Thursday, October 30, 2008
c/o William K. Suter, Clerk of the Court
Untied State Supreme Court
Washington, D.C. 20543
Re: Your ignorance is SHOWING. Get your head out of your xxx.
The Originalist, lol
I was reading a while back about how you had chastised Justice Kennedy, for referencing International Law as stare decisis on the Death Penalty issue. I feel I must say your ignorance is showing:
1. Deterrents have not and will not eradicate crime.
2. “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” –
Edmund Burke 1729-1797
3. “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” -- Albert Einstein 1879-1955
History has shown us that deterrents have not and will not eradicate crime. Over the centuries we have tried the extremes from humane to inhumane deterrents and justice-based deterrents to tyrannically based deterrents, no application of a deterrent has ever eradicated crime and they never will. History shows this. “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” – Edmund Burke 1729-1797.
You seem to want to chastise Justice Kennedy for looking around at other cultures for solutions, when all you suggest is “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” -- Albert Einstein 1879-1955.
We can and should learn from the history of the world. American history, American Jurisprudence and thus American stare decisis are too limited in their perspective to get the full picture of our true human History. All to often our perspective is based on events that have happened since the time of our Revolution. That does not give a complete or a clear picture of our true stare decisis. Our history did not start in 1776. We started with everybody else, say caveman era, I am not going to argue about the date. If you truly want to understand the issues, you have to become a citizen of the world we are all one big happy family.
We have to look at and factor in Europe and other historical accounts of the world’s stare decisis. As an example compare how the Inquisition in Europe 1200-1500 affects a realistic view of European stare decisis and the Death Penalty. There are reports that as many as 130,000 people were killed as a result of THAT miss application of the Death Penalty. The Irish and the English, there was a lot of execution there. How about the heads hung on London Bridge, most were political prisoners, how about the wives of Henry the 8th do you think deterrents helped with those? How does that affect their historical view of the Death Penalty and how should it affect ours? Granted per our distorted perception, we had no part of it. We have a similar inquisition stare decisis in our history known as the Salem Witchcraft Trials where only 17 people were killed. Does that mean we are 10,000 times smarter or our government is 10,000 times better? How about the French Revolution and the over use of the Death Penalty do you think that has factored into French thinking? I realize our revolution was for the most part without executions or even casualties, but we again had an overwhelming logistical advantage, it was not judicious use of the Death Penalty that put us where we are.
And on the other side do we not condemn China for their Civil Rights abuses, asserting that their stare decisis is incompatible with Right Thinking. It is the same with Islamic fundamentalist for their treatment of woman, their stare decisis is WRONG via our foreign stare decisis. We can preach to others with our missiles and tanks, but we are incapable of even the possibly of learning from other people’s stare decisis??
The history of our Judeo/Christian Religion Over the Centuries has seen justice evolve from form the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, to “an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:23–27), to “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), to “do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:38-42 KJV). To ultimately “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you” (John 13:34-35 KJV). But we only do that on Sundays, the other 6 days of the week we are un-evolved heathens living the law of the jungle using deterrents and demanding retribution.
Deterrents do will not eradicate crime because they do not address the real cause, they just muddy the waters violence of fear. In a realistic analytical psychoanalysis of crime; crime is motivated by need. There are three accepted categories of need, Food, Shelter and Intimacy. We need these to sustain a healthy life.
Food being the simplest to understand it includes food, water and air as the basic physical requirements to sustain life. Without those, you starve or you dehydrate or you suffocate, simple to understand. You need “Food” to sustain a healthy life.
Shelter is more complex, it involves yes shelter from the cold, the rain, the elements of weather, but also security. For example the ground squirrel has no security and is thus very nervous to say the least, never able to rest to enjoy his bounty. In human terms we would call him neurotic. Security is also the result of our system of laws. When we were hunter gathers, living dispersed and nomadically, we did not need laws. We just kept our distance to maintain security. As society evolved, we developed societies and established governments and laws. Our laws evolved from the sovereign right of kings to our present democratic “rights” based system. Under the royal rule of the kings, we were lived under the fear of the King’s tyranny. We fought to throw that off and developed a democratic right’s based system. Where we all acknowledge each other’s unalienable right to live sheltered, safe and secure within the parameters of our established mutually guaranteed rights. You need “Shelter” to sustain a healthy life.
Intimacy is by far the most complicated; it includes but is not completely based on sex. The sexual drive, yes, is an undeniable part of natural human intimacy, but it is not on the level of a requirement as a need like food and water. There have been successful happy celibate persons in society. The broader and more important need, is the need for intimacy within society as a whole. You need to have positive intimate interaction with other people. Without intimacy, without interaction, you develop into an unfeeling being that can and does disregard others as less than yourself, less than human. This is what most often leads to crime. When you do not feel for other people it allows you steal, rape and kill to satiate your needs without feeling, without regard. Humans as social beings, need positive intimate interaction with other human beings. If you wanted to argue the point, I guess given food and shelter, you could live a healthy isolated and alone without crime, e.g. there would be no one to victimize. You need positive human intimacy to sustain a healthy life in society.
Crime is largely a social issue. Our society addresses the physical aspects of the first two needs Food and Shelter effectively as factors for crime. No one needs to really have to steal for food or shelter in today’s “Great Society”. Human Rights are still at issue all over the world and here in the U.S. as well. But if we truly want to eliminate or curtail crime we are not going to do it providing or denying food and shelter, i.e. with deterrents alone.
We have to increase intimacy to lower crime to the next level, if not eliminate it. We have to bring those currently on the outsides of society into society as fully functioning feeling persons. We have to stick our necks out. We have to give them intimacy as if they were family. “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” or maybe better yet “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
How do we do this within the legal system? WE over see and implement fair Due Process of Law. Our “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” were written and ratified by persons who wanted reciprocity. Sound familiar “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” I do not want you to steal from me, you do not want me stealing from you, thus we make it a law, No STEALING. I do not want you messing with the stock market and upsetting the natural balance it will mess up my 401K, you do not want me messing with the stock market it will mess up your 401K, we make a law no messing with the stock market. Most if not all of our laws are made this way. And with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws and Due Process of Law for all persons, what do we have to worry about it. As I see it, fair Due Process of Law is another way of saying “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
This is nothing new “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” All the Law, all the Prophets in all the major religions of man hang on “The Golden Rule”. I do not want to be executed, you do not want to be executed. There is no need to execute people. Execution is in essence giving up hope. We can and should learn from criminals so we can prevent rather than vainly hope to deter crime. The violence of an execution at VERY best perpetuates violence. Violence is such a waist.
I remember a story of a young boy and his mother. The boy was getting into fights at school all the time and his mother had been consulted. She lectured the boy, “Fighting with your fist is wrong. You have to learn to settle disputes with your words.” Her oft-repeated counsel then became “Use your words”.
We have to learn how to use our words via FAIR Due Process of Law to settle our issues without the sophistry of legalese and the pretence of Sovereign Immunity. No one can be above the Law. We have to then teach others to do the same. We have to give needy and depressed people food, shelter and intimacy. And once more time with feeling “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
I do not need nor do I espouse a God for this. I am a Godless man. If you look inside yourself, if you look at OUR WORLD History, “The Golden Rule” is self-evident. God fills two needs in a society, it gives you something to fight for and it answers the unanswerable questions. I do not want to FIGHT anybody and I prefer the questions to the answers.
Time is of the essence. If there is anything further, I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
cc: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
 Matthew 5:39
 Leviticus 19:18
 Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
 Leviticus 19:18
 Leviticus 19:18
 Leviticus 19:18
 The Golden Rule in 21 of the World Religions, The Ethics of Reciprocity http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
 A term often used by Thomas Jefferson meaning - a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning, a.k.a. a polite word for BULLSHIT