The principle that lawyers discipline themselves sometimes leads to questions about whether it's a fair system, but in fact we're far harder on ourselves than the State is on any other profession it regulates.
A case in point is this week's disbarment of former Phoenix prosecutor Andrew Thomas and his chief henchwoman. Thomas was Sheriff Joe Arpaio's biggest ally, and basically went power mad trying to treat any policy disagreements with what the two of them wanted as criminal corruption. It culminated with charging a sitting judge with serious crimes for ruling against them. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/andrew-thomas-disbarred-phoenix-prosecutor_n_1415815.html.
The US Department of Justice has been working for several years to get Arpaio under control, and despite his open criminality they're still in the preliminary stages. The Arizona Bar, on the other hand, has now wrapped up what was probably their biggest case ever and booted the culprits out of the profession (subject to appeal of course, which won't get anywhere IMHO). Like us or not, we do deal with our bad apples efficiently.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Prop 8 in Washington?
I haven't finished going through the 9th Circuit decision invalidating Proposition 8, the anti- gay marriage initiative, but one thing jumped out at me:
A big part of the decision was that California already had an "everything but marriage" law, so any argument that gay unions were somehow bad for society was moot- since California had already legalized gay unions, the only issue was whether calling them "marriages" rather than "civil unions" was a problem. All the usual arguments that gay marriage should be unrecognized because marriage is about procreation, not good for kids, or whatever other strained nonsense the opponents put out are irrelevant- all that's legal, so the only issue is the label. The 9th Circuit apparently decided that there was no good argument that referring to gay unions as "marriages" rather than "civil unions" would hurt society.
Now, Washington State is about to legalize gay marriage through the Legislature, and there's already plans afoot to run a referendum to challenge that law. We've had an "everything but marriage" law on the books for several years. I think we're in the same position as California, and the logic is the same- and as a result the referendum will meet the same fate as Prop 8.
By the way, I've been married for 22 years, and I have absolutely no fear that my wife will leave me to become a lesbian if gay marriage is legalized. Whose marriage, exactly, is threatened by gay marriage? If it's yours, you have some fundamental problems that aren't going to be solved in the Legislature.
A big part of the decision was that California already had an "everything but marriage" law, so any argument that gay unions were somehow bad for society was moot- since California had already legalized gay unions, the only issue was whether calling them "marriages" rather than "civil unions" was a problem. All the usual arguments that gay marriage should be unrecognized because marriage is about procreation, not good for kids, or whatever other strained nonsense the opponents put out are irrelevant- all that's legal, so the only issue is the label. The 9th Circuit apparently decided that there was no good argument that referring to gay unions as "marriages" rather than "civil unions" would hurt society.
Now, Washington State is about to legalize gay marriage through the Legislature, and there's already plans afoot to run a referendum to challenge that law. We've had an "everything but marriage" law on the books for several years. I think we're in the same position as California, and the logic is the same- and as a result the referendum will meet the same fate as Prop 8.
By the way, I've been married for 22 years, and I have absolutely no fear that my wife will leave me to become a lesbian if gay marriage is legalized. Whose marriage, exactly, is threatened by gay marriage? If it's yours, you have some fundamental problems that aren't going to be solved in the Legislature.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Sharia in Washington State?
Lately there's been a lot of silly fearmongering about US courts applying Sharia law. Sometimes US courts do have to get into foreign law, though, and the results can be odd.
In re Marriage of Akon, 160 Wn.App. 48, 248 P.3d 94 (2011) was a child custody/paternity dispute between some Sudanese refugees that turned on whether the mother's first marriage in the Sudan was valid. Apparently her husband had agreed to pay her father fifty cows for her on a time payment arrangement, but had only paid thirty five when the civil war reached the village and they all fled, with Mom eventually ending up in Spokane with another man. When that relationship fell apart, a dispute developed as to which she was married to. Thus, the Washington courts were left with the unenviable task of figuring out the effect of a debt of fifteen cows on the validity of a marriage under Sudanese law.
Now, judges would always prefer to apply the law they're familiar with. I'm sure the judge in this case was buying Excedrin at Costco by the time it was done. Judges have to apply the law to real life people with real life issues, and it's not always simple. What would have happened if the judge was forbidden from considering foreign law in the Akon case?
In re Marriage of Akon, 160 Wn.App. 48, 248 P.3d 94 (2011) was a child custody/paternity dispute between some Sudanese refugees that turned on whether the mother's first marriage in the Sudan was valid. Apparently her husband had agreed to pay her father fifty cows for her on a time payment arrangement, but had only paid thirty five when the civil war reached the village and they all fled, with Mom eventually ending up in Spokane with another man. When that relationship fell apart, a dispute developed as to which she was married to. Thus, the Washington courts were left with the unenviable task of figuring out the effect of a debt of fifteen cows on the validity of a marriage under Sudanese law.
Now, judges would always prefer to apply the law they're familiar with. I'm sure the judge in this case was buying Excedrin at Costco by the time it was done. Judges have to apply the law to real life people with real life issues, and it's not always simple. What would have happened if the judge was forbidden from considering foreign law in the Akon case?
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
You know it's a bad one when I lock the door of my home office before I go through the evidence. A while ago it was a guy who was beaten and set on fire with gasoline. Somehow I got the job of going through the autopsy photos and interviewing the medical examiner to get straight what happened. It took me a while to realize that I was sitting there eating potato chips as I went through the photos.
I suppose people get used to dealing with stranger things. Still, I wonder if it should bother me more than it does.
I suppose people get used to dealing with stranger things. Still, I wonder if it should bother me more than it does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)