Many years ago, when Bally Corporation was in the slot machine manufacturing business, I purchased sveral shares of stock in this corporation. Bally eventually got into the casino business and was subsequently taken over by the Hilton Corporation, which later established Bally Total Ftiness Corporation as a seperate entity. Bally Total Fitness has never paid any dividends on its stock. I just received its annual statement with all sorts of rosy predictions for the future. This report stated that it required an eighteen month efforrt "to correct past accounting errors" for the years 2000 through 2003, and that "it was a tremendously time consuming, complicated and costly task." Indeed, it cost several million dollars to correct these "errors."
Accounting errors, my ass! This is a relatively small company when compared to such giants as the former Enron Corporation. Since Enron's demise, there have been numerous news accounts of similar accounting and auditing shenanigans at many of America's corporattions. What in the world has happened to business ethics and integrity?
When corporations resort to "cooking the books" in order to show that they are doing much better than they really are, their accountants and auditors are, in effect, committing ROBBERY BY PEN. These false accounting reports are designed to encourage people to invest in these corporations. When these "accounting errors" are finally discovered, the stocks will "tank" and the poor suckers (investors) will end up losing money. The accountants responsible for "cooking the books" are nothing more than a bunch of double-dealing corporate crooks who deserve the same punishment as any other robbers. And the same goes for the auditors and the officers of the corporation who are aware of these illegal practices.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Friday, December 16, 2005
Death Penalty Abolitionists Are Four-Flushing Phonies
The death penalty abolitionists who demonstrated against the execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams did so on the basis that he had redeemed himself during the 24 years he sat on death row. As proof they cited childrens books he had written urging kids not to join gangs and to avoid violence. Of course they chose to ignore the fact that he used a sawed-off shotgun to kill 7-Eleven store clerk Albert Owens, 26, and motel owners Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Cen Yang, 63, and their daughter, Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43, while robbing a convenience store and a motel.
Those who demonstrated on behalf of Tookie are the same bunch of perpetual protesters who show up at every anti-war rally and at every world trade conference. Many of them are recycled hippies from the doped-up anti-Vietnam war movement. Joan Baez, one of the recycled hippies, called the execution "calculated, antiseptic, cold-blooded murder." She must think that the brutal murders of Owens and the Yang family were mercy killings. Then there are the left-wing Hollywood celebrities and, of course, Jesse "Jack-in-the-Box" Jackson who pops up at every photo-op.
If the death penalty abolitionists really believed that Tookie had redeemed himself, they should have clamored for a pardon, rather than clemency. After all, once a convict has been reformed, he should be ready for release back into society. So, except for those who oppose the death penalty on religious grounds, by failing to seek a pardon for a reformed Tookie Williams, the abolitionists have shown themselves for what they really are - FOUR- FLUSHING PHONIES.
Those who demonstrated on behalf of Tookie are the same bunch of perpetual protesters who show up at every anti-war rally and at every world trade conference. Many of them are recycled hippies from the doped-up anti-Vietnam war movement. Joan Baez, one of the recycled hippies, called the execution "calculated, antiseptic, cold-blooded murder." She must think that the brutal murders of Owens and the Yang family were mercy killings. Then there are the left-wing Hollywood celebrities and, of course, Jesse "Jack-in-the-Box" Jackson who pops up at every photo-op.
If the death penalty abolitionists really believed that Tookie had redeemed himself, they should have clamored for a pardon, rather than clemency. After all, once a convict has been reformed, he should be ready for release back into society. So, except for those who oppose the death penalty on religious grounds, by failing to seek a pardon for a reformed Tookie Williams, the abolitionists have shown themselves for what they really are - FOUR- FLUSHING PHONIES.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Three Big Cheers for Gov. Schwarzenegger
God bless Arnold Schwarzenegger! Three big cheers for the Terminator who, by denying clemency to Stanley "Tookie" Williams, made it likely that this Predator will be terminated as scheluled tonight. The governor, in the face of a left wing onslaught and fears that rioting might occur in Los Angeles, did the right thing. Justice, twenty- some years overdue, will finally be served when Tookie is terminated.
Williams did not deserve mercy. He showed no mercy to a young convenience store clerk and to a motel mangement family of three, when he robbed and gunned them down in cold blood. Most prison inmates, not just those on death row, will claim to have found redemption. Even when that is true, that does not absolve them of the punishment they received. As I stated in my previous blog, Williams was not covicted of finding redemption on death row, nor was he convicted of writing childrens books. He was sentenced to death for the cold blooded murder of four innocent victims. When Tookie is terminated, God can have mercy on his soul.
There is something no one has taken into consideration. Had Williams been granted clemency, there would have been no guarantee that he would have spent the rest of his life in prison. Some future governor, one of a left wing persuasion, would be able to grant Tookie a pardon and release him back into society.
There is still the possibility that his defenders will be able to find a bleeding heart judge who will grant Tookie a last minute of stay of execution. Even after the holding of the clemency hearing, they went to the California Supreme Court which, before the goernor's announcement was made, denied their petition for a stay of execution. That will not stop them in their efforts to see justice denied. Hopefully, after midnight, we will be rid of this thug once and for all. Then we can celebrate the fact that justice has finally been served.
Williams did not deserve mercy. He showed no mercy to a young convenience store clerk and to a motel mangement family of three, when he robbed and gunned them down in cold blood. Most prison inmates, not just those on death row, will claim to have found redemption. Even when that is true, that does not absolve them of the punishment they received. As I stated in my previous blog, Williams was not covicted of finding redemption on death row, nor was he convicted of writing childrens books. He was sentenced to death for the cold blooded murder of four innocent victims. When Tookie is terminated, God can have mercy on his soul.
There is something no one has taken into consideration. Had Williams been granted clemency, there would have been no guarantee that he would have spent the rest of his life in prison. Some future governor, one of a left wing persuasion, would be able to grant Tookie a pardon and release him back into society.
There is still the possibility that his defenders will be able to find a bleeding heart judge who will grant Tookie a last minute of stay of execution. Even after the holding of the clemency hearing, they went to the California Supreme Court which, before the goernor's announcement was made, denied their petition for a stay of execution. That will not stop them in their efforts to see justice denied. Hopefully, after midnight, we will be rid of this thug once and for all. Then we can celebrate the fact that justice has finally been served.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
You've Heard It - The Police Do Not Shoot To Kill
The recent shooting of an airline passenger by federal marshalls in Miami has brought into question whether the police shoot to kill or not. Police spokespersons will always tell you that the police never shoot to kill. Instead, theysay that the police "shoot to stop" or "shoot to incapacitate." What a bunch of politically correct hogwash!
Of course, the police shoot to kill, and they are trained to do so. Police are trained to use their firearms as the very last resort for protecting themselves or other persons from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. They are trained to hit CENTER MASS, meaning the chest of the person they are shooting at, and that is shooting to kill. Furthermore, they are trained to DOUBLE TAP their shots, meaning that each time they shoot, they will fire a burst of two rounds. Double tapping ensures that if the first shot was a little off target, the second shot is more likely to be right on target - the chest of the person being shot at. If the person being shot does not die, it is only because the officer was a little off center mass.
People are always qustioning why the police do not shoot a person in the arm or leg, or why they don't shoot a gun or knife out of the hand of the perpetrator. They have been watching too many western or other action movies. Police officers are just not that good at shooting, especially during a stressful confrontation. It should be noted that if they shot at the perpetrator's arm or leg and missed, they would be more likely to hit an innocent bystander. Almost all police agencies prohibit their officers from firing warning shots because what goes up must come down, thus endangering distant innocent persons. Some officers, who claimed to have fired warning shots, were actually trying to hit a perpetrator and were too embarrased to admit they missed.
Years ago, in New York at night, as I was approaching one of my favorite bars in the Times Square area, I saw two armed men running out of the bar. At that moment, a police officer was walking his beat right in front of the bar. One of the robbers ran into and accidentally knocked the officer down. The robbers took off in opposite directions. The officer picked himself up, tapped his nightstick on the curb (a way of summoning nearby officers), and ran after one of the perpetrators who, upon reaching the end of the block, hid behind a car. When the officer got within about 20 feet of the car, the perpetrator popped his head up and fired one round. The officer fired once, shooting the perpetrator's thumb off, thus knocking the gun out of his hand. I ran up to the officer and congratulated him for shooting the gun out of the perpetrator's hand. I can still remember his response: "Shit! I wasn't trying to shoot that fucking gun out of his hand. I was trying to hit the cocksucker between the eyes."
Since officers can only use their guns to save their own lives or those of other persons, there is no reason why we can't be honest and admit that when the police shoot, they shoot to kill.
Of course, the police shoot to kill, and they are trained to do so. Police are trained to use their firearms as the very last resort for protecting themselves or other persons from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. They are trained to hit CENTER MASS, meaning the chest of the person they are shooting at, and that is shooting to kill. Furthermore, they are trained to DOUBLE TAP their shots, meaning that each time they shoot, they will fire a burst of two rounds. Double tapping ensures that if the first shot was a little off target, the second shot is more likely to be right on target - the chest of the person being shot at. If the person being shot does not die, it is only because the officer was a little off center mass.
People are always qustioning why the police do not shoot a person in the arm or leg, or why they don't shoot a gun or knife out of the hand of the perpetrator. They have been watching too many western or other action movies. Police officers are just not that good at shooting, especially during a stressful confrontation. It should be noted that if they shot at the perpetrator's arm or leg and missed, they would be more likely to hit an innocent bystander. Almost all police agencies prohibit their officers from firing warning shots because what goes up must come down, thus endangering distant innocent persons. Some officers, who claimed to have fired warning shots, were actually trying to hit a perpetrator and were too embarrased to admit they missed.
Years ago, in New York at night, as I was approaching one of my favorite bars in the Times Square area, I saw two armed men running out of the bar. At that moment, a police officer was walking his beat right in front of the bar. One of the robbers ran into and accidentally knocked the officer down. The robbers took off in opposite directions. The officer picked himself up, tapped his nightstick on the curb (a way of summoning nearby officers), and ran after one of the perpetrators who, upon reaching the end of the block, hid behind a car. When the officer got within about 20 feet of the car, the perpetrator popped his head up and fired one round. The officer fired once, shooting the perpetrator's thumb off, thus knocking the gun out of his hand. I ran up to the officer and congratulated him for shooting the gun out of the perpetrator's hand. I can still remember his response: "Shit! I wasn't trying to shoot that fucking gun out of his hand. I was trying to hit the cocksucker between the eyes."
Since officers can only use their guns to save their own lives or those of other persons, there is no reason why we can't be honest and admit that when the police shoot, they shoot to kill.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Celebrating the 1,000th Execution
A milestone was passed when, on December 2, 2005, Kenneth Lee Boyd was put to death by the State of North Carolina, thus becoming the 1,000th murderer to be executed in the United States since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. A few days earlier, Virginia missed the opportunity to reach this milestone when its governor granted clemency to another murderer shortly before his scheduled execution. Rather than holding our heads in shame, as suggested by death penalty abolitionists, we should celebrate the 1,000th execution as justice well done.
As you can tell, I am a strong advocate of capital punishment. I am firmly convinced that it acts as a deterrent to premeditated murders. I also believe that it would be a strong deterrent to felony murders - murders committed during the commission of other crimes such as robbery and rape - if those comdemned to death would not linger on death row for up to over 20 years. Back in the '50s and 60's, when I was a law enforcement officer in California, we had many armed robberies in which the perpetrator commited the robbery with an EMPTY gun. When caught, we always asked the robbers why their guns were not loaded. They always replied with words to this effect: "Man, if I used a loaded piece I might kill someone and if I got caught I would end up getting topped." (TOPPED is con lingo for executed.) Accordingly, I maintain that there is good emperical evidence that capital punishment does act as a deterrent to killings that are not committed in the heat of passion. That is why we should celebrate each execution.
The death penalty abolitionists used to argue that captial punishment does not act as a deterrent because, by asking death row inmates if they considered the possibility of being executed for killing their victims, the answer was always "no." Those questions, which even imbeciles would answer the same way, were designed to provide the abolitionists with BOGUS proof that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. And what about all the felons who are not on death row and were not asked whether they gave the death penalt any thought? The abolitionists also pointed to states, such as Minnesota, which do not have the death penalty as having lower homicide rates than those with capital punishment. That was also bogus. States without capital punishment were largely rural states, while the oters were largely urban states where the homicide rates are expected to be higher. Those opposed to capital punishment claim that it is part of a racist agenda, in that there are a disproportionate number of minorities on death row. But, the reason there are a disproportionate number on death row is that minorities in this country commit a disproportionate number of crimes and murders.
In recent years, the abolitionists have tried to shame us into aolishing the death penalty. They point out that the U.S. is one of only a handful of "civilized countries" with the death penalty. They point out that all western European countries have abolished the death penalty and that we are relegated to joining dictatorships, such as China, the former Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, and third world countries with oppressive governments, by retaining capital punishment. That is another bogus argument. We have a very high homicide rate, while the western European nations have an extremely low rate. If the homicide rate in those countries were to rise dramatically, approaching that of the U.S., they would quickly return to the use of capital punishment.
There are those who oppose capital punishment for religious/moral reasons, and while I believe them to be misguided, I have nothing but the utmost respect for their beliefs. However, most of the abolitionists come from, or have been influenced by, the extreme left wing of the political spectrum, and the death penalty is just another issue to fault our government with.
I do share the concern that indigent defendants in capital cases are not as well defended as thoose who can afford to hire private attorneys. The remedy to that problem is not to abolish the death penalty, but to guarantee each indigent capital defendant the best possible defense. That will require a large amount of public funding. Two ways of resolving this problem is (1) through the use of a Public Defender's Office or (2) the court appointment of only the best defense attorneys with additional funds for skilled investigators and expert witnesses. The federal government has a public defender system and so do some of the states. Unfortunately, some states do not have public defenders and resort to the appointment of attorneys to defend indigents. Many of these attorneys are inexperienced or, if experienced, they do not have enough clients to sustain a good income. And they recieve little if any funding for investigators and expert witnesses. At least, in a public defender's office, the attorneys are just as good as those in the district attorney's office and there is a staff of skilled investigators and funds for the use of expert witnesses.
I am even more concerned about the possibility of executing someone who is innocent, a tragic circumstance which cannot be reversed. The Houston Chronicle recently published an investigative report which indicates that the State of Texas may have wrongly executed Ruben Cantu in 1993. Cantu, 17 at the time of the crime, was convicted of killing the victim of an armed robbery in San Antonio. Another victim of the robbery was shot numerous times, but survived. The other participant in the robbery, 15 year old David Garza, received a 20 year sentence. About four months after the robbery, an off-duty police officer, who had been drinking, was shot and wounded by Cantu during a confrontation in a bar. Cantu was not charged in that shooting, but within days, the surviving victim identified Cantu as his assailant. More than 10 years after Cantu's execution, Garza signed an affidavit stating that Cantu was not present during the robbery and named another individual as the shooter. The surviving victim now claims that the police pressured him into identifying Cantu. The defense never called a witness who would have testified that he was with Cantu in Waco, some 180 miles from San Antonio, at the time of the robbery. Most troublesome to me is the likelyhood that the San Antonio police were out to get Cantu for the bar shooting of the off-duty officer.
I am sure that innocent persons haave been executed in the past and will likely be executed in the future. As unfortunate as this is, it still does not justify abolishing the death penalty. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It would be akin to taking a proven life-saving drug off the market because its side effects may, on rare occasions, kill soneone.
Some believe that those who turn their lives around, while on death row, should be spared from execution. Take the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, co-founder of the notorious Crips street gang, who is scheduled to be executed by the Sate of California on December 13, 2005. His defenders, including several left-wing Hollywood celebrities, claim that he has turned his life around during the twenty-some years he has been on death row. They point out that he has written several children's books in which he urged them not to join gangs. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has agreed to hold a clemency hearing for Willimas this week. Let us hope that the " Terminator", who has squandered the political popularity he once enjoyed, has the good sense not to grant Williams clemency. Williams was not convicted of finding redemption on death row. Nor was he convicted of writing children's books. He was sentenced to death for the cold blooded murder of four people and deserves to pay the ultimate penalty for his crimes.
The latest ploy by abolitionists is to claim that, during the injection process, some states use chemicals that cause the condemned to "suffer an excruciatingly painful and protracted death", thereby constituting cruel and unusual punishment. Last week, a federal judge in Houston, granted a Texas death row inmate the right to challenge the death penalty on this issue. Give me a break! We put these cold blooded murders to sleep like we put our pet dogs and cats to sleep. Even if these absurd claims were true, so what! I'm all for bringing back the electric chair because it scared the shit out of crimials. Why are we so concerned about the suffering of the condemned? What about the suffering of the victims at the time of their death?
Most survivors of a murder victim want to see the killer put to death. Are they seeking revenge instead of justice? Perhaps, but so what! For the rest of us, the execution of a cold blooded murderer serves the interests of justice. It should be the natural consequence for committing the ultimate crime. Captial punishment does deter premeditated murder and felony murders. It would have an even greater effect if the condemned did not linger so long on death row. Of the 1,000 executions, 355 have been in Texas. That is one of the reasons I am proud to be a Texan. I hope you will join me in celebrating the carrying out of the 1,000th execution in the United States.
As you can tell, I am a strong advocate of capital punishment. I am firmly convinced that it acts as a deterrent to premeditated murders. I also believe that it would be a strong deterrent to felony murders - murders committed during the commission of other crimes such as robbery and rape - if those comdemned to death would not linger on death row for up to over 20 years. Back in the '50s and 60's, when I was a law enforcement officer in California, we had many armed robberies in which the perpetrator commited the robbery with an EMPTY gun. When caught, we always asked the robbers why their guns were not loaded. They always replied with words to this effect: "Man, if I used a loaded piece I might kill someone and if I got caught I would end up getting topped." (TOPPED is con lingo for executed.) Accordingly, I maintain that there is good emperical evidence that capital punishment does act as a deterrent to killings that are not committed in the heat of passion. That is why we should celebrate each execution.
The death penalty abolitionists used to argue that captial punishment does not act as a deterrent because, by asking death row inmates if they considered the possibility of being executed for killing their victims, the answer was always "no." Those questions, which even imbeciles would answer the same way, were designed to provide the abolitionists with BOGUS proof that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. And what about all the felons who are not on death row and were not asked whether they gave the death penalt any thought? The abolitionists also pointed to states, such as Minnesota, which do not have the death penalty as having lower homicide rates than those with capital punishment. That was also bogus. States without capital punishment were largely rural states, while the oters were largely urban states where the homicide rates are expected to be higher. Those opposed to capital punishment claim that it is part of a racist agenda, in that there are a disproportionate number of minorities on death row. But, the reason there are a disproportionate number on death row is that minorities in this country commit a disproportionate number of crimes and murders.
In recent years, the abolitionists have tried to shame us into aolishing the death penalty. They point out that the U.S. is one of only a handful of "civilized countries" with the death penalty. They point out that all western European countries have abolished the death penalty and that we are relegated to joining dictatorships, such as China, the former Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, and third world countries with oppressive governments, by retaining capital punishment. That is another bogus argument. We have a very high homicide rate, while the western European nations have an extremely low rate. If the homicide rate in those countries were to rise dramatically, approaching that of the U.S., they would quickly return to the use of capital punishment.
There are those who oppose capital punishment for religious/moral reasons, and while I believe them to be misguided, I have nothing but the utmost respect for their beliefs. However, most of the abolitionists come from, or have been influenced by, the extreme left wing of the political spectrum, and the death penalty is just another issue to fault our government with.
I do share the concern that indigent defendants in capital cases are not as well defended as thoose who can afford to hire private attorneys. The remedy to that problem is not to abolish the death penalty, but to guarantee each indigent capital defendant the best possible defense. That will require a large amount of public funding. Two ways of resolving this problem is (1) through the use of a Public Defender's Office or (2) the court appointment of only the best defense attorneys with additional funds for skilled investigators and expert witnesses. The federal government has a public defender system and so do some of the states. Unfortunately, some states do not have public defenders and resort to the appointment of attorneys to defend indigents. Many of these attorneys are inexperienced or, if experienced, they do not have enough clients to sustain a good income. And they recieve little if any funding for investigators and expert witnesses. At least, in a public defender's office, the attorneys are just as good as those in the district attorney's office and there is a staff of skilled investigators and funds for the use of expert witnesses.
I am even more concerned about the possibility of executing someone who is innocent, a tragic circumstance which cannot be reversed. The Houston Chronicle recently published an investigative report which indicates that the State of Texas may have wrongly executed Ruben Cantu in 1993. Cantu, 17 at the time of the crime, was convicted of killing the victim of an armed robbery in San Antonio. Another victim of the robbery was shot numerous times, but survived. The other participant in the robbery, 15 year old David Garza, received a 20 year sentence. About four months after the robbery, an off-duty police officer, who had been drinking, was shot and wounded by Cantu during a confrontation in a bar. Cantu was not charged in that shooting, but within days, the surviving victim identified Cantu as his assailant. More than 10 years after Cantu's execution, Garza signed an affidavit stating that Cantu was not present during the robbery and named another individual as the shooter. The surviving victim now claims that the police pressured him into identifying Cantu. The defense never called a witness who would have testified that he was with Cantu in Waco, some 180 miles from San Antonio, at the time of the robbery. Most troublesome to me is the likelyhood that the San Antonio police were out to get Cantu for the bar shooting of the off-duty officer.
I am sure that innocent persons haave been executed in the past and will likely be executed in the future. As unfortunate as this is, it still does not justify abolishing the death penalty. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It would be akin to taking a proven life-saving drug off the market because its side effects may, on rare occasions, kill soneone.
Some believe that those who turn their lives around, while on death row, should be spared from execution. Take the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, co-founder of the notorious Crips street gang, who is scheduled to be executed by the Sate of California on December 13, 2005. His defenders, including several left-wing Hollywood celebrities, claim that he has turned his life around during the twenty-some years he has been on death row. They point out that he has written several children's books in which he urged them not to join gangs. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has agreed to hold a clemency hearing for Willimas this week. Let us hope that the " Terminator", who has squandered the political popularity he once enjoyed, has the good sense not to grant Williams clemency. Williams was not convicted of finding redemption on death row. Nor was he convicted of writing children's books. He was sentenced to death for the cold blooded murder of four people and deserves to pay the ultimate penalty for his crimes.
The latest ploy by abolitionists is to claim that, during the injection process, some states use chemicals that cause the condemned to "suffer an excruciatingly painful and protracted death", thereby constituting cruel and unusual punishment. Last week, a federal judge in Houston, granted a Texas death row inmate the right to challenge the death penalty on this issue. Give me a break! We put these cold blooded murders to sleep like we put our pet dogs and cats to sleep. Even if these absurd claims were true, so what! I'm all for bringing back the electric chair because it scared the shit out of crimials. Why are we so concerned about the suffering of the condemned? What about the suffering of the victims at the time of their death?
Most survivors of a murder victim want to see the killer put to death. Are they seeking revenge instead of justice? Perhaps, but so what! For the rest of us, the execution of a cold blooded murderer serves the interests of justice. It should be the natural consequence for committing the ultimate crime. Captial punishment does deter premeditated murder and felony murders. It would have an even greater effect if the condemned did not linger so long on death row. Of the 1,000 executions, 355 have been in Texas. That is one of the reasons I am proud to be a Texan. I hope you will join me in celebrating the carrying out of the 1,000th execution in the United States.
Friday, December 02, 2005
The Police and Illegal Aliens
In recent years, we have seen the city administrations in a number of municipalities, especially those with large latino populations, pressure police departments to refrain from inquiring into the legal status of non-english speaking individuals who have come to their attention during some sort of investigation. The question is, should the police refrain from enforcing our immigration laws? Should they give illegal aliens - oops, I should have said "undocumented workers" - a free pass?
I agree that the local police should not go after illegal aliens. That is the job of federal law enforcement agencies. However, when the police come across an individual during the course of an investigation, and they suspect that this individual may be in this country illegally, they not only have the right to question him or her about their legal status, but because they took an oath to uphold and enforce our laws, they have a duty to make such an inquiry. Furthermore, it should not make any difference whether the indvidual is a crime victim or the suspect in a crime. If a crime has been committed and the perpetrator is found to be in this country illegally, criminal charges should be filed and the immigration authorities notified accordingly. If no charges are called for, the illegal alien should be held for the immigration authorities.
You hear all kinds of excuses why the police should not enforce our laws against illegal immigration. Anyone who advocates this is a RACIST. If the police try to enforce these laws they will not get any cooperation from the immigrant community. The illegals do the kind of work that American cititzens refuse to do and if they are deported, we will be deprived of cheap labor services. Hogwash! The real reason the police are pressured to overlook illegals is political. In cities with large latino populations. the politicians are looking for the latino vote, pure and simple.
Personally, I'm all for immigration - the legal type. I happen to be an immigrant who came to the U.S. when I was 10 years old. Legal immigrants have made numerous outstanding contributions in the fields of science, business, and higher education. I believe that the constitution should be amended to allow a citizen who was not born in this country to become our president.
Conversely, illegal aliens put a tremendous drain on our financial resources. The children of illegal aliens overburden our public schools, thereby contributing to ever increasing school taxes. They overload our public hospitals, and since they usually do not have insurance, they cause our hospital district taxes and health insurance rates to increase. If they are involved in automobile accidents, they usually do not have insurance, which results in raising the automobile insurance rates of our citizens and legal immigrants.
Accordingly, we need to change our immigration laws and include a limited and controlled guest worker program. In the meantime, shame on the politicians who try to prevent our police from performing their sworn duties to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States of America.
I agree that the local police should not go after illegal aliens. That is the job of federal law enforcement agencies. However, when the police come across an individual during the course of an investigation, and they suspect that this individual may be in this country illegally, they not only have the right to question him or her about their legal status, but because they took an oath to uphold and enforce our laws, they have a duty to make such an inquiry. Furthermore, it should not make any difference whether the indvidual is a crime victim or the suspect in a crime. If a crime has been committed and the perpetrator is found to be in this country illegally, criminal charges should be filed and the immigration authorities notified accordingly. If no charges are called for, the illegal alien should be held for the immigration authorities.
You hear all kinds of excuses why the police should not enforce our laws against illegal immigration. Anyone who advocates this is a RACIST. If the police try to enforce these laws they will not get any cooperation from the immigrant community. The illegals do the kind of work that American cititzens refuse to do and if they are deported, we will be deprived of cheap labor services. Hogwash! The real reason the police are pressured to overlook illegals is political. In cities with large latino populations. the politicians are looking for the latino vote, pure and simple.
Personally, I'm all for immigration - the legal type. I happen to be an immigrant who came to the U.S. when I was 10 years old. Legal immigrants have made numerous outstanding contributions in the fields of science, business, and higher education. I believe that the constitution should be amended to allow a citizen who was not born in this country to become our president.
Conversely, illegal aliens put a tremendous drain on our financial resources. The children of illegal aliens overburden our public schools, thereby contributing to ever increasing school taxes. They overload our public hospitals, and since they usually do not have insurance, they cause our hospital district taxes and health insurance rates to increase. If they are involved in automobile accidents, they usually do not have insurance, which results in raising the automobile insurance rates of our citizens and legal immigrants.
Accordingly, we need to change our immigration laws and include a limited and controlled guest worker program. In the meantime, shame on the politicians who try to prevent our police from performing their sworn duties to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States of America.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Crimes or Mistakes?
Betty Brock Bell has been a Justice of the Peace in Harris County (which includes the city of Houston, Texas) for the past 20 years. Recently she was tried and convicted of "Tampering With a Government Document, a state jail felony punishable by up to two years in a state (prison) jail. She had been charged with fraudulently renewing a handicapped parking tag in her dead mother's name. She had also been charged with perjury for telling a grand jury that she was conducting a personal "sting operation" to see how easy it would be to obtain the handicapped tag by fraud in order to explain why she had renewed her dead mother's tag.
Judge Bell happens to be an African-American and during the sentencing part of the trial, her character witnesses, mostly prominent members of Houston's black community, pleaded to the jury that she be given probation, rather than jail time, for making a MISTAKE. A State legislator even referred to her offense as a "simple error."
Until I retired as a criminal justice educator, I always believed that a crime is a crime is a crime. In recent years, however, the definition of crime seems to have changed depending on where the perpetrator fits into society. When a member of the underclass commits a crime it is still a crime. Now, however, when a privileged member of society commits a crime it is called a MISTAKE. Executives who have been convicted of corporate crimes are said to have made a mistake. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's former Chief of Staff, is said to have made a mistake in his appearance before a federal grand jury. The only mistake Judge Bell and other privileged criminals made is that they got caught.
Perhaps we should revise our laws and establish a new two-tiered Socio-Economic Penal Code wherein the underclass are charged with committing a crime and the privileged, for the same offense, are charged with committing a mistake. And, of course, the punishment for a mistake is much less severe than that for a crime.
Judge Bell happens to be an African-American and during the sentencing part of the trial, her character witnesses, mostly prominent members of Houston's black community, pleaded to the jury that she be given probation, rather than jail time, for making a MISTAKE. A State legislator even referred to her offense as a "simple error."
Until I retired as a criminal justice educator, I always believed that a crime is a crime is a crime. In recent years, however, the definition of crime seems to have changed depending on where the perpetrator fits into society. When a member of the underclass commits a crime it is still a crime. Now, however, when a privileged member of society commits a crime it is called a MISTAKE. Executives who have been convicted of corporate crimes are said to have made a mistake. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's former Chief of Staff, is said to have made a mistake in his appearance before a federal grand jury. The only mistake Judge Bell and other privileged criminals made is that they got caught.
Perhaps we should revise our laws and establish a new two-tiered Socio-Economic Penal Code wherein the underclass are charged with committing a crime and the privileged, for the same offense, are charged with committing a mistake. And, of course, the punishment for a mistake is much less severe than that for a crime.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
INTRODUCTION TO BARKGROWLBITE
THE BLOGGER OF BARKGROWLBITE. A retired Professor of Criminal Jusitce, with 25 years of experience as a college educator, and 13 prior years as a peace officer, half of that in narcotics enforcement. A Life Member of the California Peace Officers Association, the California Narcotic Officers Association and the Texas Narcotic Officers Association. Previously served on the Board of Directors of the Intrnational Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association. The author of articles published in law enforcement journals and other publications.
WHAT IS THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM? The criminal justice system involves the police, the courts, and corrections. Corrections consists of prisons, probation, and parole. There are many problems throughout the system. Police are the first line of defense in the protection of society. There is both good and bad policing. The media is prone to emphasize bad police behavior, while generally ignoring good policing, which is what we have 90% of the time. I will not defend bad policing. However, bad policing, or good for that matter, is often seen in the eye of the beholder. Minorities with a history of ill treatment by the police are likely to judge police behavior in that context. Immigrants from third world countries with a history of police suppression will be distrustful and fearful of law enforcement in this country
WHY IS POLICING SO DIFFICULT? Dealing with people is what policing is really all about. And you thought it was about protecting and serving the public. That requires dealing with people, and that is what makes policing the most difficult job in our society. Since parents and children, siblings, spouses, and friends get into fights, it is easy to understand that when police deal with strangers, often in a confrontational situation, the proverbial shit is likely to hit the fan. Another problem built into the job is that the police regulate people's behavior and no one likes to have their behavior corrected.
WHAT CAUSES POLICE MISCONDUCT? Police officers are subject to the same emotions experienced by all humans. Two of these, anger and biases, are usually the basis for acts of police misconduct. True excessive force, or police brutality if you like, may result when officers lose their temper in the face of provocations. Biases against minority, ethnic, religious, and non-conforming life-style groups can result in rude police behavior or exacerbate loss of temper. I worked in a part of California which had a large number of Hells Angels, the most notorious outlaw motorcycle gang. Because we usually treated the Angels with contempt, many of our confrontations became painful experiences for both them and us.
THE GOLDEN RULE. In the film HELLS ANGELS FOREVER, one of the Angels referring to problems in dealing with the police, said "Treat me with respect and I'll treat you with respect. Treat me like an asshole and I'll treat you like an asshole." I could not have said it any better. Of course, treating someone with respect is not the same as respecting an individual's non-conforming and anti-social life-style. Police officers can make their jobs easier by applying the Golden Rule whenever possible - treat others as you would want to be treated yourself.
BARKGROWLBITE BLOGS. Posts will consist of information and personal views on criminal justice matters, on domestic, foreign and academic affairs and, because I came to America in 1936 as a refugee from Nazi Germany, on the survival of Israel as a Jewish state. This blog will not be politically correct! Occasionally, some tongue-in-cheek items will also be posted.
WHAT IS THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM? The criminal justice system involves the police, the courts, and corrections. Corrections consists of prisons, probation, and parole. There are many problems throughout the system. Police are the first line of defense in the protection of society. There is both good and bad policing. The media is prone to emphasize bad police behavior, while generally ignoring good policing, which is what we have 90% of the time. I will not defend bad policing. However, bad policing, or good for that matter, is often seen in the eye of the beholder. Minorities with a history of ill treatment by the police are likely to judge police behavior in that context. Immigrants from third world countries with a history of police suppression will be distrustful and fearful of law enforcement in this country
WHY IS POLICING SO DIFFICULT? Dealing with people is what policing is really all about. And you thought it was about protecting and serving the public. That requires dealing with people, and that is what makes policing the most difficult job in our society. Since parents and children, siblings, spouses, and friends get into fights, it is easy to understand that when police deal with strangers, often in a confrontational situation, the proverbial shit is likely to hit the fan. Another problem built into the job is that the police regulate people's behavior and no one likes to have their behavior corrected.
WHAT CAUSES POLICE MISCONDUCT? Police officers are subject to the same emotions experienced by all humans. Two of these, anger and biases, are usually the basis for acts of police misconduct. True excessive force, or police brutality if you like, may result when officers lose their temper in the face of provocations. Biases against minority, ethnic, religious, and non-conforming life-style groups can result in rude police behavior or exacerbate loss of temper. I worked in a part of California which had a large number of Hells Angels, the most notorious outlaw motorcycle gang. Because we usually treated the Angels with contempt, many of our confrontations became painful experiences for both them and us.
THE GOLDEN RULE. In the film HELLS ANGELS FOREVER, one of the Angels referring to problems in dealing with the police, said "Treat me with respect and I'll treat you with respect. Treat me like an asshole and I'll treat you like an asshole." I could not have said it any better. Of course, treating someone with respect is not the same as respecting an individual's non-conforming and anti-social life-style. Police officers can make their jobs easier by applying the Golden Rule whenever possible - treat others as you would want to be treated yourself.
BARKGROWLBITE BLOGS. Posts will consist of information and personal views on criminal justice matters, on domestic, foreign and academic affairs and, because I came to America in 1936 as a refugee from Nazi Germany, on the survival of Israel as a Jewish state. This blog will not be politically correct! Occasionally, some tongue-in-cheek items will also be posted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)