Some of my recent thoughts and opinions...
Over the past months, I have been reading and commenting on various subjects. Here are some of my thoughts I'd thought I'd share.
Subject: DHS/FBI considers anyone with a large amount of guns or ammo to be a possible terrorist.
Comment: I think that is has become more about lowering the standard to fit the agenda or the profile the government s trying to enforce. Instead of just identifying the direct known threats and legitimate activities against us or others, they have resorted to broad based profiling which opens a can of worms. Gun control through a moving definition of terrorism is one way to widen their reach. Just as talk of lowering the BAC level for DUI from .08 to .05, simply opens the ability to enforce the law to a wider demographic of potential offenders. Having a glass of wine could make some "legally" impaired. Does lowering the standard protect more people or does it open the availability for government to profit from a wider group of potential criminals? As a legal gun owner and as a former law enforcer, I respect the constitution and the sanctity of freedom. If I should choose to legally possess more firearms than the government chooses to determine is too many, then am I to be reclassified from a law abiding American citizen to a potential threat against my country under their broadened profile? The government even went so far as to approach the bullet manufactures about making primers that expire or have a shelf life. Imagine the liabilities that could extend from that proposal. What we have to worry about is when we refuse to drink the "Kool Aid" the government is serving us and we decide to step off their path, we may fit their profile. The Patriot Act and the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 only provide power to enforce and little to protect our rights as law abiding citizens.
Subject: DHS/FBI considers anyone with a large amount of guns or ammo to be a possible terrorist.
Comment: I think that is has become more about lowering the standard to fit the agenda or the profile the government s trying to enforce. Instead of just identifying the direct known threats and legitimate activities against us or others, they have resorted to broad based profiling which opens a can of worms. Gun control through a moving definition of terrorism is one way to widen their reach. Just as talk of lowering the BAC level for DUI from .08 to .05, simply opens the ability to enforce the law to a wider demographic of potential offenders. Having a glass of wine could make some "legally" impaired. Does lowering the standard protect more people or does it open the availability for government to profit from a wider group of potential criminals? As a legal gun owner and as a former law enforcer, I respect the constitution and the sanctity of freedom. If I should choose to legally possess more firearms than the government chooses to determine is too many, then am I to be reclassified from a law abiding American citizen to a potential threat against my country under their broadened profile? The government even went so far as to approach the bullet manufactures about making primers that expire or have a shelf life. Imagine the liabilities that could extend from that proposal. What we have to worry about is when we refuse to drink the "Kool Aid" the government is serving us and we decide to step off their path, we may fit their profile. The Patriot Act and the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 only provide power to enforce and little to protect our rights as law abiding citizens.
Comment: It always makes me wonder why investigators
spend so much effort in getting a confession rather than doing a better
job investigating, and finding the evidence that ultimately eliminates
them as suspects in the first place. By all means, all major crime
interviews should be recorded. With today's technology, they can pull
out their smartphone quicker than a notepad and pen. Besides it's much
more precise and accurate to what was actually said. But when it comes
to recorded interviews, that permanent record can take away the presumed
credibility of the officer's word and recollection when filling in the
gray areas needed to solve a case. Our former DA had an unwritten policy
to all investigators to "never record anything". Why? So there would
never be "evidence" of their actions and they could will in their own
blanks. They even pulled all the dash cams from the patrol cars for the
very same reason. If the truth is the ultimate justice; then why fear
it's discovery?
Comment: The problem with our justice system is that we have a very lucrative
"Create-A-Felon" program in this country backed by a very profitable
prison system. These prosecutors are more politician than the justice
seekers they promised to be. One sure way to make them do their jobs
properly, is to hold them accountable. Just as we hold surgeons who
perform "life altering" operations accountable through very expensive
"malpractice insurance", so should we expect the same for the prosecutor
that holds freedom and liberty in the palm of their hand. They would
take far less over reaching risks and stick with true and sound evidence
if they knew there would be consequences to improper actions. After
all, isn't it accountability for our actions that keeps most people
walking the path of doing what's right? Then you must do away with Grand
Jury. Again, they have an indictment rate of nearly 97%, according to
statistics. Any group that is that efficient with only one side of the
story (the state's) has to be considered prejudiced and bias. We also
have to do away with mandatory minimums in sentencing. Our system is
throwing away the key in more non-violent cases than ever. Why, again
it's about filing beds (cells) and staying profitable, creating jobs and
looking all so politically correct when it comes to re-election. The
American prison system has nothing to do with rehabilitation. There is
no evaluation process to determine what it takes to help bring someone
back into society. After 5 years, for most inmates and not all of them,
the process of hope for a life diminishes as they become
institutionalized and become more hardened with time. And we all realize
that all these felons will likely never get a job because society likes
the whole "throw away the key" concept with any criminal. The result:
no job, no means of self worth in society so back to prison they go. And
when this happens, the politicians (prosecutors) will boast how you
can't rehabilitate a criminal and they are best kept out of society. It
has become a vicious circle, our justice system, and all you can do is
hope it will change and pray you never get caught up in it because most
people could never afford the fight.
I truly see no difference between the responsibilities of the prosecutor
and the surgeon. Both are trained and swear to uphold the ethics of
their profession. Both can bear the responsibility of life and death, or
worse, the lifetime crippling effect of their errors. I think the core
difference is that the surgeon bears a conscious for a misfortune backed
by the knowledge of bearing physical responsibility for any mishap that
may occur. Therefore each surgery is planned and strategically
performed for the proper outcome. And they will be the first to
wholeheartedly advise against any unnecessary or risky procedure that
could produce unfavorable results. A prosecutor, under our current
dysfunctional system, doesn't really have to concern themselves with any
of these important and ethical considerations. If their case looks too
risky for trial, then scare the crap out of the defendant by letting
them know if they do lose at trial they can "throw away the key" or take
a plea, forgive your right to a appeal, and all you have to do is admit
your guilt. The ability to prosecute and to win cases by any means and
without the worry of accountability does not guarantee justice. Here's
what you do the next time you need medical attention. Consider having
your local prosecutor perform the procedure for you under their current
code of ethics and see how confident you are that you will recover in
the same condition as you would under the care of someone dedicated and
accountable for their every act.
Comment: Ken Anderson's shameful use of his power, authority and immunity should
find him the same 25 year sentence he imposed on Michael Morton. His
conviction should set precedence and case law to hold others accountable
for similar acts. These prosecutors are pros at manipulation and
cover-ups and have immunity to protect them. He stole Morton's life and
freedom from him. It's time to pay the piper...in a real prison and not
under protective custody...at least for a year or two. Then a clear
message will be heard of the realities of intentionally destroying other
people lives for the benefit of their own.
Subject: Long Prison Term Is Less So Thanks to Judge’s Regrets
Comment: As there is no argument that we as a country incarcerate far more people
than any other nation in the world. And under that overwhelming
statistic, we wrongfully convict far too many that just get lost in this
sea of convictions and political red tape. But there are also those
that get sentenced, under mandatory minimum requirements, for
non-violent crimes that end up costing the citizens of the country
millions of dollars in housing costs and the families of these inmates,
thousands of dollars of year supporting their loved ones behind bars.
When mandatory sentencing requires an incarceration period of 15-25 years under these types of crimes, there becomes a turning point during the incarceration period, that a new mindset must be adapted by the inmate to prepare for the long haul. As we know the first 3-4 years are generally spent fighting for appeals, 440's and writs of habeas corpus. Families spend thousand of dollars, if they have it, or inmates trying to represent themselves pro se in an attempt to find some relief in their long term bid. But after all that is exhausted, and it is exhausting, then the realization of the remainder of their long bid falls into a sense of reality. Not that they must give up hope, but that they must concede to the life they must live to finish out their time.
In my opinion, many, but not all, come to have learned many valuable lessons in that initial 3-5 year period. They understand how the system really works in its own favor and that the truth doesn't always equal justice. They come to understand the toll this process takes upon their families and come to understand that as time marches on, there becomes the sense of acceptance that "it is what it is" and everyone tries to live as normal a life as possible. And I also believe, at this point, if given that second chance, they'd never go down that road again. You know, a form of rehabilitation sets in and a more clearer vision of the consequences of bad decisions. But what happens past this point really depends on the strength and character of the inmate. Giving up and giving in does become an option they consider. Anger and resentment can replace the hope and optimism that kept them going. The vision of their life or what it holds at the end of their bid may not be a joyful as once believed. Family members pass away, children grow up and move on and all done without their control or input.
This is why I believe that for many, a sentence period in that 5-7 year range is the most beneficial for most non-violent offenders. There are other crimes that may fall into this consideration period and it may produce the best results for everyone involved. Sure there my be repeat offenders, and they would have to be dealt with accordingly, but I really feel that many would turn their lives around, build strong family ties and become good members in society. This could only be possible because they had a chance to prove themselves and get that second chance. I am not so sure that those that have spent half their lives in prison will come out and be able to be as good a part of society. First is their own self confidence and second, the unwillingness for society to give them a chance to prove their worthiness.
When mandatory sentencing requires an incarceration period of 15-25 years under these types of crimes, there becomes a turning point during the incarceration period, that a new mindset must be adapted by the inmate to prepare for the long haul. As we know the first 3-4 years are generally spent fighting for appeals, 440's and writs of habeas corpus. Families spend thousand of dollars, if they have it, or inmates trying to represent themselves pro se in an attempt to find some relief in their long term bid. But after all that is exhausted, and it is exhausting, then the realization of the remainder of their long bid falls into a sense of reality. Not that they must give up hope, but that they must concede to the life they must live to finish out their time.
In my opinion, many, but not all, come to have learned many valuable lessons in that initial 3-5 year period. They understand how the system really works in its own favor and that the truth doesn't always equal justice. They come to understand the toll this process takes upon their families and come to understand that as time marches on, there becomes the sense of acceptance that "it is what it is" and everyone tries to live as normal a life as possible. And I also believe, at this point, if given that second chance, they'd never go down that road again. You know, a form of rehabilitation sets in and a more clearer vision of the consequences of bad decisions. But what happens past this point really depends on the strength and character of the inmate. Giving up and giving in does become an option they consider. Anger and resentment can replace the hope and optimism that kept them going. The vision of their life or what it holds at the end of their bid may not be a joyful as once believed. Family members pass away, children grow up and move on and all done without their control or input.
This is why I believe that for many, a sentence period in that 5-7 year range is the most beneficial for most non-violent offenders. There are other crimes that may fall into this consideration period and it may produce the best results for everyone involved. Sure there my be repeat offenders, and they would have to be dealt with accordingly, but I really feel that many would turn their lives around, build strong family ties and become good members in society. This could only be possible because they had a chance to prove themselves and get that second chance. I am not so sure that those that have spent half their lives in prison will come out and be able to be as good a part of society. First is their own self confidence and second, the unwillingness for society to give them a chance to prove their worthiness.
I guess I should have better stated it as for non-violent crimes, like
we are speaking about here that do end up as prison sentences, which I
also agree that not all should, that giving a sentence "up to" 3, 5 or 7
years (max) still provides a level of rehabilitation because no matter
the age of the inmate, there is still a light at the end of the tunnel
for them. Going beyond that, changes them in not such a good way. As in
Mindy's situation, what does 15 years accomplish toward anything? It
only feeds the system and nothing else. The system sends the clear
message that no matter what your offense, you are a piece of garbage, an
animal and will be dealt with accordingly. This of course does nothing
toward public safety, rehabilitation and hardly a shot toward ever
having a normal life again.
Comment: The numbers are so small because it takes years to complete the process.
Although the system allows for an appeal process, time constraints and
legal assistance diminish a chance for favorable results. Then the
innocent person can only continue to seek the support or at least, the
consideration of an organization such as the Innocence Project. Once,
considered and accepted, it takes sometimes years to be heard or to
obtain necessary testing needed to prove innocence. All the while,
prosecutors and the courts fight against them to allow such proof to be
discovered. And in many cases, even when the proof of innocence is
clear; they still dispute it. Although hundreds have been exonerated, I
believe thousands of truly innocent people sit in prison because they
haven't the resources necessary to fight or the qualified assistance to
at least be heard. And of course in non-DNA cases, the battle is even
more over-whelming and almost financially impossible to get the odds in
their favor whatsoever.
The best battle fought is in the beginning, before a wrongful conviction can occur. Unfortunately in this complex world of twisted legal loopholes, the home team advantage usually lies with those that can afford the high cost of getting justice. There is a reason we convict and imprison more people than any other country in the world...that's because we're good at it!
The best battle fought is in the beginning, before a wrongful conviction can occur. Unfortunately in this complex world of twisted legal loopholes, the home team advantage usually lies with those that can afford the high cost of getting justice. There is a reason we convict and imprison more people than any other country in the world...that's because we're good at it!
