More Poo Flinging in Court (Sort of)!

Over at Sentencing Law and Policy, Prof Berman recently posted about a very interesting district court opinion from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The defendant in US v. Schwartz was convicted of several counts of fraud and related charges after a jury trial. After a lengthy discussion of the fairly nasty facts of the case, Judge Dalzell launches into a long dissertation on lying, bullshit, and associated things that justified an above-the-Guidelines sentence for Schwartz.

After quoting Aquinas on the eight different kinds of lying, Dalzell moves on to the recent bestseller On Bullshit (which I discussed here way back in February) with complete frankness. In fact, in footnote 11, Dalzell notes that “[o]n the theory that readers of judicial opinions are all grown-ups, we choose not to be squeamish about the book’s title or subject – unlike the [New York] Times, which found the word “unfit to print.’” Amen, brother! Nothing pisses me off more than judicial opinions that pull punches when it comes to languages. Any kiddies who bother reading judicial opinions at a tender age are already way too far gone down the path to self destruction and mental illness to be helped, anyway. Judge Dalzell’s conclusion on Schwartz? He’s a “paradigmatic” bullshitter.

While the judge gets points for the On Bullshit discussion, he misses the boat when it comes to A Clockwork Orange, probably through no fault of his own. In footnote 13, the judge references the Burgess classic (and the equally classic Kubrick film) for the proposition that he should be dubious of the argument that Schwartz’s bullshitting tendencies will dissipate in his later years. This reflects a common misunderstanding of Orange based on a fluke of publishing. The original American printing of Orange, upon which Kubrick’s flickwas based was missing the final chapter from the novel's original British printing. In that chapter, we see that Alex really did, in essence, grow out of his taste for the ultraviolence and become a productive member of society. Thus, Judge Dalzell may be right in his thoughts on Schwartz’s chances for rehabilitation, but his cite checking needs work.