democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)) (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 01:42:37 GMT
> From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
> Subject: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd))
> 
> > If we abandon democracy then we are admitting that ALL social systems are a
> > failure.
> 
> I fail to see the inference there.

If we as individuals can't make our own decisions about what is best for us,
what makes you think some stranger will do any better? By our initial
assumption we are assured that they can't make adequate decisions about
their own life. Every form of government other than democracy assumes a
priori that noble oblige is prima facia. To paraphrase an old questions of
politics, who governs the governors? Or do you feel we have found angels in
the form of kings?

Democracy says, you don't need a governor (in that sense). You ARE held
responsible for your actions AFTER your actions, not for simply thinking
about them or even speaking them.

Juries are supposed to be composed of your peers, not who the prosecution or
defence believe will best support their case. It should be that the first 12
poeple called who don't have a valid excuse to be excused are the jury, the
next 12 are the back-ups. This would guarantee that getting a conviction for
anything other than the most heinous crime with the most explicit and
incontrovertible evidence will be well nigh impossible, as it should be in a
democracy. It should be a mother fucker to put somebody in jail in this
country.

Judges should not be able to tell someone they need permissio to file a
legal complaint. Nor should a judge be able to refuse a juries request to
have testimony transcribed because it costs too much. That isn't justice,
that is systemic expediency and criminal indiference.

Which means we should have the lowest number of incarcerated individuals
instead of the most.

> Democracy doesn't work that well.  Probably no government at all would
> be better.

Doesn't work what way? Consider, other than democracy, that every form of
government has an implicit assumption that there is some base sets of
activities that citizens should be permitted and they will be happy. Those
activities are determined, except in democracies, by those in power who are
NOT elected or otherwise responsible to the people as a whole. In a
democracy the people are given the opportunity to make up their mind what to
do with their lives and property without having to obtain permission from
some authority. Why? Because there isn't such an authority to get permission
from in the first place.

> > No, it is time WE take responsibility back for our actions and control our
> > own lives and quit abrogating it to some asshole who will promise anything
> > to get us to give them money for nothing (ie taxes).
> 
> Same thing applies to most government functions.

In what way?

Paying a government to keep the park clean and mowed and the lights on at
night or my streets well paved and de-iced in winter is not quite the same
thing as having black-suited ninja wann-be's kicking my door in at 2AM
because I choose to smoke a joint or even grow my own weed; or spend six
weeks in jail for possessing vitamins that some cop THINKS is drugs; or
perhaps because I happen to be a doctor and know how to read and might take
exception to being told what I can or can't say; or because I might be of
Jewish decent or a Muslim or a Catholic or Anglo or Negro; or etc. etc.

There is a reason behind the madness of "Congress shall make no law...".


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |    The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there   |
   |    be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.       |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                       -Alan Greenspan-             |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|

Jim Choate wrote:

> Juries are supposed to be composed of your peers, not who the prosecution or
> defence believe will best support their case. It should be that the first 12
> poeple called who don't have a valid excuse to be excused are the jury, the
> next 12 are the back-ups.

  You're way off base here, Jim. As a matter of fact, the government
goes to extraordinary lengths to make certain that we get a jury of
our peers.
  For example, potential jurists in murder trials are required to
admit to supporting the government murder of the defendant if he
or she is convicted. God forbid they should ask what procedures
are in place for bringing the defendant back to life if their
verdict turns out to be in error.

  I like many others, have committed a wide variety of crimes for
which I could be sentenced and punished, but the only two I was
charged for and found guilty of were crimes of which I was completely
innocent. Go figure...

> This would guarantee that getting a conviction for
> anything other than the most heinous crime with the most explicit and
> incontrovertible evidence will be well nigh impossible, as it should be in a
> democracy. It should be a mother fucker to put somebody in jail in this
> country.

  'Circumstantial evidence' has been twisted and perverted in the
justice system to the point where it is synonymous with convicting
the 'best guess' candidate for a crime.
  The problem with the '*someone* has to pay' school of jurisprudence
in vogue today is that poorly paid, poorly trained street officers
are often responsible for making the decisions as to *who* will be
the person selected as the 'best guess' candidate. (At which point
the wheels of law enforcement and the injustice system begin rolling
over the back of the defendant, leaving tire marks suspiciously
similar to those at the scene of the crime.)

> Judges should not be able to tell someone they need permissio to file a
> legal complaint. Nor should a judge be able to refuse a juries request to
> have testimony transcribed because it costs too much. That isn't justice,
> that is systemic expediency and criminal indiference.

  You have hit on what I regard as the single greatest evil in the
justice system today--expediency.
  At the heart of 'expediency' lies the 'plea bargain.' Police and
prosecutors are fully aware that their greatest chance of success
in turning a potential 'loss' into a 'win' is with a person, guilty
or innocent, who they can deal with as a first time offender.
  The prosecutor can use dire threats of 'maximum prosecution' to
convince the person to take a 'slap on the wrist' to avoid taking
a chance of suffering devastating consequences. What their victims
don't realize is that they will now be a 'known offender', an 
automatic 'suspect' in the future, and subject to exceedingly more
severe penalties in the future for their real or imagined crimes.

  I know a person who is serving a life sentence as a habitual
offender for a 'third' felony because his legal aide attorney
years ago had gotten him a 'helluva deal' on a DWI, only having
to pay a small fine and no loss of license (back when this 
was still possible). Although the man was a non-drinker, having
a liver condition that meant he would die if he consumed enough
alcohol to be over the legal limit, he had never been 'diagnosed'
as such, having no need to, since it was a known hereditary
condition in his family.
  His legal aide lawyer pointed out the enormous expense of
being diagnosed, etc, and the fact that a DWI was only a
"small, insignificant" felony at the time.

  Many years later, the 'third felony', for which he was sentenced
to life in prison, was for bouncing a $10.00 check, or some such.

  The irony is that he was always a big law and order supporter,
and probably cheered when the 'third time loser' law was passed.
(I wonder if the $10.00 bounced check was to the campaign of his
 favorite 'law and order' politician?)
 
> Paying a government to keep the park clean and mowed and the lights on at
> night or my streets well paved and de-iced in winter is not quite the same
> thing as having black-suited ninja wann-be's kicking my door in at 2AM
> because I choose to smoke a joint or even grow my own weed; or spend six
> weeks in jail for possessing vitamins that some cop THINKS is drugs; or
> perhaps because I happen to be a doctor and know how to read and might take
> exception to being told what I can or can't say; or because I might be of
> Jewish decent or a Muslim or a Catholic or Anglo or Negro; or etc. etc.

  Or you might be Timothy O'Leary, crossing the American border (in
Texas?) with a couple of marihuana seeds in the ashtray. (40 years
in the slam?)

TruthMonger