|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Irresponsible Congress, Irresponsible Media
| Article
# : |
11452 |
|
|
Section : |
EDITORIAL
|
| Issue
Date : |
4 / 1994 |
789 Words |
| Author
: |
Morton A. Kaplan
Editor and Publisher |
This month there is a special report in Current Issues and a symposium in Modern Thought that raise the same disturbing message: the irresponsibility of Congress in pretending to address issues of great concern to the public and the irresponsibility of the media in failing to inform the public how Congress is trying to pull the wool over its eyes. The first issue is crime and the second is medical research.
Anyone who believes that the crime bill going through Congress is a serious attempt to address the issue should be quickly disabused of that opinion. If there is a serious or well-considered element in that omnibus bill, it suffers from severe lonesomeness. I shall make no effort to deal with the various elements of this ill-considered bill but will restrict my attention to its best-publicized aspect.
Public opinion polls show that crime now concerns the public more than any other issue. People no longer feel safe in their homes or in public. The extent of violent crime in America is a serious issue, but it demands a serious, not a demagogic, response. The best-publicized aspect of the bill is the "three strikes and out" provision, which mandates a life term without parole for anyone convicted of three violent crimes. President Clinton, New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, and most other leading political figures have emphasized this aspect of the bill more than any other.
However, this retrogressive aspect of the bill is both dangerous to the life and safety of Americans and highly immoral. Consider the case of criminals who already have been convicted of two violent crimes. They are committing a third, and one suggests that they leave no witnesses. Thus, the rational criminal who is not morally inhibited will now commit murder. If he is morally inhibited, this suggests that the penalty is excessive. Furthermore, the bill is insufficiently discriminatory in a major way with respect to the type and degree of violence employed and the circumstances of its exercise.
The "three strikes and out" laws, at least as they appear in current state drafts, are even worse from a moral standpoint. Juries will try to avoid conviction in many cases if the penalty is so severe. Consider, for instance, the case of a young father, let alone a young mother, who has robbed stores on three occasions but with minimal violence. This penalty would be immoral even in many cases in which injuries occurred, again depending on the type of injury and the circumstances.
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
