5 Drastic Changes to the Legal System that Are Needed

I am concerned with fairness and adherence to the Constitution. I was sitting in a public meeting place the other day, when a group of people watching TV was horrified by children being left in a hot car unattended. In unison, they expressed relief when the adult responsible was arrested and taken away. This showed me how much most people are interested in fairness, responsibility and justice.

At our present time, we have a two-fold problem in the legal system, that I described in my previous article, "7 Ways to Improve the Justice System." It is important to reiterate the situation as follows:

1. The coddling of criminals, along with the possibility that these individuals could be freed to commit more crime or continue to cause harm to others.

2. The possibility that harsh, unfair treatment could be imposed on others because of ambitious prosecutors or inequity in the system related to money, socio-economic status or other factors.

I am at this time proposing 5 additional measures that should provide the impetus for a radical change in the direction of fairness, while helping tremendously in fighting crime.

1. Modifying the Roles of Prosecutors

The American Bar Association informs us that the role of prosecutors is to seek justice, and not merely to win cases. If this is true, then why are they mainly interested in winning cases and not doing what they're supposed to be doing? These district attorneys should also be held accountable for false convictions. If they were truly honorable, there might not be much of a need for defense attorneys, just as there wouldn't be a great need for locks on doors if all of society were honest. The more I consider this, the more convinced I am that the system of jurisprudence needs an overhaul along this very path that the American Bar Association has outlined.

2. Move "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" toward "Certainty of Guilt"

This may seem strange to some, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" leaves too much room for error, and the appropriate punishments sometimes cannot be given in good conscience. It also can tend to make the job of jurors a bit too effortless. Before some individuals become upset, the reason I am for the new standard is because I'm in favor of tougher punishment for the most flagrant criminals. Implementing step number 1 above should help with eliminating doubt and arriving at certainty of guilt.

3. Clarification and Possible Revision of the 8^th Amendment

The Eighth Amendment reads: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

I have long been an advocate of the Constitution and have stood for its strict enforcement. This amendment is perhaps one of the most difficult to implement in society, because in honesty, it's rather vague. What punishment actually is cruel and unusual?

I would make a stipulation that if a person inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment on others, causes aggravated harm or endangers society tremendously, then he might be exempt from that protection. I believe the founders were very wise men, but the one thing they may not have comprehended is how low some individuals would actually sink in our present day and age. I do not take altering the Constitution lightly, but I know I share the same spirit as those who developed it.

4. Tougher Punishments at the Appropriate Time

To be honest, I would rather not have any punishment at all if unfairness exists. However, revamping the system as I am suggesting should allow for tougher punishment, since fairness in convictions would virtually be insured.

To be equally as honest, the punishments I would bring about would shock most people, and would challenge the 8^th Amendment should it not be revised. The crimes for which I would specify the harshest of punishments would include:

a. Vandalism, graffiti and other offenses committed by juvenile offenders. This is often the beginning of a path of crime for young people, and nipping it in the bud can have great positive results. At present, not enough is being done.

b. Home invasions. A person's home is his or her castle and there can be zero tolerance for any sort of invasion or violation.

c. Carjackings and car thefts involving police chases. This would include for allowing the use of deadly force by police when the public is placed in danger, and no more people would be seen running away in baggy pants without fear of consequences.

There would be many others, of course, but these are just a few major ones that come to mind.

5. Removal of the Term "Hate Crimes," Even Though Punishment for Them Could be More Severe

In my article, "Exposing Bogus Hate Crime Legislation: The Attempt to Destroy Free Speech," I explained the redundancy of so-called "hate crime" laws, and how they can be used by special interest groups as a weapon against innocent people who disagree with them. That constitutes a removal of freedom of speech, which would not be allowed under what I am proposing.

Almost all violent crime involves hate, and these crimes are already covered by existing law. There is no need for redundancy and special wordage to please special interest groups. Under my suggestions, tougher punishments could possibly exist anyway, depending on the circumstances.

I assure everyone that my plan would work well and I respectfully suggest it should be implemented. Perhaps someone running for political office who wants to bring about real positive change could campaign around putting it into effect.

Sources: ethicsforprosecutors.com