Saturday, March 15, 2003 DDF By Diana Hsieh @ 3:11 PM David Friedman is now a blogger -- albeit one with only two posts so far. But knowing how prolific he has been on usenet for years and years, I expect to see a very active blog. (I hope, at least!) So welcome to the blogosphere, David! Link / Noodles / Trackback Blame Canada! By Diana Hsieh @ 12:02 PM It's about time that Canada apologized for all its sins! Link / Noodles / Trackback Friday, March 14, 2003 Duh! By Diana Hsieh @ 4:26 PM Libertarian - You believe that the main use for government is for some people to lord it over others at their expense. You maintain that the government should be as small as possible, and that civil liberties, "victimless crimes", and gun ownership should be basic rights. You probably are OK with capitalism. Your historical role model is Thomas Jefferson. Which political sterotype are you? Brought to you by Quizilla Link / Noodles / Trackback Thursday, March 13, 2003 More on Murder for Hire By Diana Hsieh @ 10:55 AM In response to my question about whether payments to the families of suicide bombers constitutes solicitation of murder, my friend Bill Perry (former prosecutor and present judge in Arizona) offers a useful analysis: Perhaps some of my experience and analysis can be of assistance. I've prosecuted a murder for hire case in which a murder occurred. I've also prosecuted murder for hire cases which did not result in a murder. In the case in which the murder occurred  I convicted the person who was hired at trial.  He was sentenced to life in prison.  I prosecuted the woman who hired him in a case that was covered on Court TV.  The jury hung.  Another prosecutor tried her later and she was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.  The woman's boyfriend plead to solicitation of murder (which is specifically a crime in Arizona) and received a lesser prison sentence. In this case the woman hired the killer to murder her husband. However, she did not pay him.  Payment was to be what he could steal from the victim who was a used car sales manager and carried a lot of cash, plus a later payment.  Thus, there is some analogy to the case of paying murderer's families in the suicide bomber scenario since there was a subsequent payment. I am certain that under Arizona law, and the law of most states as well, that if someone offered a bounty to kill a specific person they could be prosecuted successfully (assuming proof issues).  I am not quite as certain that they could be prosecuted for a general call to kill someone in a specific group, with a later payment,  but I think that they could.  I know of no case law on the subject. The Arizona law is based on the Model Penal Code, and is a good example in this situation. The crime of solicitation is defined as follows in Section 13-1002(A)  "A person, other than a peace officer acting in his official capacity within the scope of his authority, and in the line of duty, commits solicitation if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a felony or misdemeanor, such person commands, encourages, requests or solicits another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute the felony or misdemeanor or which would establish the other's complicity in its commission." However, this crime is seldom prosecuted in this manner because the accomplice statutes make a person guilty of the offense itself (if it is committed) if under Section 13-303 (B)(1) "The person solicits or commands another person to engage in the conduct causing such result:" or (2) The person aids, counsels, agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or engaging in the conduct causing such result."  Thus a prosecutor can charge a person who solicits murder with the completed offense should the murder be committed. In my case the woman who hired the hit man was ultimately convicted because she hired him.  She was not present at the time of the murder.  She was convicted under an accomplice theory.  The boyfriend was plead to solicitation because he was not involved in the plot at the end, and was a much lesser participant.  In theory he could have been convicted of first degree murder as well. Let's analogize this to a terrorist suicide bombing.  We will assume that the acts take place in Arizona, or a place with similar statutes.  There are two groups A and B.  A1 is a member of a group which hates all individuals belonging to the group B.  He publicly announces that he will pay a bounty to the family of anyone who wires himself with bombs and kills B1 (a specific individual belonging to group B).  A2 wires himself up and kills B1.  A1 pays $100,000 to A2's family.  Assuming proof beyond a reasonable doubt A1 is guilty of murder under an accomplice theory and is also guilty of solicitation of murder. Let's change the facts a bit.  A1 makes the same public announcement.  However, it is an announcement that he will pay a bounty to the family of anyone who wires himself with bombs and kills any member of group B.  A2 wires himself up and kills B2.  A1 pays the bounty to A2's family.   I would argue that the same result would occur, because the statutes solicitation and accomplice statutes do not mention a specific person.  However, I know of no case law. Here is another scenario.  A1 makes the same public announcement with B1 as a target.  No one kills B1.  The question here revolves around the meaning of the portion of the statute that says, "...commands, encourages, requests or solicits another person." The question is whether that requirement is that the defendant solicit a specific person.  The solicitation statute is met except for that, portion and I don't know how a court would rule.  I've also prosecuted cases in which people have attempted to hire hit men to kill people.  Of course they ended up soliciting cops.  In that case they have started out with a general solicitation, and moved on to specifically soliciting one individual to do the killing. I've never seen anyone advocate prosecution for the general solicitation, but I suspect that if something as blatant as a general call to kill a specific person with a reward occurred in a suicide bombing context that most prosecutor's offices would prosecute, and most courts would uphold a broader interpretation. Finally we have the situation in which A1 makes the same public announcement which members of group B in general as a target.  I don't think that the fact that a specific target is not named would bar the application of the statutes.  The same problems of the call going to people in general, rather than a person would apply. Thanks, Bill! I'm still a bit unclear on one issue though. Are the family members of the suicide bombers who accept the cash payment for the murder (and who perhaps even encouraged the suicide bomber to commit murder) accomplices in any legal sense? It sounds like case law hasn't extended even remotely that far in the United States, but I do wonder what prevents Israel from prosecuting the family of suicide bombers for receiving cash payments for murder. I don't get to say this often, but there ought to be a law! Link / Noodles / Trackback Wednesday, March 12, 2003 Red Hot Geeky Love By Diana Hsieh @ 12:13 AM Paul and I just watched tonight's American Idol; the performances were, on the whole, much better than in the top ten of last season. I must admit that I'm presently completely partial to Clay Aiken. The combination of the geeky look, the self-confidence, and the smooth voice is just too much for me to resist! Mmm... red hot geeky love... I wasn't going to bother to blog that silly little bit, but then I realized that I could blog with my laptop from bed, as our wireless home network is now up and running. Awesome! Link / Noodles / Trackback Tuesday, March 11, 2003 Jimmy Wales, Secret Blogger Man By Diana Hsieh @ 10:36 AM So what's up with Jimmy having a blog?!? He's been posting for months! And I only found out about it due to a chance perusal from The Volokh Conspiracy to Throwing Things. I've been blog-snubbed by a good friend! *grumble* In any case, Jimmy's blog is the ever-friendly A Sharp Stick In Your Eye. His latest post concerns the difference between Michael Jackson and Fred ("Mr.") Rogers. Really. It's a hot topic these days, I swear. Link / Noodles / Trackback Monday, March 10, 2003 Bush on First By Diana Hsieh @ 9:41 AM I am neither a believer in George Bush's alleged stupidity, nor a fan of the "Who's on first?" bit. As such, I almost didn't bother to read this little dialogue. But sheesh, it's really funny. The President meets Security Manager Condoleezza Rice. George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening? Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader in China. George: Great! Lay it on me. Condi: Hu is the new leader of China. George: That's what I want to know. Condi: That's what I'm telling you. George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China? Condi: Yes. George: I mean the fellow's name. Condi: Hu. George: The guy in China. Condi: Hu. George: The new leader of China. Condi: Hu. George: The Chinese guy! Condi: Hu is leading China. George: Now whaddya' asking me for? Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China. George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China? Condi: That's the man's name. George: That's who's name? Condi: Yes. George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China? Condi: Yes, Sir. George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East. Condi: That's correct. George: Then who is in China? Condi: Yes, Sir. George: Yassir is in China? Condi: No, Sir. George: Then who is? Condi: Yes, Sir. George: Yassir? Condi: No, Sir. George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the UN on the phone. Condi: Kofi? George: No, thanks. Condi: You want Kofi? George: No. Condi: You don't want Kofi? George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the UN. Condi: Yes, Sir. George: Not Yassir! The guy in the UN. Condi: Kofi? George: Milk! Will you please make the call? Condi: And call who? George: Who is the guy at the UN Condi: Hu is the guy in China. George: Will you stay out of China?! Condi: Yes, Sir. George: And stay out of the Middle East. Just get me the guy at the UN. Condi: Kofi. George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone. Condi: (picks up the phone) Rice here. George: Rice? Good idea! And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East? Link / Noodles / Trackback Sunday, March 09, 2003 Brains in Vats By Diana Hsieh @ 10:49 AM I'm presently rewatching The Matrix while setting up my new and speedy server. (After setup, hopefully next weekend, I'll be swapping out this new server for my present old and tired co-located server.) I was inspired to watch the movie again after listening to David Chalmers' excellent lecture "The Matrix as Metaphysics" yesterday at Boulder. Chalmers argued that the "Matrix Hypothesis" that "I have (and have always had) a cognitive system that receives its inputs from and sends its outputs to an artificially-designed computer simulation of a world" is not, contrary to our intuitions, a skeptical claim, but rather a metaphysical one. He argues this point by showing that the Matrix Hypothesis is really the conjunction of three non-skeptical metaphysical thesis, namely: (1) Creation Hypothesis: "Physical space-time and its contents were created by beings outside physical space-time." (2) The Computational Hypothesis: "Microphysical processes throughout space-time are constituted by underlying computational processes." (3) The Mind-Body Hypothesis: "My mind is (and has always been) constituted by processes outside physical space-time, and receives its perceptual inputs from and sends its outputs to processes in physical space-time." So Chalmers writes: If this [analysis] is right, it follows that the Matrix Hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis. If I accept it, I should not infer that the external world does not exist, or that I have no body, or that there are no tables and chairs, or that I am not in Tucson. Rather, I should infer that the physical world is constituted by computations beneath the microphysical level. There are still tables, chairs, and bodies: these are made up fundamentally of bits, and of whatever constitutes these bits. This world was created by other beings, but is still perfectly real. My mind is separate from physical processes, and interacts with them. My mind may not have been created by these beings, and it may not be made up of bits, but it still interacts with these bits. The result is a complex picture of the fundamental nature of reality. The picture is strange and surprising, perhaps, but it is a picture of a full-blooded external world. If we are in a matrix, this is simply the way that the world is. What is striking about this whole argument to me is how similar it is to David Kelley's comments on the brain the vat in his 1987 lecture "Skepticism" from The Foundations of Knowledge. (David Jilk, also at the lecture, noted the strong connection too.) Unfortunately my notes on that lecture were deleted, so I can't give the details of Kelley's view. But, if I recall correctly, Kelley argued that the brain in at vat would be aware of reality, but the fundamental constituents of that reality would be different than for brains in skulls. Kelley's comments in the tape were fairly brief, as he was addressing all four of the major skeptical arguments. But the basic similarity to Chalmers' argument was as plain as day! Link / Noodles / Trackback

Blog Stuff All Comments Trackback NoodleFood XML Good Stuff Meredith Brickell Ceramics Paul Hsieh's GeekPress Front Range Objectivism Ayn Rand Institute Archives 03/03/2002 - 03/09/2002 03/10/2002 - 03/16/2002 03/17/2002 - 03/23/2002 03/24/2002 - 03/30/2002 03/31/2002 - 04/06/2002 04/07/2002 - 04/13/2002 04/14/2002 - 04/20/2002 04/21/2002 - 04/27/2002 05/05/2002 - 05/11/2002 05/12/2002 - 05/18/2002 05/19/2002 - 05/25/2002 05/26/2002 - 06/01/2002 06/02/2002 - 06/08/2002 06/09/2002 - 06/15/2002 06/16/2002 - 06/22/2002 06/23/2002 - 06/29/2002 06/30/2002 - 07/06/2002 07/07/2002 - 07/13/2002 07/14/2002 - 07/20/2002 07/21/2002 - 07/27/2002 08/04/2002 - 08/10/2002 08/11/2002 - 08/17/2002 08/18/2002 - 08/24/2002 08/25/2002 - 08/31/2002 09/01/2002 - 09/07/2002 09/08/2002 - 09/14/2002 09/15/2002 - 09/21/2002 09/22/2002 - 09/28/2002 09/29/2002 - 10/05/2002 10/06/2002 - 10/12/2002 10/13/2002 - 10/19/2002 10/20/2002 - 10/26/2002 10/27/2002 - 11/02/2002 11/03/2002 - 11/09/2002 11/10/2002 - 11/16/2002 11/17/2002 - 11/23/2002 11/24/2002 - 11/30/2002 12/01/2002 - 12/07/2002 12/08/2002 - 12/14/2002 12/15/2002 - 12/21/2002 12/29/2002 - 01/04/2003 01/05/2003 - 01/11/2003 01/12/2003 - 01/18/2003 01/19/2003 - 01/25/2003 01/26/2003 - 02/01/2003 02/02/2003 - 02/08/2003 02/09/2003 - 02/15/2003 02/16/2003 - 02/22/2003 02/23/2003 - 03/01/2003 03/02/2003 - 03/08/2003 03/09/2003 - 03/15/2003 03/16/2003 - 03/22/2003 03/23/2003 - 03/29/2003 03/30/2003 - 04/05/2003 04/06/2003 - 04/12/2003 04/13/2003 - 04/19/2003 04/20/2003 - 04/26/2003 04/27/2003 - 05/03/2003 05/04/2003 - 05/10/2003 05/11/2003 - 05/17/2003 05/18/2003 - 05/24/2003 05/25/2003 - 05/31/2003 06/01/2003 - 06/07/2003 06/08/2003 - 06/14/2003 06/15/2003 - 06/21/2003 06/22/2003 - 06/28/2003 07/27/2003 - 08/02/2003 08/03/2003 - 08/09/2003 08/10/2003 - 08/16/2003 08/17/2003 - 08/23/2003 08/24/2003 - 08/30/2003 10/05/2003 - 10/11/2003 10/12/2003 - 10/18/2003 10/19/2003 - 10/25/2003 10/26/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/02/2003 - 11/08/2003 11/09/2003 - 11/15/2003 11/16/2003 - 11/22/2003 11/23/2003 - 11/29/2003 11/30/2003 - 12/06/2003 12/07/2003 - 12/13/2003 12/14/2003 - 12/20/2003 12/21/2003 - 12/27/2003 01/04/2004 - 01/10/2004 01/11/2004 - 01/17/2004 01/18/2004 - 01/24/2004 01/25/2004 - 01/31/2004 02/01/2004 - 02/07/2004 02/08/2004 - 02/14/2004 02/15/2004 - 02/21/2004 02/22/2004 - 02/28/2004 02/29/2004 - 03/06/2004 03/07/2004 - 03/13/2004 03/14/2004 - 03/20/2004 03/21/2004 - 03/27/2004 03/28/2004 - 04/03/2004 04/04/2004 - 04/10/2004 04/11/2004 - 04/17/2004 04/18/2004 - 04/24/2004 04/25/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/02/2004 - 05/08/2004 05/23/2004 - 05/29/2004 05/30/2004 - 06/05/2004 06/06/2004 - 06/12/2004 06/13/2004 - 06/19/2004 06/20/2004 - 06/26/2004 06/27/2004 - 07/03/2004 07/04/2004 - 07/10/2004 07/11/2004 - 07/17/2004 07/18/2004 - 07/24/2004 07/25/2004 - 07/31/2004 08/01/2004 - 08/07/2004 08/08/2004 - 08/14/2004 08/15/2004 - 08/21/2004 08/22/2004 - 08/28/2004 08/29/2004 - 09/04/2004 09/05/2004 - 09/11/2004 09/12/2004 - 09/18/2004 09/19/2004 - 09/25/2004 09/26/2004 - 10/02/2004 10/03/2004 - 10/09/2004 10/10/2004 - 10/16/2004 10/17/2004 - 10/23/2004 10/24/2004 - 10/30/2004 10/31/2004 - 11/06/2004 11/07/2004 - 11/13/2004 11/14/2004 - 11/20/2004 11/21/2004 - 11/27/2004 11/28/2004 - 12/04/2004 12/12/2004 - 12/18/2004 01/02/2005 - 01/08/2005 01/09/2005 - 01/15/2005 01/16/2005 - 01/22/2005 01/23/2005 - 01/29/2005 01/30/2005 - 02/05/2005 02/06/2005 - 02/12/2005 02/13/2005 - 02/19/2005 02/20/2005 - 02/26/2005 02/27/2005 - 03/05/2005 03/06/2005 - 03/12/2005 03/13/2005 - 03/19/2005 03/20/2005 - 03/26/2005 03/27/2005 - 04/02/2005 Lasagne Blogs GeekPress Best of the Web Instapundit Volokh Conspiracy Daily Dish The Bleat Impromptus Manicotti Blogs Anger Management Absolute Reason Ayn Rand Meta-Blog GeekPress Blog Without a Name Brian Schwartz Cox and Forkum Dollars and Crosses Ego A Galaxy Far, Far Away GMU Objectivist Club Greedy Capitalist Haight Speech In the Mouth of Madison Jerk Sauce John J Enright Light of Reason Marshall Sontag Live! Minority of One Mudita Journal Not A Blog Noumenal Self O.T.H.E.R.'s Blog Poor and Stupid Positive Liberty Quare Rule of Reason Presence of Mind Sid's Blog of Doom Terrible Swift Sword Venting Steam Wickens.ca Atlasphere Bloggers Objectivist Bloggers Conchiglie Blogs Dynamist Blog The Agitator The Anger of Compassion Asymmetrical Information Armed and Dangerous Banana Oil Catallaxy Files Charles Murtaugh Citizen Smash The Corner EnviroSpin Watch Eve Tushnet The Fly Bottle God of the Machine Gweilo Diaries The Idiot Villager Intel Dump Interrobang Julian's Lounge The Kolkata Libertarian Liberty and Power Locke, or Demosthenes? McBlog The Marmot's Hole Natalie Solent OxBlog Raving Atheist Reductio Ad Absurdum The Right Coast Right Wing News Samizdata Sargent Stryker Secular Islam Shoutin' Across the Pacific Tom Palmer The Truth Laid Bear Two Blowhards An Unsealed Room VodkaPundit Capellini Blogs Critical Mass Brian's Education Cranky Professor Discriminations Highered Intelligence SCSU Scholars Tightly Wound Spaghetti Blogs Joanne Jacobs EducationWeak Home School & Stuff Number 2 Pencil Fettuccine Blogs Apple Core Assigned Seat Assorted Stuff Entry Year Teacher Math Teacher Ms. Frizzle School Yard Science Teacher Teaching High School Weblogg Ed Write It Linguini Blogs Chez Miscarriage Konkadoo Loco Parentis Rational Parenting One Sixteeth Our Homeschool Journey Our Horrible Children Penne Blogs Brian Leiter Rod Long Brian Weatherson Rigatoni Blogs Criminal Appeal Is That Legal? Legal Theory Lessig Blog Mirror of Justice Punishment Theory Stephan Kinsella Unlearned Hand Macaroni Blogs Adam Smith Blog Brad DeLong EconLog Economist Marginal Revolution Rigatoni Blogs The Loom ScienceBlog Orzo Blogs Andrew Breese Terry Foote Ted O'Connor Kirez Reynolds Peter Saint-Andre Mike Shapiro Douglas Wagoner's Journal Ramen Blogs Dave Barry Fark ScrappleFace Support Amazon.com