1.5 Crime and Justice

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

There is so much to like about this plank that it is hard to determine where to begin. This single paragraph encapsulates the entire legal foundation of the nation, and the ideal under which I would like to see the government operate. The governments purpose is stated unambiguously "Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property." There is nothing in here of the socialist bent which is currently polluting both parties.

From this base it naturally flows what government should regard as a crime. It should be noted that all crimes are by legal definition. While we have an emotional understanding of what a crime is, for purposes of law we need objective definitions. "Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm." Says it all. If your behavior does not harm someone else, or at significant risk of harm, then there should be no crime.

You can see how this makes the determination of behavior as acceptable (legal) or unacceptable (criminal) very easy.

• If you mash someone with a stick, you have used force, and are guilty.
• If you steal their credit card, you have used fraud, and are guilty.
• If you drive while under the influence of alcohol, you have involuntarily placed the other drivers or your passengers, at significant risk of harm.

Everyone in law enforcement should be standing up and applauding this sort of thinking. Many of todays laws are exceptionally difficult to determine if, in fact, it has been violated. That is always the sign of a bad law.

If we seek "... a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives ...", as the preamble asserts, then it naturally follows that "Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves." Thus you have the right to be careless with your own body. You should be able to smoke, drink, ride a motorcycle without a helmet and even do other things which are now currently illegal.

The platform continues to go on in the vein of personal responsibility. If you crash your car into someones house, you are responsible for paying for damages. All parties seem to agree on this point, so it does not stand out as much, but it is proper to include it.

Finally the platform ends with a direct expression of one of the fundamental truths the founding fathers supported. The jury has the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. This is a required protection for all of us. Thomas Jefferson said it perfectly with:

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

This is essential for the judicial system to not become either an unwitting pawn of a tyrant, or an active collaborator. From time to time unjust laws may be passed, or just laws may be perverted such that the only hope for a defendant is the jury itself. The jury is, of course, peers from the community. The people must have the right to judge their own if the concept of self governance is to be upheld.