Other updates pending but for now...

I just want to register my annoyance at the opening narrative to "Law and Order".

The people, they say, are represnted by two entities... the police, and the district attorneys.

Wrong.

The people are represented by defendants and defense attorneys; the government, who we always would *HOPE* represents the people, but frequently doesn't, is represented by the police, and the district attorneys.

Now, "Law and Order" seems to base episodes on cases like murder and such, and so I have to give them a bit more philosophical license than I would otherwise. They aren't sending people to jail for simple posession of personal use quantities of drugs (unless those people don't 'cooperate' - i.e., rat out their friends or partners, or their dealers), or for violations of whatever anti-sodomy statutes New York has.

But then it seems like the plotlines that the show has make me want to remove the license I give them. It seems (keep in mind that my wife watches the show, and I only catch bits and pieces of it) that most of the plotlines are of the form "we have someone, and we 'know' that they did it, but these goddamned pesky *RIGHTS* these people have, and those dirty, cheating defense lawyers who *ASSERT* those rights are ruining our case!"

It's something that annoys me, doubly so because I know I'm not exactly being fair. If I was told to write stories about the criminal law system, from the viewpoint of police and DAs, a lot of the plotlines *WOULD* revolve around legalistic manuverings involving people's rights and protections. Sure, it's got some cop-stuff in it, but it's primarily a legal-battle show. It's not going to be about finding the previously undiscovered shell casing, or whatever.

It's just, you know, the fact that people - note the word, *PEOPLE* - have rights is not a bad thing. That the government has to follow the rules in prosecuting *PEOPLE* is *IMPORTANT*.

Because it's not about criminals. It's about the people the government is supposed to be protecting... right up until the point that it's found that those people are so likely to have been the perpetrators of a crime, that twelve people are forced to admit that there's not even a reasonable doubt that some other theory is adequate to explain the events.

Ideas, like the rights of suspects, are often described as pendulums, that swing back and forth. Eventually, they get too many rights and protections, and they start getting restricted; eventually they get too restricted, and the pendulum swings back.

Maybe I'm still too young... but it feels like there's a hard, steady push on the pendulum, and it's going to take some real tragedies before that push might do so much as lighten up a bit.

Or, maybe I'm just tired tonight, and have been studying too much SQL server to think happy, positive thoughts about the world. Who knows...

Tomorrow, if all goes well, there will be more news about hummus....

Other updates pending but for now...

I just want to register my annoyance at the opening narrative to "Law and Order".

The people, they say, are represnted by two entities... the police, and the district attorneys.

Wrong.

The people are represented by defendants and defense attorneys; the government, who we always would *HOPE* represents the people, but frequently doesn't, is represented by the police, and the district attorneys.

Now, "Law and Order" seems to base episodes on cases like murder and such, and so I have to give them a bit more philosophical license than I would otherwise. They aren't sending people to jail for simple posession of personal use quantities of drugs (unless those people don't 'cooperate' - i.e., rat out their friends or partners, or their dealers), or for violations of whatever anti-sodomy statutes New York has.

But then it seems like the plotlines that the show has make me want to remove the license I give them. It seems (keep in mind that my wife watches the show, and I only catch bits and pieces of it) that most of the plotlines are of the form "we have someone, and we 'know' that they did it, but these goddamned pesky *RIGHTS* these people have, and those dirty, cheating defense lawyers who *ASSERT* those rights are ruining our case!"

It's something that annoys me, doubly so because I know I'm not exactly being fair. If I was told to write stories about the criminal law system, from the viewpoint of police and DAs, a lot of the plotlines *WOULD* revolve around legalistic manuverings involving people's rights and protections. Sure, it's got some cop-stuff in it, but it's primarily a legal-battle show. It's not going to be about finding the previously undiscovered shell casing, or whatever.

It's just, you know, the fact that people - note the word, *PEOPLE* - have rights is not a bad thing. That the government has to follow the rules in prosecuting *PEOPLE* is *IMPORTANT*.

Because it's not about criminals. It's about the people the government is supposed to be protecting... right up until the point that it's found that those people are so likely to have been the perpetrators of a crime, that twelve people are forced to admit that there's not even a reasonable doubt that some other theory is adequate to explain the events.

Ideas, like the rights of suspects, are often described as pendulums, that swing back and forth. Eventually, they get too many rights and protections, and they start getting restricted; eventually they get too restricted, and the pendulum swings back.

Maybe I'm still too young... but it feels like there's a hard, steady push on the pendulum, and it's going to take some real tragedies before that push might do so much as lighten up a bit.

Or, maybe I'm just tired tonight, and have been studying too much SQL server to think happy, positive thoughts about the world. Who knows...

Tomorrow, if all goes well, there will be more news about hummus....