Friday, November 21, 2008

Double Jeopardy?

Legal situations are always touchy. Especially as an outside person looking in. Especially when I am the outside person. Now, this article could just be shoddy journalism (lord knows there's a ton of that on, but my mind chooses to give the author the benefit of the doubt (something I know I shouldn't do) and take what's there at face value.

Read this.

Note especially where, when, and for what he was convicted.

Feel free to correct me, if you want. I don't really care. But, to seems this man's had some basic Constitutional rights violated, here. Namely, Double Jeopardy as seen in the following:

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 offence 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.

The way this particular article reads, it looks like the civilian court and the military court found this guy guilty of the same crimes. I can understand why they'd want to try him twice--he raped and killed a civilian and raped and killed/attempted to kill a couple of Army personnel. According to the article. That's three people. If you re-read the first part of that article, the civilian court convicted him on two counts of murder and five counts of rape (which is impressive for having three known victims). Then the following year, a court martial also found him guilty of two murders, one attempted murder, and three rapes. That equates to the two military personnel and the civilian.

Now, don't get me wrong. Y'all should know by now how I feel about murderers and rapists and the death penalty. But, I'm also a very big supporter of the US Constitution. It's there for a reason. It's there so the government can't tell us to just bend over and take it--even though they try. The government can get away with a lot. Know why? Because they rely on the fact that Americans, as a whole, are uninformed. With the way trends are for the education of the youth of America, I'd say the government is trying to make it so that very few are even literate in this country. That way, when the citizens willingly give up their rights because they don't know any better, the power-hungry Federal Government will just pat them on the heads and send them on their merry little way.

I, for one, don't plan on allowing that to happen. What am I going to do about it? I'll write my congressmen. I'll petition Mr. Obama. I'll even run for office, if I have to. Ooooh...yesh, I said it. I'll run for OFFICE, if I have to. I'll make sure my Libertarian view of government gets broadcasted the world over. So, if you don't like the fact your rights are slowly being stripped from you, do something about it.

READ the Constitution.

KNOW your rights.

WRITE your congressman.

Don't settle for the standard answers. Make them accountable for their decisions. Let them know they can't just make arbitrary decisions that affect your life. Let them know that they can't just overwrite the Constitution. And I'm not talking about minority groups here. I'm talking about US CITIZENS. I'm talking about reading the articles of the Constitution of our country and the Amendments. Know them. Understand them. That way when someone says to you, "Hey, don't you think Schwartzenegger should run for President?" You can say (with confidence, knowledge, and accuracy), "Yes, but sadly, he can't. He doesn't meet the qualifications. Neither does RA, but give her a few years and she'll be a-okay!"

Vote RA/Cthulu in 2012! You'll be glad you did.

No comments: