Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label criminal law

Overshadowed by Trump, Sam Bankman-Fried nonetheless gets his trial

Early this month, as Donald Trump made a point of showing up, unnecessarily, for the first three days of his civil trial in Manhattan, and with the press treating it with all the fanfare they have treated his four criminal indictments, Sam Bankman-Fried also went on trial.  The SBF trial is criminal and it is very likely to put SBF in prison, perhaps for a very long time. Furthermore, since SBF was in his heyday, not TOO long ago, a billionaire whiz-kid at the very top of the cryptocurrency food chain, this trial in other circumstances would itself be a top-tier spectacle. At least as spectacular as would be the civil trial of a billionaire old-man in the middle of the reality-television food chain. SBF ran both a crypto exchange (with some bank-like characteristics)  and a hedge fund, known as FTX and as Alameda Research, respectively. I admit having written confused things about this in the recent past. In this very blog, I once referred to Alameda Research as FTX's "data-cr...

One of my favorite lawyerly expressions

The phrase "fruit of the poisonous tree" in justification of the exclusion of evidence from a court proceeding, has long been one of my favorite bits of legalese.  Now there is a book on the pre-history of the term. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4385356 When I was a practicing lawyer I was always hoping I'd have a reason to write a brief on the subject. It never happened. I won't actually cry over that long-spilt milk, but I will post the appropriate emoticon in lieu of actual tears. See above.  

A Philosopher Discusses the Idea of Self Defense

 "I was defending myself" is probably the most common phrase spoken by anyone with a smoking gun in his hand and a dead body in the vicinity.  There is a broad (not universal, very little is universal, but quite broad) consensus that violence, even to the point of fatal violence, can in principle be justified by some version of those words: If, of course, they are supported by the evidence.  So: what is to philosophize about?  https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/self-defense-necessity-and-punishment-a-philosophical-analysis/ There is a good deal. Indeed, this is a good illustration of something I have long considered THE DEFINING FEATURE OF PHILOSOPHY. Philosophy is thinking -- about any subject whatever -- that passes the limits that social convention assigns to that about that subject. Social convention (which in turn develops from individual self-preservation instincts) tells us that we should think rigorously about the proper materials to use in the construction of a bridge...