Sunday, September 20, 2020

A New Political Concept?

 

Today I would like to introduce a (possibly?) new idea, or at the very least a new term, actually two.

I would like to introduce the idea of the unamended violation.  My intention here is that the term itself be considered as political or Law jargon with a very specific meaning as it applies to anyone elected, appointed, hired, or contracted to political office or political position of any sort whatsoever.  In other words, anyone who acts in the name of the so-called "state" is someone to whom this idea, its strictures, and its consequences would apply.

Most of us are perhaps familiar with the idea of the violation of a man's civil rights, a very broad term that could refer to anything from stealing a piece of chewing gum to kidnapping and the unjust taking of life.  This notion is important, yet it gets very little attention by media, in our schools, by parents with their children, and so on down the line of issues of immediate concern to people on a daily basis, regardless of whether they are consciously aware of it.

Federal Law addresses such violations and there have been many cases, for example, where state prosecutions of individuals for crimes such as murder have gone all wrong in the courtroom.  In cases of clear miscarriages of justice where acquittals should never have happened, federal prosecutors have charged the defendants with "violation of civil rights", a rather broad sounding charge with a catchall feel to it.  Ignoring the double-jeopardy issue, as well as that of the sanctity and authority of juries, the notion of the criminal nature of such violations is not completely foreign to many of us.

Where my idea may become somehow novel rests in part with the application, which in this case would be against any government instrument or agent who, in the course of his duties as such an instrument or agent, commits a violation of the rights of those to whom they have sworn oaths of good faith and competent service.  In such cases, the individual in question is offered the opportunity to personally make amends to their victims.  In the case of amendments made, the violation would be looked upon as amended insofar as Law and governance is concerned, meaning that the guilty party has made the good faith effort to right the wrongs he has admittedly committed in the name of the "state" against his fellows.  This may or may not mean that he is free and clear of other consequences such as loss of position or prison time, as well as others.  It does, however, serve as a mitigating factor in the final disposition of such cases, come sentencing.

The other side of that coin presents the unamended violation, where the guilty party is either unwilling or incapable of making restitution to his victims.  Unamended violations are ultimately serious in terms of their gravity, as well as the punishments that await those who either refuse to restore their victims or, due to the nature of the violations in question, are unable to.  An example of each may now be in order.

In the first case, the guilty party for whatever reasons, refuses to restore his victims to wholeness.  Such refusal may be taken as prima facie proof of the absence of repentance and of either malice aforethought or depraved indifference with respect to the losses and consequent sufferings of their victims.  There is, however, one fly in that ointment: unjust conviction.  In the case of one who has been falsely accused and convicted of such a violation, the question arises as to how one deals with the convict's refusal to make amends dictated by the court in a given case.  This is no small fly, either, and I am quick to admit that I have no quick answer to the problem, an issue for another day.

In the second case, let us say that the actions of the guilty party was to cause the loss of an eye or limb of the victim.  In this case, and as of this writing, there is no way to restore missing body parts of these sorts and so the offense cannot be amended as a matter of the nature of the injury.  In that case the violation is also unamended and at sentencing there would be premiums placed upon the punishment of the convict.  Murder would be another example, as would be the destruction of a loved and irreplaceable family heirloom.

In my opinion, holding this sword of Damocles over the heads of all government workers, up to and including the President would go a long way toward stemming the torrents of corruption and wrong doings, whether it be the skimming of public funds from some revenue pile, or killing an infant during execution of a no-knock warrant at the wrong address.

It is only when the cost of committing such violations far outstrips the benefits of commission, coupled with the promise and prospect of rock steady and consistent application of such standards of Law to government agents of all stripes, that corruption and other gross and intolerable wrong-doing by government officials, agents, and other related entities will begin to trail off with precipitous rapidity.

By the same token, anyone who falsely accuses such an individual of having committed a violation against the Public Trust will suffer trebly in the event he is discovered, charged, and convicted of having done so.  For example, Janey is angry that officer Jim issued her a parking ticket and decides to concoct a story that he pulled her over and raped her, an inordinately serious charge that, given Law in accord with the disposition of such cases would land Jim in a whole heap of very deep kimchee.  Proof of her lie and, given sufficient evidence to charge, Janey would be given the opportunity to recant her charge and publicly admit in bold neon that she'd lied and that officer Jim was a fine and upstanding man who never did anything to violate her inherent rights.  There might still be prison time for Janey, but the sentencing for this amended violation of officer Jim's rights would be peanuts when compared with that, had Janey refused to leave her violation unamended.

In the unamended case, had officer Jim been sentenced to a year in prison, Janey would have to serve three.

Finally we come to the notion of partial amendment, which could also be taken into account at sentencing.  Making amends to the degree possible, though incompletely satisfactory, might also serve to mitigate sentencing.

As a matter of procedure, the time for making amends would be prior to going to trial, which requires an admission of guilt with the promise that one will make suitable amends where possible.  If the defendant refuses the offer, upon conviction the violation is by nature unamended and sentencing is made pursuant to that condition.

If we, the people, do not fight for such restraints upon those who are supposed to serve us, but who rather presume to lord over us as masters, the abuses and hazards of tyranny will not only remain, but will continue to grow until such a pass is reached that neither will people such as myself be able to write about such concerns and issues, nor will people such as yourself be able to read or even speak about them. Given advances in technologies, the capabilities of which will only grow in time, one day you may not even be able to ponder them in the privacy of your own thoughts.

Think on this awhile; let it roll around in the back of your mind to digest.  The future to which you relegate not only yourself, but all your fellows including those whom you love dearly, hangs in the balance, contingent on our collective ability to force the hand of "government" such that effective measures for reining in the tyrants are made real, and are readily and handily applied by anyone against those who believe themselves to hold the authority to bring unjust harms to their fellows and to stand beyond unaccountability.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.