While it becomes increasingly clear that Bush’s war of choice in Iraq only produces more terrorists and does nothing to address the real problems associated with international terrorism, in Italy, we are once again shown that diligent, competant law enforcement can and does dismantle terror cells without any kind of ‘collateral damage.’

Hard to believe, eh? After all, aren’t those just the kind of tactics laid out by John Kerry during the 2004 election? Didn’t he note that fighting terrorists was as much, if not more, a law enforcement measure than one for the military? Do we need the military to stop terrorists? Sure, they were doing a great job in Afghanistan before Team Bush pulled a “Cut and Run” strategy that now has that country falling back into the hands of the Taliban. But do we need to blow up entire countries to isolate, track, and arrest the terrorists in the world?

Of course we don’t. But it will take better leadership than we have now to actually figure that out. Sadly, we’re still working with the government we have, not the government we want.

Spying On Americans-Good. Reading Convicted Terrorist Mail- Bad?

Ask yourself a simple question.

Which is more likely to uncover future terror plots and reveal terror operatives?

(A) Intercepting, recording, monitoring, storing, or listening to communications in America between Americans

or

(B) Monitoring and reading mail sent and received by convicted terrorists sitting in U.S. Federal Prisons

If you answered A, congratulations. You are the president of the United States or an elected legislator. But if you answered B then you have a brain.

Unfortunately, while the first option is being carried out with great vigor, and being touted as one of the best, most important tools to keep America safe, the second option, the one that could actually provide clues to terror operations, is barely being done at all.

According to a review of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, undertaken by the DOJ, letters are being written by convicted terrorists to other terrorists, including a letter sent to one of the Madrid bombing terrorists. That letter was being used to recruit more terrorists to the cause of jihad.

“The threat remains that terrorist and other high-risk inmates can use mail and verbal communications to conduct terrorist or criminal activities while incarcerated,” concluded the report by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

So what exactly is being done to close this gaping hole in terror monitoring? Apparently not much. After all, we’ve got a bogus war and the surveillance of American citizens to conduct, and there’s only so much money to go around.

U.S. Won’t Attack North Korea? Why The Hell Not?

Remember the Axis of Evil? That nefarious threesome that our president targeted as the biggest threats to civilization as we know it? Remember the tough talking rhetoric that told us that no nation would be allowed to harbor terrorists or pursue WMD’s so long as George W. Bush was on the job?

Guess what? It turns out that George W. Bush is full of shit. In a recent speech, Bush told reporters that although North Korea (one of the fearsome triumverate of evil) was a “threat to international peace” and that “serious repercussions” would ensue following North Korea’s purported nuclear test, he asserted that no military response is planned to thwart this looming menace.

No military response? Why the hell not? After all, when it came to dealing with a non-nuclear member of the axis of evil (Iraq), Bush went in guns a-blazing, creating a whole world of hurt in that part of the world. In fact, military action against Iraq was always plan one for Bush, regardless of whether they had WMD’s, including a nuclear capability. But he used the false notion of an “imminent mushroom cloud” as an excuse to invade a country ruled by a horrific tyrant, not to go after al-Qaeda, not to bring democracy to the Middle East, but rather to settle family sleights and gain control of the Iraqi oil fields for his corporate minders. (Go ahead and argue these points, my conservative friends. I’m not here to offer proof beyond what we’ve rehashed time and again. The proof, if you ask me, is in the pudding so nastily laid out before us.) In fact, I’ll even submit that the Bush Administration was fairly certain, based on the evidence that existed but they excluded, that Iraq was nowhere near ‘going nuclear’ and that was a prime factor in targeting them when they did. It is easy to tear down a paper tiger you have built yourself.

But Bush is just engaging in classic Bully Behavior, so there’s nothing remotely surprising about his stance on North Korea. The bully always targets the weakest foes (or faux-foes as the case sometimes is) to dominate while slewing threats at those who might be able to offer a real challenge. We see the same thign happening right now regarding Iran.

Iran is also on the nuclear path, but experts warn they are at least 5-8 years away from any meaningful weapons program. Yet the Bush administration has overstated the Iranian nuclear capabilities and hyped up the threat as imminent. Again, what we have in Iran is an oil rich country and a competing religious ideology. Clearly, in the Bush declared War on Terror, where all bad guys are Islamic Terrorists, the countries you invade are the ones who can do your country the least physical harm. Iran not only doesn’t have nukes, they don’t have a system to get nukes to the US mainland. But they pray towards Mecca, so let’s target those bastards. By all accounts, US war plans are already far past the planning stages regarding Iran.

Yet curiously, North Korea, the only non-Muslim member of Club Evil, not only has nuclear capability, they have a missle system that could (potentially reach the US west coast. Yet where Iraq and Iran are to be dealt with militarily (after all diplomacy has failed) North Korea is not on the path to war with America. Again, why the hell not?

No oil in North Korea?

I’m not advocating for an invasion of North Korea, not by any stretch of the imagination. But I have to wonder why Mr. Bring ‘Em On isn’t being consistent. If ever there was a case against one of the three harbingers of world evil, North Korea is it. If ever there was a fulfillment of the reasons for pre-emptive war against a rogue nation that had no democracy, tortured it’s people, and sought WMD’s, North Korea is the proverbial “slam dunk.” If ever there was a case of “with us or against us” this is it, isn’t it?

Before the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech, there was no real race for countries to get nuclear weapons for themselves. In that sense, the world was a safer place. Thanks to George W. Bush, rogue nations are scrambling to join the nuclear club as fast as they can. And clearly, if you want to remain unscarred by American military destruction, going nuclear may be the best way to go. In that sense, the world is immeasurably less safe. Thanks Bush.

Time to change the direction.

Wrong. At least according to the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Instead of recognizing these two men for doing their job, these agencies of the Bush Administration decide to level charges against these guardians of the border. They even go so far as to grant the illegal crossing drug smuggler immunity to testify against the two men. Of course, as part of the deal, none of the drug smugglers actions become admissable, and neither do the service records and training skills of the agents.

A Texas jury convicted the pair of assault with serious bodily injury; assault with a deadly weapon; discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; and a civil rights violation. Compean and Ramos also were convicted of four counts and two counts, respectively, of obstruction of justice for not reporting that their weapons had been fired.

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said, Ramos and Compean had no business chasing someone in the first place. “It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing,” she said. “The Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the pursuit of someone.”

Unless you ask the Border Patrol…

(Such claims as the Asst. U.S. Attorney’s) appears to fly in the face of the Border Patrol’s own edicts, which include “detouring illegal entries through improved enforcement” and “apprehending and detouring smugglers of humans, drugs and other contraband.”

If this is what this adminstration means when it talks about protecting the border, I guess we finally know who it is they are seeking to protect. And here’s a hint…it’s not the people living north of that imaginary line in the sand. I’ll bet recruits for the Border Patrol is going to really skyrocket now.

Welcome to the rabbithole boys and girls. Boy does it feel safe down here.

(cross posted on Bring It On! )

And yet for a variety of reasons, but primarily for safety and peace of mind, America needs to seriously reform our own border security. It is easy, when talking about border security, to involve the matter of immigration, both legal and illegal. In reality, while the two do have obvious connections with each other, lumping them together as a single issue serves no purpose but to dilute the importance of both. Immigration is really a fiscal and social security matter, so I am not going to do that. In fact, I will go so far as to say that without a precise and practical border policy in place, the issue of immigration becomes a moot point. Border security, as I see it, must focus on creating barriers that it can defend, not on preventing the attacks themselves. It is from this standpoint that I submit this essay.

When we talk about our national border, many of us see an overhead map projection of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. We imagine the lines on the page to be like lines in the sand we used to draw on the beach. In fact, in many cases, a line would be better than what is there now, which is nothing. This begs the question, “What border?” Except for the ports of entry, established along major and minor highways, our land borders to the north and south are mostly non-existent, save for some latitude and longitude readings on some very old treaties. In effect, our borders existence is based mostly on arbitrarily agreed upon lines in the sand. This system has worked over the years because of the mutual trust between our neighboring countries to preserve the social and political sovereignty of each other. Due to the military advantage of America, security was never a real concern, at least not security of the life and death variety.

All that has changed. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers in New York, America has a new enemy to deal with. This is not an enemy who will muster their forces and meet you on the battlefield. This is not an enemy with a single geographical base. This is not a foreign government with expansionist or resource driven policies. This enemy is an idea borne from anger turned into a weapon whose aim is to destroy. And while it is easily arguable that we not only created this weapon, but we helped feed its anger and continue to do so, we must still seek protection from its wrath where we can’t meet it head on. So, America must build its walls for protection.

In a society based on personal freedom such as ours, when does the publics right to safety outweigh the inconvenience to individuals? Because our newest enemy operates outside the boundaries of so-called “civilized warfare,” border security becomes increasingly complex. Defendable land borders still have relevance, but become just a small piece of the pie. You now have to consider coastal port security, airport and airspace security, and possible biological or radiological attacks coming from overseas in packages or suitcases or letters. You have to consider all of these “ports of entry” and devise effective security methods for them all or you are not protected at all. Our current security regime consists mostly of some land border checkpoints (mostly to interdict drug trafficking), airport security screening (yeah, right!), and unenforceable agreements with other nations. How does this protect the public? I’m not sure, but I’ve heard that it costs a whole lot of money. And I’ve heard that people can still pretty much slip in and out undetected at will, if they really have the desire.

Protecting our nation in the age of technology should be easier than we make it out to be. Surely our scientists could be better employed creating practical defense barriers instead of studying things like condom elasticity or pheromone production of the mole rat. We should have as a goal the creation of a land border barrier that utilizes sound frequency technology or a similar non-lethal incapacitating agent that would render all trespassers incapable of crossing. Of course, it would have to affect only humans and not birds or other animals whose natural migration knows no borders, but we’ve got some pretty sharp scientists. They’ve managed to exponentially increase our computing power in such a short time; they ought to be able to handle this too. For our ocean ports, which are vulnerable due to the amount of goods shipped into the country each day, we should utilize our satellite technology and create a system that could scan a ship for radiological material while still at sea and a decontamination/sterilization station just out of harbor. Further x-ray scans could be made as cargo is offloaded and all passengers could funnel through an inspection process to verify luggage, identity, and general health. Airport security should also utilize more non-invasive scanning technology. We have the capability to detect most metals, chemicals, nuclear, and explosive materials. We just don’t use them. We could end the cries of racial profiling and improper screening just by implementing the technology we have and creating better systems.

Some of these ideas might be expensive to get going, but others could probably begin at once. As a matter of national necessity, we should all chip in where we can, with business supplying the material, and education supplying the scientists, and government supplying the flexibility, and the rest of us supplying the support and the taxes. The drawback for most of us would be a decrease in the pace of travel and shipping, but is that really such a terrible thing compared to another terrible attack? Our society is moving so fast now anyway, slowing things down a little might just be good for us.

Border security really has nothing to do with racial attitudes or personal peculiarities. Border security is about protecting the integrity of the border. Period. If the system is to work, it has to be comprehensive, it has to be evenly applied every time, and it must be invisible yet strong. Without real border security, all conversations about immigration, terrorist invasions, and foreign relations become simply academic.

The religions that guide humanity tend to teach us that life is sacred, something to be cherished and protected. These religious beliefs hold that life is a gift from God and it is only God that can determine when a life should end. For many religious individuals, the concept of taking ones own life is usually looked upon with great disdain, and the act of suicide promises eternal damnation in the ever after. There are no exceptions to this rule, no provisions for those whose quality of life has been degraded by health concerns or by circumstances that delete all happiness from life itself. (Readers may note that some forms of religion are currently encouraging suicide as a means of political expression, with their goal to take as many “infidels” to the grave with them as they can. I assert that the people who commit these types of suicidal acts are not doing so to relieve their own suffering, but rather are murderers.)

Despite modern advances in medical technology, there are people among us who’s lives become either too painful to continue living or that are, due to an unrecoverable illness, not worth waiting for the inevitable, at least in their estimation. Shouldn’t those individuals have the right to choose an end to their lives that would afford them the least amount of continued pain? According to the laws of society, the answer would be no. But does the prohibition against suicide, in all forms and under any circumstances, truly represent the values of a society based on the concepts of personal freedom and personal happiness? Does society even have the right to determine what constitutes happiness? Provided that the ending of ones own life does not also cause the end of another’s, what right has society to dictate when an illness renders life unlivable?

While it may be true that for cases of depression, suicide is often less a desire to end life than it is a cry for attention, for those suffering from a fatal illness, the desire to end life on ones own terms is often a well thought out decision to reduce the pain that their illness is causing themselves and their family. Society has the duty to respect these desires and to allow the suffering individual a legal option for ending their life, without punishing them or their survivors through punitive or criminal means. Society has the obligation to allow individuals, their families, and their physicians the option of bringing an end to their suffering in a way that is acceptable to them. With that in mind, laws prohibiting suicide for the terminally ill should be amended or abolished altogether.

Terminally ill people, should they decide to end their lives in order to spare themselves the increasing physical pain of illness or their families the mental pain of watching a loved one deteriorate before their eyes or their survivors the financial ruin often associated with the long term medical costs of prolonging a painful illness, should be allowed the option of ending their lives in a manner of their choosing, if they so decide. There should be counseling programs available that educate these folks on the least painful methods of ending their lives as well as offering ways to mitigate the anguish of their survivors. With the diagnosis of terminal illness, a person has many choices to make, and the fear of financial or legal retribution for themselves or their survivors if they decide to end their lives should not be among those that dictate what path they choose to take. This decision should rest with the affected person, their doctor, and their family.

Similarly, removal of legal restrictions regarding this kind of suicide would prevent the actions of disinterested parties (government) or non-nuclear family relatives from artificially prolonging the life of someone rendered incapable of making the final choice to end their life. Today’s Living Will provisions could be strengthened to include the circumstances whereby a person could assert the desires of a loved one to end life in cases of severe incapacitation, provided those directions were clearly set out prior to the cause of permanent injury, regardless of the religious prohibitions of other family members or the possible future medical remedies that may be years or decades away, if they ever appear at all.

Opponents of the concept of the right to die most often insert their religious doctrines into their reasoning for their objections. But just as often, opponents cite fears of suicide or euthanasia becoming just a means to rid society of the elderly and the infirm. They claim that terminally ill individuals will be pressured into prematurely ending their lives to spare their families the financial costs associated with long-term terminal care. However, due to the religious beliefs that are held by so many, the instances of this kind of practice would likely be only a small percentage of those suffering from terminal illness. Just as with other relaxations of so-called morality based legislation, the mere legalization of an act does not mean that many millions will choose this as a course to follow. In fact, Oregon’s Death with Dignity law (the nation’s first legal assisted suicide law) shows statistics of only 129 cases of this kind of suicide from 1998 to 2002. Surely, many more than 129 people were diagnosed with terminal illness in Oregon in those years. The argument is hollow when the facts are revealed. Simply making this option available does not mean that it will become the preferred choice for those facing imminent death.

Suicide is never an easy decision, and in cases not related to terminal illness, society has the obligation to try and treat those whose suicidal thoughts stem from depression or temporary malcontent. But for those whose time has run out, or is running out, due to disease, properly crafted laws that allow them to choose death on their terms would go a long way towards ensuring that the right to die is included in the other “inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

This is not to say that sexual behavior should not have some restrictions that become codified into social laws. But it is important to remember that sexual norms are a constantly shifting paradigm, varying from one culture to the next and from one era to another. While certain prohibitions regarding sexual behavior are necessary for the well being of society, these taboos should reflect a sense of social safety needs, rather than religious values. Criminal sexual behaviors such as rape, child molestation and non-consensual sexual acts are abhorrent forms of expressing ones sexual desires because they deny the rights of the individual or take advantage of one who is not in a position to make an informed choice regarding the contact. These acts are, and should remain illegal, carrying serious consequences to those who violate the legal codes and inflict their sexual desires on unwilling victims.

Any other regulation of sexual behavior should not rise to the level of illegality simply because one or another religious group feels that it should be. To do so inflicts the moral values of one upon another and denies people the freedom of choice to experience sexuality as they see fit. For most people, sexual behavior does not remain static throughout their lives, since as their own goals for finding sexual partners changes, so too do their views on appropriate sexual behavior. As such, society has no right to dictate what constitutes acceptable sexual activity beyond those acts mentioned above.

In that vein, it seems ridiculous to have laws prohibiting acts like prostitution, adultery, consensual sodomy, oral copulation, homosexuality, and even displays of nudity when in the privacy of your own property or the property of like-minded individuals. Indeed, most sexually related laws stem from a puritanical religious morality rather than from any actual threat to society at large. Furthermore, such laws, many of which are wholly unenforceable, only serve to congest the legal codes and processes, waste precious public funds for spurious enforcement, and detract the public from issues that more appropriately belong in the public realm.

It’s not surprising that our most popular forms of entertainment- movies, music, television, and literature- are filled with sexual innuendo. After all, sexual behavior has many positive benefits, such as the ones listed at the beginning of this essay. What is surprising is the double speak with which society addresses the disparity between what we show and what we allow. It seems as if society is saying on one hand that sexuality and sexual behavior is okay to display in fictional or commercial terms, but not in actual, practical, real life situations. This dichotomy leads to confusion among the young who are experiencing their own sexuality for the first time as well as creating an environment for harmful sexual behaviors among the adult population.

A better solution would be to repeal all sexual laws except for those directly addressing rape, molestation of children, and other non-consensual sexual acts that actually infringe on a persons physical security. Society may have the right to create restrictions regarding appropriate locations for sexual activity and perhaps the authority to mandate age restrictions for consensual sexual activity, but not much else. I can hear the moralists begin to stammer now, with protestations about the impropriety of certain acts that, if legalized (or at least de-stigmatized), would likely lead to wide-spread orgies in the street, dehumanization of women in general, and random acts of sexual mayhem. But such statements are, of course, ridiculous. Simply making an act legal does not ensure that all public decency would be thrown out the window. The moral guidelines for sex should be passed down within our homes and churches, not in our legal codes, thus allowing people to choose what is acceptable to them without restricting the actions of others. And, comprehensive, factual education should be implemented regarding the physical and mental consequences of engaging in sexual activity before one is emotionally able to accept the results of sexual practices

So what are the benefits to society if sexual laws are repealed? For starters, the decriminalization of prostitution would allow for its practitioners to join the public workforce in a constructive manner, leading to an increase of taxable employment and a decrease in enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration costs. These funds could be funneled back into the public coffers to help pay for social programs and governmental obligations. The relief upon law enforcement would allow them to better spend their time protecting society from violent criminals instead of harassing sex workers. It would also protect those in the sex industry from the unscrupulous practice of sexual slavery by removing them from the dominion of pimps. Eliminating the stigma attached to the world’s oldest profession and requiring sex workers to engage in mandatory physical check-ups could improve public health issues. This might also reduce the instances of forced sexual activity by providing people a legal option for obtaining casual sex.

The elimination of adultery laws, admittedly rarely enforced already, would allow single people to enjoy and experiment with sex without having to commit to a serious relationship before they were ready, leading to a decrease in failed relationships borne from social pressure to “get hitched before getting it on.” The removal of taboos on certain sexual practices would free people to enjoy their sexual preferences without being ostracized. Relaxing the bans on public nudity, in appropriate locations, would negate the feelings of shame that many wrongly associate with evil but instead is the natural state of the human body. And proper education could limit the instances of teen pregnancy, which in itself contributes to a multitude of societal upheaval.

We should leave it to parents and pastors to impart sexual morality to their children and let society provide the educational material necessary to make good sexual choices. Leave it to individuals to discover what sexual behavior best suits their needs at a given point in their lives. Reduce the social stigmas attached to sexual activity and you increase the odds of couples engaging in healthy sexual behavior that is conducive to the creation of stronger intimacy and personal ties. And attach certain social and legal obligations to any sexual behavior that results in the creation of new life, ensuring that with sexual activity comes the responsibility to properly take care of that new life.

Much like the laws against drugs, laws against sexual behavior only assure that more people will attempt to push the envelope of healthy behavior and act in ways that are more harmful to themselves and to society in general. Only through their elimination coupled with comprehensive education can we guarantee that people are able to experience individual freedom without draining the public resources or encroaching on the most personal behaviors of us all.

Today we have the War on Drugs. Though not enacted through a constitutional amendment, our prohibition on the use of some drugs has had the exact same result as the prohibition on alcohol, only more so. According to the Federal Prison Bureau, nearly 60% of convicted inmates are serving sentences for non-violent drug offenses. According to the DEA, nearly 40 million Americans use some type of illegal drug each year. In 1995, the federal government spent over $13 billion just for enforcement of the nations drug laws. This figure does not include the costs of incarceration, treatment programs, or arrogant foreign policy. Nor does it take into account the number of families torn apart by the arrests of people whose only crime is ingesting something into their own bodies for their own sense of pleasure. Despite these draconian figures, drug use has remained fairly constant, with the only real negative effects being those caused by the laws themselves Obviously, there is something seriously amiss in these policies.

I could write pages and pages regarding the historical and political machinations that have been employed to create the current state of drug laws in this country, but several good works have already documented these facts. (You can find some of this yourself at www.druglibrary.org or by reviewing The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herrar, among others.) Instead, I will discuss how the current anti-drug regime contradicts the notions of common sense governing and inhibits personal responsibility and freedom. Suffice it to say that the War on Drugs has become a marriage between religious morality and big business and is more about maintaining money and power than about public safety. Drug laws are arbitrarily applied and lacking the scientific and practical evidence necessary to back up the claims used to maintain their illegality. In fact, the current regime of drug laws creates a self-perpetuating cycle by making criminals out of ordinary citizens for the purpose of rationalizing their very existence. And the economic windfalls realized by private incarceration, treatment programs, defense lawyers and testing centers exert pressure on the politicians to maintain the status quo.

Why then do we allow the current drug laws to remain? Study after study shows that the application of drug laws is unevenly enforced. Sentencing of drug offenders is not commensurate to the act, especially when compared to the penalties given to violent criminals. Our overburdened prisons and overtaxed public finances can’t keep up with the demands created by these drug laws, and the loss of otherwise productive citizens from the social and economic grid creates staggering consequences for families and business alike. Further, potential harmful effects of drug use are infinitesimal compared to the harm caused by legal drugs like alcohol, nicotine, and pharmaceuticals. While I can concede that on an individual level, drug abuse can have grave consequences for the user and their close family members, on a societal scale, drug use is of no concern to a free nation, except when it causes great harm. In that context, the real criminals are the drug laws themselves.

The only logical answer is to follow the same course that ended the prohibition of alcohol. From both a social and political standpoint, the eradication of the War on Drugs provides a way to strengthen moral values without legislating them, while reducing the drain on government funds and the strain on society.

From a social standpoint, decriminalization of drug use and sales would put an end to the scourge of broken families that incarceration creates. The stigma surrounding drug use would lessen and the user would no longer have to feel threatened or need to hide from society because their actions would no longer carry criminal penalties. Similarly, drug manufacturers and sellers would no longer stand to make great profits through the underground market, thus eliminating the criminal element from the economic side of drugs. Society benefits through the reduction of street gangs vying for territory and market share, creating safer neighborhoods for everyone. The absence of criminal status would further reduce the instances of people using drugs simply because they were taboo, because the element of danger would be eradicated as would the so-called “coolness” factor that accompanies such actions.

On the governmental level, the amount of tax money saved by the reduction of enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration costs could be funneled into educational efforts that provided honest information to students regarding the effects, uses, and potential problems associated with drug usage, as well as providing a proper social context for their use. Further, the legalization of drugs would allow for increased tax revenue to be generated by the creation of a new legal product that could in turn be used to fund social programs that benefit everyone. Also, the need for ever increasing prison space would become a non-issue, allowing for violent criminals to be kept incarcerated until such time as they could be rehabilitated rather than releasing them back into society due to lack of prison space.

For those who claim that legalized drug use would lead to an increase in crazed individual’s who would be more likely to commit crimes to support their drug habits, I would support strict criminal penalties for anyone who commits a criminal act while under the influence of a drug, much like we do today with the alcohol laws. Through increased public education, without the propagandized scare tactics, citizens would grow up knowing that drug use as a recreational endeavor is not an excuse for unacceptable or dangerous, anti-social behavior. Finally, by allowing drugs to be sold in the open market, society could regulate the quality, potency, and purity levels of a given drug, much like we do with alcohol, tobacco, and the legal pharmaceuticals today.

While the use of drugs may seem morally unacceptable to some people, that is not reason enough to maintain a legal prohibition. The War on Drugs has proven itself to be ineffective at preventing drug use, financially unsupportable and wasteful of tax dollars, and constitutionally questionable with regards to personal freedom. It has created a violent sub-culture of distributors and manufacturers and has caused otherwise productive citizens to become a drain on the social coffers. Never mind the implications of legislating individual morality; these reasons alone are enough to put an end to it.

First, it is important to understand that while many of our founders followed some tenet of Christian faith, they recognized the importance of maintaining a separation between religion and politics. By creating this separation between the Church and the Government, they were trying to ensure that certain religious tenets would not be the driving force behind the creation of legal codes. This common sense approach to religious tolerance in the midst of religious diversity showed a distinct maturity of thought. Their creation of the independent judiciary and their charge of it to ensure that the laws of the land were impartial to all, regardless of religion, was another stroke of genius on their part, and lucky for us. For in today’s religiously charged political and social atmosphere, such a foundation would not necessarily have been included.

Secondly, in order to fully appreciate the proposals that I am to set forth, it is absolutely necessary to recognize that our religious differences, while important to many, are not in themselves sufficient to create and enforce social norms or laws. In any government system that purports to recognize certain individual freedoms as innate and irrevocable, the freedom to worship a god of your choosing is just as important as the freedom to engage in certain behaviors that others may find reprehensible, so long as those behaviors do not present a danger to society.

And thirdly, since each of the worlds major religions profess to be the only true and accurate religion for humanity, it is wholly impossible for all of them, or perhaps any of them, to be one hundred per cent correct. Simply asserting that one’s own god is the true and only god does not make it empirically so, nor are the religious texts that accompany each religion and provide that religion with the rules of god able to be empirically attributed as having come from the mouth and mind of god itself. The mere fact that religious texts are filtered through the mouths and minds of men ensures that some distortions will be present and some prejudices included.

Morality then, in both a religious and legal form, is a kind of double-edged sword. As members of society, we can agree on the morality of certain acts and create laws to prohibit them. Such acts like murder, theft, and rape are moral issues that transcend most religious beliefs and can therefore safely be legislated. The Christian religion, or for that matter the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religion, does not have any sovereign claim to these kinds of moral issues, as they are readily accepted by most of humanity as being wrongful acts that need to be outlawed. But other beliefs and actions are not universally held, and therefore can’t be legislated without trampling the freedoms of others, despite the perceived religious prohibitions against them.

In accepting these facts, we can only conclude then, that any laws that reflect moral judgments other than the ones overwhelmingly accepted by a near universal majority should not be included into our legal codes. So, in creating a society that respects individual choice and freedom of expression, it is imperative that we agree to remove certain behaviors beyond the reach of legal justice and instead agree to disagree on their eternal consequences, if any exist at all.

Before I go on much further, let me make clear that I am not decrying the role of religion in our world, nor am I implying that our laws have no basis in religious history. To do either of those things would assure you that you should read no more of what I have to say because I would clearly be a fool. Religion, of some kind, is one of the few, near universal conditions of mankind. To deny its role in the daily lives of people is ridiculous. Many hundreds of millions seek and receive some kind of guidance and comfort through the practice of their religious beliefs. But these beliefs should continue where government ends, providing answers to eternal questions and providing spiritual relief when there is little in the physical world. In fact, it is these very aspects of religion that make it such a varied and complex system. And that complexity assures that society will never see eye to eye on certain behaviors. But rather than criminalize these behaviors, we should work together to minimize those behaviors that offer the greatest possibility of individual harm; rather than legislate with religion, we should educate with facts.

As such, it is time to take religious based morality out of the political equation. Our country is not a theocracy, nor was it intended to be one. We have enough to agree on, and enough to improve upon, that to waste our time on bitter debates about personal behavioral matters serves no purpose other than to allow ourselves to be divided unnecessarily and to keep the politicians wheeling and dealing out of sight. But agreeing to take these issues off the table, so to speak, is not to abandon your own personally held beliefs. I think that everyone should be encouraged to believe in their religion, to practice their religion, and to teach their religion to their children and others who are interested. But this does not mean that your religion should become governmental rule. We have to accept the fact that everyone doesn’t believe in all the same things, and that it is these differences that should be most respected, so that your beliefs are respected in kind.

With those thoughts in mind, my next several essays will examine the impropriety of the current illegality of drug possession and use, prostitution and consensual adult sexual behavior, gambling, suicide and euthanasia, homosexuality, and abortion. I will explain why our government has no need to insert itself into these types of behavior, except where they infringe upon the safety or financial security of society in general. Further, I will show how the current imposition of laws in these areas needlessly expend tax resources that could be better spent to promote general social welfare or reduce the public tax burden.

In so doing, I am in no way attempting to altar your own personally held religious views on these issues. Rather, I am asserting that your religious views, even if shared by thousands of similarly minded people, can not be forced upon the public simply because your holy texts say they should be. To do so would be a total contradiction to the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution and conveyed upon all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. This doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be guidelines for public behavior, and some consequences for individuals who allow their personal peccadilloes to become public hazards. We should have some rules regarding proper conduct in public. But if we really want to move forward and repair the rift in our country we must remember these rules first: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you; and, live and let live. Meaning, if we can’t overwhelmingly agree on whether a moral should be law or should remain in the religious realm, we shouldn’t be too quick to force our religious beliefs on the rest of society.

Unfortunately, in our legal system today, civil matters often fall to the wayside when it comes to getting their fair day in court. Because our criminal courts and civil courts are combined, and because criminal matters are tantamount to keeping society safe from abhorrent activities, civil matters often get pushed to the end of the line when it comes to getting them resolved in the court system. The result is a multi-year process for resolving civil complaints, driving up the costs for individuals and delaying disposition of the matter at hand. This frustration can lead to individuals taking matters into their own hands, creating the potential for civil matters to turn into criminal matters. This is a cycle that has to come to an end.

Just to be clear, when I refer to “civil justice,” I am talking about things like contract law, property disputes, product liability, family issues, community ordinances, building codes, malpractice, and other activities not specifically covered by misdemeanor or felony criminal codes. These are the kinds of legal issues that ordinary people deal with when they encounter the court system. But because of the structure of our civil court system, individuals that attempt to right a wrong against them are faced with an astounding challenge, both financially and legally. Our civil codes are filled with nuances of procedure that enable lawyers and large, financially secure corporations to draw out the process and essentially bleed an individuals ability to gain justice by driving up costs. This creates an inequity in the system that is supposed to be available to all citizens. Further, the number of questionable legal suits brought into the system by citizens and businesses needlessly clog the courts, creating a backlog too large to get through in a timely manner. Justice should be fair and efficient, or it is hardly just at all.

So what can be done to make our civil justice system more responsive to the needs of society? The first step would be to establish two layers of civil justice: one layer that deals with disputes between individuals only, and another that handles any disputes involving businesses and government. The need for this is simple; individual disputes are often less complicated to resolve, and therefore don’t require all of the accoutrements of a full-blown legal trial. Rather than be held hostage to expensive attorney fees, overbooked court calendars, and endless delays, personal civil disputes could be remanded to binding mediation, similar to what is available in many areas today, but with a few changes.

This type of mediation would be required for any disputes that could result a possible financial reward under a defined dollar amount or to resolve other, non-financial problems. A three-member panel of ordinary citizens who serve in that capacity for a defined length of time, and then are rotated out and replaced (similar to convening a jury pool) would hear disputes. Each party would represent themselves at mediation and agree to be bound by the panel’s decision. Panels could be established based on population numbers so that there would be plenty available to handle disputes in a timely manner. This would allow for all citizens to have access to mediation for minor civil disputes without having to pay high court costs, filing fees, attorney fees, or having to wait for an extended amount of time for redress. Decisions would be final, eliminating endless appeals and allowing people to move on with their lives.

In addition to speeding up the process for resolving minor disputes between individuals, binding, mandatory mediation would result in lower overall costs associated with the legal system, and greater participation of the citizenry in the legal process, furthering each persons understanding of the necessity of involvement with societal needs.

For civil matters involving businesses, government, or for individual disputes with a higher potential financial reward, civil courts should be established that are independent of the criminal court system. This is necessary to increase the speed with which these kinds of disputes can be resolved and thus avoid the high costs associated with these types of trials. Like the criminal court system, civil courts can be established at the state and national levels, housed in the same buildings, and sharing the same procedural guidelines. The state courts would be responsible for solving disputes between parties residing in the same state, while the national courts would work on matters that involve parties from different states. A national set of procedures and rules would govern how the courts would operate.

In order for this type of division to work, national civil codes would have to be enacted, similar in nature to the national criminal code, so that every citizen, business, or government entity would understand what kind of conduct was acceptable and what would likely result in being brought to court. Unlike our current cadre of civil codes, these would not vary from state to state, but would be consistent throughout the country, except in cases where geographical concerns dictated slightly different policies, with similar restrictions regarding what constitutes illegal civil conduct. Further, appropriate guidelines for jury awards should be developed to put an end to outrageous awards that tend to get passed on to the public through higher costs. Finally, any type of pre-trial settlements involving product liability, malpractice, or governmental misbehavior should be made public to prevent the same actions from occurring over and over again. Privately made back room deals should not be allowed, preventing non-disclosure contracts that keep the public from being aware of potential problems resulting from poorly made products or policies.

While it has become commonly accepted that the only way to get someone’s attention is by hitting them in the bank account, civil justice should not be viewed as some sort of lottery pool, whereby individuals can strike it rich by claiming damages or concocting dubious claims. Verifiable economic damages should be shown before awards are handed out. Potential economic damages should be based on statistical averages based on the harm done and the loss of potential economic earnings, if appropriate. Intangible damages should be handled in other ways if possible. More importantly, parties on the losing end of civil trials should be made to rectify their errors by correcting the problems that led to the court action. They should be held accountable for repairing and replacing the faulty products, rewriting poorly thought out policy, or standing by their written contractual agreements.

The final piece of the puzzle concerns the legal profession itself. Rather than act as public servants, lawyers have gotten a negative reputation by reaping in more than they recover for their clients and by elongating the legal processes in order to drive up billable hours. The whole point of having legal representation is so that individuals don’t have to learn all the fine points of law in order to stand up for themselves. Simplifying the codes would go a long way in eliminating this problem, but so would limiting the amount of a winning party’s award that a lawyer could claim. This is not to say that attorneys should work for free, but as an integral part of the justice system, they have a duty to advocate for the individual more than they have a right to get rich.

The integrity of the justice system depends on its opacity and its ability to produce equal justice for all parties involved. It should operate on the least amount of money possible while maintaining its integrity as a bastion of truth and honor. In any democracy, the rule of law is one of the pillars of strength by which that democracy will stand or fall. If society can’t look to its justice system and feel confident that anyone, at anytime, can find recourse within it, then it is a broken system and could lead to eventual mayhem. We are edging ever closer to a system that is jaded and increasingly viewed with suspicion. This is not justice at all.

To begin with, it is important to recognize the fact that current legal codes are often infused with religious morality issues that are not equally recognized by all individuals and not evenly applied to all citizens. This almost guarantees that our laws create criminals simply by the fact that they exist as laws. Any national or state legal code should reduce the number of criminal acts to include only those acts that are nearly universally accepted as harmful to others, regardless of religious or personal spiritual beliefs. Such acts would be clearly accepted and recognized by all citizens as just laws enacted to reduce instances of harm to others or society as a whole.

Such acts as have been described in previous essays would include the obvious crimes of murder, rape, robbery, assault, destruction of property, destruction of the environment, fraud, kidnapping, counterfeiting, bribery of public officials, immigration violations, and the willful disregard for the safety and well-being of others. We have laws dealing with all of these actions now, and it is hard to argue that the existence of these laws is anything but just. Still, there is room for reform within these laws that can lead to their being strengthened to better protect society and hopefully reduce the frequency of their being ignored.

Take our laws against murder, for example. It is widely accepted that the action of ending the life of another person is a criminal act in all cases except for self-defense or during the execution of legal military operations. But, in an effort to account for the variety of ways in which a person can end another’s life, we have created laws that include varying degrees of murder, each with different penalties ranging from a death sentence to less than a year of incarceration. This system can be manipulated in such a way as to appear to lessen the severity of the act of murder from one of depravity to one of mere carelessness. Society is not better protected from those who would commit murder by having such divisions in the legal code, but rather the criminals are insulated from the seriousness of their actions.

I use murder as an example to demonstrate a point. Murder, or the ending of another’s life, is usually considered to be the worst of all possible crimes. The horror it brings to the victim and the pain it unleashes onto the victims families is among the hardest to imagine. How then, can the taking of another’s life have different degrees of depravity? To me, it is irrelevant whether a murder is planned in advance, occurs during the commission of another crime, or is the result of completely irresponsible and thoughtless behavior. A life is still extinguished, a family is still left behind, a child may grow up without their parent, or a mother may bury her own child. Murder, unlike accidental death (which can occur through acts of natural disaster, medical complications, or unforeseeable chain reactions), can be avoided simply by not killing someone or by not performing acts that could reasonable lead to someone getting killed. As such, murder laws should be reformed to include any act that causes the death of another person through negligence or by purposeful design. The only exceptions for taking another’s life would be instances of actual self-defense, where your own life, or that of another, is in danger of being taken. Period.

Similarly, the legal codes for rape or sexual battery, serious assault, willful destruction of the environment, and kidnapping, among others, should be rewritten to exclude the various levels of severity, as these crimes reduce the security of society in addition to irreparably harming the victims of those crimes. By eliminating the different levels of criminal severity, society would be sending a message that these kinds of acts are intolerable and would receive the harshest punishments. There would be no wiggle room for the convicted criminal to move away from the consequences of their actions, and could result in less instances of these acts occurring.

Some criminal behavior though, can be stratified, depending on the amount of harm that is actually done. Non-violent criminal acts such robbery, destruction of property, fraud, immigration violations, counterfeiting, and bribery are not all equal in nature and so some classification is in order. Still, these crimes are anti-social by nature, and demand to have their place in any criminal code that is established. And, as they are all serious in nature, in that they affect a persons financial livelihood or society’s stability, they should be limited in their classifications to just a very few divisions, based upon either the value of the financial destruction or the amount of societal upheaval that results in their having been committed. These divisions would determine whether an individual would be tried under the national laws, state laws, or in some cases of minor petty theft or property destruction, at the local level.

Absent from a revised legal code would be any restrictions on how individuals treat their own (non-living) property or their own bodies. This would necessarily include laws that prohibit voluntary use of drugs or alcohol (unless their use results in harm to someone other than the user), laws pertaining to consensual sexual activity between adult individuals, suicide laws, and laws that mandate specific personal safety requirements. These kinds of laws are established not so much in an effort to keep the whole of society safe, but rather to regulate behavior that is morally objectionable to certain portions of society or to save society money by reducing instances of physical harm to the individual. Rather than create established legal codes to prohibit these behaviors, society can reduce their instances through honest educational efforts about the possible harm that can occur to individuals engaging in these behaviors. Further, certain legal waivers and restrictions can be created that will release society from incurring the costs that may occur when these behaviors lead to individual harm. Citizens wishing to engage in these acts would have to take full responsibility for any harmful individual effects that may result due to their participation in these activities. Society should also establish stiffer than normal penalties if citizens engaged in possibly self-harming actions commit of an actual crime.

All other acts not established as national or state crimes would necessarily fall into the category of misdemeanor, civil violations, or non-criminal, and could be amended by future generations.

Such a common sense approach to creating laws would have several benefits to society: reduction of confusing criminal code and streamlining existing violations; better enforceability of the crimes that remain; reduced costs for enforcement by redefining what constitutes criminal behavior; and a consensus regarding criminal behavior versus non-criminal behavior.

The actual revision of the legal codes can’t possibly be discussed completely in just one essay, but I think that the basic tenets for reform are here. Common Sense should be the hand that guides the reform movement when making the actual changes. And it is important to remember that we are only discussing criminal legal code in this essay. Other legal codes have to exist to regulate civil behavior of corporations and individuals that provide a basis for non-criminal public conduct in order to ensure that the needs of society are met, but these too should be limited in scope. Reformation of the civil justice system will be the topic of my next essay.

Human nature being what it is, it is inevitable that some people will engage in criminal acts. The reasons that drive an individual to crime are many and varied, and I won’t pretend that all circumstances are the same for all criminal offenders. That said, I am prepared to make a sweeping generalization in an effort to categorize criminal behavior in order to better explain how we can more effectively use our criminal punishment system to help deter would-be criminals and to help protect the needs of society.

In the simplest terms, criminal behavior can be partitioned in this way: petty crimes that create a public nuisance that do not directly harm other individuals, but have the potential to harm others or the shared elements of society, and are committed thoughtlessly but not maliciously; serious crimes that are intended to or do cause harm to another person, their property, or the property of society committed out of personal vengeance or for financial gain, whether premeditated or not; and depraved acts against society that cause irreparable personal injury or death, harm the structure and safety of society on a local or national level, or that erode the basic principles of democracy and freedom for personal power and gain, whether premeditated or not. Using these definitions, it becomes easier to establish appropriate punishments for criminal behavior.

The Constitution recognizes two basic forms of punishment in Article VIII of the Bill of Rights, but does so in a way as to restrain society from over-punishing convicted individuals.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This short sentence has be redefined many times over the years as society’s ideals have shifted and as the legal code has become more complex, and I think that the authors of that document meant to leave this area open to some interpretation by future generations. They seemed to recognize the fact that what may be considered excessive or cruel in their day might not be applicable to future citizens. In the mid and late 1700’s, it was not unheard of for convicted prisoners to be impoverished, drawn and quartered, burned to death, or other such punishment in accord for their crimes. They realized that these types of punishments, when meted out by society, were not so much a deterrent to crime, but rather a reflection of the crimes back onto society. That sentence tried to establish the concept that effective punishment was one that was commensurate to the crime and that anything that moved beyond that threshold would be unbecoming of a society that established itself on the doctrines of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But I further believe that the Founding Fathers did not include this Article in the Bill of Rights in an effort to over-protect those people who do commit criminal acts. Indeed, the individual rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are directly affected by the guaranty of society’s right to safety, and those who stray beyond the laws must be held accountable in order that others can pursue their happiness without fear of harm. Common Sense requires nothing less than the administration of effective punishment for criminal offenders that enables the offender to either be rehabilitated and returned to society as a productive, contributing member, or to be removed from society completely so as to never threaten the security and stability of others again or drain the financial resources of public funds.

If you look at our punishment system today, you will notice a high rate of recidivism for criminal acts coupled with a low rate of rehabilitation and an even lower rate of societal protection. You will notice large disparities in the application of punishments that dilute the desired effects of keeping the worst criminals out of society while reforming those who can be redirected back into the mainstream. And you will see a system that is expensively wasteful, unmindful of rehabilitation, skewed in favor of the convicted criminal’s comforts and desires and less concerned about reducing crime. Criminal punishment in our politically correct world today is not so much about protecting society and reducing crime as it is about creating a self-perpetuating money trough and feel good atmosphere among criminals while leaving innocent citizens to fend for themselves.

One of the most basic needs of human beings is the need to be accepted by others, so surely the lack of acceptance brings about some kind of negative feeling. Conversely, the conveyance of acceptance allows the receiver to bask in the approval of his peers and promotes similar behavior that allowed for such praise to be given. If this is true, then one of the most valuable tools in preventing recurring criminal behavior is easily, and inexpensively, available to society. Plainly said, it is time to return the concept of public shame to our criminal punishment system. Psychologists will decry this type of punishment at least as cruel, because they are enamored in their beliefs that individual psyche’s are more frail that even the thinnest crystal glass. On the contrary, if properly applied, bestowing shame on individuals for petty level crimes could have a great impact on the incidence of occurrence.

Currently, punishments for petty level crimes often take the form of monetary fines, community service and/or some kind of “counseling.” These punishments have not proven to be very effective in reducing these kinds of crimes simply because there is no longer any sort of negative stigma associated with committing these petty level acts. Paying a fine doesn’t mean much to people who can afford a few hundred dollars whenever they choose to behave poorly. Community service can be too easily turned into something that the offender would normally be doing in the course of their daily life, and counseling is usually just another way for the court system to levy fines without assuring that behavior has been effectively changed. Past societies understood the need to infuse elements of public scorn into their punishments as a way to affect an individuals desire not to repeat that action. These punishments could be limited in scope and combined with elements of monetary fines and verifiable, but free, courses aimed at identifying the offending behavior and learning how to reduce it. At the conclusion, the offender would be received back into the good graces of the community without prejudice and the incident forgotten.

Serious crimes require more serious punishments including a period of probation, incarceration, and restitution to their victims. While in prison, convicts should be required to work at an occupation, so that they have a skill when they return to society. Convicts should be required to take courses on societal expectations and behavior modification. They should be required to give public addresses regarding their crimes, and upon their release should experience a similar shunning procedure by their community. Upon completion of their sentence, they too should be publicly welcomed back into the community or established into another. Because these crimes are more serious in nature than petty crimes, a convicted individual who recommits should have their sentences increased proportionally, including, eventually, their permanent removal from society.

The worst of the criminal offenders are those who cause irreparable personal injury or death, harm the structure and safety of society on a local or national level, or erode the basic principles of democracy and freedom for personal power and gain. Not all of these acts are of a physically violent nature, but still demonstrate a lack of societal involvement to the point of indifference, enabling the offender to feel no remorse and thus be likely to commit similar acts in the future. For these individuals, a lengthy incarceration is probably the most non-cruel method of punishment. The seriousness of their crimes should guarantee that they be removed from the public for some time. Along with many of the techniques described above, upon their potential release, these offenders should be required to register their crimes with a national registry that could track their locations and occupations throughout the country.

For some criminals though, lengthy prison sentences often enable convicted individuals to continue to inflict misery on society. These people commit the worst crimes of humanity and once committed, cannot be made up for. Why then should we as a society, as taxpayers, continue efforts to house and feed and educate these monsters among us? A more effective punishment for these criminals, and a more palatable one for society, would be banishment. Better than the death penalty for it doesn’t kill in the name of justice. Better than life in prison because it doesn’t drain the tax coffers. Better for society in that we know the criminal is out of our midst forever. Our national justice system could establish a penal colony of sorts on one of our many bombed out Pacific Atolls. Construct simple shelters, provide a few transports a year of basic supplies, and then forget about them. This final and total act of non-acceptance might be enough to make a few individuals think twice before plunging off the deep end.

The effects of adapting some of these changes into the punishment could result in the reduction of criminal behavior both through stronger social deterrents and more standard, equally applied punishments. The cost savings could be substantial through the decreased need for short term and permanent incarceration and their associated expenses. The increased safety to society procured through the permanent removal of the most villainous of criminals is nothing less than society deserves. And they reflect society’s desire not to inflict excessive, cruel, or unusual punishments on offenders or itself.

The last step in reforming the criminal justice system involves the revision of the legal code itself. Those thoughts in my next essay.