Thursday, July 26, 2012

The Dilemma of Islam

The issue that we are facing with the Islamic religion is a major one.  Whether or not religious freedom can lead to a complete overhaul of the tenets that our nation was founded upon.

By allowing Muslims to enter our society we essentially run the risk that at some point in the future this group becomes powerful enough to usurp the fundamental nature of America.

For example in Britain, a recent poll was conducted within the Muslim community and 40% of the respondents indicated that they would like to see Sharia Law imposed.  Right now, that number does not constitute a large number of voters but it clearly articulates the point for the future and one that we in America have to consider.  Is it right to allow a group of people who are fundamentally opposed to the American way of life into the country?

The First Amendment of the Constitution offers religious freedom as a fundamental right of humanity.  However, if those claiming religious freedoms are not interpreting that doctrine in a manner consistent with freedom but rather pro ports a moral code and political direction that undermines the basic philosophy of individual freedom then should it be opposed?  I would say 100% absolutely.

The Constitution further suggests that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion..." though it does not go as far as separating church and state as many people believe  It is obvious that religious fundamentals are not universally shared but the basis of individual freedom is an ability to make independent decisions.  Any group or organization that disagrees with this view point should be resisted in their access to American institutions or their ability to construct their own.  Individuals would be able to worship as they choose but any attempt to organize to undermine principals of freedom and independence should be opposed.

It is not necessary to ban Muslims from moving to the USA but efforts should definitely be made to curtail them from gaining any type of influence.  For example, several steps can be taken at this point to curtail an emergent political movement that supports Sharia Law or strives to change the nature of America.

The first would be the banning of any Muslim from holding political office at any level.  Two, limiting of mobility within the nations borders upon entry.  Thirdly, the holding back of US citizenship until individuals have demonstrated an ability to appreciate the principals of the western world and finally the out right ban of Muslim schools.

Though these thoughts sound counter-intuitive to the basic fundamentals that the USA holds paramount, keep in mind that America has only ever had to deal with fundamental opposition to freedoms on this scale once before and that lead to a Civil War.  The goal is not to limit individual freedoms rather ensure that the thinking and principals that have allowed the world to thrive continue unabated by a religious/political movement at the institutional level.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Why Does Justice Take So Long?

The entirety of the judicial process needs to be shortened such that criminal activity is dealt with in a reasonable and effective manner.

The most important thing that has to happen is that the time lines associated with the process must be shortened.

No criminal trial should ever last more than a year from the time of the infraction. This is possible if the following tactics are implemented. One, lawyers on either side are compensated by determining the truth. Two, the police are given broader abilities to investigate crime and to collect evidence and three the judiciary simply works harder.

Conceptually, the idea of plausibility has to be eliminated.  The notion of reasonable doubt has clouded the legal system as defense lawyers create any myriad of arguments to create an image of innocence. They genuinely create artificial circumstances to cast doubt on the guilt of the accused with no bearing on the facts at all. This should be considered a highly unethical and a catastrophic abandonment of legal principal.

Also, the legal system seems more than willing to take into account mitigating circumstances. Why? If the crime is committed than punishment is warranted.  Though one can argue as to the compassionate nature of our society by considering the factors that might lead to violent crime they should not be admitted as they just cloud the issue at hand i.e. guilt or innocence and take up time.

The first step to changing the system is to have lawyers on both sides of the process paid by how well they arrive at the actual circumstances of the case.  The notion of guilt and innocence needs to go away.  The defense is obligated to provide evidence it collects and witness statements including those from the accused into the trial.  The defense should never be considered a process to create excuses for the action, twist the facts and in worse case even create lies.  The accused also needs to be required to take the stand in all trials.

Lady Justice is symbolic of being blind to the equitable nature of who is the accused rather than being blind to the truth itself.  The framers of the Constitution envisioned a system of judicial equality not one where the truth is incidental.