A proposal for the 29th amendment to the Constitution of the United States
This time around, the subject is the American system of justice. While not as bad as the welfare state, there are some cracks that need spackling. This proposed amendment is much wordier than the previous one, because limiting government to its proper functions requires only a few words, but to address the different ways in which law enforcement powers have been abused is far more complicated.
Section 1. Neither the United States nor any State shall impose any fine, forfeiture, term of imprisonment, or any other punitive sanction, except that the person so punished has committed an act which is expressly declared in law to be a crime, and then only if the person so punished shall first have been duly convicted via trial by jury.
A just state does no harm to any citizen without sufficient grounds. People who mind their own business should enjoy total freedom from the attentions of the police. When there is a question of a person harming another, it should be the courts, and not the police, who impose the penalties. Furthermore, unless punishments are limited to crimes, there is nothing stopping the government from declaring a certain act to be an 'infraction' (or some other categorization) instead of a crime, and using that as an excuse to void a defendant's rights.
Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall take action on a criminal complaint until the identity of the complaintant is verified.
The Spanish Inquisition ended long ago.
Section 3. No act shall be deemed a crime, unless the jury trying the person accused of the act unanimously agrees that it has caused identifiable harm to a specific person or party of persons, not voluntarily participating in the act, or that such harm was averted only by intervention.
Some things called "crimes" shouldn't be called that. Nobody should be in danger of punishment unless they have actually hurt someone or tried to hurt someone.
Section 4. All property seized or damaged in the investigation of a crime, or upon the suspicion of a crime, shall be restored upon demand of the owner, unless the owner is charged with a crime to which the property in question was materially contributory. If the owner is subsequently not convicted of that particular crime, or if conviction is not finally sustained, the property shall be restored without delay, and furthermore the owner shall be compensated for any loss of use of the property seized or damaged. The costs of restoral and compensation shall be borne by the authority making the seizure or inflicting the damage. Where property seized or damaged is jointly owned, persons not convicted shall be compensated for their share of any damages, and shall be fully compensated for loss of use, and this compensation shall in no wise be dependent upon the guilt or innocence of other joint owners.
It is now perfectly lawful for the police to break down your front door (and every other door and window), roust you and your family from your beds, handcuff you in your front yard in front of the neighbors and the local news crew, break a surprisingly large amount of things in your house (because you may have hidden drugs in a false bottom in that vase, you know), and then say, "Oops! Our informant gave us the wrong address," and walk away from the whole mess without paying any compensation whatever. Even if there never really was an informant. If you want to be compensated, you have to take them to court. I hope you get a good lawyer.
Section 5. No category of offense shall be tried in peculiar courts.
Ever been taken to court by the IRS? Special courts for certain categories of crimes, such as the IRS's own court system, function primarily to abridge justice.
Section 6. Trial juries shall be selected by lottery from the registry of voters in the region over which the convening court has jurisdiction. Persons selected to serve as jurors may decline to serve, but must make their declination in writing or in person, and shall be ineligible to vote for two years after such declination. Persons incapable of appearing at court due to physical handicap are excused without penalty from jury service. Persons serving in any capacity of law enforcement are ineligible for jury service in criminal trials. Persons employed by any State, or holding any office of a State, are ineligible to be jurors in any case to which that State is a party. Persons employed by the United States, or holding any office of the United States, are ineligible to be jurors in any case to which the United States is a party. Persons having a special interest in the outcome of a trial are ineligible to be jurors for that trial. Either party to the trial may, without limit or penalty, exclude any juror who is maintained by others in idleness. Jurors shall be compensated for the costs of serving on the jury, to include wages lost; however.
The voir dire process is fairly good at excluding conflicts of interest, but a good solid statement of common policy cannot hurt. And seriously, not working for a living makes the brain too soft for jury duty.
Section 7. Jurors shall have power to judge law, fact, and the fairness of the trial for which they are seated, independent of the instructions of the court. No verdict of guilt or liability, returned by a jury, shall be valid unless the court informs the jury that they have these powers. No jury shall be bound by any precedent. No person shall be excluded or removed from a jury on account of their opinions about the law, and no person considered for a jury may be questioned about such opinions. Furthermore, no question raised by the jury shall be witheld from any person giving testimony.
If the jury must believe and obey everything the judge says, then why have a jury?
Section 8. Ignorance of the law shall not be rejected as a defense, except by the unanimous agreement of the jury.
Ignorance of the law is usually proof that the law should not have been made. Sure, everyone can claim ignorance, but the jury doesn't have to believe them.
Section 9. When the admissable evidence against a criminal defendant consists entirely of testimony from officials of the United States, officials of any State, or from persons testifying in order to gain leniency in prosecution or sentencing, or from any combination of these, the case shall be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
The police arrest you. They find out that there isn't any evidence, but they "know" that you're guilty. Instead of letting you go free, they arrest someone else for something they really did, and offer to free them if they testify against you. How does this make you feel?
Section 10. No evidence or testimony, obtained or produced by coercion or fraud, shall be admitted in any court of the United States or of any State, and any attempt to gather or introduce such evidence shall be prosecuted as obstruction of justice.
It is presently legal for the police to falsely claim to have proof of a defendant's wrongdoing, in order to frighten him into confessing to crimes he didn't commit. This tactic works, but it shouldn't, and the police who resort to it belong in prison.
Section 11. Persons convicted of crimes in which bodily harm is caused, attempted, or threatened shall be imprisoned for the entirety of their sentences, and such imprisonment shall be at facilities separate from those for persons imprisoned for other crimes.
Really, should we be paroling murderers? Really, do they belong in the same prison as an embezzler?
Section 12. The penalty of death is reserved for the crimes of murder, treason, attempted murder, attempted treason, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit treason, and obstruction of justice in connection with any of these. For these crimes the penalty of death is neither cruel, unusual, nor excessive. This will not be construed to prohibit lesser penalties for these crimes. Furthermore, persons convicted of murder, and sentenced to death therefore, may be put to death by the same means used to commit the murder for which they were convicted, to include all batteries and injuries inflicted at any time by the murderer on the victim, and this shall in no wise be deemed cruel or unusual.
There must be distinct limits to whom the government may lawfully kill, but people who would rather let murderers go than kill them need to find a real injustice to whine about. And I see nothing wrong with doing to murderers what they have done to their victims.
Section 13. The particular conditions of imprisonment shall be deemed neither cruel nor unusual, unless they cause or are reasonably likely to cause injury or illness to the affected prisoners. Under no circumstance shall a lack of entertainment, recreation, or companionship be deemed cruel or unusual.
There is something seriously wrong when a lack of luxuries such as television or weight-lifting equipment is seen as grounds for the courts to start giving orders to prison officials.
Section 14. Neither the civil nor criminal immunity of the officials of the United States or of any State shall in any wise extend to any act which abridges the rights, privileges, or immunities of any person. Furthermore, those superiors of the official who have foreknowledge of the act, but who fail to exhaust all lawful means to prevent the abridgement, shall also be liable, and shall be subject to prosecution as an accessory before the fact. Furthermore, all officials found liable shall be removed from their offices, and shall be ineligible for any office of the United States or of any State, until either five years after removal, or the person suffering the abridgement has been fully compensated, whichever is longer. Furthermore, all officials found guilty under this section shall be removed from their offices, and shall receive the harshest penalty allowed under law, and all aggravating circumstances shall be held to exist. Furthermore, neither the pardon authority of the President, nor of the governors of the States, shall extend to any official convicted under this section.
The common citizen must have a remedy when the government abridges his or her rights, and justice requires that the officials who abuse them be treated like the criminals they are. The principle of sovereign immunity facilitates the violation of the people's rights. It is by no means needful for the proper functioning of a state.
Section 15. No punitive damages shall be awarded by the courts of the United States or of any State.
Punishment is the purview of criminal court, acting under a standard of proof that insulates the innocent from wrongful conviction.
Section 16. In all criminal cases, defendants shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and presumed of sound mind until proven of unsound mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, in all civil cases the defendant shall be presumed not liable until proven liable beyond a reasonable doubt.
The burdens of proof need to be Constitutionally defined and protected.
Section 17. The proceeds from fines and property forfeitures shall be given to the persons harmed by the crime for which the fines and forfeitures were imposed, and if there be no such persons, then the proceeds shall be distributed equally among the registered voters within the region over which the imposing court has jurisdiction, except that neither the jurors, nor relatives of the jury in the first degree, nor officials or employees of the jurisdiction imposing punishment, shall receive any share of the proceeds for a case decided by that jury.
It is insidiously corrupting for law enforcement officials to directly benefit from prosecutions.
Section 18. Any official of the United States or of any State, knowing of evidence tending to exonerate any criminal defendant, shall personally bring this knowledge to the attention of the defendant without delay, and any failure to do so shall be prosecuted as obstruction of justice, against which it shall not be a defense that the original defendant was made aware by other means.
The number one cause of wrongful conviction is the willful suppression of exonerating evidence by the prosecuting authorities.
Section 19. For an official of the United States or of any State to solicit any person to break any law shall constitute the crime of entrapment. Entrapment shall be prosecuted and punished in a manner identical to a conspiracy to violate the law in question. Furthermore, it is not necessary to establish that the official intended to take any particular course of action in response to the anticipated illegal act. Furthermore, it is not necessary to establish that the person solicited took any action based on the solicitation. Furthermore, the person entrapped shall be immune from prosecution or punishment for the act for which they were entrapped, and any convictions resulting from entrapment are hereby set aside.
The police are supposed to reduce crime, not increase it.
Section 20. All defendants shall enjoy the right to be separately tried.
Guilt-by-association has no place in a civilized court.
Section 21. No waiver of a defendent's rights in a criminal trial shall be of any effect unless made subsequent to the notification of indictment.
I'd be upset if some law stated that by filling out my fishing license application I was agreeing to waive my right to a jury trial if the game warden decided to take my boat under pretense of law.
Section 22. It shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by impeachment, for any judge of the United States or of any State to base any judgment on any foreign law.
Judges should not be enforcing our laws, not somebody else's.
Section 23. Except for a plea of guilt in open court, subsequent to indictment, no statement of self-incrimination, made subsequent to arrest, shall be used against any person.
The police's record in obtaining confessions is a record of abuses that should stop.
Section 24. No crime shall consist of a person, not an official of the United States or of any State, to fail to report evidence, suspicion, or observation of a criminal act.
Finding criminals is everybody's responsibility, but only the government's obligation.
Section 25. The right to trial by jury shall not be denied on account of the triviality of the offense.
It is a contradiction for an offense to be serious enough to warrant prosecution, but too trivial to warrant a jury.