So first of all, what the hell are they?
If you don't know, here's the wikipedia definition:
Bill of Attainder: A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.
Or to Summarize: A penalty just for being somebody or a member of a specific group.
Ex Post Facto: An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts") is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with lifelong imprisonment) retroactively. Such laws are also known by the Latin term in mitius.
Or to Summarize: It's about changing the rules after the fact so that even if you think you're obeying the law, it can still mean you're not.
Both of these are really important for the rule of law, because even though that rule of law is an illusion, it's a REALLY important illusion. And if the law is not fair, then its almost impossible to believe in it. So to the degree the law is fair, or at least gives the illusion of fairness, the law is strong. That's why when we know the law is not fair, the law starts to lose strength and civilization itself is threatened. That's the problem with being a Republic.
So, we should definitely include these in any constitution, and probably in the 'always' part, not the Hierarchy of Rights or the BrundleStaag, no matter how much I might want to punish Conservatives merely for being Conservatives. After all, they might do the same thing to me...(in fact they probably would.)
And yet....AND YET...
If the primary argument against Ex Post Facto and Bills of Attainder is that it makes the law seem unfair, what about instances where behavior of the offending parties in question also threatens the rule of law? For those of you who have seen the movie, "Lethal Weapon 2" you likely remember the moment where the racist South African villain laughs that he will get away with murder because he has Diplomatic Immunity? Or what about the fact that millions of people are losing their homes but the bankers got away with it? Or how I hear my entire life about how a war criminal is the worst thing EVER and they hunt them down until the end of time, and yet we let them get away with it.
The argument can be made that as bad as these things are, the alternative is worse. This why we need to let Nazis and Racists and Liars have their political speech, because it helps keep the speech free for everyone. I can see this. It might be fun to imagine a world with blurry Rule of Law where Batmans whirl around and solve the grey areas, while the law still keeps the glue apart for everyone else. But without script writers, I really doubt that would work out too well.
But I think the argument can be made that there might be some areas where the willful ignorance is so high, so deliberate, and so evil that even if the law doesn't cover it, punishment still needs to be applied to cover the rule of law itself. I think one excellent example of this was the efforts by the Tobacco Lobby to cover up the truth causing millions to die of cancer. Yes, its true conventional laws were used to punish them....but what if that had failed? EVERYONE knew they were guilty and patently evil...I mean selling cigarettes to children....
And, quite frankly, I think we need to punish conservatives for AGW denial. This isn't a joke any more. There is no ambiguity and their willful ignorance is threatening all life on earth. The cost will be in the TRILLIONS to fix it, and there is a deliberate effort not only to cover it up by the Koch brothers, but to ignore the consequences thereof...
I think they should pay.
Right now, I assure you, I am in the vast vast minority....but what about in the future? What about when the sea levels rise and every day is hot, August Hot?
What's better...a rampaging mob that moves to the south and tears the conservatives limb from limb...or a process...an organized threshold to actually PUNISH an organization so evil and destructive that everyone hates them, like the Westboro Baptist Church?
When people are sufficiently pissed off, there is going to be action....whether or not they have a loop hole in the law...so why not allow a mechanism in the rule of law?
I'll set the barrier at a simple one: 80%. If a national vote (not a legislature because legislatures suck) can find 80% of the people voting against you? Yeah. You're gone.
Banishment is the best alternative. And yes, it can be abused, which is why I think it should also require voting over three years to make it happen, but it might also make some groups who abuse our hospitality...calm down a little.
No comments:
Post a Comment