Category Archives: Law

Phil Ivey did Cheat – According to a Judge

Posted on by

Phil IveyI wrote a post back in May of 2013 which questioned the action of poker player Phil Ivey. In that blog I examined what Ivey did while playing cards at a casino in London and whether it amounted to cheating. I’ll recap so you don’t have to read the entire first post.

Ivey and a friend were playing a game called Punto Banco at the Crockfords casino in London and noted a misprint on the cards. Ivey and his friend then exploited this misprint to win about $12.4 million. This sort of behavior is called edge sorting. The basic definition is using flaws within the system to win at the game. Ivey never disputed what he did to win the money. He never claimed it was simply his considerable acumen with cards that allowed him to win. During the trial he told the truth about what he and his friend did.

In my original blog I came to the conclusion that what Ivey did was certainly unethical but did not amount to cheating. I felt that if someone in a card game in which I was playing used the same technique I would think they behaved as a poor sportsman. I probably wouldn’t play cards with them again and I’d have to consider their behavior in any future encounters. Still I did not think any cheating occurred. He simply took advantage of a weakness.

The case has now run its course and the judge ruled against Ivey. The judge decided that what Ivey did was actually cheating. That the casino was right to withhold his winnings and he would not be able to collect them. The judge went out of his way to mention that Ivey was straight-forward and truthful in his testimony. Ivey reacted by saying he still doesn’t think he cheated, and I agree, but that the judge has made a decision and that is that.

I disagree with the judge on this one but I think Ivey is taking the high-road and that’s a good thing. He plead his case honestly and fairly and lost. That happens and I’m sure Ivey knows it far better than me.

I’m still of the opinion that edge sorting is unethical and not cheating.

What I find most interesting about this ruling, which occurred in England and therefore does not affect U.S. casinos, is the repercussions on other situations. A player who notes any flaw in the system might be denied his or her winnings. I think it can be fairly argued that if I notice a person has a tell, that’s gambler talk for a physical reaction that gives away the contents of the player’s hand, then I’m potentially engaged in cheating and might legally be deprived of my winnings. If I’m aware you twitch your nose when you are bluffing and win a lot of money during a poker game is it possible that you can legally not pay me?

I understand there is a difference between a misprint on a card and a physical tell but I’m not convinced the two are that different legally.

As an example let’s imagine a fairly big poker game with a table of nine players. I note that one player has a tell. I use that tell to anticipate that player’s moves which gives me an advantage over every other player in the game. It helps me not only against that player but I can influence that player, through my own betting behavior, to change the way other players bet. I can lead the telling player into a bluff when I have a poor hand to drive out players with good hands.

It’s my opinion this behavior would qualify as a skilled playing, not cheating.

Is such behavior the equivalent to noticing a misprint on a card and using it to one’s advantage?

In summary.

  1. Noting misprint and not telling anyone: Skilled playing; unethical but not cheating
  2. Causing cards to be misprinted and using that information to win: Cheating
  3. Noting a tell and using it to advantage: Skilled playing.

What do you think? Was the judge right? Did Ivey cheat?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Justice Scalia Suggests the First Amendment does not Protect Non-Religion

Posted on by

Exercise ClauseThere’s an interesting legal story making the news these days and it hits home for this Atheist. Supreme Court Justice Scalia recently spoke at a gathering at Colorado Christian University and put forward the idea that the federal government and the states are not obligated to protect people who do not have a religion. That it is “absurd” to suggest Atheist are protected by the First Amendment.

The gist of his argument centers around the interpretation of what is called the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Justice Scalia seems to be saying that while it would be completely illegal to bar a Muslim from entering an establishment it would not be likewise Constitutionally illegal to bar an Atheist. Being a Muslim is a religion as is being a Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Wicca, or any other religion. The Constitution would certainly protect anyone of those religious faiths from being denied access to anything because of their beliefs.

There is something called the No Religious Test Clause in the Constitution. It reads thus: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

It seems reasonable that Justice Scalia would allow a Non-Religious Test to be administered to anyone who sought public office. That if you said you were an Atheist you could be legally barred from holding office in the United States.

I cannot tell you exactly what Justice Scalia thinks but it certainly must fall along the lines of the idea that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they meant to protect people of any religion but not people of no religion. The strict interpretation is that barring someone from practicing their religion of choice does not apply to not practicing a religion at all.

If this is the case then it would be perfectly legal, although perhaps not reasonable, to pass a law that discriminates against Atheists. That an Atheist could be charged with a crime for not believing in any religion. That an Atheist could be imprisoned for not having a religion. This would require the legislatures of a community passing such a law but it would not be unconstitutional.

Naturally, being an Atheist, I find this interpretation disturbing.

It’s an argument that holds up when we think about physical items. We can have a dog park where all dogs are welcome but no non-dog can enter.

The problem is that the exercise of our religion is not a physical thing. It’s an idea. It’s like saying no one is allowed to prevent you from thinking but they can prevent you from not thinking. Not thinking is a separate thing from thinking.

Let’s say there is a beautiful buffet and the rule is that everyone is allowed to smell the food in any way they desire. Using a cone, from far away, from up close, but it’s completely illegal to not smell the food. Not smelling the food is exercising your right to smell in any way you desire, not to do it. You can eat the food any way you want. Off a plate, by hand, using a fork, using a spoon, having your spouse feed it to you, but not eating it is illegal. We have the freedom of speech and this, of course, means we can choose not to speak. We have the right to bear arms, and of course, we have the right to not do so. Trying to separate the two things is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

Justice Scalia seems to be saying it would be perfectly Constitutional to pass a law saying everyone must, at all times, make political speech. That not making politically free speech is a crime.

I absolutely disagree. The freedom to not exercise our rights is an inherent and crucial part of exercising our rights.

Freedom of religion must include freedom to not be religious. They are tied together as one.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

 

 

Egg-actly my Point – Judge Throws out Egg Lawsuit

Posted on by

Commerce ClauseI wrote about a lawsuit being spearheaded in my own beloved state of Missouri back in February that involved the regulation of chicken eggs in California.

The basic premise of the lawsuit is because California is such a huge economy; rules they pass for their state effect other states. I wrote at the time that while this is certainly true it in no way forced the egg production facilities in Missouri to change their coops. It simply means that if the people in Missouri, who sell approximately 1.7 billion eggs to California each year, want to enjoy the profit provided by productive people from the Golden State they need to change their practices. They are perfectly free to continue to keep chickens in conditions that can only be described as horrific but they won’t be able to sell eggs from such chickens in California.

The people of California spoke. California is the wealthiest and most populated state in the union. When voters from that state make a decision it carries more impact than when the voters of Missouri decide something. Just as laws in Texas can effect the rest of the nation. This is the nature of our Representative Republic.

I’m pleased to say that a federal judge completely agrees with my interpretation of events. The case has been tossed. U.S District Justice Kimberly Mueller writes that the states lacked legal standing to sue because they failed to show that the California law does genuine harm to their citizenry instead of just possible future damage to some egg producers.

It is patently clear plaintiffs are bringing this action on behalf of a subset of each state’s egg farmers,” Mueller wrote in the decision, “not on behalf of each state’s population generally.

It is quite clear, Justice Mueller. Thank you. And just in case Missouri and the other states want to keep filing and filing; she also ruled they can’t refile or amend the existing case. They can appeal but it appears they have little chance. Not that I would put it past the legislatures in my home state to keep the appeals process going for as long as possible simply to delay the expenditure necessary to improve the coops (estimated at $120 million).

It’s nice to know someone agrees with me now and again. Happy dance ensues.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Lies in Ohio – Political Lies Protected by First Amendment

Posted on by

Legal Lies OhioThere was an interesting ruling handed down today by U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black in regards to an Ohio law which prohibited an organization knowingly lying about a candidate during the election process.

The First Amendment protects our freedom of speech. There are certainly laws against slander and libel but there is largely no legal remedy against someone who tells a lie that does not rise to either of those illegal activities. In this case a campaign organization wanted to post an ad that was completely false. The candidate said the organization would be charged with a crime if it did so and the court battle ensued. It is now perfectly acceptable to knowingly lie about a candidate in a campaign advertisement in Ohio.

A similar case was adjudicated by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case in Minnesota covering lying about ballot initiatives. In that case the right to lie was also upheld. Neither case has reached the Supreme Court at this junction so, presuming appeals, these decisions might yet be overturned.

I find the case interesting because the people arguing against the laws are basically saying they want to tell lies to help win an election. That by telling lies they should not be subject to legal remedy. They, of course, argue that they are fighting for the First Amendment but the reality is they want to be able to lie in campaigns to swing the election towards their candidate. What they forget, as usual, is that this is dual edged weapon. If they can knowingly tell lies in a campaign advertisement so also can their opponents.

To a certain degree there are already so many lies, so many half-truths, and so much misleading information out there that I’m not sure the judgement really amounts to anything. Anyone who believes attack ads about a candidate without bothering to go to one of the many readily available fact-checking sites probably has no real interest in the truth. They prefer to be fed lies as long as they coincide with their preconceived political ideology.

This just continues the ongoing slide of our nation into a morass of people who don’t really care about the truth. We, the voters, undeniably care only about that which confirms our notions. Anything that disavows them we ignore or convince ourselves are lies. Anything that confirms them is the truth. If the truth were different. If people looked at the facts and judged statements for their true worth we would not have the current elected officials we have. We want to be told lies and proceed to lap them up while begging for more.

My only real surprise in this outcome is that Ohio and Minnesota were allowed to prohibit lying for so long!

To those who “won” this case; I congratulations you on your victory. You will reap your just reward.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

A Tale of Two Jews – Roy Cohn and Sidney Frank

Posted on by

Sidney-Frank-Roy-CohnThe wonder and glory of information that we have at our fingertips thanks to men like Tim Berners-Lee never ceases to amaze me and I experienced yet another magical moment when the simple act of watching an advertisement led me to what I’m going to write about today. My point today is that what is important about a person is not his or her religion (or lack thereof), race, sexuality, or any other superficial factor. What’s important is what he or she does with his or her life. Today I look at the amazing story of how Sidney Frank and Roy Cohn crossed paths.

I’d never heard of either until while watching cricket on ESPN3 I saw a commercial about Grey Goose Vodka. I thought, hmm. Let’s look up this Francois Thibault. He is certainly an interesting fellow but that led me to look up Grey Goose vodka. That led to the remarkable story of a great man named Sidney Frank. Frank was born to a Jewish family of no particular distinction or wealth and managed to save enough money to attend Brown University for one year. After that he had no money left and so went to work as an aircraft mechanic for Pratt and Whitney servicing engines in the South Pacific during World War II.

He married well and rose quickly in the ranks of his wife’s family distillery business. He was eventually forced out of the company in a family dispute and after his wife died started his own company. Through hard work and promotional genius he turned Jagermeister into a huge success and made himself a lot of money. That is when he approached Thibault about producing a fine French vodka made with the best ingredients. Grey Goose. He turned the company into a huge success and eventually sold it to Bacardi for a tidy $2 billion. He became a tremendous philanthropist who gave money to, among many others, Brown University so that no student would ever have to leave because of lack of funds again. He gave all the employees of his company large bonuses.

***** ERRONEOUS INFORMATION******

He had a heart attack at the age of 86 and as he lay dying on his bed a man named Roy Cohn came to visit him.

****** CORRECTION *****

Cohn did not visit Frank’s hospital room but another man named Lewis Rosensteil but the story is otherwise accurate as to Frank’s actions.

***** END CORRECTION *****

Roy Cohn was also born to a Jewish family but the similarities to Frank end there. Cohn gained a law degree and used his family influence to get a good job immediately upon being granted his license. He gained prominence prosecuting accused Soviet spies during the Red Scare years using whatever methods necessary to gain convictions. He helped secure the conviction and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg apparently having convinced the brother of Julius to lie on stand, this done to prevent his and his wife’s reputations from being destroyed.

This bit of skulduggery got the attention of Eugene McCarthy and Cohn played a rather slimy roll in the McCarthy hearings that ended in disgrace for McCarthy largely because of the tactics used by Cohn against the army.  Later in life Cohn was accused of professional misconduct several times. He engineered a hostile take-over his grand-uncle’s Lionel Model Train company and ran the company into the ground before he was eventually removed.

He was involved in an extremely shady political deal that allowed John B. Anderson to get the New York nomination in the 1980 Presidential race. This was designed to split opposition to Reagan although the results allowed Anderson to become the last Independent Candidate for President to have a solid chance of winning. Still, it involved passing along money in an illegal fashion.

**** CORRECTED SECTION ****

He walked into Lewis Rosenstiel’s hand hospital room. Both Jews. Both white men. In the eyes of many much the same.

Cohn took the hand of the comatose Rosensteil and forced it into signing a will that named Cohn as one of the primary executors of the will. A despicable act by a disgusting man.

*** END OF CORRECTED SECTION ***

Roger Stone, a friend of Cohn, said that the man’s final goal was to die absolutely bankrupt and owing millions of dollars to the IRS. He succeeded.

The next time you think something about someone because of the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their sexual habits, their sex, their race, or any other superficial features; I’d like you to think about Frank and Cohn.

Tom Liberman

Unmarked Police Car Bumper Sticker

Posted on by

unmarked-police-carPamela Konchinsky was pulled over by the police, questioned, and told to remove a bumper sticker from her car. The bumper sticker, “Unmarked Police Car”. The Indianapolis police argue that criminals might mistake the car for an unmarked police car and shoot the driver. Or at least that’s what they told Konchinsky after they pulled her over.

It’s an interesting case for a couple of reasons but there is one thing that really stands out in my mind. It seems to me that the police rationalized to themselves that the bumper sticker represented a real threat to Konchinsky and justified the entire incident because they were protecting her. The reality is they didn’t like the bumper sticker and their minds came up with a good reason to pull her over. I honestly don’t think the police officers in this case concocted the rather ridiculous argument, I strongly think they believe what they are saying.

It’s quite clear to me that the bumper sticker is designed as a joke. It’s rather subtle and funny at that. Some people are arguing she was falsely presenting herself as a police officer but I don’t think this can be construed as such. I wrote a blog quite a while ago about someone who was rightfully kicked out of Universal Studios for wearing a t-shirt that read: Police Street Crime Unit. That’s an instance of someone wearing something that could be misconstrued. In that case it wasn’t the person wearing the shirt who was in danger but others at the park who might look to that person for security. Not the point here but you can read that post to see my views.

Back to what I find so compelling about this particular case and why it speaks to Libertarian ideology. One of the things Libertarians argue is that the government has convinced both itself and those who support it that they do what they do for our benefit. I absolutely think there are times when the government is extremely useful but more and more I see in our politicians the same psychological mind-games we see from the officers in this case.

The bumper sticker is clearly a joke. An unmarked police car would not be marked as a police car. The officers in this case didn’t like what they saw and came up with a reason to get rid of it. They were wrong to do so and I hope Konchinsky gets her day in court. Likely it will be settled with an apology or two and that’s fine.

We want things so badly we twist facts around and around until we get the result we want. It happens to everyone. It happens to police officers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, and even web-developers! It’s really important for people in position of authority to be aware of this sort of thinking.

Be wary of those who claim they are looking out for you and try then try to take something away; be it freedom or just a bumper sticker.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Amanda Longacre and the Rules of Beauty Pageants

Posted on by

Amanda-LongacreThere’s a relatively interesting little case roiling the internet these days about a young woman named Amanda Longacre who won the Delaware Miss America Pageant but had her title stripped when it was determined she would turn 25 before the end of the 2014 calendar year. The pageant has a rule that all contestants must be under 25 by the end of the year in which they win their title.

Longacre has caught the attention of the national media and garnered a lot of sympathy for her cause. She’s planning on looking at legal remedies to her situation.

Her claim rests on the idea that she didn’t falsify her entrance form. It clearly stated her age and yet she was allowed to compete in the pageant. She argues that because the mistake was on the part of the Miss America panel to let her illegally into the contest they should allow her victory to stand.

This seems to me to be a rather ridiculous legal argument but I’m not a lawyer. It’s basically saying the police made a mistake and allowed me to get away with committing a crime but when they realized the situation came back and enforced the law. Certainly the pageant never should have allowed her to enter. I suspect she knew the rule all along and just hoped no one would notice the violation. Even if she wasn’t aware of the age limit it’s not an excuse to say that they didn’t notice my violation immediately therefore it doesn’t actually break the rules.

There have been a number of cases in the golfing world recently where a golfer’s violation was not noticed at the time of the infraction but was spotted later by a viewer on television. The violation is then enforced. It’s the rule regardless of when someone notices that someone broke it.

Let’s take the case a bit further just for the sake of argument. Let’s pretend no one noticed until after Longacre competed in the Miss America Pageant. Let’s imagine she won that pageant and served out her year as reigning Miss America. Would the pageant be wrong to strip her of the title retroactively? I don’t think so. We again have numerous examples in the sporting world of someone whose violations came to light after the fact, Lance Armstrong being a prime example.

Longacre is an attractive and charismatic young woman and this means she is generating sympathy for her cause. Certainly the Miss America Pageant might decide to reinstate her to generate good publicity and that would be within their right although certainly unfair to all the young women who didn’t enter because they understood the age restriction and honored it.

Rules are rules and when one person follows them and is defeated by someone who didn’t there is a problem. I don’t think it’s that big a deal either way but I do think the pageant should stick by their rules and their ruling. What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Suspended for Tweet – Reid Sagehorn Story

Posted on by

Reid-SagehornI’ve written in the past about social media and the dangers it presents because our words are forever preserved and a case involving Twitter and a young student suspended from school is making the news in Minnesota. It’s an interesting case from a legal perspective but my take is that it never should have come to what has happened. Read on!

In this case the student, Reid Sagehorn, was subject to anonymous tweets that he had kissed one of the teachers at his school. He responded to this with a tweet reading, “Actually yes.”

Other parents apparently saw this tweet as confirmation of the idea that he was engaged in an illegal sexual relationship with the teacher in question and reported it to the authorities. An investigation ensued. It was determined that there was no such relationship and Reid says his reply was intended to be sarcastic.

The problem is that the teacher in question had her reputation unfairly besmirched and the school had to institute an investigation which took time and resources. Thus they decided to suspend Sagehorn. First for five days and then for ten days. Eventually they even moved towards an expulsion which forced him to enroll in a different school to finish out the year. Now he has filed a lawsuit claiming the school violated his First Amendment right to free speech.

The legality of the suspension is a fairly interesting question in its own right because schools are generally given pretty wide latitude in dealing with speech that causes a disruption in the school. The tweet clearly caused a disruption and just as clearly was not taken as sarcasm even if it was intended as such. I’m of the opinion the school does have the right to suspend and even expel Sagehorn. I’m also of the opinion that doing so was absolute nonsense.

Sagehorn’s tweet was potentially damaging and ill-advised to be certain. The school pretty much had to institute an investigation and I think Sagehorn owes the district and the teacher in particular a big apology. However, that’s where I think things should have stopped. It would have been a good “teachable moment” as we like to say these days. In my opinion punishment should have been a public apology to the assembled students, a private apology to the teacher in question, and a one day suspension. End of story. Move on with the business of educating young Sagehorn and the rest of the students.

Such an approach was not taken and now we are where we are. Sigh.

What do you think? Was the long-term suspension merited? Is this a First Amendment violation?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

 

Dash Cams are a Good Idea

Posted on by

Dash CamI was browsing through all the news that’s fit to print when I came across a story at Yahoo Odd News that caught my interest. A fellow by the name of Randy Kratofil was driving through the Pennsylvania town of Jefferson Hills when he came to a three-way stop sign. He stopped and then proceeded forward. A pair of police officers, clearly staking out the intersection, then pulled him over and wrote him a $127.50 ticket. They told him that residents were complaining of people running the stop sign.

Kratofil has a dash-cam in his car. He took the video to a local news station which then showed it to the Jefferson Hills police chief and the ticket was rescinded although the chief of police stands by the officer that wrote the ticket. Which in itself is ridiculous. If you stand by the ticket then you wouldn’t rescind it. That’s another story.

A factor in the case which I did not see in the reported story is the nature of the intersection where the non-infraction took place. If you watch the video it is very apparent that the intersection is extremely dangerous. It’s a three way intersection which sort of bends around and away to the left; after the original stop it’s very difficult to see oncoming traffic from that direction.

The problem appears to me to be that the white line is not painted in the right spot. From the video I couldn’t even see the white line. For everyone out there not familiar with traffic laws it’s important to note that you are required to stop at the white line, not the stop sign. This rule is designed for intersections exactly like the one in the video. The nature of the road made it impossible to put the stop sign where it needed to be and there should have been a white line painted another ten feet or so forward.

The fact that the white line is either absent or badly painted leads me to the conclusion that someone is either incompetent or the police use the intersection as a revenue generator. I’d like to know how many tickets are written at that intersection. I’d also like to know how many accidents happen at that intersection. If the white line is intentionally absent in order to generate revenue for the police department there is serious criminal misconduct going on. It is creating a dangerous situation in the pursuit of money.

I do not know if any of that is actually true. It’s possible the white line is there but just not visible because of the lighting condition. It’s possible that the white line is missing for other reasons but the events here make me extremely suspicious of the Jefferson Hills police department. If someone was injured in an accident at that intersection there should be criminal liability.

The moral of the story is that it’s not a bad idea to purchase a good dash-cam for your car. They have a nice selection at Amazon but you can pick them up just about anywhere you do your electronic shopping.

As an added bonus for me, I can upload video to YouTube and show off how all those other drivers are out there trying to kill me. I drive about seven minutes to work everyday and about the same back home. Now that I have a food service bringing me food I don’t even stop at the grocery store. In that fourteen minutes of driving I have least one person try to kill me every day. People think I’m paranoid but I’m not! I tell you they’re out to get me! Now to get that dash-cam and prove it!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

If you Know the Outcome it’s not Gambling – Atlantic City Casino Case

Posted on by

Baccarat_tableI just read an incredibly interesting legal story from the Associated Press about a case that happened in Atlantic City a little over two years ago.

A group of gamblers was playing the game of Baccarat at a table in Atlantic City when they noticed that the cards were coming out of the deck in original order. The decks themselves came from the manufacturer to the casino with the stipulation that they be shuffled beforehand. In this case the freshly opened cards were not so shuffled and emerging from the deck sequentially. The gamblers immediately noticed this and began making maximum bets winning over $1.5 million in short order.

The casino figured out what was happening and detained the gamblers and that’s when legal proceedings began. The gamblers filed a case against the casino for what they consider an illegal detention and that case is still being reviewed. Meanwhile the casino argued that they shouldn’t have to pay the money to the gamblers who still have the chips from the event but not the actual money.

Originally a judge ruled against the casino and a settlement was attempted but the gamblers refused to drop the illegal detention case so the other case went forward as well. Now the Superior Court of the region has agreed with the casino. Judge James Isman ruled that because the cards had not been shuffled, the game of mini-baccarat was illegal under state casino rules.

When I first read the case I was definitely on the side of the gamblers but I started to think about why the judge would thus rule and I’m no longer certain of my original opinion. I haven’t read the details of the case and I’m certainly not up on New Jersey gaming laws so my opinion here is largely speculation but that won’t stop me!

I think the judge ruled the way he did because the situation as described was no longer gambling. Let’s reverse the sides and say the casino had the deck setup in a way that the dealer knew about and used this to win hand after hand. This would clearly be a violation of the law even if the casino didn’t intentionally stack the deck in this manner. In order for it to be gambling I think there has to be an uncertain outcome.

An example would be the events in the movie The Sting where the antagonist hoped to cheat the house by laying down bets on races that had already finished. Would this case not fall under the same laws? Is it even possible that the gamblers themselves are guilty of a crime? The judge ordered that the casino doesn’t have to pay out the “winnings” although no charges have been filed against the gamblers.

Then there is the ethical aspect of the entire story. If you were presented with a way to win at a gambling game in which you knew the outcome; would you do so? For example, you know that a certain ticket will be pulled from a jar during a raffle and you are offered the ability to go through the ticket roll and purchase what will be the winning number. Would you do so? Is not doing so stealing in every sense of the word?

Judging by the comments below the original story I think most people are sympathetic with the gamblers and angry with the judge and the casino with the ruling. As I said, it’s an interesting case.

What do you think?

Any lawyers? Any lawyers from New Jersey familiar with gaming laws? I’d love to hear from people.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

NCAA Settles on Player Likeness Used in Video Games

Posted on by

Johnny-Manziel-Ncaa-Football-14I’ve written a number of times about how I think the NCAA is an organization wherein everyone except the athletes make money. One of the points I’ve made is that the NCAA takes money from video game makers like Electronic Arts who use the likeness and mannerisms of players in their games. Until today the NCAA and the game manufacturers have never paid the players a penny for doing this. Until today.

If you purchase EA NCAA Football 2013 and load up, say the Texas A&M v. Missouri game you’ll see #2 leading the Aggies onto the field. The avatar bears a striking resemblance to Johnny Manziel. In the game #2 throws with his right hand and is a bit short for a quarterback. He runs a lot. He plays just like Johnny Manziel. The only real difference is the back of the jersey where you see just the #2, not the name Manziel.

The reason you didn’t see that name is because the video game companies figured if they left it off they wouldn’t owe Manziel, or any of the other players, money for using their likeness in the games. Those self-same video game companies do have pay to someone though, that someone is the NCAA. In fancy legalese designed to keep them from having to give money to the actual players they pay for the right to use the NCAA logo. Tricky, those lawyers. The NCAA has said they will terminate this agreement with the game manufactures once the current contract expires later this year.

Those who disagree with me will argue that the players get a scholarship and signed a contract in which they agreed not to collect money for the use of their likeness. If that is the case then why did EA and the NCAA just agree to pay $60 million to the people whose likeness was used from 2005 or 2003 to the present time. They fought and fought until the moment the case was headed to trial and then paid up.

There is another huge case on the dockets now filed by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannion and there has been no settlement to date. That case argues the players have the right to sell their likeness directly to the video game makers. It’s a big one to say the least and I’ll be keeping my eye on it. But it’s not the point of today’s column.

Those who rail against today’s settlement argue that it will “ruin” college football. It will drive the game out of existence. I can’t categorically say this is wrong although I’m certain that it is incorrect. There is money to be made. Lots of money. If the NCAA, the media, the stadium builders, the broadcasters, the coaches, and everyone else has to give up a bit of that to pay the players they’ll do it. They might not like it, but they’ll do it. And the games will go on.

Either the doomsayers or right or I’m right. Time will tell.

As far as today’s settlement goes I have only this to say. About time.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

 

Police Search Parked Car because it Smelled of Drugs

Posted on by

Police NoteThere’s an amazing case making the news in Tampa, Florida where the police searched a parked vehicle because they smelled the odor of marijuana coming from it. At least they so claimed.

The truck in question belongs to Matthew Heller and is painted with the logo of his business. In their search of his car they tore out panels and did significant damage to his electrical system. They left a hand-written note on the truck telling him to call the police department if he had any questions. Are you kidding me? This was the guy’s business vehicle. There is no way the officers who performed the search could not have identified Heller and tried to contact him but that’s not even the most egregious violation.

The Tampa police claim the search was perfectly legal and have so far refused to pay for the damage they caused although it seems obvious to me that they will have to do so eventually.

I’ve written on a number of occasions about the War on Drugs and the seizures laws and I have no doubt that if they had found even trace amounts of drugs they would have seized his car and everything in it. The fact that an officer can simply claim to have smelled marijuana in a car that was parked in a parking lot at a concert, break in, and search it should give everyone pause for alarm.

This is the police state that the Founding Fathers lived under when we were a colony of England. This is why we have the Fourth Amendment. This Amendment protects me from a vindictive police force bent on destroying me.

The War on Drugs has provided such a bounty of money to law enforcement agencies over this entire country that local municipalities no longer use enough tax dollars to support the agency. This means the police are becoming more and more dependent on seizures to fund their operations. They become creative in their methods of getting revenue. I’m of the strong suspicion that the police simply wanted to steal Heller’s truck so they could sell it at an impound auction. That there was likely no smell of marijuana at all. That they troll parking lots of concerts looking for vehicles to steal … I mean impound.

This is madness. This is not good for citizens and it’s horrible for the police. When officers become not the protectors or our people but their enemy this country is in serious danger. The liberties we enjoy are in jeopardy. I’m sure the vast majority of police officers would much rather spend their time investigating and preventing real crime rather than trolling for funds. This sort of thing must make good officers sick to their stomach.

I still can’t get ever the hand-written note I’ve used as the image on this post. Are you kidding me? What is happening to our nation?

Are we so frightened that we’re willing to trade all our liberties for the illusion of safety?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Medicare Cheated out of Billions by … the Rich

Posted on by

Medicare FraudThere’s an interesting case slowly making its way through the courts about a company that is accused of stealing potentially billions of dollars from taxpayers in the form of medicare overcharges. The case isn’t about all the stealing, it’s about the guy who got fired because he tried to fix the problem.

You can read the story for all the details but basically a new guy was hired by an insurance company and almost immediately found evidence of chronic over-charging by filling out forms fraudulently. He claims to have discussed the issue in significant detail with corporate officials who recognized the problem and began putting away cash for what they assumed would be eventual fines. None was forthcoming and so they took the more expedient solution of firing Josh Valdez.

That’s what the case is about. A whistleblower who was fired. It’s not about the potentially billions of dollars that were stolen from taxpayers by insurance companies in Puerto Rico. This was merely one division of the much larger Aveta Inc. The charges were filled in April of 2011 and are only seeing the light of day now.

The suit filed by Valdez uncovered the fact that the fraudulent practices of Aveta are likely happening in many places. There are few audits of the Risk Score of patients which determine how much money goes to the insurance company. These scores can be artificially altered to ensure more money is paid out. According to Valdez up to $350 million of the $1.4 billion paid out was fraudulent for the each of the years between 2007 and 2011.

Remember, this is a single insurance fraud scam in Puerto Rico. Think big and then remember the financial crisis that this country is facing.

It is my opinion this kind of fraud occurs all the time and has contributed significantly to the growing debt our nation faces. This is the sort of situation that I think sets Libertarians apart from Democrats and Republicans. Democrats will scream and yell about corporate greed while Republicans will do the same about government waste. Here’s a newsflash for you … it’s both! And you are the reason it continues. Those who insist on voting for Democrats or Republicans just perpetuate the situation. They’ve both got their hands out and are grabbing the money as fast as they can scoop it up.

None of the alleged activity has been proven in court yet and it’s all speculation, but anyone who thinks this sort of thing is rare is just fooling themselves. The United States government is enormous beyond comprehension and the lack of oversight is shocking. The company involved claims it is just a disgruntled employee. We’ll see what the courts say but I’m expecting a relatively small fine against the company and some monetary reward for Valdez but nothing that will approach the amount that has been and continues to be stolen.

Greed is good, welcome to the United States.

As usual I’m not going to just talk about the problem. What are the solutions?

The idea behind Medicare is sound. We don’t want older people to miss out on medical care because of lack of money. That is a reasonable use of government money. Yet the amount of money involved will always be a magnet to those who want to steal.

A big part of the problem is software. The government is running on antiquated software and generating the reports necessary to discover this sort of activity isn’t easy. There is also a lack of inspectors so most insurance companies are allowed to self-report.

The only real solution is for people to actually want it solved. The solutions are there. More inspectors, better reports, tougher enforcement. As long as government officials are being bribed by the self-same companies that are defrauding us there will be no remedies. Being a good-guy will just get you fired, as Valdez discovered.

If you think voting Democrat or Republican will change things … best of luck.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

Facebook Post leads to Ticket for Dog Walking

Posted on by

Facebook crimeThere’s an interesting little story in the news today about a woman who made a Facebook post about walking her dog in a dog park which requires those who use it to have a permit.

I’m certain the park in question requires a paid permit because someone must spend the time, effort, and money to keep it nice. The people who walk their dogs there pay for this service. When someone goes to the park without paying their permit fee they are essentially stealing from everyone else.

Presumably one of the people who actually pays their permit fee saw the post from the woman and reported it to the authorities who issued a fine. It turns out the woman was lying in her post and hadn’t actually used the park in several years and the fine was rescinded. That’s not really the point though.

People seem to be pretty upset that the fine was issued in the first place but it doesn’t bother me at all. If you confess to illegal activity be it on Facebook, to an undercover officer, to a friend who turns you in, or in any other way there should be ramifications. Frankly, if you break the law then you should understand there might be penalties involved if you are caught.

I do think the fine shouldn’t have been issued until an investigation was conducted but I have no problem with police using their investigative capabilities via Facebook or any other legal method. We are protected in this country from unreasonable police activity by our Constitution and I think these rights must be guarded with vigilance. I don’t think this is an example of the police overstepping their bounds.

It seems pretty straight forward to me. The woman confessed to a crime on a public forum. The police failed to investigate the incident and issued a fine. She complained and the fine was rescinded.

This is not an example of the police state that I rail against in my posts all the time. If she had actually been guilty of walking her dog in the park without a permit then she should have faced the exact same penalty as someone who was physically caught walking their dog in such a manner.

My advice, use Facebook to talk with friends, not to confess to crimes.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

Don’t Mistake the Locker Room for Misogyny

Posted on by

MisogynyI like to think that everyone is horrified by the events of the Friday night when a misogynistic nut-job went on a rampage with a knife, guns, and car that left six people dead and more injured.

However, a lot of people in the United States are not aware that a fellow by the name of Richard Scudamore is being accused of misogyny in England.

I’m not going to use this post to decry Elliot Rodger or try to put a political spin on his actions. He was a full-blown misogynist and his hatred for women overwhelmed his reason. He was not a Republican or Democrat, he was insane. I wrote a long blog post about how the best gun control this nation can implement is better mental health care.

I do want to compare Rodger, Scudamore, and the very idea of misogyny.

Misogyny comes in many forms but it boils down to the idea that women are an inferior specimen of the human race. That men are simply better. I’m of the opinion that this attitude has done more damage than all the wars in history. Spousal abuse was an accepted practice everywhere in the world until the last fifty years. It is still is in many places. If a woman is murdered it’s very likely her husband or boyfriend did it.

This attitude is quickly changing in western, modern countries and we’re all the better for it. Women get an education, join the workforce, have fewer babies, have a bigger say in events. Women aren’t perfect of course, they’re just not inferior to men. They’re not equal to men, they’re different from men but they are not inferior.

Rodger truly hated women. Scudamore wrote a couple of sexist emails in jest. I tell a joke now and again to my friends that scientists finally discovered the cause of insanity, chromosomal imbalance. Ha ha.

In the locker room, among men and boys, things get said. Penis size is joked about. Women’s attributes are compared. We might make a joke about a woman and the shaft of our golf club. It doesn’t mean we’re misogynistic. In fact, men capable of saying such things are probably not women-haters. Those that truly hate women don’t say such things in jest because they don’t want anyone to know how they really feel.

My mother always told me that people are only mean when they like you (yes, I’m beloved). There is truth in that. It’s easy to see through someone filled with hate telling vile jokes as opposed to locker room banter. When a friend of mine calls his wife a “dirty whore” I know he means it as a compliment. He loves his wife. It might sound crazy in a stark email or in print but it’s not.

The other guys laugh and tell him how lucky he is.

It’s not hard to spot real misogyny, I’ve seen it and I’m sure you have as well.

My big problem is that when we throw men like Scudamore to the wolves for what is pretty clearly locker-room banter we lose track of the Rodgers of this world. The real misogynistic men who are capable of doing horrific things.

We are so eager to throw blame and find scapegoats that we miss the real danger. Rodger and Rodger alone.

We spend all this energy trying to attack someone like Scudamore and this time and effort is unavailable to root out deranged scum-bags like Rodger.

It seems like a far-fetched comparison but I think that as a nation we are more interested in placing blame than finding solutions. I’ve written about this over and over again so I won’t reiterate.

Rodger did what he did because he’s insane. Scudamore did what he did because he’s a guy. It’s that simple.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

Don't Mistake the Locker Room for Misogyny

Posted on by

MisogynyI like to think that everyone is horrified by the events of the Friday night when a misogynistic nut-job went on a rampage with a knife, guns, and car that left six people dead and more injured.

However, a lot of people in the United States are not aware that a fellow by the name of Richard Scudamore is being accused of misogyny in England.

I’m not going to use this post to decry Elliot Rodger or try to put a political spin on his actions. He was a full-blown misogynist and his hatred for women overwhelmed his reason. He was not a Republican or Democrat, he was insane. I wrote a long blog post about how the best gun control this nation can implement is better mental health care.

I do want to compare Rodger, Scudamore, and the very idea of misogyny.

Misogyny comes in many forms but it boils down to the idea that women are an inferior specimen of the human race. That men are simply better. I’m of the opinion that this attitude has done more damage than all the wars in history. Spousal abuse was an accepted practice everywhere in the world until the last fifty years. It is still is in many places. If a woman is murdered it’s very likely her husband or boyfriend did it.

This attitude is quickly changing in western, modern countries and we’re all the better for it. Women get an education, join the workforce, have fewer babies, have a bigger say in events. Women aren’t perfect of course, they’re just not inferior to men. They’re not equal to men, they’re different from men but they are not inferior.

Rodger truly hated women. Scudamore wrote a couple of sexist emails in jest. I tell a joke now and again to my friends that scientists finally discovered the cause of insanity, chromosomal imbalance. Ha ha.

In the locker room, among men and boys, things get said. Penis size is joked about. Women’s attributes are compared. We might make a joke about a woman and the shaft of our golf club. It doesn’t mean we’re misogynistic. In fact, men capable of saying such things are probably not women-haters. Those that truly hate women don’t say such things in jest because they don’t want anyone to know how they really feel.

My mother always told me that people are only mean when they like you (yes, I’m beloved). There is truth in that. It’s easy to see through someone filled with hate telling vile jokes as opposed to locker room banter. When a friend of mine calls his wife a “dirty whore” I know he means it as a compliment. He loves his wife. It might sound crazy in a stark email or in print but it’s not.

The other guys laugh and tell him how lucky he is.

It’s not hard to spot real misogyny, I’ve seen it and I’m sure you have as well.

My big problem is that when we throw men like Scudamore to the wolves for what is pretty clearly locker-room banter we lose track of the Rodgers of this world. The real misogynistic men who are capable of doing horrific things.

We are so eager to throw blame and find scapegoats that we miss the real danger. Rodger and Rodger alone.

We spend all this energy trying to attack someone like Scudamore and this time and effort is unavailable to root out deranged scum-bags like Rodger.

It seems like a far-fetched comparison but I think that as a nation we are more interested in placing blame than finding solutions. I’ve written about this over and over again so I won’t reiterate.

Rodger did what he did because he’s insane. Scudamore did what he did because he’s a guy. It’s that simple.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

Terry Crews and the NFL Cult

Posted on by

Terry Crews NFLI’m a huge sports fan and have season tickets to the St. Louis Rams so I’ve followed the various lawsuits the players have filed against the NFL with interest. I contribute directly to the NFL and have enjoyed the games for many years so I feel some culpability in the fate that has befallen many of the players.

A former NFL player who had a short and rather inglorious career by the name of Terry Crews, who is now an actor, was interviewed and called the NFL a cult. It’s an interesting analogy. Judging by the tone of the comments beneath the article I think most people largely missed the point that Crews was trying to make. I can see how reading the headline but not his actual words can be misleading.

The obvious conclusion to take when reading the “cult” headline to the article is that Crews believes the NFL seduced the players into playing and that the NFL is blame for all injuries. That’s not his point at all. He is actually laying much of the blame at the feet of the players. He talks about the idea that virtually everyone who plays in the NFL, or any top-level sports league for that matter, has been dreaming of that moment almost their entire life. It is their primary and unshakable goal.

I always played sports and dreamed of being a sports star despite my many obvious physical limitations (small and slow) so I get the idea on at least some level.

I’m a Web Developer and Technical Trainer at my job and I didn’t dream about either of those things growing up. Even then there is a part of my psychological self-worth that is tied up in those jobs. When I do a less than stellar job of teaching or fail to make a website perfect I have a sense of failure.

I can only imagine what that feeling must be like for someone in the NFL. Another element is the nature of the team and letting down your teammates. For those who haven’t played sports it’s hard to express how much you want to be out there helping because you don’t want to disappoint your teammates. The coaches are likewise friends and allies and you want to do your best for them.

When Crews talks about the NFL being a cult he is talking about the mindset of the players. They have worked so hard and for so long that they don’t want to fail. As Crews says, they put their entire trust in the team and when you trust and believe in something that deeply there is going to be disappointment. He doesn’t lay the blame completely on the NFL, nor does he absolve them.

I agree with what I think Crews is saying in that there is blame to go around. The players should accept some blame but if medical personnel and coaches doled out pain masking agents when they knew the player was seriously injured and would further hurt himself by playing; they also must accept some responsibility.

It’s an awful situation for everyone. Sport is always going to be dangerous. Hopefully this new attitude of both providing good entertainment and doing the best we can to prevent catastrophic injuries will be to the benefit of the players, the league, and the fans.

If I thought the league didn’t care about the health of the players I would have to give up my season tickets and perhaps even stop watching the games. I do think the league cares and I do think the players want to play. I hope the end result of all this is a better game for everyone. I think it will be. What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

 

Prayers to Satan – Religion and Government

Posted on by

ConstitutionI wrote a post about a misleading headline last week but now I’d like to talk about the article to which the satiric story was really about.

There was a Supreme Court decision last week which allowed a municipality to open their meeting with a prayer as long as that prayer is not intended to convert listeners or denigrate other religions. The community, Greece, NY, has opened their town meetings since 1999 with a prayer. In all that time it has always been a Christian denomination giving the prayer except a brief period when the lawsuit was filed after which four of the twelve prayers were non-Christian. Since then all prayers have been Christian in nature.

So the Supreme Court says that municipalities can open their meetings with a prayer. Christian groups think they’ve won. They haven’t and I’ll tell you why.

Now that government agencies are allowed to open meetings with a prayer to a specific religious deity, everyone wants to open the meeting with a prayer to their non-existent god. Yes, Satan. And that’s only the beginning. When religious groups “win” the right to display religious monuments on city property guess who immediately starts to submit requests to start having their own monuments?

Satanist, Pastafarians, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Buddhists, and all sorts of non-Christian organizations. If those organizations are banned from presenting their prayers or their monuments then the state is clearly violating the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Basically this has come to mean that no political organization should be in the business of endorsing any one religion over another. Belief is a private matter for the free citizens of the United States. When the state says only Christians or only Muslims or only Jews or only Atheists are allowed to present then they are establishing that this is the religion of choice. This is bad for anyone of any faith.

When Communist Russia banned most religions and enforced Atheism this imposed belief from the state. When Religious Oligarchies like Saudi Arabia impose Sharia Law upon their population this is religion sponsored by the state.

What I think most Christians struggle with is the idea that there are people of other faiths out there and that when Christians politicians are allowed to sponsor their religion the door is opened to anyone, Satanists or not, to sponsor their own religion from the state house.

Christians think they’ve won when they get the right to sponsor their religion in a local municipality but in reality they have opened the door to their, and my, ultimate destruction.

I don’t want Christians preaching to me at state sponsored events but I don’t want Muslims or Atheists or Wiccans doing it either. I want to have my private beliefs separate from what the state sponsors. I’m in the Atheist minority while Christians are in the majority. It seems as though having the state sponsor your religion is a good idea when you are in the majority but time moves on and suddenly there is a town where the majority of people are from a different religion or no religion at all. Then this state sponsored religion that they fought to promote doesn’t seem like such a good idea.

The solution seems so simple to me. People of a particular religion persuasion should simply meet in a private chamber somewhere and have their prayer or invocation or whatever. At Rams football games the players who are Christian meet at the center of the field and have a prayer after the game. Not during the game. Not before the game when the audience is waiting for them to start playing.

This insistence on the right to say a religious prayer before an event doesn’t seem to me to be a position of faith but actually a lack thereof. Those with true faith shouldn’t need, or even desire, the state to say a prayer in any form.

The Founding Fathers didn’t feel the need to put religious slogans on our coinage. They didn’t feel the need to put the words “Under God” in their oaths. They didn’t feel the need to Pledge Allegiance to anything. They were confident men who believed in themselves and the ideas they promulgated, the ideas of freedom. Were that they were around today.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

Our Constitution – All or Nothing

Posted on by

ConstitutionI recently wrote a blog post about how members of both the Democratic and Republican parties seem to have a rather relaxed attitude about those parts of the Constitution with which they don’t agree and more passionate support over things with which they do agree.

What do these words mean to you: … nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, …

I am physically sickened, upset to my stomach, by recent events in Congress by those who are our representatives, who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Back when the Founding Fathers fought for the freedom you enjoy they decided this simple oath was enough: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

Some unnecessary words have been added but those fourteen sum it up pretty well and they are basically still there.

Lawyers can parse it all they want. They can claim Lois Lerner made a statement. They can weep and wail. The words are in the Constitution and great men fought and died to put them there.

When you subvert the Constitution for political gain, be it the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment or any other, you lose this Libertarian.

I don’t believe in Republicans. I don’t believe in Democrats. I don’t even believe in Libertarians. I don’t believe in you. I don’t believe in me. And I particularly don’t believe in the 231 Congress members who violated their oath today.

In the words of Forrest Gump, that’s all I have to say about that.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

Mike Anderson Released after 9 Months – Good Call

Posted on by

Cornealious Mike AndersonThere’s been an interesting case here in my home state of Missouri about a fellow by the name of Cornealious “Mike” Anderson who was convicted of committing armed robbery back in 1999. He was released from the court after the conviction and told to wait for orders to report to prison.

He waited for fourteen years. Nine months ago someone spotted the clerical error and he was arrested and began serving his sentence. Today Judge Terry Lynn Brown in agreement with Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster set him free from prison. There’s some controversy over events but by and large people seem to be pleased with the outcome.

I also agree with the outcome and I don’t normally write blog posts when I’m in agreement with the situation but today I’m making an exception because the reason I agree doesn’t seem to match up with the reason other people agree. There is also a conclusion to draw from the case that I think is extraordinarily important and seems to be largely overlooked.

The reason most people don’t have a problem with the release is that Anderson has been a model citizen since the conviction. He’s never been in trouble, has a family, does community work, and never concealed his name or evaded law enforcement officials. He just waited for a letter that never arrived.

The main reason I think he shouldn’t have to do any time in prison is because its more than thirteen years after his original sentence. If the state forgets about you for thirteen years that’s not your fault. He was sentenced to thirteen years and those years passed. He didn’t try to escape, he didn’t move around avoiding the letter, he just waited and got on with his life. That fact that he’s done well in life is certainly to his credit.

The most important part of the story to me is that he has done far better out of prison than he likely would have done in it. The question we must ask ourselves is: What is the point of prison?

Is a prison sentence designed to make us feel better about ourselves? It certainly seems that is the case these days. Lock him up! Throw away the key! I read comments and listen to my friends say these words all the time. Somehow punishing someone else for misdeeds feeds not only their lust for vengeance but also their sense of self-worth.

Is a prison sentence designed to deter others from committing a crime? This is a more reasonable argument and I think has value. I think in this case no one who commits armed-robbery is going to hope for similar circumstances, so letting him go is in no way lessening the deterrence aspect of the thirteen-year sentence.

Is a prison sentence designed to make the person who committed the crime become a better person? Yes! That’s the main point. we want people who commit crimes to learn remorse for their crimes and exit prison better people, people able to live in society and do good things. If every person who went into prison came out and never committed a crime again would we call that a success? I think so.

If this is your rational for prison, and it is mine, Anderson achieved that with flying colors. For thirteen years he’s been a model citizen. Now let’s contrast that with what he would have been if he had served thirteen years in a prison. Would he have come out as good as man as he is now?

The question is impossible to answer but I speculate that the answer is no. That prison would not only have made Anderson a worse person but would have hurt society in the long run. Anderson would have emerged from prison a far more hardened criminal than when he went in.

What does that say about our penal system? Something is clearly wrong. According to the latest statistics about 67% of all people released from prison are arrested again within three years. That’s horrific. It’s bad for the prisoners, bad for the victims of their crimes, and bad for tax-payers who foot the bill.

Remember that every convicted felon who emerges from prison and doesn’t commit another crime is a victim saved. That’s a fact. How many murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults would never happen if prison served to rehabilitate rather than harden criminals?

It sounds like I’m being soft on criminals and I’m willing to accept that label if my views end up preventing hundreds of thousands of crimes.

When not sending a man to prison is more effective in achieving society’s penal goals than sending him to prison, there is something seriously wrong.

We must get past our lust for vengeance and look at making prisons rehabilitation centers. Is it distasteful to spend time and money to train a rapist a useful life skill? I think so. Is there satisfaction in seeing a rapist punished for their heinous crimes, seeing them suffer? Absolutely. However, it’s worse to release the rapist only to see him rape again.

If someone raped one of my sisters I’d want them dead. The reality is that we have a judicial system and after a certain amount of time criminals reenter society. That being the reality, perhaps we should deal with it. No rape, murder, or armed robbery can be undone once it has happened. But a future one can be prevented.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere