Quick Identification Guide

[unixronin]

A quick-reference identification guide for those unclear on the concepts:

Tea party

Deranged killer

Any questions?

---

I do, actually, have a related question from the BBC article sourcing the Loughner photo above:

When asked, [Loughner] said he understood that he could get life in prison or the death penalty for allegedly killing federal Judge John Roll on Saturday in Tucson, Arizona.

Mr Loughner was charged with five crimes - the attempted assassination of a member of Congress, the first degree murder of two federal employees and the attempted murder of two federal employees.

Not even a mention, it appears, of the nine-year-old girl he also killed, or the dozen or more people wounded.

So, explain something to me here.  Why should it be that the murder of a Federal employee is a distinct, and more serious, crime from the murder of anyone else?  No personal disrespect to Judge Roll, but ... does their shit magically stop stinking when they get a Federal appointment, or something?¹

More to the point, are the rest of us second-class citizens who don't matter as much or have less rights?²  Because if we are, there's something very badly wrong.  This is the United States of America.  We're not supposed to have an aristocracy.

"All pigs are equal, only some are more equal than others."

Photo links courtesy of writerspleasure

[1] Not singling out judges here; I'm asking this question about all Federal employees, appointees or elected officials.  They are not better than us; they are "us" ... or they're supposed to be.  Too many appear to forget that.

[2] Yes, this is a rhetorical question. Yes, I'm quite well aware of the answer. Are you?

Comments

[robhansen]

The murder of a federal employee is distinct only because it involves a crime against the federal government directly. As it currently stands, the evidence appears that Laughner was deliberately targeting Giffords due to her work as a Congresswoman. Hence, it's a crime against Congress: federal jurisdiction.

It appears John Roll was an incidental target. If Laughner had no knowledge Roll was a federal judge, then Laughner cannot be prosecuted for the murder of a federal official: he would be prosecuted in state court for the murder of "John Roll, citizen of Arizona." However, since according to eyewitnesses Roll was there to greet Giffords -- an old friend of his -- and she greeted him as "Judge Roll" and introduced him to some of her constituents, it may be argued Loughner knew Roll was another federal official and targeted him for that reason: bam, crime against the federal judiciary.

Basically, if you are targeting a federal official, or the family of a federal official, because of what that official does in a governmental capacity, it is considered to be an attack on the government and the jurisdiction of the federal government to get involved.

As a real-world example: in high school when a Colombian narcosyndicate threatened my life in order to try and influence Dad's judicial decision, that was a federal crime and the US Marshals Service hit it like a freight train. But when I was beaten half to death by a couple of classmates whom I saw stealing a car, there was no federal involvement: that was purely a local law-enforcement matter.

Hope this helps!

[unixronin]

I personally hold that murder is murder, regardless of who you kill. The minute you start making the distinction that killing members of some set of people people is a more serious crime than killing others, you set foot on a slippery slope that can eventually lead to an underclass of people whom it's not a crime to kill at all.

[robhansen]

I agree with you. The only question is in which jurisdiction it should be heard, decided and punished. If you commit a crime against Congress, you should be in a federal court. If your crime is committed against the people of a state, you should be heard in a state court.

Notice that the federal punishment for murder is death. All murder charges that wind up in federal court can be punished that way. Murder of a president, murder of a Congressman, murder of a federal judge, murder of a federal witness, murder of a postman...

[beckyzoole]

Oh, absolutely, you are correct. However, that is not an issue in this case at all. Murder is a state offense. Murder charges are normally brought in a state court.

However, murder of a federal official is a federal offense, and so charges are brought in a federal court.

Loughner has been charged in federal court for murder of two federal officials (a congressional aide and a federal judge) as well as attempted murder of two other federal officials (a second congressional aide and Rep. Giffords).

If the state of Arizona so chooses, it may charge him in state court for the murder and attempted murder of 15 other people. Arizona may decide to save the money and not do that unless something bizarre happens at the federal trial.

It's not a question of which jurisdiction is better. It's just that the feds brought charges first.

[robhansen]

Also, for the record: Dad is of your mindset. If you like, you may quote Chief Judge David R. Hansen, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals with the line, “Judicial robes are not royal garments.”

There are only a few of his opinions I'm allowed to share with the world: he's very circumspect in what he says in public, or allows to be quoted publicly, since he feels it is generally detrimental to the public confidence in the impartiality of the courts. But his opinions on habeas, opinions on the lack of aristocracy, and his opinions on taxation, he has all approved for release. :)

[unixronin]

There are only a few of his opinions I'm allowed to share with the world: he's very circumspect in what he says in public, or allows to be quoted publicly

And very reasonably so.

[ithildae]

Isn't that part of his commission? The need to stay reticent about public policy? If I have heard it correctly, that is a lifetime commission, it does not end with retirement.

[robhansen]

It’s part of his canons of ethics, but not part of his Constitutional duties. Judges are governed by complex and contradictory sets of canons promulgated by different groups: the American Bar Association has its ethical standards for judges, the Judiciary has its own ethical standards for judges, Congress has enacted ethical standards for judges, and so on.

Staying reticent about public policy is a Congressional requirement on the Judiciary, but it is unclear whether this is legally enforceable. After all, the only discipline Congress can issue to a federal judge is impeachment, which is only authorized for high crimes: writing a scathing newspaper editorial doesn’t rise to that level.

Other interesting Constitutional questions come into play. For instance, it is beyond question that I have a First Amendment right to tell other people about my moral and political views, and what events in my life helped shape those. That’s exactly the conduct the First Amendment exists to protect. So I would be entirely within my rights to say, “I believe this, because when I was a kid my dad explained it to me as…” Ought I be constrained by his canons of ethics, despite the fact I am not a jurist, did not ask to be a jurist, and have never volunteered to be placed under them?

Hence, Dad and I have a gentlemen’s agreement with respect to his political and moral views. He shares them freely with me, and I agree to be circumspect and responsible with what I say. It has worked out well for us so far. :)

[ithildae]

It sounds like you have a neat relationship with your dad.

I have a friend that is a retired state judge, he has to attend regular training and policy update seminars.

It would not be the first time the guidelines and rules are contradictory and [possibly] unenforceable. Still, the goal is reasonable, a judiciary with the appearance of lack of bias.

(Oddly enough, I have heard of your dad. I live within the 8th circuit.)

[robhansen]

Finally, don't forget that prosecutors try their best to inflate the top count. If the prosecutor says, "well, there's some evidence Loughner knew Roll was a federal judge, but it's kind of hazy and dicey and it would probably not survive a jury," the prosecutor's next words are going to be, "so let's indict on murdering a federal official, and offer to dismiss it to a state court murder charge in exchange for a guilty plea."

We are barely post-arraignment right now. You are definitely looking at inflated top counts. It will be more interesting to see what Loughner eventually pleads guilty to, or is ultimately convicted of.

[unixronin]

Very true.

[robhansen]

I have just finished reading the federal indictment against Loughner. According to it, Judge Roll showed up to Congresswoman Gifford's event in order to speak to her about the crushing volume of federal criminal trials and how it was affecting the Judiciary. Judge Roll was not able to speak to Gifford directly (or, rather, had not yet as of the shooting), but had been speaking publicly with one of Gifford's aides about this matter.

Reading between the lines a little here --

Federal judges are required to remain out of the realm of politics, with one big exception: they are allowed to get political when it comes to subjects related to the administration of justice. They aren't allowed to say "drugs should be legalized" or "drugs should be more heavily criminalized" -- those are political questions, not justice questions -- but they are allowed to say, "Congresswoman, the Legislature is drowning us in casework, we've got judges burning out and leaving the bench, and you need to fix these problems before the carriage of justice is endangered."

Anyway.

Reading between the lines, Roll was speaking publicly at Gifford's event, in his official role as a federal judge, about a matter of general interest to the public. Hence, since Roll was visibly acting in an official capacity, his murder is being treated the same as if he had been holding court at the time of his shooting.

[unixronin]

Reading between the lines, Roll was speaking publicly at Gifford's event, in his official role as a federal judge, about a matter of general interest to the public. Hence, since Roll was visibly acting in an official capacity, his murder is being treated the same as if he had been holding court at the time of his shooting.

Works for me.

[ithildae]

He is about the age that schizophrenia appears in most people affected. Regardless of the jurisdiction he is tried in, his recent past indicates far simpler motivations than political attack.

Murder should not be accepted. I don't think this is a case of anyone being a second class citizen or any type of human life is more valuable. It really appears that the Feds want first crack at him. He is clearly a danger. It really does look like mental illness is involved. I don't envy someone trying to serve justice in this case.

This incident is also being advanced as an excuse for further restrictions on obtaining firearms. I have a problem with that.