photo credit: mimentza

One of the things about our judicial system that has always bothered me is the time and expense (tax dollars) that are wasted in criminal trials when the suspect is obviously guilty. Don’t get me wrong - I definitely agree that suspects are not guilty until proven otherwise. We are all entitled to a fair trial with legal representation. I’m not talking about throwing out our Constitutional rights.

What I am referring to are cases where a suspect is caught “red handed” and the suspect pleads not guilty in order to postpone and drag out the trial with the hope that they will somehow get off on a technicality. For example, there is a local case where a woman is being accused of identity theft. She is suspected of obtaining credit card information from her employer, a business that does sales over the internet. Police found over 100 items in her home that were fraudulently purchased with stolen credit card information. Credit card information for at least 46 people, all from out of state, were also found. She has been charged with 37 felonies. Of course, she has plead not guilty and is out on $10,000 bail.

It just doesn’t seem right that tax payers are now going to foot the bill for her trial, most likely including a defense attorney, even though it seems pretty obvious that she is guilty. Multiply these types of cases a million times (billions?) and we are talking about a huge amount of tax dollars being wasted every single year. Additionally, our court systems are extremely overloaded and these types of case only contribute to that problem.

Here is what I propose. When a suspect is initially brought before a judge, they would be given two options. They can plead guilty and accept their punishment. Or, they can plead not-guilty and take the chance that their sentence will be doubled if convicted. For example, if a person arraigned on first degree murder pleads guilty, they get a life sentence. If they plead not guilty and are convicted, they get the death penalty.

Of course, there is the issue of whether someone pleads guilty just to avoid the more severe punishment, even though they are in fact innocent. I don’t have a clear answer to that question except that this type of arrangement would have to be offered in cases where the evidence overwhelmingly supports a guilty verdict. Maybe the defense attorney could help the suspect make the decision.

In any case, I think there is something wrong with a legal system that allows criminals to blatantly waste tax dollars, cause additional grief among family members of a victim, or forcing a victim to testify in open court when it really isn’t necessary.

This is just my opinion. What’s yours?

Right up front I have to state that I am not a Bush supporter, and I am completely against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So please keep my obvious bias in mind.

I think Bush and his Administration honestly believe that military force is more efficient than diplomacy. I have often worried that Bush would be getting us into a war with North Korea or Iran. But as his time as President dwindles away, I had hoped that he would subscribe to the “lame duck” ideation and become more moderate. But a just-released article by the Washington Post has me worried again.

Dan Froomkin’s article “Are We Closer to War?” discusses yesterday’s resignation of Admiral William J. Fallon. Fallon is the U.S. commander in the Middle East. When I first heard about his resignation, I simply thought to myself, “Yes! Another of Bush’s political puppets has jumped ship.” But Froomkin’s article brings up several points that I hadn’t even considered. Read the story, and pray that he is wrong…

“The abrupt resignation yesterday of the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Admiral William J. “Fox” Fallon, has sparked a new round of speculation that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have some sort of plan in the works to attack Iran before their time is up.“

Most people are aware of the debate regarding the possibly illegal, and probably unconstitutional, access to Americans’ phone records, credit reports and internet traffic requested (or demanded, depending on your point of view) by the FBI and Homeland Security. These abuses 0ccurred mostly from 2002-2007 and were supposed to be the result of investigations aimed at potential terrorists and spies. The FBI claims that it enacted broad overhauls in March 2007 to prevent future lapses. (Personally, I think these “overhauls” are to prevent such lapses from again becoming public.)

I recall very clearly when some of the ISPs, telecom companies, and even public libraries refused to cooperate with these “requests” from the government. FBI Director Robert Mueller claims that those lapses were caused, in part, by banks, telecommunication companies, and other private businesses giving the FBI more personal client data than requested.

So I guess that those “national security letters” that the FBI sent had no bearing on the amount of information that companies were forced to provide. I suppose that the content of these letters, and the fact that it was the FBI requesting their “cooperation”, didn’t cause those companies to adopt a “take anything you want!” attitude. I’d love to see exactly what these letters said, but I’m sure they are unavailable to the public, in the interest of national security.

photo credit: lemoncat1

Here’s a story I still haven’t quite figured out. Under current policy, foreign flagged cruise ships that visit more than one U.S. port are also required to make a stop outside the United States. Many cruise ships are foreign flagged, but owned and operated by companies in the U.S. This policy goes back to the U.S. Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (over 120 years ago) and was intended to protect U.S. ships from foreign competition. I’m not certain how this pertains to current day cruise ships, but the industry has managed to abide by it, by making short stops. For example, a cruise from San Francisco to Alaska has to make a short port call in Canada before continuing on their journey.

But now a branch of the Department of Homeland Security is calling for changes to tighten the rule. Instead of a quick stop in a foreign country, they want foreign cruise ships to stay at least two days on each itinerary. In order to meet this requirement, foreign cruise ships would have to completely reorganize their schedules and modify which ports of call they will visit. Most vacationers prefer the short stays, as a 2 day visit to Canada may not be of any interest.

According to the Cruise Lines International Association, a Florida based trade group that represents most U.S. cruise ship companies, this change would cause some U.S. stops to be scrubbed in order to give them more time to meet the 2 day visit requirement, resulting in less tourism in the U.S., but more tourism in those foreign countries where the ships would be required to stop.

So with all that being said, can someone explain to me what exactly this has to do with Homeland Security? Or why they are using our tax dollars to increase tourism outside the U.S.?