miscellaneous updates on Freeman case
Freeman's trial has started. Court TV is carrying it (more background here). Two things bother me about what has occurred so far. First, Freeman's past criminal record has nothing to do with the validity of her religious exercise claim. It should have been excluded. Second, the prosecution is trying to put different interpretations of Islamic doctrine on trial, as if it matters whether Freeman's position is the "official" one of Islam. That should not be a factor; what matters is whether Freeman's belief is religiously based and whether she holds it sincerely. Besides, as I mentioned before, it's not the court's job to decide on religious doctrine, nor should it be. I'm afraid that this is going to turn into a show trial and that there will be more attention given to scoring points with the media than with genuinely seeing justice done.
In other notes:
ACLU Florida has posted a press release as well as a statement by Freeman.
Law professor Eugene Volokh has posted some commentary on the case.
Reader Marcia Oddi of the Indiana Law Blog reports that current Indiana law provides:
(d) The bureau may provide for the omission of a photograph or computerized image from any other license or permit if there is good cause for the omission.
IC 9-24-11-5 (d). It is not clear what "good cause" means or how one goes about seeking the omission of the photograph (Indiana, as you may remember, was the first state I found where the courts recognized a religious exemption for non-photo driver's licenses.)
Update 5/29: Court TV coverage of the second day of the trial and closing arguments. A decision is expected by the end of next week. You can also read a filing by Freeman's lawyers.
Law professor Eugene Volokh discusses the larger legal issues (also here)
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Comments
hard to believe that mere facial appearance is the state's "cannot do without" means of id.
suppose Ms Freeman wears a wig, and lots AND LOTS (theatrical lots) of makeup, might she well meet the standards of her convictions as well as provide 'face' for Florida's camera?
hard to believe in this vanity driven world in which weight losses and gains, beards, revlon moles, tatoos, piercings, hennas, and the whole range of common appearance modifications, the state claims to rely on a facial pic.
Posted by: John Newell | May 29, 2003 05:27 AM
Very true. Besides, how accurate is a photo that was taken up to five years ago? A person might have gained or lost a lot of weight, changed their hairstyle and color, switched from eyeglasses to contacts or vice versa, or made some other substantial change to their appearance.
Unfortunately, so much attention is focused on the foreignness of Freeman's religious traditions that there hasn't been a lot of discussion of the underlying issues. Should we require ID? Is photo ID the most reliable form?
Posted by: Al-Munaqabah | May 29, 2003 12:11 PM
AA, What states offere exemptions to photos on driver's licenses? You mentioned Indiana, what are the others? I heard in there were 3 states, and I also heard 15.
Jazakum Allah Kheir
please reply to email address milsum@hotmail.com
Aslamu alikum
Abu Amira
Posted by: Abu Amira | May 29, 2003 03:38 PM
I've responded to Abu Amira by email but thought that I would post the information here as well. The states are:
Arkansas
Colorado
Idaho
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Carolina
Oregon
South Carolina
I have only verified this for Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota.
Posted by: Al-Munaqabah | May 29, 2003 04:58 PM
Regarding facial appearance change, my anecdotal understanding is that if someone cannot recognize you from your photo ID they can refuse to accept it, effectively forcing you to get a new one. Also, I have heard of cases where a police officer on a traffic stop has requested the driver to get a new photo because of change in appearance. Obviously, in none of these cases is one required to get a new photo ID.
Posted by: Zack Ajmal | May 30, 2003 03:45 PM
I forgot to include plastic surgery on my list.
I'm not sure I would want to live in a society where I had to update my files with the government every time I made a significant change in my appearance. Way too Big Brother for my taste!
Posted by: Al-Munaqabah | May 31, 2003 01:09 PM
Interesting. It sounds like photo as identity proof is one of things that's the way it is because, well, it's always been that way, and nothing's ever happened to change it. Till now. When you add up all the holes in photo id usage -- those raised in this thread, and in the court -- it sounds like it's time to move towards something new like, say, thumbprinting.
It seems to me that whatever gets adopted in place of face photos is going to require machine-assisting decoding (like thumbprints), rather than human-only decoding (like looking at a photo, then a face). More proliferation of gadgets; larger tech budgets loom everywhere, I guess.
Posted by: James | June 4, 2003 09:44 PM