Criminals No Longer Fear The Law

I think one of the most significant problems facing our country today is what I perceive to be a liberalization of our judicial system.

It seems we have much more compassion for the criminal than we used to.

Conservative columnist Cal Thomas pointed out a case recently that succinctly illustrates this point.

Thomas wrote, "... 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."

Baer was a Bill Clinton appointee.

There are plenty of other oddities in the court system these days. Several were pointed out in a recent edition of U.S. News and World Report in an article titled "Stupid Court Tricks."

Some of this stuff is almost unbelievable.

Judge Rosemary Barkett (another Clinton appointee) recently ruled with the majority that the mother of a fifth-grader who was pestered by another fifth-grader could sue a school district for sexual harrassment. Barkett also, in a dissenting opinion, implied that statutes requiring drug tests for state jobs may violate the First Amendment by seeking to keep people "who might disagree with the current policy criminalizing drug use" out of government.

And then there's the long-fought decision in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals where it was ruled that a male prisoner who wants to become a female prisoner isn't entitled to get the hormone shots he needs at public expense under the 14th Amendment. But he may be able to get them under the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment.

And finally, this from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

There is a guy named Rodney Hamrick. While he was serving time in prison for threatening the life of President Reagan, he built five bombs and threatened to blow up a courthouse, an airplane and the headquarters of the NAACP. While serving more time for threatening to kill the judge in his case, he built and mailed a bomb to the U.S. attorney that prosecuted him. Happily, that bomb failed to blow up. It fizzled. The envelope was burned but there was no explosion.

Hamrick was convicted, but a three-judge panel reversed his conviction because the bomb, in their view, was not a deadly weapon. It wasn't a deadly weapon because it was so poorly built, they thought. Even though there was no request for a rehearing on that ruling, the judges of the Fourth Circuit held one on their own. They upheld Hamrick's conviction. Eight judges said the bomb qualified as dangerous. Six judges disagreed.

Yes, justice has come a long way in this country.

My son, a fifth-grader, just finished a report on John Wilkes Booth. He's the guy who assassinated President Lincoln.

Boothe was shot to death shortly afterward by the authorities. But more interesting was the fate of his "co-conspirators."

They - four of them - were hanged in public. Lincoln was assassinated in April. The hangings took place in July. One of the co-conspirators was a woman who happened to own the house where the three others stayed. She got the noose even though the other three proclaimed her innocence and begged the authorities to spare her life.

Now, I must admit this is a bit harsh even for my conservative taste. But it seems the pendulum has swung much too far the other way.

These days, criminals don't fear the law. They know there's only a 20 percent chance they'll get caught. And even if they get caught, they know they won't do much hard prison time.

And then, of course, there's always the all-encompassing "the-devil-made-me-do-it" defense.

You know the defense.

A guy admits to kidnapping a woman and holding her hostage for nine hours while repeatedly sexually assaulting her.

The suspect's attorney tells the court that all the psychological torture and repeated rapes the victim suffered were not the fault of his client. His client, you see, is a victim in the case.

He's a victim of "irresistible impulse syndrome." He just couldn't help himself. He's sick. He needs help. He has a disease that needs to be treated, just like strep throat.

I didn't make this up. It's an actual case. You see this stuff everywhere.

Ghetto kids who commit murder are victims of "urban stress syndrome." There are other popular legal phrases, "diminished capacity," "post-traumatic stress disorder," "battered wife syndrome," "black rage syndrome" and others.

The use of these psychiatric defenses is becoming almost comical.

Remember the famous "twinkie defense," where a suspect's high sugar intake was blamed for his participation in a murder?

And then there was the "Crocodile Dundee" defense. In that one, a well-known psychiatrist testified that the suspect had been influenced by the movie. The suspect was on trial for shooting, stabbing and drowning his wife.

Fortunately, the defense didn't work and the guy was convicted and sentenced to life.

I suppose I am not surprised that this type of testimony gets used. But what does surprise me is that judges and juries are buying it.

There's a simple thing that parents try to teach kids that applies here. Be responsible.

If you commit a crime, you are responsible. Of course there sometimes are aggravating and mitigating circumstances. But no one should be able to get away with murder because he ate too many twinkies.

I think crime could be diminished in this country if people feared the law and knew that they would be held responsible for their actions.