Justice For All?

Recently a Michigan man was criminally charged with a felony for reading his wife's email:

*Oakland County prosecutors, relying on a Michigan statute typically used to prosecute crimes such as identity theft or stealing trade secrets, have charged Leon Walker, 33, with a felony after he logged onto a laptop in the home he shared with his wife, Clara Walker.* (Full story: http://www.freep.com/article/20101226/NEWS03/12260530/)

Unfortunately, it's yet another example of overbearing and overzealous prosecutors abusing their discretion by charging someone under a law for something the law was never intended to do. It's also an example of legislators' imprudence in drafting legislation that can be abused this way.

From the article:

*"What's the difference between that and parents who get on their kids' Facebook accounts?" attorney Deborah McKelvy said. "You're going to have to start prosecuting a whole bunch of parents."*


Many people think it's great when our legislators enact a plethora of "get tough on crime" laws. There is no easier way to score points with voters by pandering to them with a "law and order" image. Yet, this case shows how people who blithely cheer such politicians on and just as enthusiastically applaud harsh punishments get hoisted on their own petard when they may themselves be charged with a crime for something seemingly innocuous and done with good intent. It happens more than you think.

Police and prosecutors portray themselves as society's protectors, and encourage the public to give them tremendous authority because they will supposedly use proper "discretion" when enforcing the law. Sadly, this is often merely image manipulation so the government can have unfettered power, which leads to asinine prosecutorial conduct as demonstrated in this case.

Even if this Michigan man is eventually acquitted, his name will be forever besmirched by the existence of a felony arrest record, he will spend thousands to defend himself, and he will endure great emotional and mental stress. If acquitted or if the law is rescinded he'll never get an apology or any recompense from the prosecutor or the government. If found guilty, his life is ruined.

Doesn't seem like justice to me.

I Pledge Allegiance?

A Christian friend recently said he can find more arguments against than for keeping the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. He wonders if there should be a pledge at all. He said he doesn't pledge allegiance to his country. Even though he believes it was founded on Christian principles, the way we have treated Native Americans, African slaves, unborn babies etc. suggests to him that we are by no means a nation “under God” let alone a country he should “pledge my allegiance” to.

I replied that I am a Christian "under God" but I sometimes fail God, as do all Christians. Sometimes Christians fail in grievous ways, at least from a human perspective. It's inevitable this side of eternity. We are still Christians under God despite our failings.

Our nation was never a theocracy but a nation founded by spiritually imperfect people who believed in God and the Bible. The nation that grew up around its founders had plenty of failings, as my friend mentioned. It simply reflected the imperfections of its founders. It doesn't mean the nation wasn't under God. To be under God the way he described it, the nation would have had to be the Millennial Kingdom ruled by Christ himself.

Slavery was wrong, as were many other injustices, and as a nation we were under God in our efforts to end them. Yet, we should not judge 18th and 19th century Americans solely through the lens of modern enlightenment.

I agree that as a nation we are hardly under God today, but there are still good reasons for allegiance.

I agree a Christian's ultimate allegiance is to God. But does that mean we cannot state our loyalty to our country insofar as we believe its ultimate goals and ideals are good? It may be argued in 2010 that out nation's ideals and goals are at best mixed in terms of having Christian virtue, but I think we can pledge loyalty to our nation just as we are implicitly loyal to our spouses, children, parents, etc. Of course, if our child does wrong we don't excuse or ignore it, but we are still loyal to our child in our love and care. Is it wrong to feel that way about our nation? I don't think so.

Why do I love my country? Well, there's the usual material blessings we can't even count, at least compared to most of the rest of the world's population. But that of course is trivial compared to the spiritual blessings my family and I have enjoyed because we live here. Had both sets of my grandparents not come here from Russia in the early 20th century most of family probably wouldn’t even exist. My father and uncles likely would have been killed along with the other 22 million Russians, military and civilian, in WWII. Those that survived would have been imprisoned, physically and spiritually, behind the Iron Curtain that was the USSR.

Instead, my grandparents became Christians after coming to the USA as did all their children and most of their grandchildren, including me. I suppose there is some Calvinistic argument that I hardly owe my country any gratitude for my faith, but that's how I see it. It's reason enough to love my country and pledge my "allegiance" to it if for no other reason than to repay the debt of gratitude my family and I owe for all the blessings it's given us.

More Free Speech, Not Less

I applaud the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission allowing corporate and similar entities to make campaign contributions within thirty days of election day. It is an important free speech issue.

Distilled to its essence, the ruling says that free speech cannot be abridged merely because citizens associate to speak with a united voice or because they have a certain interest, identity, or ability to monetarily publicize their speech. Democrats are naturally upset because corporations generally favor Republicans, and other Democrat groups (e.g., unions) who might benefit from the ruling are less well-funded than most corporations. But the ruling makes a lot of sense when one understands the Constitutional mandate in the First Amendment that Congress make no law abridging free speech.

Critics assail the ruling because they say it affords to corporations the rights of individual persons, such as the right to vote. To the extent the ruling ascribes "personhood" to corporations or could be interpreted or applied that way, a puzzle ensues. How far can corporate entities go in asserting their rights as "persons"? I'm not sure the Court believes that the ruling should be interpreted to expand corporate rights this way but it admittedly presents some argument for such expansion that may have to be dealt with in future court rulings. It's not a reason, however, to deny associated citizens the right to free speech. Nearly a century ago Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis understood that well when he said that the remedy to be applied to differing political views is "more speech, not enforced silence."

I'm always very concerned about any law that curtails Constitutional rights because, once curtailed, they are rarely restored and it opens the door for further diminution of our liberties. I see this problem with efforts to deny individuals such as the Christmas 2009 plane bomber the rights of a criminal defendant. His crime occurred within United States boundaries and is addressed by our federal crimes code, yet because he may be associated somehow with an international terrorist group many advocate for stripping him of rights afforded under our criminal justice system. This is sought despite our criminal justice system having successfully tried and sentenced terrorists many times already.

Once we make exceptions to who our Constitution protects none of us are guaranteed its protection. Again, basing application of rights on the identity and association of the accused is dangerous territory. Seems like that happened in 1930s Germany and didn't turn out so well.

Bringing Terrorists to Justice

President Bush consistently and adamantly referred to terrorists as enemies in the "War on Terror." He justified his truncation of Americans' civil liberties (e.g. Patriot Act) as necessary to fight the War on Terror effectively. If he was correct in this perception of the anti-terror campaign, that is, that the 9/11 attack was an act of war to which we must respond in kind, then the enemy should have been treated according to the provisions of the Geneva Convention and other military protocols which ensure humane treatment of prisoners which, heretofore, the USA has adhered to (at least officially).

He refused to do this, however, because the reason he characterized Al-Qaida this way was only to justify his military-oriented approach to opposing them. When it came to how to treat them after capture he backed away from the "we are at war" characterizations and called them "enemy combatants", rather than prisoners of war, thus placing them in legal limbo indefinitely - not subject to civil or military prosecution or due process. Instead, the whims of the executive branch controlled their status and fate. I believe this approach was extra-constitutional at a minimum and probably constitutionally impermissible. This has also been the view of nearly every court that has decided any challenge to Mr. Bush's anti-terror policies.

President Obama has at least backed away from the War on Terror model and classified those detained at the Guantanamo prison as accused criminals subject to prosecution under our criminal justice system. Until 9/11, this was always how we handled terrorist acts occurring on US soil. The 9/11 attack was much worse than any previous attack so Mr. Bush used it to rationalize the altered prosecutorial approach, as described above. The essence of the criminal acts of 9/11, however, was no different than prior terrorist acts on US soil. Only the scope was larger. Therefore, there was no legal justification for changing the way the criminal suspects were treated. It was just the executive branch exploiting and manipulating the understandable fears of Americans to adopt a legally unprecedented and unjustified method of detaining and prosecuting criminals (although under Mr. Bush there never was any meaningful prosecution, just indefinite detention).

Mr. Obama's critics on this issue doubt our ability to securely and justly put to trial modern terrorists. They again play to our fears in demanding unprecedented and arguably unconstitutional methods for keeping Americans safe from terrorism and exacting retribution. Instead, I have put my faith in our great Constitution and its design for criminal justice to appropriately prosecute even those accused of heinous acts of terrorism against our country. History will show whether we stand tall against those who seek our demise or capitulate to our anger and fear and thus unwittingly grant our enemies victory.

America, Christians and Torture

I believe George W. Bush is a good man and had good intentions as president. From a conservative's perspective he did many good things while in office. I certainly believe the media treated and evaluated him wrongly and unfairly, to say the least. Nevertheless, I have serious problems with some of what he did. I am even more concerned about Barrack Obama's presidency than any other, but I also believe he is a good and well-intentioned man who can and will do some good things as president. The older I get the more I don't see politicians and and political parties through "black and white" perspectives. On balance, you'll find me supporting Republicans, but there is plenty of bad in the party. It is certainly not God-ordained that we support Republicans.

Some conservatives who categorically state that the USA under Bush didn't commit torture seems untenable. What some have done is change the definition of torture so that as long as there is no evidence of maiming, injury or death, no torture has occurred. This means that we can supposedly inflict unlimited pain on someone but as long as we don't leave any marks, it's OK. First, this is disingenuous and therefore not something a Christian should be saying. It sounds like political doublespeak. Second, I simply cannot accept this definition as it really doesn't mitigate the concerns about inflicting torture on people. Torture is about inflicting so much pain or agony, mental or physical, that a person yields to our will. Simply avoiding maiming or killing somebody doesn't stop that.

There is a reason why the US military will not do what George Bush authorized against Guantanamo and similar detainees to extract information. Historically, it's been considered inhumane. It's also counter to the Geneva Convention which, heretofore, the USA has always respected. When I was a kid I used to be so proud of our country because we wouldn't stoop to the levels of our enemies in wars to torture people as the Japanese and Germans did in World War II. Somehow we managed to win those wars anyway while taking the high road. It is sad and very disappointing that we are now known for doing those things for which we once condemned our enemies. Sure, we are more sophisticated than the Germans and Japanese since we try to leave no marks, but it is no less torture if the effect and result is the same.

Evading or attempting justification of the torture issue by characterizing the people held at GITMO and other CIA prisons as "murderous detainees", as I heard one conservative friend do, is telling. I guess some have rationalized our treatment of them by convincingly themselves as apparently the Bush administration did that all these people are so bad that they have no rights, human or otherwise, such that the end justifies the means in the way we extract information from them. As a Christian, no matter who these people are or what they have done I must first regard them as souls for whom Christ died because he loves them. This does not mean we must be naive and give them the benefit of the doubt regarding what they may have done or been involved with. But if you see them as souls in need of a Savior, it's hard to inflict unlimited pain on them or do the terrible, indecent things that were done at Abu Ghraib, even though no marks are left on their bodies, and then justify it.

Second, how do we know all these detainees are "murderous"? Most have never received fair hearings of any sort to formulate charges or justify holding them indefinitely. They've been plucked from the "battlefield" based on military persons' suspicions of them. Undoubtedly, many have done bad things and would be convicted of some offenses if tried. However, I can assure you from dealing with how law enforcement accuses and charges people, their accusers are by no means always correct. I'd think their accusers and imprisoners would be even less careful to fairly accuse them since they know they don't really have to be held accountable for their actions. Bear in mind, our highest courts, conservative leaning as they are, have turned back virtually every Bush administration and Republican effort to circumvent some sort of due process for the detainees who, had it been left to the Bush administration, could be held indefinitely without any sort of objective review of their cases. I fail to see how that is American or Christian.

Forget the Campaign Rhetoric

I am not enthralled with either presidential candidate this year. Nevertheless, I think this and most elections are too important to sit out as a voter merely because neither major candidate perfectly suits our needs and wants.

When considering who to vote for I review a candidate's lifelong record rather than his campaign rhetoric. Both candidates will say or not say certain things just to get elected, but then his true intent and philosophical orientation will reappear. A leopard can't change his spots. I can review a candidate's professional and personal life adequately to know where he really stands. That being the case, unless something startlingly new and revealing comes out during the campaign, my mind is more or less made up well before the election. Frankly, it seems a little naive to depend on the vagaries and rhetoric of the campaign all viewed through the manipulative, biased and distorted media prism (let alone campaign ads) to decide who to vote for. That's true whether you prefer FOX News, CNN, the New York Times or any other media source for your political information.

That said, Senator John McCain's record is one of general traditional conservative values, with some exceptions. He has some history for bipartisanship that is greater than most other Republican politicians. Senator Barrack Obama, including well before he became a senator, has strongly supported liberal positions. His votes in the senate are considered about as strongly liberal as any senator. Importantly, both of these men will bring their conservative or liberal views to bear when nominating not only Supreme Court justices but hundreds of judges for the lower federal courts. Because these are lifetime appointments, a president's legacy is often determined to a great extent by his judicial appointments. These will be my primary considerations when voting for president.

I think it's unwise to be sidetracked by issues such as which vice-presidential candidate is better suited for the presidency, which candidate has a better military service record, which one is a better orator, etc. Regardless of who "wins" on these peripheral issues each candidate still has his core beliefs and his lifelong record as I've explained above and the latter will determine how he leads our nation. In this election we have a clear choice between two clearly different political orientations and philosophies of governing. I think the prudent voter will align him or herself with the candidate whose history best reflects their own political and philosophical values and vote accordingly.

Kids In Prison: Irony and Tragedy

It's popular for people to say that if a teenager commits an adult crime, he should do adult time. The theory is that a teen who is old enough to commit violent crimes is old enough to suffer the consequences of adult behavior. Thus, most states provide for teenagers under 18 to be charged as adults if they commit violent crimes.

This is a leap in logic to assume that merely because a 14 year old kid commits an act of violence he has the same responsibility for his actions as a mature adult. In almost every other way society deals with youth we make the opposite assumption, specifically, that youth are immature and naturally irresponsible with minds that don't think as carefully and deliberately as adult minds are expected to think. Youth are obviously woefully inexperienced in life and typically oblivious to consequences for their actions. The law reflects this proper understanding of young minds in many ways. For example,

• minors cannot legally bind themselves to a contract;
• minors are considered unable to give consent to have sex with an adult even if the minor actually says "yes" and puts it in writing;
• minors cannot marry if they are under age 16 or if 16 -18 parental consent must be given;
• driver licensing laws are much stricter for minors;
  
• minors cannot vote, serve in the military without parental consent, legally consume alcohol, or be involved in most other adult activities independent of parental consent or adult oversight.

All of these restrictions are imposed because society understands that, generally speaking, youth are simply not able to responsibly handle themselves in these areas. They are too immature and inexperienced and thus likely to get themselves and others into trouble if they are permitted all rights and privileges enjoyed by adults. Yet, for some reason, when a youth commits a violent crime he is deemed fully responsible for his actions such that he must be punished as an adult with much more life experience and ability to know and act better. Why?

It's because our pandering political leaders and a populace rashly demanding high profile "crime control" allow this tragic double standard. It makes for good political theater and points with the voters (can you say "politico job security"?) to announce how pubescent criminals have been locked up for good, or at least most of their useful young lives. The politicians don't bother to recount how much this costs the voters in additional taxes as the penal system expands exponentially to accomodate this bloodlust for young offenders. Nor do they mention how ultimately ineffective the process is when young offenders who are eventually released are unrehabilitated. To the contrary, they will have only become more serious, dedicated and competent criminals because of their exposure to older convicts in the prison system and lack of opportunity to receive age appropriate correction for their original offenses.

Youth who commit crimes must be dealt with by the juvenile criminal justice system where age and maturity appropriate measures can be taken to safeguard the public from them but also effect redemption of their potential. Who would disagree that if there is any "sweet spot" in one's life where he is especially malleable for good and more likely to change his ways to become a productive member of society, it is when one is a teenager? Certainly, the odds are much better for effecting positive change in these young lives than the much older adult criminal who is set in his ways, yet we so casually cast them to the trash bin of adult prison when they offend.

Sadly, politicians and society itself seem more interested in despairing of these young lives, thus wasting them literally at society's expense. It's the ultimate, immediately gratifying, "feel good" approach to a problem. It feels good to lock up the bad guys, whatever their ages, and get them off the streets, because it gives us a sense of security, albeit a false one since it is not a long term solution. Ironically, it is the adults fostering this approach to our troubled youth who demonstrate the greatest irresponsibility and lack of foresight by their actions.