Extraordinary Claims
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. When someone claims to have “proof” of an unidentified flying object (UFO) which would be extraordinary, then the evidence needs to be just as extraordinary.
Professional Jurors
If on-trial for a crime you would think most people would want a competent and knowledgeable lawyer representing them and a competent and knowledgeable judge presiding over them; so one would think that an individual would also want competent and knowledgeable jurors as well. In the past, most court cases were relatively simple and the average person should have the intelligence to listen to the facts and make a competent and knowledgeable judgment. But today, because of specialization, complex regulations and new forms of evidence, the average person often does not have in their arsenal of common knowledge sufficient information to make informed decisions. Often, the persuasion of a lawyer is as much as educating the juror as it is convincing the juror.
In these situations, it would seem prudent to employ “professional jurors.” Professional jurors are individuals who are selected because of their knowledge and experience in the area related to the court case. The professional jurors can still be selected at random and reviewed by the respective attorneys before the case; however, they would be from a specific subset of the general population with relevant knowledge, who volunteered for service and who are probably compensated more for their time. The privilege of choosing between professional jurors as opposed to the current system of randomly selected jurors from the general population could even be offered to the accused. It seems logical that someone who believes that they have been falsely accused would want the truth to be known. To help ensure that end, it again seems logical that the falsely accused would want jurors who are able to understand the facts as presented; therefore, they should welcome a knowledgeable juror.
On the flip side, it seems logical an accused person who knows that they are really guilty would rather have jurors who are not as knowledgeable and thus are more susceptible to persuasion and poor judgment; it only increases their odds of either a not guilty decision of a hung jury.
Few, if any, individuals relish the thought of being called for jury duty. While it is one of their civic duties, it does create a disruption in their life and possibly an expense for either them or their employer, particularly if the court case lasts a long time. Most people would probably opt to pay more taxes to compensate for professional jurors if that would reduce or even eliminate the chance that they could be called for jury duty.
A good pool from which to draw for professional jurors would be the elderly and retired persons. They, more than most, would have experience and temperament. They also have the most time and can more easily tolerate a disruption in their life style. And, being retired, they are probably the most affordable; however, they should be compensated enough to make it worth their while. Since they have volunteered and plan to serve on multiple juries they could be pre-vetted, again saving valuable court time.
Education
Education, all the way up to a Doctorate degree, should be available to as many individuals as economically feasible, free. However, the system would be competitive. You have to demonstrate your ability to warrant a free education. As society is able to support those attending school, only the top candidates would receive their education at no cost. Students receiving free education would have to maintain certain minimum grades or similar status. Students would be required to pay for failed courses needed to be taken again. All other students who did not place in the top of their class would need to pay for the any additional education.
Testing and evaluation could be used to help determine which program, which type of school, and which college each applicant would be allowed to receive their free education. Any deviation from the government recommended program would require additional payment on the part of the student. The goal is to get the best individuals educated into the fields that best serves them and serves society.
The number or percentage of individuals who would be afforded free education would vary depending upon the available funds derived from taxes and health of the economy. Obviously, those who are against the idea are those who can afford an education and do not want more competition.
The benefits to society of an educated public are obvious. To avoid abuses, such as foreign students residing in the United States solely for the purpose of obtaining a free education is that they would be required to work an equivalent number of years equal to their education in the country prior to attend school and after they graduate. Likewise, out-of-state students must also work in a state the same number of years they plan to attend college as well as work in the state the same number of years after they graduate, if the aid was received from the State.
Religious Freedom
The Founding Fathers recognized the importance religious freedom to the new nation, and believed that religion was the backbone of the Constitution and to society. However, they did not want to see the new government give favoritism to any single religion nor adopt a national religion. But the last thing they wanted to see was the removal of religion from government. They advocated tolerance, not abolishment.
Therefore, the Founding Fathers did not intend to see a true separation of church and state, but rather a state that supported all religions equally, impartially. This means that prayer in school should be allowed. Granted, the school cannot support one religion over another, but it certainly cannot either deny any religion from practicing its belief as long as the practice of that belief is not detrimental to anyone else. One is hard press to find when prayer, religious study or worship has ever been considered harmful to another person. There is no record of an individual being harmed by a prayer or worship of a benevolent deity.
If an individual has no religious belief, fine. However, these non-believers have no more right to dictate to others that they cannot practice their belief in public than the believers have right to dictate to the non-believers the need to believe in their religion.
A County courthouse for instance should have the right to display the Ten Commandments or a Nativity Scene or any other religious symbol or tradition if the costs associated with the displays are born by the supporters of the religion (and not the general public) and the County courthouse agrees to display all bona fide religious artifacts with similar equality. But the County courthouse does not have right to refuse a religion from expressing itself publicly if the display does cause harm to another person or the religion advocates intolerance for other religions.
In fact, the only time restrictions than can be placed upon a religion or a religious group by the government is when that religion or religious group advocates harmful intentions or intolerance for another religion or the government. Each religion must respect the right of other religions to exist and to do so peacefully and with tolerance. If the religion advocates in any way the destruction or control of any other religion or the government; then society has the moral and legal responsibility to combat that non-tolerant religion with any appropriate means available.
If a religion truly wishes to survive let alone flourish, then it must do so with beneficial and peaceful means to all, and increase its number by acts of kindness and tolerance rather than by threats and coercion. Because no matter how right a religion may think they are in their belief, no religion deserves to prevail if it must do so with acts of hatred, violence and intolerance or at the expense on another religion.
For a Christian, one cannot wonder about the majority of the world who subscribe to non-Christian beliefs. Are they all wrong? But as it says in Isaiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts; neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.” Therefore, one cannot phantom, nor should one even presume to have the audacity to impose their beliefs, not matter how strong their conviction, upon another individual. While a person may not believe they are wrong, they cannot say with absolute certainty that th
e other person is wrong in their belief. Therefore, one is obligated to treat them and their belief with as much respect and dignity as they would expect them to treat theirs. This applies to believers, atheists and agnostics. In the final analysis, there are only four possibilities when it comes to religious belief. Either one is right and the other is wrong, or the other is right and they are wrong, or they are both wrong, or somehow they are both right. No one really knows for sure.
But one thing all believers and non-believers should be able to agree upon is that no religion or belief deserves to exist which in order for it to exist it must do so at the expense of the other. A religion or belief that advocates violence and destruction of another religion or belief or even has expressed intolerance of other religions or beliefs as a core element to its existence is not religion or belief that a benevolent God or even a benevolent human would devise. If the religion is true, it will survive and flourish on its own merits; not by the abolishment of other religious beliefs.
Personal Database
Think of the countless times you have filled out and answered the same questions over and over again when applying for a job, or a loan, or a medical exam. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was one single massive database that every conceivable bit of useful information on you for your entire life could quickly be downloaded to the prospective employer, or to loan officer, or to the doctor?
The information would be up to date, accurate, unbiased, and verified. It would be each individual’s responsibility to make sure that it was up to date and accurate and the government’s responsibility to see that it was unbiased and verified. The military already has this type of system available in a limited way. Why not make it available to everyone?
It would then be easy then to apply for a job or a loan. In addition, it would be easy for employers to search for employee candidates, and lending institutions to find credit worth customers. Physicians would have instant knowledge of your medical condition.
For those concerned with violations of civil liberties, the personal database could be voluntary, unless the individual has a criminal history, in which case those records would be required to be public. Once in the system, individuals would have the choice to decide who has access to what information and when. For example, if applying for employment, one has the option to release only employment related information. If applying for medical service, release only medically related information. The control of the information is still with the individual. The purpose of the system is to minimize the duplication, errors and falsification of information.
Obviously, those who are against this simple idea are those you profit from a lack of such a system; such as those helping others find employment and possibly those people unqualified in the current position or falsify information to get employment. For those who wish not to participate in the system, they still have the option to complete the applications the traditional way; assuming the employer, lender, or physician still accepts conventional applications. Otherwise, a single database available on each person’s personal history would be simple solution to a complex problem.
Personal Global Positioning System
With today’s technology and global positioning satellites (GPS) it is now possible to have implanted into anyone who desires it (or those who by society require it) a small device which automatically and continuously records their location on the surface of the planet within a relatively high degree of accuracy. This technology already exists with the use of cell phones and in our vehicles. It is even used for the location of pets. So why not use for all humans?
Normally, most people who are not doing something wrong or are not somewhere where they should not be do not have an objection to having that information available to others on a need to know basis. It is usually the people who are hiding their activities who are trying to conceal their whereabouts. Some others simply see it as a violation of their civil liberty and object regardless of its benefits to themselves or to society. There is not much you can do about these people other than to respect their right to not be part of the system; but they must bear the consequences. You can’t fix stupid.
Thus, the government should make available an implanted position tracking and recording device to anyone who desires it. This information would not be available to anyone other than those authorized by the person with the device. The exception would be for those individuals whose prior history warrants in society’s judgment that they should be compelled to have such an implant and its information available to the appropriate agencies. For example, someone with a history of certain types of criminal behavior or someone who suffers from memory loss and has been known to wonder and get lost, or perhaps someone with health issues who should have the information readily available to the appropriate agencies for their safety as well as others.
Imagine the benefits of such a human tracking system. Kidnapped children could be found quickly as well as their kidnappers. People lost, stranded or buried under rubble could be found quickly. Anyone who performed an act of crime could be found quickly. For example, if a convenience store is robbed at 11:00 at night, all the police need to do is to run the history of those who were at that location at that particular point in time. The GPS system is accurate to within 6 inches! The police would know who committed the crime and where to find the criminal and would even know who the witnesses were.
For non-serious criminals, those who are simply under “house arrest” with restricted movement – the GPS locator could continuously track their movements and make sure they are not violating their parole. For concerned parents, the movement of their children could be continuously monitored. For suspicious marital partners, their own spouse’s movements could be monitored. Not for you, you say? Well, would you like to be married to someone who was not willing to share their GPS location with you?
Or on the flip side, suppose you have been falsely accused of committing a crime. Wouldn’t it be great if your personal GPS tracker clearly demonstrated that you were nowhere near the crime scene? Think of the fortune it would have saved Los Angeles County if O.J. Simpson had a personal GPS tracker that showed he really was in his bedroom golfing at 10:00 pm at night as he claimed.
Known child molesters could be continuously monitored and could be easily apprehended in the event they came within a prescribed distance of any child. Virtually all crime, if not deterred, at least could easily be solved. The benefits to society of a personal GPS tracking system are staggering. It would greatly help law enforcement, not to mentioned finding missing persons. But one can understand the fear of those who imagine a big brother controlling them; therefore it should be voluntary except as noted. Frankly, the benefits greatly outweigh the potential liabilities and most people who have nothing to hide would probably welcome the opportunity to participate in such a global positioning tracking system. A personal tracking system would be a simple solution to a myriad of complex problems.
Capital Punishment
Heinous crimes, such as murder, may deserve the death penalty; however our Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” We are all mortal and we all shall die; so death is not unusual. However, almost no one knows when they will die; only that they will, someday. Even people in the thick of a heated battle still have no idea if and when they will perish. But imagine the cruelty to anyone who had the knowledge that they are going to die at a specific time and in a specific place; by most people’s standard that is cruel and unusual punishment. What is even more tragic is when someone receives a death sentence and is killed and then is found to have been innocent after all.
Life in imprisonment without a chance for parole is cruel punishment in itself. In fact, it may even be crueler than death. Therefore, it is recommended that anyone who is found guilty of a heinous crime that normally would be found to warrant a death sentence should instead be offered a choice: death or life imprisonment without parole. And if they elect de
ath, then it is on their timetable and by their choice of means.
Most people opt to live rather than die; however, an empty life, a useless life, a pointless life where you have nothing to do but to continuously ponder the heinous actions you took and hopeless situation you are in is probably a penalty even worse than death. It is a living death; a situation where it would have been better never to have been born.
One can empathize with any family member who may have lost a love one and may wish to exact an “eye for eye” against the individual who is responsible for the loss of life; but no punishment can bring back their love one. Therefore, if the goal is exact as much punishment as possible on the accused; then realize that a living death followed by actual death is perhaps as severe of a punishment one can possible imagine short of a planned death. In short, capital punishment should be abolished unless agreed to by the accused.
Suicide
The taking of anyone’s life is tragic and against all that is moral. However, when one offers their own life in order to save another, in effect a form of suicide, it is treated as the most heroic of all acts. But when an individual tries just suicide alone in effect to save themselves from a horrible life, it is severely condemned, and in many cases illegal – like that is going to influence the person wanting to commit suicide.
Personally, this author is against suicide; however, it is not that difficult to imagine a situation when living is actually worse than death. This authored suffered from a condition that had it persisted for extend period of time, death would have been a welcome relief. And until you are actually confronted with that situation, no one really knows what it must be like to make that ultimate decision. It probably has to be one of the most difficult decisions anyone well ever have to make in their lifetime; and many times it cannot be accomplished alone.
Therefore, despite the religious and moral reasons against suicide, as long as the act does not endanger the health, safety and welfare of another individual nor denies another person
You Can't Fix Stupid. Page 12
