Nothing is more damaging to a state than that cunning men pass for wise. - Francis Bacon
The advocate system which underlies the Western machinery of “justice” is, in a way, the exact opposite of science, though they both claim to have the same goal: discovering the truth. But while everyone in science is presumed to be on the same side, and an ethical scientist who has made a discovery wants others to share his information and to test his hypotheses by trying to prove them wrong, lawyers do things the other way around. Those who represent the accusatory side (the state or plaintiff) do everything in their power to find the defendant/respondent guilty of whatever it is he’s accused of, even if they know he isn’t, and those on the defense will similarly attempt to exonerate their client even if they know he’s guilty. Furthermore, either side is allowed to hide critical information from the other; it’s considered the responsibility of each side to demand that the other side turn over its information (a process called “discovery”), and if it fails to do so in exactly the right way the other side is allowed to hide that information, even if it results in an innocent man being imprisoned or executed. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court recently ruled (in a case involving former New Orleans district attorney Harry Connick) that even if a prosecutor maliciously hides exculpatory evidence, and even if this monstrous act sends an innocent man to prison for 18 years (14 of them on death row), that said prosecutor hasn’t done anything wrong and is immune to lawsuits filed by his victim.
In short, the two systems are incompatible, and when they clash it is science which must lose because the scientist practices full disclosure, while the lawyer tells only those facts which are to his advantage. The result is that most of what passes for “science” in courtrooms is junk science at best, when it isn’t outright lying by hired guns posing as scientists to advance an agenda or simply to earn a paycheck. A large proportion of forensic “science” has long been attacked by legitimate scientists as undependable or totally bogus, but prosecutors like it because splatter or bite-mark analysis, dog behavior, and other highly subjective, error-prone “techniques” can be used to “prove” whatever the prosecutor wants proven; this may be acceptable to the moral cripples whose job is to cage as many humans as possible for as long as possible, but it isn’t “science” by any stretch of the imagination. In science, every possibility must be considered; in prosecution, the only one which is presented to a jury for consideration is the one which tends to make the defendant look guilty, whether it’s “shaken baby syndrome” or the mysterious “diseases” supposedly caused by silicone in the chest wall but not anywhere else in the body, or in any woman who isn’t American.
And despite what you may have seen on television, judges are downright hostile to science in the courtroom when it calls established procedures or the basis of laws into question:
[Dean] Boland, a Lakewood, Ohio, lawyer who specializes in technology cases, was ordered by a federal judge to pay [$300,000] to two unidentified minors whose stock photos Boland used to create…[artificial] images of children engaged in sexual conduct…[in order] to aid his testimony as an expert witness in courts in Ohio and Oklahoma. “The court concludes that a constitutionally effective defense to a child pornography charge does not include the right to victimize additional minors by creating new child pornography in the course of preparing and presenting a defense,” U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland said in an opinion, rejecting Boland’s claim that his use of the images was constitutionally protected. Boland used the morphed images to show how difficult it is for people possessing child pornography to determine whether the images depict real children or were created artificially…Boland said he plans to appeal the judgment. “This ruling has the potential to affect the ability of people to get fair trials across the country,” [he] said…
…Boland used the images to aid his expert testimony in three criminal prosecutions for possession of child pornography. In one hearing, prosecutors questioned whether Boland’s use of the images violated the law against possession of child pornography. In 2007, Boland entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with prosecutors in Cleveland, avoiding a criminal conviction. As part of the agreement, Boland apologized in a local legal publication and admitted the images violated federal law, according to an appeals court decision. That same year, the guardians of the children whose photographs were used sued Boland for digitally altering the stock shots. Polster [originally] dismissed the claims, calling it a “difficult and troubling case.” That decision was reversed on appeal and the case was returned to Polster, who granted summary judgment for the two children…awarding $150,000 to each.
Note the sleaziness of the prosecutors’ circumvention of Boland’s defense tactic by attempting to charge him with a felony, despite the fact that they knew with certainty that the child porn was artificial. Personally, I think he was most unwise in creating artificial child porn images; his point could have been made by “morphing” adult photographs in the same way. But the fact remains that the prosecutors’ desire to “win” inspired them to call attention away from Boland’s undoubtedly effective defense tactic with the legal equivalent of an ad hominem attack. “Difficult and troubling” indeed; the message being sent here is that a mere image can be illegal even if its creation hurt nobody, but that creating artificial child porn is apparently acceptable to the court as long as the models are paid outrageous sums. Judges and prosecutors don’t want to be confused with facts that point out the absurdity of the laws; to them, facts are only acceptable when they can be bent to fit their own legalistic purposes, and lies dressed up as science will do just as well.
One Year Ago Today
“Drama Queens” refutes the neofeminist claims that prostitution is “humiliating” by pointing out that if anything, many whores’ self-esteem is too high, and that there are far more prima donnas among us than beaten-down victims. The column also contains a couple of news items and a humorous criticism of clients from a rather bitter escort.