As November approaches, politics becomes unavoidable. Politicians want to help everyone: children, the elderly, and the poor. What's the one thing that everyone wants? It's not money or power. Everyone wants to feel safe. Safe from crime, safe from terrorism. Safe from anything that might hurt them. I want to be safe. I do not want to be the victim of crime or terrorism. So our elected officials answer the call. They propose "tough on crime" legislation and "homeland security" legislation. Our governor even ranted and railed against our state legislature a few months back for being too slow to pass some of his tough on crime legislation. I understand. I do not like crime. However, I'm not willing to give up the rights that we, as citizens of this country and state, have in exchange for being safe. We have the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. We have the right to confront and cross examine our accusers, and we have the right to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I value and cherish these rights, and I am not willing to give them up even if it means giving up a little security.
How is it we have these rights? Our forefathers believed that everyone had these rights. "All men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These rights are inherent in us, as human beings. Neither criminals nor terrorists are excluded.
Our governor's big "tough-on-crime" agenda focuses on DWI and sex crimes. Therefore, it is now common practice for police to pull you over in your car and conduct a DWI investigation when the only evidence they have is an anonymous tip that a "vehicle matching the description" is being driven by a drunk driver. The tipster does not need to testify in court, or have any basis for his belief that the driver is actually intoxicated. The police officer, however, may testify about the tip. What happened to the right to confront your accusers? What happened to the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
An 18 year old kid was suspended from school last week because he is charged with a sex crime. He has not even had his first court appearance yet. So now there are noises about passing a law requiring schools to be informed when a student is charged with a sex crime. Not convicted. Charged. What happened to the right to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
This is not limited to the state level. Our President just signed off on a bill establishing military tribunals to try those detained in Guantanamo and elsewhere. Here's the law:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3930:
It provides for secret hearings on the guilt or innocence of detainees. It provides that such hearings are not bound by the Constitutional requirement of a speedy trial. (Nor any other Constitutional provision, apparently.) It permits the conviction of detainees based classified information, which they cannot see. It permits the use of evidence (including statements) against the person acquired through coercion. It allows for the use of hearsay. If found guilty, the person can be sentenced to any number of punishments, up to and including death.
For a country and a government that pride themselves on taking the "moral high ground," this is appalling. We are a country that prides itself on its fair and just court system. We would rather let ten guilty men go free, than condemn one innocent man. We accord criminal defendants more rights than any other nation in the world. Where are our Values now? Our belief in the inherent rights of all?
We are currently engaged in two wars in the name of Freedom and Democracy. Perhaps we could start here at home.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
My feeling has always been that the US needs to clean up at home before they can adequately help anyone else. I've always found it rather amusing that the US thinks it's helping people when the system they're trying to set up isn't working at home.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that all mankind is motivated by the quest for safety. I'm always tempted to argue with the sociologists, etc., who think they know what the sole motivating factor is behind all human action, just because I think they're wrong. I don't think all action can be condensed to one motivating factor, and I rebel against the lumping of people into one mold, be they politician, prisoner, or student. Most of the points you raise are perfectly valid, but I won't give you this one.
Your point is well taken. I did not mean that the primary motivation for all people everywhere, or even all politicians, is safety. As you can see from the post, my primary motivation is not safety. There are things I prize much more than safety. I only meant that politicians seem to think that if they pass laws that make the people feel safe, the people will vote for them. I know most people would rather feel safe than unsafe. But where safety fits into their hierarchy of motivations, I do not know. Safety is not the top of my list. The only reason I can think of for the passage of such laws is that those who pass them believe both that they are making people safe and that people will believe they are being made safe.
And if you remember the "heirarchy of needs" (was it Mazlow?) from Psych 101, safety was on one of the bottom levels. Supposedly, if the bottom levels of your heirarchy aren't taken care of, you couldn't care less about higher level needs. I don't know that I agree, but it's a commonly held theory.
Post a Comment