Motus Mentis

With a hat-tip to our friend The Stiletto, we direct you to a pungent example of the machinery of justice at work.

The case concerns an Iowa jailbird who, it was alleged, had thrown feces at one of the screws — a simple act of defiance that is fully conformant with traditional primate style, and which will be familiar to anyone who has hob-nobbed with the caged chimpanzees at the zoo. (After all, you have to work with what you’ve got.) The inmate did the chimps one better, however — by exulting, after his home-made missile had found its mark, “I got you, [dysphemism for correctional officer]. I threw shit on you.’

Assaulting a prison guard with biological effluents is a felony under Iowa Code section 708.3B, and legal proceedings ensued. The defendant was found guilty, and appealed the verdict. In the appellate court, the defense sought to undermine the Court’s confidence as to the nature of the substance thrown, and raised two issues: first, that the prosecution had not called any expert witnesses to establish beyond doubt that the res iactus was, in fact, fecal in nature, and second, that the word “shit” in the accused’s triumphal ejaculation was semantically ambiguous, due to the word’s frequent appearance as a non-specific signifier in vernacular English.

With regard to the first point, the Legal Skills Prof Blog‘s James B. Levy notes that “the appellant court concluded that the ability to identify feces is within the province of the average person”. He quotes the court’s decision:

Indeed, it would be a rare person who had no personal experience with feces. We do not believe the identification of feces falls solely within the domain of expert testimony.

Hard to argue with any of that, I think.

The court, did, however, agree about the ambiguity of the word “shit”, and offered support for this view in a splendid footnote:

“Shit’ is defined as excrement. Webster”Ÿs Third New Int”Ÿl Dictionary 2098 (1993). But, the word has also been defined as nonsense, foolishness, something of little value, trivial and usually boastful or inaccurate talk, and a contemptible person. Id. This now ubiquitous word has acquired numerous popular usages apart from its literal meaning. It has been used to describe people, places, and things and to express a wide variety of emotions such as disappointment, disgust, despair, resignation, amazement, awe, shock, anger, and surprise. For examples, see State v. Vance, 790 N.W.2d 775, 784 (Iowa 2010) (“He is going to find the shit . . . .’); Estate of Harris v. Papa John’s Pizza, 679 N.W.2d 673, 676 (Iowa 2004) (“[S]hould be on his ”žshit list”Ÿ . . . .’); Civil Service Commission of Coralville v. Johnson, 653 N.W.2d 533, 541 (Iowa 2002) (“You ain”Ÿt going to be shit.’); Wilson v. IBP, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 132, 143 (Iowa 1996) (“[T]his guy”Ÿs full of shit.’); Marks v. Estate of Hartgerink, 528 N.W.2d 539, 542 (Iowa 1995) (“It takes a lot of guts and shit . . . .’); State v. Anderson, 448 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1989) (“[W]hat”Ÿs this not guilty shit.’); Knox v. Municipal Court of City of Des Moines, 185 N.W.2d 705, 709 (Iowa 1971) (“You are still a Fascist and your swastika (indicating) Heil Harrison, Heil Harrison and all that shit.’); Graves v. O’Hara, 576 N.W.2d 625, 627 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (“We have f**king shit to haul . . . .’); State v. Shortridge, 555 N.W.2d 843, 845 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (“Holy shit, let”Ÿs get out of here . . . .’); Peck v. Employment Appeal Board, 492 N.W.2d 438, 439 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (“[A]sking what ”žshit jobs”Ÿ were available.’); State v. Findling, 456 N.W.2d 3, 7 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (“I mean this is really big shit here.’); Wiysel v. William Penn College, 448 N.W.2d 712, 713 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) (“[H]is words were so much ”žsanctimonious shit.”Ÿ’); and Blong v. Snyder, 361 N.W.2d 312, 314 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984) (“[They] told him the pieces he had run were all ”žshit.”Ÿ’). The remarkable versatility of the word “shit’ is also demonstrated in George Carlin”Ÿs “Filthy Words,’ a verbatim transcript of which is set forth in full in the appendix to the United States Supreme Court”Ÿs opinion F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 752-53, 98 S. Ct. 3026, 3042, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073, 1094 (1978).

Or, as any Zen Buddhist will tell you: words are just “a finger pointing at the moon”.