. The Harvard, MIT and UPenn presidents did not tolerate pro-Hamas demonstrations and calls for Jewish genocide because they believe in free speech as protected by the First Amendment. They tolerated it because they are beholden to Wokism. It was an ugly display, but hopefully, with the consequences now flowing from it, we will start to see needed change on college campuses.
Separation of powers
This week, Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on a preliminary issue important to the four separate criminal cases filed against Donald Trump. Trump attorneys have asserted that Trump has immunity from prosecution for actions he took as President. All the facts in all the Trump criminal cases occurred while he was President. Special Counsel Smith is arguing that the charges may be brought now that Trump is out of office. As a general rule, criminal charges may not be brought against a sitting president. While this sounds odd, it is based on the principle of separation of powers. If prosecutors were able to bring charges against a sitting president, then they would have substantial power over the president. The president is the highest elected official, and cannot be subject to the authority of other officials. This does not mean that presidents cannot be held responsible for crimes they commit. It does mean, however, that they must be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, convicted in a U.S. Senate trial, and removed from office before charges may be filed. The political remedy must precede the legal remedy. Trump’s team is arguing that while Trump was impeached by the U.S. House, he was never convicted in the Senate, nor removed from office, and, therefore, cannot be charged. For what its worth, and it is not worth very much, I believe Trump does not have immunity. My view is that only sitting presidents have immunity because only sitting presidents would experience the separation of powers issue. Presidents that have been removed from office or are no longer in office due to reaching a term limit or losing an election are prosecutable. Thankfully, you need not rely on my opinion. The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on this issue.