There was no entry yesterday because I was working on a worldbuilding post relating to hydraulic despotism and the Gherdunnic Empire’s heartland. Recently, I’ve been drawing a lot more from Egypt, especially for the dynasties of the First Empire, since I plan on running a campaign for my friends in the not-so-immediate future. Today, we’re back swinging with more updates on perhaps the least interesting life in these interesting times we live in.
I got my Fall memo back in Legal Methods, and it was destroyed epic style (with facts and logic) by Prof. Wolman. Exam grades are anonymous, and Wolman complemented my writing in a technical sense; regardless, the analysis was abysmal garbage, a hodgepodge of several eloquently rambling (read: pretentious) drafts stitched together and animated through the twisted melding of the old alchemy and the new science. Naturally, after working on my preliminary research report for this semester’s brief, I resolved to make some edits so that I have a writing sample worthy of 1L Summer applications. Despite working for a few hours, I am nowhere close to completion. I’m halfway through the “easy” edits, but that’s rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic compared to the meat of what I gotta do, so I’m expecting to spend much of tomorrow afternoon, Sunday evening, and Monday working on it alongside my Report.
We’re covering some juicy cases in Crim today, especially since we’re starting with The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 QBD 273 DC (1884): Is it legally permissible for castaways to kill and eat one of their number out of desperation/starvation? Lord Coleridge says “no,” arguing that the castaways killed the youngest and weakest among them on a bunch of “likelies;” it wasn’t guaranteed that they were going to die, for all they knew, rescue was equally likely. Coleridge also notes that the surviving mariners basically ganged up on the kid they ate; it was not “more necessary to kill him than one of the grown men,” and he did not willingly sacrifice himself for the others. We’re also covering Nash v. State, 293 So. 3d 265 (Miss. 2020), a miscarriage of justice where a guy booked for misdemeanor disorderly conduct failed to have his cell phone confiscated when they took him to jail, so naturally when the jailer found out they booked him for the heinous felony of possessing a cell phone, for which he was sentenced to 12 years. And the trial judge said that Nash should be grateful, because 20 years ago he was convicted of burglary (for which he served seven years and since started a family) and is thus a Habitual Offender™; they could have sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 15 years instead. And the Supreme Court of Mississippi agreed, with Maxwell delivering the court’s view that Nash’s sentence wasn’t cruel or unusual because it fell within the statute.
Maybe this is the bleeding-heart in me, but I found King’s opinion way more persuasive than the majority. Especially since the cops failed to search him adequately, and his conduct with the phone in no way betrays the malice that the statute is intended to protect against (e.g., a racketeer trying to direct operations while behind bars). Nash contacted his wife to let her know where he was and asked the guards for a charger. Furthermore, if the guards had actually notified him that cell phones were not permitted (like they later claimed), then it’s likely that Nash would have given it up on his own. Ultimately, Nash served the mandatory minimum of three years and was released on parole.
Our coverage of Nash is tied to a discussion on the carceral state, which I’m very much looking forward to. After Crim, there’s an event hosted by CSO between 1730 and 1900. I would have gone to the dinner and panel at the KITA, but that starts at 5, and class doesn’t let out until then, so I would be very late. I need to keep myself busy, lest my mind wander.
Sierpinski Tetrahedron 