LegalMatch: Criminal Law

Madness, Mayhem, and Ear-Biting.

“Mayhem” isn’t a word you see a lot of.

Sure, it might slip into the sales pitch for a shoot-em-up game or roll off a preacher’s tongue at a sermon, but chances are that you and your buddy aren’t going to be throwing it around over coffee. Well—unless you’re both die-hard Palahniuk fans and planning your own Project Mayhem. But even then, “mayhem” isn’t exactly a household noun.

In fact, “mayhem” wasn’t a noun at all when it first came into use. Evan Morris, who writes a column on word origins called “The Word Detective,” unearths the word’s roots:

"Mayhem," meaning "the infliction of violent injury on a person or thing," comes from the Anglo-Norman "maihem," or injury, which also gave us "maim." In fact, for much of their history in English since the 13th century, "maim" and "mayhem" have been nearly interchangeable words. One could "mayhem" one's neighbor, who would then have a "maim," or lasting wound or injury.

The word retains some of its original meaning in the legal world—the world that this blog loves the most! In legalese, “mayhem” is assault with the intent to maim or disfigure. Is it really a surprise that the word has come to be synonymous with violent chaos and disorder?

 

Let's examine the legal specifics of a mayhem charge.

One can only be charged with mayhem if he or she has maliciously and unlawfully removed, disfigured, or rendered useless another person’s arm, hand, finger, leg, foot, toe, tongue, eye, nose, ear, or lips.  Unsurprisingly, mayhem is a fairly serious felony.

If you’ve had the grave misfortune to have lost a piece or two of yourself to a violent encounter (and we’re not talking broken hearts and angry breakups), a good criminal lawyer is definitely in the cards for you. And if you’ve maybe, accidentally, kind of sunk your teeth into someone and bitten off their ear, you definitely want to ring up a criminal defense lawyer before you spend the next 20 years wearing stripes.

by Kate Beall

Historical Controversy Surrounds Waterboarding, Labeling It a War Crime.

An article published in the Washington Post in 2006 has been brought to light to expound on legal circumstances surrounding waterboarding. The piece, entitled “Waterboarding Historically Controversial,” highlights several conflicting examples of U.S. legal consideration of the interrogation technique—one declaring it a war crime, and others protecting it as an acceptable post-9/11 “coercive method.”

Waterboarding was initially cited as a war crime during World War II, when Japanese officer Yukio Asano was tried for using the interrogation technique against a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor as punishment for his crimes.

In 1963, 16 years after Asano’s conviction, the CIA kept now-declassified manuals outlining a similar technique. After 9/11, CIA interrogators were once again given permission to use waterboarding torture techniques against “higher-level Al-Queda operatives,” despite the fact that even presidential hopefuls like John McCain have recognized waterboarding as being “no different than holding a pistol to [a person’s] head and firing a blank” [1]. Again, I’ll cite the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit (among other things) “mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture.”

While the debate here seems solely centered around whether or not waterboarding is torture (as the U.S. government has continuously said that it does not condone torture and long ago signed on to each of the Geneva Conventions), it is difficult to say that something that puts people in immediate and aggressive fear of their lives is anything but that.

[1] "Waterboarding - The 'Un-Torture.'" Matthew Good (www.matthewgood.org).

 

by Kate Beall

Bush Threatens To Veto Bill That Bans Waterboarding Torture.

More information on the Waterboarding torture case is available through the Huffington Post.
Check my previous entry, "Is Waterboarding Torture, or an Interrogation Technique?" for legal specifics on the situation.

by Kate Beall

Is Waterboarding Torture? Or an Interrogation Technique?

Those who have been following the heated debate around “waterboarding” were treated to news today about the House’s ban of this cruel interrogation technique. This method of “interrogation” involves the simulation of death by drowning. By sealing the mouth of the victim with plastic or cloth and then pouring water over their upturned face, interrogators are able to trick the brain into believing that it is drowning by allowing a small amount of water into the victim’s lungs. CIA agents undergoing a controlled experience of this kind of inquisition lasted only an average of 14 seconds before begging for release.

Until recently, US Attorney General, Michael Mukasey would not confirm whether or not waterboarding constituted a form of torture, saying only: “If it amounts to torture, then it is not Constitutional” [1].

 

What we do know is that illegal interrogation techniques include the use of physical force, “such as torture” [2]. Mental torture or coercion, such as brainwashing and drugging, are also in violation of United States laws and are further prohibited by the rules set down by the Geneva Convention. These  Geneva Convention laws were put in place to uphold the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment and to protect both citizens and soldiers from the horrors of war. Prisoners of war are thus also protected by these regulations, and prisoner rights violations are a matter of serious consequence.

With this stroke by the House, waterboarding may finally find itself officially determined to be an act of torture—but the White House still stands by with a threat to veto the bill. The final say thus lies with the stroke of the President’s pen.

by Kate Beall

Your Potty-Mouth Could Mean a Misdemeanor.

UK’s Metro reports on a strange case taking place in Pennsylvania, in which a woman is being charged with disorderly conduct after cursing at her overflowing toilet.

This story showed up in several US papers as well, eager to call attention to this unusual positioning of right to privacy and public nuisance laws. The woman in question, Dawn Herb, was called in to court after an off-duty policeman and neighbor called to complain about her loud swearing. His 12 year-old daughter was the first to bring the noise to his attention.

However absurd the story, the question of First Amendment rights is being brought to attention as well. Herb’s lawyer argues that his client was well within her rights when she loosed a string of profanities in her bathroom. The prosecution of such an action, he argues, is a violation of the Constitution because it suggests the intent to curtail or control her choice of speech. The prosecution, on the other hand, seeks to classify Herb’s loud outburst as a disorderly conduct misdemeanor, relying on Pennsylvania’s definition of disorderly conduct as including the use of “obscene language or gestures in a way that causes 'public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm'” [1].

 

So what parts of speech are actually protected by our First Amendment?

The First Amendment, which is the free speech and press amendment, guarantees the constitutional protection of ALL forms of speech EXCEPT:

• Speech that intends/tends to incite immediate lawlessness
• Obscenity and pornography in certain circumstances
• Fighting words in limited circumstances
• Offensive speech in limited circumstances

These “limited circumstances” vary from State to State and are often defined by the decisions made in high-profile court cases, where a standard is set for future, similar cases. Because Herb’s speech borders on “obscenity,” it is ultimately up to her lawyers to defend her speech as constitutionally protected, but some standards have been set by similar obscenity laws in broadcasting.

> Judge to decide on toilet swearer’s fate (Metro.co.uk)

by Kate Beall