Lie Detectors, Body Cams - Modest Proposal

The president would like to see all policemen wear body cameras. I think the president is right. But I don't think he's going far enough.

If he's really serious, he should demand that body cams be worn by all state and federal politicians, and insist that they record all of their conversations and meetings — every last one! For members of the executive department, he could easily do this by executive order.

After all, he delights in telling us he has a "pen." And while he's at it, why doesn't he demand that every politician wears his own personal lie detector? And when he says, "politicians," he could define the term loosely enough to include candidates for the presidency, House and Senate.

Why am I supporting the president, and encouraging him onward and upward?

I think body cams for cops are a good idea, not because I distrust policemen, but rather because I distrust a great many of the people with whom they are forced to interact. And I suggest body cams and lie detectors because I distrust Washington and Springfield politicians even more! They prove daily that they can do far greater damage.

In the years I was on the bench I handled a small number of cases where I felt the officer used excessive force. In one such case, Suspect A stuck out his foot and tripped the officer pursuing Suspect B. The officer retaliated by whacking the big-footed A with his Mag-light. I felt the officer used a tad more than necessary force, but I really would have liked to have seen a video of the whole transaction. It's entirely possible that the officer's whack was proportionate.

But more often, it wasn't the officer who was in the wrong. I recall one case in the days when I was a prosecutor when a deputy arrived at the scene of an armed robbery as the defendants were fleeing the scene. One turned and fired on the officer. I would like to have been able to see exactly what happened. Did the defendant just shoot in the general direction of the officer to scare him? Or did he take aim and try to kill the officer?

Similarly, if I were a lone officer approaching a stopped vehicle on Interstate 80, in addition to a dash camera, I would want a body camera as I approached the stopped car at 2 a.m.

The dash cam only sees from one angle.The body cam may well show a defendant reaching for a weapon or making a threatening move from a different angle to justify the police officer's response.

But just as dash cams and body cams are useful to protect citizens and police officers from over-reach, I think they may be a good deal more valuable in protecting the public from rapacious and unethical Washington and Springfield politicians. Sadly for too many politicians, body cams would not be enough. For far too many, lying has become a way of life. A police officer's misconduct can hurt individuals; corrupt politicians can injure the whole nation. With a politician it's not enough to see and hear what he's saying.

The average citizen does not have time to fact-check what the president, the speaker, the majority and minority leaders and the candidates are telling them. A lie-detector would save the voters a lot of time, and instantly alert them to fibs, white lies and worse. And if the government can hand out cellphones, why not body cams and lie detectors?

Consider the usefulness of those devices in answering the following questions:

— How does a man or woman with no accumulated wealth when he or she goes to Washington or Springfield, retire 30 years later with millions of dollars in his bank account? If the politician was hooked up to a lie detector, we could ask that question, and know whether his "frugality" explanation was truthful or a lie.

— What could an ex-president or his secretary of state spouse possibly say during the course of a speech that would be worth $240,000 to the payer? Is it possible the payer was attempting to buy influence? Imagine if the explanation had to pass lie detector scrutiny!

— Would Lois Lerner — and whoever talked to her about "giving special scrutiny to requests by conservative groups for tax exempt status" — have done what she/they did, had all government officials involved been wearing body cams in recording mode, and attached to lie detectors?

And what if every meeting with every lobbyist/potential lobbyist had to be recorded on the Congressman's body cam? And be subject to lie detector evaluation?

And since the mark of a true leader is to ask your men to do nothing that you yourself wouldn't do, it seems only right that President Obama immediately strap both instruments on himself — first! Even before issuing his executive order!

Posted: Friday, September 25, 2015 11:00 pm | Updated: 11:06 pm, Fri Sep 25, 2015. QCOnline.com

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea

Every Single Life Matters - All of the Time

A group of people, calling themselves "Black Lives Matter" recently marched in Minnesota in support of that proposition. So how do truly concerned people, carrying signs in support of that proposition also chant, "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon"?

Do black lives really matter to people who call for cops -- white or black - to be killed and put in body bags? Would life be better in the black community -- or any community -- if there were no cops? No white cops? No black cops?

After watching the "Black Lives Matter" in Minnesota, a friend of mine said, "If Black Lives Matter, they should matter always, every day, and not just when they are lost at the hands of police." I wholly agree with that, but would go further. I believe all lives matter always.

One-hundred-fifty years ago, Abe Lincoln repeatedly said something that many Americans judged to be politically incorrect. But he may have said it best in his debate at Galesburg with Stephen A. Douglas:

"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil ...  [and] desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong -- that it may come to an end."

That belief was shared by roughly 500,000 northern men who gave their lives during our Civil War.

Sadly, 150 years after Abe Lincoln and the Civil War, there still appear to be a significant number of people to whom lives -- black, white or fetal -- don't matter.

If you think that I am wrong, ask yourself these questions, and ask yourself if the Black Lives Matter movement even addresses these issues?

Do black lives really matter to the heroin dealer -- black or white -- who sells the drug in the black community?

Do they matter to the cocaine and "crack" dealers -- black or white -- who sell in the black community?

Do black lives matter to the black or white gang member who fires a pistol at a black member of a rival gang?

Who fires down a city street where black children are playing, or sitting on their porches with their mothers or grandmothers?

Do black lives of children matter to the black or white father who impregnates a black teenage girl and them immediately moves on? Who never sees or supports his child? Who never acts as father to his child?

Do black lives matter to the young black woman who aborts her fetus? Is the black fetus a life?

Do black lives matter to the black or white gunman who holds up and shoots the black owner of the neighborhood grocery store or gas station?

Do black lives matter to black or white rioters who burn down black neighborhoods?

Do black lives matter to young black men who drop out of school, and waste a chance to be educated, the same chance afforded young white men in the same school?

Do black lives matter when black and white people march and chant, "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon.”

My bottom line is this: ALL lives matter. For me, "all" includes fetal life, the disabled and the elderly, and regardless of whether those lives are black, white, or any other race or color.

I understand the idea of saying things and doing things to call attention to your movement. But I think it is impossible to have a just society based on hatred and evil. Saul Alinsky rule of "means and ends" is this: "The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; ... He asks of ends only whether the ends are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work."

But if pragmatism is the only test of "means," how would killing all the cops make life in the black community an iota better? How would it stop the drug dealing? Gang shootings? The murder of infants on their front porches? Does anybody seriously believe that all black deaths are caused by police shootings?

In recent days, we have seen a spate of ambushes of police officers doing nothing more that sitting in or driving squad cars. Do this really help the black community? The white community? Anybody?

If we are all created in the image and likeness of God, then how can any man of good will kill his neighbor -- or even call for the death of his neighbor -- who is doing him no wrong?

And ask your self if the Black Lives Matter movement even addresses these issues.

Posted: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:00 pm,  QCOnline.com

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea

‘Anchor Babies’, Donald Trump, and Changing the Constitution

Donald Trump has taken the position in his presidential campaign “that the 14th Amendment does not require automatic citizen citizenship for babies born in the U.S. of illegal immigrant parents.”

A mother should not be allowed to gain citizenship for her child (together with the benefits that accrue therefrom) by coming into the U.S. to give birth -- especially illegally.

The U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) says otherwise.

In 1869, one year after the 14th Amendment was added to our Constitution, in an English case, Lord Chief Justice Cockburn wrote:

“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

Speaking for our Supreme Court, Justice Horace Gray, in Wong Kim Ark, held that the U.S. had always followed the English rule. As such, today’s “anchor babies” would automatically be U.S. Citizens.

Mr. Trump’s position, however, finds strong support in the the dissenting opinion written by then-Chief Justice Meville Fuller. That opinion was joined in by the first Justice John Marshall Harlan -- who is generally considered America’s greatest post-Civil War 19th century judge.

Chief Justice Fuller wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1866 provided: “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

“The words ‘not subject to any foreign power’ do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the  territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.

“It is argued [in the majority opinion] that the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power’ should be construed as excepting from the operation of the statute only the children of public ministers and of aliens born during  hostile occupation.

“Was there any necessity of excepting them? And if there were others described by the words, why should the language be construed to exclude them?

“If the act of 1866 had not contained the words, ‘and not subject to any foreign power,’ the children neither of public ministers nor of aliens in  territory in hostile occupation would have been included within its terms on any proper construction, for their birth would not have subjected them to ties of allegiance, whether local and temporary or general and permanent.

“There was no necessity as to them for the insertion of the words, although they were embraced by them.

“But there were others in respect of whom the exception was needed, namely, the children of aliens, whose parents owed local and temporary allegiance merely, remaining subject to a foreign power by virtue of the tie of permanent allegiance, which they had not severed ....

“It was to prevent the acquisition of citizenship by the children of such aliens merely by birth within the geographical limits of the United States that the words were inserted.”

Two months after the Civil Rights Act was enacted, on June 16, 1866, the 14th Amendment was proposed, and declared ratified July 28, 1868. The first clause of the first section reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The dissenters then noted that, “The act was passed and the amendment proposed by the same Congress, and it is not open to reasonable doubt that the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in the amendment were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power’ of the act.”

Then-Sens. Trumbull and Reverdy Johnson explained the meaning of the words.

Sen.Trumbull said, “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else; that is what it means.”

Sen. Johnson agreed. “Now, all that this amendment provides is that all persons born within the United States and not subject to some foreign power ... shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

The main object of the opening sentence of the 14h Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free blacks, Scott v. Sandford, and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States, and of the State in which they reside.

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not this subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. To be ‘completely subject’ to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government.”

Candidate Trump’s position is not presently the law. Does the Supreme Court ever overrule its prior precedents? Sometimes. It might only take one or two new justices

And “President Trump” might well be in position to appoint them. And that’s the easy way to amend the U.S. Constitution.



Posted: Saturday, September 5, 2015 11:00 pm, QCOnline.com
By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015
John Donald O'Shea

'Smart' Hilary Says Some Stupid Things

Hillary Clinton’s cheerleaders forever portray her as a brilliant woman. She, herself, boasts that her ideas are "smarter."

Really?

Speaking at Georgetown University on Dec. 3, 2014, Secretary Clinton said "This is what we call smart power. Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one's enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their [our enemies'] perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change -- change the prospects for peace."

Reading her Obama-esque remarks closely, what she calls “smart power” is twaddle.

“Every possible tool?” Would include biological weapons? Torture?

“Every possible partner?” Al-Qaida? North Korea?

“Leaving no one on the sidelines?” Negotiate with Islamic terrorists as they behead American captives? Slaughter female teachers in classrooms?

“Show respect for our enemies?” “Try to understand in so far as it is psychologically possible?” As they barbarically behead American captives? Burn pilots?

“Empathize” with their “perspective and point of view.” Whose view? The Islamic State's Al-Baghdadi? Boko Haram's Abubakar Shekau?

Will we allow the likes of Putin, Bashar al-Assad and Pol Pot, “to define the problems and determine the solution”? Accept their “final solution?"

Do we allow Hitler/Stalin-types or a Sharia caliphate to define for us the meaning of liberty and religious freedom?

Mrs. Clinton's words, rather than suggesting brilliance, suggest she is wantonly reckless in her use of language, naive to the point of being suicidal, or has a blithering idiot for a speechwriter. (But what of her judgment if she mindlessly regurgitates drivel written for her?)

Recall her Oct. 24, 2014 Boston speech: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory  -- trickle down economics. That has been tried. It has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”

If American corporations and business don’t create jobs, who does? Are all jobs created by the government?

Does Mrs. Clinton really believe General Motors, John Deere and our local hospitals don’t create jobs? Smart? Was she again wantonly reckless, utterly unfamiliar with who creates the vast majority of jobs in America, or is she simply repeating the blather handed her by a speechwriter?

But it’s not only her words. Her actions are more reckless. Since she became secretary of state, America’s enemies have had a field day. Russia has gobbled up portions of Georgia, Crimea and the Ukraine. Iran daily moves to having nuclear weapons. North Korea goes nuclear with impunity. Islamic terrorists are beheading Christians and Westerners throughout the Mideast, kidnapping children, bombing churches in Africa, and seizing large chunks of territory. Radical Islam is at war with America. While Americans are being beheaded, “Kumbaya” is no foreign policy.

Mrs. Clinton’s notion of smart power translates to suicide.

And now, Mrs. Clinton has enmeshed herself in an email scandal -- the same Hillary Clinton who in a June 20, 2007 campaign speech blasted the Bush administration: “Our constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret [Bush] White House email accounts. It is a stunning record of secrecy and corruption ... It is everything our founders were afraid of. Everything our constitution was designed to prevent.

So how does Mrs. Smart now justify using a secret email account, and setting up her own personal server -- which has allowed her to scrub any email that suggest wrongdoing, incompetence or corruption?

She mendaciously claims the law was changed after she resigned as secretary of state. If so, why was she blasting the Bush administration for secret emails?

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in 1995 adopted regulations which require preservation of official emails created on non-official accounts. The archivist interpreted the Federal Records Act to apply to email records: “Agencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate record-keeping system.”

Smart? It is the height of arrogance/stupidity is to excoriate somebody for doing something, and then doing the same thing yourself!

And now, on July 28, when asked about her position on the Keystone Pipeline, Mrs. Clinton answered,  "I will refrain from commenting because I had a leading role in getting that process started ... And I think we have to let it run its course ... This is President Obama's decision, and I’m   not going to second-guess him ... If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question.”

Only a voter too stupid to be allowed the vote would accept this answer. Only a candidate who believes her supporters too stupid to realize that this is a dodge would say something so cynical.

The whole purpose of a presidential campaign is to educate the voters as to your platform! This is reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi's hair-brained Obamacare statement: "We got to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." But then, if the American people will elect a candidate sans credentials on a platform of "Hope and Change" .... ?

Now, according to the Washington Post, Bill and Hillary have "earned in excess of $25 million for delivering 104 speeches since the beginning of 2014." That's $240,000 per speech! Would you pay $240K, to hear Hillary say any of the "smart" things set out here? So, why are people and foreign governments paying $240K? 

Are they attempting to purchase "smart" or "influence?"

Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:00 pm, QCOnline.com

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea

Living in Nation that Uses Babies for Parts

On Feb. 6, two investigators, posing as representatives of a fetal tissue procurement company, met with Dr. Mary Gatter, president of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Director’s Council, who oversees its Pasadena affiliate, ostensibly for the purpose of acquiring "intact fetal organs."

Breitbart.com suggests the video shows that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is violating federal law by being "in the business of selling fetal tissue for compensation."

Cecile Richards, president of PPFA, denies that: "I want to be really clear. The allegation that Planned Parenthood profits in any way from 'tissue donation' is not true."

Profit? Mere reimbursement? Moral bankruptcy? Judge for yourself.

Dr. Gatter: "Our volume ... is 800 [abortions] a year, with 60 in the second trimester. … PPFA is on board with tissue donations, but we have to ask for a waiver ... and we have to lay out ... what our program's going to be like. [Here's] the process worked out with Novogenix  ... in Los Angeles when I was there. … Heather, a Nogovenix  person would come to the site, and our staff would ... get [patient] consent. Then Heather would look at the tissue and take what she required. So logistically, it was very easy for us. We didn't have to do anything. ...

Female Investigator: "What would you expect for intact tissue? What ... compensation?"

Gatter: "What you are used to paying?

FI: "What would make you happy? What would work for you? ..."

Gatter: "OK. $75 a specimen."

FI: "That's way too low. ..."

Gatter: "I was going to say $50. ... I've been in places where they have done it for $50. But see ... we're not in it for the money. ... We don't want to be in the position of being accused of selling tissue ... On the other hand, there are costs associated with the use of our space ...."

FI: "I'd like to start at around $100.

Gatter: "Now this is for tissue you actually take; not just tissue ... where you can't find anything, right?"

FI: "What we can use. ... Intact .....

Gatter: ."Are you looking for eight and nine-week specimens, or only second trimester specimens?

Male Investigator: "Ten to twelve week ... the end of the first trimester … Intact specimens ...  we can work with."

Gatter: "If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to IPAS -- something with less suction --  we increase the odds that we will come out with an intact specimen. But then we're ... violating the protocol that says to the patient, we're not doing anything different in our care of you. ... That's kind of a specious little argument.  I wouldn't object to  asking Ian, that's our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS ...  to increase the odds of getting an intact specimen. … We're signing something that says we're not changing anything ... just because you agree to give tissue. ..."

FI: "It's touchy. ...."

Gatter: "I think they're both totally appropriate techniques; there's no difference of pain involved . ... You have my email?

MI: "Yes."

Gatter: "Write me a  … proposal which I will take to Laurel and others in our organization ... Then ... I will then mention this to Ian, to see how he feels about using a “less crunchy" technique to get more whole specimens. And then ... the next step is I would need to apply to PPFA for a waiver. ... We will need to have a contract. ..."

MI: "What we have used in the past is a 'materials transfer agreement.' ..."

Gatter: "But you know that money is not the important thing for me, but it has to be big enough that it makes it worthwhile for me. ...  It's been years since I talked about compensation, so just let me figure out what others are getting. .."

Regardless of whether Planned Parenthood is making a profit or simply being "reimbursed" for its expenses, I am nauseated.

Recall Dr. Gatter's remark: "So logistically, it was very easy for us. We didn't have to do anything."

Reimbursement?

How can one be reimbursed for not doing anything? What sort of medical doctor refers to a human fetus (an unborn baby) as a "specimen?”

Isn't it the very humanity of the fetus that makes its "parts" (its liver, kidneys, brain) useful? To replace damaged parts in humans? For medical research?

Compare Dr. Gatter's practice of medicine with that prescribed by the original Hippocratic Oath: "I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child."

Dr. Joseph Mengele, of Auschwitz fame, worked experiments on children that often caused death, and then sent their heads and organs to the SS Medical Academy in Graz for study.

How can Dr. Gatter and Planned Parenthood look at themselves in a mirror and not see Joseph Mengele?

Dr. Gatter, in my opinion, is morally blind to the humanity of the children being crushed to death in PPFA establishments.

For her, the fetus is "sub-human medical waste" -- a "specimen" -- to be disposed of in any politically correct fashion.

Donating the parts (and taking cash under the guise of reimbursement) for research or to "supply human health needs" for her is morality.

But if a fetal liver can be implanted to prevent a toddler with liver problems from dying, why can't fetal tissue be canned and shipped to Africa as food for children who will otherwise starve? If the fetus counts for nothing, what line is there other than political correctness?

If you think I exaggerate, watch the video: youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2xi9mhmuo

Posted: Thursday, August 6, 2015 11:10 pm, QCOnline
John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2105
John Donald O'Shea

How Much Death Must One Deal to Get Life?

President Obama recently commuted the sentences of 46 criminals convicted of drug offenses; 14 were serving life sentences. In doing so, he said:

“Over the last few years, a lot of people have become aware of the inequities in the criminal justices system. The fact that we spend more than $80 billion a year incarcerating people, who oftentimes have only been engaged in non-violent drug offenses. Right now ... people all across the country are coming together with ideas to make the system work smarter, work better, and I’m determined to do my part wherever I can.

“That’s one of the reasons I am commuting the sentences of 46 prisoners who were convicted many years or in some cases decades ago. These men and women were not hardened criminals. But the overwhelming majority had been sentenced to at least 20 years. Fourteen have been sentenced to life for non-violent drug offenses. So their punishments didn’t fit the crime. And if they’d been sentenced under today’s laws, nearly all of them would have already served their time.

“I’ve made clear to them, that reentering society is going to require responsibility on their part, and hard work, and smarter choices.

“I believe that at its heart, America is a nation of second chances, and I believe these folks deserve their second chance.”


On Sunday, this newspaper published an op-ed written by Scott Reeder -- with whom I usually agree. In it, he sounded a good deal like President Obama.

“Growing up ... in Galesburg, I would look out my bedroom window at night and see ... the prison lights. I wondered why folks were locked up there. Many were there for drug crimes and other non-violent offenses. When it comes to drugs, wealthy and middle-class folks end up in rehab and low-income ones end up doing time. ...

“Prisons are taking a devastating toll on our state’s inner cities.”


On Monday, the lead editorial in this newspaper from the Seattle Times tells us it’s “Time to overhaul America’s criminal-justice system.”

“President Obama has seized on the righteous issue of mass incarceration ....
“Since the start of the war on drugs ... the population in state and federal prisons has exploded more than 500 percent.

“The lifetime likelihood for a white male to go to prison is 1 in 17; for black men, it is 1 in 3.
“If you’re a low-level drug dealer, or violate your parole, you owe some debt to society... But you don’t owe 20 years. You don’t owe a life sentence.”

The penalties in Illinois are higher for controlled substances than they are for cannabis.
They are also higher for delivery than they are for possession. Due to word limits, I am setting out only the lowest and highest penalties (not intermediate ones).

                                                  Cannabis Possession and Delivery

Possession of more than 30 grams but not more than 500 grams of any substance containing cannabis is a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1 to 3 years.  (three years in Illinois, with good-time credits means nine months). Probation is the statutorily “preferred”  sentence.

Possession of more than 5,000 grams of cannabis is a Class 1 felony punishable by four to 15 years.  (Probation preferred disposition).

Delivery of more than 10 but not more than 30 grams of cannabis is a class four felony, punishable by one to three years. (Probation preferred disposition)

Delivery of 5,000 grams of cannabis or more is a Class X felony, punishable by six to 30 years.  (Class X felonies carry no good-time credits; probation not possible).

                                                 Cocaine Possession and Delivery

Possession of more than 15 but not more than 100 grams of any substance containing cocaine carries 4 to 15 years. (Probation preferred disposition)

Possession of 900 grams or more of any substance containing cocaine carries 10 to 50 years. (No probation)

Delivery of 1 gram or more but less than 15 grams of any substance containing cocaine carries 4 to 15 years. (Probation preferred disposition if less than 5 grams. No probation, if more)

Delivery of 900 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine carries 15 to 60 years. (No probation possible)


Thirty grams is roughly 1 oz., 500 grams is roughly 1 lbs. and 5,000 grams is roughly 10 lbs.


In the years I was on the criminal bench, I don’t ever recall sending a true first- offender to prison for a Class 4 felony possession of cannabis. They got probation.


And generally, if they had no other record, they got more probation if the violated the first probation by getting caught with more cannabis. We realized that it cost about $30,000 a year to send a convicted criminal to prison.

But often, the first-time cannabis offender had a prior record of other crimes. And it is not honest to call a guy with two prior burglary convictions a first-time offender simply because this is his first conviction for possession of cannabis.

Similarly, when a guy on probation for cannabis possession got re-arrested and shipped to prison for pistol-whipping a rival drug dealer on a street corner, it is at best a half-truth to say he was  imprisoned for a non-violent drug offense.

It is asserted that “Prisons are taking a devastating toll on our state’s inner cities.” I would suggest that drug trafficking and the related violence is taken an even greater toll. The Chicago gangs are fighting and killing people over who controls the drug traffic. A lawyer friend of mine, now a judge, once told me that when people get “hooked on crack, it becomes their God.” Delivery of a drug of that sort is a non-violent crime in name only. Is it worse to destroy a person by selling him crack cocaine than it is to shoot him? Cocaine destroys not only the user, but the lives of spouses and children.

It is said that, the “lifetime likelihood for a white male to go to prison is 1 in 17; for a black male, it is 1 in 3.” But if 1 in 3 black males (or 1 in 17 white males) are going to prison, doesn’t that at least mean that 1 in 3 black men (or 1 in 17 white men) have committed a crime that a judge -- white or black -- deems proportionate with incarceration? 

And while drug treatment was an option for the “rich,” it was also available for the indigent.

The president says he believes that his 46 criminals serving 20 years to life “deserve their second chance.” To do what? Live good lives, or resume their lives of crime? And how does someone get 20 years or life for a first-time non-violent drug offense? How much “death” do you have to “deal” to get “life?”

And if it costs 80 billion to incarcerate, what will it cost the public in property and destroyed lives if we empty the prisons of the so-called non-violent drug offenders? Chicago is the poster child.

Posted: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:00 pm

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea

Same-sex Marriage Ruling Carries Risks

"President Obama now says that it is important for him to affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married. As such, for him, 'marriage' is now nothing more than a union between any two consenting adults. So, then, what is the President’s position on polygamy? Is it  'evolving,'as well? If so, why is the number 'two' sacred? If 'consent' between 'adults' is the key, what’s wrong with consensual polygamy?" -- John Donald O'Shea,  May '12,  "Is polygamy a constitutional right?"

The U.S. Supreme Court in Obergeffell v. Hodges (2015) has now held that two people of the same sex have a constitutional right to marry. Do you see any problems with that holding? Risks?

If fundamental liberty requires that any two (competent) consenting individuals must be allowed to marry, how can there be a bar to the marriage of three -- or more -- (competent) consenting adults?

What constitutional principle demands that any two consenting adults must be allowed to marry, while at the same time denying the same fundamental liberty to three or more consenting adults?

If the sex of the partners is irrelevant, and if all that is required of the two people is their consent, how can three or four — or more — consenting adults be barred from practicing polygamy?

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in Obergeffell, largely ignores those questions.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in dissent, however, squarely addresses the polygamy (plural marriage) question, with emphasis on the “historical aspect of marriage being between a man and a woman for over a 1,000 years.”

“One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people.

“Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective ‘two’ in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not.

“Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world.

“If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.”
The chief justice then examined the majority’s justifications for same-sex marriage, and shows they would also justify polygamy.

“It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

“If ‘there is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,’ why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry?

“If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise ‘suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,’ why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children?

“If not having the opportunity to marry ‘serves to disrespect and subordinate’ gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same ‘imposition of this disability,’ serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?”

So if two consenting adults have a constitutional right to marry, why not three? Is two more sacred than three? More constitutional? If the states can’t constitutionally define marriages as being “between a man and a woman,” what constitutional principle  would allow same-sex marriage, but bar polygamy?  Is the harem now legal in America?

Justice Kennedy, speaking for the majority, also gives a fourth justification: “With respect to this asserted basis for excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry, it is appropriate to observe these cases involve only the rights of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties.”

But to say there is no risk of harm to third parties is absurd. Already a baker in Oregon has been assessed $135,000 in damages for failing to cater a same-sex marriage. If that verdict stands, Justice Kennedy’s assertion that the right of two consenting adults poses “no risk of harm to third parties,” comes from five judges wearing blinders.

Nor does Justice Kennedy fear for the First Amendment religious rights of people opposed to same-sex marriage.

“Finally, it must be emphasized that ... those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate ... that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to  teach the principles ... central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure.”

Justice Kennedy reassures Americans that may still believe and teach that same-sex marriage is wrong. But do you see any assurance that Americans can still engage in the free exercise of their religion -- also guaranteed by the first Amendment -- by refusing to participate in or assist in a same-sex marriages?

Certainly the Oregon Labor Commission didn’t. How else do you explain their $135,000 damage assessment? What about contentious objectors? Does not the free exercise of religion guarantee the right not to participate -- to contentiously object? To not seemingly approve?

Make no mistake: I am not opposed to people or their legislators permitting same-sex marriage. That’s called democracy. The issues raised by Justice Roberts and the Oregon damage award spotlight the folly of judges deciding public policy questions and creating new constitutional rights under the guise of interpreting  the constitution.

Posted: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:00 pm, QCOnline

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea