|
Mr. John Kass Chicago Tribune 435 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 Dear Mr. Kass: I am a fan who is truly disappointed on those days when the Tribune lacks your column. Your articles have the ring of sincerity and accuracy, a rare combination indeed in political commentary. It was thus with dismay that I read of your (albeit qualified) advocacy of the monstrous erosion of freedom titled the “Sexually Violent Persons Act.” No one disputes the utter wickedness of the criminals you mentioned. If God (or Fate) were to strike such animals dead, I would be the first to celebrate. But the State is not God. It is characteristic of government to monopolize the provision of a service, fail miserably, and then use the failure to justify an even greater expansion of its power. In this case, the government assumes the responsibility of protecting us from pedophiles. Its performance in this matter is itself criminal: What absolute monsters could devise a system whereby Richard Bailey has only served “seven years of a 17-year sentence” and yet “was scheduled for release…after serving time for his third sex-assault”?? The politicians tell us we can either have objective law with rampaging pedophiles, or we can give judges unprecedented arbitrary power in the hopes that fewer pedophiles will be released. How dare they foist such a “choice” upon us! Rather than bestow on us such a lovely gift as the Sexually Violent Persons Act, why didn’t Jim Ryan and Tom Dart craft a bill that simply removed the option of parole for three-time sex offenders? Or increased sentences for such crimes? Will they respond that there wasn’t political support for such measures? Can they actually state without blushing that they can pass a bill vehemently opposed by the ACLU and others, yet they can’t get their colleagues to vote for harsher sentencing of pedophiles? Any arguments citing bureaucratic sluggishness won’t do: The laws prohibiting pedophelia already exist. It is a much simpler matter to bump up the numbers in them rather than create a sweeping new power for judges. Jim Ryan and Tom Dart are not our saviors, and they are not seeking to help children. The Sexually Violent Persons Act, and others like it which are sprouting all over the country, eliminate two of the most important protections from government tyranny. The first is the separation of powers. Historically, the legislature crafted laws, while judges merely ruled upon (and to some degree interpreted) them. But the current trend is for lawmakers to abdicate this prerogative to the judicial and executive branches, such that, in effect, judges and bureaucrats now make and apply the law. But this is not even the main threat. Not only does the Sexually Violent Persons Act grant judges the de facto power to determine what conduct is worthy of imprisonment, it doesn’t even require that they publicize their thoughts on the matter. For the law “allows a judge to decide if people like Bailey should be kept off the streets and put in an institution.” It used to be the case that to stay out of jail, all you had to do was not break any of the laws, which would be looked up in the library. But under this new system, in order to avoid re-education “therapy” at state mental hospitals, a citizen needs to make sure that judges don’t believe he “should be kept off the street.” Seems straightforward enough. Let me add that it is shortsighted to take comfort in the fact that the law only applies to convicted sex offenders. Our government has already had a rich tradition of incarcerating non-violent, law-abiding mental “patients” and subjecting them to horrible “treatments” such as drug and shock therapy—all for their own good, of course. And obviously the government cannot rescind our liberties in one fell stroke. It must first take it away from the despised minorities (be they Jews, blacks, the propertied class, or yes, even convicted sex offenders) before attempting such a bold move on the general population. The most infuriating claim made by tepid supporters of such laws is that there is a tradeoff between freedom and safety. But this is a falsehood. The State has botched the containment of pedophilia with the last batch of laws, and it will just as surely fail to reach its objective with this new weapon. You admit that this year, “450 have already been released because authorities couldn’t meet the stringent requirements of the new law.” Oh yes, don’t tell me, I know. With just a little tinkering, they’ll get the law right. This time, this sacrifice of liberty, will be the last one. Then we will all be safe, free to enjoy a peaceful life without the threat of robbers and drug dealers and pedophiles and homelessness and airline terrorists and illegal immigrants and global warming and Russian financial crashes and European genocide…. No, even with the latest version of some politician’s plan to wage a War on Pedophilia, the government will not protect our children. When that becomes apparent, a new round of politicians will come forward with their solutions, and I and others like me will again be labeled as ideological zealots who care more about criminals than little children. As I mentioned at the beginning of this letter, I was surprised that you would write in support of such a law. You say Judge Fitzgerald “has common sense,” but what of the judges who view California critters as more important than a new hospital? Will the inevitable abuses of the law be corrected with the same compassion and efficiency exercised in the cases of aggrieved owners of towed cars? Will the ruling elite remain as free from corruption as they have always been in this fair metropolis? Will the judges be kept under the watchful eye of such stern disciplinarians as Cicero’s president? You wrote that the Act is “a cynical end run around inadequate laws,” and closed with the dramatic, “And I don’t care.” The purpose of this letter was to convince you that perhaps you should. Sincerely, Robert P. Murphy |