Travesty of Justice
The local City Council has just voted to approve an ordinance which would let judges ban an individual accused of certain crimes from a 20-block square area of the downtown for a 90-day period.
The ban would require a "preponderance of evidence" that the individual had committed the crime, and is designed to curb increasing vandalism, shoplifting, threatening behavior, etc., from the homeless/addicted groups which have been hanging out downtown and bothering store owners and customers.
Anyone spot the problem yet?
In the US, whatever the evidence found by the police, one is legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Not until accused, not until suspected, not until judged so in a hearing.
This ruling basically says, we're going to violate the civil rights of people who have no money for an independent legal defense because they're bothering good tax-paying citizens.
If the problem is that an actual trial takes too long, the solution is not to punish the (legally innocent) accused, but to speed up the court process.
What does a "banned" suspect do if they live and/or work in the downtown? Oh, well, that's not a concern here, say the proponents, the kinds of people accused don't have anywhere to live and don't work.
Right.
So screw 'em.
posted by Tzipporah at 12:26 PM
2 Comments:
Not only the innocent until proven guilty issue, but also the fact that if they cannot be in one area, they must be somewhere else. The question is 'where?'
Would the city council rather the problem moves into nice quiet residential neighborhoods? Or would they rather keep it limited to the well-lit and densely populated 20-block square area of the downtown, where there may be enough potential witnesses around to limit criminal activity?
I foresee a legal challenge. And an uproar, once the problems move into areas near school-playgrounds.
What do you mean by a "bad cohen?"
Post a Comment
<< Home