The corruption case against Illinois Governor Blagojevich is currently in the news, so once again we are constantly hearing that we should not judge his actions since he is “innocent until proven guilty.” Bull! Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term used in the criminal justice system where a person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is no guilt or innocence in civil court, so the term does not apply there. It also does not apply to normal, everyday life.
However, you will constantly see the term used in the media, as if it were a fact of life. In the media, newsreaders on major networks are constantly saying Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty. However, these same networks accused President Bush and his administration of all types of lies, crimes, and atrocities without ever mentioning these people were innocent until proven guilty. The term “innocent until proven guilty” seems to apply only to those they favor.
Politicians, public officials, and now, because of the overuse of the term, even ordinary people, when caught in illegal or improper behavior, say you should not judge them since they are innocent until proven guilty. When you hear this statement, it probably means they are guilty as sin.
When it comes to public opinion, people may say that a person is resumed innocent until proven guilty, but all it takes to prove guilt in public opinion is—an opinion.
Check out TKDTutor.com for more information on the martial arts and TaskMaster.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Constantly saying other person's name during a converstion
Why is it that when characters on television shows talk to each other, they are constantly mentioning each others name? This also seems to be the case on live shows, news shows, etc. This is not a common practice in real life. When around family, friends, or the general public I don't see this happening. If I am talking with Joe, there is no need to keep mentioning his name. I know who he is, he certainly knows who he is, and there is no one else around to whom I could be talking, so there is no need to keep mentioning his name.
Check out TKDTutor.com for more information on the martial arts and TaskMaster.
Check out TKDTutor.com for more information on the martial arts and TaskMaster.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Distruction of Government Property
Today, I heard an soldier talking about a injury he received while he was drunk that he never sought treatment for because he might have been sent to a court-martial for destruction of government property. This military urban myth has been around for decades; in the myth, usually somebody was tried at a court martial because his sunburn was considered destruction of government property. This myth is easily dispelled by just reading the actual UCMJ, and not listening to urban myths repeated by others.
Although I was never a military lawyer, I have over 20 years of military law enforcement experience gained during 26 years of active duty in the Navy. Therefore, I know something about the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) since I investigated and charged hundreds of sailors for violations of it.
The article in question is Article 108: Destruction of Government Property. The article states:
“Any person subject to this chapter who, without proper authority—
(1) sells or otherwise disposes of;
(2) willfully or through neglect damages, destroys, or loses; or
(3) willfully or through neglect suffers to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of, any military property of the United States, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
To be convicted of any article in the UCMJ, all of at least one of the elements of the crime (article) must be proven.
The elements of Article 108 are as follows:
(1) Selling or otherwise disposing of military property.
(a) That the accused sold or otherwise disposed of certain property (which was a firearm or explosive);
(b) That the sale or disposition was without proper authority;
(c) That the property was military property of the United States, and
(d) That the property was of a certain value.
(2) Damaging, destroying, or losing military property.
(a) That the accused, without proper authority, damaged or destroyed certain property in a certain way, or lost certain property;
(b) That the property was military property of the United States;
(c) That the damage, destruction, or loss was willfully caused by the accused or was the result of neglect by the accused; and
(d) That the property was of a certain value or the damage was of a certain amount.
(3) Suffering military property to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of.
(a) That certain property (which was a firearm or explosive) was lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of;
(b) That the property was military property of the United States;
(c) That the loss, damage, destruction, sale, or wrongful disposition was suffered by the accused, without proper authority, through a certain omission of duty by the accused;
(d) That the omission was willful or negligent; and
(e) That the property was of a certain value or the damage was of a certain amount.
The element we are concerned with is the element (2). To be convicted of damaging government property, all the parts of this element must be proven. Part (b) of the element states that the property must be the military property of the United States. So can a person be the property of the United States.? The answer is no! The UCMJ speaks about “person” and “property” in many places and always makes a distinction between the two. Legally, property is owned and thus may be bought and sold. It has been over 100 years since any person was bought or sold in the United States.
Even if an argument could be made that people may be considered property, then part (d) would still pose an insurmountable obstacle. Part (d) states that the property was of a certain value or the damage was of a certain amount. What value could be placed on a person, a few dollars for the mineral content, a few thousand dollars for the sale of body parts, or maybe a few million dollars for sentimental value?
Some people say that instead of Article 108, a person with sunburn would more likely be charge with Article 115: Malingering. This article states:
Any person subject to this chapter who for the purpose of avoiding work, duty, or service”—
(1) feigns illness, physical disablement, mental lapse or derangement; or
(2) intentionally inflicts self-injury; shallbe punished as a court-martial may direct.
Its elements are:
(1) That the accused was assigned to, or was aware of prospective assignment to, or availability for, the performance of work, duty, or service;
(2) That the accused feigned illness, physical disablement, mental lapse or derangement, or intentionally inflicted injury upon himself or herself; and
(3) That the accused’s purpose or intent in doing so was to avoid the work, duty, or service. Note: If the offense was committed in time of war or in a hostile fire pay zone, add the following element
(4) That the offense was committed (in time of war) (in a hostile fire pay zone).
The accused’s action must have been for the express purpose of avoiding doing something that the accused knew he or she was required to do. With this limitation, someone who gets accidentally sunburned at the pool would not be charged with malingering. However, if it could be proved that the person got sunburned for the express purpose of avoiding a duty, he or she could be charged with malingering.
In the military you are not taken to an Article 15 (administrative hearing for minor offenses) or to a court-martial (criminal trial) for first time minor offenses. Your direct supervisor give you more chances until he or she is fed up with you; then the office in charge will give you more chances until he or she is fed up with you. When a person goes to a Article 15 hearing it is because his or her chain of command has run out of other options.
Article 15 hearings are subject to appeal and courts-martial are automatically appealed. In addition, all military convictions are subject to review at many different levels. No military commander is going to put his or her career and integrity at risk to falsely punish some twerp.
Military accused have the same rights as they would have in the civilian justice system. The likelihood of false conviction in the military justice system is no more than it is in the civilian justice system.
As with other segments of society, the military has its share of people who are uninformed or misinformed. Just because a person served in the military for a few years, it does not make the person an authority on all aspects of the military.
Although I was never a military lawyer, I have over 20 years of military law enforcement experience gained during 26 years of active duty in the Navy. Therefore, I know something about the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) since I investigated and charged hundreds of sailors for violations of it.
The article in question is Article 108: Destruction of Government Property. The article states:
“Any person subject to this chapter who, without proper authority—
(1) sells or otherwise disposes of;
(2) willfully or through neglect damages, destroys, or loses; or
(3) willfully or through neglect suffers to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of, any military property of the United States, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
To be convicted of any article in the UCMJ, all of at least one of the elements of the crime (article) must be proven.
The elements of Article 108 are as follows:
(1) Selling or otherwise disposing of military property.
(a) That the accused sold or otherwise disposed of certain property (which was a firearm or explosive);
(b) That the sale or disposition was without proper authority;
(c) That the property was military property of the United States, and
(d) That the property was of a certain value.
(2) Damaging, destroying, or losing military property.
(a) That the accused, without proper authority, damaged or destroyed certain property in a certain way, or lost certain property;
(b) That the property was military property of the United States;
(c) That the damage, destruction, or loss was willfully caused by the accused or was the result of neglect by the accused; and
(d) That the property was of a certain value or the damage was of a certain amount.
(3) Suffering military property to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of.
(a) That certain property (which was a firearm or explosive) was lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of;
(b) That the property was military property of the United States;
(c) That the loss, damage, destruction, sale, or wrongful disposition was suffered by the accused, without proper authority, through a certain omission of duty by the accused;
(d) That the omission was willful or negligent; and
(e) That the property was of a certain value or the damage was of a certain amount.
The element we are concerned with is the element (2). To be convicted of damaging government property, all the parts of this element must be proven. Part (b) of the element states that the property must be the military property of the United States. So can a person be the property of the United States.? The answer is no! The UCMJ speaks about “person” and “property” in many places and always makes a distinction between the two. Legally, property is owned and thus may be bought and sold. It has been over 100 years since any person was bought or sold in the United States.
Even if an argument could be made that people may be considered property, then part (d) would still pose an insurmountable obstacle. Part (d) states that the property was of a certain value or the damage was of a certain amount. What value could be placed on a person, a few dollars for the mineral content, a few thousand dollars for the sale of body parts, or maybe a few million dollars for sentimental value?
Some people say that instead of Article 108, a person with sunburn would more likely be charge with Article 115: Malingering. This article states:
Any person subject to this chapter who for the purpose of avoiding work, duty, or service”—
(1) feigns illness, physical disablement, mental lapse or derangement; or
(2) intentionally inflicts self-injury; shallbe punished as a court-martial may direct.
Its elements are:
(1) That the accused was assigned to, or was aware of prospective assignment to, or availability for, the performance of work, duty, or service;
(2) That the accused feigned illness, physical disablement, mental lapse or derangement, or intentionally inflicted injury upon himself or herself; and
(3) That the accused’s purpose or intent in doing so was to avoid the work, duty, or service. Note: If the offense was committed in time of war or in a hostile fire pay zone, add the following element
(4) That the offense was committed (in time of war) (in a hostile fire pay zone).
The accused’s action must have been for the express purpose of avoiding doing something that the accused knew he or she was required to do. With this limitation, someone who gets accidentally sunburned at the pool would not be charged with malingering. However, if it could be proved that the person got sunburned for the express purpose of avoiding a duty, he or she could be charged with malingering.
In the military you are not taken to an Article 15 (administrative hearing for minor offenses) or to a court-martial (criminal trial) for first time minor offenses. Your direct supervisor give you more chances until he or she is fed up with you; then the office in charge will give you more chances until he or she is fed up with you. When a person goes to a Article 15 hearing it is because his or her chain of command has run out of other options.
Article 15 hearings are subject to appeal and courts-martial are automatically appealed. In addition, all military convictions are subject to review at many different levels. No military commander is going to put his or her career and integrity at risk to falsely punish some twerp.
Military accused have the same rights as they would have in the civilian justice system. The likelihood of false conviction in the military justice system is no more than it is in the civilian justice system.
As with other segments of society, the military has its share of people who are uninformed or misinformed. Just because a person served in the military for a few years, it does not make the person an authority on all aspects of the military.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Survival of the Fittest
According to science, humans, as well as all other life forms, evolved to their present state by the process of survival of the fittest. Only the fittest survived for any appreciable length of time, which increased their chances of producing offspring and passing their superior genetic makeup to future generations. As with many other things, if one thing is true, then the antithesis must also be true. If it is true that humans became superior being because only the fittest survived to procreate, then if the unfit are helped to survive and procreate, then humankind will deteriorate and will suffer the consequences.
Now we use advanced technology to keep the unfit alive, support them when they cannot do it for themselves, and then not only allow but encourage them to procreate. The human gene pool is being polluted. Will humankind deteriorate or will branches of humankind develop with one branch becoming more fit to survive and one or more branches developing into inferior, unfit beings?
Now we use advanced technology to keep the unfit alive, support them when they cannot do it for themselves, and then not only allow but encourage them to procreate. The human gene pool is being polluted. Will humankind deteriorate or will branches of humankind develop with one branch becoming more fit to survive and one or more branches developing into inferior, unfit beings?
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Birthday Celebrations
Why do we celebrate birthdays? We do not celebrate graduation days, marriage days, or death days. What is so special about ones day of birth?
For some occasions, such as marriages, we celebrate the anniversary of the date of the occasion, but not the date itself. Therefore, we celebrate marriage anniversaries (such as the 20th marriage anniversary), not marriage days. If anything, we should celebrate the anniversary of our day of birth (such as the 25th birth anniversary). Of course that would mean we would have to admit our ages, and some would probably balk at that. The month and day of their birth they want everyone to know (so as to increase their chances of receiving gifts), but they protect the year of their birth as though it was vital to national security. This birth year secrecy has been practiced for centuries, not just because of recent concerns about identity theft.
I assume that as a child I thought birthdays were special, but, at an early point in life (around 10 years of age) I began to question the purpose of birthdays and saw no point in them. I still do not.
For some occasions, such as marriages, we celebrate the anniversary of the date of the occasion, but not the date itself. Therefore, we celebrate marriage anniversaries (such as the 20th marriage anniversary), not marriage days. If anything, we should celebrate the anniversary of our day of birth (such as the 25th birth anniversary). Of course that would mean we would have to admit our ages, and some would probably balk at that. The month and day of their birth they want everyone to know (so as to increase their chances of receiving gifts), but they protect the year of their birth as though it was vital to national security. This birth year secrecy has been practiced for centuries, not just because of recent concerns about identity theft.
I assume that as a child I thought birthdays were special, but, at an early point in life (around 10 years of age) I began to question the purpose of birthdays and saw no point in them. I still do not.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Event to continue to honor...
I read today that the drag car 2008 Lucas Oil Super Nationals will continue to honor the death of a driver killed in a race last night. Events, ball games, races, concerts, etc. always choose to continue to honor the death of a person involved in the event. The reason they give is that, “She would have wanted it this way” or “It is best way we can honor him.” Event promoters never cancel an event to honor the person. Why don’t event promoters just tell the truth? They are continuing with the event because it they would lose tons of money and anger the competitors and spectators if they canceled it. No matter how badly the spectators may feel about the death, they are not willing to give up seeing the event. Saying the event is continuing to honor the person just gives the spectators a way to easy their collective conscious. It only when so many people are killed at an event that it would be unconscionable to continue that an event is canceled; no matter if those killed would have wanted the event to continue.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
The people in … are resilient, tough, courageous, etc. in the face of adversity.
I get sick of hearing the media blather on and on about how resilient, tough, courageous, etc. the people are in some area that has been hit by a natural disaster. To say the people in one place are this way means that there must be some place were the people are not this way. The media never point out any place where the people are wimpy, weak, cowards in the face of calamity. If there is no such place, then it must be that people in general are resilient, tough, courageous, etc. This being the case, why make such a big deal about what is basically human nature. If anything, the media ought to point out how stupid some people are to live in dangerous areas and how utterly stupid it is to rebuild in the same areas where the odds are that at some future date they will be called upon again to be resilient, tough, courageous, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)