Before we move on to issue 1.2 of the "What's Left of Our Civil Rights?" series, I have to talk about something that has recently really started bothering me. While I believe firmly that the Constitution guarantees us freedom of religion, and not freedom from religion, I also believe to a large extent in the separation of church and state.
Our founding fathers came here and practiced their religion freely. They left England, where the Church and government were connected, and offered them no true religious freedom, they went to the Netherlands, where they likewise had problems. Finally they went to North America, where they found what they were searching for, freedom from persecution, and the land that would one day found a country based on that very principle.
And while we were tied to Britain for a large part of our early history, part of the fundamental identity of the American people is that we are in fact not British. We are not a Protestant country like Britain, nor a Catholic country like Italy, because we have Article 1, Section 1 which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
This has led, among other things, to one of the most important tenets of our government: separation of church and state. What people seem to forget lately however, is that the separation of church and state has to work both ways. California is an excellent example of the inequity of this system.
I have thus far avoided writing about the issue of Gay Marriage, not because I don't believe it's a very important issue, but because I didn't trust myself to put together a rational argument about it, given how passionate I am. I will preface the remaining part of the article with this: I have gay friends, and I believe in gay marriage for a number of personal reasons. This however, is not about my personal feelings, and hopefully the article will reflect that.
The general idea is this: If the government stays out of religious affairs, then religions should stay out of the government.
Let me before we continue, allow me to clarify something about Prop 8, which will help this article make substantially more sense, to those of you who did not really do a lot of research on it. Prop 8, was at no point about religious marriage, freedom of religion. It was quite simply, an amendment that sought to change the legal definition of marriage. Freedom of religion means freedom for all religions, not merely ones own. No one was ever going to be forced to marry gay couples to keep their tax status, any more than Catholics are forced to marry people who have not received baptism or catechism. Religious marriage is controlled by each individual religion.
When gay marriage became legal it became just that... legal. Before Prop 8, essentially, churches that wanted to marry gay couples were allowed to, those who did not choose to, simply did not. Gay couples were treated equally under the law, with no prejudice towards their sexual preferences. What Prop 8 did, was change the legal definition required for a state marriage license to coincide with the prevailing Judaeo-Christian belief systems. It allowed religions to control the state law.
Within California there are 770,000 Mormons. They make up roughly 2% of the population, and their views should in no way be law. The Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS), actively encouraged it's members to donate money to the Yes on Prop 8 cause. Hundreds of Mormons donated more than $1000 each to the Yes, thousands more made smaller donations. Some like Ronald L. who donated $25,000, Donald P. who donated $50,000, or Mike M. who donated $100,000, donated much more. While other organizations like the Catholic Church, the Evangelicals, and and the Orthodox Church, all admit to being part of the campaign for Prop 8, it's now estimated that between 40% and 70% (the exact percentage is hard to gage because many of the larger donations were not reported) of the total donations for the Yes on Prop 8 came from 2% of California's population, the LDS.
The IRS bars tax exempt organizations from endorsing or opposing specific candidates, or even from using words like "pro-life" (which is misleading, because no one's really against life.) The idea is that the government does not give money to to organizations, which seek to control other people, and keep them from making their own political decisions. Otherwise, it becomes too easy for a very small group of religious leaders to control large amounts of population, and potentially whole elections. The same thing that the IRS seeks to gaurd against in the national presidential race, is now occurring from state to state, as religious organizations take a role in manipulatin of local and state law, moving through the votes and finances of their congregations.
The Mormons ran their adds claiming that the seven supreme court justices ignored the views of California citizens, and yet, they proved their own statement wrong. With all the misinformation, and all the slander, Prop 8 still passed by less than 8%. That's not een 2/3. It wouldn't have been enough to create a constitutional ammendment in congress, and it shouldn't be enough now. The Supreme Court of the United States went against the popular concensus when it decided to desegregate schools and when the decided seperate but equal was not constitutionally viable, because it is the Supreme Court's job (in the Federal Government as in California) to protect the rights of minorities. And yet, by the vote just held, supporters of gay rights are only just barely a minority.
This proposition was able to pass, quite simply because churches have overstepped their bounds in politics, and failed to adhere to the seperation of Church and State. The amount of media manipulation in this race was amazing. This was never an issue of gay marriage being taught in schools, or an issue of existing Churches losing their tax status... though their political actions certainly warrent that in several instances. Instead it was an issue of out of control evangelism.... of groups that instead of seeking to teach and bring people to god, sought to force people into following their beliefs.
To me, constitutionally, was well as morally, this particular issue is so frighteningly clear, that I marvel at the bigotry that would allow the leaders of these campaigns to take away the rights of people who have never done anything to them. And I ask you this: is faith really faith, if what others do outside your church, causes so much fear and hatred in you? Isn't faith unshakeable?
Gay, straight, black, or white, all people deserve civic rights... because all people should be equal under the law. Put aside prejudice.
Sources:
The Salt Lake Tribune
Mormons for Proposition 8
National Public Radio
NBC News - San Diego
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
What is Left of our Civil Rights? - 1.1 - Freedom of Religion
The Bill of Rights and what is left of it.
Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
However much I may disapprove of many of the religions we practice here in the United States, and disapprove more of religions that seem isolationist or extremist, it is not my place to control the beliefs of others. That is one of the things that Americans supposedly take pride in: religious freedom. This isn't always true though, because there seems to be a growing desire for people to have freedom of their own religion, and then to deny that freedom to other people.Acquiring valid religious statistics that are not biased has become more difficult because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer collects that information ("Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is not the source for information on religion.") This like many things recently results from a confusion people have in reading the Bill of Rights. The freedom of religion vs. freedom from religion.
Separation of Church and State is vital, but not the the point that we are simply trying to wipe out all visible signs of religion within our society. I may dislike the fact that our country was founded by Puritans, but there our roots lie, whether we like it or not, and to ignore that is to ignore what we came from. The problem is that the two, like many other things in our constitution can contradict each other if not clearly defined. The separation of Church and State was intended to prevent large religious organizations from controlling the government the way Catholicism and the Church of England had in the time our Constitution was written. Our forefather did not mean to erase our past or influences, but our litigious culture has taken their words and bent them. I myself am atheist, but as Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say sir, but I will defend 'til the death your right to say it." If a city would like to put up Christmas decorations, it does not offend me, nor should it offend anyone who is secure in their own beliefs.
Perhaps the answer to the fact that we still deny others their rights, even though our nation was founded out of a need to protect religious freedoms, has to do with the insecurity of people in their own beliefs. People will forever fight over what other religions are allowed to do, if it contradicts with their own beliefs, or they don't consider the other group a religion.
That the law differentiates between the rights awarded to a religion and the rights available to a "cult." In reality, the differences between the two are negligible, but in the United States to be considered a "religion" an organization must have 60,000 members. (How they determine this now that the Census no longer collects religious data, is something I could not find the answer to.) To be fair, some countries have even higher standards, like Japan requires 100,000 members. (However, Japan also has more religions by their standards, than we do by ours). Who exactly decided that 60,000 was the number that guarantees one the religious freedom assured to us in our first amendment? Currently the IRS (which is involved in the definition of religion because it controls which churches receive tax exemption) has it's own set of criteria to qualify as a religion as well, which consists of fourteen points: " a distinct legal existence, a recognized creed and form of worship, a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government, a formal code of doctrine and discipline, a distinct religious history, a membership not associated with any other church or denomination, an organization of ordained ministers, ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies, a literature of its own, established places of worship, regular congregations, regular religious services, Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young, and school for the preparation of its ministers." Clearly, these qualifiers are only met by a fraction of modern religious, most of which are Western. (Read more on defining religion in American law in this helpful essay.)
Wouldn't 10,000 members still be a sizable congregation? Isn't a church still a church if it doesn't provide youth classes? Religious freedom gets stalled even at our attempts to define religion. The saddest thing about this is it's not a matter of tax exemption, it's a matter about civil rights, and the ability to exist without persecution. The term "cult" has a very negative connotation, and cause all sorts trouble within the law. The Celtic branch of Paganism is considered a cult within the U.S., even though it is one of the oldest religions still in existence, and likely predates Christianity. U.S. law allows membership into a so-called cult, may be reason to remove a child in a custody case. Never mind that spiritual based religions like Paganism which are often not organized, and do not have as part of their tenets the conversion of others, are less likely to influence a child than attending church every Sunday, it is considered a detriment.
When our country started no religion had 60,000 members. So, I think it's safe to say, that when our forefathers drafted the constitution they didn't mean that we should give religious freedoms to the groups we recognized. It is simple, if a person has spiritual beliefs, they should be allowed to practice them, regardless of what anyone else thinks of those beliefs, as long as they do no harm to any other human being.
(We'll get into the issue what qualifies as human later, I'm not ready for a discussion on abortion yet.)
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Precursors of Revolution
When I dreamt up this blog, I had promised myself to approach it in a way that's responsible. I would promote a plan that would allow us to gradually restructure a government with now numerable flaws, and take back many of the civil rights that the government has now taken away from us. Over the last few days though, something has happened, and from a historical standpoint, I can recognize that my preferred method of slow change is no longer valid.
Historically there are three things that preface a violent revolution: monetary abuse by government and upper classes, lack of representation, and a lack of or reduction in civil rights. With the market, not only in the United States, but in the world as a whole crashing around us, we need to be prepared. Those of us with non-violent sensibilities especially need to be prepared. History repeats itself, because somehow we never learn the first time. I will continue to promote non-violent solutions, but I must urge now for preparation in case the worst should come.
Government abuse of spending:
Our government is now well over 10 trillion dollars in debt. $10,000,000,000,000. That's more zeros than most of us have ever seen in a context that relates to debt. The grandchildren or my children (who are not even born yet) will still carry the debt that we have accumulated in eight years. The government recently bailed out several large cooperation (for more on this, see the article from the International Herald Tribune). The executives of those companies, have been spotted here in California living it up with spa treatments, and are scheduled to be a the Ritz Carlton soon. How can our government assist these people, before they assist the millions of U.S. families now struggling? This is clearly an economic abuse on par with those in France during the time and Louis XVII.
Lack of Representation:
When 65% percent (probably a moderate figure - Courtesy a CBS news poll), and we are still at war, we are not truly represented. When we vote for one president and another is put in office, we are not represented. (Check out the HBO documentary Recount for more on the story of the 2000 elections.) When the two party system is so powerful, that it becomes near impossible for anyone else to be heard, forget bringing any votes, we are not truly represented.
Lack of Civil Rights:
This is probably the sorest subject for me, and I will write a whole article on it very shortly. In the meantime, suffice it to say that between the Patriot Act, rampant censorship, citizens and non-citizens jailed without right to trial or attorney, and the death of habeas corpus, our civil rights have been slowly taken away from us while we were blinded by the fear of terrorists. These things, most essential to our identity as U.S. citizens are already gone.
So while I do not condone violent revolution because I believe we're more civilized than that in the 21st century, and also because the destruction of infrastructure would be devastating to our modern society... (How would you survive without electricity for a year in the case of an emergency?) ... I have to urge everyone, from the standpoint of a historian whose afraid we may have gone too far in the way that we've gone so many ways before, to be prepared for the worst. Take home some extra water. If you have an emergency generator make sure it's working; if you don't have one you might consider it. Get to know your neighbors, because we're too disconnected in our society, and the person who lives next door to you may be your saving grace. Just, use the same common sense you'd use to prepare for a hurricane that was going to last a few months. It may not be necessary, but it can't hurt to prepare yourself.
Historically there are three things that preface a violent revolution: monetary abuse by government and upper classes, lack of representation, and a lack of or reduction in civil rights. With the market, not only in the United States, but in the world as a whole crashing around us, we need to be prepared. Those of us with non-violent sensibilities especially need to be prepared. History repeats itself, because somehow we never learn the first time. I will continue to promote non-violent solutions, but I must urge now for preparation in case the worst should come.
Government abuse of spending:
Our government is now well over 10 trillion dollars in debt. $10,000,000,000,000. That's more zeros than most of us have ever seen in a context that relates to debt. The grandchildren or my children (who are not even born yet) will still carry the debt that we have accumulated in eight years. The government recently bailed out several large cooperation (for more on this, see the article from the International Herald Tribune). The executives of those companies, have been spotted here in California living it up with spa treatments, and are scheduled to be a the Ritz Carlton soon. How can our government assist these people, before they assist the millions of U.S. families now struggling? This is clearly an economic abuse on par with those in France during the time and Louis XVII.
Lack of Representation:
When 65% percent (probably a moderate figure - Courtesy a CBS news poll), and we are still at war, we are not truly represented. When we vote for one president and another is put in office, we are not represented. (Check out the HBO documentary Recount for more on the story of the 2000 elections.) When the two party system is so powerful, that it becomes near impossible for anyone else to be heard, forget bringing any votes, we are not truly represented.
Lack of Civil Rights:
This is probably the sorest subject for me, and I will write a whole article on it very shortly. In the meantime, suffice it to say that between the Patriot Act, rampant censorship, citizens and non-citizens jailed without right to trial or attorney, and the death of habeas corpus, our civil rights have been slowly taken away from us while we were blinded by the fear of terrorists. These things, most essential to our identity as U.S. citizens are already gone.
So while I do not condone violent revolution because I believe we're more civilized than that in the 21st century, and also because the destruction of infrastructure would be devastating to our modern society... (How would you survive without electricity for a year in the case of an emergency?) ... I have to urge everyone, from the standpoint of a historian whose afraid we may have gone too far in the way that we've gone so many ways before, to be prepared for the worst. Take home some extra water. If you have an emergency generator make sure it's working; if you don't have one you might consider it. Get to know your neighbors, because we're too disconnected in our society, and the person who lives next door to you may be your saving grace. Just, use the same common sense you'd use to prepare for a hurricane that was going to last a few months. It may not be necessary, but it can't hurt to prepare yourself.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Fifth Amendment and the Fallacy of Plea Bargains
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger."
Before we continue let us define one legal word to make this amendment even clearer. Presentment: "Declaration or document issued by a grand jury that either makes a neutral report or notes misdeeds by officials charged with specified public duties. It ordinarily does not include a formal charge of crime. A presentment differs from an indictment." - definition courtesy Belluck & Fox's legal glossary.
So how did we come to this system of plea bargaining? Plea bargains by definition mean that the person in question does not stand trial before a jury of their peers. Well, it comes back to what we talked about last time, which is the establishment of laws by the judicial rather than the legislative branch. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court case Santobello v. New York, which is almost undoubtedly an example of just the kind of problems this system can cause, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld New York's decision.
They said, "This record represents another example of an unfortunate lapse in orderly prosecutorial procedures, in part, no doubt, because of the enormous increase in the workload of the often understaffed prosecutor's offices. The heavy workload may well explain these episodes, but it does not excuse them. The disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, sometimes loosely called 'plea bargaining,' is an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged. If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial, the States and the Federal Government would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities."
The key phrase in that decision is "properly administered," but who can deny that plea bargains are now part of a system of abuse. Is a violent offender an less deserving of jail time simply because the system is overloaded? The crime he has committed is the same, and the statutes that dictate the sentencing of that crime are the same. Because the person is rushed through the system, we cheapen the value of the person or the community that has, or the people that have suffered because of their crime. We also cheapen our justice system, and devalue the impact of a crime upon the perpetrator.
How can we be expected to discourage crime if a crime that should earn a person three to five years of jail time, is plea bargained down to a lesser count that only earns the person between eighteen months and two years? There are 193 countries according to the U.S. State Department, but the number varies between 192 and 194 depending on whether places like the Vatican are counted as individual nations. According to Nationmaster the United States ranks 24th in the number of murders per capita, worse than almost any other western nation (though Poland ranks even higher than we do, as do several members of the former Soviet block). To put than in context though, France ranks #40, Great Britain and the UK #46, Ireland #55, and Japan way down at #60. (1)
This is due in a large part to the fact that in the U.S. the punishment does not fit the crime. Part of the reason that those two things are out of sync is because of plea bargaining. Murder in the first degree, described by the California penal code 189 as "deliberate and premeditative," is punishable by 25 years to life. If people were actually sentenced to a life sentence for the premeditated murder of another person this might be acceptable, but 25 years for the life of another human being? If a twenty year old is murdered in there prime, they could live for another 50, 60, even 70 years, but we only think their life is worth a quarter of that time?
I would like to see some statistics on how many murder 1 cases are plea bargained down to even less than that, to murder in the second degree (which here in California can mean a sentence of as few as 15 years). If the district attorney thinks that a person has truely purposely, and with planning, taken the life of another person, shouldn't they seek the full sentence available. And if they don't think they have enough evidence to convict the person, shouldn't they merely lower the charge, (rather than making a deal with a supposed criminal) and then seek the maximum sentence available for that? If they are pleaing because they are not sure they have enough evidence to convict before a jury, while are the bringing charges?
As the Supreme Court statement above saying that it is acceptable to push people through the system because it is conjested. And by that measure, are we as U.S. citizens content to allow criminals walk free after minimal punishment because the system is underfunded and understaffed? Clearly one wrong, cannot be corrected until the other is.
If we are going to raise our safety levels to be on an equal level with the rest of the world we have to correct the flaws in our justice system so it's more effective. One of the first and most essential steps towards this seems to be to illiminate plea bargaining, but realistically, that cannot be the first step because many other measures have to go into place so that the plea bargaining system can be disabled.
First, the system has to be properly funded. All of it. The prisons need to be properly funded so that there are places to put the prisoners if they're convicted, and so that there are more gaurds to guard said prisons. The prison system should be partially self-funding. Assuming they are not joing assets, the courts should be able to seize a prisoner's assets to help pay the costs of keeping him fed and clothed while he's in the prison system. Each sentence should be accompanied by a monetary ammount to be deducted, if available, from the person's bank account. Then, instead of making prison a vacation where the prisoners can read (not that most of them spend their time that way), or fight in the yard (which is more common behavior). All prisoners should be entered into a prison work program (preferrably not one where they have to be given anything sharp) where they produce something valuable (food, etc.) that can be sold to help fund the prison system.
The other thing that will help sort out the financial crisis, is the reevaluation of what qualifies someone for jail time. Drug trafficing yes, drug possession... well maybe not, especially not for low-level drugs like pot. Jail time for minor offenses eats up the system's time and money. It is more practical, on issues like minor theft, or drug possesion, to punish the person financially. More over, if a person looses a thousand or two thousand dollars every time they are caught with an illicit substance, pretty soon they're going to have trouble funding their drug habits. (Mind you even there are even better ways to handle the issue of drug possession, but we'll get to the financial practicalities of legalizing drugs in another blog.) If someone commits theft, they damage the person they've stolen from financially, so what could be more appropriate than punishing them financially in turn, but with a fine twice the value of what they've stollen. Cases of minor crimes, should not result in jail time unless they are repeat offenders.
Beyond that though, we have to fund the court system to deal with their increased case load. We need to hold an election to choose additional judges, and pour money into more facilities, courts, offices, etc.
Once properly funded and expanded so that it is not constantly trying to release prisoners for lack of supplies and personel, or constantly accepting people who don't really need to be in jail, we can begin to tackle to the problem of plea bargaining. Personally, I think the easiest way to do this would to be to make plea bargaining illegal, once the system is equipped to handle the demands. People who are innocent are then not pressured into accepting jail time, and people who are guilty, don't get to reduce their sentences simply for hurrying things along.
We can protect civil rights and society all in one fell swoop.
Before we continue let us define one legal word to make this amendment even clearer. Presentment: "Declaration or document issued by a grand jury that either makes a neutral report or notes misdeeds by officials charged with specified public duties. It ordinarily does not include a formal charge of crime. A presentment differs from an indictment." - definition courtesy Belluck & Fox's legal glossary.
So how did we come to this system of plea bargaining? Plea bargains by definition mean that the person in question does not stand trial before a jury of their peers. Well, it comes back to what we talked about last time, which is the establishment of laws by the judicial rather than the legislative branch. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court case Santobello v. New York, which is almost undoubtedly an example of just the kind of problems this system can cause, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld New York's decision.
They said, "This record represents another example of an unfortunate lapse in orderly prosecutorial procedures, in part, no doubt, because of the enormous increase in the workload of the often understaffed prosecutor's offices. The heavy workload may well explain these episodes, but it does not excuse them. The disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, sometimes loosely called 'plea bargaining,' is an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged. If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial, the States and the Federal Government would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities."
The key phrase in that decision is "properly administered," but who can deny that plea bargains are now part of a system of abuse. Is a violent offender an less deserving of jail time simply because the system is overloaded? The crime he has committed is the same, and the statutes that dictate the sentencing of that crime are the same. Because the person is rushed through the system, we cheapen the value of the person or the community that has, or the people that have suffered because of their crime. We also cheapen our justice system, and devalue the impact of a crime upon the perpetrator.
How can we be expected to discourage crime if a crime that should earn a person three to five years of jail time, is plea bargained down to a lesser count that only earns the person between eighteen months and two years? There are 193 countries according to the U.S. State Department, but the number varies between 192 and 194 depending on whether places like the Vatican are counted as individual nations. According to Nationmaster the United States ranks 24th in the number of murders per capita, worse than almost any other western nation (though Poland ranks even higher than we do, as do several members of the former Soviet block). To put than in context though, France ranks #40, Great Britain and the UK #46, Ireland #55, and Japan way down at #60. (1)
This is due in a large part to the fact that in the U.S. the punishment does not fit the crime. Part of the reason that those two things are out of sync is because of plea bargaining. Murder in the first degree, described by the California penal code 189 as "deliberate and premeditative," is punishable by 25 years to life. If people were actually sentenced to a life sentence for the premeditated murder of another person this might be acceptable, but 25 years for the life of another human being? If a twenty year old is murdered in there prime, they could live for another 50, 60, even 70 years, but we only think their life is worth a quarter of that time?
I would like to see some statistics on how many murder 1 cases are plea bargained down to even less than that, to murder in the second degree (which here in California can mean a sentence of as few as 15 years). If the district attorney thinks that a person has truely purposely, and with planning, taken the life of another person, shouldn't they seek the full sentence available. And if they don't think they have enough evidence to convict the person, shouldn't they merely lower the charge, (rather than making a deal with a supposed criminal) and then seek the maximum sentence available for that? If they are pleaing because they are not sure they have enough evidence to convict before a jury, while are the bringing charges?
As the Supreme Court statement above saying that it is acceptable to push people through the system because it is conjested. And by that measure, are we as U.S. citizens content to allow criminals walk free after minimal punishment because the system is underfunded and understaffed? Clearly one wrong, cannot be corrected until the other is.
If we are going to raise our safety levels to be on an equal level with the rest of the world we have to correct the flaws in our justice system so it's more effective. One of the first and most essential steps towards this seems to be to illiminate plea bargaining, but realistically, that cannot be the first step because many other measures have to go into place so that the plea bargaining system can be disabled.
First, the system has to be properly funded. All of it. The prisons need to be properly funded so that there are places to put the prisoners if they're convicted, and so that there are more gaurds to guard said prisons. The prison system should be partially self-funding. Assuming they are not joing assets, the courts should be able to seize a prisoner's assets to help pay the costs of keeping him fed and clothed while he's in the prison system. Each sentence should be accompanied by a monetary ammount to be deducted, if available, from the person's bank account. Then, instead of making prison a vacation where the prisoners can read (not that most of them spend their time that way), or fight in the yard (which is more common behavior). All prisoners should be entered into a prison work program (preferrably not one where they have to be given anything sharp) where they produce something valuable (food, etc.) that can be sold to help fund the prison system.
The other thing that will help sort out the financial crisis, is the reevaluation of what qualifies someone for jail time. Drug trafficing yes, drug possession... well maybe not, especially not for low-level drugs like pot. Jail time for minor offenses eats up the system's time and money. It is more practical, on issues like minor theft, or drug possesion, to punish the person financially. More over, if a person looses a thousand or two thousand dollars every time they are caught with an illicit substance, pretty soon they're going to have trouble funding their drug habits. (Mind you even there are even better ways to handle the issue of drug possession, but we'll get to the financial practicalities of legalizing drugs in another blog.) If someone commits theft, they damage the person they've stolen from financially, so what could be more appropriate than punishing them financially in turn, but with a fine twice the value of what they've stollen. Cases of minor crimes, should not result in jail time unless they are repeat offenders.
Beyond that though, we have to fund the court system to deal with their increased case load. We need to hold an election to choose additional judges, and pour money into more facilities, courts, offices, etc.
Once properly funded and expanded so that it is not constantly trying to release prisoners for lack of supplies and personel, or constantly accepting people who don't really need to be in jail, we can begin to tackle to the problem of plea bargaining. Personally, I think the easiest way to do this would to be to make plea bargaining illegal, once the system is equipped to handle the demands. People who are innocent are then not pressured into accepting jail time, and people who are guilty, don't get to reduce their sentences simply for hurrying things along.
We can protect civil rights and society all in one fell swoop.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Letigious Culture and Our Judges
The problems are two-fold, the first problem being that we abuse the rights of our citizens, and the second being that the U.S. criminal justice system doesn't actually succeed in deterring crime (which is far more important than dealing with it after the fact.)
There are reasons for these problems other than the fundamental desire the win at all costs, that's prevalent in our court systems. Part of the problem is that instead of a justice system, we have now a litigious system. It has stopped being about what's right, and started being about what's legal.
Who decides what's legal? You may think that federal, state, county, and city governments make laws, and you would be right to a point. However, judges also make law by establishing precedent. When a new issue is raised, the may establish legal precedent in the manner. At the time this system was established, the system even made sense, because judges were respected members of the community, chosen by the community. Judges are rarely appointed by election, and even the judges with the highest legal positions in our country, the Supreme Court judges, are chosen for us by the president.
It happens because the average law abiding citizen pays little notice to their selection. It falls to other people they think. Who cares, they say, I'm never going to be arrested. So we find an Orange County Superior Court Judge, who I kid not has a button that produces a large obnoxious sound every he decides he's not in the mood to listen to either of the attorneys. You think I jest, but there are some crazy judges on the bench here in California. Many judges keep there positions until retirement or death, which is scary once you run into a bad one and the reality is the system is too overloaded and underfunded to notice.
Because judges take an active part in forming the law, all judges should be elected by the citizens in there respective jurisdictions. This is a low level change, but the insistence on electing people who take a fundamental role in the interpretation of our legislature, and also on our right to remove them from office by vote, is a first step in returning our country to a Democratic Republic.
There are reasons for these problems other than the fundamental desire the win at all costs, that's prevalent in our court systems. Part of the problem is that instead of a justice system, we have now a litigious system. It has stopped being about what's right, and started being about what's legal.
Who decides what's legal? You may think that federal, state, county, and city governments make laws, and you would be right to a point. However, judges also make law by establishing precedent. When a new issue is raised, the may establish legal precedent in the manner. At the time this system was established, the system even made sense, because judges were respected members of the community, chosen by the community. Judges are rarely appointed by election, and even the judges with the highest legal positions in our country, the Supreme Court judges, are chosen for us by the president.
It happens because the average law abiding citizen pays little notice to their selection. It falls to other people they think. Who cares, they say, I'm never going to be arrested. So we find an Orange County Superior Court Judge, who I kid not has a button that produces a large obnoxious sound every he decides he's not in the mood to listen to either of the attorneys. You think I jest, but there are some crazy judges on the bench here in California. Many judges keep there positions until retirement or death, which is scary once you run into a bad one and the reality is the system is too overloaded and underfunded to notice.
Because judges take an active part in forming the law, all judges should be elected by the citizens in there respective jurisdictions. This is a low level change, but the insistence on electing people who take a fundamental role in the interpretation of our legislature, and also on our right to remove them from office by vote, is a first step in returning our country to a Democratic Republic.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Purpose
On September 17th, 231 years ago, a set of delegates set out and ratified the United States Constitution. It had been in the works since that February when they had initially met to revise the flawed Articles of Confederation. In the Constitution, they set out the structure of our government, and our fundamental rights. Now 230 years later, those fundamental rights have been stripped away, piece by piece until most of us would be hard be hard pressed to find even one that hasn't been tampered with.
So why "Revolution"? The revolutions of the past can stay there if we act now. Many will question the term because they associate revolutions with violent action and upheaval, and historically speaking they would be right, but we as United States citizens can make a choice to change before it comes to a point where that is the only feasible way left to change. Violent revolutions happen because change isn't instituted as the ground level while things are still changeable.
Join us in making a difference. Vote in better candidates, encourage reforms, and take back your rights. We should be ashamed that we ever let them be taken away in the first place, and we cannot stand for this any longer.
So why "Revolution"? The revolutions of the past can stay there if we act now. Many will question the term because they associate revolutions with violent action and upheaval, and historically speaking they would be right, but we as United States citizens can make a choice to change before it comes to a point where that is the only feasible way left to change. Violent revolutions happen because change isn't instituted as the ground level while things are still changeable.
Join us in making a difference. Vote in better candidates, encourage reforms, and take back your rights. We should be ashamed that we ever let them be taken away in the first place, and we cannot stand for this any longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)