I think the timing is perfect, particularly for the members of the House of Representatives who yesterday, in their infinite wisdom, voted against the plan to bail out our troubled financial institutions. Those individuals have, in my opinion, shown their ignorance and their contempt for the people they represent and thus have very clearly demonstrated their inability to serve effectively in the Congress just in time for their bids for reelection in the upcoming November elections.
The very sad part of it all is that those individuals who voted against the bailout are absolutely right in that the proposed legislation is, in a lot of different ways, a bad piece of legislation. Just for a start, it's socialistic and therefore legislation that, in a perfect world, should not ever be necessary or considered in our democracy. However, there is right, and then again, there is right. By being right in this particular instance, these Congresspeople have defeated a measure that would ultimately help the financial well being of their constituents, many of whom are currently having severe financial problems because of the financial crisis.
The true "right" in all of this should have been to pass the legislation and allow the financial institutions to recover with constraints on their future activities that would prevent future failures. Although it is highly distasteful in our society to bailout companies that have failed due to their own malfeasance, when it affects the financial well being of so many Americans, it is simply necessary that our government step in and make things right again. Isn't it implicit that our government protect us from all things harmful? Didn't FDR and the Congress enact what otherwise would be distasteful and socialistic legislation to bail us out from great depression that followed the stock market crash of 1929?
I believe those individuals who voted against the bailout plan yesterday are individuals who, by their own shortsightedness, don't deserve to be reelected to Congress and I would urge all of you to vote for their opponent, or simply not vote for them at all, in the November elections. I personally believe the bailout legislation to be very distasteful but nevertheless, I believe it to be necessary to get America, and a good part of the rest of the world, back on its feet. A Congressman who stands on his or her principles and insists on being what he thinks is right, regardless of the consequences, I don't believe deserves to be a Congressman.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Issues, No. 42 - Terms of Office for Judges
Our federal district court and circuit court judges as well as our federal Supreme Court justices are appointed for life by the President. I am not sure about the terms of all of the state and local judges, but I believe the majority of them are either elected or appointed for specified terms. Whatever they are, I don't like the idea of life appointments.
I talked previously about the fact that I am not in favor of political appointments of judges but neither am I in favor of judges, particularly politically appointed judges, being appointed for life. I think, just as I believe with our Congressmen and Senators, that it is important to limit judges to a defined term. I think if they are in office too long they forget why they are there and what they are there for and, just as seems to happen with our people in Congress, they get caught up in partisan politics, power games, and ego trips and loose sight of the ideals of justice in America.
As I said in "The Issues, No. 41", I believe judges should be elected on their merits. In the case of our federal judges and our Supreme Court Justices and any other federal, state, or local judges who may be currently appointed for life, I believe they also should be elected on their merits and I believe they should serve terms of no longer than six years. I also believe they should be limited to one term only and not be allowed to succeed themselves in office. I don't believe being a judge, anymore than I believe being a Congressman or a Senator, should be a career. Those jobs should be a person's temporary voluntary opportunity and commitment to improve life in the United States and not a personal career choice. We need to constantly have new judges who have recently come to the bench from real life experiences and have not been tainted by politics or life too long away from mainstream America.
I talked previously about the fact that I am not in favor of political appointments of judges but neither am I in favor of judges, particularly politically appointed judges, being appointed for life. I think, just as I believe with our Congressmen and Senators, that it is important to limit judges to a defined term. I think if they are in office too long they forget why they are there and what they are there for and, just as seems to happen with our people in Congress, they get caught up in partisan politics, power games, and ego trips and loose sight of the ideals of justice in America.
As I said in "The Issues, No. 41", I believe judges should be elected on their merits. In the case of our federal judges and our Supreme Court Justices and any other federal, state, or local judges who may be currently appointed for life, I believe they also should be elected on their merits and I believe they should serve terms of no longer than six years. I also believe they should be limited to one term only and not be allowed to succeed themselves in office. I don't believe being a judge, anymore than I believe being a Congressman or a Senator, should be a career. Those jobs should be a person's temporary voluntary opportunity and commitment to improve life in the United States and not a personal career choice. We need to constantly have new judges who have recently come to the bench from real life experiences and have not been tainted by politics or life too long away from mainstream America.
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Issues, No. 41 - Selection of Judges
Currently there are three basic methods of selecting judges in the United States; selection, election, and merit selection. In the selection method, usually a state Governor or, in the case of Federal Judges, the President, selects the judges and then have to have some approval by the state or federal legislature. In the election method, judges are nominated by a political party and run as a candidate of that party. The problem I have with these two methods are that they are both political. In the selection method the Governor or the President select judges who are from the political parties they represent. In the election method, the aspiring judges have to run and campaign for election as members of a political party and they have to raise money, make speeches, and make political campaign promises just as other politicians seeking election have to do. Both the selection and election methods are political and therefore compromise judge's independence and impartiality because he or she is not necessarily free of economic and political pressure.
The merit selection method, according to the American Judicature Society, "is a way of choosing judges that uses a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers to locate, recruit, investigate, and evaluate applicants for judgeships. The commission then submits the names of the most highly qualified applicants (usually three) to the appointing authority (usually the governor), who must make a final selection from the list. For subsequent terms of office, judges are evaluated for retention either by a commission or by the voters in an uncontested election". About two thirds of the states select, at least some of their judges using the merit selection method. Although I believe this to be the better of the three selection methods it still has an element of politics in that the appointing authority, who is a politician in most cases, will select the candidate that most closely represents his and his political party's philosophy.
I personally think the best way to select judges is to combine the merit selection and election methods. Why not use "a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers to locate, recruit, investigate, and evaluate applicants for judgeships" and then place the names "of the most highly qualified applicants (usually three)" on the ballot so that the voters can elect them. The judges resumes can be provided by the media, the commission, or the League of Women Voters to the voting public well before election day and/or a commission representative can hand out the resumes on election day at each polling facility. This method takes politics entirely out of the selection process and the resulting judges will not owe allegiance to anyone or any group.
The merit selection method, according to the American Judicature Society, "is a way of choosing judges that uses a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers to locate, recruit, investigate, and evaluate applicants for judgeships. The commission then submits the names of the most highly qualified applicants (usually three) to the appointing authority (usually the governor), who must make a final selection from the list. For subsequent terms of office, judges are evaluated for retention either by a commission or by the voters in an uncontested election". About two thirds of the states select, at least some of their judges using the merit selection method. Although I believe this to be the better of the three selection methods it still has an element of politics in that the appointing authority, who is a politician in most cases, will select the candidate that most closely represents his and his political party's philosophy.
I personally think the best way to select judges is to combine the merit selection and election methods. Why not use "a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers to locate, recruit, investigate, and evaluate applicants for judgeships" and then place the names "of the most highly qualified applicants (usually three)" on the ballot so that the voters can elect them. The judges resumes can be provided by the media, the commission, or the League of Women Voters to the voting public well before election day and/or a commission representative can hand out the resumes on election day at each polling facility. This method takes politics entirely out of the selection process and the resulting judges will not owe allegiance to anyone or any group.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Issues, No. 40 - Judicial Sentences and Plea Bargaining
I think that the sentences that I read about in the newspaper oftentimes seem to make little sense. It seems to me that a person convicted of murder can sometimes get less of a sentence than a convicted burglar or a convicted rapist can get less of a sentence than a person convicted of possession of drugs. It all leads me to believe that the goal of the courts is not to administer justice but to clear the docket for the judges and reduce the population in our prisons.
From my limited experience visiting a courtroom, all of which has been in either traffic court or small claims court, there is a whole lot of deal making going on. I read also that there is a lot of deal making going on in the more serious cases as well. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
I don't like the idea of plea bargaining. If someone is suspected of committing a crime, they should, if found guilty in a court of law, be subject to the most severe penalty possible. In my mind the determination of their sentence should not involve a deal they have made to lessen the sentence. I don't think, for instance, a deal that is made to lessen a sentence if the accused agrees to provide additional evidence, lessens the severity of the crime the individual committed.
As I said in an earlier posting, the United States needs to get serious about dealing with convicted criminals. If judges dockets are overbooked we should hire more judges and maybe have trials around the clock in our courtrooms. If prisons are overcrowded, for the time being, we should build more prisons or expand the ones we have. Maybe we could take the gyms, the libraries, and the recreation lounges and convert them into cells. But the main thing we need to do is discourage crime by making sentences severe enough and making our prisons places that no one wants to go to by making them truly penal institutions where prisoners are punished and not pampered. If we get serious, maybe there will be less crime thus freeing up dockets and reducing the prison population. And, I don't believe plea bargaining will do anything to help in these endeavors.
From my limited experience visiting a courtroom, all of which has been in either traffic court or small claims court, there is a whole lot of deal making going on. I read also that there is a lot of deal making going on in the more serious cases as well. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
I don't like the idea of plea bargaining. If someone is suspected of committing a crime, they should, if found guilty in a court of law, be subject to the most severe penalty possible. In my mind the determination of their sentence should not involve a deal they have made to lessen the sentence. I don't think, for instance, a deal that is made to lessen a sentence if the accused agrees to provide additional evidence, lessens the severity of the crime the individual committed.
As I said in an earlier posting, the United States needs to get serious about dealing with convicted criminals. If judges dockets are overbooked we should hire more judges and maybe have trials around the clock in our courtrooms. If prisons are overcrowded, for the time being, we should build more prisons or expand the ones we have. Maybe we could take the gyms, the libraries, and the recreation lounges and convert them into cells. But the main thing we need to do is discourage crime by making sentences severe enough and making our prisons places that no one wants to go to by making them truly penal institutions where prisoners are punished and not pampered. If we get serious, maybe there will be less crime thus freeing up dockets and reducing the prison population. And, I don't believe plea bargaining will do anything to help in these endeavors.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Issues - No. 39 - Frivolous Lawsuits
I upsets me that a woman can buy a take out cup of coffee at McDonald's, get in the passenger seat of a car driven by a relative, spill it on her lap and burn her legs while the car is pulled over and she's trying to add sugar, sue McDonald's because the coffee was too hot, and get over a $1,000,000 settlement in a court of law. Give me a break! Doesn't she have responsibility for her actions and the resulting injury she caused to herself? Because of her, McDonald's lowered the temperature of its coffee everywhere there's a McDonald's in the entire world just so someone else couldn't sue them because the coffee was too hot. And that, together with the $1,000,000 plus they had to pay to that poor woman, probably contributed to a rise in McDonald's prices. So, because of this totally frivolous lawsuit, now you can only get a cup of warm coffee at McDonald's and it costs you more than a hot one did previously. Ridiculous! How about the magistrate judge in Washington, DC who tried and continues try to sue a dry cleaning establishment for millions of dollars over a lost pair of pants. At least so far that one hasn't gotten very far.
I think there is something wrong with our system of justice when people are allowed to sue for something that they caused themselves. I think judges, in these situations should have the leeway to throw that kind of stuff out and, in cases where a jury is involved, judges should be allowed to throw out or temper what a jury decides. It seems that what often happens in these kind of cases is that a person, who was injured due to his/her own mistake, will sue a company whose product is involved. Their lawyer will convince them to have a jury trial and then appeal to the jury that the company is far better able to pay for the medical, emotional, and economic costs (such as loss of income) than the injured person. Juries have a tendency to side with the poor individual over the big rich company and thus award atrocious amounts of money to the poor injured person. So, the jury awards $1,000,000 and who do you suppose gets a great big chunk of that money? If you guessed the lawyers, you're absolutely right.
And that's another problem. Lawyers make huge amounts of money from these lawsuits and so it's in their best interest to take these kind of cases on. They get some poor injured idiot to file a suit against a big rich company, get some ignorant jury that will side with the poor injured idiot against the big rich company, and get rich from it all. It's just not right and judges ought to be allowed or required to throw these cases out or limit the awards made by juries. I would like to see something done to change the law or the legal procedures to prevent anyone from suing in cases where they caused the damage to themselves or their property. In our society people need to take responsibility for their own actions, not rewarded when they do something stupid.
I think there is something wrong with our system of justice when people are allowed to sue for something that they caused themselves. I think judges, in these situations should have the leeway to throw that kind of stuff out and, in cases where a jury is involved, judges should be allowed to throw out or temper what a jury decides. It seems that what often happens in these kind of cases is that a person, who was injured due to his/her own mistake, will sue a company whose product is involved. Their lawyer will convince them to have a jury trial and then appeal to the jury that the company is far better able to pay for the medical, emotional, and economic costs (such as loss of income) than the injured person. Juries have a tendency to side with the poor individual over the big rich company and thus award atrocious amounts of money to the poor injured person. So, the jury awards $1,000,000 and who do you suppose gets a great big chunk of that money? If you guessed the lawyers, you're absolutely right.
And that's another problem. Lawyers make huge amounts of money from these lawsuits and so it's in their best interest to take these kind of cases on. They get some poor injured idiot to file a suit against a big rich company, get some ignorant jury that will side with the poor injured idiot against the big rich company, and get rich from it all. It's just not right and judges ought to be allowed or required to throw these cases out or limit the awards made by juries. I would like to see something done to change the law or the legal procedures to prevent anyone from suing in cases where they caused the damage to themselves or their property. In our society people need to take responsibility for their own actions, not rewarded when they do something stupid.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Issues, No. 38 - Prison
I think our country's prison/penitentiary/penal system has strayed a long way from what it should be. There no longer seems to be much penal in it and about all it seems to do is to temprorarily remove criminals from the rest of society.
For many criminals, prison life is the best life they have ever had. They get three meals a day, they are warm in the winter and cool in the summer, they have a bed to sleep on, they have free medical care, they can play ball and work out, they can go to the library and study or take classes, they can watch TV and play pool, and they can do any number of other things they couldn't do before prison.
It seems to me that convicted criminals, particularly convicted felons, by the nature of the crimes they have committed, have lost their rights and should be punished first and foremost and then, if possible, rehabilitated too. I don't think prison should be a nice place for them and I think prison should be so bad that prisoners will not want to return when their sentences are completed or they are paroled.
Prisoners should have to get up early and go to work all day doing something difficult and unpleasant; something that might even benefit the rest of society like operating a recycling facility, a landfill, or a dairy farm. I'm sure the powers that be could come up with lots of things they could do. I don't think prisoners should have TVs, basketball courts, pool tables or libraries, and I don't think they should have much time to interact with one another. Life in prison should be hard and unpleasant; it should be punishment. And prison rules should be strictly enforced and violators dealt with swiftly and severely.
Rehabilitation should be some part of prison life also and should be mandatory. Classes could be offered at night to teach basic reading, writing, and math skills and classes could be offered in auto mechanics, carpentry, plumbing, electrical work, and any other trade. Mentally and emotionally unstable prisoners could attend individual or group therapy sessions. When the rehabilitation period is over, prisoners need to go back to their cells for lights out and bed with no TVs, cell phones, radios, or stereos. Prisoners don't need to be given any free time.
If you believe as I do that we need to reform our prison system and bring punishment back to prisons, you need to let your representatives know. Our prison system today is a joke and a mockery of justice as well as a complete waste of tax dollars. I believe the system can be changed to make prisons work for us rather than just a temporary dumping ground for our criminal element.
For many criminals, prison life is the best life they have ever had. They get three meals a day, they are warm in the winter and cool in the summer, they have a bed to sleep on, they have free medical care, they can play ball and work out, they can go to the library and study or take classes, they can watch TV and play pool, and they can do any number of other things they couldn't do before prison.
It seems to me that convicted criminals, particularly convicted felons, by the nature of the crimes they have committed, have lost their rights and should be punished first and foremost and then, if possible, rehabilitated too. I don't think prison should be a nice place for them and I think prison should be so bad that prisoners will not want to return when their sentences are completed or they are paroled.
Prisoners should have to get up early and go to work all day doing something difficult and unpleasant; something that might even benefit the rest of society like operating a recycling facility, a landfill, or a dairy farm. I'm sure the powers that be could come up with lots of things they could do. I don't think prisoners should have TVs, basketball courts, pool tables or libraries, and I don't think they should have much time to interact with one another. Life in prison should be hard and unpleasant; it should be punishment. And prison rules should be strictly enforced and violators dealt with swiftly and severely.
Rehabilitation should be some part of prison life also and should be mandatory. Classes could be offered at night to teach basic reading, writing, and math skills and classes could be offered in auto mechanics, carpentry, plumbing, electrical work, and any other trade. Mentally and emotionally unstable prisoners could attend individual or group therapy sessions. When the rehabilitation period is over, prisoners need to go back to their cells for lights out and bed with no TVs, cell phones, radios, or stereos. Prisoners don't need to be given any free time.
If you believe as I do that we need to reform our prison system and bring punishment back to prisons, you need to let your representatives know. Our prison system today is a joke and a mockery of justice as well as a complete waste of tax dollars. I believe the system can be changed to make prisons work for us rather than just a temporary dumping ground for our criminal element.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Issues, No. 37 - Execution
Today I'm going to make a foray into the world of our criminal justice system and I want to begin with the death penalty and specifically execution of criminals sentenced to death. There has been a whole lot of controversy in the last few years about executions, particularly lethal injections, and how they might be painful for the person being executed and therefore inhumane. My response to that is who cares how painful it is and why not make it as painful as possible?
For some nut case criminal who has murdered, raped, tortured, or otherwise maimed someone else and been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a jury of his/her peers, I am very happy if they have to suffer a little pain when they are being executed. What I really don't like is the fact that they have lived in a prison, probably for a few years after their conviction, and been given three square meals a day; free medical care; been able to play basketball and work out in a fully equipped gym; been able to watch TV, play pool, and have visits from their friends and relatives; and get a law degree and maybe even write a book while their lawyers are trying to get their sentence reduced.
So when the time for execution comes, I hope it hurts. I hope that animal feels something similar to what their victim(s) felt. And I hope there is a little extra pain there for the victim's family and maybe even some for the American taxpayers who have been supporting this jerk in prison. I really don't care about humane for these people and I don't understand anyone who does.
For some nut case criminal who has murdered, raped, tortured, or otherwise maimed someone else and been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a jury of his/her peers, I am very happy if they have to suffer a little pain when they are being executed. What I really don't like is the fact that they have lived in a prison, probably for a few years after their conviction, and been given three square meals a day; free medical care; been able to play basketball and work out in a fully equipped gym; been able to watch TV, play pool, and have visits from their friends and relatives; and get a law degree and maybe even write a book while their lawyers are trying to get their sentence reduced.
So when the time for execution comes, I hope it hurts. I hope that animal feels something similar to what their victim(s) felt. And I hope there is a little extra pain there for the victim's family and maybe even some for the American taxpayers who have been supporting this jerk in prison. I really don't care about humane for these people and I don't understand anyone who does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)