ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, March 27, 1996 TAG: 9603270018
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: Cal Thomas
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DESPITE attempts by the Reagan and Bush administrations to reform a legal system that was running roughshod over the Constitution and creating new ``rights'' out of thin air, two recent legal decisions indicate that the lunatic fringe remains alive.
Clinton-appointee Judge Harold Baer Jr. of the Southern District of New York ruled that 80 pounds of cocaine and heroin seized by police from the trunk of a suspect's car was not admissible. Why? Baer said the police did not have reasonable suspicion to pull over the driver when they observed four men approach a car at 5 a.m. and drop several bags in the trunk. When the suspects spotted the police and began to flee, the judge decided this was not suspicious behavior because that Washington Heights neighborhood is known for corrupt and violent police officers.
The Clinton administration, realizing the potential political fallout, at first suggested it might ask Baer to resign, but when reminded of the importance of an ``independent'' federal judiciary, the administration asked the judge to reconsider his ruling.
The other case from the outer limits of lunacy involves the murder of a New York City police officer by an ex-convict with a lengthy criminal record. Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson flirted with the possibility that he might not seek the death penalty against the suspect because he thinks capital punishment is immoral.
New York Gov. George Pataki, who promised to execute the pro-capital punishment views of a majority of the people of his state, removed Johnson from the case and assigned Attorney General Dennis Vacco as prosecutor. Vacco will have 120 days to decide whether to seek the death penalty, but few believe he won't.
There's something even more offensive about this case than the murder of a police officer. It is the ambivalent approach of the law to life. Some of the same legal minds that oppose capital punishment (Pataki's predecessor Mario Cuomo is perhaps the most prominent among them) see no role for law in the preservation of unborn life, including a ban on ``partial-birth abortion,'' where the developed child is extracted feet first from the woman and has his or her brains sucked out.
Increasingly the law is being whittled away so that the elderly and infirm have less protection than they once enjoyed. One court recently decided that the Constitution contains a ``right to die.''
But those liberals who have made such a mess of the law and legal history must seek redemption somewhere lest they seem callous and uncaring. So they worship the environment or animals, or they find something sacred in the life of one who brutally strikes down a police officer in the line of duty.
From where and from whom does a murderer get his right to hold on to life? Why does a guilty murderer enjoy more protection under the law than an innocent unborn child?
The Roman Catholic Church, while technically approving of capital punishment ``to defend society,'' believes it is possible to defend society without it. But the question is ultimately not about defending society or using capital punishment as a deterrent. These may or may not be benefits of the death penalty.
The principal reason our nation needs to maintain and carry out capital punishment is that it is the only proper way we can place the highest possible value on innocent human life. A life sentence, even without the possibility of parole, is not a proper punishment for someone who sheds innocent blood. Depriving one of liberty who has deprived another person of life is a penalty that does not fit the crime. It would be like requiring me to mow your lawn in punishment for stealing your car.
The guilty murderer deserves to die. By requiring him to forfeit his life, a society establishes a high standard for life. It says life is endowed by our Creator and cannot be taken without due process based on the same standards and codes set down by that Creator which have, until recently, served as the foundational principles of our common law.
Various commentators are bemoaning the ``politicization'' of the legal system. They warn against making the law and the courts a campaign issue. But it's already a campaign issue. Do we want more judges, more courts and more legal authorities who decide when and where laws shall be obeyed, and even what should be law, or do we want to return to a time when judges interpreted the law as written and district attorneys did not impose their own views so that a cop killer gets more sympathy than the murdered cop, his wife and children?
- Los Angeles Times Syndicate
LENGTH: Medium: 85 linesby CNB