About This Blog

Judging Crimes is a blog about criminal law, violent crime and the judiciary, dedicated to making the liberal case for greater democratic control of the criminal justice system.  It's a "view from the trenches" because it's written by a practitioner, not an academic or journalist.  It examines the changing role of the judiciary in American society by looking at what judges actually do, rather than what they say.  I know what they do because I deal with the consequences every day. 

Opinions issued by judges, from Supreme Court justices on down, are justifications for the exercise of governmental power.  But it is the exercise of power itself that should command our attention, not the justifications.  Judging Crimes is concerned with the reality of judicial power rather than the verbal formulas used to defend it. 

American law professors have long liked to say they teach their students "to think like a lawyer."  Learning to think that way is a matter of internalizing certain assumptions.  The practice of judging is likewise based on a foundation of shared assumptions, among them that the United States Constitution -- a document of 8,335 words, the length of a book chapter -- provides an answer to every question.  Rather like a Ouija board.

These assumptions are so ingrained -- and their internalization is so necessary to the successful practice of law -- that most people who subscribe to them aren't even aware of having done so.  Judging Crimes will try to engage not just with the expressions of judicial power, but with the assumptions on which those expressions  rest.  

Judging Crimes won't be filled with daily entries commenting on the day's events or provide a best-of-the-web welter of links.  Many other blogs already do that, far better than I could hope to do.  (Check out these.)  Instead, Judging Crimes will contain pieces of a length that might seem long for a blog but would be short in a serious magazine.  I hope to post new pieces several times a week.

Powered by Squarespace
What's not to like?

Hit the "like" button on Facebook to be notified of mini-blog entries and new posts and columns.

In Our Name
Test Drive the Book!
« 295. Miscalculations | Main | 293. So that its threats may continue to be believed »
Friday
Jul272007

294. Painting the lilly

That's what any comment on this story would be.  Here's the Guardian:

A Brazilian cleaner accused of blackmailing a female judge and stealing two sex videos from a male judge walked free from court today, after prosecutors announced they were dropping the case.

"Justice has been done. I am very happy and very proud of God," Roselane Driza said as she left the Old Bailey.

In October, 37-year-old Ms Driza was jailed for 33 months for stealing the explicit videos from her then lover, judge Mohammed Ilyas Khan, and for blackmailing another full time immigration judge, a woman, for £20,000.

The court heard the videos showed Mr Khan having sex with two women, one of them alleged to be the female judge, identified only as Judge J.

Ms Driza was cleared of blackmailing 61-year-old Mr Khan, with whom she was living with until her arrest.

In February, the appeal court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial on the grounds of fresh evidence, details of which were not allowed to be reported.

The Telegraph adds an interesting detail about the judge's misconception concerning the provenance of the chile - not a noted ingredient in Brazilian food - and, oh, yeah, adds an interesting detail about the woman's former husband:

Miss Driza had lived with Judge Khan before she was arrested and he had sent her text messages and emails in which he described her as "real chilli hot stuff".

Judge Khan was having an affair with a woman judge, who can only be referred to as Judge J, when he began having sex with Miss Driza, who cleaned for them both.

When they sacked her, she was claimed to have threatened to report the judges to the Lord Chancellor unless she was given £20,000 compensation.

Miss Driza, from South Norwood, south London, who was married to a serial killer, was alleged to have taken two videotapes, one of Judge Khan having sex with Judge J and the other showing him with another woman.

She knows how to pick 'em, doesn't she?

The prosecution declined to go forward with the case because the two judges wanted to spend more time with their - No, wait, it was because they had both sadly fallen ill.  Well, it could be true - they might well have been exhausted by what Ms. Driza described as their "drug- and sex-fuelled private lives."   (Here's a picture of Judge Khan - he'd look good in a wig, wouldn't he? - and here's the website of his immigration court.)

The BBC further explained what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to hire servants on the fiddle and then have sex with them:

[O]n appeal she was cleared of blackmailing 61-year-old Judge Khan, with whom she had an affair and had been living with until her arrest.

The exact grounds for appeal cannot be reported except that it was on the basis of new evidence.

Both judges had been employing Driza illegally.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.