OK, now that the voters have told the politicians in Sacramento in the recent election that they oppose the continual raising of their taxes, and also disapprove of the way government has handled our finances, where we should go from here?
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Reworking prison system could save us - by Judge Jim Gray
OK, now that the voters have told the politicians in Sacramento in the recent election that they oppose the continual raising of their taxes, and also disapprove of the way government has handled our finances, where we should go from here?
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, December 1, 2008
“ARE WE HAVING A DISCUSSION?” by Judge Jim Gray
“ARE WE HAVING A DISCUSSION?” by Judge Jim Gray 01/27/08
I am not a fan of politics. Often politicians engage in appeals to our fears and other emotions and our more base instincts. But I am a fan of addressing the issues of our day. So on two occasions in the last eleven years I took an unpaid leave of absence from my duties as a trial judge and ran for partisan offices. The first time was as a Republican running for Congress against Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez, and the second was as a Libertarian running for U.S. Senate against Bill Jones and Barbara Boxer. The first time I ran to win; the second I was so concerned about the direction our country was headed, I ran just to be a part of the discussion about the issues.
In neither election was I successful in my goals. So now I tell my friends that “I am not a politician, and I have the votes to prove it.”
Among other things, I learned from my experiences that most people do not really involve themselves in the election process. I also learned that money is much too important in that process, and, of course, most of the money is provided by special interests. And they want something in return for their “investment.” I also learned that in politics, reality is completely irrelevant – it is only the voters’ perception of reality that matters.
But I still continue to have a desire to discuss issues. So I approached the editors of this newspaper and volunteered to write a weekly column for a year to discuss different problems, and propose resolutions to them. They agreed, and now we are half-way through the year – this is the 26th edition of our weekly column.
So how are we doing? The response and feedback to the columns have been okay, but not overwhelming. I certainly do not have all of the answers, but I have thought quite a bit about these various subjects, and want to stimulate others to think about them as well. Because when it comes down to it, simply voting is not a victory. What we need is people who are voting after familiarizing themselves with the issues. So are we having a discussion?
The two columns that generated the most responses were my recommendation that we convert to the Metric System, and that the 11-99 Foundation that supports dependents for fallen CHP officers eliminate the practice of providing license plate frames and wallet identification cards to its donors, with the implication that the donors will be given favorable treatment from the CHP on traffic citations.
Concerning the Metric System, most people were in favor, except one person who saw it as a conspiracy to take away our individuality. Representative comments were that “Are Americans too ignorant or lazy to embrace new ideas? I say let’s get on with it,” and “The success of the US is often to be found in its willingness to upgrade existing conditions.” One person even recommended we go “hard metric” right away, that is not to have a transition period, because it would be less expensive. One even (humorously?) recommended we also utilize a ten-hour clock. But I was also gently chastised by one reader who said that the “term ‘centigrade’ has been obsolete for almost 60 years. The official term is ‘Celsius.’” (That means that I have been in error about this since I was three years old.)
The 11-99 Foundation column received some of the expected responses, such as “Shame on this judge for writing such an editorial without a shred of evidence proving any kind of favoritism,” and telling me to “get your facts straight before insulting all CHP officers.” There were others from current or retired CHP officers who wrote in support, such as one that said “I wrote tickets to several drivers racing one time together with their Lambo’s with 11-99 license plate frames and badges, and the corrupt leadership at my office had all of them voided.”
One of those officers was unintentionally supportive when he said “The 11-99 Foundation frowns upon its donors from seeking favoritism. I have seen them revoke membership from individuals who recklessly use this charities’ good intentions just to avoid a citation. Does it ever happen? Sure. Is it a guaranty? No.” Another officer provided the sobering comment that “I have stopped a number of judges and every single one made it a point to tell me they were a judge.” (I am forwarding that comment on to the California Judges Association for its information and possible action.)
There was even a local police officer that discussed the law of unintended consequences when he said that he and some of his fellow officers did not particularly like the CHP, so sometimes they tended to give more citations to cars that had the 11-99 Foundation license plate frames.
This last comment from a current CHP officer closely matches my own experience: “On almost all of my traffic stops I was looking for a reason to not give a citation. It’s amazing how often people made this difficult. (But) I do think the license plate frames are a little much and should be discontinued.”
Finally, I sent a personal letter to Commissioner Mike Brown of the CHP, along with a copy of my original column and requested his thoughts. So far there has been no response of any kind, which, unfortunately, says more than he would probably want. But I will give him another chance to defend the practice by sending him a copy of today’s column.
The column about Restorative Justice received comments that can be divided into two categories. The first is from people who see that prisons do not rehabilitate anybody, but some rehabilitative programs actually do work. Some of those people provided first-hand experience. So they agreed with the quote in my column that “We should reserve prison space for people we are afraid of, and not for people we are mad at.” The second group was deeply concerned about having drug rehabilitation facilities in their own neighborhoods. (This is a genuine issue that, in my view, requires a balance. People who have drug problems but are trying to return to mainstream life need to live in mainstream environments. On the other hand, too much can be too much.)
The column about trying to revitalize tourism in the United States similarly drew two types of comments. One group was concise and said things like “It’s the Threat, Stupid!” The other group called the threat of terrorism “baloney,” and told me not to pull my punches. (I never said and I do not feel that the threat from terrorists is not significant. I simply would respond to that threat differently than our government is.)
Concerning my critique upon the failure of our welfare system and our minimum wage laws, many people said that my “logic was severely flawed,” and that “Everyone should have the right and opportunity to earn a living wage. In reality, such laws are a major positive force in every Western society.” (Not surprisingly because it is such an emotional issue, none of the critics of my suggestions even addressed the fact that every time we raise the minimum wage, lots of people lose their jobs. And that is probably true in every Western society. Nor did they address my conclusion that these programs actually contribute to the increase of poverty, instead of its reduction.) But everyone appreciated my attack on the welfare system for the wealthy.
The most notable comment about the Happy New Year column about prosperity and choice, which centered upon the federal government relinquishing much of its accumulated power back to local governments and individuals, was “We do have federalism in this country. Local governments do what the feds don’t control.” (That’s the point, it should be the other way around!)
After discussing the increasing problem of childhood obesity, one man suggested we follow the lead of Brazil by planting public areas with fruit and nut trees, which, he said, would provide “a delicious way to fight obesity.” And the column about resolving our nation’s healthcare problem by encouraging Medical Savings Accounts drew the discouraging but accurate comment from a medical doctor that “We are often forced to opt for a less optimal treatment in favor of the insurer’s profit margin.”
The column about illegal immigration drew numbers of responses like: “Take off your rose-colored glasses. People come here and learn quickly how to get free services and food stamps,” (I agree, but they mostly do come here originally to work.) and “No amnesty. Legal immigrants first!” (I only mentioned that we would discuss amnesty after we installed a system that utilized fool-proof identification cards, which drew this comment:) “You’re not naïve enough to actually believe that a ‘tamper-proof’ ID card is possible, are you?” (Yes, I think it can be done based upon the iris in a person’s eye.)
In response to the column that government impedes business, one man responded that he agreed that beauticians and barbers should not be required to get a license, but went on to ask “why should lawyers be protected with licenses from the competition of others who want to lawyer?” (I agree, and there is actually a movement in that direction.) The column about citizens’ rights and responsibilities, and the lack of support for our Veterans generated no comments to speak of. That was discouraging.
One response I am sure many of you agreed with was “Shorter please! Be honest, how many of you actually read the judge’s comments?” I acknowledge many of the columns were longer than I originally intended (including this one), but it is difficult to address and give suggestions about how to resolve complex and multifaceted problems in only 800 words. So I appreciate your sticking with me!
In the weeks of the scheduled year that remain, this column will address issues about how we can improve our public schools through competition; that the biggest threat to our national security is our dependence upon foreign oil, and what we can and must do about it; a suggestion to scrap the Internal Revenue Service and instigate either a national sales tax or what is called the FAIR tax; how we should address mental illness; the critical importance of the Separation of Church and State; why we should revitalize the Hemp industry; and numbers of others.
Throughout this time, I again ask everyone to remember that none of these issues has a “solution.” Life cannot be made to be perfect, and neither are any of my proposals – or anybody else’s. The problems only have “resolutions,” which attempt to do what is best for the maximum number of people, while still protecting minority interests.
The fact remains that this is OUR government. That means that the things that are not going well today are our responsibility. And what we need is leadership. In my view, we still have the Jeffersons, Washingtons, Lincolns and Martin Luther Kings living in our society today. But we must find them and support them.
Unfortunately, people can be manipulated and misled. I know that is not a popular thing to say, but it is true. That means that we must rely upon our democratic institutions, and upon dedicated and public-spirited leaders, who need our active support and guidance.
So please contemplate these and the other issues of our day, and join our discussion. This can be done either publicly at DailyPilot.com, or privately with me at the e-mail address given below. I will respond to all e-mail messages. Good government begins with our active involvement.
I am not a fan of politics. Often politicians engage in appeals to our fears and other emotions and our more base instincts. But I am a fan of addressing the issues of our day. So on two occasions in the last eleven years I took an unpaid leave of absence from my duties as a trial judge and ran for partisan offices. The first time was as a Republican running for Congress against Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez, and the second was as a Libertarian running for U.S. Senate against Bill Jones and Barbara Boxer. The first time I ran to win; the second I was so concerned about the direction our country was headed, I ran just to be a part of the discussion about the issues.
In neither election was I successful in my goals. So now I tell my friends that “I am not a politician, and I have the votes to prove it.”
Among other things, I learned from my experiences that most people do not really involve themselves in the election process. I also learned that money is much too important in that process, and, of course, most of the money is provided by special interests. And they want something in return for their “investment.” I also learned that in politics, reality is completely irrelevant – it is only the voters’ perception of reality that matters.
But I still continue to have a desire to discuss issues. So I approached the editors of this newspaper and volunteered to write a weekly column for a year to discuss different problems, and propose resolutions to them. They agreed, and now we are half-way through the year – this is the 26th edition of our weekly column.
So how are we doing? The response and feedback to the columns have been okay, but not overwhelming. I certainly do not have all of the answers, but I have thought quite a bit about these various subjects, and want to stimulate others to think about them as well. Because when it comes down to it, simply voting is not a victory. What we need is people who are voting after familiarizing themselves with the issues. So are we having a discussion?
The two columns that generated the most responses were my recommendation that we convert to the Metric System, and that the 11-99 Foundation that supports dependents for fallen CHP officers eliminate the practice of providing license plate frames and wallet identification cards to its donors, with the implication that the donors will be given favorable treatment from the CHP on traffic citations.
Concerning the Metric System, most people were in favor, except one person who saw it as a conspiracy to take away our individuality. Representative comments were that “Are Americans too ignorant or lazy to embrace new ideas? I say let’s get on with it,” and “The success of the US is often to be found in its willingness to upgrade existing conditions.” One person even recommended we go “hard metric” right away, that is not to have a transition period, because it would be less expensive. One even (humorously?) recommended we also utilize a ten-hour clock. But I was also gently chastised by one reader who said that the “term ‘centigrade’ has been obsolete for almost 60 years. The official term is ‘Celsius.’” (That means that I have been in error about this since I was three years old.)
The 11-99 Foundation column received some of the expected responses, such as “Shame on this judge for writing such an editorial without a shred of evidence proving any kind of favoritism,” and telling me to “get your facts straight before insulting all CHP officers.” There were others from current or retired CHP officers who wrote in support, such as one that said “I wrote tickets to several drivers racing one time together with their Lambo’s with 11-99 license plate frames and badges, and the corrupt leadership at my office had all of them voided.”
One of those officers was unintentionally supportive when he said “The 11-99 Foundation frowns upon its donors from seeking favoritism. I have seen them revoke membership from individuals who recklessly use this charities’ good intentions just to avoid a citation. Does it ever happen? Sure. Is it a guaranty? No.” Another officer provided the sobering comment that “I have stopped a number of judges and every single one made it a point to tell me they were a judge.” (I am forwarding that comment on to the California Judges Association for its information and possible action.)
There was even a local police officer that discussed the law of unintended consequences when he said that he and some of his fellow officers did not particularly like the CHP, so sometimes they tended to give more citations to cars that had the 11-99 Foundation license plate frames.
This last comment from a current CHP officer closely matches my own experience: “On almost all of my traffic stops I was looking for a reason to not give a citation. It’s amazing how often people made this difficult. (But) I do think the license plate frames are a little much and should be discontinued.”
Finally, I sent a personal letter to Commissioner Mike Brown of the CHP, along with a copy of my original column and requested his thoughts. So far there has been no response of any kind, which, unfortunately, says more than he would probably want. But I will give him another chance to defend the practice by sending him a copy of today’s column.
The column about Restorative Justice received comments that can be divided into two categories. The first is from people who see that prisons do not rehabilitate anybody, but some rehabilitative programs actually do work. Some of those people provided first-hand experience. So they agreed with the quote in my column that “We should reserve prison space for people we are afraid of, and not for people we are mad at.” The second group was deeply concerned about having drug rehabilitation facilities in their own neighborhoods. (This is a genuine issue that, in my view, requires a balance. People who have drug problems but are trying to return to mainstream life need to live in mainstream environments. On the other hand, too much can be too much.)
The column about trying to revitalize tourism in the United States similarly drew two types of comments. One group was concise and said things like “It’s the Threat, Stupid!” The other group called the threat of terrorism “baloney,” and told me not to pull my punches. (I never said and I do not feel that the threat from terrorists is not significant. I simply would respond to that threat differently than our government is.)
Concerning my critique upon the failure of our welfare system and our minimum wage laws, many people said that my “logic was severely flawed,” and that “Everyone should have the right and opportunity to earn a living wage. In reality, such laws are a major positive force in every Western society.” (Not surprisingly because it is such an emotional issue, none of the critics of my suggestions even addressed the fact that every time we raise the minimum wage, lots of people lose their jobs. And that is probably true in every Western society. Nor did they address my conclusion that these programs actually contribute to the increase of poverty, instead of its reduction.) But everyone appreciated my attack on the welfare system for the wealthy.
The most notable comment about the Happy New Year column about prosperity and choice, which centered upon the federal government relinquishing much of its accumulated power back to local governments and individuals, was “We do have federalism in this country. Local governments do what the feds don’t control.” (That’s the point, it should be the other way around!)
After discussing the increasing problem of childhood obesity, one man suggested we follow the lead of Brazil by planting public areas with fruit and nut trees, which, he said, would provide “a delicious way to fight obesity.” And the column about resolving our nation’s healthcare problem by encouraging Medical Savings Accounts drew the discouraging but accurate comment from a medical doctor that “We are often forced to opt for a less optimal treatment in favor of the insurer’s profit margin.”
The column about illegal immigration drew numbers of responses like: “Take off your rose-colored glasses. People come here and learn quickly how to get free services and food stamps,” (I agree, but they mostly do come here originally to work.) and “No amnesty. Legal immigrants first!” (I only mentioned that we would discuss amnesty after we installed a system that utilized fool-proof identification cards, which drew this comment:) “You’re not naïve enough to actually believe that a ‘tamper-proof’ ID card is possible, are you?” (Yes, I think it can be done based upon the iris in a person’s eye.)
In response to the column that government impedes business, one man responded that he agreed that beauticians and barbers should not be required to get a license, but went on to ask “why should lawyers be protected with licenses from the competition of others who want to lawyer?” (I agree, and there is actually a movement in that direction.) The column about citizens’ rights and responsibilities, and the lack of support for our Veterans generated no comments to speak of. That was discouraging.
One response I am sure many of you agreed with was “Shorter please! Be honest, how many of you actually read the judge’s comments?” I acknowledge many of the columns were longer than I originally intended (including this one), but it is difficult to address and give suggestions about how to resolve complex and multifaceted problems in only 800 words. So I appreciate your sticking with me!
In the weeks of the scheduled year that remain, this column will address issues about how we can improve our public schools through competition; that the biggest threat to our national security is our dependence upon foreign oil, and what we can and must do about it; a suggestion to scrap the Internal Revenue Service and instigate either a national sales tax or what is called the FAIR tax; how we should address mental illness; the critical importance of the Separation of Church and State; why we should revitalize the Hemp industry; and numbers of others.
Throughout this time, I again ask everyone to remember that none of these issues has a “solution.” Life cannot be made to be perfect, and neither are any of my proposals – or anybody else’s. The problems only have “resolutions,” which attempt to do what is best for the maximum number of people, while still protecting minority interests.
The fact remains that this is OUR government. That means that the things that are not going well today are our responsibility. And what we need is leadership. In my view, we still have the Jeffersons, Washingtons, Lincolns and Martin Luther Kings living in our society today. But we must find them and support them.
Unfortunately, people can be manipulated and misled. I know that is not a popular thing to say, but it is true. That means that we must rely upon our democratic institutions, and upon dedicated and public-spirited leaders, who need our active support and guidance.
So please contemplate these and the other issues of our day, and join our discussion. This can be done either publicly at DailyPilot.com, or privately with me at the e-mail address given below. I will respond to all e-mail messages. Good government begins with our active involvement.
James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+a.jpg)
