Tuesday, February 18, 2020


Tainted jailhouse informants must be reined in

Jailhouse informants have probably been around for as long as there have been jails and inmates willing to trade information for a favor or two — including more privileges or a shorter sentence.

“Incentivized informants” is the legal term of art, but too often they also have “a strong incentive to lie,” said Michelle Feldman, state campaigns director for the Innocence Project. That explains why, according to the project’s figures, 16 percent of DNA exonerations involved false testimony by informants. Broader studies of wrongful convictions put the figure as high as 46 percent.

Innocent people have spent decades in prison while the guilty remained free, and often the victims of those informants never see justice either — a lose-lose-lose for the criminal justice system.

Case in point: the 1974 conviction of Laurence Adams for the murder of a Boston subway porter. The prosecution’s star witnesses were Wyatt Moore, already facing felony charges, and his sister. They testified at trial that Adams had confessed his guilt to both of them. Moore was released from prison the day after Adams’s conviction. His sister later recanted her testimony, saying she just wanted to get her brother out of jail. Their stories were complete fabrications, but that would take three decades to prove. Adams was exonerated in 2004 and won a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city of Boston for $2.1 million.

Another recently exonerated Massachusetts man, Gary Cifizzari of Taunton, had been convicted of the 1979 rape and murder of his great aunt. The DNA evidence that helped free Cifizzari was matched to Michael J. Giroux, who in addition to murdering his landlord in 1991 turned out to be something of a serial snitch himself — not in Cifizzari’s case, but in a long list of others.

“This man became an arm of the police,” Radha Natarajan, executive director of the New England Innocence Project, told the Globe. In 1994, a state police trooper offered up Giroux as a possible informant to a Worcester police detective, noting, “He calls me every week.”

Giroux died a free man in 2014. There’s no telling how many innocent people he helped send to prison while avoiding accountability for murdering Cifizzari’s relative.

So how to weed out serial informants like Giroux? And how to give judges and juries the tools they need to evaluate testimony from informants who police and prosecutors are able to “incentivize” — whether currently in prison or not?

“Judges understand how this works, activists and lawyers understand it, everyone but jurors,” Feldman said. “It’s not always apparent to jurors that there’s a benefit [to the person testifying].”

A state bill filed by Senator Joseph Boncore of Winthrop, and supported by the Innocence Project, would provide several significant guardrails around such testimony.

It would set up a kind of registry of jailhouse informants — a database that would list the criminal history of an informant, along with any “deals, promises, inducements or benefits” made by prosecutors now or “in the future.” A serial informant like Giroux would be suspect — at least by honest prosecutors and judges — fairly early on, rather than being passed around by police like a bowl of M&Ms.

The bill provides for “enhanced disclosure” of any inducements on the table. And informants would be subject to a pretrial reliability hearing, in much the same way certain expert witnesses are now.

“It’s ironic that actual experts are subject to more scrutiny than informants,” Feldman said.

A number of other states, most recently Connecticut, have adopted some variation of the law. Connecticut’s includes an informant-tracking system and pretrial reliability hearings.

In other jurisdictions, like Illinois and Orange County, Calif., such legal reforms followed notorious scandals involving informants. In Oklahoma and Florida, it took appellate court decisions to bring about changes to criminal procedure codes.

It shouldn’t take another scandal — surely that $2.1 million Boston had to pay out for the wrongful conviction of Adams would be lesson enough to spur action on Beacon Hill. Bringing more data transparency and rigor to such cases can only be good for the justice system.

Yes, lying jailhouse informants are a part of our history — a part that a modern criminal justice system can live without.

SOURCE 





UK: The witch hunting of Daniel Kawczynski

The Tory MP is accused of associating with fascists. It is completely untrue.

The ease with which Daniel Kawczynski, the Conservative MP for Shrewsbury, was isolated and asked by officials of his party to apologise for something that does not need or deserve an apology is testimony to the power of the intolerant and illiberal ‘shut-down culture’ haunting public life in Western Europe. It confirms a really worrying trend: the imposition of a quarantine around individuals and organisations who advocate conservative, religious or patriotic ideals.

The promoters of political quarantining always rely on falsehoods and slanders to discredit their opponents. One prominent victim of this kind of campaigning was the late leading conservative intellectual, Roger Scruton, who was branded as a far-right racist and anti-Semite last year. Last week it was Kawczynski’s turn. He became the target of a media-concocted story claiming he had participated in a conference in Rome that was organised by the far right. Not only did he break the quarantine imposed on certain conservative groups, but in associating with such groups he apparently also endorsed their allegedly racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic views.

In truth, the groups that attended the conference do not hold ‘far right’ views at all. Rather, they are conservative, traditionalist and pro-sovereignty in outlook. But the project of quarantining conservative, sovereignist ideas has been remarkably successful so far. Although he was eventually exonerated, Scruton was fired by the Tory government from his post as chairman of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. That he was abandoned and betrayed by his own party must have caused Scruton great anguish and pain. Now, like Scruton, Kawczynski has been abandoned by his own party. He was essentially given an ultimatum, ‘apologise or else’. According to my sources, he was also told by his party’s officials not to comment on this ultimatum.

The refusal of the Conservative Party to defend one of its own MPs speaks to the defensive posture it has adopted in today’s culture war. Even though it has just won a major electoral victory, the party appears unwilling to challenge in a serious way the imposition of a cordon sanitaire around traditional, conservative ideals.

Hopefully, Kawczynski will eventually be exonerated of the false accusations levelled at him. But in a sense, the real damage has already been done. The way he has been treated, and the reluctance of his parliamentary colleagues to have his back, will discourage many individuals from challenging today’s political quarantine. At least in the short term, opportunities for serious, open political debate will be further compromised.

What are the facts?

Almost overnight, Kawczynski, a respected MP, was transformed by his media and political detractors into the incarnation of xenophobic evil. Very few mainstream commentators and politicians were prepared to stand up to the powerful campaign of vilification directed against him. Very few even asked the question, ‘What did he actually do?’. Instead, the very fact that some media outlets branded him ‘far right’ was enough to condemn him.

Kawczynski’s alleged crime was that he attended a meeting of fascistic European politicians who apparently are in the business of promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. In the words of former Tory Party chairman Lord Pickles, who serves as the government’s ‘special envoy on post-Holocaust issues’, Kawczynski brought ‘comfort’ to ‘racists and extremism’. Pickles claimed Kawczynski had ‘let fellow Conservatives down’.

It is worth noting that Kawczynski himself is not accused of saying anything remotely racist, xenophobic or anti-Semitic. In the eyes of his persecutors, his crime was that he attended a conference with questionable people. In other words, he is guilty by association.

But who is he guilty of associating with, precisely? Some of his persecutors have alleged that he mixed with well-known anti-Semites and therefore he helped to legitimise anti-Semitism and racism. Marie van der Zyl, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, carelessly waded into the discussion, asserting that the Tories ran the ‘serious risk of the public assuming that they share [Kawczynski’s] views’, unless, that is, they made an example of him. The Guardian and the Independent echoed this sentiment, implying that Kawczynski’s guilt was beyond debate.

Anyone who only had access to the British media could be forgiven for thinking the conference in Rome was organised to promote hatred against Jewish people. The reality is very, very different. In fact, the National Conservative Conference was organised by mainstream conservative groups, not by the far right. The purpose of the conference was to reflect on the intellectual and political challenges facing conservatism today.

As it happens, one of the sponsors of the conference was the Jewish Israeli think-tank the Herzl Institute. If anyone is wondering where the organisers of the conference really stand on the question of anti-Semitism, the sight of a large Star of David in the main hall – part of the Herzl Institute logo – should have made it pretty clear. It should confirm that the conclusions drawn by Marie van der Zyl and others were simply wrong. It is ridiculous to claim that a conference in which all participants spoke in front of a Star of David next to Hebrew text was promoting anti-Semitism.

One of the main speakers at the conference was Israeli academic Yoram Hazony. As Hazony ambled up to speak on the stage, his yarmulke visible to all, you could also see his wife with her ubiquitous knit cap covering her hair. The positive audience response to Hazony, who is a leading expert on the subject of Jewish nationalism, again suggests that the media depiction of the conference as anti-Semitic was driven by pure political malevolence.

It is a shame that Marie van der Zyl and her colleagues at the Board of Deputies have such a shallow grasp of what anti-Semitism actually means. Even worse, at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise in many parts of Western Europe, crying wolf about it trivialises the seriousness of the threat faced by Jewish people today. If anyone should apologise as part of this sordid, concocted controversy, it should be Eric Pickles and Marie van der Zyl.

The invention of the new ‘far right’

The claim that the conference was organised by the far right is no less tendentious than the idea that it was anti-Semitic.

Judging by the remarks made about the people who attended the conference, it is clear that the current usage of terms like ‘far right’ and ‘fascistic’ has nothing in common with how these terms were used in the past. There was a time when the term ‘far right’ referred to essentially anti-democratic organisations that frequently relied on force and extra-parliamentary activity rather than on electoral politics. Today, the phrase ‘far right’ is promiscuously applied to anyone who has strong conservative, religious or patriotic convictions and who is an opponent of identity politics.

The prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Órban, a man of Christian, democratic and conservative convictions, is now routinely described as far right by his Western critics. If the term far right had been used as casually in the past as it is today, then people like Winston Churchill, Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle and Alcide De Gasperi would almost certainly have been denounced as far right. In fact, virtually every leading conservative politician of the Fifties, Sixties, Seventies and Eighties would have courted this accusation.

Many of the so-called far-right sponsors of the Rome conference are actually individuals and groups who traditionally would have been seen as the mainstream wing of the conservative movement. Take the example of the Bow Group. It is the UK’s oldest conservative think-tank. Such a far-right figure as former prime minister John Major is a former president. Numerous former ministers have been members. Other sponsors of the conference were the Center for European Renewal (Netherlands), the Danube Institute (Hungary), the Edmund Burke Foundation (the US), the International Reagan Thatcher Society (the US), and Nazione Futura (Italy).

One can legitimately oppose the views promoted by these organisations. But simply to condemn them as ‘far right’ and ‘racist’ is just a way of saying that they do not have any legitimate role to play in public life; that they should be subjected to the political quarantine.

The cordon sanitaire around populism

The attack on Kawczynski is closely linked to the 21st-century project of delegitimising any views that call into question the illiberal and anti-populist consensus that is dominant among the Western political class. In effect, the use of the term far right is designed to signal that certain people are beyond the pale. Their views should not only be ignored – they should be No Platformed and blacklisted. This new intolerance against views that challenge the illiberal, cosmopolitan and anti-populist consensus is deeply hostile to debate, free speech and open political engagement. Instead, it demands the total isolation of anyone who opposes the new political orthodoxies.

The cordon sanitaire is not only aimed at keeping populist parties away from mainstream public life – it is also designed to delegitimise governments in Eastern and Central Europe, especially in Hungary and Poland, that take the idea of national sovereignty seriously.

What the Kawczynski affair demonstrates is that pure lies and invented accounts about a conference of pro-sovereignty conservatives will be endorsed by the powers-that-be. The speed with which the Conservative Party was prepared to sacrifice one of its own indicates that it is not prepared to stick its neck out and take on the culture warriors who are out to claim the scalp of anyone who stands in their way.

However, the cordon sanitaire cannot endure forever. It offers only a technical solution to the political challenge faced by the cultural and political establishment. Not so long ago, supporters of Brexit were denounced as far right, and far too few mainstream parliamentarians were prepared to counter this slander. And yet today, the UK is on the road to Brexit. Soon, many of the populist parties of Western Europe will learn to expand their influence to the point that the mainstream parties will have to engage with them. And as millions of voters have made clear in election after election, the pro-sovereignty governments of Central Europe are not going away anytime soon.

SOURCE 






Smollett. Fake noose fallout, part deux

“A little less than a year after he walked out of a Cook County courthouse seemingly never to return,” the Chicago Sun-Times reports,  “Jussie Smollett again faces criminal charges as a special prosecutor Tuesday announced a new indictment accusing the former ‘Empire’ star of faking a 2019 hate crime attack.”

The new indictment brought by Special Prosecutor Dan Webb, “involves six counts that are the lowest level of felony offenses in state law.” Webb also issued a statement rebuking Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx for dismissing charges against Smollett last year, and the indictment comes as Foxx is fighting to win a second term.

In a statement Tuesday, Smollett’s attorney Tina Glandian said “the charges were appropriately dismissed the first time because they were not supported by the evidence. The attempt to re-prosecute Mr. Smollett one year later on the eve of the Cook County State's Attorney election is clearly all about politics not justice.” So was the hoax the actor staged.

Smollett sent a threatening letter to himself showing a noose, then paid two black friends to attack him in Chicago, which they proclaimed “MAGA country!”  This was to dramatize the narrative that Donald Trump had turned the nation into a cauldron of racial hatred. So right from the start leftist Democrats were all in.

“The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching,” proclaimed Cory Booker. “I’m glad he’s safe.” In similar style, fellow presidential candidate Kamala Harris tagged the attack a “modern-day lynching.”  Green New Dealer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who believe walls are immoral, called it a “racist, homophobic attack.” The media echo chamber also chimed in.

On February 14, 2019, Robin Roberts interviewed Smollett on “Good Morning America.” Smollett contended he was a victim and did not orchestrate the alleged attack. According to Roberts, “It’s a setback for race relations, homophobia, MAGA supporters.”

By February 20, Smollett’s story had completely collapsed, and African American comedians were mocking the actor. When NBA great Charles Barkley got word that Smollett had paid the fake muggers with a check, he told a national television audience, “do not commit crimes with checks.” The story was less credible than Al Sharpton’s Tawana Brawley hoax, but the establishment media only escalated the rhetoric.

Keith Boykin and Van Jones appeared on “At This Hour” with Kate Bolduan and both defended their belief in the story as it broke. “A lot of people say, how can you believe this story from the beginning?” Boykin said. Jones responded  “Because it happens!”

Embattled Chicago police came after Smollett with charges of felony disorderly conduct for filing a false police report. Obama crony Tina Tchen intervened on behalf of Smollett, and the Illinois state attorney’s office dismissed 16 felony charges as part of a sealed deal.

Overshadowed by the impeachment hoax, Smollett thought he was in the clear, but now special prosecutor Dan Webb is bringing a six-pack of felony charges. As the case unfolds, media sleuths might keep watch for new interventions by Tchen and other POTUS 44 insiders. The Democrats’ anti-Trump jihad is sure to surge again, and nobody should be surprised if the actor gets a tap on the wrist, or nothing at all.

There are enough bogus hate crimes to fill books such as Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War, by Wilfred Reilly. Observers should also bear in mind the fakery going on in national politics.

For most of her adult life, Elizabeth Warren claimed to be Native American in general and Cherokee in particular. When those claims were proved false, Warren did not resign from the Senate and at this writing the fake Cherokee is still running for president of the United States.

In similar style, Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal claimed he served in Vietnam but he didn’t. When that claim was proved false, Blumenthal did not resign from the Senate. For his part, POTUS 44, formerly known as Barry Soetoro, has been rather quiet about the fakery of his fellow Democrats, with good reason.

According to his official biographer, Pulitzer Prize-winner David Garrow, “Dreams from My Father was not a memoir or an autobiography; it was instead, in multitudinous ways, without any question a work of historical fiction,”  and the “most important composite character was the narrator himself.”

The nation’s first composite-character president doubtless played a major role in launching the fake charges of Russia collusion against candidate and President Trump. That is as serious as it gets, but to date, none of the major players have served any jail time. So fake noose hoaxster Jussie Smollett may be feeling good about his chances.

Meanwhile, as the Chicago Sun-Times notes, “Smollett is due to return to the Leighton Criminal Court Building on Feb. 24 for arraignment, almost a year to the day after he turned himself in to police in 2019.” As President Trump likes to say, we’ll have to see what happens.

SOURCE 





Australia: Female tradies want their OWN range of hi-vis workwear - saying being 'forced' to wear men's clothes is DANGEROUS

Quick! Call the feminists.  Men and women are the same!

Female tradeswomen say the male-oriented clothing used on work sites is not only ill-fitting but could put them in danger.

Research from Bisley Workwear has found nine out of ten tradeswomen have struggled to find protective workwear which fits properly.

Major issues include loose clothing snagging on ladders and frustrations around trying to remove a pair of overalls from inside a portaloo.  

Of the women surveyed, a third felt they couldn't work as hard in poorly-fitting uniforms.

Nearly half of all workers resorted to wearing their own casual clothing to worksites rather than proper workwear.

Former Block contestent Kara Demmich told the Today Show when she first showed up she was excited by the clothing options but soon encountered problems.

'I was given a bag of clothes and I thought we had hit the jackpot with free clothes but they didn't fit me. They were a bit big and when you're on a work site and climbing over joists you want something that fits and is not going to get caught,' she said.

Female landscaper Coralie Stuart said the lifespan of clothing had also been an issue for her.

'If you have to climb a ladder and if you're not wearing gear that fits properly it's dangerous,' she said.

'And the clothing I was wearing through it in the space of a couple of months and the menswear doesn't fit. So it's good to have something that is fitted to my body not going to get caught on anything and tear things.'

The research also found about 45 per cent of women surveyed felt self-conscious wearing uniforms which weren't designed for the female body. 

The rising number of women working in trades and research around workwear has prompted changes to the uniforms.

New gear has been created that is more form fitting with a feminine design twist to eliminate the risks associated with women wearing men's workwear.

The managing director of Bisley, David Gazal told the Australian that women's clothing is traditionally adapted from men's with very few changes.

'So we then got a men's silhouette and a men's garment and we put in nips and tucks and called it a women's style. It still didn't fit but we called it a ladies style.'

But he said the company's new female workwear was designed for women from the ground up.

'When we put this range together, we put it together knowing that the garment needs a completely different silhouette, and completely different fabric,' Mr Gazal said.

'Fabric needs stretch, it needs wearability, and functionality in the workplace. It needs to be durable and not be restrictive.'

SOURCE  

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

************************************



No comments: