Lazarus, we probably agree on a lot of things, but this is one area where we will obviously always differ greatly.
When you quote the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, it is worth remembering that while the authors of those words still lived and basically ran our country:
*Slavery was held to be Constitutional
*Freed blacks were counted as three-quarters of a "person." (In determining representation in the H of R)
*Blacks were not allowed to vote
*Women were not allowed to vote
*Painful confinement in a public stockade was not considered to be "cruel and unusual punishment"
Later, segregation of the races was held to be Constitutional. So was the doctrine of "separate but equal," when it came to public accommodations, schools, housing, or transportation. Hotels and resorts could list themselves as "restricted," meaning no Jews, and this was not held to be something unlawful.
I cite these examples to indicate that the words in our Founding documents have very little meaning in and of themselves. Interpretation of these words is everything, and these are constantly changing with the times.
My general view is that present interpretations tilt too much toward protecting the rights of law-breakers, at the cost of not enough protecting of the rights of society at large to live in safety and without fear. In a society as complex as ours, mistakes will always occur in the administration of justice (due more to human frailty than malfeasance). This can lead to innocent people sometimes being unfairly (and unintentionally) victimized by the system. I view this as a regrettable, but acceptable, cost of a judicial system and process that places the highest priority on ridding our society of crime.
We can always just agree to disagree, in good fellowship, on this matter.
JC |
