Why Does the Reunification Treaty Foreclose Greek Reparations?

The issue of war reparations to Greece is becoming more mainstream in Germany, as Reuters reports some leading SPD and Green figures cautiously suggesting that Germany should re-open the question of reparations.

One of the standard responses of German conservatives (and many Germans who would never consider themselves conservatives) is that the treaty of German re-unification, the so-called 2 + 4 treaty of 1990, forecloses the issue of Greek reparations. But I have yet to see an actual argument showing this -- generally there's just a bunch of hand-waving about how it was all settled in 1990, Greece 'accepted' this outcome back then, which now means it's irresponsible for Greece to try to reopen this can of worms. Frankly, the only convincing argument I've read is Helmut Kohl's statement that Germany caused so much suffering during World War II that any reparations sum that might be at all proportionate would bankrupt Germany for all eternity.

I've looked, but have yet to find any argument about why the 1990 treaty should affect Greece's reparations claims, except for the suggestion that since Germany only officially 'surrendered' to the four Allied powers in 1990, only these countries could legally claim reparations. But I don't really understand that reasoning, either.

Can anyone point me to something convincing? 


Bleg: Help me Catch a Cannibal Murderer!

WARNING: A confessed murderer and cannibal is on the prowl in Japan! Here's an interview with him:

Everyone knows who he is, actually. In fact, he's a minor celebrity. So I really want you to help me catch an article about a cannibal murderer. 

The cannibal murderer is Issei Sagawa, a soi-disant Japanese intellectual who killed and ate a woman in Paris in 1981. This is what happened to him afterward, according to you-know-who:

Sagawa's wealthy father provided a lawyer for his defense, and after being held for two years without trial Sagawa was found legally insane and unfit to stand trial by the French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière, who ordered him held indefinitely in a mental institution. After a visit by the author Inuhiko Yomota, Sagawa's account of the murder was published in Japan under the title In the Fog. Sagawa's subsequent publicity and macabre celebrity likely contributed to the French authorities' decision to deport him to Japan, where he was immediately committed to Matsuzawa hospital. Examining psychologists there all declared him sane and found sexual perversion was his sole motivation for the murder. Because charges in France had been dropped, the French court documents were sealed and were not released to Japanese authorities. Consequently Sagawa could not legally be detained in Japan. He checked himself out of the hospital on August 12, 1986, and has remained free. Sagawa's continued freedom has been widely criticized.

So, on the surface we have not only a miscarriage of justice, but also quite possibly an example of two different legal cultures defining legal sanity in different and interesting ways. Just the sort of thing that really rings my bell.

Which brings me to the next mystery: an online law journal that seems to have published only a few issues, then vanished! Here is a citation to an article about Sagawa:

  1.  Morris, Steven (September 20, 2007)."Issei Sagawa: Celebrity Cannibal"New Criminologist, the On-line Journal of Criminology (New Criminologist). Archived from the original on June 14, 2011.[dead link]

As you can see, the link is very dead indeed. To add to the mystery, the New Criminologist started a Twitter account (under the logo Vitam Impenderi Vero) which then mysteriously died after only 4 tweets. The journal's online presence seems not just to have gone dormant, but been deliberately erased. Shoved down the memory hole, if you will!

Can anyone find this article for me? As a bonus, can anyone explain what happened to New Criminologist? 


New Documentary on Jens Soering

This is a new German documentary about Jens Soering, the German national who was convicted of a 1985 double-murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in Virginia, where he still is. Here are two trailers, the first in German, the second in English.

Soering's case has a long and complex history. While in England, he fought extradition to the state of Virginia on the grounds that it would violate European human rights law for Britain to extradite Soering to Virginia to face the possibility of capital punishment. The European Court of Human Rights agreed in Soering v. UK. Virginia dropped its demand for the death penalty, Soering was returned, convicted, and now is in prison for life.

He initially confessed to the crime and fled the country. He now claims he's innocent of the crime, but I haven't really been convinced by anything I've read so far. The documentary looks intriguing, I'll post any thoughts as soon as I've seen it.

This is the first and last time I will ever put a trigger warning on this blog, but these videos contain brief shots of crime scene photos with mutilated human bodies, so be advised. 


Bleg: German News Coverage of Failures of German Justice

I am working on an op-ed piece and perhaps an article about journalistic coverage of the German criminal justice system which I hope to publish on paper, in German, in some German newspaper.

The subject is going to be what I perceive to be the imbalance in German-language coverage of the American criminal justice system versus the German criminal justice system. That is, German-language newspapers are full of coverage (of widely varying quality, much of it error-filled) about Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, American death row inmate X or Z, but rarely cover problems in the German criminal justice system. Before asserting this, I want to try to make sure it's true!

So what I am looking for is articles in the German-language press by Germans which deal with potential justice problems in courts in German-speaking countries including:

(1) wrongful convictions;

(2) racial, ethnic, or religious disparities in conviction rates or sentencing;

(3) allegations of racial or ethnic or religious bias among German prosecutors and professional or lay judges;

(4) interviews with prisoners currently serving prison sentences in Germany who claim that they are completely innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted; and/or

(5) detailed examinations of systemic problems in German criminal justice or prisons, things such as underfunding, outdated regulations, disproportionate penalties, or the use of unreliable evidence.

I'm interested, in particular, in well-researched studies or in-depth reportings, not just stories like 'this lefty activist claims he was convicted only because the judge was a right-winger and we lefty activist journalists of course totally believe him and feel no need to research the allegations any further!!' There's a lot of that about in Germany, and it's generally justly ignored.

Also I'm not super-interested in stories about the RAF, which I consider to be an irrelevant side issue. I'm interested in well-considered stories about why random anonymous criminal Achmet got 4 years in prison for the exact same crime that random anonymous criminal Detlef got 2 years for.

Thanks in advance for any links in comments.


US Department of Justice: No Charges for Michael Brown Shooting

After an exhaustive analysis of all the evidence surrounding the Michael Brown shooting, the U.S. Department of Justice concludes (as I predicted long ago) that federal charges against Darren Wilson aren't justified, since his story of what happened is supported by the evidence and provides him with a defense:

Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence. In contrast, Wilson’s account of Brown’s actions, if true, would establish that the shootings were not objectively unreasonable under the relevant Constitutional standards governing an officer’s use of deadly force. Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the physical evidence.... The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under Section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never punched and grabbed Wilson at the SUV, never struggled with Wilson over the gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him. Accordingly, seeking his indictment is not permitted by Department of Justice policy or the governing law.


The Boston Globe Praises My Book

A little blatant self-promotion here. Katharine Whittemore in the Boston Globe just began a round-up of seven books about capital punishment and life sentences with this punchy, but essentially accurate, abstract of my book's argument:

Why has Europe ended the death penalty, but we’ve still got it? The conventional answer trades on cultural divides: America is an immature cowboy nation, racist and trigger happy, while Europe is more measured, mature, and its societies, chastened by two world wars, are understandably keen to avoid further violence. They’re enlightened; we’re philistine. Germany, in fact, got rid of capital punishment in 1949 and Britain in 1969. Before I read today’s books, I’d vaguely guessed that the Germans acted in revulsion at their Nazi past, and the British embraced the moral revolution of the Sixties. I was flat wrong; in both cases, the people overwhelmingly supported the death penalty. But their leaders coolly, blatantly overruled them.

“Ending the Death Penalty: The European Experience in Global Perspective” (Palgrave MacMillan, 2010) helped me, like no other book, to understand the worldwide evolution of the ultimate punishment. When Andrew Hammel, a professor of American law at the University of Düsseldorf, asked European jurists and pols why they’ve succeeded where we’ve failed, he constantly heard this refrain: Americans are naïve to think public opinion must change before the law changes. That’s because the “desire to see murderers executed is a basic drive of human nature, one which only the most educated are able to overcome.”

So that’s their strategy: an elite fait accompli. There are long roots here, for the earliest calls for diminishing the death penalty came from European philosophers invited by European monarchs to put their ideas into practice. Voltaire was pivotal and so was Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria, whose 1764 landmark treatise, “On Crimes and Punishments” (Beccaria, 2013), remains powerful reading today and had a marked influence on Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Beccaria found it immoral and illogical to treat brutality with brutality: “Murder, which [judges] would represent to us as a horrible crime, we see practised by them without repugnance or remorse.’’

In our era, when those on death row in the United States are in for heinous crimes only, we forget that the state once killed for far less. In 19th century Britain, you could die for some 200 transgressions, including vagrancy and “theft from the premises of a calico printers.” The march toward abolition was a slow one, steadily scratching offenses off — but it was basically a top-down process. Such condescension is a nonstarter in our more populist, pluralist society where 63 percent of Americans favor the death penalty. Eastern European countries had similar stats but, in order to join the European Union, they had to end the practice. The responsive structure of American politics guarantees, for now, it’s here to stay.


That $23.6 Billion Florida Tobacco Verdict is Meaningless

Both the BBC and the German media (g) have reported on the $23.6 billion verdict a Florida jury handed down against R.J. Reynolds tobacco company for damages she suffered after her husband died of lung cancer. The jury found that R.J. Reynolds had purposely concealed the addictive and harmful nature of smoking. Most of the $26 billion is in punitive damages, which can be awarded in Florida if the jury finds that "[t]he defendant’s conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct."

These sorts of stories come out a few times a year, and are always covered by the German media. They serve an important function for the German journalistic class: they instruct obedient German news consumers that the American jury system is a crazy lottery in which ignorant, envious bumpkins are given free rein to milk large corporations on behalf of other ignorant, envious bumpkins.

By implication, therefore, these stories support the Panglossian narrative of German superiority. After all, am deutschen Wesen soll sich dereinst die Welt genesen -- the German way will heal the world. There are no juries in German civil trials, nor are there any punitive damages in the American sense. German judges award damages according to fixed schedules, and the amounts are smaller than American courts.

To apply the necessary corrective: No, the tobacco company will of course never have to pay the $23.6 billion verdict. An appeals court, following rules laid down by the American Supreme Court, will reduce it to a tiny fraction of that size. Punitive damages awards are extremely rare in American courts, and usually modest in size. A recent study sums up the situation:

Contrary to popular myth, punitive damages are rarely awarded.

  • In 2005, the most recent year studied by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), punitive damages were awarded in only 5 percent of civil cases where plaintiffs prevailed at trial.

        ...

Most punitive damage awards are modest in amount.

  • In 2005, the median overall punitive damage amount awarded to plaintiff winners in civil cases was $64,000.15 The median punitive damage award for all tort cases was $55,000.16
  •  In 76 percent of the 632 civil trials with both punitive and compensatory awards, the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages was 3 to 1 or less.

...

Of the 45 states that allow punitive damages in this country, at least one-third have enacted some form of cap, or limit, on the ability of judges and juries to award punitive damages. Over 30 state legislatures have made it more difficult for injured consumers to prove punitive damages by raising the standard of proof required for awarding them. Several states order victims to pay a portion of punitive damages into state-designated funds. Other states require or permit bifurcated trials where the injured person is forced to essentially try a case twice, first proving liability and second, arguing the size of the award. And in some states, juries are prevented from deciding the amount of a punitive damages award -- only the judge is permitted do that.

That's been today's corrective to the German media.


China Rethinking Capital Punishment?

The New York Times notes China's softening stance on the death penalty: 

Last month, China’s Supreme People’s Court overturned the death sentence of a woman who brutally killed and dismembered her husband. The landmark decision to send the high-profile case back to a provincial court was yet another sign that the country’s embrace of the death penalty is loosening.

China is believed to execute more people each year than the rest of the world combined, and 43-year-old Li Yan initially seemed a likely candidate for death row. In 2010, she beat her husband to death with an air gun, chopped him into pieces and boiled his body parts. But police photos and a medical report backed up Ms. Li’s claims that her husband had abused her — stubbing out cigarettes on her body, banging her head against the wall and threatening her with the air gun. The Supreme Court determined, rightly, that these circumstances justified a retrial.

China is putting the brakes on the death penalty. According to Liu Renwen, a legal scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, between 2007 and 2011 the annual number of executions in China fell by half. Many violent offenders are now given so-called suspended death sentences, which are invariably downgraded later to life in prison. Such restraint has drawn broad public support.

 ...

Interviews conducted by criminologists suggest that international criticism has had an impact as well. In 1977, a mere 16 countries had abolished the death penalty; today 140 countries — over two-thirds of the world’s nations — have done so in law or practice. Chinese legal scholars and judges are fully aware of their country’s role as the outlier.

In 2006 a group of reform-minded justices began formally advocating moderation in punishment. Led by Xiao Yang, then the Supreme People’s Court chief justice, they pushed the maxim “kill fewer, kill cautiously.” The following year, the high court began reviewing all capital cases, creating a strong disincentive for lower courts to hand out death sentences. The substitution in many cases of suspended death sentences — which in practice means offenders spend about 25 years in prison — was the result.

The shift met resistance from hard-liners who warned of a spike in crime. But pandemonium did not ensue. Some criminologists now argue that the harsh campaigns of the past in fact sparked violent crime, by making criminals reluctant to leave witnesses behind.

Readers! Your clairvoyant blog host, Me, totally predicted this in my 2010 book (pp. 234-235):

[China]  has one unified national penal code (adopted in 1979 and modified many times since), and a political structure which insulates ruling elites from popular opinion. Were China’s ruling elites to be convinced that abolition was a desirable step, they would be able to implement it without fearing a formal political backlash. Even if Chinese leaders were not swayed by humanitarian concerns, there is a pragmatic case for the move: abolition of capital punishment by China would generate an avalanche of favorable coverage from the international media, and would be a potent weapon against critics of China’s human rights policies. In par- ticular, China could point to the continued use of capital punishment by the United States to parry American denunciations. Given the sensitivity of Chinese officialdom to critiques of its human rights policies, it would seem that abolishing capital punishment would be a low-cost way to project a more sympathetic image on the world stage.

You can buy this masterpiece by clicking on the box to the right. Whatever the price in your local currency, it's a bargain at twice that price!


Politics and the High Court in the US and Germany

Bverfge
Adam Liptak of the New York Times recently noted and lamented the fact that the decisions of the American Supreme Court are increasingly decided on explicitly partisan grounds: 

The perception that partisan politics has infected the court’s work may do lasting damage to its prestige and authority and to Americans’ faith in the rule of law.

“An undesirable consequence of the court’s partisan divide,” said Justin Driver, a law professor at the University of Texas, “is that it becomes increasingly difficult to contend with a straight face that constitutional law is not simply politics by other means, and that justices are not merely politicians clad in fine robes. If that perception becomes pervasive among today’s law students, who will become tomorrow’s judges, after all, it could assume a self-reinforcing quality.”

Presidents used to make nominations based on legal ability, to cater to religious or ethnic groups, to repay political favors or to reward friends. Even when ideology was their main concern, they often bet wrong.

Three changes have created a courthouse made up of red and blue chambers. Presidents care more about ideology than they once did. They have become better at finding nominees who reliably vote according to that ideology. And party affiliation is increasingly the best way to predict the views of everyone from justices to bank tellers.

The lefty in me wonders what all the fuss is about. Commentators such as Driver posit a politics-free space of legal analysis which used to exist and has been eroded in the past few decades, and that this erosion is a bad thing. You can doubt each proposition; perhaps the Supreme Court has always been a place of political contention obscured by a thick veneer of procedural legalism, and we're all better off now that the veneer's been washed away. 

But this seems a bit glib. The increasingly naked partisanship of American Supreme Court Justices is almost certainly a Bad Thing, and damages the reputation the United States internationally. Further, it's hard to see it changing anytime soon: given that (1) there are only 9 spots on the Supreme Court; (2) the ideological balance is razor-sharp, and (3) each judge literally serves for life, any President who defected from the strategy of appointing reliable votes for his party would face a huge backlash: 'Why did you appoint that squish when you could have appointed someone more reliable? Do you think the next president from the opposite party is going to return the favor? Of course not -- congratulations, you've just changed the composition of the nation's highest court for the next 35 years.' 

Germany doesn't have problems this acute, since German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) judges serve only 12-year terms. In Germany, seats on the Federal Constitutional Court are allocated according to a semi-secret agreement between the two largest political parties, the CDU and the SPD. As Maximilian Steinbeis points out in a recent entry. The judicial Selection Committee of the German Parliament is formally assigned to choose new FCC judges, but the real decision is made out of public sight long before the Committee votes. Right now, an 'SPD-associated' judge is about to retire, and the SPD gets to choose her replacement. They actually carried out a sort of audition for potential replacements. But picking judges through informal backroom agreements has its own problems (my translation):

I was always for a more public and transparent procedure for choosing FCC judges. The SPD parliamentary group's procedure thus conforms to the trend: choosing FCC judges is getting more political. The expertocratic tradition that has dominated until now -- in which the search for candidates is in the hands of tight-lipped and well-connected legal politicians do thorough background checks, conduct many, many confidential discussions, and then filter out the One (and for God's sake no one else!) to present to the parliamentary party behind closed doors -- this sort of thing no longer looks good.

Therefore, the plan to have judges ... chosen no longer by the intransparent Selection Committee but chosen in a plenary session of the Bundestag (g) seems like an appropriate solution. Of course, nobody wants the process to become as politicized as it is in the USA, and therefore the vote should happen without public speeches. Even so, we will in the future know -- for better or worse -- exactly how much support each Judge had when he or she assumed office. It remains to be seem how that might affect the atmosphere in the chambers of Karlsruhe.

Steinbeis isolates the central problem here: transparency leads to political accountability, and that's precisely what you want to limit when picking judges. Until the late 1960s, the American system managed to sustain the ideal (illusion?) of neutral criteria for picking judges, but as hearings became increasingly public, the judge's political profile increased to the point where it's now dominant. And that's why Steinbeis cites America not as a model, but a cautionary example.


Trayvon Martin, National Cliches, and German Smugness

I was quoted a few times in this Legal Tribune story (g) about the Zimmerman case, which makes the point that, if you consider all the facts surrounding the shooting of Trayvon Martin, a German court would likely have acquitted George Zimmerman as well. After analyzing the case in some depth, the author speculates about why the German media has been so consistently wrong about the case (my translation):

Where does the mistaken impression come from that American self-defense law is so much more permissive than German law? For one thing, ignorance of the foreign legal system, combined with national cliches which assign Americans the role of pistol-wielding cowboys. The circumstances of the case certainly lent themselves to this interpretation at first glance.

No, that's not a quote from me, but I could hardly agree more. Coverage of the Zimmerman case in much of the mainstream German media has been marked by truly epic incompetence, smugness, and East-German style moralizing tendentiousness.* So many German journalists desperately wanted to believe that an all-white jury set Zimmerman free after he gunned down a young black man for no reason. To this end, they have resolutely ignored anything that complicates that narrative (why let the facts get in the way of a good story?), implicitly reassuring their readers that in Germany, the best of all possible worlds, such a horrible scandal could never take place.

Much of the coverage has featured in-depth interviews with protesters venting their opinions about the case, as if that were any way to shed more light than heat. Whenever I see German news teams broadcasting completely uncritical interviews with American protesters, I always feel a temptation to go to Occupy Frankfurt, interview some of the ragamuffins and leftist extremists camping out there, and broadcast them on German television until every German viewer is convinced their country is a fascist police state with massive unemployment.

Now, before this post gets any more ranty (but that was pretty fun), I'll just make a few points before moving on from this topic forever:

  • The jury in the Zimmerman case was not all-white. There was one member who was non-white. Although there is no Constitutional requirement that juries mirror the local ethnic composition, this one did. 1 out of the 6 jurors was non-white and Seminole County, Florida, is 78% white. The jury was all-female, which is a bit unusual, but I can't imagine what difference that would have made. Zimmerman himself, of course, is half-Peruvian, and would be identified by most Americans as 'Hispanic', for what that's worth. Only 8% of German judges (g), by the way, have foreign origins, and the number who have dark skin is no doubt miniscule.
  • The jury deliberated 16 hours on the case, was divided over the issue of possible manslaughter liability for a time, but then came to the unanimous conclusion that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. To reach that conclusion, they had to find that George Zimmerman, at the time he fired the gun, had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death.
  • Although we will never know exactly what happened and Martin isn't here to tell his side of the story, Zimmerman consistently stated that he followed Martin for a time, that Martin turned around and came back toward Zimmerman and confronted him, and began the physical fight. Martin got the upper hand, forced Zimmerman to the ground, punched him in the face, and hit his head repeatedly against the concrete sidewalk. At this time, Zimmerman fired.
  • Zimmerman had called the police, with the call ending at 7:15 pm, and knew the police were on their way to find him, which they did at 7:17 pm. If you were planning to gun down an unarmed person for no reason or just out of spite or racism, would you (1) call the police beforehand, and (2) carry through on the plan knowing the police were literally seconds away?
  • Physical evidence corroborated Zimmerman's story. He had injuries on his face and head consistent with the story, he had grass stains on the back of his clothes, and the gun was fired from the position he said it was fired. His basic account of the confrontation remained stable through several explanations to the police, which is why the police believed him. The jury, after hearing hours and hours of evidence during a full formal trial on the merits, also found his story about the physical confrontation credible, otherwise it's difficult to see how they would have reached the verdict they did.
  • The 'stand your ground' law in Florida played a role in the case, but it wasn't decisive. The defense never invoked the 'stand your ground law' during the trial. They did not have to -- their theory from the very beginning was that, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was on the ground, being repeatedly hit by Martin. Since there was no chance of his escaping anyway, the question of whether he should have tried to do so was moot. It is true that the phrase 'stand his ground' appeared in the jury instructions and one juror has said they discussed the idea. But there's no evidence the law played a significant role. Zimmerman would have been acquitted by the jury even if Florida didn't have a stand your ground law.

Zimmerman would probably have also been acquitted under German law. German law also has a 'stand-your-ground' principle, called (in various wordings) 'Recht muss dem Unrecht nicht weichen' -- someone who is not doing anything illegal is not obliged to retreat in the face of an illegal attack. The response to the threat must be proportional, but the judge will take into account the means available to the attacked person when judging proportionality. You cannot immediately respond to a punch with a knife, for example, but if you are punched repeatedly and you have a reasonable fear of severe bodily harm or death and cannot adequately defend yourself with your fists, you may then use the knife. German law also allows you to use a gun in these circumstances. If you are being physically attacked, have a reasonable fear of severe injury or death, and the gun is the only realistic means you have to stop the attack, you may use it to defend yourself. You are ordinarily expected to yell a warning or fire a warning shot, but the law will not require you to do these things if the circumstances don't allow for it. As does American law, German law realizes that a physical fight is a chaotic event and that you cannot expect people to exercise careful, detached judgment in the middle of one.

Of course, spinning out a counterfactual about how a case would have played out in another legal system is only a mental exercise, but I think that Zimmerman would have had a good chance under German law. He would have argued that (1) he was doing nothing illegal at the time of the incident (following someone isn't a crime, nor -- for the purposes of this hypothetical only -- is owning a legal, licensed concealed weapon); (2) Martin started the physical confrontation; (3) Martin got the upper hand, forced him to the ground, and punched him and hit his head against a concrete sidewalk; (4) he was unable to defend himself with his fists against the continued beating and feared serious injury or death; (5) was not in a position to yell a warning or fire a warning shot, since he was lying on the ground being punched; and (6) fired the gun in self-defense.

Of course, it should go without saying that the death of Trayvon Martin, like the senseless death of any 17-year-old, is a tragedy (in the genuine sense). Martin was where he had a right to be and was doing nothing wrong when some guy began to follow him for no reason he could discern, quite possibly just because he was black. It appears Martin may have overreacted out of fear or anger, but it's hard not to sympathize with him. If Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun, it's likely nobody would have died. But still, this case is simply not a convincing symbol for the very real, very problematic racial and class disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system. In fact, it's not even a symbol of how 'different' American justice is from German, or European justice. The fact that so many (not all, but many) German journalists have tried to make these points by using a selective and distorted version of the case is yet another serious black mark on the German media.

Continue reading "Trayvon Martin, National Cliches, and German Smugness" »