Timoleon: February 1790 Archives
As stated so concisely by John Adams in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, America was to be a land with "government of laws and not of men".
The rule of law requires the law to be written down, available to the public, and enforced by established procedures. Furthermore, everyone, even those who create the laws, is bound by them. No longer were Americans to be subject to the arbitrary dictates of one who claims: "My will is the law". Not only has this principle served
The adversarial system of settling disputes at law, criminal and civil, was implemented here because it was, and still mostly is, believed to provide us with our best chance for justice. Sounds great, right? Well, we all know how it has evolved . . .
The problem is simple, and we all know what it is. Money. For the adversarial system to work as advertised, all parties need to be represented by experienced attorneys who have the resources necessary to skillfully prosecute a case. And, as with most things in human society, this costs money. I'm willing to bet that over 90% of those asked would agree that "justice costs money, and the more money you have the more justice you will get". Any takers?
To the parties involved in a legal proceeding, the goal usually is to win, i.e. to receive a judgment to their liking. To society at large, the goal is to see that justice is done. Obviously, these goals often conflict. Court proceedings that make it into the major media outlets often involve questions or issues dear to the heart of many. I wonder what percentage of these folks want to see 'their side' win rather than see that justice is served? I wonder how many of these folks sincerely believe that 'justice' requires that their side win? I wonder how many of these folks have even analyzed the case from the prospective of winning vs. justice? In fact, now that I'm on a roll, I wonder how many can even see the value of the other side, much less entertain the possibility that their 'winning' might be wrong?
Since justice costs money, it's no wonder that corporations, governments, and rich folks, all with deep pockets, usually win against 'the little guy' with meager resources. I don't think this is right, but what's to be done?
A lot of possibilities have come to my mind and been dismissed for one reason or another. The only thought that is still rattling around in there Is something like this:
What if all the parties to a proceedings decided, beforehand and independently, how much they were willing (and of necessity able) to spend for justice, have each of them throw that amount of money into a pot to be split evenly among the parties? Anytime any of the parties wants more justice, they can throw more money into the pot which will also be split up.
I've come up with some obvious problems with this proposal, and lots of not-immediately-obvious problems.
I wonder if there is any merit to this idea?
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
Main Entry: pros·e·cute
transitive verb
1 : to follow to the end : pursue until finished <was...ordered to prosecute the war with...vigor -- Marjory S. Douglas>
2 : to engage in : PERFORM
From the wikipedia:
The rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance.
Fun Facts to know and share:
According to the 2006 World Almanac and Book of Facts, page 184, around 26,000 of the 44,800 auto fatalities in 2003 were caused by sober drivers. Imagine that, 57% of all 2003 auto fatalities were caused by SOBER drivers!
Cryptic quote from hippy chemist:
"It's the blue band, man. The blue band!"
The police often say 'We put our lives on the line every day to serve and protect' and as far as it goes, they do. A typical, well known example is the cop approaching the driver of the car he just pulled over - will the driver pull a gun and try to shoot the cop? Some few times the answer is yes and some fewer times the cop ends up dead.
But what about the times they don't risk their lives? What about the times they blast away at someone rather than risk their lives?
Consider that time in NY, February 4, 1999, when 4 undercover cops blasted away at Amadou Diallo, a civilian in the shadows who was attempting to show them his identification? One cop said he thought the victim was pulling a gun, and in fear for his life, this cop opened fire on the victim. When his brother cops realized the first cop was shooting at the victim, they joined in.
These cops didn't know if the victim had a gun, they were just 'afraid' he did. Rather than risk their lives in order to determine if the victim intended them harm, they shot him down in a hail of 41 bullets.
"We risk our lives." Compare that statement to the soldier's: "We give our lives." What does it mean when someone risks their life but stops short of giving it? Or contrast the cop's stance with that of those hero's of Search and Rescue who say "If I have to give my life for yours, I will".
Sometimes cops actually go beyond merely risking their lives to giving them. On That 2001 NY day, scores of cops became rescue workers, and three score perished.
As harsh as it sounds, I want the cops to default to dying rather than killing innocents.
"Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice other people without blushing." George Bernard Shaw
Fun Facts to Know and Share:
Per year averages for the 15 year period from 1980 through 2005:
§ 10,751 cops were assaulted by folks using weapons - 22% of these assaults involved firearms
§ About 50,000 assaults on cops without weapons
§ 140 cops were killed - 56% of these deaths were accidental, the remaining 62 were felonious
In 2004 there were more than 800,000 full-time sworn law enforcement officers in the United States, yielding an average of 8 deaths per 100,000. The homicide rate from 1976 through 2005 was 7.8 per 100,000. While my calculations here are only approximate, it seems that being a cop is about as risky as not being a cop.
"The changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000." David C. Stolinsky, MD
Bumper stickers that caught my eye:
"The only thing that I feel when I kill, is the recoil."
Physician's Statement
Health and Safety Code 11362.5
This certifies that _________________________ is a patient under my
(print patient's name)
medical care and supervision for the treatment of ____________________.
(diagnosis)
I have discussed the medical benefits and risks of cannabis use with the patient as a treatment for these medical conditions. I recommend cannabis use for my patient.
If my patient chooses to use cannabis therapeutically, I will continue to monitor his/her medical condition and to provide advice on his/her progress.
I understand that I may be contacted to verify the information in this letter. My patient authorizes me to discuss their medical condition and the contents of this letter, for verification purposes only. I am a physician licensed to practice medicine in the state of California.
o State guideline is not adequate for patient, allow for more.
This recommendation is valid for 1 year, until ________________
Patient's Signature __________________________ Date ____________
Physician's Signature __________________________ Date ____________
Physician's Name ___________________________________
(print)
Physician's CA License No. __________________________________
Physician's Address ________________________________________
________________________________________
City, State and Zip code
Physician's Phone Number ________________________
