Crooks Are Rarer Than Despots

This week’s news should not cause Europeans to congratulate themselves on the superiority of their legal systems.

Although elected prosecutor Nifong was a crook, he was exposed and removed, and his case was rare. Whereas Libby’s despotic prosecutor and judge, both unelected in the European manner, are legally untouchable. And very common.

So, on balance, electing law enforcers beats giving them jobs for life.

Dorothy Rabinowitz in the WSJ:

For Mr. Fitzgerald, whose prosecutorial zeal and moral certitude are in no small way reminiscent of Mr. Nifong’s, the victory was complete with.. the severe sentence for Mr. Libby, and the judge’s refusal, last week, to allow its postponement pending appeal.

The prosecutor’s argument for a heavy sentence emphasized Mr. Libby’s alleged serious obstruction of justice–a complicated effort, considering that there was no underlying crime, or evidence thereof, and that this case, which had begun in alleged pursuit of the leak of a covert agent’s identity was, as the prosecutor himself would finally contend, not about that leak at all.

The obligation to truth, the prosecutor argued, was of the highest importance, and one in which Mr. Libby had failed by perjuring himself. It would be hard to dispute the first contention. It is no less hard to avoid the memory of Mr. Fitzgerald’s own dubious relation to truth and honesty–as, for example, in his failure to disclose that he had known all along the identity of the person who had leaked the Valerie Plame story. That person, he knew, was Richard Armitage, deputy to Colin Powell.

Not only had he concealed this knowledge–in what was, supposedly all that time, a quest to discover the criminals responsible for the leak of a covert agent’s name–he had instructed both Mr. Armitage and his superior, Colin Powell, in whom Mr. Armitage had confided, not to reveal the truth.

Interrogating a man you know to be innocent in the hope of catching him out is entrapment.

Both cases illustrate the differences between the US and European legal systems.

The US practice of electing law enforcers makes them responsive to the people. Nifong’s case shows it can go wrong, but the he was found out and easily removed.

By contrast, consider Libby’s prosecutor and judge.

Fitzgerald was appointed by Congress so can do as he likes. The judge was appointed for life by the current president.

Our earlier analysis of the performance of the Supreme Court suggests that about 40% of appointees have the character weakness that makes them despotic as soon as they’re ensconced in jobs-for-life.

Sadly for Libby, he was landed with two despots. That’s not surprising since the chances of both prosecutor and judge being despots is 40%*40%. That’s 16%, and you’d never fly an airline that crashed one time in seven.

Whereas the chances of a Nifong have to be very much lower than 40%. And you can get rid of them.

So elections beat appointments.

Incidentally, if I read the judge’s bio right, he only spent 3 years studying law. Isn’t that a flimsy basis for such high office?

Advertisements

2 Responses to Crooks Are Rarer Than Despots

  1. Jay says:

    OT but possibly related to a post you made a while back about how centuries (thousands of years) has affected the middle east:
    —-
    A study of more than 240,000 Norwegian teenagers says that first-born children are, on average, 2.3 IQ points more intelligent than the next kid in line.

    And study author Dr. Petter Kristensen said in an interview that each successive child is likely to be a little less smart than the one before.

    It showed the average IQ of the first-born men was 103.2 compared with 101.2 for second-borns and 100 for third-borns.

    http://www.thestar.com/article/228297
    ———
    Consider muslims with their large families, then add in those with 2, 3 or 4 wives. The kids may live with their mothers (I dunno) in seperate abodes but I have to assume they sometimes get together as a family or are at least aware of each other. So the youngest of six might consider him/herself as “number 22” rather than as “number 6”.

    “The study provides evidence that the relation between birth order and IQ score is dependent on the social rank in the family and not birth order as such,” the researchers write in Science.

    Either way, they lose.

  2. gandalf says:

    Jay

    That’s an interesting angle.

    I believe all the wives and kids usually live together (easier for the husband to keep them under his thumb).

    So kids numbered 4 onwards are gong to be short an increasing number of light bulbs.

    Adding this to cousin marriage and the decreased genetic diversity caused by polygamy, it’s amazing Islam doesn’t produce legions of homicidal incompetents.

    Hmm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: