CommenTerry

Are Most Police Chases Really Necessary?

I believe at least 80% of all police chases are unnecessary. In those cases, the chases present a bigger danger to the citizenry than the people the police are chasing. Police departments around the country should institute a rule that prohibits chases unless the person they intend to pursue is an imminent danger to the public and the risk of possibly allowing him/her to escape exceeds the risk of the chase.

It's Either Age or Maturity

I am one of those who disagrees with the Supreme Court decision that bans the death penalty for minors. However, I must acknowledge that many of the folks on my side of this issue are being very hypocritical. While they claim that one need not be at least 18 years old to be eligible for the death penalty, many will claim that 15 or 16 is too young. But that shoots a hole in their basic argument, i.e., that a 17-year-old could be just as mature and sophisticated as an 18-year-old. Okay, but someone else could reasonably argue that a 16-year-old could be just as mature and sophisticated as a 17-year-old, a 15-year-old could be just as mature and sophisticated as a 16-year-old, and so on. To my way of thinking, the issue is either age or maturity. Pick one. You can't have it both ways.

Is It Possible to Get Away with Perjury?

There is at least one thing a person could lie about under oath in court, without having to worry about being prosecuted for perjury. They could swear that they had a constant pain in a given part of their body, even though they didn't. While medical tests could conclude that there are no physical reasons for the pain, no one could possibly prove that the pain does not exist. Only that person and God would know for sure. But what about a lie detector test? No one could legally be compelled to take one. Besides, if someone took one and failed it, that information would not be admissible in a court of law. Now, this is purely an observation of a fact. Obviously, I don't condone any kind of lying, much less perjury.

When Are We Going to Take Humiliation Seriously?

We have long considered torture to be off limits due the the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. But if we're going to regard torture as unacceptable, then why not humiliation as well? In my mind, it's almost as bad. That's why I believe the behavior of our military personnel at Abu Ghraib was so atrocious.

Speaking of humiliation, all strip searches and body cavity searches should be banned except for severe cases in which some is known to be extremely dangerous and/or likely carrying some kind of contraband on his/her person. Someone having been caught with hidden contraband in the past would also be subject to these kinds of searches.

When Torture Should Be Okay

There has been much debate recently over whether the U.S. should be engaging in the torture of enemy combatants and suspected terrorists. I come down on the side with Sen. John McCain, who maintains that the U.S. should not do this, as it would endanger U.S citizens around the world.

But what about torture for those convicted of certain crimes? Many people feel that torturing people as punishment for a crime would violate the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. However, doesn't something have to both cruel and unusual to meet this criterion? Yes, torture is cruel and it always will be, but if we used it often enough, it wouldn't be all that unusual.

I believe the following crimes merit certain amounts of torture:

1) Murder.

2) Actual rape (statutory rape and other types of imaginary and contrived forms of rape wouldn't qualify).

3) Theft of physical property or currency, including the crimes of armed robbery, grand or petty larceny, looting, burglary, identity theft, collection of donations under false pretenses, receiving government aid under false pretenses, and embezzlement.

4) Kidnapping.

5) Scamming, fraud, and bunko.

6) Counterfeiting currency.

7) Assault and battery for any other reason than to protect oneself or others from imminent physical harm, or to prevent imminent property theft.

8) Falsely accusing anyone of any of the above.

The Proper Treatment for False Accusers

I've always believed that those who knowingly make false criminal accusations against someone else should get the penalty that the person whom they accused would have gotten, if convicted.

For example, in my local area, a county supervisor (who has been a model citizen with no criminal record) is being accused of sexual battery and object penetration by his 16-year-old stepdaughter, who does not live with him and his wife. If convicted, this man could receive 20 years to life in prison and be forced to register as a sex offender. Interestingly enough, his wife , the girl's mother, sides with him against her daughter. That tells me that there could be something fishy about these charges. However, I will reserve judgment for now and wait to see how the case plays out in court.

Anyway, getting back to my original point, if that girl's charges are proved to be intentionally false, she should get 20 years to life in prison and have to register as a sex offender. To me, that would be the only fair and just punishment for her.

Why Not Solve Two Problems at Once?

I have an idea that would help remedy both the military personnel shortage and prison overcrowding at the same time. Give some criminals the option of enlisting in the military in lieu of all or a portion of their prison time. Hardened criminals and drug addicts would be excluded. This option would be generally limited to young, first time offenders whose sentences would normally range from one to five years. Military service would be an excellent way to get many young offenders back on the right track and away from the revolving doors of prison life.

Age Discrimination is Alive and Well

Teen actress Jamie Lynn Spears, younger sister of pop diva Britney Spears, recently announced that she is pregnant. Jamie Lynn is 16 years old while her boyfriend, Casey Aldridge, who is responsible for her pregnancy, is 18. So far, there has been no talk of prosecuting him for any crime. Assuming he is never prosecuted, this is a complete outrage and a clear case of legalized age discrimination. Why? Because if a 38-year-old man, for example, had gotten her pregnant, law enforcement officials would be nailing him to the wall right now, likely charging him with statutory rape and forcing him to register as a sex offender.

This inequity of justice is actually coded into the law in most states. For example, in California, where spears now spends most of her time, it is considered a misdemeanor for someone who is one or two years older to have consensual sex with someone under 18. However, for someone as much as three years older, it is considered a felony. What kind of sense does that make? While the laws vary by state, most states follow California’s example and punish older offenders more severely than younger ones. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV, but this seems me to be a brazen violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Any older person who has ever been prosecuted for consensual sex with a teen in California should use the Spears case to file an age discrimination suit against the state. Hopefully, at least one of those cases would make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in all such age discrimination laws invalidated nationwide.

We can see how stupid and unjust these laws are when we hypothetically apply them to other crimes. Let’s say a state had a law that said armed robbery is a felony for most people, but just a misdemeanor for those under 25. Or, worse yet, a law that said murder is not a criminal act for anyone under 25. How much sense would those laws make? Absolutely none, and neither do laws that prosecute older people who sleep with teens more severely than those closer to their age who commit the same acts. Now, am I in favor of older people having sex with teens? Of course not. However, if consensual sex with minors is going be illegal, it should be illegal for everyone and the punishment should be equitable, no matter what the age of the offender.

So You Want to Use Your Cell Phone While Driving?

If you want to talk on your cell phone while driving your car, that’s fine with me – as long as you can do it without causing an accident. I don’t believe in having the government make paternalistic laws designed to prevent you from doing so. However, if you do have an accident while talking on your cell phone – and it is found to be your fault – you should have to pay dearly.

When you are at fault in an accident that occurs while you are talking on your cell phone, it should be automatically presumed that this extracurricular activity caused the accident. As result, you should be forced to pay triple the normal fine for that particular kind of accident and your insurance company should be forced to pay triple the amount of any damage you cause to someone else and/or their property. In addition, your insurance company should have the option of refusing to pay for any of your own medical bills you incur in the accident and/or any damage it caused to your own property.

So, if you want to talk on your cell phone while driving, you better know what you are doing and you better be darn careful!

A Tale of Two Cases

Two recent criminal cases in my part of the country have, once again, made me question the fairness of our criminal justice system. The cases involved two local women who had no previous criminal record.

In the first case, a highly touted babysitter was hired to care for a two-year-old boy. One afternoon, the child was being particularly noisy and bothersome. His caretaker reacted by retrieving a heavy crate-like object and placing it over his crib to keep him from standing up. However, the energetic youngster soon discovered a way to escape. Unfortunately, as he was in process of doing so, his neck became trapped between the heavy object and the crib. As a result, he was asphyxiated before the sitter took note of what was going on. She was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and will be sentenced later this year. The judge has warned her to come prepared to go to jail.   

In the second case, a payroll clerk for a local school system embezzled $38,000 from the county over a 2 ½ year period. She had been diverting the money into her own bank account and spending it on her family members. She was ultimately caught and fired from her job. She was indicted by a grand jury on 46 felony counts, but made a deal with prosecutors by pleading guilty to nine of them. Still, though, she could have been sentenced to over 100 years in prison. The judge sentenced her to 90 years in prison, but suspended all of it on the condition that she serve six months in the county jail. More than like likely, she will be able to serve her entire sentence on weekends.

Now, let’s compare the two cases. The babysitter was guilty of a momentary error in judgment that was never intended to produce the results that it did. On the other hand, the payroll clerk committed her crimes over the course of 2 ½ years. Her goal was to steal, and that’s exactly what she did. She knew she was committing a felony and thereby risking a long prison sentence, but the money was more important to her. She didn’t stop until she was caught. She would likely still be doing it, had she not been caught. Any of us, like that babysitter, could make a bad, spur-of-the-mount decision when feeling pressed or frustrated. Very few of us would do what that payroll clerk did, i.e., plan out a long-term crime.   

If the babysitter is sentenced to more than six months in jail and/or is not allowed to serve her sentence on weekends, it will be a gross miscarriage of justice and a crying shame.