It looks like Dr. Steven Hayne, the shockingly incompetent Mississippi medical examiner that Radley Balko exposed in a 2007 article, has finally been fired. I don't know whether to celebrate a small ray of justice in the world, or sob in shame that it took an American state this long to remove a medical examiner who was clearly putting innocent people in jail. The good news is that I expect that this means that some of his innocent victims will finally have their cases set aside.
Of course, so will a lot of guilty people, which is why law and order types (among whose number I occasionally count myself) should be even more upset at this sort of breach than the folks at IJ.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Balko is doing some of the best writing on the internet today. Good for him.
Firing is too good for Dr. Hayne. He should have criminal charges brought against him.
I'm with Christina; all this does is send him to an "early" retirement in his mid 60s, probably with a big pile of money.
On an unrelated note, your initial remark to the phrase 'lipstick libertarian' was this: Its "hard put to think of a way to pack more snide sexism and heteronormative stereotypes into two words."
But less than two weeks ago you appeared on a bloggingheads.tv diavlog, under the title "Lipstick Libertarians." You also said "I've been called a lipstick libertarian. I'm not quite sure if that was meant as an insult or a compliment."
Why the complete change of heart?
Since you are a Libertarian, can you describe what you mean by law and order type?
I'll second the sentiment: relief that this finally happened, but given how extreme the case was and the level of public attention and scrutiny being applied, it's pathetic that it took this long.
rick,
After she said that, there was a great deal of commenter response trying to explain that the title "lipstick libertarian" wasn't really a spiteful insult. Perhaps she simply accepted the clarifications. My two cents:
"Extreme Lesbian" stereotype is someone who actively defies mainstream ideas of beauty and has contempt for men, while "Lipstick Lesbian" is still a lesbian, but dresses in a way that most of society considers pleasant, and gets along just fine with men.
Similarly, the "Extreme Libertarian" stereotype is living in a cabin in the woods screaming about how the Income tax is unconstitutional and the government should be shut down. Megan is a "Lipstick Libertarian" because, while she still considers herself libertarian, her views are moderate enough to be reasonable or practical, and her attitude is polite and reasoned rather than defiant and intolerant. I don't really think it's an insult. Read it as "Friendly and Approachable Libertarian"
"After she said that, there was a great deal of commenter response trying to explain that the title "lipstick libertarian" wasn't really a spiteful insult."
If that's the case, then Roy Edroso deserves an apology.
McArdle doesn't apologize. She's always right.
Edroso's lucky she doesn't beat his chump ass with a two by four.
Erm, while I'm sure the majority of the staffers at IJ are outraged by Hayne, there's not much reason to juxtapose them with law-and-order types: IJ doesn't do criminal law, substantive or procedural.
Since you are a Libertarian, can you describe what you mean by law and order type?
Megan's not really a libertarian. She just thinks it's cool (and/or good for business) to label herself one. She's a Republican, which explains here "law and order" leanings. Check out her thoughts on the Iraq Invasion, George Bush, Jr., FISA, etc. for more.
I'm constantly confused to find that there are posters like ed and DL who care enough to come to the site and post, but don't seem to actually read the blog.
Perhaps it's just my lack of understanding Internet trolls in general, but I don't really see how someone can read this particular blog and apply "never apologizes" or "Republican" to its author...
That damn due process of law. How dare it get in the way of the swift and remorseless firing of a medical examiner. He was tried and found guilty in the press, and public opinion. Where can one find better Kangaroo courts? Toning down the sarcasm, isn't this part of the American judicial system? Even if you have a confession, fingerprints, two quality video feeds and 6 eye witness accounts that "off with his head" is subordinated to due process (3 to 6 months, though with what I described 2 would be possible). I thought we all rather enjoyed the idea that we weren't gonna be fired, jailed, or executed without time to get things together.
Geoff, some people lie for the silliest of reasons, as if the act of lying was itself pleasurable. On the internet, such people are often called "trolls".
No, ben, you are not entitled to due process before you get fired, except as provided for in an employment contract.
Dave:
True enough, however seeing as how its a state job (meaning they were out on the line in more than one place) dealing with malfeasance or ineptitude like this requires the dot the i type investigation before giving him the pink slip. Thus due process, at will employment seems seldom in fashion anywhere these days (google has an employment contract that is well wow!!)
"Perhaps it's just my lack of understanding Internet trolls in general, but I don't really see how someone can read this particular blog and apply "never apologizes" or "Republican" to its author..."
I think this statement incorrectly assumes any concern by the claimant whether the accusations are supportable. As far as I can tell the process is simply to accuse the author of anything the readership might react negatively to. This action drives up the cost of readership (time) without increasing value (commentary). This helps silence an effective voice for policies which are not troll-preferred.
The logic is in the action, not the statements.
Ben,
IIRC he was not a state employee, he was a private contractor that got paid per autopsy -- which is why he did 2500-3000/year when most pathologists feel that doing >1/day is unwise. That in and of itself should have caused the state to stop sending him cases -- no due process necessary.
I can dig it. I don't care for the liar "trolls" either.
And then there are the people who call themselves "libertarian" or "independenet", then repeatedly vote Republican for the silliest of reasons (e.g., the media-created "Clinton Fatigue," the "devil you know" and what have you). Man, they're the worst.
THANK GOD DR. HAYNES IS GONE AND YOUR RIGHT ABOUT INNOCENT PEOPLE....DEVIN BENNETT REMEMBER THE NAME . DEATHROW!! PUISHMENT DOESNT FIT THE CRIME . MAYBE HE WILL HAVE A CHANCE NOW! REMEMBER THE NAME, LOOK IT UP , JUDGE FOR YOURSELF . DEATHROW...... FOR BABY SHAKEN SYNDROME??? WTH????
Too right ed, too right.
Perhaps together we can prevent Megan from voting for that Republican Obama guy she keeps talking about...
ed, in your brain, such as it is, what constitutes "repeatedly"? More than once? Or do you just like to lie a lot?
Ed - Re: Megan as a Republican - She supports Obama over McCain. Its not like that's supporting a moderate over a Republican, its supporting a liberal Democrat over a Republican.
Megan - When we submit comments, we used to be taken back to the post we commented to, now we go to a different page that has just the comments, and that doesn't even have a link back to the original post. I know you don't actually set up the blog, so maybe I should be e-mailing the Atlantic instead of making a comment to your post, but is there anyway things could be changed back.
To amplify BladeDoc, although Mississippi has a chief medical examiner post, it does not have a chief medical examiner, because the state doesn't pay enough to interest anyone. Hayne was not, strictly speaking, fired; he was removed from the list of approved medical examiners from which county prosecutors may choose.
He did not hold a state job, no matter how much work he did on behalf of the state. County prosecutors chose him because he came cheap and nearly always found that the state was right.
Still, a wonderful thing that he is gone.
Or do you just like to lie a lot?
About what, exactly, did I lie?
Ed - Re: Megan as a Republican - She supports Obama over McCain. Its not like that's supporting a moderate over a Republican, its supporting a liberal Democrat over a Republican.
Please, she's merely trying to establish indie cred by not supporting the unsupportable McCain (especially in lieu of supporting--twice--the unsupportable George Bush, Jr.). To her credit, she's also a smidge embarrassed by not joining the Reality Based Club back when it was a no-brainer. She's marginally better than, say, Jonah Goldberg, in that sense, but only marginally. (In terms of self-absorption, it's still a toss up.)
Edroso's lucky she doesn't beat his chump ass with a two by four.
I'm pretty sure that Roy's entire lifetime of sexual experience is entirely contained within that fantasy... I wonder if he saves his towels?
Ed, I'm afraid I've voted for a Republican president exactly once in my life, in 2004. (I've voted Republican in local New York elections, but this was basically a protest vote in a one-party state.) I don't think there is any usage of the word "repeatedly" that applies to this voting record.
I'm also intrigued by your worries about my stance on FISA. Could you point me to the disagreeable posts where I say horrific things in support of the administration's policy?
C'mon, ed, ya' ol' lyin' fool, you; give us your precise definition of "repeatedly".
I'm also intrigued by your worries about my stance on FISA. Could you point me to the disagreeable posts where I say horrific things in support of the administration's policy?
Er...it's the lack of a stance. When you finally got around to taking one, you made like you didn't care or that it was too complicated (and deferred to a guy with libertarian cred). But since The FISA Situation is a major libertarian issue, you don't get to punt that one if you want to call yourself a libertarian. It doesn't work like that, peaches; that's Glenn Reynolds bulljive. I said as much before, but should have made that (more) clear again. In that regard, I was wrong (times four).
Ben,
IIRC he was not a state employee, he was a private contractor that got paid per autopsy -- which is why he did 2500-3000/year when most pathologists feel that doing >1/day is unwise. That in and of itself should have caused the state to stop sending him cases -- no due process necessary.