This amendment keeps us from being held with excessive punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This means we cannot be put to death for stealing a loaf of bread. We also can't be held on a million dollars bond for that same loaf of bread.
Most Americans agree that the punishment should fit the crime. Petty theft shouldn't carry decades in prison. Rape should carry more than 6 months.
Most of the time when this particular amendment is debated, we tend to be angry about the lack of punishment. We tend to be discussing how an accused rapist is later discovered to be wrongly convicted, but the accuser isn't charged, or the punishment is lighter.
Another debate is how one person of a certain race is given a lighter sentence than those of other races. Punishments must all fit their respective crimes regardless of skin color or gender.
This amendment is supposed to keep us from being punished harshly for a minor crime, though. There are other laws that are meant to handle punishments being different for groups based on gender or race.
Monday, April 23, 2018
The Bill of Rights- The Seventh Amendment
The seventh amendment, again, is a little debated amendment.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This is just saying that in civil suits worth more than $20, the defendant has the right to a jury trial. This doesn't mean that a jury trial is required, but people can elect to have a jury trial, rather than rely on the judge to determine whether or not the defendant must pay. That's basically this amendment in a nutshell.
We can't be forced to have just one person determine our fate in civil court. That's great news!
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This is just saying that in civil suits worth more than $20, the defendant has the right to a jury trial. This doesn't mean that a jury trial is required, but people can elect to have a jury trial, rather than rely on the judge to determine whether or not the defendant must pay. That's basically this amendment in a nutshell.
We can't be forced to have just one person determine our fate in civil court. That's great news!
Logical Fallacies- Black or White
This logical fallacy seems to be a favorite on Facebook. It is also one of the dumbest arguments I see. Rarely is anything cut and dry, black and white. Just because I believe in one thing, doesn't mean I can't acknowledge belief in something else. Just because I like purple, doesn't mean I hate green. Two things can occur simultaneously. Not all liberals believe in banning weapons. Actually, very few people believe in an all out ban on firearms. Not all conservatives believe that everyone should be armed. Some actually believe in gun laws that work. Also, just because one has a conservative belief, doesn't mean that they are conservative in all their beliefs, nor vice versa.
This meme keeps going around:
Which irritates me either way. First, not all liberals believe in not owning guns, and higher taxes. I know more liberal gun owners than people obviously think. I also know more "conservative" potheads than not. Actually, most of the people trying to push for legalizing Marijuana on my social media networks are ultraconservative, anti-abortion, pro-gun, self-proclaimed rednecks. I rarely see middle of the road people advocating for any of this. Belief in one of these things doesn't make on completely liberal or conservative. Most of us have both liberal and conservative beliefs. The world is not black and white. Stop putting people in categories and trying to piss one another off, and actually start listening. Some conservatives have good ideas, and some liberals do too!
Very few things are cut and dry. People aren't entirely liberal or conservative a lot of the times.
Theft is wrong. Starvation is also wrong. There is a grey area where people sometimes justify theft because the thief was starving and was desperate. Others see theft as always wrong. The world is full of grey. Not everything is one or the other. I love George Jones. I also love Eazy-E. I cannot discount one genre of music because I prefer another. Each has its own merit. The world isn't black and white.
This meme keeps going around:
Which irritates me either way. First, not all liberals believe in not owning guns, and higher taxes. I know more liberal gun owners than people obviously think. I also know more "conservative" potheads than not. Actually, most of the people trying to push for legalizing Marijuana on my social media networks are ultraconservative, anti-abortion, pro-gun, self-proclaimed rednecks. I rarely see middle of the road people advocating for any of this. Belief in one of these things doesn't make on completely liberal or conservative. Most of us have both liberal and conservative beliefs. The world is not black and white. Stop putting people in categories and trying to piss one another off, and actually start listening. Some conservatives have good ideas, and some liberals do too!
Very few things are cut and dry. People aren't entirely liberal or conservative a lot of the times.
Theft is wrong. Starvation is also wrong. There is a grey area where people sometimes justify theft because the thief was starving and was desperate. Others see theft as always wrong. The world is full of grey. Not everything is one or the other. I love George Jones. I also love Eazy-E. I cannot discount one genre of music because I prefer another. Each has its own merit. The world isn't black and white.
Logical Fallacies-Bandwagon/ Fallacy of popularity
This fallacy hinges on the belief that if everyone is doing it/ believes it then it must be true. Think of lemmings. One jumps over a cliff and more follow. Many of our moms would say "Well, if Johnny jumped off a bridge would you do it too? I don't care what Johnny is doing."
There have even been a few social experiments that have proven that people will believe things just because others do. Telling people 74% of Americans believe XYZ can make some people believe it as well. For example, if I tell people that 84% of Americans wear green on Tuesdays, people will begin to believe that wearing green on Tuesday should be a thing. I mean 84% of people think it's okay. It must be. This is a simple belief that will not affect much other than laundry, but there are debates that can be much more significant.
Most of these revolve around belief in a deity or religion. "You can't tell me that 3/4 of the world's population is wrong. There is a higher power." Now, I am not actually going to debate whether or not God or a god exists. What I am saying here is that God doesn't exist simply because people agree that He does. To further that, I am not going to say that He doesn't exist simply because large numbers of people say that he doesn't exist. The world isn't round because lots of people say it is. The world is round because it can be scientifically proven to be round. I don't care how many flat earthers say that the world is flat. Their agreement doesn't mean that it is true.
Also, be careful about jumping on a bandwagon. Slavery was popular amongst Southern plantation owners in 1785, but that doesn't make it right. It was still wrong and harmed thousands of Africans and African Americans.
There have even been a few social experiments that have proven that people will believe things just because others do. Telling people 74% of Americans believe XYZ can make some people believe it as well. For example, if I tell people that 84% of Americans wear green on Tuesdays, people will begin to believe that wearing green on Tuesday should be a thing. I mean 84% of people think it's okay. It must be. This is a simple belief that will not affect much other than laundry, but there are debates that can be much more significant.
Most of these revolve around belief in a deity or religion. "You can't tell me that 3/4 of the world's population is wrong. There is a higher power." Now, I am not actually going to debate whether or not God or a god exists. What I am saying here is that God doesn't exist simply because people agree that He does. To further that, I am not going to say that He doesn't exist simply because large numbers of people say that he doesn't exist. The world isn't round because lots of people say it is. The world is round because it can be scientifically proven to be round. I don't care how many flat earthers say that the world is flat. Their agreement doesn't mean that it is true.
Also, be careful about jumping on a bandwagon. Slavery was popular amongst Southern plantation owners in 1785, but that doesn't make it right. It was still wrong and harmed thousands of Africans and African Americans.
The Bill of Rights- Sixth Amendment
The sixth amendment is mostly agreed upon in most circles. It reads as follows:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
This amendment protects citizens from long waits for trial, a "stacked" jury, traveling an unreasonable distance for trial, being charged and not knowing for what, being testified against without the ability to confront his or her accuser; and allows for witnesses of their own; and permits the accused to have a lawyer. Most people think this is generally a good thing.
The times I see this right imaginarily infringed upon, it is for heinous crimes. The person denying the rights feels that it is justified. Pedophiles should just be taken out back and shot, and have no need for a trial. While I don't disagree with the sentiment, it opens a dangerous can of worms. What if we take the rights of any accused pedophile, rapist, or murderer and throw them under the jail? What about the falsely accused? What about those acts of self defense (in the case of murder)? What about the jealous ex trying to get someone in trouble? We tend to agree that anyone who knowingly falsely accuses someone of rape should then be charged with a crime with equal punishment. If we take away the sixth amendment rights, the falsely accused would be killed or incarcerated under false pretenses.
For these reasons, the sixth amendment is necessary. I think most of us can live with that.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
This amendment protects citizens from long waits for trial, a "stacked" jury, traveling an unreasonable distance for trial, being charged and not knowing for what, being testified against without the ability to confront his or her accuser; and allows for witnesses of their own; and permits the accused to have a lawyer. Most people think this is generally a good thing.
The times I see this right imaginarily infringed upon, it is for heinous crimes. The person denying the rights feels that it is justified. Pedophiles should just be taken out back and shot, and have no need for a trial. While I don't disagree with the sentiment, it opens a dangerous can of worms. What if we take the rights of any accused pedophile, rapist, or murderer and throw them under the jail? What about the falsely accused? What about those acts of self defense (in the case of murder)? What about the jealous ex trying to get someone in trouble? We tend to agree that anyone who knowingly falsely accuses someone of rape should then be charged with a crime with equal punishment. If we take away the sixth amendment rights, the falsely accused would be killed or incarcerated under false pretenses.
For these reasons, the sixth amendment is necessary. I think most of us can live with that.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
The Bill of Rights- The Fifth Amendment
I plead the fifth... do I really understand that?
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
This one is full of information, and most of it is not debated, but the phrase "I plea the fifth" isn't used properly most of the time.
Let's take this section by section.
1. You cannot be held without an indictment, unless there is an extenuating circumstance of war (exception here is for war crimes) or public danger (there's a serial killer on the loose, I think). I am not even clear on the two exceptions myself. I think that it must be the Summer of Sam or a War Crime to supersede the need for a formal indictment or charges. Not all charges require grand jury indictment, but you must formally be charged before being compelled to answer for crimes. We see this in crime shows frequently... they can only hold the perp for 24 hours for questioning before having to cut him loose or charge him. No, Law & Order is not the authority on constitutional law, but it is a reference point for this portion of the Fifth Amendment.
2. Double Jeopardy- you cannot be charged twice for the same crime. This one I don't quite understand the inner workings. For example, OJ was found not guilty of killing Nicole. Why can he not just admit now that he did and avoid prosecution. Jeopardy is attached to capital crimes such as murder. The state cannot appeal, so he could admit to it without going to prison. So why not just admit it? Did he not do it? Most of the court of public opinion feels he did. I do think that I understand he could be charged with other crimes such as obstruction of justice, lying under oath, and other such crimes. I do not believe those have the same penalty, though.
3. This is the part people use incorrectly. "or shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Witness against himself would indicate that he is guilty. If someone is called as a witness against someone else, it is to testify that someone or something did something wrong. It doesn't say that you can't be compelled to witness for yourself (which you aren't required to do either) but you cannot be forced to admit wrongdoing. Pleading the fifth is not refusing to testify it is refusing to incriminate oneself.
4. This part means that we (the police, city, state, etc) cannot seize property without just cause. No one can just take the property one owns for use of the state. You must be compensated fairly.
Think about how you use these phrases.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
This one is full of information, and most of it is not debated, but the phrase "I plea the fifth" isn't used properly most of the time.
Let's take this section by section.
1. You cannot be held without an indictment, unless there is an extenuating circumstance of war (exception here is for war crimes) or public danger (there's a serial killer on the loose, I think). I am not even clear on the two exceptions myself. I think that it must be the Summer of Sam or a War Crime to supersede the need for a formal indictment or charges. Not all charges require grand jury indictment, but you must formally be charged before being compelled to answer for crimes. We see this in crime shows frequently... they can only hold the perp for 24 hours for questioning before having to cut him loose or charge him. No, Law & Order is not the authority on constitutional law, but it is a reference point for this portion of the Fifth Amendment.
2. Double Jeopardy- you cannot be charged twice for the same crime. This one I don't quite understand the inner workings. For example, OJ was found not guilty of killing Nicole. Why can he not just admit now that he did and avoid prosecution. Jeopardy is attached to capital crimes such as murder. The state cannot appeal, so he could admit to it without going to prison. So why not just admit it? Did he not do it? Most of the court of public opinion feels he did. I do think that I understand he could be charged with other crimes such as obstruction of justice, lying under oath, and other such crimes. I do not believe those have the same penalty, though.
3. This is the part people use incorrectly. "or shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Witness against himself would indicate that he is guilty. If someone is called as a witness against someone else, it is to testify that someone or something did something wrong. It doesn't say that you can't be compelled to witness for yourself (which you aren't required to do either) but you cannot be forced to admit wrongdoing. Pleading the fifth is not refusing to testify it is refusing to incriminate oneself.
4. This part means that we (the police, city, state, etc) cannot seize property without just cause. No one can just take the property one owns for use of the state. You must be compensated fairly.
Think about how you use these phrases.
Logical Fallacies- Ad Hominem
This logical fallacy is easy to get caught up in. This fallacy is an attack on the character of your opponent rather than the merits of the argument. While I will never say whether I voted Democrat, Independent, or write in candidate in the last presidential election, it is a well known fact that I did not vote for Donald Trump. The reasons that I don't think he is the right candidate are almost all related to his character. That said, even a blind squirrel gets a nut sometimes. He may come up with a plan that has value and merit. He hasn't, in my opinion, as of yet, but that's not the point of this.
If I am debating with someone, for instance, Donald Trump, and I am opposed to his argument, or his stance, I cannot challenge his character as a good reason to be against this argument. For example, if he says that homosexuals should be married in civil ceremonies only, and I want to oppose that, I can't say that's a stupid plan because you're a womanizer who cheats on his wife, therefore you have no authority. His marital sexual escapades have no bearing on your knowledge of the law, constitutionality, nor feasibility of your plan. Let's face it, Bill Clinton was somewhat similar in his alleged escapades, and we let him stay president. Donald Trump has suffered the same allegations, it doesn't matter in terms of the argument at hand.
It's easy to attack a conservative or a liberal for holding beliefs you do not like. It is also easy to shut out a solution simply because you do not like the author of the solution. That is 99% of the issues in the US today. We don't like the other side, so we don't want to meet half way. IF you want your argument to be valid, refrain from attacking the other side's character. Attack, instead, the other side's argument.
If I am debating with someone, for instance, Donald Trump, and I am opposed to his argument, or his stance, I cannot challenge his character as a good reason to be against this argument. For example, if he says that homosexuals should be married in civil ceremonies only, and I want to oppose that, I can't say that's a stupid plan because you're a womanizer who cheats on his wife, therefore you have no authority. His marital sexual escapades have no bearing on your knowledge of the law, constitutionality, nor feasibility of your plan. Let's face it, Bill Clinton was somewhat similar in his alleged escapades, and we let him stay president. Donald Trump has suffered the same allegations, it doesn't matter in terms of the argument at hand.
It's easy to attack a conservative or a liberal for holding beliefs you do not like. It is also easy to shut out a solution simply because you do not like the author of the solution. That is 99% of the issues in the US today. We don't like the other side, so we don't want to meet half way. IF you want your argument to be valid, refrain from attacking the other side's character. Attack, instead, the other side's argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)