Stop and think about sex offender registries.

In a political climate drenched with debate as well as petty fighting, many people embrace bipartisan cooperation when it makes one of its rare appearances. A no-brainer of a bill feels like a relief, and it indicates that Congress actually has the ability to conduct business in a productive way. The uncontested passage of a bill feels particularly sweet when the bill deals with an emotionally gratifying issue, like the recent creation of a national sex offender registry.

No one urged President Bush to veto this bill. Named for the America’s Most Wanted host’s kidnapped son, Adam Walsh, this bill had all the trappings of legislative gem: widespread bipartisan support, quick, painless passage, and the emotional pull that only arresting child molesters for 25 years can elicit.

The law establishes a national-level database of past sex offenders’ names and locations. Many states have implemented databases of this kind before, but this law penalizes past offenders more harshly for not providing current information, and increases criminal penalties for child predators as well. It certainly sounds like a Congressional slam-dunk, providing all Americans with more access to information, and better protecting the nation’s children from proven sex criminals. Most people would support such a piece of legislation without a moment’s thought.

But any issue that prompts you to think with your heart rather than your head can have disastrous results. Botched legislation has enjoyed widespread gut-reaction support before, after all. And sex offender registries have not had a shining history.…

Share

Continue ReadingStop and think about sex offender registries.

No fireworks for President Bush today

The Bush Administration has viciously attacked the press (e.g., the New York Times) for daring to question some of the Administration’s many abuses of power.  The current scandal reported by the NYT concerns the Bush Administration’s decision to secretly monitor bank records.

Today, however, we celebrate the right of the American people to do far more than criticize their government.  Today, Bush himself undoubtedly waved a flag and admired some fireworks to celebrate, as patriotic, the rights of the people to violently overthrow their government when their government fails them.  In short, the Fourth of July is about recognizing that there is no more fundamental American right than the right of the citizens to violently overthrow their our own government when their government attacks their fundamental rights.  On the Fourth of July, many people even celebrate the Fourth of July by references to God, suggesting that even God approves of revolution to take down unjust governments.

Given this undeniable meaning of Independence Day (what else could it mean), it is ironic that President Bush would criticize the right of the citizens and their free press to do something actually much less threatening to those holding powerful office: the right to investigate and promulgate information about government abuses. 

But this is only one of the many abuses of this Administration.  For others, see here and here and here, three of many extensive lists available on the Internet.

In this context, I found it interesting to review some of the …

Share

Continue ReadingNo fireworks for President Bush today

Supreme Court rules against Bush and against its own Chief Justice

Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bush's proposed military trials for Gitmo detainees was illegal under both U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.  I don't think this comes as a surprise to many observers, given Bush's flagrant and repeated disregard for both U.S. and international law.  What is…

Continue ReadingSupreme Court rules against Bush and against its own Chief Justice

We must do X because we’ve ALWAYS done X

We’ve recently raised a few issues regarding justifications for bigotry.  What especially rankles some of us is the often-heard argument that people should do something a particular way (recently, the issue is preventing gay marriage) because that is the way that it has been done in the past.  

What a ridiculous-sounding principle on which to base an argument! Ridiculous sounding, unless you are a lawyer arguing an important case.  In courtrooms across this country, multitudes of lawyers lawyers stand up every day with straight faces and proceed to argue to judges that a case should be decided a particular way solely because a previous and similar case was handled that same way.

In law, this principle that judges should rely on precendent is given the obscure and mysterious-sounding label “stare decisis,” from the Latin, “stand by the thing decided.” [Stare decisis et non quieta movere, meaning “to stand by the decisions and not to disturb settled points”].

There is the great power in this heuristic.  At least it’s an equal opportunity principle:  Analogizing to old cases is a technique that can be used by crafty opportunists, as well as good-hearted seekers of justice. 

Though we are tempted to scoff at this principle (of relying on precedent) when it is employed by bigots, we need to keep things in context.  That very same principle is the heartbeat of justice.  How strange, you might think, that such an amoral principle determines outcomes of important cases!  That’s the way it is, however.  I’ll …

Share

Continue ReadingWe must do X because we’ve ALWAYS done X