Topaz Tobbogans

So, as I'm sure I've mentioned, I tend to always have some problem or another with car pools or otherwise riding with people.

A friend of mine here, a classmate, has been giving me rides for most of the semester but last week told me she wouldn't be able to. I went back to the bus. Yesterday, though, she told me it would be cool to ride with her again but when I got there[approximately the same time we usually left], she was already gone.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, but it was at the very least frustrating. All I can really recollect are the feelings once I get there and realize I have no way to get to class. How much this reminds me of last semester, of high school, of the helplessness and feelings of distress. And then I think that if only I knew how to drive, or if I didn't depend on people as much as I did, this wouldn't be happening to me over and over. I clearly must enjoy this.

Anyway, so I called cab after cab since no one apparently knows how to get one in less than a half hour to arrive at my place. Finally got one. And then, because I was waiting near the high way, I saw a mentor from the Black Law Student Association; he and his ladyfriend gave me ride to school. Literally a Godsend. I was sort of befuddled and tired but I think I managed to express my gratitude.

Point is. I will be going back to taking the bus until I get my license. It's the same story over and over and I'm really the only one responsible for getting myself to class everyday.

I wish I had a transporter.
--

I also wanted to blog about first degree murder and risk-taking in the law.

I was recently called on in my Criminal Law class to talk about Midgett v. State. Midgett v. State was a case about a father of two or so children who abused his son to death. The guy was 6 feet, 300 lbs; his son was 45 lbs, all of eight years old. Abused him for a substantial amount of time; eventually the blunt force trauma that he delivered caused the kid's death. There was also discoloration and signs of malnourishment on the boy. The sister testified that the father was a drinker and that she saw the dad hit the boy.

Now, the primary difference in Arkansas between 1st and 2nd degree murder convictions is that 1st requires evidence of premeditation/deliberation. Midgett countered that there was no evidence showing that; rather, he only wanted to abuse his child. And even if he did have an intent to kill, it was developed in a "drunken, heated rage", which I imagine should negate the premeditation requirement and drop him to 2nd degree.

The court ruled, correctly I think, that there was no ground for 1st degree murder. While Midgett starved the kid, he didn't starve the kid to death. And while he beat him, I don't think any of us who don't have formal physiological training generally know how much abuse a human body can take before the person actually dies-- I could easily conceive of the guy thinking he would hit the kid until he vented all of his frustration without any expectation of the kid's death.

Premeditation requires some showing that before beating the boy to death, Midgett at least contemplated or realized the likelihood of the boy's death. Nothing really here besides the fact that a father, albeit a horrible, drunken one, enjoyed hitting his child with excessive force.

Be that as it may, the description was pretty graphic and I have no doubt that I would have voted for 1st degree murder for Midgett. This was apparently astounding to my Criminal Law professor. As she made me engage with her in typical socratic method fashion, she asked about my feelings about the decision and I explained that essentially jurors are probably unsympathetic to what are really errors on the part of lawmakers-- had there been a law on the books that causing death in the act of abusing a child qualifies as 1st degree murder, then he could have been correctly convicted. Because there was no such law, jurors were being forced to choose a lesser sentence in spite of the egregious circumstances. I definitely would have chose to convict for 1st degree murder not for actually satisfying the formal requirements but for the expressive purpose: as an expression of society's condemnation, it only makes sense to deliver the highest punishment available to Midgett.

This was apparently bewildering. A jurist not following the rules?

Anyway, there was more socratic method, and she asked me about why defendants ask for jury instruction on lesser sentences when they might just get acquitted[I'd explain, but it'd probably take a while], I only became more convinced of another point: regardless of whatever thinkers like to tell themselves, the explanations in law casebooks and given by professors is not realistic. In fact, I'd say most of the discussion we go through is more or less fiction-- I don't actually think lawyers think the reasoning is actually valid, do they? In fact, I'd say most of the justifications/policy discussions around law are really just mental acrobatics.

It's really just like philosophy, another field divorced from reality.

So, while it's all interesting and I do think there's insight to be gained, I'm not particularly convinced of the policy reasons behind a lot of law, and when I engage in discussions with my professors, I'm always wondering if they actually believe what they're telling me or if we just learn it just because.

I guess that makes me a skeptic.

Alright...Post Office in a little while in the job scramble.