Recently in Crime and punishment Category

I credit Gail-Tzipporah for not trying to get people fired for bigotry, and I've written several op-eds in recent years decrying the overabundance of PC in our society. And yet...

Sarah Palin recently fumed that her own provocative "freedom of speech" about Obama being a terrorist-coddler was being threatened by journalists who called out her demagoguery. Nope. I'm just mirroring your "freedom of speech" with my freedom to shun you for what you speak. It works for both sides of the aisle, as when a San Francisco DJ was fired this week for a rant against Joe the Plumber.

I wrote a column several years ago in which I called for Muslims to drive out those who express hatred as vigorously as American society has begun to punish our own Marge Schotts for public bigotry. That column ran in the very conservative, very un-PC Wall Street Journal.

Again, I laud Gail-T's bigness about bigotry, and I think it's a good model for other minorities. But Buck Burnette crossed a line, yelling "N" at a virtual Klan rally. The Texas coaches weren't required to boot him, but they're certainly entitled to.

...for Obama. Yes, that amounts to an admission that I was wrong in my previous many months of predicting that McCain would win, despite polls and prevailing trends. I simply had felt that McCain would come across as a more reassuringly "American" candidate at a time that America is feeling anxious about its place in the world.

The economy's nose dive is helping Obama, as we all know. And in the pres and vp debates, he and Biden have outperformed Team GOP, laying waste to the notion that they are "wet behind the ears" novices.

The media seem oblivious to this fact, which is why their post-debate analysis is unwatchable. So cowed are they by conservative hammering of their biases that they can't call what the American public is calling in virtually every survey: Obama and Biden show the commanding presences and savvy intellects that instill confidence in most any species of mammal. I'm puzzled and amused by how media "experts" attempt to achieve balance by refusing to admit that the Dem candidates are winning these debates.

McCain needed to show that he was clearly in command to reverse the course of this campaign. That didn't happen.

I watched the debate at USC tonight, surrounded by undergraduates who were mostly positive about Obama. Most of them scoffed and chuckled at McCain throughout the evening, with some students groaning about "how old" he seems. What a change from when I was a USC undergrad, surrounded by conservative mobs who idolized an aging Ronald Reagan. Tonight, the few McCain candidates that I talked to afterward seemed to feel as outnumbered today as USC's liberals did in the mid-80s.

Consider terminating this pregancy, Bristol and Sarah Palin. Consider it prayerfully. Pray with earnestness and intellectual and emotional honesty, not with pure ideology or sentimentalism. Pass up the short-term emotional rewards of receiving praise from fellow evangelicals for allegedly protecting the sanctity of life, and accept the greater long-term rewards of affirming life in "a more excellent way."

Bristol's boyfriend is a self-proclaimed "f-ing redneck" who "doesn't want children." Yet political and ideological considerations are forcing two confused, hormonal teenagers to marry each other, even though they will most likely grow in entirely different directions. They will most likely come to resent one another and the demands that each placed on the other. Just look at how the divorce rate for evangelicals is no different than for the rest of society. I suspect the divorce rate is even higher for "bad-boy" Alaskan hockey teens forced into shotgun weddings.

So Gov. Palin's grandchild will grow up in a world with many of the worst disadvantages, including the ultimate disadvantage of a father who is not wired to care for him or her. The Palins will claim that their decisions are guided not by ideological rigidity, but by faithfulness to their Lord Jesus. But the paradox of the religious right is that they embody the very legalistic, ideological rigidity that Jesus criticized in the Pharisees of his day.

Such evangelicals proudly proclaim that Jesus is "Lord of the universe and of history." Yet this lord of history has apparently built spontaneous abortion into the everyday fabric of the species, releasing embryos and fetuses when they face obstacles to their development. This is a mystery, and it reminds us that the real world is far hazier than the moral black-white world that George Bush and Pat Robertson inhabit.

Life begins at conception, say the conservative evangelicals. God, then, would often be a murderer in their own view. But perhaps Heaven sees a greater good for all involved.

Evangelicals often emphasize how God has called us, who are made in his image, to roles of creative and moral responsibility. That is why you cannot rule out the possibility that a pregnant woman exercise the same difficult choices that Heaven seems to. Abortion is an awful thing whether done by divine or human hand, but it is a reality and apparently a necessity.

To utterly deny this reality in the name of "sancity of life" is actually a legalistic game, one that has become a crazy game due to some accidents of politics in recent days. It has ruined our politics and it will ruin the life of Bristol and of many within in her sphere.

Bristol is a child bravely wanting to have a child -- a 17-year-old who is most likely incapable of balancing future demands, even with the best efforts of her family, already swamped with the needs of a Downs child. The dreams that God implanted in her, even more deeply than he implanted a fertilized egg, will die. Her child may live and her new family may stay intact for a season, but theirs will not be a life-affirming existence in the end. Sometimes the best way to affirm life is to acknowledge that even Heaven itself sometimes releases a new life from a difficult journey ahead.

Los Angeles City Councilman Jose Huizar was fined more than $14,000 by the City Ethics Commission today for misusing his office-holder accounts to investigate former LAUSD school board member David Tokofsky. Is it creepy he used these funds to gather intel on another politician? Heck yeah. That money is supposed to pay for constituent things. Only a devious mind could interpret that to mean investigating a politician for another political entity.

Butt what's creepier is that this fine is barely a slap on the wrist to a tied-in politico like Huizar. A fine like that would sink me and many of us working schlubs (these days even the DWP's s $2.50-a-month surcharge for a bin I don't have has got me worried). But it won't even cause a ripple in Huizar's life. He's already gathering donations for defense funds. You can bet he will get them.

What we really need are punishments for politicians that work: Imagine how a ban on holding or attending a press conference for six months might put the fear of the Ethics Commission into a publicity-minded pol. Or no legislation for a year. How about they lose their city-owned car?

Reader Dante asked:

Once Alvarez was found guilty why should he not be immediately executed? What is the cost of an execution? What is the cost to keep this criminal alive for the rest of his life? Who is paying for all this and who is going to make money on this?

Good questions. Let's take them one at a time.

1.Why should Alvarez not be immediately executed? Because convictions can be wrong, and are oftentimes overturned. Our justice system guarantees everyone the right to an appeal -- especially when that which is being appealed is a death sentence.

When I wrote a column on this subject in 2003, I discovered this haunting statistic: For the 11 inmates the state had executed between 1978 and 2003, 62 others were released, resentenced or had their sentences overturned. Those numbers probably need a little updating now, but the central truth still stands -- if we executed people immediately upon conviction, we would be putting numerous innocent or otherwise undeserving people to death.

2. What is the cost of an execution? What is the cost to keep this criminal alive for the rest of his life? The cost of an execution is a fortune if you include the price of all the legal appeals -- which are necessary, unless you are unconcerned with executing innocent people. It's estimated that the total cost of trying, housing and executing a Death Row inmate can run more than 40 percent higher than that of simply sticking him behind bars for the rest of his natural life.

Back in 2003, I learned that California's then-25-year history of capital punishment -- which had thus far yielded just 11 executions -- had cost roughly $2 billion.

3. Who is paying for this? You and I are -- and every other taxpayer, too.

4. Who is going to make money on this? Under the death-penalty system, a lot of lawyers, that's who.

Jonathan's position seems to be: Too many people who deserve the death penalty don't get it, so we should stop giving it to people who do. Huh?

We'd be better served asking what value -- besides vengeance -- is served by executing a killer. In the case of Alvarez, the answer is: none.

Does killing him make society safer? No. Would it deter crime? The threat of execution didn't deter Alvarez. Would it save money? Nope. Life sentences are much cheaper than the capital-punishment appeals process.

If we answer these questions honestly, we find that capital punishment is usually of little value in modern society -- except that, viscerally, it feels good. And that's a terrible reason to do anything, let alone take a life.

Jonathan raises a fascinating point, arguing that "We execute the poor, minorities and males disproportionately," and that we need a moratorium "until we catch up by executing a lot of rich guys and middleclass white women."

There is an imbalance. Does anyone really want to argue that the poor, minorities or males are more evil or more criminally negligent as a group? And yet, they're getting the death penalty because they're being found guilty of murder more often. Does it mean that our lawmaking is stacked against such groups, or our justice system, or both? And, if we kill them for killing others, do we really believe we're deterring future injustices? I'm not opposed to capital punishment, but I believe we do it out of vengeful rage rather than a serious cost-benefit analysis.

In an overly-simplified definition, the death penalty is to be utilized along the lines of the old adage, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

But, truth be told, the actual fulfillment of the death penalty and death sentencing is severely flawed in California. Currently, the average time from death sentence to execution in California is between 20-25 years. This is due to the complicated web of appeals for the prisoner's life, trials, media attention that sheds light on certain cases, and, of course, red tape.

This concept of the death penalty delay was first brought to my attention in high school when my AP US History teacher addressed the question, "What is your opinion on the death penalty?" Students were swiftly split into opposing parties - between supporters and protesters, justice-seekers and pacifists. Some saw the death penalty as the simple solution, whereas others believed in preserving the prisoner's life only for the sake that he or she may suffer-- slowly and painfully in the California prison system. And, of course, there were those who believed in giving a person a second chance.

My opinion is that the death penalty should be imposed on those who commit murder. Perhaps it's my belief to follow the "eye for an eye" theory. But the reality is that no case is a simple cause-and-effect play by play. There are always complications. Can you prove the murderer had a motive? Is he or she mentally ill? Can he or she be held fully accountable? Questions such as these are the precise reason why there were 640 men and women sitting on death row in 2005. These were people who had been sentenced to death but, most likely due to appeals and trials, will not be executed in the near future.

But, on the other hand, to call for immediate execution after conviction (after the judge and jury have sentenced a prisoner to death) completely ignores the reality of the California justice system. So, I guess there is no immediate answer, but it is an interesting topic to investigate as it progresses over the years.

But we sure treat it as one sometimes.

As Chris knows, I'm not opposed to capital punishment. I truly believe some people have violated all the provisions of their human membership. To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson in that crappy law movie, some people need killing. People like Jeffrey Dahmer, Pol Pot, and others who have clearly and purposely preyed on other humans just for the pure joy of it.

But as with many ideologically simple things, the application is where things go awry. Most people who are given a death sentence don't fit into my category of irredeemableness. That the death penalty was even considered for Juan Manuel Alvarez, the deeply stupid man whose suicide attempt derailed a Metrolink train killing 11 people, is one glaring example. It's astonishing enough that he was convicted of first degree murder, which ought to be reserved for those who intentionally kill people. But the death penalty shouldn't be a possibility for what was essentially an accident. If it were, the captain of the Exxon Valdez would have fried. Thank goodness the jury decided Alvarez didn't mean to kill anyone.

By all accounts, Alvarez was just one dumb dude who caused a horrific accident -- so bad that the state wanted to punish him by killing him too. That's not justice, that's revenge. In any case, dumbness isn't a crime. If it were, we would need a lot more jails.

Yesterday, the DN linked to an NPR story that was billed as a profile of Officer Jennifer Grasso, the first woman to enter the LAPD's SWAT school. Interestingly, the only thing it said about Grasso was that she refused to be interviewed. Some profile.

That may be the only thing the report got right. Top to bottom, the story is riddled with factual errors, blatantly stereo-typed prejudice and gross omissions (for instance, trumpeting an officers $2 million jury verdict, while failing to mention said verdict was overturned on appeal).

Here, then, is the commentary in response that I have prepared for NPR. They've not seen fit to get back to me. I'm shocked.

The Politically Incorrect Truth About LAPD's First Female SWAT Officer:

NPR's recent profile of Los Angeles Police Officer Jennifre Grasso, the first female selectee for the renown LAPD SWAT team, left out numerous key facts and advanced patently false misperceptions and liberal stereo-types.

Let's stipulate now that Jennifer Grasso is an outstanding cop. Those who have worked with her say she's far better than most male officers. SWAT officers I know were disappointed when she failed their stringent 2006 selection.

This doesn't change a simple fact: If Grasso is passes SWAT school, it will only be because she's a woman, and Police Chief Bratton wants a woman on SWAT, capable or not.

NPR failed to mention that Grasso recently committed a violation of weapons' safety so egregious that most present SWAT officers would have been removed from the team for the same. She accidentally fired an MP-5 submachine gun, without even having the weapon in a firing position.

Before now, SWAT officers were expected to arrive with the finest weapons handling traits. Just as diamonds can be cut and polished only to standards their chemical traits permit, so too are weapons skills limited. By choosing only officers with the finest innate traits - those with skills that need to be honed, not learned - SWAT has amassed a remarkable record - killing less than 1% of the extremely dangerous suspects they confront and only one hostage ever - and arguably not even her.

In past years, dozens of male and female candidates have been disqualified for even placing a finger on the trigger at the wrong time. Every professional weapons handling standard starts with "never put a finger on the trigger unless you are ready to fire." Grasso went one better, spraying rounds into the dirt in front of her.

She literally could have killed someone, yet is still in school.

Does anyone really believe no SWAT standards have been lowered, as CPT Jeff Greer asserted?

This is no minor matter to current SWAT cops. Would you want to confront an armed suspect knowing the officer behind you had accidentally fired the same machine gun that is now inches from your back? If you're a hostage, is that officer your first choice of rescuer?

NPR also failed to tell you that the selection procedure that picked Grasso used only five of the 18 standards that were previously used to evaluate candidates. Among the eliminated tests, was a simulated hostage rescue that very closely mirrored the 2005 incident in which SWAT is believed to have accidentally killed a little girl - the Suzie Pena case which supposedly led to this change. It is that same test that former officer Nina Acosta barely passed in the early 1990s before suing the City for discrimination. Contrary NPR's report that she wasn't selected because of her gender, officers who testified in the trial say Acosta hesitated for three or four seconds inside that room while fumbling with her weapon. Most police gun battles are over in half that time.

That is why Acosta's $2 million verdict was thrown out by an appeals court, another fact NPR left out.

NPR also was quick to quote LAPD observer Joe Domanick, a journalist who's never carried a gun, much less served as an LAPD officer. According to him, blacks and Latinos were only admitted to SWAT following a consent decree, and the unit is still largely a bastion of whites.

In fact, this is false. Among the very first SWAT officers were several highly regarded officers of a variety of ethnicities. One black sergeant is regarded by old timers as a key to the team's early growth. A large number of the team was Hispanic. Today, African American officers make up a greater percentage of SWAT than the LAPD as a whole - something that was true before Randal Simmons was murdered in Winnetka earlier this year.

But, to Domanick and NPR (who apparrently didn't bother going to look at SWAT), this is a white male bastion.

The fact is, contrary to NPR's assertions, SWAT is a bastion of excellence of all colors, and diverse in its expertise. Its record proves it rarely uses force, and its ranks include some of the world's best-trained - and most successful - hostage negotiators.

How could NPR get so many facts wrong and omit so many important points? I'd venture to say NPR is far more prejudiced against folks in blue, than SWAT cops are anyone of any color. Or any gender.

The loser in all of this is Grasso. Frankly, lots of folks can make mistakes with a weapon. Officers who have done so in the past have retested the selection process and made the team, without doubts. Grasso will not be so fortunate. Regardless of the selection standards used, she will now always be known as the woman who had the standards changed for her, and who got away with something no man ever would.

Sometimes when you shatter a non-existent glass ceiling, you still get cut be falling shards.

And, remember, the standards have not been lowered.