The context for the above quote lies in a meeting President Bush had with Congressional Republicans and aides back in 2005 when they were discussing how to renew the Patriot Act. His outburst came after an aide pointed out that certain provisions of the Patriot Act undermined the U.S. Constitution. Yet even without this quote, which has been vigorously denied by conservative lapdogs, a look at the Bush presidency reveals the disdain Bush has for our national charter, and by association, the concept of democratic governance.

When the American colonists broke the chains of servitude to the monarchy, they set out to create a government by, for, and of the people, modeled on the ancient Greek experiments with democracy. Having endured the abuses of power ubiquitous in a monarchical government, the framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to create a government whereby the people were to be protected from the abuses of governmental intrusion and largess. Under a monarch, there were no individual rights, no quarter from the dictates of the king, no protection from abusive or arbitrary rulings. When the king wanted money, he took it. When the king wanted to go to war, he conscripted his troops. When the king declared a law, there was no room for recourse or debate. This kind of rule offered no freedom, and it was this kind of rule that the Constitution was created to protect against.

And by and large, even with the imperfections and inequities of its origin, the U.S. Constitution has endured and even expanded the concept of freedom and equality over our 220+ years of existence. It has done so for one very important reason- successive generations of American citizens and political leaders have embraced its underlying and all encompassing central theme- government exists at the will of the people, to serve the needs and desires of the people, and must, in its course, be accountable and transparent to the people.

That is not to say that all American politicians throughout our history have embraced these concepts equally. It’s not hard to find dozens of examples of elected officials subverting democracy for personal gain or from a sense of historic necessity. And if the truth shall be told, a great many 20th century American politicians have been complicit in the erosion of a strong tripartite government, in the weakening of the power of the people, and of the overall dismantling of our carefully crafted charter. Indeed, were it not for complicit Congresses, no president alone could have managed to transform our democratic republic into an oligarchy. Regardless, before Geroge W. Bush had himself annointed “Decider in Charge,” most politicians still held that no one, not even the president, could be above the law and that even the president had to abide by the restrictions set forth in the Constitution. And with but a few notable exceptions, even during this country’s greatest challenges like the Civil War and World War II, presidents and congresspersons alike held fast to the provisions in our Constitution that guaranteed certain powers to each branch of government and guaranteed certain rights to American citizens.

I should concede right now that the general powers of our government today are very different than those originally anticipated by the writers of our Constitution. Our government is much more intrusive then they would have liked it to be. And the addition of layers of federal bureaucracy over the decades have grown the size of our government to enormous proportions. But with a few exceptions, governmental expansion, and with it an increase in the power of government and its various branches, has been codified into law with the consent of the governed. The New Deal programs that helped lift this country out of the Great Depression of the 1930’s greatly expanded the role of government into everyday life, but it did so under the support of the majority of Americans. The expansion of governmental services crafted under the Great Society were somewhat more controversial, but were still acted upon with the consent of a majority of Americans who sought to create a more enlightened government that would help its people achieve success without squashing their freedoms. While these governmental expansions clearly exceeded the original intent of the federal government, verbage in the preamble of the Constitution does indeed allow for government to act to “promote the general welfare” and under the sometimes silent direction of their constituents, elected politicians promoted and passed laws to cover a wide range of “public” issues. However, with each passage of a new program or policy, bureaucracies and departments had to be created to fulfill the various mandates, and by the nature of the Constitution, all those new bureaucracies and departments fell under the Executive branch, in essence giving more and more power to the president and his appointees. Most presidents tried to balance the addition of power with the constitutional theory of balance of power. And most congresses and Supreme Courts took pains to keep each branch of government in check. Even Richard Nixon found that the idea “if the president does it it isn’t illegal” didn’t hold water in American government and was forced to resign the presidency for abusing the powers of his office.

But something about following the rules just doesn’t seem to sit well with our current president, George W. Bush. And under the guise of “national security” and “terrorism,” and with our history’s most compliant and spineless Congresses, Bush has turned our government into a parady of its founders vision. Under Bush, not only has abuse of power run roughshod over the tenets of democratic governance, the very notion of government by the people has been corrupted to become government in spite of the people. Where once the Constitution was used to protect people from the abuses of government, now the Constitution is subverted to protect government from the people.

Consider the constant use of signing statements under Bush. While there is plenty of historical precedent for presidents to attach commentary to bills they sign, no president has done so with such frequency and vehemence than Bush. Where other presidents may have used the “signing statement” opportunity to clarify thoughts on laws, Bush has used them to justify ignoring or effectively anulling the law altogether.

Or consider Bush’s claims of executive privilege for anything under the sun, including applying it to instances where it has no legal basis. Executive privilege was designed to shield a president, their actions or words, from public scrutiny when the topic at hand required secrecy and the ability to drop diplomacy from the conversation. But Bush has extended “executive privilege” to cover any situation of any executive branch function, regardless of whether or not the president was involved in a particular conversation or not. The most recent and classic examples involve Bush’s order to former aides Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton to ignore a congressinal subpoena, and to his Justice department to refuse to act on the subsequent contempt of congress charges. Executive privilege was designed to shield a president, not every political hack he ever appointed to a position of incompetence.

Yet these transgressions (or rather, willful acts of constitutional subversion) are only the tip of an unwelcome iceburg of constitutional debasements perpetuated upon America by George W. Bush. Whereas previous presidents often had the public on their side for major governmental shifts on purpose, Bush and his congressional lackeys have not had large scale public support for their most odious and harmful actions. And such support as they may have originally held in the wake of the 9-11 attacks has withered away as presidential excess has destroyed American credibility and debased the Constitution to “just a goddamned piece of paper.”

Abuses of power and the dismantling of the Constitution under Bush has reached previously unknown heights, and our nations great founders are likely rolling in their graves. Among the most grevious transgressions:

Warrantless wiretapping and the presidential decree that private business be shielded from prosecution for abetting illegal governmental actions. The constitution forbids warrantless searches, but some have been allowed through subsequent legislation provided that certain steps are followed. Bush decided he didn’t even need to follow those rules and ordered the most massive warrantless spying program in history.

The introduction of presidentially approved torture, kidnapping and detention in the name of national security. Violating the Constitution is like Bush’s hobby. The Bill of Rights explicitly forbids punishment that is cruel and unusual (torture) as well as detention without charges or trial. And kidnapping is illegal pretty much throughout the civilized world. No amount of argument about how the “terrorists” do it so we will too is acceptable. Security does not require giving up your humanity.

Government secrecy, from Cheney’s secret energy meetings to covering up or ignoring the truth about Iraqi weapons programs to the world’s biggest “lost e-mail” treasure trove, in the Bush administration, information is not for public consumption. Our government was designed to be open and accountable, but to be so it requires that information be shared and public. Under Bush, accountability is non-existant, in part because the flow of information stops at the White House door.

The list could go on for pages and pages, but most of us, even the deniers and Bush lovers, are familiar with the multitude of constitutional transgressions put forth by George W. Bush. And while it is important to recoginze the shared culpability of all elected officials who have given this man-child free reign, it is even more important to recognize that had we not had a president of such pettiness and immaturity, a great many of these abuses would never have occurred and America might still have some standing on the world stage that was not accorded simply due to the might of our military.

Make no mistake- I allow no excuse for the elected Republican and Democrat leaders who have sat idly by and acquiesced or abetted Bush on his path of Constitutional destruction. They are all guilty of cowardice at best, of treason at worst. The congress has repeatedly abrogated its own responsibility as an equal branch of government and allowed these things to go unchallenged.

But it is Bush, and Bush alone, who is responsible for debasing our Constitution and for setting precedents that will make future presidents even less accountable to the people. Now, because of Geroge W. Bush, our only real hope in restoring the concepts and ideals of democracy is to actually get a president who respects not only the Constitution and its meaning and historical importance, but who respects the American people and is ready and willing to deconstruct the vile separation that has been built between the people and our government by George W. Bush.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Progressives like me make a point of hammering the Bush administration for every misstep it takes. And to be fair, they make it pretty easy for us, what with banner moments like the Medicare prescription plan, the Katrina response, and the Heckuva Job in Iraq®. But how often do we get the chance to remark when they do something with such acumen that it makes David Copperfield blush? It is with this in mind that I offer congratulations to the Bush administration, and more specifically to the president himself, for succeeding where no other president has succeeded before. For in the short span of just 5 years, George Bush has managed to reverse the course of American history by expanding governmental power to its largest size ever while shrinking the protections of the Bill of Rights. Never has this feat been attempted, let alone achieved. Golf clap, please, for the president. He may be the most cunning man alive. Or at least the most agreeable puppet.

Oh, I know what you in the far right ‘majority’ are saying right now. (Yes, all 37% of you.) “What are you talking about? No one has taken my rights away.” This, it seems, is the most common retort from the right when a discussion of the Incredible Shrinking Bill of Rights takes place between the left and the right. (Second place is “I don’t have anything to hide anyway. What do I care?”) Remember, the loss of rights is incremental and often unnoticed. Kind of like a roll of toilet paper, in that you never notice it getting smaller. But when you’re staring a an empty cardboard tube with your pants around you ankle, you understand that you’re in a bit of a bind. So, to fully appreciate the significance of this impressive accomplishment, I offer this brief analysis.

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Under Attack: Taken piece by piece; true, no national religion has yet been established, but there is a remarkable concentration of Christian Evangelicism amongst the upper ranks of government, including a president who operates on direct orders from God; and true that all religions can pretty much practice freely in America. But do expect some derision if your religion is Islam or anything else that sounds like lunch meat; we still retain our freedom to speak too, but if we do say anything against the president or his brilliant ideas, we are of course, traitors; a free press is now a myth, having been seen as such a good bargain (being free after all) that all of the news outlets have been homogenized into about a handful of really rich info barons, who of course return the favor of a deregulated media by teaching all their reporters the time honored ‘copy, paste’ technique of information dissemination; the freedom to assemble is spotty too, unless you are willing to sign a loyalty note or hold your rally in upper Montana in the winter. You can gather all you want, but we’re watching you and we’ll be moving you out soon. And of course that pesky petition the government deal is simply ridiculous. Petition all you want, but all their stuff is top secret, and the laws don’t apply to them anyhow.

Analysis: While nearly 4 in ten Americans think the 1st Amendment ‘goes too far’, the First Amendment is still technically intact, but a mere shell of it’s original self, weak and mostly for show.

Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Under Attack: Actually, this one seems to be fine under Bush. In fact, the Vice President showed us all last year how vital it is to have firearms handy, especially when lawyers are hanging around.

Analysis: Although used as a whipping post against the Democrats, this amendment is considered strong and safe. Besides, if the president really wanted to disarm the nation, he could always unleash the bird flu on us.

Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Under Attack: Actually, this one seems to be fine under Bush too. Probably because all the soldiers are off dying in the deserts of the Middle East. But hey…NIMBY goes for the troops too, n’est pa?

Analysis: Full 3rd Amendment rights intact (Damn…am I disproving my own thesis here? So far we still have 2 of 3 rights pretty much okay, with the third at least still a nice window dressing. Hmmmm, better continue cautiously.)

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Under Attack: Phew! I knew this was going to get easier! With the passing, or should I say, browbeating through, of the Patriot Act, government can now conduct ‘sneak and peak’ searches without a warrant, without ever telling the person about it. A person can be arrested based only on suspicion, their homes, personal belongings, and written communications can be perused at will, as long as we cite the War on Terror. On his word, the president can declare you to be a enemy of the state and no court can take it back. Plus, we’ve got the NSA too, so nothing you do is really unknown to the government. Hell, who needs a warrant when you’ve got secret technology and 300 million people to use it on? Now that’s some serious deciding power indeed!

Analysis: What Fourth Amendment?

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Under Attack: Okay, now we are rolling. This president really knows how to pick up speed! The previously mentioned ‘enemy combatant’ status makes obsolete the necessity to actually charge someone with a crime because we are in a perpetual state of public danger now. 9-11 remember? You are either a republican or you are with the enemy. If you are with the enemy (i.e .not republican), you can be labeled a traitor many times over, so don’t talk to me about double jeopardy. We can still not compel you to testify against yourself, but we’ve picked up some pretty clever interrogation tactics that seem to make people cry out what we want need to hear. Due process of law? A little Bush speak and presto- We’ll process you when we do.
Not sit down and shut up. As for private property rights? Give me a K. Give me an E. Give me an L. Give me an O. What’s that spell? Screw you and your property rights too! That’s right. An ‘ultra-conservative’ has presided over the disappearance of personal property rights, one of the keystones of the capitalistic society.

Analysis: (Taps playing in the background.)

Half time update: Bill of Rights Intact: 2
Bill of Rights Demolished: 2
Bill of Rights On Life Support: 1

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Under Attack: Speedy Trial? Too passé. Today’s ultra chic justice leaders prefer no trial at all. No specific charges, provided you seem unusual or are turned in for ransom money by an angry neighbor. In fact, the president has managed to get authority to withhold any formal charges indefinitely, until he can think of something good to use, I guess. If your accuser is the government, you can’t confront them either, because both the means and the information they have is top secret. Even to you, the accused. Especially to you, the accused. We’ll still get you a lawyer, but it may take a few years to actually meet with them. Not to worry, you’re not going anywhere anyhow. After all, if you’ve gotten to the point where we decided to imprison you in this way, you probably are a traitor anyhow.

Analysis: While the disintegration of the 6th Amendment is occurring slowly and is currently targeted primarily at certain populations, the precedent has been set to apply the new definitions anytime and against anyone. Goodbye Number 6. See you on the other side.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Under Attack: Continued tort reform laws have virtually insulated corporations from civil liability in all but the most egregious cases. And when was the last time anybody sued for only twenty bucks? We don’t have time for that kind of crap. Isn’t that what we have The People’s Court for? Fortunately the president knows when to use his eraser.

Analysis: Basically, this one is now worthless, but in fairness, the president has failed to alter this amendment in any meaningful way, primarily because it has been voided by the courts and congress first.

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

Under Attack: Not included in the definition of cruel or unusual is torture interrogation. Provided you don’t actually die, that is. Also, by increasing the War on Drugs®, we are now able to incarcerate more pot smokers, especially those fakers who are trying to pass it off as medicine. No amount of imprisonment could ever be considered excessive for these folks. After all, buying pot funds terror, remember?

Analysis: Excessive , schmexcessive. The Decider will decide what needs to be decided here.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Under Attack: Yeah, right. Like the people can be trusted to know what rights they need to have. Bush has boldly challenged this very flimsily worded amendment by promoting several constitutional amendments so that regular people will know that they should legitimize hate against homosexuals by denying them equality and physically restrain people from burning an American flag. But why stop at rights? This president really knows how to gut a principal. What with mandatory education programs, national ID programs, and a keen sense of whether dead people are really dead or just really, really out of it, but able to come back at any time, there are no rights, either enumerated or not that that president can’t modify with a properly placed signing statement.

Analysis: You only have the rights we want you to think you have.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Under Attack: See previous argument.

Analysis: See previous analysis.

Final Tally: Bill of Rights Intact: 2 (2nd and 3rd)
Bill of Rights Demolished: 7 (4th through 10th)
Bill of Rights On Life Support: 1 (1st)

So there you have it. The Incredible Shrinking Bill of Rights, courtesy of the Bush Administration. Next time I complain about the loss of America, you’ll know what I mean. In the meantime, how about a hearty round of applause for the president. His hand lies heavily over much of the destruction, and the rest occurred on his watch. Hey, he wants the credit for all the good things, right? It’s only fair then, that I give him credit for this, the downfall of the Bill of Rights, and the darkening of America.

(originally posted at Bring It On )

We recognize the preceding words as the preamble to our national Constitution. We’ve heard them in whole or in part throughout our lives, but as I listen to the conversations around me, as I read and answer comments to my own essays, it seems to me as if these ideals have become nothing more than words on a page. We see them. We read them. We say them. Yet we don’t seem to truly grasp what they mean. The intentions of the men who wrote these words so many years ago have been lost in the sea of prosperity and personal gratification so that they no longer hold the same promise that they once did. Or rather, the promise is still there, but the readers no longer believe in it. The importance of understanding these ideals is paramount if our chosen form of government, self-rule, is to endure.

We The People These first three words are the most important words in the entire preamble because it is with these three words that our form of government is established. We the people. Say it out loud and let it roll across your tongue. We the people. It couldn’t be any simpler to understand. We are our government. We are the ones responsible for making the decisions. We are the ones responsible for accountability. The government is us. From a practical standpoint, this is even truer today than when the framers wrote these words, for in their time, women couldn’t vote, non-whites couldn’t vote, often the poor couldn’t even vote. But as we’ve intellectually matured as a group, these inequities have been remedied and today, every adult American citizen has the chance to speak their mind about the workings of government, through their votes and their voices. But we don’t. It is time to quit thinking about government as an entity apart from the people, because in doing so, we establish a rivalry when one should never be.

From the left and from the right and even from the politicians, we hear how we can’t trust the government with this or how we need the government for that or how the government screwed up this or lied about that. We love to trash our elected leaders and advance their cynicism through decisive but utterly trivial matters while turning a blind eye to overt dereliction of political duty and outright corruption. We choose our leaders with one and a half eyes closed, and then keep sending them back regardless of their dedication to serving the citizens of the land. And the really sad part is that those doing the choosing barely represent half of the Americans whose voice should be heard. And the cycle is a self-perpetuating one. Less direct participation means less understanding, leading to less interest, accountability, and trust, which leads to further alienation, completing the circle. Mostly through apathy, We The People have abdicated our self-determination and bemoaned its loss in the same breath, and now we are left in two camps. One camp distrusts all things governmental and won’t have anything to do with it, including voting, except when they somehow personally benefit. The other camp distrusts all things governmental too, but gets out and votes for one side while spewing vileness at the other. With just over half of half of the population deciding which ideology will rule the day, We The People does not live up to its potential.

The other parts of the Preamble provide a course of action for our government to follow. “In order to form a more perfect Union,” implies compromise when necessary to further the goals of society in ways that benefit the greatest number of people. Promoting “justice, domestic tranquility, common defense and general welfare” outlines the established parameters for our government to work within, and “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” instills in us the duty to balance the benefits of today’s decisions with the consequences for tomorrow’s public. But in the light of today’s political environment, compromise is considered a sign of weakness, promoting the common good is passé, and forward thinking is a waste of time. This is what happens when We The People separate ourselves from our government. Without We The People, the whole thing just sort of falls apart.

Sitting around complaining about the failings of government can be a productive thing, but only if it leads to action to fix the problem. Yet in the charged political climate we find ourselves in, new ideas are torn apart without examining their merit while each side accuses the other of stonewalling. We look at this mess from afar, thinking we can’t possibly make a difference, but to think that is wrong. We have a voice. We have to use it. It is preposterous for any political party to lay claim to having a mandate from the people. They could at best claim a slim victory between the most vocal. But imagine if every eligible citizen turned out to vote and let his or her voices be heard. All these previously unheard voices would need someone to represent them and their needs, bringing more variety into the political arena, more opportunity for real representation, more willingness to try new ideas, to fix the status quo when it needs fixing.

By its very nature, politics is powerful. But it should not be about having power. In selecting people to make our collective decisions for us, we entrust them with our daily lives. Such trust should not be taken lightly, but it is because low citizen participation ensures easy reelection and low accountability. It is time for that to end. It is time to let our voices be heard, all of our voices. We hold our election process up to the world as the model which to follow, and brag about mandates with 50% or less of eligible voter turnout. Then we turn around and mock as “banana republics” those countries whose voter turnout is in the 60% range. Am I alone in seeing the hypocrisy of this? As we continue the slide towards apathy, the situation will only get worse, with fewer and fewer people making the decisions that affect us all.

So where do We The People go from here? First, make sure that you vote, especially in federal and state elections. Encourage others to vote or help get people registered. Talk to each other. Think about solutions to our shared problems instead of tearing apart new ideas because “the government can’t be trusted.” If we don’t trust our government, we are really saying that we don’t trust each other or ourselves. Find people you can trust and help get them elected. After all, our elected officials are raised in our communities and are supposed to share our values, values that have guided us for generations even as they continue to evolve. Leave the political party machines that depend on your fears and mistrusts to stay in power. Support people who will truly stand for the values laid out in the Preamble to our Constitution. By putting ourselves back in the driver’s seat, We The People can revive the trust in self-government, tear down the wall we’ve created, and get back to establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity as we were set out to do.

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.

With the establishment of the three-tiered enforcement system, we will have created three different levels of offenses. As such, it is appropriate for each level (Federal, State, and Local) to maintain it’s own judicial system. That does not mean that each level needs to operate by different procedures or be bound by different basic principles, but rather that each tier be responsible for trying those offenders who fall within its jurisdiction. As with the combined Justice buildings, Federal and State criminal courts could operate out of a single court complex, while the local courts could preside in multiple local locations. Again, this consolidation of physical locations combined with a central resource and depository center would result in lower costs and improved efficiency.

The Constitution describes many protections for us, as citizens, if we are suspected of having committed a crime. We are protected from police searches without a legal warrant; we are protected from prosecution without a legal indictment; we can not be tried twice for the same crime if we are found not guilty in the initial trial; we can not be compelled to testify against ourselves; we have the right to a speedy trial; and we can not be fined excessive fines or bail, or be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments. The Constitution provides for the protection of the accused and convicted, yet it remains curiously silent about the rights of society in relation to the rights of the convicted. The right of society to be safe from criminal individuals should be greater than the rights of a convicted offender. This is where the system begins to break down.

Rather than be the final stop in the search for truth, our courts are often anything but. Instead, they have become a place of obfuscation, where the truth often runs second fiddle to the games and guiles of the attorneys and judges who seek to increase their reputations rather than protect the public and who engorge their wallets through endless litigation. Evidence that is relevant to a case if often excluded, while inconceivable defense theories are thrown about as facts. Defendants are portrayed as victims of society rather than as individuals responsible for their own actions and procedural errors can convict an innocent man or set a guilty man free. Too often, trials turn on twists of emotion instead of factual evidence.

Prior to taking any case to trial, defendants should be given an opportunity to view the evidence against them and to present their side of the story in what would amount to a short mini-trial. Many suspects, once confronted with an abundance of actual evidence, will admit to their guilt. These individuals should be immediately taken into court for sentencing procedures. Designated courts at each level would have this as their primary task. This would allow for other cases to move more quickly through the system. For those cases where the suspect denies guilt, certain rules and procedures could allow for trials to move more quickly and factually through the courts.

First, juries should be seated randomly, with the least amount of pre-examination possible, so that attorneys on either side can’t “stack the deck” in their favor. To achieve this, jury service should be nearly impossible to shirk, with illness of a juror or their family member, unavoidable, verifiable travel commitments, or severe financial hardship being among the only reasons for postponing a juror’s service. Jurors should not be asked questions about moral beliefs or leanings, because like it or not, we all have them to one degree or another, and if a jury is to made up of common citizens, then pretty much anyone can do the job. Finally, juries should be required to determine only the guilt or innocence of a defendant. The punishments for most crimes should be posted with the laws themselves, and again when the charges are brought forth. This would allow for jurors to focus more on the evidence at hand without having to worry about how to sentence a person they may find guilty.

With recent leaps in forensic technology, there are many more tools available today for determining probable guilt or innocence of a defendant. Based on sound scientific principles, prosecutors are now able to identify DNA evidence at many of the most violent crime scenes. They have the ability to reconstruct crimes to determine what took place. The prevalence of surveillance cameras catch many criminals in the act of committing a crime. Financial trails can be traced, fingerprints can be identified, and weapons can be tested and matched to violent acts. All of these techniques, when used properly, can help to confirm a defendant’s innocence or guilt. Our reorganization of the investigative arm of criminal justice would help to ensure that these tools would be used in a consistent manner and that their findings would be accurate. If prosecutors can provide several examples of forensic evidence that can be verified and irrefutably bind a defendant to a crime, then this evidence should be accepted as factual and not be rebutted as voodoo science. This acceptance would end the need for “expert witnesses” who appear at a high cost to both the defendant and the public, but who serve to confuse juries by challenging accepted science.

If forensic evidence should be accepted as fact, as described above, then eye-witness testimony, unrecorded conversations, individual perceptions, and investigative suppositions should be introduced not as fact, but as helpful, though not necessarily accurate information that helps to build motive and means. Such circumstantial evidence is the common sense that explains the existence of the forensic evidence. It is with this evidence that defense arguments can and should be directed. It is in this area of testimony that a defense lawyer can foment the most uncertainty in the minds of jurors. Reasonable alternative explanations should be given whatever value they deserve when compared to the life experiences of the jurors and any relevant information about the defendant’s normal activities.

The trial system could be further streamlined by reducing the amount of backroom sparring that occurs and often prolongs a trial. While often done by the defense, prosecutors are known to engage in these tactics as well. Much of these arguments concern the admissibility of evidence. By adopting the rules of factual evidence and subjective evidence outlined above, such discussions could be greatly reduced. Further, adoption of these rules could also lead to a decrease in appealable issues after conviction, again reducing the workload in our courts and reducing the costs associated with criminal trials.

Finally, judges serving on criminal courts should be the ones who introduce the charges to the jury, explaining in advance the penalty for the crime, as well as advising the jury on the different kinds of evidence they will be hearing. During the trial, a judge should act as both referee and team captain, making sure each side adheres to the rules of evidence while moving things along at a manageable pace. Once a verdict has been reached, a judge should then pronounce sentence immediately and the defendant should begin their rehabilitation or other punishment.

From this point on, appeals should be limited and based upon new factual evidence or the discovery of wrongdoing on the part of the prosecution. (Prosecutors and police investigators, as well as witnesses in a trial should face serious sanctions if it is later to be found that they knowingly fabricated evidence to convict an innocent person.) Semantic irregularities or procedural errors should not negate hard, solid evidence of guilt or free guilty criminals.

These initial changes to our criminal court system could improve the fairness and consistency of trials. The streamlined evidence process, intended to bring forth the facts and separate the subjective evidence would mean quicker trials and lower overall costs on all sides, something only the lawyers will be saddened by. And the use of pre-arranged sentencing guidelines and limited appeals would increase the likelihood that criminals would be made to answer for their digressions.

I have offered two pieces of the reformed criminal justice system: the restructuring of jurisdiction and establishment of a three-tiered enforcement and investigative hierarchy, and a streamlined criminal court program. Both elements eliminate waste and offer society more security by focusing on prosecuting criminal behavior. Next up…reforming our system of punishment.