Imagine for a moment a world without national borders. In this world, people would have the ability to travel anywhere without restriction; they would be able to live anywhere without regards to place of birth; they would be able to shop, to learn, and to converse with people of many races and cultures. This kind of world would necessarily be one in which global rules of conduct are universally known and accepted, where goods and services have standard and consistent values, where cultural differences are reasons for celebration rather than for discord. Okay, now open your eyes and take a look at the world we live in. Humanity has yet to reach the stage of development that would make such a world possible, and at the rate we’re going, we never will.

Humanity is still stuck in the stage of development that is illustrated by fierce nationalistic pride, religious-borne conflicts, resource abuse, and tyrannical and/or corrupt governments. A clash of cultures is currently being played out on an ever-growing geopolitical scale, serving to remind us that we may be approaching another turning point in our shared history. At the same time, individuals throughout the world are empowering themselves with thoughts of personal freedoms and a better physical existence. This dichotomy presents societies with a quandary and addresses one of the central tasks assigned to government in today’s world: How does government best protect its citizens, its territory, and its interests in the world? Summed up, these are referred to as National Security.

Because of the state of today’s political and cultural atmosphere, National Security takes on great importance in America. Our government has done a pretty good job the last half-century at raising our standard of living, but often at the expense of other nations. We have secured more privileges and more freedoms for ourselves, but often at the expense of other people. We have created and produced magnificent works, cures, and technologies, but often have kept them from benefiting everyone. We have assisted nations in trouble, and then empowered corrupt regimes to run the show. In short, our government has managed to show the world both the best and the worst of the American culture and creed in the same breath time and time again. We have made plenty of people angry along the way, and lately we have made plenty of threats. America is now being viewed differently both by our “friends” and by our “enemies.” No longer the champion of liberty to all people, our enemies have learned to exploit our duplicity in this area and have gained millions of followers that no longer trust the United States to be the country that fought off the Nazi and Japanese war machines in the name of freedom in World War II. These new enemies are ready to fight us in the streets and to the death. Meanwhile, many of our “friends” have learned that friendship to the United States is a conditional status based on what you have that we want or where your land is located. This kind of friendship naturally gets established as one of convenience, and the sentiment is returned two-fold and with a bitter taste. Feeling exploited, and rightly so, these governments send their problems to us through their refugees and migrants, in effect calling in their chips.

The result is an America that has a greater need to know who and what is coming over our borders; a greater need for international cooperation; a more effective military and intelligence apparatus; and well defined, enforced immigration and weapon laws. A look at the state of our various security measures will show the rational person how irrational our government is when it comes to actually serving the citizenry.

From overlooked reforms to misappropriated funding to politically correct barriers and socially inept policies, our national security is disorganized, irresponsible, and threatened at the same time. The federal government, who is currently wholly responsible for the task of national security, continues to make blunder after blunder when seeking ways to protect Americans. In many cases, Common Sense reasoning has been abandoned in favor of political gamesmanship, corporate profits, political correctness, and irresponsible representation from our elected officials. They spend more and more time protecting and enriching their business benefactors and reinforcing the victim mentality of society than they do protecting their constituents from actual danger. The politicians and our federal government create and implement many programs that have not been thoroughly thought out, wasting billions of tax-payer dollars that could be used to cut deficits or shore up social infrastructure. It is time for citizens to demand policies and actions that will actually solve the problems instead of creating new ones. It is time to stop approaching the world with two faces. It is time to end the confusing regulation and the fraud.

While I recognize that many factors have combined to put us where we are now, we might keep in mind that the goal of government should be to address and satisfy the tasks it has without over-complicating the rest of our lives. Over-complication got us to where we are now and it’s going to take whole new ideas, or a willingness to enforce existing ideas, to get us out of this mess. I also recognize that this mess is so big that to really clean it up will take decades of follow-up work, but the necessity of the task still remains, and so the task should begin. Someday, we might not need to worry about protecting our national borders, but as long as we do, we should have a plan that achieves that goal and fosters mutual trust. So the next several essays will look at the issues facing this country with regards to National Security. I don’t claim to be some kind of expert by any means. I’m just a man with a clear view at Common Sense and a desire to make the world a saner place.

If you ever watched Seinfeld, the title of this essay will immediately reveal the nature of the topic. For those of you who haven’t, this essay is about homosexuality and its quest for equal recognition under the law. As previously inferred in the essay Sex, Morality, and the Law, the practice of homosexuality in and of itself should not be, and is not, of any legal importance to the well being of society and as such, has no business being legislated. Homosexuals are no different from anyone else, except for their sexual preferences. They eat, breathe, work, sleep, think, feel, and love just as any other human being does. They look just like other people. They sound like other people. They are our friends and neighbors and family members. Yet for some reason, they are set apart from the heterosexual majority, as if they deserve less from this country and less from our laws.

What arguments exist that makes this segregation seem reasonable? Those who condemn the gay lifestyle typically use one of several justifications for discriminating against homosexuals: religion, nature, or family values. One of the oldest, yet still quite popular, justifications used is that of religion. Early religious doctrines outlawed homosexual behavior as abominations in the eyes of god, a concept based in part on the assertions that sex is bad, and though sex is bad, it’s okay if it makes more babies who will grow up and worship god. The corollary being that god only allows sex to make babies, and since homosexual activity will never result in offspring it is wrong. But more than just wrong, it is an affront to god to abuse his method for perpetual glorification by using the gift of life for mere pleasure. From this logic comes the dictum that homosexual behavior is a sin and should be outlawed.

The obvious flaw with this argument lays not so much in the description of how babies are made, but the idea that sex equals babies is universally held and therefore deserves legal status. But this is often the mistake with arguments based solely on theological reasoning, because the nature of our religious institutions prevent them from admitting any fault with their religious doctrine, keeping them from recognizing the contradictions within their own holy texts regarding the treatment of people as free individuals while insisting that their actions are free only if god doesn’t object, which he pretty much always does. Since the religious argument’s only justification is to please god, which is highly subjective, this argument is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

In a similar vein, those who would argue that homosexuality “just isn’t natural” have a hard time making that claim stick. Their main premise is identical to the religious premise, only without the god part. Basically, the argument relies on the notion that sex is basically a procreative behavior, and that sexual encounters that can’t possibly produce offspring are therefore against the natural design that clearly gave male/female opposites the complimentary parts for achieving this end. Though less judgmental regarding the pleasurable effects of sex, this only applies to heterosexual behavior, being fringe benefits for helping nature run her course.

The problem with this argument is that when it is examined further along the lines of “natural design,” it could be argued that homosexuality in itself is of natural design too. After all, if humans are creatures of nature, then our variations are natural as well. If among these variations one results in homosexual behavior, then isn’t that by natural design also? As it must be so, then homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality or bisexuality or even asexuality. The mere fact that homosexuality constitutes a minority of the population is irrelevant in this context, since the percentages are also set by natural design. If we know anything about the natural world, it is that in all species, variation abounds. This argument actually proves itself wrong when allowed to run a logical course, so it is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

That leaves us with the last ditch effort to find a reason for justifying the segregation of homosexuals and equal recognition under the law. The “family values” argument. This argument begins with the premise that for children to be raised to become productive citizens, the family unit should contain a man and a woman. This is the most important facet of the family values argument. As long as there is a man and a woman together as parents, the family values requirement has been satisfied. Since homosexual couples can’t meet this requirement, the can’t become a “real family.” Since a “real family” is the only way to properly raise children, for the good of society, all legally recognized families must be of this basic design.

The family values argument pretends to preserve the family unit, but makes no other real efforts towards solving the actual problems in today’s families. What is more harmful to the cohesion of family units: divorce or two parents who love each other and want to stay together, but happen to be the same sex? Which is more damaging: the lack of parental participation or having two moms’ at the mother/daughter tea? Which is more debilitating for a child: an abusive natural parent or seeing his two dads’s kissing? The family values argument makes no real effort to encourage heterosexual families to create and maintain secure, stable, emotionally supportive families for children, which would better reflect the concept of valuing the family. Instead, they only seek to prevent homosexuals from participating in one of life’s great joys and endeavors, the task of parenthood. Because the real truth about the family values argument, the dirty little secret, is that this argument is based on plain old bigotry, dressed up in its finest clothes. It’s discrimination in its purest form and when it’s hypocrisy is revealed, it proves to be the least sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

As this leaves us with no other arguments that can justify the unequal legal status homosexuals currently endure, it is the duty of this government to remove any barriers that prevent homosexual couples from enjoying the same legal status heterosexuals have with regards to marriage, adoption, taxes, work benefits, and on and on. Science seems to support the assertion that homosexuality is a natural occurrence, something hardwired into a person’ genetic code. Religion and bigotry (not always the same, mind you) insist that it is simply a behavioral issue that can easily be repressed or reformed or outlawed into extinction. The scientific view has more going for it, in terms of common sense, and it has the added benefit of not legislating religious morality by proxy.

As with other issues discussed recently, removing the barriers for homosexual couples has no effect on individual couples’ relationships. How many people do you know that would throw away their hetero relationships the minute gays could get married because now their own marriage was worthless? Allowing gay people the chance to share their life with someone they love does not weaken the bonds of monogamy and child rearing. It only adds to the number of people finding individual happiness together and passing that happiness to future generations. And it strengthens the bonds of society through the continued affirmation in the belief for freedom and equality for all citizens.

First, it is important to understand that nobody enjoys abortion. If there is one thing in all the discussions about abortion that can be agreed upon, it is this fact. I state this clearly and right out front so that there can be no misunderstanding on this issue. Religious conservatives do not like abortions. Secular liberals do not like abortions. Rich people do not like abortions. Poor people do not like abortions. Nobody likes abortions. It may seem like a simple point from which to start, but it is from common ground that common sense springs. It should be no different in the debate about abortion.

As with many touchy moral questions, the debate regarding abortion has been framed in mostly religious terms. While that is understandable to a degree (because of the theological implications of pregnancy held by most religions), it has the unfortunate aspect of ignoring the historical, medical, and societal impacts, and reduces the freedoms and responsibilities of individuals. But as with many moral choices, the reasons behind abortions can’t be summed up in a few catchy phrases like Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. These words are ridiculous when the implications of the conversation are considered in full. Let’s be real for a minute…isn’t the whole idea of freedom about being “pro-choice?” Isn’t the whole concept of happiness “pro-life?” As with many ideas in today’s political/social/religious arena, these phrases smack of politically correct nonsense, their only purpose to divide and demonize.

So if we agree that no one likes abortion, we can probably agree on a few other points as well. From a medical standpoint, let’s accept the notion that it is better to not have an abortion than to have one, if only because internal medical procedures are inherently harmful to the body. (FOR THE RECORD: I am not referring to any studies from any institution or any study results that purport any physical findings related to abortive procedures. This is just a general statement regarding invasive procedures.) We must also agree to accept scientific evidence regarding the viability of human life when considering public policy. And we must agree that any legislation should have the intended goal of reducing then number abortions.

The first major hurdle to overcome in the abortion debate is still the religious one. As with many religious doctrines, the table is split on this issue as well. But while most Christians (and we will use Christianity as our religious example since it is the predominant religion in America) hold the creation of new life as a gift from god, there is no consensus as to whether this belief is largely metaphorical or strictly factual. This division among the main group of opponents, when coupled with the non-religious opinions of other citizens, necessitates the reliance upon a judgment from the secular social structure to ensure that religious dogma does not become public policy, thus foisting its ideals on a non-believing citizen. At its heart, the issue of abortion is a personal one, made by a woman and her heart and her mind. It is among the most individual choices a woman will ever have to make in her life, and it should be left to her, and those she is close to, and whatever religious beliefs she may or may not have. Society does not have to condone the act of abortion, but it does have the obligation to allow women the option.

This does not mean that abortions should be unregulated, because as we earlier agreed, abortions are not really desirable. So the questions left to us are: what restrictions, if any, should be placed on abortions; how can we reduce the number of abortions; why should we reduce the numbers of abortions; and, how can we deal with the religious concerns of those who oppose abortions?

First, abortion, even though it should be allowed, should have some national legal restrictions in place. The reason for this necessity is simple: abortion should be an option of near last resort, not a regular form of birth control. As such, legal abortions should follow these common sense guidelines:
1) Scientific evidence should determine the stage at which a human embryo is capable of sustaining life outside of the mother’s womb. This evidence should take into account such factors as physiological viability, structural integrity, and neural development. Religious conceptions of when humanity begins are not applicable in this determination due to their widely varying estimate.
2) Once the time frame is established, abortions should be not be allowed for an embryo that has passed that stage, except in the case of possible fatality or severe mental incapacitation of the woman.
3) Abortions performed in cases of rape or incest should be reported to the authorities under conditions of anonymity.
4) Abortions performed due to deformities of the embryo detected in utero should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
5) Women seeking abortion should have the right to privacy, regardless of age, with the exception that legal authorities be notified in cases of minor pregnancy resulting from unlawful sexual behavior under conditions of anonymity.
6) Abortive methods should be as benign as possible, encouraging natural methods for abortion before clinical methods are considered.
7) Women seeking abortion should be educated fully regarding the medical consequences of the procedure, if any. They should also be counseled on the other options regarding unwanted pregnancy without interjected religious morality.
8) Women seeking abortion should be counseled regarding methods to prevent pregnancy and should be limited to the number of abortions they can legally obtain in a given time span.
No other legal guidelines should be placed upon women seeking to obtain an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. The law’s purpose is to clarify how abortions can be done legally. But it does nothing to reduce the number of abortions. For that part of the equation, we need to rely on education.

While it is true that an outright ban on abortion would also reduce the number of abortions, it would also have the effect of increasing the number of needless deaths caused by underground abortionists and an increase in the amount of unwanted or uncared for children thrust upon society. So education becomes the key…specifically, education regarding the cause of pregnancy and the ways to avoid pregnancy. This is not necessarily an education in all sexual topics, rather a factual account that sexual activity is the only cause of naturally occurring pregnancy, and that there are many ways of preventing unwanted pregnancy, including abstinence and contraception. The curriculum should also include the responsibilities associated with having a child and the commitment necessary to raise that child to live within society. These lessons should be taught to our children, beginning at an age just before pregnancy becomes physically possible. Our schools should be responsible for teaching the factual information and some of the practical information. The parents should teach their children about the practical information too, and also impart upon them their family’s religious feeling on the matter. Then, test the hell out of these kids to make sure they got the message. Don’t expect that this education will keep kids from having sexual relations sooner or later. Just expect that they will make informed choices that will prevent pregnancy in the first place, or if pregnancy does occur, that they have they tools to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Another way to reduce pregnancy is the restriction regarding the number of abortions a woman can receive in a given time period. Enforcement of this type of policy could range from mandated counseling all the way to mandatory sterilization. There is no reason why a woman, once educated to the factual nature and preventative measure of pregnancy, should have the need for multiple abortions. It can be said that everyone makes a mistake once, and maybe
even a second time, but the third time isn’t a mistake anymore, it’s just plain carelessness or callousness. Women who abuse the abortion system should be made to carry future babies to term and then place them in adoption centers or agree to get sterilized. When faced with this choice, some women may try to be more careful. But we must realize that pregnancy is not just a female issue. It takes a man to make a baby too. For that reason, we should institute a system for identifying the man responsible for impregnating any woman who gets an abortion. With that information, we could mandate the same counseling, plus financial obligations, and finally sterilization for men who callously get women pregnant. This would cause men to stop and take notice to their responsibility as well.

If we are to allow abortions, why should we care about reducing the number of abortions? From a strictly non-religious standpoint, the reduction in abortions is desirable because we still all agree that we don’t like abortions. But on a more practical level, abortions and unwanted pregnancies are disruptive to the development of young women’s lives and can steer them away from becoming productive contributors to society. Also, the excess of abortions offer too easy a way for men to shed their responsibilities as a potential father, and encourages them towards selfish behavior. This becomes a pattern that follows them into eventual fatherhood, and perpetuates itself ad naseum. An ever-growing population of irresponsible men and half-fulfilled women does not serve society. Reducing the number of abortions logically means that fewer unwanted pregnancies have occurred, pointing to a more responsible class of individuals and thus are more likely to be better citizens.

As for the religious objections regarding abortion, like other issues, simply legalizing an action does not mean that you have to do it. There is no reason for you to fear the ability of others to get an abortion. Remember, you are responsible for teaching your kids your religious beliefs regarding pregnancy and abortion. You will be the one who really molds the choices they will make when they become sexual beings. Your religion is not encroached upon the legalization of abortion. Your values are not lessened by factual information. Your beliefs and your faith are surely stronger than that.

If there is one thing that we can count on in life it is that someday we will die. For most people, this is not a thought that is dwelt upon; it is simply a fact of existence. We know that someday, somehow, our life will come to an end. In most cases, the time and manner of our demise is not something which we can foretell, nor is it something that we spend a great deal of time thinking about. Rather, we go through our lives attempting to enjoy as many moments as we can without worrying about its ultimate end, assuming it is sometime far off in the future. Most of us yearn for a long, healthy life filled with unique experiences, or at least one with little strife. And we attempt to structure our lives so that they offer enjoyment and satisfaction not only for ourselves, but for our families as well.

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.”

Like breathing and eating, sexual behavior is an element of the human condition that is necessary for keeping the species alive. But unlike other creatures roaming the planet, in human beings, sexual activity is more than just a means of procreation; sexual activity helps define who we are to ourselves and to others, it provides needed relief from stress, it gives us enjoyment, and it offers a form of intimacy that helps bond us together. It is unfortunate that many religious institutions have taken this most basic human activity and turned it into a moral issue in an effort to control their followers, create stigmas regarding certain behaviors, and relegate it to an act of necessity and not enjoyment. In so doing, the religious restrictions regarding sexual behavior have created an atmosphere of ambiguity and shame where none need exist.

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.

In 1933, the Congress of the United States passed the 21st Article to the U.S. Constitution, repealing the prohibition of alcohol. In doing so, they recognized that rather than reduce the use of alcohol, by making it an illegal substance they had only exacerbated its influence on society. Instead of making this country a safer place for the citizens, prohibition had created a whole new class of criminals, namely, ordinary citizens who wanted nothing more than a relaxing beverage at the end of a hard days work. In addition, by outlawing the manufacture and sale of alcohol, the U.S. government had helped usher in an era of black market hoodlums who sought only to line their pockets and elevate violence through territorial claims on the liquor market. Religious moralists who sought to control an individual’s right to consume a product that created an altered state of consciousness, something that they claimed went against the rule of God, preceded the passage of prohibition in 1919. As an after thought, they also claimed that the use of alcohol was the cause of crime, poor health, and wreaked havoc on the family structure. While the latter elements of their position had some merit, it was the religious element of prohibition that helped gain passage of the law. But in outlawing its use, the prohibitionists only succeeding in increasing public consumption, increasing crime, and increasing the governments restriction on individual freedoms.

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.

The next several essays will attempt to underscore the difference between religious morality and legal morality. In doing so, I fully understand that these next essays will probably bring about much contentious hand-wringing among my readers who will try to assert that their personal religious morals supercede social legal issues. So, before I dive into the topics themselves, it is important to lay some common sense ground rules regarding these issues.

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.

Any discussions about reforming the state of our legal system must necessarily include our system of civil justice. The civil justice system exists not to keep society safe from physical harm, but rather to allow individuals a place for solving disputes that do not rise to the level of criminal behavior, whether they involve private citizens, businesses, or the government. But the fact that civil matters do not usually involve direct or immediate threats to the safety of society does not mean that they are of less importance in maintaining a functioning society. Civil justice concerns deserve to be resolved in just as timely a manner as criminal justice concerns and with the same basic tenets of Common Sense.

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.

The final element of criminal justice reform rests in ensuring that our legal code is both just and enforceable. Too much has been written into criminal law that endeavors to regulate behavior which has no overriding social need to be regulated. Individual actions that result in no physical or financial harm to others or their property, or that result in no permanent negative societal impact, should therefore not be included in our criminal legal codes. At the same time, actions that are deemed harmful should not be nearly as stratified as they currently are, which has resulted in too many possible ways for excusing or diminishing criminal behavior. Finally, for criminal codes to be effective, they must be regularly and evenly enforced. To that end, I believe that a more simplified legal code is necessary for an efficient criminal justice system to function and better protect us as citizens.

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.

An important yet often neglected aspect of our criminal justice system is the effectiveness of our punishment system. Any punishment meted out by our legal system must contain three elements: it must appropriately punish the convicted person, it must act as a deterrent to others, and it must protect society from repeated criminal acts. Without these elements present, we end up with a system that arrests, convicts, then locks up and ignores for a period of time, then releases back to the population a person with no significant change in behavior or prospects for reform. This revolving door system enforces the idea that punishment for a crime is not serious enough to avoid committing the crime, especially if the pay off for the crime is lucrative enough for the criminal.

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.