I. Habeas Corpus, and other procedural matters
Habeas corpus exists for the sake of the wrongly accused. The idea behind the writ: the defendant, once imprisoned, can challenge the imprisonment. And from this, the backbone of criminal law, other procedures take shape. The prisoner can get a trial, (s)he can get a lawyer, (s)he can abstain, (s)he can post bail, etc.
How this plays out, and what gets people so disgusted with this situation is that Charles Manson gets to appeal his imprisonment every several years. How this plays out is that, on paper, it is a very structured system. For example, evidence needs to be introduced into trial in a certain way. That's one thing judges do: they make sure procedure is followed, and see what evidence is permissible, depending on procedure. For example, evidence that could convict a robber could be denied access in court because it failed to fit certain guidelines. The problem with law, however, is that any amount of text can fail to anticipate all of the possibilities that reality can become. Remember that those lawyers who came forward with proof that their late client had committed a murder that another man was convicted for? The convicted man lost almost three decades in prison. And why did those lawyer stay back for so long? Apparently, if they came forward while their client was alive, they would have violated attorney-client privilege. Their information would have been inadmissible in a court room, and therefore, the innocent man would still be in jail, all other things being equal. Procedures like these can the sinew of habeas corpus.
Make sure that only the guilty are convicted. Alan Dershowitz, the other side of the coin on which Antonin Scalia lives, supports the idea that many human legal system, including that of the USA, give the benefit of the doubt to the accused person. Better to free the guilty than punish the innocent. The opposite of this chaotic mess of law is just chaos.
For example, just as easily, physically speaking, as those lawyers could have came out with the truth before their client died, another person, Person A, could say he saw the convicted man commit the killing, and Person A lying. Without procedures to make sure the legal system is fair, the alternative is pretty crappy. Instead of just getting murder, murderers can get away with accusing other people of murder.
And the accused gets arrested, and he stays in jail. Without a trial, or at least a fair trail. Because habeas corpus is dead.
II. Federalism
Let's pretend you disbelieve that corporations and the rich run everything. So, looking at the general structure of our government, we find that it is built so that the power of government is divided amongst the rulers. The Supreme Court is appointed by the President with the decision of Congress; the President's vetoes can be overridden by a semi-unified Congress, and his Orders can be nullified by the Court; Congress can be vetoed by the President, and its laws can be nullified by the Court. And the People choose Congress and the President, and therefore indirectly choose the Court. Power is divided so that no one is King.
This nation, the United States of America, was founded on the truth that men feast on one another, and that in order to create a stable society, power needs to be reasonably divided. Not the truth "that all men are created equal," at least in the idealistic sense. The equality thing is what the PR department during the Revolution said, but what the nation is really founded on is that these men, the Founding Fathers, realized that people take advantage of one another. Geniuses, they were. The first people in millennia thrifty enough to both get power, and also realize that power can be abused and that they could be the abusers. After the war ended, they didn't trust one another. They made the first central gov't, the Confederation, and it was weak. They only replaced it with the current structure of government because the confederation was too weak to succeed. But they knew that anyone with too much power could abuse it. It was like a reality show.
And a lot of people still believed that the constitution was imperfectly formed. New York State accepted the document by 3 votes. 3 votes!
And George Washington. Let's just clap the man. A landmark moment, when he chose to abstain from a third term. Perhaps the first time in History that a powerful ruler stepped down from power without having to die, or get pulled out.
Robert Mugabe is 100 years old, and he can't not be President.
III. Human Societies
Stable human societies rely on compromise.
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
General: Laws of War Cause Lame Wars
SARAJEVO, Bosnia and Herzegovina--During a speech to students at the University of Sarajevo, General Slobodan Douchebagovich called the Geneva and Hague Conventions anti-peace documents in that the six treaties, substantial parts of the laws of war, limit effective military operations, and cause prolonged wars.
“What do we need rights in war for?” the Serbian general said. “We must be nice to adversary? ‘Here is pillow and lemonade. Now I shoot you.’”
Douchebagovich had been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, but the case was dropped due to several technicalities. He worried little about the movement to once again prosecute him, and, besides, he continues to look back fondly to his service at Srebrenica, where he and his men played soccer using infants as balls.
“Muslim babies are resilient people.”
He is the founder of GAW, Generals for Awesome Wars. The preamble to their constitution states that war law should be considered void because few organizations and governments only follow the treaties when convenient, besides Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
“Pussies,” Douchebagovich said about the humanitarian institutions. He and his organization advocate the development of Assertive Acquisition From Civilians Of Supplies To Be Used By Military Personnel (AAFCOSTBUBMP), and Interpersonal Relations Between Troops and Insurgents (IRBTAI). Such tactics aid troop morale, and tactical intelligence.
For example, AAFCOSTBUBMP eases financial pressure .
In regard to allegations that victims of the tactics would be abhorred at rape, pillage and torture, the General said, “First, in some dictionaries, ‘no’ means ‘no.’ But in the real ones, like the one my cousin made, ‘no’ sometimes means ‘yes.’ So you never know what they mean by, ‘Please, please, please don‘t.’”
Douchebagovich’s primary concern, however, lies with the reform in the regulation of nuclear weapons. He said that the current requirement of the use of such weapons, in which the existence of the State is in direct danger, is far too limited.
“If the existence of the State is not in danger today, it will in danger be tomorrow. Therefore, it is always in danger.”
He said that the reluctance to use nuclear weapons encourages armed resistance, and causes higher casualty rates in the long run. He cited the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to support his claim that nuclear attacks would stifle all sentiment toward opposition.
“Now that was shock and awe.”
“What do we need rights in war for?” the Serbian general said. “We must be nice to adversary? ‘Here is pillow and lemonade. Now I shoot you.’”
Douchebagovich had been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, but the case was dropped due to several technicalities. He worried little about the movement to once again prosecute him, and, besides, he continues to look back fondly to his service at Srebrenica, where he and his men played soccer using infants as balls.
“Muslim babies are resilient people.”
He is the founder of GAW, Generals for Awesome Wars. The preamble to their constitution states that war law should be considered void because few organizations and governments only follow the treaties when convenient, besides Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
“Pussies,” Douchebagovich said about the humanitarian institutions. He and his organization advocate the development of Assertive Acquisition From Civilians Of Supplies To Be Used By Military Personnel (AAFCOSTBUBMP), and Interpersonal Relations Between Troops and Insurgents (IRBTAI). Such tactics aid troop morale, and tactical intelligence.
For example, AAFCOSTBUBMP eases financial pressure .
In regard to allegations that victims of the tactics would be abhorred at rape, pillage and torture, the General said, “First, in some dictionaries, ‘no’ means ‘no.’ But in the real ones, like the one my cousin made, ‘no’ sometimes means ‘yes.’ So you never know what they mean by, ‘Please, please, please don‘t.’”
Douchebagovich’s primary concern, however, lies with the reform in the regulation of nuclear weapons. He said that the current requirement of the use of such weapons, in which the existence of the State is in direct danger, is far too limited.
“If the existence of the State is not in danger today, it will in danger be tomorrow. Therefore, it is always in danger.”
He said that the reluctance to use nuclear weapons encourages armed resistance, and causes higher casualty rates in the long run. He cited the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to support his claim that nuclear attacks would stifle all sentiment toward opposition.
“Now that was shock and awe.”
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Bill Regulates Rape Accusations
By Alberto Luperon, Dissociated Press Writer
July 12, 2008--Weeks ago, New York Assemblyman Mark Catheter of New York introduced a bill that would regulate rape accusations. Now, he is receiving the backing of a not-for-profit organization, FRAT (the Federation of Rangers Against Tattletaling).
"Rape will still be a crime," the Assemblyman says about his new bill. "We just want to cut down on false accusations. Only a real victim would go to jail to catch the badguys. I mean, after an experience like rape, a night in jail will be no problem."
FRAT is an organization which, since 1901, has lobbied state legislatures and congress for laws that eliminate accusations. Members are called "Rangers," and Assemblyman Catheter has been a ranger since 1982, after he was sued for peeing on a neighbor's porch.
"I don't remember the urinating, per se, but then here I am stumbling down the driveway, getting called a drunk and a bum by Mrs. Finster."
Yesterday, FRAT protesters stormed the steps of the New York Legislature in Albany, New York, calling for whores to shut their mouths. Catheter expressed pride that FRAT was using its first amendment rights.
Anti-accusation proposals date back to 1796, when then-state senator Rufus Burr sponsored a bill that would eliminate insults any and all communication in New York. If the bill had been passed, then a violator would be forced to walk public with the word, "Basterd" tattooed on his forehead.
Catheter believes that by pushing for the passage of the "QYET BILL," he and the other Rangers are protecting the accused from accusations, and upholding the legal tradition that the accused are innocent until proven guilty.
He says, in addition: "It's the constitutional right for citizens to do with their bodies as they please."
July 12, 2008--Weeks ago, New York Assemblyman Mark Catheter of New York introduced a bill that would regulate rape accusations. Now, he is receiving the backing of a not-for-profit organization, FRAT (the Federation of Rangers Against Tattletaling).
"Rape will still be a crime," the Assemblyman says about his new bill. "We just want to cut down on false accusations. Only a real victim would go to jail to catch the badguys. I mean, after an experience like rape, a night in jail will be no problem."
FRAT is an organization which, since 1901, has lobbied state legislatures and congress for laws that eliminate accusations. Members are called "Rangers," and Assemblyman Catheter has been a ranger since 1982, after he was sued for peeing on a neighbor's porch.
"I don't remember the urinating, per se, but then here I am stumbling down the driveway, getting called a drunk and a bum by Mrs. Finster."
Yesterday, FRAT protesters stormed the steps of the New York Legislature in Albany, New York, calling for whores to shut their mouths. Catheter expressed pride that FRAT was using its first amendment rights.
Anti-accusation proposals date back to 1796, when then-state senator Rufus Burr sponsored a bill that would eliminate insults any and all communication in New York. If the bill had been passed, then a violator would be forced to walk public with the word, "Basterd" tattooed on his forehead.
Catheter believes that by pushing for the passage of the "QYET BILL," he and the other Rangers are protecting the accused from accusations, and upholding the legal tradition that the accused are innocent until proven guilty.
He says, in addition: "It's the constitutional right for citizens to do with their bodies as they please."
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Disagreements and Free Speech
I. DISCOURSE
For a minute, let’s dance around the more grotesque flaws of governments in the Global Tyranny Hall of Fame. Nazi Germany, Communist Cuba, Mao-ist China, etc. These flaws being mass murder, slave labor, and poverty. These flaws tend to spark intense emotional responses that sit on abstract, idealized notions of how life must be lived, rather than the elements on how life actually is lived, and unfolded. We can agree on the greatness of 'life,' 'liberty,' 'equality.' and 'free speech.' People can agree that mass murder and slave labor is wrong.
This is the stumbling block: People disagree when these abstractions are put into practice. They disagree on the cosmetics of life, liberty, equality, and free speech. The problem, then, rests on reality. The more we speak in abstractions, the less of reality that is exposed in communication.
Reality is shaped by what people do. The importance of words and abstract notions, then, rest on what those words and abstract notions encourage people to do. Ideas are nonexistent unless acted out. A desire to ask a woman out is executed by asking her out, a desire to win a football game is executed by playing better than the other team, and a desire to grow strawberries is executed by treating those strawberries in such a way as to promote growth.
Reality gets complicated, then, by opinion. We tend to disagree about the necessity of those very actions. We disagree about the tastefulness of approaching dates, about which team deserves the win, and that our time is better spent growing strawberries rather than blueberries.
These divisions of opinion rest on a fractured kind of reality.
Frederick Douglass' opinion on a right to property will differ from the slave master's opinion on the right to property. One will disfavor ownership of human being, the other will support that ownership.
Let's look at more benign disagreements. 'Free Market' supporters will differ about how 'free' those markets should be. Some will believe that corporations need minimal oversight so as to prevent corporate crimes and abuses. Others will believe that corporations can mind themselves, since their search for personal gain will, in turn, happen to help society. The opinions of these free market men will usually be shaped by personal experience and agenda, in the same way that Douglass' life as a slave will mold his opinions of slavery, and the slave master's gain from slavery will mod his support of slavery.
Then, let's consider two men who love car. One loves Ferraris. The other loves Lamborghinis. Why? It depends on the men. They made both agree that a car should be fast, and 'good looking.' But their definition of 'good looking' will vary.
M&Ms versus snickers, milk versus orange juice, BDSM versus missionary. Two lovers will break up because one wants to get married, and the other desires life as a single person, though both lovers agree that a 'passionate life' is the only life worth living.
Dissent is unavoidable when abstractions are put into practice.
II. POLITICAL REGULATION
In Castro's Cuba, legal political expression is shoved into a very narrow box.
Article 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992 reads [translated into English]:
"Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society."
http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm
Article 62 further reinforces that speech can only fit within the philosophy of a socialist state, and "violations of this principle can be punished by law."
Notice the abstract word 'interest' and the vague noun, 'objective' in Article 53. This can mean anything, depending on how the writers of the constitution write it to mean in law.
Therefore, should speech fall out of line with those definitions of 'interest' and 'objective,' then the violator of articles 53 and 62 can be prosecuted.
Therefore, even though an expressed idea, when applied, can help people more an any idea within the boundaries of acceptable speech, if that idea violates articles 53 and 62, then the speaker of that idea gets punished. The idea is squashed and shut into a prison. Many ideas that can benefit the society is null and void for as long as its implementation if prohibited in a physical fashion.
III. BOUNDARIES
The reason governments--or other organizations of people--cut down on certain speech: that speech is perceived as having negative consequences. A man stalking through the supermarket, shrieking, "9/11 was an inside job!" will be promptly exhorted out the building by either security or police, because he is disturbing the old ladies down the aisle who are deciding between Jiff and Peter Pan peanut butter. He is hurting business. Well, this is an easy scenario to agree with.
Screaming tends to disturb people. It doesn't matter if the screaming was about 9/11, black people, or peanut butter.
Now, let's get dicier. In 1919, the Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., decided in the Schenck v. United States case that speech should only be cut down if it creates "a clear and present danger" that the US Congress "has a right to prevent." He further contextualized this claim by stating that while a nation remains at war, some speech that is acceptable at peacetime can possibly end up hindering the war effort. The man on trial, Charles Schenck, had been prosecuted of violating the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 because he had led the effort to print, and distribute leaflets to thousands of men eligible for the draft. The leaflets called for the draft-age men to oppose the draft. Schenck was found guilty because his effort was seen as causing a harm of the USA.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=249&page=47
In America, especially online, a lot of speech is anti-establishment. Just go to YouTube, comments on a video or news article, whatever. Just walk a street in a city with a diverse about of people. Friday, at the subway at Union Square, I saw a man with a cardboard sign hung from his neck that read, "Reinvestigate 9-11" Etc. He was handing out leaflets.
It continues to be legal for groups such as the American Nazi Party to write stuff like, "Only by degrees did the Hebes belatedly psych themselves up to sufficient hysteria. In a convulsive, screaming lunge they fell on Commander Rockwell. But he had the psychological advantage of a larger-than life personal courage. In an utterly one-sided battle too incredible for anyone who has not actually witnessed or fought through such a moment, he bashed and throttled his way into the shrieking crowd. The grasping, spitting devils fell on all sides, as the lone hero of the White race cut a path of blood and broken bones across New York City. They never knocked him off his feet and he never tired of splitting enemy jaws." And claim this to be the truth. http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/index.php
Book stores sell calendars that mark the days George W. Bush has left in office as the President of the USA.
A Columbia University professor, Nicholas DeGenova, said, in regard to the US-led Iraq War, "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." The Military Veterans of Columbia University called for the University to officially reprimand DeGenova. Dozens of Republican politicians called for University President Lee C. Bollinger to fire him. He still works for the University, and teaches several research courses in the anthropology department.
(The following are letters he wrote explaining himself. http://hnn.us/articles/1396.html)
In nations like Cuba, speech that criticized the establishment in such a way would be punished. Such webmasters, calendar-makers, and professors all shoved into prisons. The speech need not opposing the policies of the current government. It can merely fail to coincide with those explicit policies. Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas was arrested in his home country for 'ideological deviation' and sent to the prison. He was openly homosexual, and published abroad without official permission from the government.
America is a free country for as long as citizens are allowed to say and do such things.
Yet, certain speech does hint at shades of chaos and violence. Such speech can possibly lead to creating a "clear and present danger." So why continue to allow it? A man who wishes for "a million Mogadishus" has the potential to begin a riot, even if that was beside his intention.
So why defend inflammatory speech? Why be too free rather than too safe?
The problem is not simply that speech is suppressed, but that those with the power to suppress speech will abuse that power. The line between safe speech and unsafe speech fluctuates due to the actions and opinions of people.
Fidel Castro and his 26th of July Movement, which overthrew the dictator Fulgencio Batista (who had also come to power using force), promised equality and fairness to the average people of Cuba. And after two decades in power--and heavily restricting international travel and communications--this is how much the movement succeeded: In 1980, several Cubans burst through Cuban guards guarding the entrance to the Peruvian Embassy. This event increased an already tense national disgust with the economy. To deal with this tension, Castro removed guards from the Peruvian embassy, and soon after, loads of citizens were pleading for asylum. He claimed to be, at best, indifferent toward the exodus (remember the very beginning of Scarface?) In this event, the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, at least 120,000 Cubans embarked from the Port of Mariel to Southern Florida. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mariel-boatlift.htm) This freedom of transportation was only temporary, and only occurred because of various economic tensions within the nation.
The Cuban economy got so bad that in the 1990s, they had to begin using the US dollar.
In this nation, which shuts down on anti-establishment speech, the quality of life is far less than many believe it could be.
Yet, any speech is illegal that aims to improve quality of life but also goes against the policies of the government. In this environment, some good ideas flourish, and others are squashed.
I remember being in a high school weight training course, and a friend and I noticed another classmate struggling with the lat pull down machine, swerving back and forth in absurd angles, when you are supposed to leave your body stationary while working the machine. On retrospect, I believe she was goofing off, but at the time, we were certain she was just doing it wrong, and my friend walked up to her very kindly, and suggested she doing it the correct way. She snapped at him. He left her alone.
And we were hardly being snobs. When a person is using a weight lifting machine, it is important to use correct form, because incorrect form can easily lead to serious, lifelong injuries such as back problems.
This situation is pretty analogous to authoritarian societies where criticism is punished. Except those societies go further in punishing critics. Now, when that society goes forth in its dealings, those dealings with be undermined by a narrow point of view. The society screws itself. It is stagnant, and oppressive. Those who aimed to create a better world in that manner fail by becoming those they overthrew. This is the problem is restricting speech in a coercive manner. Good ideas get squashed in the name of fighting bad ideas.
IV. DETAILS, COMPREMISE
If a friend has a booger in his nostril, you tell him about it. If you think the person (s)he goes out with is wholly unsuitable, you will be inclined to say why. If you think the president's war policy is unwise, then you are inclined to say why. If they dislike the idea, they will disregard it. As simple as that.
Those with differing viewpoints can educate one another for the better by, communicating their views in an open manner. They only need to listen, and go back and forth, point for point.
Though I fail to consider myself a practicing Christian, I find parts of the Gospel to list wise ideas. Though I consider myself a free market capitalist, certain elements of socialism seem beautiful and worth considering. "Elements of making cake A can improve the making of cake B, and vice versa."
As the philosopher Christopher Julius Rock, III, once said, "Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool." Because issues are more difficult and grey than the ideological boxes they are shut in. You can talk about welfare, and war, etc. But how are these supposed to be implemented? Under what events do you give the money out? When do you fight? When do you back down? Who exactly do you give money to? What weapons do you use in a fight?
We should work to free ourselves from abstractions, and dive into the details. Trotsky is not Stalin, though they are both communists. And Abe Lincoln differs from George Bush, and Ron Paul, though they are all Republicans. The Devil is in the details, and to beat him we must fight him there.
The primary roadblock to this kind of open talk is pride. When people talk, generally, they like to come out on top. As if winning the argument settles the issue once and for all. "I beat that Republican in the war debate; that settles everything."
So what happens when people focus on winning arguments with each other? At worst, they will attempt to shut each other up. The element of pride needs to be considered in every decision to cut down on speech. Because when pride pollutes the issue, we, the witnesses of the issue, focus on the abstractions, and then we trip on the ignored details.
To preserve freedom of speech--truly preserve it--requires self-restraint and patience for speech that disgusts us. Because speech that is venomous, inflammatory--That is the ulcer-inducing price of living in a free world. A safe risk. The alternative is a world just a little worse.
(And now I am speaking in abstractions. Hmph.)
For a minute, let’s dance around the more grotesque flaws of governments in the Global Tyranny Hall of Fame. Nazi Germany, Communist Cuba, Mao-ist China, etc. These flaws being mass murder, slave labor, and poverty. These flaws tend to spark intense emotional responses that sit on abstract, idealized notions of how life must be lived, rather than the elements on how life actually is lived, and unfolded. We can agree on the greatness of 'life,' 'liberty,' 'equality.' and 'free speech.' People can agree that mass murder and slave labor is wrong.
This is the stumbling block: People disagree when these abstractions are put into practice. They disagree on the cosmetics of life, liberty, equality, and free speech. The problem, then, rests on reality. The more we speak in abstractions, the less of reality that is exposed in communication.
Reality is shaped by what people do. The importance of words and abstract notions, then, rest on what those words and abstract notions encourage people to do. Ideas are nonexistent unless acted out. A desire to ask a woman out is executed by asking her out, a desire to win a football game is executed by playing better than the other team, and a desire to grow strawberries is executed by treating those strawberries in such a way as to promote growth.
Reality gets complicated, then, by opinion. We tend to disagree about the necessity of those very actions. We disagree about the tastefulness of approaching dates, about which team deserves the win, and that our time is better spent growing strawberries rather than blueberries.
These divisions of opinion rest on a fractured kind of reality.
Frederick Douglass' opinion on a right to property will differ from the slave master's opinion on the right to property. One will disfavor ownership of human being, the other will support that ownership.
Let's look at more benign disagreements. 'Free Market' supporters will differ about how 'free' those markets should be. Some will believe that corporations need minimal oversight so as to prevent corporate crimes and abuses. Others will believe that corporations can mind themselves, since their search for personal gain will, in turn, happen to help society. The opinions of these free market men will usually be shaped by personal experience and agenda, in the same way that Douglass' life as a slave will mold his opinions of slavery, and the slave master's gain from slavery will mod his support of slavery.
Then, let's consider two men who love car. One loves Ferraris. The other loves Lamborghinis. Why? It depends on the men. They made both agree that a car should be fast, and 'good looking.' But their definition of 'good looking' will vary.
M&Ms versus snickers, milk versus orange juice, BDSM versus missionary. Two lovers will break up because one wants to get married, and the other desires life as a single person, though both lovers agree that a 'passionate life' is the only life worth living.
Dissent is unavoidable when abstractions are put into practice.
II. POLITICAL REGULATION
In Castro's Cuba, legal political expression is shoved into a very narrow box.
Article 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992 reads [translated into English]:
"Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society."
http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm
Article 62 further reinforces that speech can only fit within the philosophy of a socialist state, and "violations of this principle can be punished by law."
Notice the abstract word 'interest' and the vague noun, 'objective' in Article 53. This can mean anything, depending on how the writers of the constitution write it to mean in law.
Therefore, should speech fall out of line with those definitions of 'interest' and 'objective,' then the violator of articles 53 and 62 can be prosecuted.
Therefore, even though an expressed idea, when applied, can help people more an any idea within the boundaries of acceptable speech, if that idea violates articles 53 and 62, then the speaker of that idea gets punished. The idea is squashed and shut into a prison. Many ideas that can benefit the society is null and void for as long as its implementation if prohibited in a physical fashion.
III. BOUNDARIES
The reason governments--or other organizations of people--cut down on certain speech: that speech is perceived as having negative consequences. A man stalking through the supermarket, shrieking, "9/11 was an inside job!" will be promptly exhorted out the building by either security or police, because he is disturbing the old ladies down the aisle who are deciding between Jiff and Peter Pan peanut butter. He is hurting business. Well, this is an easy scenario to agree with.
Screaming tends to disturb people. It doesn't matter if the screaming was about 9/11, black people, or peanut butter.
Now, let's get dicier. In 1919, the Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., decided in the Schenck v. United States case that speech should only be cut down if it creates "a clear and present danger" that the US Congress "has a right to prevent." He further contextualized this claim by stating that while a nation remains at war, some speech that is acceptable at peacetime can possibly end up hindering the war effort. The man on trial, Charles Schenck, had been prosecuted of violating the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 because he had led the effort to print, and distribute leaflets to thousands of men eligible for the draft. The leaflets called for the draft-age men to oppose the draft. Schenck was found guilty because his effort was seen as causing a harm of the USA.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=249&page=47
In America, especially online, a lot of speech is anti-establishment. Just go to YouTube, comments on a video or news article, whatever. Just walk a street in a city with a diverse about of people. Friday, at the subway at Union Square, I saw a man with a cardboard sign hung from his neck that read, "Reinvestigate 9-11" Etc. He was handing out leaflets.
It continues to be legal for groups such as the American Nazi Party to write stuff like, "Only by degrees did the Hebes belatedly psych themselves up to sufficient hysteria. In a convulsive, screaming lunge they fell on Commander Rockwell. But he had the psychological advantage of a larger-than life personal courage. In an utterly one-sided battle too incredible for anyone who has not actually witnessed or fought through such a moment, he bashed and throttled his way into the shrieking crowd. The grasping, spitting devils fell on all sides, as the lone hero of the White race cut a path of blood and broken bones across New York City. They never knocked him off his feet and he never tired of splitting enemy jaws." And claim this to be the truth. http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/index.php
Book stores sell calendars that mark the days George W. Bush has left in office as the President of the USA.
A Columbia University professor, Nicholas DeGenova, said, in regard to the US-led Iraq War, "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." The Military Veterans of Columbia University called for the University to officially reprimand DeGenova. Dozens of Republican politicians called for University President Lee C. Bollinger to fire him. He still works for the University, and teaches several research courses in the anthropology department.
(The following are letters he wrote explaining himself. http://hnn.us/articles/1396.html)
In nations like Cuba, speech that criticized the establishment in such a way would be punished. Such webmasters, calendar-makers, and professors all shoved into prisons. The speech need not opposing the policies of the current government. It can merely fail to coincide with those explicit policies. Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas was arrested in his home country for 'ideological deviation' and sent to the prison. He was openly homosexual, and published abroad without official permission from the government.
America is a free country for as long as citizens are allowed to say and do such things.
Yet, certain speech does hint at shades of chaos and violence. Such speech can possibly lead to creating a "clear and present danger." So why continue to allow it? A man who wishes for "a million Mogadishus" has the potential to begin a riot, even if that was beside his intention.
So why defend inflammatory speech? Why be too free rather than too safe?
The problem is not simply that speech is suppressed, but that those with the power to suppress speech will abuse that power. The line between safe speech and unsafe speech fluctuates due to the actions and opinions of people.
Fidel Castro and his 26th of July Movement, which overthrew the dictator Fulgencio Batista (who had also come to power using force), promised equality and fairness to the average people of Cuba. And after two decades in power--and heavily restricting international travel and communications--this is how much the movement succeeded: In 1980, several Cubans burst through Cuban guards guarding the entrance to the Peruvian Embassy. This event increased an already tense national disgust with the economy. To deal with this tension, Castro removed guards from the Peruvian embassy, and soon after, loads of citizens were pleading for asylum. He claimed to be, at best, indifferent toward the exodus (remember the very beginning of Scarface?) In this event, the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, at least 120,000 Cubans embarked from the Port of Mariel to Southern Florida. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mariel-boatlift.htm) This freedom of transportation was only temporary, and only occurred because of various economic tensions within the nation.
The Cuban economy got so bad that in the 1990s, they had to begin using the US dollar.
In this nation, which shuts down on anti-establishment speech, the quality of life is far less than many believe it could be.
Yet, any speech is illegal that aims to improve quality of life but also goes against the policies of the government. In this environment, some good ideas flourish, and others are squashed.
I remember being in a high school weight training course, and a friend and I noticed another classmate struggling with the lat pull down machine, swerving back and forth in absurd angles, when you are supposed to leave your body stationary while working the machine. On retrospect, I believe she was goofing off, but at the time, we were certain she was just doing it wrong, and my friend walked up to her very kindly, and suggested she doing it the correct way. She snapped at him. He left her alone.
And we were hardly being snobs. When a person is using a weight lifting machine, it is important to use correct form, because incorrect form can easily lead to serious, lifelong injuries such as back problems.
This situation is pretty analogous to authoritarian societies where criticism is punished. Except those societies go further in punishing critics. Now, when that society goes forth in its dealings, those dealings with be undermined by a narrow point of view. The society screws itself. It is stagnant, and oppressive. Those who aimed to create a better world in that manner fail by becoming those they overthrew. This is the problem is restricting speech in a coercive manner. Good ideas get squashed in the name of fighting bad ideas.
IV. DETAILS, COMPREMISE
If a friend has a booger in his nostril, you tell him about it. If you think the person (s)he goes out with is wholly unsuitable, you will be inclined to say why. If you think the president's war policy is unwise, then you are inclined to say why. If they dislike the idea, they will disregard it. As simple as that.
Those with differing viewpoints can educate one another for the better by, communicating their views in an open manner. They only need to listen, and go back and forth, point for point.
Though I fail to consider myself a practicing Christian, I find parts of the Gospel to list wise ideas. Though I consider myself a free market capitalist, certain elements of socialism seem beautiful and worth considering. "Elements of making cake A can improve the making of cake B, and vice versa."
As the philosopher Christopher Julius Rock, III, once said, "Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool." Because issues are more difficult and grey than the ideological boxes they are shut in. You can talk about welfare, and war, etc. But how are these supposed to be implemented? Under what events do you give the money out? When do you fight? When do you back down? Who exactly do you give money to? What weapons do you use in a fight?
We should work to free ourselves from abstractions, and dive into the details. Trotsky is not Stalin, though they are both communists. And Abe Lincoln differs from George Bush, and Ron Paul, though they are all Republicans. The Devil is in the details, and to beat him we must fight him there.
The primary roadblock to this kind of open talk is pride. When people talk, generally, they like to come out on top. As if winning the argument settles the issue once and for all. "I beat that Republican in the war debate; that settles everything."
So what happens when people focus on winning arguments with each other? At worst, they will attempt to shut each other up. The element of pride needs to be considered in every decision to cut down on speech. Because when pride pollutes the issue, we, the witnesses of the issue, focus on the abstractions, and then we trip on the ignored details.
To preserve freedom of speech--truly preserve it--requires self-restraint and patience for speech that disgusts us. Because speech that is venomous, inflammatory--That is the ulcer-inducing price of living in a free world. A safe risk. The alternative is a world just a little worse.
(And now I am speaking in abstractions. Hmph.)
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Comments on an Obama Bill -- S.2111
I figure the best way to know a candidate is to read their damn bills. (The bill mentioned in this note was written/Sponsered by Barack Obama, with the aid of Richard Durbin, Bernard Sanders, and Charles Schumer)
S.2111 Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Acts a proposed bill
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2111/text
- I agree with the bill on an idealogical and logical basis. Good to focus on certain, if not outright proven, methods of rearing students. Haphazard, instinctive methods, such as, say, yelling at the kids or threatening them with a referral or detention, simply makes the kids scream louder if they have no respect for school itself. And a number of students have little respect for school. This bill has guts in confronting the abstract, and psychological problems of education.
- Puts the ball in the hands of local educations and education officials. The overall effectiveness of this proposed bill is subject to the brillance and/or bumbling of those people. Which is unavoidable, since a Congress in Washington is hardly in the best position to decide what exactly is the best, precise way to educate children. In regard to expansive social programs, they probably best serve as delegators, as guidance. This bill serves to balance Federal support with appropriate Federal restraint about the exact details of such programs.
- The proposed Director in this bill sounds like a good peson to have around, since it institutionalizes accountability. It creates a chain of command in this. I am unsure about details of the interplay between Executive and Legisative branches, but I hope there are yearly, concrete reports to congress about how the program is carrying on. The more accountability among politicans and The People, the better.
- Potential problems in its executive implementation. since promises made are different than promises kept:
1 - if both the Director, and the Deputy Secretary of Education is incompetant, and both the Sec. of Edu. and the President do nothing (which sure is hell is possible, because of the expansiveness of the jobs of latter two), God Help Us All;
2 - who is the best authority on "Positive Behavior Support"? Science is exact, but also slow, and sometimes contradicts earlier findings. And using science to raise a child's mind?--don't even get me started. Don't think this bill will simply create a perfect world in one week. If it works, it will be an arduous process, with a lot of disagreements among implementers about what techniques will work best. Parents and teachers will need patience. The bill is only a first step.
3 - also, the issue of religious instruction in public schools is going to hover around this bill (if the bill is even passed), and cause a number of ulcers
I am unfamiliar with the the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which this bill amends. That big bill, in its current form, will definitely have a lot of influence on how S.2111 would play out, and I definitely missed something that needs mentioning.
S.2111 Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Acts a proposed bill
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2111/text
- I agree with the bill on an idealogical and logical basis. Good to focus on certain, if not outright proven, methods of rearing students. Haphazard, instinctive methods, such as, say, yelling at the kids or threatening them with a referral or detention, simply makes the kids scream louder if they have no respect for school itself. And a number of students have little respect for school. This bill has guts in confronting the abstract, and psychological problems of education.
- Puts the ball in the hands of local educations and education officials. The overall effectiveness of this proposed bill is subject to the brillance and/or bumbling of those people. Which is unavoidable, since a Congress in Washington is hardly in the best position to decide what exactly is the best, precise way to educate children. In regard to expansive social programs, they probably best serve as delegators, as guidance. This bill serves to balance Federal support with appropriate Federal restraint about the exact details of such programs.
- The proposed Director in this bill sounds like a good peson to have around, since it institutionalizes accountability. It creates a chain of command in this. I am unsure about details of the interplay between Executive and Legisative branches, but I hope there are yearly, concrete reports to congress about how the program is carrying on. The more accountability among politicans and The People, the better.
- Potential problems in its executive implementation. since promises made are different than promises kept:
1 - if both the Director, and the Deputy Secretary of Education is incompetant, and both the Sec. of Edu. and the President do nothing (which sure is hell is possible, because of the expansiveness of the jobs of latter two), God Help Us All;
2 - who is the best authority on "Positive Behavior Support"? Science is exact, but also slow, and sometimes contradicts earlier findings. And using science to raise a child's mind?--don't even get me started. Don't think this bill will simply create a perfect world in one week. If it works, it will be an arduous process, with a lot of disagreements among implementers about what techniques will work best. Parents and teachers will need patience. The bill is only a first step.
3 - also, the issue of religious instruction in public schools is going to hover around this bill (if the bill is even passed), and cause a number of ulcers
I am unfamiliar with the the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which this bill amends. That big bill, in its current form, will definitely have a lot of influence on how S.2111 would play out, and I definitely missed something that needs mentioning.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Rape, and the Spread of Evil
A short version of what happened: a 16-year-old girl, Crystal, posts a video on YouTube. She calls out for help to get her alleged rapist charged with the crime. Later, the case is dropped. According to police documents (look at Smokinggun.com), she had said to police that the sex was consensual, legally speaking. I wasn't there for that. I don't know, so there won't be too much comments on that here, though I will disagree with the FL prosecutor who walked away from the case because the accuser was "a mere 1 month from her 16th birthday." I may be too hard on the prosecutor, since she may have thought that the case was very difficult to push on a jury. In any case, let's look at the ideal here: If the law says statuatory rape occurs with children age 15 and younger, then we must prosecute people who have knowingly had sex with such children.
And beyond this, I have little to spit about the case itself. That's on the sidelines of this post. What happened, what's in Crystal's head. I wasn't there for that. I am not a cop, or a lawyer, nor the accused, nor the accusor's father.
What I do know are the comments left on the video, such as
- "you little slut. you probably had it coming."
- "You are such a little whore! ew!"
- "Someone take an iron poker and stick it in her pooper..."
Wow. That's amazing. As if she had shat on their doorsteps.
If you can give me evidence that proves she burned their houses down, then I can understand why they'd use so many insults.
- "I'd rape her"
- "come to london so i can knock you out and end you misery you silly bitch"
- "Well guys the thing is, there is no "what if it's real...And if you ever make any videos as stupid as this ever again. I'm going to come rape you myself. FOR REAL. DID YOU HEAR WHAT I SAID...FOR REAL"
Wow. Now, people step on logic. Obviously. How do people justify threatening another human being like this, for these reasons. Imagine if someone stepped on your foot by accident.Would you most likely to
A) Walk away?
or
B) Punch them?
I shouldn't have to give you the answer. Really. So logic doesn't explain why they wrote what they wrote. How can we explain their ill logic?
Because people work from emotion. Their emotion guides their actions (I'll tell you from personal experience). A person feels angry, they will tend to construct angry thoughts.
They feel happy, they tend to make happy thoughts. If you feel good, the world resembles heaven. If you feel bad, the world gets a little closer to hell, even if everyone else is having a good day. We each have a universe in our heads. You have a universe, I have a universe. When we interact with each other, we see little windows into those universes.
Then each time we see into those windows, there is the opportunity for our universes to change.
This, I believe, is because of our reaction to seeing how other people act. You see how other people seem to think, and then your thinking changes for a variety of reasons.
Now. Upon seeing the comments toward the YouTube clip, you get a little glimpse into the posters' universes. Only a little glimpse. Even if you knew this person for years, and ate dinner with them on a daily basis, you'd have to work hard to understand the world exactly how they view it. We don't know what these people were thinking when they type; we are ignorant of their earlier memories, what fills them, etc, etc.
What we know, what we sure as hell know: how their action affects us. Or, at least, can affect us. Upon seeing their comments, I am inclined to feel like maybe people are generally bad. That, even if people act civil in public, their private universes fume with venom. And when I think of this, take it to heart, my private little universe get tainted with a little more venom. Their venom encourages the growth of my venom.
Let's repeat: people work from emotion. Their emotion guides their actions (I can tell you from personal experience). A person feels angry, they will tend to construct angry thoughts. They feel happy, they tend to make happy thoughts.
If you feel good, the world resembles heaven. If you feel bad, the world gets a little closer to hell, even if everyone else is having a good day. We each have a universe in our heads. You have a universe, I have a universe. When we interact with each other, we see little windows into those universes. Then each time we see into those windows, there is the opportunity for our universes to change.
So, angry universes can lead into angry universes, which can lead into angry universes, which can in turn lead into other angry universes, and so forth. Angry universes lead into angry actions. Sad to sad, happy to happy, goofy to goofy, etc. And I know that I sometimes lean toward distrusting people, even when they smile to my face. Especially when they smile to my face. That seems like a signal that that person is planning something.
And I remember reading this book called "I Never Called It Rape" by Robin Warshaw. The report that acts as the foundation for the book says that about 25% have been raped, mostly by people they knew: boyfriends, and friends. RAINN--the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network--says that 1 out of 6 American women will be sexually assaulted (acts including rape and acts that fall short of rape), most of them were assaulted by people they know. The most restrained estimate belongs to the US Bureau of Justice that says less than one rape victim exists for every 1000 people over age 11. The reason for the discrepancy, apparently, is that rapes are underreported.
So, let's assume that the 1 in 6 stat is the truth. I want you to go to a public space, and count each woman you pass, starting at one, going to six, then start over back to one, go to 6, then again, making note each time you get to 6. So, that sixth woman, chances are, has been sexually assaulted. Look at all that venom getting built up. Look at all those universes getting a little moldly, a little bit more messed up. Those universes in turn influence other universes to get gunked up.
So it goes. Etc, etc, forever and forever. If we lament about the world fall apart, we make a mistake. The truth is that we only realize that the world can suck. Nothing is new except that realization. Nothing is new except our universe getting altered by the universes of others.
And the shape of the change is a choice. We choose how we change, and a lot of times it takes effort to mold ourselves if the environment fights against our actions. Yet that's possible. Every act, every piece of writing, every single thing we do is an expression of our control over our universe. Though the nature of that control remains vague and strangled, it exists.
Books, Systems of Government, Architecture, Transporation, and even YouTube. Leaving our footprints on the Earth.
If I believe in the human race, it is a forced belief. A choice, rather than a conviction--because without the belief, decay sets in. And mold sets in, and shivels the peach, and shrinks it into a hard little ball. And the nectarines grey, and the roaches take over the kitchen, and here, here, the devil reigns, where people are only meat. So, yes, yes, I believe in our Better Angels.
And beyond this, I have little to spit about the case itself. That's on the sidelines of this post. What happened, what's in Crystal's head. I wasn't there for that. I am not a cop, or a lawyer, nor the accused, nor the accusor's father.
What I do know are the comments left on the video, such as
- "you little slut. you probably had it coming."
- "You are such a little whore! ew!"
- "Someone take an iron poker and stick it in her pooper..."
Wow. That's amazing. As if she had shat on their doorsteps.
If you can give me evidence that proves she burned their houses down, then I can understand why they'd use so many insults.
- "I'd rape her"
- "come to london so i can knock you out and end you misery you silly bitch"
- "Well guys the thing is, there is no "what if it's real...And if you ever make any videos as stupid as this ever again. I'm going to come rape you myself. FOR REAL. DID YOU HEAR WHAT I SAID...FOR REAL"
Wow. Now, people step on logic. Obviously. How do people justify threatening another human being like this, for these reasons. Imagine if someone stepped on your foot by accident.Would you most likely to
A) Walk away?
or
B) Punch them?
I shouldn't have to give you the answer. Really. So logic doesn't explain why they wrote what they wrote. How can we explain their ill logic?
Because people work from emotion. Their emotion guides their actions (I'll tell you from personal experience). A person feels angry, they will tend to construct angry thoughts.
They feel happy, they tend to make happy thoughts. If you feel good, the world resembles heaven. If you feel bad, the world gets a little closer to hell, even if everyone else is having a good day. We each have a universe in our heads. You have a universe, I have a universe. When we interact with each other, we see little windows into those universes.
Then each time we see into those windows, there is the opportunity for our universes to change.
This, I believe, is because of our reaction to seeing how other people act. You see how other people seem to think, and then your thinking changes for a variety of reasons.
Now. Upon seeing the comments toward the YouTube clip, you get a little glimpse into the posters' universes. Only a little glimpse. Even if you knew this person for years, and ate dinner with them on a daily basis, you'd have to work hard to understand the world exactly how they view it. We don't know what these people were thinking when they type; we are ignorant of their earlier memories, what fills them, etc, etc.
What we know, what we sure as hell know: how their action affects us. Or, at least, can affect us. Upon seeing their comments, I am inclined to feel like maybe people are generally bad. That, even if people act civil in public, their private universes fume with venom. And when I think of this, take it to heart, my private little universe get tainted with a little more venom. Their venom encourages the growth of my venom.
Let's repeat: people work from emotion. Their emotion guides their actions (I can tell you from personal experience). A person feels angry, they will tend to construct angry thoughts. They feel happy, they tend to make happy thoughts.
If you feel good, the world resembles heaven. If you feel bad, the world gets a little closer to hell, even if everyone else is having a good day. We each have a universe in our heads. You have a universe, I have a universe. When we interact with each other, we see little windows into those universes. Then each time we see into those windows, there is the opportunity for our universes to change.
So, angry universes can lead into angry universes, which can lead into angry universes, which can in turn lead into other angry universes, and so forth. Angry universes lead into angry actions. Sad to sad, happy to happy, goofy to goofy, etc. And I know that I sometimes lean toward distrusting people, even when they smile to my face. Especially when they smile to my face. That seems like a signal that that person is planning something.
And I remember reading this book called "I Never Called It Rape" by Robin Warshaw. The report that acts as the foundation for the book says that about 25% have been raped, mostly by people they knew: boyfriends, and friends. RAINN--the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network--says that 1 out of 6 American women will be sexually assaulted (acts including rape and acts that fall short of rape), most of them were assaulted by people they know. The most restrained estimate belongs to the US Bureau of Justice that says less than one rape victim exists for every 1000 people over age 11. The reason for the discrepancy, apparently, is that rapes are underreported.
So, let's assume that the 1 in 6 stat is the truth. I want you to go to a public space, and count each woman you pass, starting at one, going to six, then start over back to one, go to 6, then again, making note each time you get to 6. So, that sixth woman, chances are, has been sexually assaulted. Look at all that venom getting built up. Look at all those universes getting a little moldly, a little bit more messed up. Those universes in turn influence other universes to get gunked up.
So it goes. Etc, etc, forever and forever. If we lament about the world fall apart, we make a mistake. The truth is that we only realize that the world can suck. Nothing is new except that realization. Nothing is new except our universe getting altered by the universes of others.
And the shape of the change is a choice. We choose how we change, and a lot of times it takes effort to mold ourselves if the environment fights against our actions. Yet that's possible. Every act, every piece of writing, every single thing we do is an expression of our control over our universe. Though the nature of that control remains vague and strangled, it exists.
Books, Systems of Government, Architecture, Transporation, and even YouTube. Leaving our footprints on the Earth.
If I believe in the human race, it is a forced belief. A choice, rather than a conviction--because without the belief, decay sets in. And mold sets in, and shivels the peach, and shrinks it into a hard little ball. And the nectarines grey, and the roaches take over the kitchen, and here, here, the devil reigns, where people are only meat. So, yes, yes, I believe in our Better Angels.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Corrupt Law Enforcement
The fact that an individual is a cop or guard means nothing in regard to their personality as human beings. The promise to serve and protect and whatever are only peripheral. What matters is who the law enforcement person is as a person.
Juvenile offenders at New York State The Louis Gossett Jr. Residential Center get hurt. A lot. According to a January, 2006 article for the Ithica Journal, some guards at the facility use unwarranted force on an inmate.
For instance, when a guard is escorting an inmate down the hall, the guard might create a situation where force can be considered legal. The guard slows, so the distance increased between the kid and him. At a distance greater than arms length, he has the legal right to restrain the kid because such a distance can make it seem like the kid/inmate is attempting to escape, and allows the guard to use force. The law allows it, so he can do it, and get away with it though the act is morally wrong and was unprovoked as far as the law is concerned.
Now this doesn't make all law enforcement bad. In fact, some of the people making the aligations were guards themself.
And a cop killing his girlfriend over a broken relationship fails to make all cops abusers. And a group of cops beating the snot out of a guy, even though the guy is incapacited, fails to prove that all cops would do such a thing.
When a cop or group of cops commit an immoral (or moral) act, it just means that those people have committed those acts. The acts of Cop A, considered alone, fail to shine light on the acts of Cop B.
People say they dislike cops because cops "are corrupt" or something like that. What they really mean is: "We hate cops because cops can commit immoral acts and get away unpunished with the immoral act by calling the act of means of doing their job."
When a person works for a law enforcement or military agency, they promise to follow the legislation of the agency. Though they may fail to internalize the promise. Once a situation arrives that highlights this failure, the cop does something that may be considered immoral, especially if he can hide his offending act. Furthermore, depending on his understanding of the regulations that govern him in regard to his behavior, he might work within the context of these regulations to commit immoral acts, have his act discovered by those with direct power over him, and go unpunished because his act was unrecognized as being illegal or otherwise wrong. He breaks the law without breaking the law.
Law enforcement live up to the idea designated by legislature, but have the potential to warp that idea to suit their ends.
Juvenile offenders at New York State The Louis Gossett Jr. Residential Center get hurt. A lot. According to a January, 2006 article for the Ithica Journal, some guards at the facility use unwarranted force on an inmate.
For instance, when a guard is escorting an inmate down the hall, the guard might create a situation where force can be considered legal. The guard slows, so the distance increased between the kid and him. At a distance greater than arms length, he has the legal right to restrain the kid because such a distance can make it seem like the kid/inmate is attempting to escape, and allows the guard to use force. The law allows it, so he can do it, and get away with it though the act is morally wrong and was unprovoked as far as the law is concerned.
Now this doesn't make all law enforcement bad. In fact, some of the people making the aligations were guards themself.
And a cop killing his girlfriend over a broken relationship fails to make all cops abusers. And a group of cops beating the snot out of a guy, even though the guy is incapacited, fails to prove that all cops would do such a thing.
When a cop or group of cops commit an immoral (or moral) act, it just means that those people have committed those acts. The acts of Cop A, considered alone, fail to shine light on the acts of Cop B.
People say they dislike cops because cops "are corrupt" or something like that. What they really mean is: "We hate cops because cops can commit immoral acts and get away unpunished with the immoral act by calling the act of means of doing their job."
When a person works for a law enforcement or military agency, they promise to follow the legislation of the agency. Though they may fail to internalize the promise. Once a situation arrives that highlights this failure, the cop does something that may be considered immoral, especially if he can hide his offending act. Furthermore, depending on his understanding of the regulations that govern him in regard to his behavior, he might work within the context of these regulations to commit immoral acts, have his act discovered by those with direct power over him, and go unpunished because his act was unrecognized as being illegal or otherwise wrong. He breaks the law without breaking the law.
Law enforcement live up to the idea designated by legislature, but have the potential to warp that idea to suit their ends.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Guns.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080108/ap_on_re_us/virginia_gun_laws
Virginia Governor Kaine proposed background checks for people who purchase firearms from unlicensed dealers. They need to do this in every state. Having a right to own a gun is a everyone's right, unless they've disqualified themselves.
If people need background checks at a licensed shop, they need background checks when dealing with private dealers. No way would this law "infringes on Second Amendment right" if the background checks put the patrons of unlicensed dealers at the same inconvenience that patrons of licensed dealers go through.
Stop bullshit arguments.
Virginia Governor Kaine proposed background checks for people who purchase firearms from unlicensed dealers. They need to do this in every state. Having a right to own a gun is a everyone's right, unless they've disqualified themselves.
If people need background checks at a licensed shop, they need background checks when dealing with private dealers. No way would this law "infringes on Second Amendment right" if the background checks put the patrons of unlicensed dealers at the same inconvenience that patrons of licensed dealers go through.
Stop bullshit arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)