Apparently (but not really surprisingly) the defense team for Brian David Mitchell has decided to stand up as a prime example of exactly what is wrong with our justice system today.

They started this case by trying to get a change of venue. That was understandable although I don’t think we have an extradition agreement with Antarctica – the only place on the globe where there would be zero bias against their client. When that failed they said in their opening statement that they did not dispute the facts of the case. Now, after the prosecution has rested their case and the defense has had a day to call their own witnesses they are apparently desperate because their first witnesses have already shown that the insanity defense they had intended to argue is absurd. (Their client being certifiably insane is not absurd but the idea that he is not fully responsible for his actions is absurd.)

Three weeks into the trial they have suddenly discovered that one of the charges against their client may not be technically accurate.

This is not the action of a legal team seeking to ensure that justice is done but rather the action of a legal team who is willing to do anything to win their case.

In a healthy justice system both the prosecution and the defense legal teams would be working for the same goal—namely the goal of finding the true criminal(s) in the case and ensuring that they receive the appropriate consequences for their criminal behavior.

Unfortunately in our win-at-all-costs justice system the defense team is hoping that their client, who is obviously guilty and who has repeatedly shown that he has the dangerous attitude of thinking that he is above the law, will be able to get out of this with nothing more than a very badly damaged reputation.

An incident that took place yesterday got me thinking about a topic that is probably very appropriate at election season (in some ways more applicable after an election than before). That is, how and why we identify and associate within groups.

The reason I say this seems appropriate around elections is that part of the political process, at least for those who wish to make things happen rather than being content to simply express their views, is for groups to form from previously unconnected people in support or opposition of a candidate or proposed law or policy.

What happened yesterday reminded me of the psychological effect of identifying ourselves with a group.

I was driving to work when someone ahead of me began driving uncertainly as if the driver was trying to choose a route while driving. The driver was hovering near the lane line deciding whether to get in the turn lane or whether to go straight through the light ahead. As I was entering the turn lane the driver made the decision to do the same – right in front of me. That wasn’t a huge problem but it was mildly frustrating until I looked in the top right corner of the back window of their SUV where I spotted a sticker like the one pictured at the top of the post.

That picture was taken from the bottom left corner of my rear window and it identified the vehicle ahead of me as belonging to someone who lives somewhere near me. As soon as I saw the sticker all feeling of annoyance vanished with the thought that we were both on the same team (metaphorically speaking).

When we individually make a decision to be part of a group we should feel some affinity for members of the group at least in some general sense even if not always for each member individually.

I have noticed that most of the time when there is a large group for people to identify with there tend to be many smaller groups within the larger group with which we may choose to associate. Over recent years as I have tried to be more politically active I have been amazed at the wide array of caucuses that have been formed connected to various parties and political bodies. It seems to be that each member of the larger group has the opportunity to define themselves or display their identity through the smaller groups that they choose to associate with.

Those smaller groups gain prestige or notoriety based on who chooses to identify with them, therefore it is common for them to invite prominent members of the larger or parent group to join them but generally it is up to individuals to take the initiative and self identify with the groups of their choosing.

My experience has been that joining the smaller groups provides individuals with an opportunity to rub shoulders with people they otherwise would not have much chance to interact with. For those interested in gaining prominence within the larger group there is also the benefit of expanded opportunities to participate in leadership and otherwise demonstrate their commitment.

Interestingly I have also noticed that even within the types of groups where participation in subgroups is a matter of assignment (like committee assignments in a legislative body) it is what individuals choose to do and how they self identify within the larger group that determines the scope of their influence and acceptance within the group.

The thing I have learned at the times when I have wanted to accomplish things personally or politically is that I can’t be shy about seeking out the groups that I would associate with – for some reason they rarely find and invite me. If they ever do I suspect that I will be running the risk of having other people define me based on their invitations or lack thereof.

I noticed after publishing my Split Championship post that the Mountain West Conference managed to get the perfect football season that they fell short of last year with perfect order top to bottom in the conference.

The only blemish being their 4-1 record in bowl games this year and the glitch that Colorado State appears to have played an easier non-conference schedule than UNLV, San Diego State, and New Mexico.

On Christmas day there was one gift under the tree that neither Laura nor I knew about. Savannah had made a wonderful calendar for our family for 2010. I just had to share each of the months – it really warmed our hearts to see the work that she had put into this.

In case you can’t tell, that shell of the egg opens and closes to reveal the picture.

Things she is thankful for: Mom and Dad, Alyssa, Mariah, Isaac, and Bell (not sure of the reference there)

Nobody (except  Ahmadinejad or Khamenei) is very thrilled about the possibility of Iran as a nuclear power.  That is one of the few foreign policy positions on which Americans of all political persuasions can agree. Like every other policy position (foreign or domestic) the agreement ends very quickly. Many on the right are convinced that saber rattling should be our first course of action (Bush was doing that long before the revelation of this new nuclear facility) and that threats of sanctions should be no more than a formality before we start planning for war. The majority on the left seem content to exercise the options of public condemnation, international sanctions, and diplomatic pressure with endless patience for anything short of a physical attack against our nation.

What neither side seems willing to discuss is what history tells us about the value of military intervention, when it is and isn’t desirable, and the appropriate interaction between military power and diplomacy. Although we should be supportive of having a robust military let us review why the approach by the left is closer to correct on this issue.

Anyone with a healthy respect for the ugliness of war would hope that all the saber rattling would very rarely escalate to military action. Unfortunately the more we use the tactic of threatening a military response to the actions of other nations the greater the probability that those nations will choose to test our resolve leaving us with two possibilities. First, we can decide that military action is unwarranted which soon makes us look like the boy who cried wolf and our rhetoric becomes useless until we have backed up our bluster a few times by engaging in military action. Second, we can put our money where our mouth is and send in the military. If we use our military too often we will make enemies out of otherwise neutral countries and even our allies will become wary of us.

The proper course is to be very careful about when we make threats of military intervention – never rattling the saber unless we are willing to draw the sword. We must also be careful not to waste our strength in fighting so many distant threats that we leave ourselves unprepared if we should ever face a truly imminent threat.

Iran is a distant threat at best and we should take our hand off our sword hilt.

I make my living as a software engineer but I identify more with my roles as a father and as a concerned citizen. I love to get my perspective out where others can read and respond and I have been doing it for years. I love getting comments because it helps refine my thinking. I have been known in rare cases to change my position on some issues as I became more familiar with them through those interactions. I should win because my biggest obstacle to making a contribution to our country is not having access to a substantial audience.