Tag Archives: Gary Nolan

Justice System, Libertarianism, The United States Constitution

I’m rather Blue over Sharia Law

Leave a comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

In 2010, a legal decision in New Jersey incited national debate when Judge Joseph Charles decided not to grant a restraining order to a Moroccan woman who had been raped, according to legal standards in the United States, by her ex-husband. The reason given was that the judge accepted the Muslim man’s argument that under Sharia Law, he had done nothing wrong, and that ruling against him would violate his religious rights as enumerated in the 1st amendment.

As a result of this ruling and the potential for others like it, several states across the U.S. enacted anti-Sharia law statutes, including Oklahoma. However, after Oklahoma’s “Save Our State Amendment” passed, it was overturned by a higher court due to its targeting of one specific religion, specifically Sharia law, again citing that such a law violates the 1st amendment.

Judge Charles was wrong in his decision, but Oklahoma legislators reacted wrongly as well, and the higher courts were charged with making it all right. Many conservatives were upset the Save Our State Amendment was overturned, but they shouldn’t have been. If a statute can lawfully target the Muslim faith, one could lawfully draft laws targeting Christian faith as well.shariah-law[1]

American legislators define American law in their respective jurisdictions. There should not be a need to specifically exclude Sharia law, because unless Sharia law verbiage happens to be on that jurisdiction’s register, it should never be considered in the first place. The exception being in civil court where Sharia law may have been part of a contract.

Rape is not excusable under U.S. law because of religious views, so Judge Charles simply made an improper ruling that needed overturned—no additional legislation needed. If the man had killed his wife in an honor-killing, would the judge still have come to the same conclusion?

While I applaud Oklahoma and other such states attempting to take measures to prevent this in the future, the higher courts are there to reverse such decisions, and there are mechanisms in place to remove judges who go afoul of the law they are charged with adjudicating. Oklahoma didn’t need to amend their state constitution, they merely needed to deal with a judge violating his oath to uphold it.

If they truly felt it was necessary to elaborate, the Oklahoma legislature could have simply wrote something to the effect of the following:

The criminal court of Oklahoma may not consider laws which are not specifically on the United States Federal Register, Oklahoma State Register, or any applicable local registers as an argument for innocence or guilt.

It is succinct, and doesn’t target any single religion.

However, there’s a deep hypocrisy here with many conservatives. A majority of them are Christian, and they were the ones most vocal about prohibiting Sharia law, yet they often have no qualms about legislation such as blue laws or the proposed Defense Of Marriage Act.

Blue laws have curiously stood up to constitutional challenges because proponents have argued that while they were enacted as a way to force people to conform to a religious doctrine of the Sabbath, it can also be viewed as merely the government in question, ordering a day of rest, and does not necessarily have a religious component, making it okay.

Somehow the Supreme Court agreed—but how? It’s not a day of rest, it’s a day of not being able to buy alcohol. If they closed down all business on Sundays, then and only then would it be a forced day of rest.

SundayAlcohol[1]

More important, what business does government have telling you when to rest  in the first place? Why not tell me when I have to go to bed then? Maybe force me to take a nap too, while we’re at it.

As for the Defense of Marriage act, it is entirely contrary to the purpose of the Constitution. It was never intended to be a dictionary to define something such as marriage, nor was it intended to tell the people, in this case the gay community, what rights they have. One look at the Bill of Rights and it’s clear that it was written to define limits to the federal government, not the people. The Volstead Act (Prohibition) was the first attempt at perverting the Constitution in such a manner, also largely based on religious doctrine, and that was rightfully repealed a short time later. All such acts imply the government has the power, not the people.

As for blue laws, the supreme court did something in declaring these laws constitutional that I think violates their oath of office.

The Supreme Court Of The United States
The Supreme Court Of The United States

The Supreme Court Justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the will of the majority. If we were a democracy, a system where only the majority opinion mattered, instead of a republic with a Constitution, we would have no need for them.

But we have a Constitution, and it exists to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting it as written. What the SCOTUS did was find away to allow the majority to deny rights to the minority (atheists like myself), instead of judging these laws on their merits against the Constitution.

In so doing, they undermined the purpose of them being appointed, not elected, so that they don’t act on popular opinion. They behaved like legislators instead of guarantors of our rights.

Christians upset about Sharia Law arguments being allowed in criminal courts are absolutely right to be upset. But they must cease to endeavor to make American laws congruent with Christian doctrine also, or they are no better than the cause they are fighting against—hypocrisy destroys credibility.

Blue Sky Thinking, Justice System, Libertarianism, The United States Constitution

How to stop Big Brother – A Constitutional Amendment

Leave a comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

We’ve all seen them; and we may have gotten a friendly letter in the mail from our local government as a result of them as well. Those infernal speed and/or traffic light cameras.red-light-camera-springfield-ohio[1]

The people who advocate for them say that they are a deterrent to dangerous driving and therefore reduce accidents, but when scientists actually tabulated the results, it turns out those making the “deterrent” argument are often mistaken. big_brother_obama_parody_poster-p228489253510086489tdcp_400[1]

I’m not completely ignorant of the potential benefit of these devices. During the investigation of an accident, all that is truly desired is the truth; these cameras can provide that. If for instance, an accident occurs, and in an attempt to determine who was at fault, the police wish to review footage from a camera, then this is a very good and fair use of such devices.

But when these devices trigger legal action, this is what changes such machines from a technology advancement in investigation towards the ominous Big Brother. George Orwell’s 1984 was not a heart warming story where Big Brother was a robotic June Cleaver after all, I suspect people from almost all political sides were bothered by it.

The reason this is wrong is that it defies the purpose of our government, which by design, exists solely to protect our rights. As such, the point of traffic laws is to ensure people drive safely so as not to harm other motorists, violating their right to life and/or property. The financial penalties should be to help pay for the people to do the work of enforcing traffic laws and to serve as an incentive not to do it again. The government is not a business intended to make a profit, so revenue generation outside the tax structure violates the core of our nation.

So how is a real police officer doing a traffic stop any different from one of these cameras? There are two very important distinctions.

Every day, people manage to drive safely along the highway using the unwritten rule of 5-10 m.p.h. above the speed limit, and they often do so in front of police who rightly determine that as long as people are driving safely, they don’t need to be hassled. But machines cannot make such judgment calls, they are purely indiscriminate.

The second issue is that if an officer on duty sees someone driving unsafely, they will pull them over in an effort to stop them before they harm someone; something I think is often abused, but is necessary nonetheless. There’s never any way to know of course, but it likely saves lives.

A camera doesn’t stop anything however, the motorist continues on their merry way until days later when they receive a letter with their picture on it, if they were driving so dangerous as to likely kill someone, the deed was already done.

So if we understand from the study mentioned above that they are not an effective deterrent, and we know they don’t physically prevent someone from driving unsafely, then their only purpose left in life is investigation, and revenue generation—only one of which should be acceptable.yourspeed[1]

My idea? A “No Big Brother” constitutional amendment. The verbiage would go something like this:

The right of the people to not be policed, fined, or governed by an inanimate object shall not be infringed. Inanimate devices either owned and/or operated by government may not be used as an impetus for legal action.

Governments have already spent millions of taxpayer dollars on these devices, so I’m not suggesting they be scrapped altogether; that would be wasteful. But while 1984 may be fictional, that doesn’t change the fact that these devices are a fairly accurate representation of how something like Big Brother would start if left unfettered. If we endeavor to remain a free country versus a policed-state, that means at some point a line must be drawn.

Our forefathers couldn’t have accounted for this, 1984 was not written or even imagined back then, electricity wasn’t even understood. But this is why they left open the amendment process so that in the future, new restraints on government could be added to fit the times and protect our liberties from an oppressive government, which is the underlying point of the U.S. Constitution.

The line I’m drawing is fairly simple. If  an occurrence needs investigated, use all the technology available to do so. However, if there has been no crime or incident reported, these devices should just be recording information that will be forever ignored.

Our forefathers may not have been able to anticipate a surveillance state, but every ounce of recorded history shows that they certainly didn’t expect nor want the government to be making the king’s ransom.

Capitalism, Justice System, Libertarianism, Logic & Reason, Social Issues

The often overlooked issue with the Affordable Care Act

Leave a comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

Much like oil, natural gas, and other industries with products we simply can’t often forego, insurance companies operate on a pretty thin profit-margin; on average about 3%. We know this because most are publicly held entities, and must report their earnings. While this seems to be too thin of a margin to be true, it is in large part due to these industries not being subjected to the whims of the market as much as others. They don’t need to build up money in the good times to survive the bad—their business is fairly constant.

For instance, jewelry sales, an industry with profit margins that are significantly higher, often tank in a bad economy—that diamond necklace can wait when times are tough. But, you still need gas and insurance no matter what the economic conditions are.

With that being said, if insurance companies could achieve higher profit margins, they owe it to their shareholders to do so. So why don’t they? The problem is that “pesky free-market capitalism.” If one company raises their rates and another doesn’t, the former better be offering something the latter doesn’t or while their profit margins may rise, their actual profits will sink like a mobster with cement shoes.

So now let’s look at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), because a coworker asked me if I was for or against the law.

First let me point out that I can’t say that I’m completely against the law, it’s 9,625 %$#@ pages, depending on how you count it! I don’t know one hundredth of what is in it. There could be 20 pages worth of things that literally say something to the effect of, “…and The Logical Libertarian blog is to receive a $100,000 monthly stipend” for all I know. In which case, my opinion has just evolved in light of new evidence.

Mitch McConnell Standing Next To A Facsimile Of Obamacare In Print Form
Mitch McConnell Standing Next To A Facsimile Of Obamacare In Print Form

But when I consider that the U.S. Constitution is only six pages long, and it’s a damn-effective framework for a whole country to operate from, I’m pretty comfortable in saying the ACA is probably the quintessential Rube Goldberg of legislation—massively overcomplicated.

However, as people complain about this law for various reasons, one thing that is often overlooked is the intent behind it.

Most of the people behind the ACA take issue with private health insurance companies. While it’s hard to paint a doctor as an uncaring jerk, it’s quite acceptable among the ignorant to attack those evil insurance companies; just watch Bob Beckel on FNC‘s The Five on any given day. The left have conditioned generations of people to forget that insurance companies are simply composed of people with equal unalienable rights as the rest of us, who offer you their money to buy a risk you cannot afford to take yourself. They are not a diabolical monolith hell-bent on draining your blood and back account in one fell swoop.

Bob Beckel - Democratic Strategist on Fox News' The Five
Bob Beckel – Democratic Strategist on Fox News’ The Five

But here’s where the people behind this bill and their atrocious math come in. The ACA was aimed squarely at health insurance costs, not healthcare costs. Since insurance companies are operating on a 3% profit-margin, that means that for every $100 you spend on health insurance, $97 goes to the doctor, medical staff, and insurance company operating costs (something that will have increased, not decreased, to comply with new regulations), $3 goes to the health insurance company’s bank account.

Now lets imagine that this bill completely eradicated every single dollar of health insurance profit, your $100 health insurance bill would now be $97. I don’t know about you, but if I’m trying to reign in burgeoning costs of a bill that’s divided up 97:3, I think I’d focus my efforts on lowering the $97 portion before worrying about the $3 one.

So why didn’t they? I believe there are two issues at play.

Many lawmakers are lawyers by trade, including the president. Legal reforms such as limiting frivolous lawsuits, loser-pays legislation, or my proposal to indemnify people from punitive damages for immediate acceptance of liability (proposed in a previous post here) would severely reduce the income of the ambulance-chaser sub-species of legal counsel.ambulance-chaser_1407[1]

But if we consider the idea that a group of lawyers in Washington are going to pass reforms that would negatively affect the livelihoods of some of their former schoolmates, chances simply aren’t that good. There’s always going to be a sense of loyalty to their fellow law school alum, and sadly it seems to have overridden their oath of office and loyalty to their constituents. These proposed reforms are about justice for those who are being abused by a litigant using the court system as a method of intimidation and ill-gotten gains. There is no rational explanation to oppose them if justice is your goal.

Barack Obama - Harvard Law School
Barack Obama – Harvard Law School

If lowering health care costs isn’t important, just the health insurance costs, they could have opened up insurance markets to increase competition across state lines, dropped coverage requirements, etc., but they didn’t do this either. Capitalism has only been effective for hundreds of years, I’d link to think it has proven itself.

But this bill was passed by people who largely want socialized health care; something they know the populace isn’t willing to accept. They call it “single-payer” because they know “socialism” carries quite the stigma, but I refuse to allow them to rename poison to get me to swallow it.

These lawmakers are offended private health insurance companies even exist because they believe a right to life, and a right to health care are synonymous, and therefore a duty of government. I appreciate the altruism behind it, but that doesn’t make it any less nonsensical.

The problem is that health care isn’t just a thing that exists in the world like food, air, and water that people can consume as needed. It is a service provided by someone who has spent large sums of money and eons of time on education in the field. One person does not, nor ever will have the right to the time and effort of another in a free country.

So if that’s true, and we agree doctors deserve to get paid, why am I against government paying them as a collective then? As cold as it may sound, if I was not physically responsible for you being in a wheelchair, I should not be financially responsible for your wheelchair.

If you want help—ask for it. If I can afford and desire to, I will—it’s called charity, and it’s abundant here. What shouldn’t happen is me being pilfered at the point of government’s gun.

Now that the website is failing, rates are going up, and people are losing their plans that Obama promised they wouldn’t, I think it’s fairly clear that mistakes were made and lies were told. The only way Obama wasn’t lying about being able to keep your plan is if he honestly didn’t know what was in the bill either. The new higher coverage-requirements literally guaranteed this would happen by law.

But maybe they were crazy like a fox all along. Because these policy drops and rate increases, while induced in their entirety by big government, will assuredly be blamed on the evil insurance companies, and then used to promote a healthcare system former Mother Russia would be proud of.

So as we complain about the failed website, the assaults on liberty, the tort reform that didn’t happen, the deregulation promoting competition that were left on the cutting-room floor, and the host of other issues with this law, lets not forget that even if it had been 100% effective, it would still have only lowered costs by a measly 3%, because there was nothing to address health care costs, only health insurance costs; proving once again that math, logic, & reason and big government liberalism are still perfect strangers.

Justice System, Libertarianism, Logic & Reason, Poll, Science & Skepticism, Social Issues, The United States Constitution

Forced Medical Treatment Poll

Leave a comment

In Ohio recently, an Amish girl was given chemotherapy by doctors despite objections from her parents, who opt instead to have faith in God to heal her. The government appointed a guardian to the girl on the basis they were protecting her right to life, a Constitutional duty of government. But yet this is also a violation of one’s right to religious freedom.

So where do you stand on this issue? Feel free to comment below after voting if you wash to elaborate on your reason for voting.

Libertarianism, Social Issues

72 Dolphins—no longer undefeated

1 Comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

As any NFL football fan knows, the 1972 Dolphins are the NFL’s only team to go a full season without a loss. It was a pretty amazing accomplishment. However, at the time of their perfect season, it was not yet a common practice for the sitting president to invite the Super Bowl winning team to the White House. Then again, maybe Nixon was just a Redskins fan.

Nonetheless, Barack “The Cool President” Obama decided that it was better late than never and invited them now, 40ish years later.72DolphinsObama

Never mind the irony that a man hell-bent on penalizing the wealthiest Americans for success and giving what the successful have earned to the not-so-self-reliant, decided to bring a team to the White House that is the most successful NFL team in history. Maybe they were invited so he could force some of them to give their Super Bowl rings to the then 1-13 Houston Oilers? Seems plausible.

However, some Dolphins who aren’t so thrilled with the president’s policies opted not to attend. Among them, Hall of Fame center Jim Langer, former offensive lineman Bob Kuechenberg, and Manny Fernandez.

While I agree with these players in principle, I feel this reflected poorly on their part not to attend. The inviting of a team to the White House is a highly non-political event. Since I can’t really think of some evil socialist ulterior motive Obama might have had in doing this (The Super Bowl ring thing was a joke), I will give the president the benefit of the doubt that this was simply a nice gesture to give them the White House visit they never got.

If you’ve read my blog, you know that I disagree, often vehemently, with about 90% of what this president has championed and done. But if the blog fairy came and granted me fortune and fame resulting in an invite to a golf outing with the president, I’d go without hesitation, and I’ve even be thankful and respectful doing it. Then again, I do really love to play golf.Obama-golfing[1]

All kidding aside, Barack Obama is a human being as far as I know. When he’s not in front of a TV camera bashing Republicans and the upper class, he may be a reasonably nice guy. I have some Democrat friends, and although it pains me to admit it, my mother is a Democrat too; although she hasn’t voted since the 70’s as I understand it. While their policies seem to defy logic and ignore the history of socialism in one fell swoop, on occasion, Democrats can still be pretty good people to hang out with.

If the conversation were to get around to policy, I would do my best to be respectful to the man, logically laying out where I think he’s going wrong, and simply voice my displeasure with his performance, sharing my ideas for how I’d like to see him preside over our nation. The White House is likely a very lonely and isolated place where the president, surrounded by other politicians and advisers, gets mostly 2nd hand information about what the people are feeling. I doubt he’s supped with the random John Q. Public very often. So an opportunity for us constituents to chew on the president’s ear should not be wasted.

While I don’t care to debate with someone who appears to be ignorant to the point that they simply can’t intelligently debate me, I’d certainly sit down and hash it out with the man holding the veto pen. If I could change one heart and mind just a bit, who better than his?

If you have a policy issue, new idea, or are simply disgruntled, the worst thing you can do is remain quiet and say nothing to those who oppose you, especially if they were elected to serve you. Sure Obama hears the complaints from largely right-wing media outlets, but it can’t hurt for him to hear it face-to-face from the people he was elected to serve as well.

If a person believes in their ideas like I do, they should never be afraid to defend them in the face of a contrarian. If the ideas are sound, they will stand on their merits. I would think men who spent their professional lives relentlessly beating on one another for an hour would not be afraid to discuss politics with the president, but on this day, the president was only met with like or ambivalent minds.

It has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing. On this day, some of history’s mightiest athletes, chose the path of least resistance, and I say that as a result, the 72 Dolphins were handed their first loss. If you feel it, don’t be afraid to speak it. As much as he may not seem to appreciate it, along with every other government employee, he is a servant to the people, and should be treated like one.

 

Blue Sky Thinking, Justice System, Libertarianism

I never tell a lie, and I’m never wrong. Let’s have some legal reform!

1 Comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

As we all know, politicians are often known for two things: lying and the inability to admit when they are wrong. If you want to see a prime example of both in one instance, look no further than this example from the chairperson of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (DWS).

Lying and the inability to admit fault are traits that are generally considered immoral, and are upsetting to the populace these people are elected to serve, but what’s the real reason behind it?

Let’s first discuss the lying which can be either malicious or altruistic.

I’ll give you examples:

  • Malicious: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky ~ Bill Clinton
  • Altruistic: No honey, that dress does not make you look fat ~ Every husband in history

An easy way to tell the difference is to understand who is being protected by the lie. If it’s the liar, then there’s a good chance it’s malicious.

So are all lies that roll off a politicians tongue malicious? Of course not. But, we all understand how malicious lies come about and agree they are wrong, so let’s focus on the altruistic ones instead.

What’s the one type of altruistic lie that’s good? Every time someone called the government because they saw a UFO and were told, “We’ll look into it” when in reality they knew it was the latest super-secret plane the government was testing and weren’t at liberty to discuss—I’m OK with that. The B-2 Stealth Bomber alone is estimated to be responsible for hundreds of reported UFO sightings before the curtain was lifted on it.

B-2 Stealth Bomber
B-2 Stealth Bomber

There is no way for the government to tell Americans their secrets without telling our enemies too. So some things simply must be kept out of the public knowledge base.

With politicians however, most of their altruistic lies are born out of arrogance. Many think voters can’t understand their superior knowledge or intellect well enough to support their ideas. So they lie to get elected, then proceed with their original agenda because “they know better.”

For instance, many on the left lie about the origins of their proposed social engineering policies, calling them anything but socialism, because they know people in America aren’t very fond of the socialist doctrine, even though these politicians honestly believe socialism can be good.

Many on the right lie about their intent to cut government assistance because they know telling people they intend on putting the kibosh to their government aid will be seen as cruel and heartless, when they truly believe it will help promote self-reliance and actually help those it’s expected to hurt.

I would argue that if these policies are good, they will stand on their merits. An intelligent person should be able to explain their position in such a way that reasonably smart people will understand. If socialism or capitalism are good, just make the best case as to why, and let us decide.

It’s hard to paint politicians as completely immoral here, they legitimately think they are doing what is best. But I find the hubris for them to assume they are more intelligent than me, the person they are nominated to serve, distinctly offensive.

Moving on from the lies, let’s discuss the inability to admit wrongdoing.

Although DWS has a degree in political science, not law, she does serve in Congress with a few hundred other law makers, many of whom do have a legal background; our president too.

I’m not attempting to disparage lawyers, it’s a noble profession. But it is common practice for them to vehemently avoid any admission of wrongdoing or offer any apology for a wrongful act. This practice has sadly become part of our fabric, and it affects all of us morally and financially.

Scales of Justice
Scales of Justice

In our current legal system, an apology is admissible evidence against you, so we have been conditioned to never admit wrong-doing. Lack of personal responsibility is everywhere these days, and I think it’s in no small part to our legal system’s exploitation of apologies.

As you saw DSW pirouette around the issue like she was on Dancing With The Stars (They do share the same initials after all), it became clear she knew she had lied, but was adamant about not admitting it.

What can we do about these two issues? While we will never be able to stop people from lying, we can do something about the admission of guilt issue by changing our current legal system.

If we look at health care, many doctors who know they erred when giving treatment will often refuse to give an apology at the insistence of their legal team, due to its evidential liability. Interestingly enough though, a 2001 University of Michigan program showed that while the liability may increase, the number of actual lawsuits decrease as patients are far more apt to accept an apology as restitution than most lawyers give them credit for.

This study shows that we humans care more about personal responsibility than money, and we are capable of forgiveness if it’s simply asked for. So, I have a simple proposal to make a meaningful reform to our legal system.

Introduce legislation that provides certain indemnities to a person when they accept fault. If a person admits their error, apologizes, and/or makes a sincere attempt at restitution prior to legal action being taken against them, (ruling out criminal activity), they should be immune from additional punitive damages in civil court over and above their actual fiscal liability for the damages inflicted.

This one simple change to our legal system could not only introduce a better moral code in our society by encouraging people to accept responsibility, but imagine the dramatic lowering in prices of goods and services, as insurance premiums and general business operating costs drop due to a lower or complete lack of settlement costs.

There you have it, I have improved our sense of morality and helped our economy with a few strokes of my keyboard, and that’s no lie!

Blue Sky Thinking, Justice System, Libertarianism

The Self-Imposed Death Penalty

Leave a comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

After the unforeseen suicide of Ariel Castro, a man who plead guilty to avoid the death penalty in the first place, the Ohio chapter of the ACLU has asked for a full investigation. I have one simple question—why?

In America we have an incessant need to prevent people from killing themselves. Whether it be someone who is depressed, terminally ill, or in prison for a heinous act, we behave as though it is our duty to stop them from ending their own life. But let’s review these three scenarios.

If I had a loved one who was depressed, I would do everything in my power to talk them off the proverbial ledge, and I would want the police to try to convince them otherwise as well; if they were called to the scene anyway. But would I want police arresting them for a failed attempt? Not on your life!

Imagine you were terminally ill with no chance of getting better, on a morphine drip just so you could eke out another few months, and burning through whatever inheritance you had intended to give to your children. Then imagine you finally come to the conclusion that the life ahead of you is only going to get worse, so you just want to end it. Seriously, close your eyes and imagine it. Now imagine some politician telling you that you may not by penalty of law? Now, honestly say you wouldn’t be furious. How dare some bureaucrat insist that you suffer because suicide is immoral in their eyes.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian understood this, and did his best to help those in pain to the most painless end possible, and he was put in prison for it where he eventually died. Every juror, the judge, and the prosecutor should be ashamed at the disgusting perversion of a trial outcome that took this man’s freedom from him when all he did was help people achieve peace.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian
Dr. Jack Kevorkian

In a free society, no one has the right to dictate to another that they must choose to live—it violates the core concept of freedom—that you own your own body. Yet we so often do exactly that. While I suspect that much of this comes from our heritage as a largely Christian nation who consider suicide a mortal sin, legislating religious dogma violates our Constitution and the freedom of those not encumbered with such beliefs.

Moving on to the Ariel Castro situation, the ACLU, an organization I should be in lock-step with based on their name, continues to show that they’re not about civil rights, but instead about contradicting and interfering with any American government agency. Being a constitutional libertarian versus an anarchist one, I believe our government has a place in this country, it’s to protect the rights of others. But unlike many, I also know our forefathers had another duty in mind that was explicitly implied, but never written: they have a duty to stay the hell out of our way.

If Ariel Castro had been attacked by other inmates, the ACLU would be right to want an investigation; prisons most protect prisoners. But if the ACLU had any concern to actually protect civil rights, they’d agree with me that if Ariel Castro wanted to die, we should simply let him. It’s the ultimate civil right.

Analyzing the actions of offenders who have given themselves the death penalty, I can’t see how we as a society have a problem with it. If they feel they did something wrong and wish to atone for it; good for them—it’s their final act of decency.

If they want to protect society because they know that they are prone to do it  again pending a release or escape; again—good for them.

If they simply don’t want to suffer in prison; maybe not good for them, but good for the rest of us. They have assured that society need never fear them in the future.

Part of me wishes to point out the savings to the taxpayer, but fiscal issues should not play into matters of life and death, however I have an idea I’ll get to in a minute.ACLU_oh[1]

Many have said that Castro took the easy way out as opposed to suffering in prison. While I agree; I don’t care. Prison was not meant for the suffering of offenders, we do have a cruel-and-unusual-punishment clause in the Constitution, after all. It was meant to protect society by detaining people who might infringe on the rights of others. By killing themselves, such offenders merely guarantee a safety to society that prisons attempt to accomplish through incarceration.

We all know I’m prone to some blue sky thinking, so what I propose is the exact opposite. If a prisoner wants to die, let them ask to see the warden and volunteer for a lethal injection. Make them wait a period of time such as 24 hours to change their mind, but if that’s what they want, then I say thanks for protecting society from any future bad acts as well as thanks for saving us taxpayers the approximately $28,000 a year we spend to incarcerate them. If we take it one step further, we could even offer a financial incentive to do the right thing. prisoner[1]

For instance, a 30-year-old prisoner is sentenced and decides to self impose the death penalty. The average life expectancy of a prisoner is approximately 78 years old. So 48 years times $28,000 is $1,344,000. If we took half of that money and paid it out in installments to the victim’s families, it would truly be the last decent act of a violent offender, and still save the taxpayers a decent sum of money.

Either way, I think the majority of America, like me, shed no tears for violent offenders who decide to end their own lives. While we are a republic, not a democracy, the Constitution doesn’t forbid it either. So in such situations the majority rules; maybe it’s time the majority decides to make a rule and insist the government let people end their own lives if they want, and leave it up to loved ones to convince them otherwise. But the days of prison having a suicide watch need to end.