Posts Tagged ‘trial

17
Feb
10

How to Kill Democracy

On January 21, the US Supreme Court narrowly voted to block a ban on corporate spending limits in political campaigns. Ironic that one of the greatest blows to the ideal of democracy should come about as the result of a vote.

Essentially, the argument for allowing unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns is that since contributing to campaigns (financially) is a form of free speech, setting limits on how much corporations can donate (and to which candidates) is a violation of the rights of the individual. Now this argument makes the bold assumption that corporations are as much a person as you or me, and therefore are entitled to the same rights. Considering that corporations can benefit from all the rights of an individual but can’t fulfill any of the responsibilities (such as serving jury duty, serving in the military, being subject to the same laws and penalties as the rest of us, etc.), exactly how one reaches the conclusion that corporations are equal to human beings is beyond me.

But that can all be saved for another post. The purpose of this post is to attempt to predict the ramifications of free corporate campaign contributions.

Now it’s undeniable that corporate support has been a major factor in politics and political elections prior to ending of corporate spending limits. An oil corporation could influence a local election by offering campaign support to a candidate in exchange for the understanding that the candidate (should he or she win) will act in favor of the corporation (tax breaks for large businesses, laxer environmental standards, etc.). Now this may all seem to be a bit excessive- after all, corporations offering funds and advertising can’t buy an election.
Why not? Two brands of the same product may have unique traits to them that make one better than the other, yet one gets sold on a national level and the other remains nothing but a local oddity. It’s all comes down to advertisement- if one product is constantly flashed in front of the general public, it will outsell the rival brands. The same system can be applied to politicians. If two politicians are campaigning for the same office, who’s going to win- the candidate who’s advertised on a car’s bumper sticker or the candidate whose TV ads appear every seven minutes and whose face is plastered over every billboard in the state? Now just because the same strategies that are used in marketing can be used in politics doesn’t mean they should be used. In the end, what we have is the warping of public servants into products to be sold for the highest profits possible. The very purpose of the old corporate spending limits was to prevent one candidate from having an unfair advantage over his rivals solely on basis that his politics are favorable to corporations. With the limits gone, what’s there to prevent a candidate, a campaign, or even a whole branch of government from being effectively purchased by a corporation? If corporations now have the power to make or break electoral campaigns, why should politicians even try to serve the people when public opinion is eclipsed by the opinions of tycoons and magnates? What’s to stop the government from becoming a corrupted, withered facade for corporate agendas?

Still, it hasn’t happened yet. We still have the power to resist and demand that our representatives lobby for the reinstatement of corporate spending limits. While it’s still our choice, we can ensure that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

08
Jul
09

Law and Disorder

We live in a world where almost anything can be bought. Paper clips, houses, pets, jets, guns, music, bottled water, sports teams, and so on. The so-called “Free Market” has made anything and everything available for those willing or capable of paying.

Justice included.

In the modern justice system, if a person is charged with a crime, he has the right to a lawyer to defend him. At first glance, this might appear to be a perfect system. Every person is entitled to a speedy trial in which he may face his accusers and employ a lawyer to convince a jury of the defendant’s peers that the defendant is innocent of the charges brought against him.

In reality, justice isn’t quite as blind as that. Equality before the law doesn’t mix well with Capitalist society.

When a person from a lower class is accused of committing a crime (armed burglary, let’s say), the defendant is at an immediate disadvantage whether or not he actually committed the crime. The prosecution may immediately link the defendant with a motive- after all, it’s easier to accuse a hungry man of stealing apples than a man who’s just eaten a meal. The poorer the accused person is, the stronger the case is against him. Equality before the law on exists if there’s equality in the bank accounts.

And the injustices of the legal system don’t end there.

According to the Miranda rights, has “…The right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you…”. Now this would appear to solve any issues created by the economic gap between prosecutors and defendant. Everyone gets a lawyer regardless of social standing.

If attorneys were a mere commodity, then yes, this would solve the problem. In actuality, lawyers are human beings (contrary to the ocean of jokes about them being hell-spawned demons and leeches). Some lawyers are, quite simply, better than others. A criminal defense laywer that studied at Harvard will be better educated, more skilled, and infinitely more expensive to hire than a lawyer that graduated from some local law school. If a lower-class citizen is charged with a crime, he will not only have a “motive” due to his lack of money, but also only an average or even sub-average lawyer. On the other hand, a wealthy person can afford an entire team of the best and brightest lawyers available. In short, the same jury that would convict a poor person of one crime might easily find a wealthy person innocent on the same charge. In addition to this, the wealthy person may appeal and, if re-tried, will still be able to afford his army of Ivy League lawyers. Should a poorer person appeal and be re-tried, it’s likely that he won’t be able to afford the same quality of attorney he hired for his original case. In short, if a person is too poor, he could be convicted of a crime he didn’t commit. If a person is wealthy, he could be found not guilty of a crime he did. In the Capitalist world, innocence is a commodity that can be purchased for enough cash. There’s never a guarantee that the innocent will walk free and that the guilty will be punished according to their crimes.

Where’s the justice in that?