Polygon, the Dancing Bear

Occasional notes on politics, history, technology, architecture,
and the life of a county clerk

2002:
May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2003:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2004:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2005:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2006:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2007:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2008:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July

Current entries

Thursday, August 23, 2007, 11:50 pm

New York Times Outraged at Murder Case Acquittal. I came across the following editorial this evening, published May 1, 1854 (paragraph breaks added for readability):

The Moral of the Kentucky Murder.

The issue between influence and justice has been boldly made and fairly met. It has been decided that certain circles of society are not to be rudely entered by the public executioner; that certain classes are not amenable to the penalty of the law. As by law the "King can do no wrong," so the aristocracy can commit no murder.

We cannot complain that any other than this bare question of privilege was presented. The WARDS owe their acquittal to no legal chicanery — to no vulgar or hackneyed expedients. The case was fairly presented. No very essential testimony was excluded. No important evidence was manufactured. There was, indeed, some attempt to bully and browbeat and confuse certain witnesses; but, if we may judge by the reports of the trial, there was less of this than is usual in important cases. No pretence of insanity was set up; no abuse of the murdered man was resorted to.

Take the case as presented by the defence, and it was murder — wanton, premeditated, cowardly murder — murder without qualification or extenuation — without palliation or excuse. To bring the perpetrator of such a crime clear off, and upon the sole and simple ground that he belonged to their body — by the sheer dint of influence, or wealth and position — is indeed a triumph for the aristocracy of Kentucky.

To effect this, all their forces were marshalled. Clergymen came down from their studies; colonels came up from haunts, to be named only by the delicate circumlocution of "places to which young men are apt to go;" accomplished ladies left their boudoirs — all to plead for their darling associate. The halls of Congress, the offices of Government, the editor's sanctum, were subsidized for witnesses. Governors and Senators appeared as counsel.

It is not often that a person of such character holds up his hand at the bar of justice. One would have supposed, from the evidence given, that MATT. WARD was undergoing examination for some post requiring the possession of all the moral and intellectual virtues, rather than upon trial for murder.

Yet to balance all the amiable, mild, and gentle qualities attributed to him, appear the facts, proved and admitted, that he deliberately armed himself; deliberately took with him his brother, likewise secretly armed; deliberately insulted his victim, in his own house and before his own pupils; and upon the insult being resented — allowing the case to stand just as sworn to by his own accomplice — in a manner far milder than its aggravation demanded, deliberately, with a concealed weapon, shot down an unarmed man.

No array of words from his counsel — no gentle euphemism of the reverend gentleman who calls this brutal affair a "sad occurrence" — can prevent these damning facts from standing upon perpetual record. Yet, in spite of them all, the perpetrator of the deed has been borne triumphantly off.

We remember with what breathless anxiety men watched the progress of the WEBSTER trial at Boston; as they saw the law take its calm, unrelenting course, without haste, without delay, until its supreme sentence was accomplished, they breathed more deeply and freely. They felt that however corruption might have invaded social and political life, our Courts were still pure, the scales of justice were held with even poise, the regis of law in the hands of a jury was interposed between them and the assassin.

With like, with deeper anxiety — men have watched the Kentucky case. In the former instance, the murderer and his victim belonged to the privileged social classes, and the influence which might have been brought to bear as a shield for the criminal, was equally potent to call for his punishment. In this Kentucky case, the weight of social influence was all on one side; and had justice here triumphed over influence, the triumph would have been perfect.

As it is, so far as this decision can reach, it is decided that any man who has inherited or acquired wealth, or a position in certain circles of society, may at his pleasure shoot down the man who, standing outside that charmed circle, shall dare to resent any insult which a member of the privileged class shall choose to offer.

We read that, during the French Revolution, it was gravely moved in the Assembly that any law should be abolished which authorized a Noble, upon returning from hunting, to put to death a number of his serfs, in order that he might refresh himself by a bath of human blood. It would probably have been in vain to have searched for that law in the Statute-book.

If, some generations hence, a motion should be made in the Kentucky legislature to render null and void any decision, authorizing a member of the privileged classes to shoot down at pleasure a public teacher, there will be no difficulty in finding the decision intended to be set aside.

....Posted by Lawrence Kestenbaum —

Monday, August 6, 2007, 4:38 pm

From the Clerk-Register. Today's message to my staff: about the voter ID law

Last month, the Michigan Supreme Court voted to revive a law requiring that voters show photo ID to vote — and created a big headache for election administrators.

On the face of it, the concept seems sensible. You need identification for many transactions, so why not voting? What's the problem with this law?
First of all, there's no evidence that crooks are showing up at the polls pretending to be other people. It's a felony, which is a pretty strong disincentive for most people. But, perhaps more to the point, it is an ineffective way to steal elections. Not knowing the vote totals in advance, the crooks would need to create thousands of fake votes — maybe ten thousand or more in a large election. For each fake vote, one of the fraudsters would have to stand in line and impersonate a different voter, any one of whom might show up either before or after, and blow the scam. With or without IDs, they could never get away with it on that scale.

Second, voting is fundamental and should be accessible to all citizens — even those who don't have or habitually carry identification with them.

Third, implementation of this law will add more steps to the voting process. That will raise the cost — we'll need more workers, more training, more forms to print and store — and lengthen the wait in line.

The law provides that people who don't have any ID can swear an affidavit to that effect. Though the law does not provide an affidavit option for those who forgot to bring an ID to the polls, the state is going to interpret the law as if it did.

On the other hand, if you choose to vote absentee, there is no need for any photo ID whatsoever. Until the Saturday before the election, you can typically go to your local clerk's office and cast your absentee ballot on the spot. Or, if you plan ahead, you can vote by mail.

Our neighbors in Ohio had to implement a similar voter-ID law in the last general election. Thanks to preparation, planning, training, and a public information campaign, they had few problems on Election Day.

Michigan can do that, too. And we will.

Let's have a great week!

....Posted by Lawrence Kestenbaum —

2002:
May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December

2003:
January / February / March
April / May / June / July
August / September / October
November / December