Justice Would Be Better Served with Some Tweaks

Justice is best placed outside the reach of corruption. This being so, I would argue we need to tighten up our rules on grand juries. They exist not to determine guilt, but to gauge whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.

I turn to the Sixth Amendment, which says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury." Since it speaks of a "public trial," I wonder why grand juries are allowed to go behind closed doors.

Upon checking, I learn there are at least four reasons: 1) Witnesses could be subject to intimidation; 2)  The closed session encourages candid testimony; 3) The closed session shields the accused from harm if they are not charged; 4) The closed session helps prevent outside influences on the grand jurors.

Well, tell me how the reasons for keeping grand juries secret differs from what could be argued for the trial itself. Witnesses in the trial itself could be subject to intimidation or retaliation. Having the trial itself as a closed session could encourage candid testimony without fear of public scrutiny. Keeping the trial secret could prevent harm to the accused if they are tried but not convicted. A closed court trial could avoid outside influence on jurors, ensuring impartial decision-making. 

What's the difference? I'm not seeing it.

But, if it is too much of a step to throw open grand juries to the public, perhaps we could at least take these measures. A discussion with AI suggests:

1) Requiring public disclosure of evidence presented in cases where no indictment is issued, while protecting sensitive information and witnesses

2) Replacing grand juries with preliminary hearings, which are public and allow both sides to present evidence before a judge.

3) Creating oversight mechanisms, such as a neutral third party reviewing grand jury proceedings for fairness. 

Our criminal system -- our trial system -- must not itself evade justice. It is crucial that it have some openness. When things are done without checks and balances -- when there are no restraints -- corruption often raises an ugly head.

Police Entitlement

Police entitlement
That's when police become immune
From prosecution
When you cannot object to anything they do
For if you do
They'll punish you through and through

Police entitlement
Looks like this, my friend:
An executive order signed by Donald Trump
Making police agencies fatter and more plump

Police entitlement
And the coming of a police state?
Make the police all powerful
Make the police all great

All Electric. All Everything.

All Electric. All Everything.
That's the way they advertised this car
For it was the best vehicle of all
And by far -- yes, by far

It was the fastest car on the road
And the one with the most torque
It was the best car for play
And the best one for work

Zero to sixty the fastest
And the most stylish car on the lot
All Electric. All Everything.
The best car to be bought

All Electric. All Everything.
It lived up to its motto
No car was ever so cool
As was this model

Recovery

Recovery from the demagogue
From the man who wreaks havoc on our land
Recovery from Donald Trump
Will not come easily, understand?

A price is paid
And the price is high
When democracy is half lost
You don't come this far
Without there being a great cost

But bless our land
And let it heal
And pray that it will
Pray for democracy
And that we'll have it still

The Soft-Talker

The soft-talker, the hard-dealer
Trump is both, you know
Such an easy manner
Sets us at ease, it's so

He starts up the art of the deal
Oh, so soft and kind
Charms you with his personality
But, in the end, he leaves you in a bind

He hits you hard
He packs a punch
Hard enough to lose your lunch

He swings at democracy
The free press and Bill of Rights
Look out, America
Or he'll read you your last rites

He strikes blows against Greenland
Panama and Canada
And if you don't picture him just right
He'll gladly break your camera

Just a soft talker
But one who packs a punch
He pummels you into submission
After calling you honeybunch

Eduardo Flores-Ruiz -- Like any Immigrant -- Deserves a Trial

Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, his is an interesting case. He's the guy whose case was being tried by Judge Hannah Dugan. She's accused of improperly shielding him from ICE officers who arrived at her courthouse to arrest him.

To begin with, Flores-Ruiz faces criminal charges for assault and battery and also for unlawful reentry into the United States after being deported. Then there's his immigration case: ICE wants him deported but since he is able to prove he's been here for more than two years, it isn't that easy. Eduardo Flores-Ruiz partially fits under the so called "expeditated removal" rules of a 1996 Bill Clinton-signed law that provides for some immigrants to be removed without trial. He slipped back into the country unlawfully, so on that point, the 1996 law has him. But the 1996 law says if you've been in the country for at least two years, you escape the grasp of that 1996 law. He has been back in the country for more than two years.

His criminal and immigration cases become intertwined.

The good thing about the Eduardo Flores-Ruiz case is that the courts are being allowed to sort it out. Justice should always be in the hands of the court. In America, no one should be deprived of due process. 

It Isn't Pretty, and it Isn't Right

Here's the thing, and it isn't pretty and it isn't right: The State can deport immigrants without giving them due process. Trace this troubling development back to 1996 when President Bill Clinton signed into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).
It's a law that establishes what is called "expedited removal," in which, if the immigrant hasn't been in the U.S. too long and certain conditions are met, ICE is free to remove them from U.S. soil without bringing the matter to an immigration court.

I confess I am surprised to learn there are situations where Trump can legally evict immigrants without having to go through immigration courts. Of course, it depends on what you call legal. IIRIRA is but a law created by Congress; it should not be superseding the Constitution, which says everyone has the right to a trial.

President Clinton and Congress at the time set the Constitution aside, preferring to operate by their own rules. And, since then, there has been more and more fudging as to who can be given the boot without being given a trial
 
Creeping injustice. The door has opened, and a tyrant is running through it.

This is not the America our forefathers founded. I believe most Constitutional scholars are united in believing immigrants have the right to due process. And, not only is the Constitution clear on this matter, so is the Declaration of Independence, warning us that there are certain unalienable rights that are bestowed not by government, but by God.

So, when the State hauls a person off without giving him or her a trial, it might be legal under an act of Congress, but it is not legal under the Constitution. Just saying.