The law as a bludgeon
From Liberty Council...
Before graduation in May 2006, Principal Mark Brewer informed the valedictorians that they could choose one student to speak, or that all of them could deliver a 30-second graduation message. The students chose to have all fifteen valedictorians participate and chose a general topic for each speaker. Erica and one other student were chosen to give concluding messages. Each valedictorian orally presented a proposed speech to the principal before graduation.
During her 30-second message Erica spoke about her faith in Jesus Christ. Afterwards, she was escorted to see the assistant principal, who said she would not receive her diploma because of the speech she had given. Principal Brewer later indicated that her comments were "immature." He said that she could only receive her diploma if she apologized to the school community. Erica prepared a statement saying the message was her own and was not endorsed by the principal. Brewer insisted that she include the words: "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did." Erica complied because she feared the school would withhold her diploma. She was also afraid that the school would put disciplinary notes in her file and would generate negative publicity, which could prevent her from becoming a school teacher. Principal Brewer sent out Erica's message in an e-mail to the entire high school community. Soon after, Erica received her diploma.
From USA Today...
Sen. Larry Craig has good reason to regret his guilty plea to a count of disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis airport bathroom — according to legal experts, a good lawyer could have made it go away....
Minnesota Statutes Section 609.72, Subdivision (3) says it is a crime for an individual to engage in conduct that "will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace."...
"There's a basis, but only a weak basis, for a disorderly conduct charge," [University of Minnesota law professor Dale] Carpenter said. Craig's actions might be construed as unwelcome behavior, as opposed to extremely belligerent behavior, as the Minnesota statute envisions, Carpenter said. "The things that Craig is alleged to have done might be bothersome or annoying, but not necessarily criminal."...
Of course, fighting the charges in court would have made the issue public, which Craig seemed desperate to avoid.
I juxtapose these two because of the common problem the both illustrate: the use of ignorance of the law as a bludgeon to force behavior. If the first story a teenager's fear that the school could prevent her from entering college made he acquiesce to illegal demands by the school administrators. She is now suing the school, and rightly so.
In the second story, while few disagree that it was obvious what Craig's intentions were, that is only because of other information that has since emerged—information the officer didn't have at the time of the arrest. I find it uncomfortable that such behavior could be defined as illegal, especially given that the precise behavior Craig is charged with—he actually denies.
Today's headlines are about how the arresting officer is a "rising" member of the police force. But I recall similar fawning over one of the Federal Agents killed at Ruby Ridge. He was declared to be the most decorated Gulf War veteran at the time, except nothing was offered to actually prove that, and the fact that the agent was killed after the cowardly shooting of a 15-year-old boy—in the back—was also ignored. Police aren't perfect, and puff pieces on their "qualifications" rarely prove they are. They tend to make me a bit suspicious, because the facts of the case should speak for the case, not the PR show job spun by authorities.
I understand that there is a need to discourage lewd behavior in public places, but I also understand that when rules of evidence are twisted to the point that seemingly random behavior can be construed as "lewd intent" the enforcement of "order" becomes more disorderly than what they are trying to prevent.
When "laws" are enforced based on an inaccurate understanding of what is and isn't legal, do we really have law enforcement, or just bullying? Both cases above have in common that the law itself wasn't as much the focus as was the desire of those charged with enforcing it. The purpose of the 5th Amendment was to prevent the government from using tactics that would coerce people into false confessions. In both cases we see that very thing happening. Erica the Valedictorian was forced into an "apology" she didn't mean. Craig was forced into a guilty plea out of fear of publicity. In both cases justice was denied. Fortunately Erica can sue. Craig, guilty or not guilty, will still be punished, regardless of the truth.
Posted by Danny Carlton at August 31, 2007 7:15 AM