The article below says:
"It's part and parcel of a public and political mood to
get tough on crime, say criminologists."

This statement reminds me of something I was pondering during my 1200 mile drive from Alabama to Rhode Island last week. Things have changed drastically here in the United States to the point where lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and prison officials no longer take heed to our Law of the Land -- the US Constitution. Human Rights no longer exist and unfairness seems to be the rule of the day. Why? Well, here's what I think happened:

Anyone who is over 25-30 years old probably remembers when our government was known as a Republic. A Republic is a government that operates by the duly and legally Laws that are written and it means that every citizen is responsible for obeying those Laws, even the rulers and Kings.

But suddenly, politicians began referring to this government as a Democracy and no one noticed the subtle changes that began to take effect because of this new title that seemed to come out of nowhere. Politicians made us believe that a Democracy was a good thing, stating that a Democracy is a government run by the people and most of us felt pretty good about that. Our "feel good" was out of pure ignorance. Democracy means that when the people change their minds about Laws, the rules that already work for the good and the freedom of all, can change. A Democracy is a government that -- in truth -- is very dangerous. Why? Because politicians know the minds of people can easily be manipulated to BELIEVE in things that are not true, thus the Laws that were designed by our forefathers to avoid government tyranny can be changed by the uninformed and brainwashed Majority to literally enslave the citizens. I think this is what has happened in this country to imprison 2 million of its citizens -- a large percentage of which were imprisoned unfairly and illegally, and much more enslavement will follow in the coming years as long as the Majority rules.

A Republic rules by objective impersonal Law that applies to absolutely everyone, including the rich, and elected and appointed officials. A Republic makes the citizens responsible for their actions. A Republic does not deny freedom. A Democracy rules by the subjective emotional fervor of the day, and those rules do not apply to the rich and elected and appointed officials. A Democracy makes citizens dependent on government rather than the other way around. A Democracy steals freedom from its citizens.

In my 24 hour driving stint last week, I had 24 hours to ponder these meanings. I wondered where the term DEMOCRACY came from in the first place, and it occurred to me that it came from places like totalitarian leaders such as Stalin and Hitler, which incidentally came from the ideas of old Greek and Roman philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, however misplaced Stalin's and Hitler's interpretations were.

My friends, fellow USA citizens, brothers and sisters, the United States is a REPUBLIC! It is not a democracy and never was supposed to be a democracy. We have been duped in a huge way! How do we combat this ubiquitous infiltration of such a lie? One way is to tell others the truth -- we are a Republic. This country and all of its citizens began with a Republic government -- one ruled by Law, not by the majority of people. It is a fallacy to believe that the Majority knows what's best for everyone. It is a fallacy because the Majority are easily brainwashed, swayed or bought [bribed] to believe lies. We cannot survive as a nation of free people if our government can twist the minds of a Majority of people and thereby twist our Law of the Land! It is so simple to see the truth in this, if we will all only look.

Study your history, do the research if you do not believe the above is accurate. Learn how this government has duped us all! Begin referring to this government as a Republic, not a democracy, and tell people who try to correct you that they have been misinformed. We are told things like, this is a government "by the people" and "for the people" and "of the people" and that can ONLY be true when ALL THE PEOPLE are governed by the same unchangeable Laws - the US Constitution.

God help us all,
Taoss

-----Original Message-----
From: malaika927@yahoo.com
To: patrickcrusade@egroups.com
Date: Monday, June 12, 2000 3:04 PM
Subject: [patrickcrusade] Recommended csmonitor.com article

Headline: In more states, parole is a thing of the past
Byline: Paul Van Slambrouck, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Date: 05/22/2000

(SAN FRANCISCO)
Luis Frias has been something of a model prisoner for 15 years. So much so,that the California state parole board has approved him for release from prison twice.

But in each case, Mr. Frias's family says politics intervened and kept the man, imprisoned for causing the death of a woman during a robbery, behind bars.

In many states across the country, the age-old practice of granting parole has been on the decline in the 1990s. Some states - such as Ohio and Wisconsin - have abolished parole, while others have just outlawed it for violent offenders. It's part and parcel of a public and political mood to get tough on crime, say criminologists.

Yet even in states like California, where parole remains a legal part of the criminal-justice system, the trend is reaching a zenith. Here, the granting of it to serious felons, no matter what their performance in prison, has virtually disappeared.

While that fact shows no sign of creating any public fuss, the apparent abandonment of a practice rooted deep in the American justice system is stirring criticism by some criminologists, some politicians, and even the courts themselves.

The argument for parole

In short, critics say parole is warranted for a small segment of even the most serious offenders. It is written into the law and has served over the years as an incentive for rehabilitating prisoners and making them productive members of society.

Since Democratic Gov. Gray Davis took office in January 1999, the state prison board has recommended parole 18 times. That's a small slice of the 2,000 or so inmates reviewed.

But even the 18 were 18 too many for Mr. Davis. Not a single parole recommendation has been approved by the governor.

"What this means is that the parole function has ceased to operate," even though that function is part of the law and part of sentencing says criminologist Franklin Zimring, at the University of California at Berkeley. "It's really serious when the words in the law lose their meaning."

Sharing alarm over the trend, Democratic state Sen. John Vasconcellos accused the state parole board recently of holding "Kafkaesque hearings in which conclusions have nothing to do with the facts."

Nationally, both political parties have spent the past decade ratcheting up penalties and reducing judicial discretion in the criminal courts. Being tough on crime has become bedrock for political success.

Yet the dynamics in California suggest a mini-backlash to the wholesale disappearance of parole, even for the most serious offenders.

The cases in question do not include prisoners on death row or inmates who have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. It's so-called "term to life" cases where the judges impose sentences for a fixed number of years, but that can extend to life, that parole has historically been granted in some cases.

Davis's actions are consistent with his vow as a candidate to be "death on violent crime." Yet critics of Davis's approach are trying to influence appointments to the state Board of Prison Terms, which the legislature must approve, to create a board more sympathetic to parole.

So far, the governor has had his way. Recently, a Davis-backed member of the board won Senate approval for another term despite objections from Democrats.

Remarkably, a state court has stepped in to defend parole as well. Last year, it ordered that the parole board set a release date for convicted murderer Robert Rosenkrantz.

Legal analysts say the action was unusual, if not unprecedented. They could recall no other case where the parole board was ordered by a court to find a prisoner suitable for release.

The state appealed the ruling, but last month an appeals court sided with the original ruling. The parole board was ordered to hold another parole hearing for Mr. Rosenkrantz this month.

Small percentage getting smaller

The rate of parole for people convicted of serious felonies has
traditionally been a small number.

At hearings last year in the California legislature, a former commissioner of the Bureau of Prison Terms estimated that about 5 percent of the cases that came before the parole board were recommended for release. Today, that figure is less than 1 percent, and even those have been blocked by the governor.

California, like many other states, has given its governor power to overrule parole board decisions on cases involving prisoners serving "term to life."

Recent history shows just how potent the issue can be politically. The case of Willie Horton, a convicted killer in Massachusetts who committed rape after being released from prison, helped shatter the presidential bid of Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988. In the 12 years since, state politicians have
opted for ever tougher sentencing laws and greatly curtailed parole for high profile offenders.

Meanwhile, inmates like Frias continue to hope for a favorable review each year. Frias's case will come up again before the state parole board in July. His family hopes his exemplary performance in prison, which includes favorable reviews from prison staff and counselors, and his lead role in groups that work with abused children, will show he is ready to rejoin
society. "We just try to keep his optimism up," says Frias's sister, Sylvia Carvajal.