They Should Become Peace Officers, Not Wardens of Death

Utah police officers shot and killed three unarmed individuals in the last six months. Thinking such a thing should be rare, three raises our eyebrows. Yes, it does make us wonder if officers are taught to shoot to kill. Are they taught: "Stay within the legal limits, but if you are going to be able to say that you believe lethal force was necessary to save yourself, then, by all means, you can shoot to kill."

Maybe "you can" is okay, if it is just pointing out legal rights, but it should be tempered with the warning not to shoot to kill if it is not necessary. Life is too valuable, even if the life is that of a criminal, for us to be killing each other just because a law gives permission. So, if officers are to be taught they have the right to kill, the teaching should be peppered thick with the additional teaching of just how valuable live is. Officers should be taught that the legal right to kill is not the moral right. They should be taught that if they can see they can stop the offender without killing him (or her), then that is the much preferred option. Preserving life should be taught ahead of the taking of life. They are becoming a peace officers, not wardens of death.

"Life is valuable, and we mean all life," the officer should be told in the training. "Shooting to kill is not your first option. If you can stop the person -- maiming him -- then, by all means, do so."

James Bond was a movie. And license to kill is fiction.

Serving the Victim Could Replace Many a Jail Sentence

Supposing we revamped our penal system with this thought in mind: The criminal offenders should be responsible to their victims, and should provide restitution to them.

I'm told that with just 5 percent of the world's population, we have 25 percent of all those who are incarcerated. I'm told it cost us $60.3 billion a year. At some point, we must ask if there are less expensive ways that are also more effective.

Perhaps having the offenders be answerable to their victims is the answer. To begin with, have them provide restitution to the victims, when that is possible. But, let it go beyond that. Let them serve their victims, doing chores for them. They need not always have face-to-face contact to do things that benefit the victims. Let them fix their cars, or do whatever other chores the victim might find he or she is in need of.

One advantage of such justice, is that the criminal would learn more about the victim, turning his or her heart to that person, and hopefully helping to bring remorse. I believe remorse can be a large factor in bringing the offender to realizing he or she has been doing wrong, and changing. 

We've Abandoned the Two Ways We Were to be a Republic

Perhaps the two most significant ways in which the original Constitution called for the U.S. to be a republic are no longer in effect, one having been removed from the Constitution and the other not being practiced.

Go ahead, browse through the Constitution, looking for ways our government was set to be a republic, not a democracy. What do you find?

One, you find the U.S. senators were to be elected not by the people, but by the state legislators. Two, you find the president was to be elected not by the people, but by electors of the Electoral College. The 17th Amendment changed the rule on senators, stipulating that they were from that time forth to be elected by the people. As for the president being elected by the Electoral College, officially, he or she is, but it is but a formality. In practice, the people vote for president, not for the electors, and the electors are committed in advance to vote for the candidate the people voted for. As set up by the Constitution, it would seem that when we go to the polls, the names of the electors should be on the ballots, not the names of the presidential candidates, themselves. And, it would seem that we should have electors not bound to the candidates and not having predetermined who they will vote for. But, rather, those electors after being elected should study, weigh and consider everyone whom they think might make a good president, and then each elector should make an educated decision, voting for the person they conclude will be best.

Being a democracy is not such a bad thing, to me, but neither is being a republic. And, I do sometimes lament that we have abandoned the two things in the Constitution that most distinguished us as a republic. Actually, even with those two provisions, we were part democracy, for, all along, those in the House of Representatives were to be elected by the people. The Constitution had many balances, and it should not surprise us that there was a balance between being a republic and being a democracy.

Only, that balance has been lost. I say we should restore it.

Defense Contractors Should Share in Austerity

So, the U.S. Department of Defense spends $316 billion on contracts, and the top 20 contractors make $84 billion. 

I look at those numbers, and realize someone is getting rich. And, since someone is getting rich, then there is a place where we could make some cuts to cut the national  deficit.

Yes, getting rich is okay, but when you are getting rich at the expense of your country, and the country is going broke, I think it is just to ask you to consider making a little (maybe even a lot) less.

I do think we should go to those contractors, and ask which of them would be willing to reduce their profit margins. These are austere times -- or should be -- and it is fair to ask those who are getting rich at our expense to share in the austerity.

Though I speak of defense contractors, alone. There are other contractors who are rich as a result of their contracts. They, too, should be asked to share in the austerity.

Let's Quit having Stand-Alone Police Headquarters

Let's quit having stand-alone police departments, and the change might help prevent mass shootings. Let's have the police headquarters be right there at a school, a mall or other such place where there is potential for a mass shooting.

It makes sense: No one walks into a police department and starts shooting it up. (Not so likely, anyway.) Criminals have a tendency to steer clear of police departments. So, if you have the police located right with the children, that is one site that is protected. As is, police headquarters often stand alone, although often they are next to city hall, and thus help protect it.

I suggest it is a waste when the police headquarters stand alone, away from anything it could protect. You only have one headquarters (though you might have satellite offices) and coupling it at the same location as one of your schools or at one of the other places you seek to protect, utilizes the automatic protection that come just with having the police across the street, or better yet, in the same building.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765623682/Towns-schools-welcome-police.html 

Oscar Pistorius is Case in Point

My argument being that our proliferation of guns is doing us harm, Oscar Pistorius becomes a case in point.

During the last year, the Olympic hero (he competed in sprint races while wearing man-made legs) became a gun aficionado. He may have had an interest before then, but  he started increasing his interest, building an arsenal that included a .500 magnum dubbed "the most powerful production revolver in the world." His collection also included a civilian version of a military assault weapon.

Then came that fateful day this past month when, he says, he thought an intruder was in his bathroom and he became frightened, and shot through the door, killing his wife, international model Reeva Steenkamp.

Steenkamp probably would be alive today, if Pistorius had not become a gun aficionado, if he had not gone out and bought the guns he did.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765623680/Pistorius-bought-collected-guns.html

Leave the Prison Right Where it is

   They would move our prison, you know, but I question whether they should.
   Do not understand the supposition that there will be a cost savings after the new prison has been up and running for awhile. Seems if one location would have advantage over another (in prison costs), it would be the the location closest to the courts, to the hospitals and to the services the prisoner depends upon. Transporting a prisoner is expensive. How is transporting him from Tooele or Delta not more expensive than transporting him from Draper? If the cost savings being spoken of are savings that come from a new facility, then update the current facility, or build a new one at the same site. 
   Do not follow the argument that the move will bring new jobs. It is said the moving of the prison will bring 40,000 jobs. How so? I'm assuming these new jobs are jobs that will come as the Draper site is developed. Is there something about that 690-acre site that is special above all other places we have available, that new industry should locate to the Draper site, but not to the other locations?
   Do not believe the notion that moving the prison to generate $20 billion in economic benefits should be an overriding reason for moving the prison. I'm guessing a portion of that $20 billion will come as property values around the current site go up. Moving the prison should be decided on whether it will benefit the state, not whether it will line businessmen's pockets. This $20 billion, how much of it will be because of increasing property values around the Draper site? Are we saying that making those landowners a little richer is more important that having the prison located at the best site for a prison? For, I quite like it that the current prison is accessible to volunteers and family. Giving the prisoner interaction with those who will work to reform him is vital, and if we seek to reform the prisoner, not just incarcerate and punish him, then giving him these visits does make a difference. Don't place the prison away from the convenience of those volunteers who are good influences upon the prisoner.
   I say we leave the prison right where it is.