YOU BE THE JUDGE, err Politician ?!?!?

This is a real case. The names have been left out to protect... me.

A 14 year-old boy, with a functioning level of perhaps an 8 year-old, is "caught" by his step-mother "putting a q-tip into the vagina" of his 9 month-old step-sister. She demands that the father call the police, and under pressure from his new wife, father waives the child's right to an attorney. The child admits he did what the step-mother said, and without counsel is waived into adult court and convicted- as an adult -of 1st degree CSC (Criminal Sexual Conduct). What should his sentence be, judge?

The republican-controlled Michigan Legislature has said that THEY know what the sentence MUST be. They have passed a bill making this offense punishable by a MANDATORY 25-year minimum sentence. The child MIGHT be eligable for his first parole hearing around his 40th birthday.

Now some other facts that came out AFTER the conviction.

The child, WITH THE IQ OF AN 8 YEAR-OLD, had a habit of trying to imitate and help his step-mother, who at best resented his being in the family with her own child and her new husband, and at times HATED his mental slowness. The child explained to his therapist- AFTER CONVICTION- he often saw "mommy clean the baby" in the same way and only wanted to help. Being as this was the first time anyone listened to the child, the counselor wanted the case reheard. Under Michigan law that could only happen if the Prosecutor and Judge agreed to set aside the entire case and start again. The judge agreed, and even asked an attorney (guess who) to provide the legal counsel the child had never received; the prosecutor did not. The child, now a young adult, will have to register as a sex offender for life, but luckily for him the new mandatory sentence HAD NOT YET gone into effect. It should by next week. Anyway, given ALL the facts, What should his sentence be NOW, judge?

The legislature says that none of this matters. The legislature says that the ONLY possible sentence for 1st Degree CSC is a 25 year minimum. No discretion to judges. No discretion at all.

I say... Well, I hope you know what I say. Cow Manure, Horse Pucky. But this is what you get when your only issues are "I am so very tough on crime" and "at least Gay people can't get married."

The Big 4: 2nd Amendment; Reproductive Freedom; Marriage Equality & the Death Penalty

The Second Amendment. I only mention this here because it is certainly one of the "big" issues we all face today, but I have made my position clear on many occasions, here in this blog ("From the Gun Safe of the Well-Armed Sheep", 20 April 2006) and on my website. I do support a short waiting period to buy a handgun (say 2 days) because of the growing number of cases where domestic violence ends up with someone being shot. It is simply too easy for someone in a rage to buy a gun and shoot his or her spouse or even their entire family- something which would be much harder with any other weapon. If even one life is saved it is worth the very small inconvenience. I also have no problem with laws that keep guns away from violent offenders. Other than these safety issues the Constitution is clear: the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Reproductive Freedom. First off I disagree with both of the labels people toss about when discussing abortion- "pro-life" and "pro-choice". We are ALL pro-life. In fact, since many people who call themselves "pro-life" are supporters of the death penalty, and many people who are "pro-choice" are against it, I find the whole issue of labels too simplistic. Likewise "pro-choice". Everyone is "pro-choice"- the debate is only as to WHO gets to choose. I also think that we can all agree that we should all do what we can to make abortion unnecessary, and that even so there are some circumstances where it will still be necessary. I have thought about this more than any other single issue since becoming a mother and grandmother, and I remain convinced that the proper person to make the choice is the woman who is facing the decision. She, along with her family, partner, clergy, Doctor or whomever she trusts- MUST be allowed self-determination free of the veto of any politician in Lansing or Washington. So my position is clear- I fully support a woman's right to choose and will put my efforts into providing services and education which will make the choice of having an abortion TRULY the last - and least chosen- alternative. Quite simply we should refrain from making choices for others and focus on offering them BETTER options to choose from.
And I cannot leave this discussion without expressing my utter CONTEMPT for anyone who takes a position in which they would force a woman to have a child against her wishes, justifying their action by referencing their belief in the sanctity of life, while also supporting the death penalty and war. I will discuss the death penalty later but now that we know that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq WAS NOT involved in the 9/11 attacks and that Saddam Hussein did not support either Al Qaeda OR the Taliban we must accept that under international law (which we helped develop) we were not justified in attacking Iraq. In fact doing so was completely prohibited, amounting to a "war of aggression", and, since innocent civilians have died, "crimes against humanity". On May 4, 2002, the Bush administration formally renounced its obligations as a signatory to the 1998 Rome Statute (which established the International Criminal Court (ICC)). Critics say the decision to "unsign" the treaty will further damage the United States' reputation and isolate it from its allies. It has, however, stalled international efforts to charge President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and others with "war crimes". see also http://www.iacenter.org/Iraq/iraq_wct-rc.htm

Marriage Equality. ("Same-sex Marriage"). Our country was founded on the separation of church and state. Contrary to what some believe, we are NOT a "Christian Nation" and the founding fathers were not what we would call "Christians". Thomas Jefferson had a habit of "editing" bibles, removing such things as "miracles" being attributed to Jesus . In a letter to James Smith, Jefferson says: "The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs" (Works, Vol. iv., p. 360).
When asked, Benjamin Franklin said: "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies" . [Benjamin Franklin, in Toward The Mystery]
And the word "Equality" is both simple and profound. It is simple in definition and profound in effect. To put it in simplest terms- either we are ALL equal, or none of us are. My position is likewise simple- "Marriage" is a term best suited for religion- and as church should not meddle in state so state should not control the church. Each religion should follow its own beliefs. The LEGAL rights and responsibilities, however, are the realm of the state. No one should be denied basic human rights (the "pursuit of happiness", freedom of association) based on ANYONE else's religious beliefs. I therefore support "civil unions" for both same-sex and opposite sex couples which carry the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage. I also support the ABSOLUTE right of each religion to its own position in this matter. This does NOT "open the door" for polygamy or other "marriage-like" states. It is a basic tool of law that one should craft a law to meet the narrowest possible solution which actually corrects the given injustice. My position meets that goal- every adult should be able to form a life bond with one other adult. A simple, clear- AMERICAN- rule.

The Death Penalty. I am against the Death Penalty, for 1 main reason. We have executed innocent people, and when we do WE ALL BECOME MURDERERS. While there may be debate as to how many innocent people have been executed, since 1973 more than 115 people have been sentenced to death only to be found innocent later and released from death row. This should give us a clue. In Congress, US Senator Russ Feingold has introduced S. 122, the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act, and S. 132, the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act, while a national blue ribbon commission reviews the fairness of the administration of the death penalty. Because of problems in its application, the US Supreme Court has twice ruled capital punishment unconstitutional, and twice reversed itself. Clearly "mistakes" have been- and will continue to be, made. There is no real necessity for the death penalty- we are just as safe with the offender in maximum security serving life without parole as we are with him executed, and there is no definitive and reliable evidence that capital punishment has any deterrent effect. Neither does it save money- although this is the most despicable argument that pro-capital punishment people make. The cost of an execution, given the years on death row, necessary appeals and other associated costs is MUCH MORE than the cost of keeping someone in prison for life.
I would also like you to think about the fact that very few countries still have the death penalty- mainly the US and some countries in the Middle East and eastern Europe and east Asia- nearly all of which we have routinely labeled "Human Rights Violators" or a part of some "Axis of Evil". And nearly all of those few countries do not execute children or the mentally handicapped, although- for instance- Governor Bush of Florida and Governor Bush of Texas (now President Bush) have both allowed the execution of people with very low IQ's and of very young age at the time of their offenses. Is this the company we want to be associated with? Is it any wonder that the majority of the world sees us as bloodthirsty and dangerous?
Assume with me that if we worked together we could make absolutely sure that "no parole" meant "no parole". With the "protection of society" assured, can you truly justify the mistaken murder of EVEN ONE innocent person in the name of vengeance? Remember that the Sixth Commandment, "Thou SHALT NOT kill", does not have a footnote nor an exception. Hebrews 10:30 and Romans 12:18-21 come directly from the mouth of God:

18 If it is possible, as much as it is up to you, be at peace with all men.
19 Don't seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord."
20 Therefore If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing so, you will heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Don't be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

I sure can't improve on that!

A Decider by any other name is.....

Its hard NOT to compare the political tactics of the present administration with the 1930's NSDAP. Replace the manufactured crises in Poland with Iraq. Replace scapegoating Jews, Communists and homosexuals with Muslims, communists and homosexuals. The NSDAP took over the "congress" and "supreme court" because of the real crises of the economy, passed an enabling act allowing the administration to ignore civil liberties in a time of crises, and then manufactured a crises in Poland. The Bush Administration used the very real crises of 9/11 to get "war powers" and then manufactured a crises in Iraq. Blame everything on the Jews/Muslims, fear the Communists and give the "average man" someone to look down upon (homosexuals) and praise your own morality. Make sure anyone who speaks out is "with them", and count on your hand-picked court to say its all OK. As long as you can keep soldiers under fire no one will speak out too much as the one thing we ALL have in common is that we support, respect and love our soldiers, sailors, pilots and marines.

I keep trying not to think this way, but then I hear of "Homeland Security" having its own domestic police force and illegal searches, seizures and wiretaps. Then there are secret "detention camps" being built by Haliburton in the US, "black hole" CIA prisons in Europe, claims of torture and even death among prisoners. Add the administration's claim to be able to ignore any law deemed a hindrance to Executive power (so-called "signing statements"), secret courts, indeterminate "detention" without counsel, charges or outside contact and I can't help but see a similarity. I recently started worrying again when I found out what a "Unitary Executive" REALLY means. Even with all this, though, I kept reminding myself the comparison between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler is ridiculous, although Cheney and Goebbels is a lot closer, and Rumsfeld/Goering has quite a bit going for it. Just about when I got it all put out of my head I heard W. Bush give himself a new title. He was telling about his view of the job each member of his administration is responsible for. In his usual colloquial manner, where everyone has a nickname (often ending in -y or -ie) I heard him say that he is The Decider.

A little homework for you. Look up "Fuhrer".

Sabotaging the "War on Drugs"

Our "Drug War" policy HAS FAILED. We need to accept that and develop new ideas. This is an area where - like Iraq- we simply CANNOT FAIL. There are 3 big domestic issues we must succeed at for our children's sake- education for the jobs of the future, conserving our natural and financial resources so they have something to build on, and protecting them from the excesses of drug abuse that has destroyed so many lives.

More on this later, but I want to say that in my decades of working with troubled families in the legal system NOTHING has ever been so immediately and totally destructive as Methamphetemine. I have seen families go from the "American Dream" to living in a burned-out house or broken down car, unemployed, dirty and hungry, the children without medical or dental care and missing school- ALL WITHIN A MATTER OF MONTHS. This is a problem we must fix; we CANNOT continue following the failed policies of the past.

Mexico recently tried a new approach, which was immediately mischaracterized and demonized by forces in the United States with vested interests in keeping the status quo. The Mexican proposal DID NOT "LEGALIZE" DRUGS. What the Mexican legislature passed- WITH WIDESPREAD SUPPORT AMONG MEXICAN CITIZENS AND THE SUPPORT OF MEXICAN PRESIDENT FOX- was a law which decriminalized possession or use of small amounts of illegal drugs by adults within their own homes. Penalties for drug traffickers would be strengthened. The money spent on hunting, prosecuting and jailing people who used drugs in small amounts their own homes would be earmarked for use capturing drug "kingpins"- the manufacturers, smugglers and dealers- and for drug abuse prevention education and treatment.

This is an idea worth debate. Treat drug abusers as a medical problem and stop drug dealers more effectively. Use more money to treat addicts and to educate children BEFORE they use. However this- if it worked- would show once and for all what so many have said- prohibition is part of the problem, not the solution. So many people have vested interests in the status quo that any new idea cannot even be discussed. Thus, under pressure from the US after a quick campaign of misleading statements and outright LIES about the Mexican legislation, President Fox has reversed his position and will not sign the law.

I am not sure the proposal WAS a good one. I AM sure that what we are doing is failing. I AM sure that we need new ideas, an open discussion, and NOT campaigns of lies and deception. I AM sure that we need more treatment and education. I AM open for ideas- unlike, apparently, the people who presently represent us. What do YOU think?