Yet more Symptoms: Part 2

So, what should we do?

  When we overcriminalize, we suddenly have incarcerated masses to deal with, whether it be rehabilitating, feeding, housing, or having on parole. Someone must be paying for that. The answer? Taxpayers.

  Finally though, the incarcerated masses are released. It’s all better right? Not at all. Now, with such an untrustworthy background, there is little opportunity for them to find work. The formerly incarcerated will find it easiest to return to what they have done before.

  In short, our whole society is suffering in this issue, we must find a remedy. But what everyone else has done isn’t helping us get anywhere, so, again, what should we do?

   We need to realize the root of our problem is not overcriminalization. It is not the “tough on crime laws”. It is not the massive passage of more of those laws. It is not the passage of time, or the growing fear in our nation. It is not because of any of the plain or obvious surface reasons. It has everything to do with the problem with everything in our country and government. It is called morals.

We are not a moral or righteous people anymore.

  There was once a Book, claiming what is good and right, denouncing what is evil and immoral. Back in the pages of history, the United State of America was founded by men and women who saw that the moment we threw away that Book and the Author, our government and country start to crumble. Now, we are in that moment. This Union cannot function as it was established to, unless we are a body of people who stand with morals.

And that is how we fix this.

  It all comes from the heart. We have moved away from God and living as He has shown as good, and until we move back towards Him, in our hearts and behavior, there is no hope for our nation. Christians must infiltrate our society, culture, and government because we are the ones who see this crippling disease and know the One who can heal it. The Church is vital in changing our criminal justice system, just as it is vital to changing our society and government back to a nation of free men and women.

   We can certainly work to stop the vast amounts of new laws that are putting people in prison left and right. We can definitely push for our Congress to start repealing laws, which is something that they seem to have forgotten was allowed. We should clarify the lines between civil and criminal law and re-evaluate our laws to have them align with the definition. We should certainly do what we can to move our country away from this criminalization epidemic. Yet, we will not go anywhere until we address the fact that our hearts and beliefs must change. First in us, as Christians. Then, through us, and with God’s help, into all our nation, and all the world. If we run this direction, we will watch or country heal and grow great again, because we will finally acknowledge Who ultimately must have the authority in our government, criminal justice system, society and lives.

  When we return to the great Lawgiver, we will know and see true freedom again. Let us begin now. We must begin now. We are our country’s remaining hope.

Sources:
Population Reference Bureau; http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx

The Washington Post;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/07/yes-u-s-locks-people-up-at-a-higher-rate-than-any-other-country/

The Sentencing Project; http://www.sentencingproject.org/detail/news.cfm?news_id=1987&id=107

The Wall Street Journal; http://www.wsj.com/articles/robert-rubin-and-nicholas-turner-the-steep-cost-of-americas-high-incarceration-rate-1419543410

The Heritage Foundation; http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/04/overcriminalization-an-explosion-of-federal-criminal-law

Right on Crime; http://rightoncrime.com/category/priority-issues/overcriminalization/

Diffen; http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law

CBSNews; http://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/

Yet more Symptoms: Part 1

What is wrong with our country? Why is it that, no matter where we try to divert our attention in our government, there is something more to discourage us? In our elections, in our legislature, in our legal system, it lays in whatever path we go towards. ~ This is a TeenPact assignment I wanted to share with you. The issues we see throughout our government are grave, however, it is far more essential for us to realize that the fault lies in us, the Church. We have failed to fight for and preserve our nation and fellow citizens as we aught. The failure lies in us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There used to be a process in our criminal justice system that went as follows:

  One person commits a misdemeanor; he accidently uses and destroys another person’s property, for example. The other person finds out about his destroyed property and demands payment for it. If taken to court, this is called a civil case. The arbitrator must give compensation for what damage he has caused because he has violated a civil law.

  Another person commits a misdemeanor; he knowingly harms another person and flees the scene, for example. If caught, the harmed person can bring this case to court, where the lawbreaker will receive a punishment for his actions. This is a criminal case and laws that make this a crime are named criminal laws.

  The lines may seem rather blurred when trying to see the true difference between these two law types, so here are the major clarifications. Violations of a civil law are instances of negligence, misuse, or misconduct. Violations of a criminal law are, rather, instances of large cases like murder, and also burglary, or assault. In other words, there are two ways justice is dealt out, either by punishment or by retribution. And one important factor to remember, is that criminal cases are the only ones that land someone in prison.

  Alright, so don’t we still have these two types of laws and cases? What is the problem? Why should I be concerned?

  Yes, but the trouble is, our country progressively sees only one type of person when a law is broken: the criminal. Our government has and continues moving to only one side of the spectrum. We are finding vast amounts of criminal laws, where morality, discretion, and, if necessary, civil laws once stood. What I am leading to, is that we have a terrible case of overcriminalization here in America.

  Hold on, now that’s a big word. What and why on earth are you trying to use that word? Simply because it means that we and our legislators have begun to view almost all instances of broken laws as prison worthy, and began legislating it as such. Overcriminalization is that increasing trend to putting more people behind bars than is necessary.

Really? That seems strange. Why would we start making more things a crime?

   Interestingly, most of the countries of the world began making more issues a crime in the past 40+ years. In the 1970’s there began a spike in incarcerations and laws nicknamed, getting “tough on crime” laws. They were a worldwide movement, mind you, but the US took it much further than everyone else. And, strangely, we have never gone back.

   We stand as 1/20 of the world population with 1/4 of the world inmates. No matter how many surveys are done, our country remains the greatest incarcerator on the face of this planet, and no one seems to deny it. “Though only 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population. … Not only does the current overpopulated, underfunded system hurt those incarcerated, it also digs deeper into the pockets of taxpaying Americans.” Sen. Rand Paul once said, while Hillary Clinton states, “It’s a stark fact that the United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we have almost 25 percent of the world’s total prison population. The numbers today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago despite the fact that crime is at historic lows.”

   It’s obvious both Republicans and Democrats see there is a problem, but they don’t seem to know what to do about it. We still have the best criminal laws of all the nations in the world. Other countries incarceration rates are going up too, so is there really a problem?

   To begin with, let’s mention the thing that our whole government is so deeply concerned for: children, children in the United States. Did you know 1 in every 100 of them have a parent with a prison record, or currently in prison for that matter? But that’s not a big deal, right?

   Next, our Congress continues passing criminalizing laws at the rate of one per week. They have been doing it for decades. Everyone sees there is an issue, yet “...From 2000 through 2007, Congress enacted 452 new criminal offenses.” (Overcriminalization: An Explosion of Federal Criminal Law) We could do something to petition or protest against these law passages, but the truth is we don’t have the knowledge or time to gain all the knowledge we need to request a change.

   Strangely, the US sends all the convicted criminals to prison. Where other countries send their mentally unstable and drug offenders to institutions, our criminal justice system doesn’t do that. Does that protect us from more unknown dangers, or does it simply compound the overcriminalization issue?

The unemployment rates of former prisoners stands so great, the Labor Department does not even record them. So, returning to crime looks like the best way to survive for many ex-convicts. It’s only logical that they would return to the way they know, even though the whole process of punishment was meant to discourage and change their views on committing crimes.

  More than half of those formerly in incarcerated will return within a few years. Almost 80% will return to crime. It’s called recidivism. Think about that from a criminal’s point of view. It’s almost a guarantee that you will be back in prison before five years is up. So, why even try to change?

  Also, if these rates only continue to climb over the decades, it only seems logical to conclude that whatever measures are being taken now to rehabilitate, discourage, or stop these massive incarcerations has not been very effective at all. What needs to change? Why do we keep doing this?

   Here festers yet another wound to our civil government. Messy, controversial, powerful, even massive, our criminal justice system and the faults found in it are starting to look irreconcilable. Like the rest of our government, it looms as a black hole that most citizens of our country run from, or the most discouraged ones just sit and wait until it swallows them up. There are many things that we are immensely grateful for in our criminal justice system and the protection it provides for us, but honestly, when we look closely, it’s just as frightening and foreboding as the direction we feel all the rest of our government and country is heading.

So, what should we do?

Freedom of speech!...or, maybe not?

  I don't know what to say. The truth is, history proves that whatever freedom of speech is, we have never had an easy time defining it. When is it right to share something because it is true? And when do you withhold something because it is...something else...personal feelings, offensive, slander, hysteria, or would cause some of these things?

  The US, Supreme Court case Near v. Minnesota of 1931, was such a issue where multiple people of the state of Minnesota claimed that a newspaper, The Saturday Press, was publishing libel about public officials of the state. The Minnesota state court upheld this, saying that The Saturday Press must stop printing such "defamatory and scandalous" articles. (Case Briefs) However, some saw this court order as contrary to the freedom of speech, and brought the case to the Supreme Court. In their review, the Supreme Court stated that the Minnesota court order was a "previous.." or "prior constraint" on the newspaper's publication, it was, therefore, unconstitutional in light of the First and Fourteenth amendments. (Notable First Amendment Court Cases)

   This "prior constraint" or prior restraint is "Government prohibition of speech in advance of publication." (Prior Restraint) Can you imagine what would happen if this was allowed? Historically, people understood that freedom of speech meant no government entanglement at any level, but this case, if decided otherwise could have lead to a greatly censored and different press and media than what we know. Basically, government would have an opening to change what we hear, see, and know about; we would be ignorant about things, not because we don't have time for it, but because we aren't allowed to know. Eventually, we would look like the countries around us, where the government has almost no checks from the civilians.

   Following this case, there have been instances where the government thought it would be best to keep information from the public to keep them from hysteria. Should they do that? Presidents F. D. Roosevelt and Truman both kept the atomic bomb a secret from the public for more than a year. Was that in the people's best interest, or was it restricting freedom of speech? Again, what is the definition of our freedom of speech?

    Quite frankly, we will probably never have a clear, well-written, or word-for-word definition. But, that is the way a freedom works. If we let it alone, or let it go, we will see it morph into whatever our superiors(or self-allowed superiors, as is the case with our government) want it to be. Yet, when we remain vigilant to see that we are free to share what is true as well as gracious. And we rebuke those who would abuse it by slander, trying to scare others, silencing opposition, etc. When we do this, having such a clear definition will not be necessary, we will know what is right without governmental instruction, and we will have real freedom of speech.

Works Cited:

Near v. Minnesota. Case Briefs. website; http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/freedom-of-speech-how-government-restricts-speech-modes-of-abridgment-and-standards-of-review/near-v-minnesota-3/

Prior Restraint. The free dictionary.com, website;
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prior+Restraint

Notable First Amendment Court Cases. American Library Association. website;
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/courtcases#fes

Spoiler Alert!

This just...We need this everyday. Remember, in all our chaotic lives, bored moments, lonely thoughts, happy days, weary toil, there is something much grander happening. God is winning the war for our hearts and souls! He is fighting in an through us to bring us Home, to Himself! He is glorifying Himself in hearts and lives such as ours! If this doesn't invigorate us to fight on, what will? 

Code Living

  Who wants to listen to someone who changes his or her mind for every whim? How can we trust people who say one thing and do something else? Is there any way to believe someone when we don't know what they believe and watch them stand up for it?  The answers are no one. We can't. And no.

 We all tend to want to live without rules, or at least outside of them in some way. But how can we ever really live this way? To wander with no moral compass, no thought to rules, laws, ethics, or God whatsoever only leaves us lost. Just because that is the way we are prone to be, has no bearing on the fact that we cannot and should not live that way, because it is so far from what God has desired for us. We are supposed to be law-abiding people. Strange? It is sort of surprising, I'll admit. Yet, it's the only thing that makes sense in light of what happens to us, our families, our countries, our cultures when we undermine laws, morals, and rules.

  Every journalist must also have guidelines and rules to hold himself accountable to, otherwise, how can he be trusted? How do you really believe, respect, rely on someone who doesn't have a standard they follow? How do you know what that standard is?

 If you are in the business of sharing truth with others, you are making yourself accountable to your audience that you will tell the truth. If you claim to tell the truth, you are claiming to be honest, trustworthy, ethical. So you must clarify how you will and must be ethical. Write a code.

  No. I don't mean something cryptic. Establish a code of ethics for yourself, and share it with your audience. This will help them keep you accountable. This will help them trust you. This will help you learn and become more reliable. And, as a journalist, shouldn't that be our aim? To grow in knowledge and truthfulness in every step of the way?

 This journalist - or at least aspiring one - therefore puts forward my own code of ethics:

Code of ethics 

1.    No stealing ~ Mainly, do not take credit for another's work. It is rather simple, do not take or claim anything that does not belong to you.
2.    No lying ~ This has to do with having others believe someone else's work is your own. However, it also extends to altering images, quotes, etc. to make it appear different than the original intent or event. Basically, do not be deceptive in any of the work you do.
3.    Be respectful of other people ~ Be gracious and thoughtful of others' feelings and rights. Share the truth, yet with grace. Be aware and concerned for your sources as well as your audience.
4.    Be honest and comprehensive ~ Do not present opinions without clarifying that they are such. Give more than one side of an issue to be objective and acknowledge the fact that everyone is biased in some way. Write in a way that will not be confusing to your audience, or will be least confusing.
5.   Always be truthful ~ This applies to every point already listed, but it should always be reiterated. Journalists must first and fore-mostly tell the truth. They must avoid situations that will cause people to question their integrity. They must show respect to all, but be very careful and clear when they show favoritism to any. 

   I did use some of the guidelines from https://nppa.org/code_of_ethics and http://www.journalismdegree.com/ethics/, as well as ideas from the course. They are not especially obvious though, and no quotes were used.

Wisdom from the past...

What more needs to be said? 

Ethics = Morals = God

   There is no doubt in most persons' minds that ethics and morals are complementary to each other. Something in our minds pushes us to feel guilty when we steal or lie, then we have to convince ourselves it was fine or seek restitution for what we did. This is called conscience: having morals, for some strange reason, embedded in our minds and hearts. We can easily ignore them. Yet that is what creates all of the evil, misery, and confusion in our world, throwing away what we know is right. Throwing away truth. And, I must add my own bias, throwing away the Giver of truth: God.

   If morals, conscience, ethics seem to live buried in each of us, then it follows that we all must need to follow them in some way, we simply choose not to do so. And in continually choosing to ignore morals, it becomes harder and harder to know what is truly ethical and how to be that way. We become confused when we are presented with dilemmas such as telling the truth to a friend's parent and our parents when the friend has done something wrong. Keeping the secret for the friend would preserve your relationship for a while, but undoubtedly both would begin to lose trust in each other. If someone is willing to lie for you, who's to say they aren't going to lie to you. Both friends would have violated their consciences. They did not really treat others the way they want to be treated. They are being unethical. The only ethical way to go about this dilemma is to be willing to lose a friend in order to do what's moral and right. You must tell you friend's parents and your own.


   It is not only in personal ways that we must live ethically and morally. We must all live and work treating others the way we would want to be treated. Journalism is no exception. Respecting other persons and their requests in your reporting, being objective by presenting others with both sides of an issue, giving others the credit they are due, and most essentially, reporting truthfully are all examples of being ethical. In what? Journalism.


   Truly there is no major gap in the ethical and moral guidelines that journalists must follow and other people should follow. Those guidelines listed apply to everyone, really. However, when you are in the business of informing the world about the truth, it is profoundly important. A journalist's job is to be ethical, to be a truth pro-claimer. It is no easy or flippant task. Yet, it is deeply rewarding.


  I used the guidelines from this site to help me see the ways journalist are to be ethical: http://www.journalismdegree.com/ethics/ . In order to give credit where it is due, the author's name is only listed as Jason.