Why shouldn't someone who participates in an armed robbery , and will share in the proceeds thereof, be responsible for all homicides that occur during that armed robbery?

Yesterday, in a column about Illinois’ new "SAFE-T Act," I explained how the new law makes it safer for armed robbers and other felons using guns to escape prosecution for at least some of the homicides occasioned by their armed robberies.

To understand how this happens, consider the following scenario:

Imagine you are a 20-year-old man. One day you decide you can make some money if you steal some jewelry from Mrs. Harris, a little old lady who owns a little jewelry shop that you pass every day.

You then ask your friend, Max, to act as your lookout. You take along a gun just in case you need a way to force the old lady into her back room so you can escape.

Your friend takes up his position across the street as lookout. When you enter her store, you push Mrs. Harris out of the way and begin scooping up jewelry. She screams. You draw your gun, but only to threaten her. As you do, a customer enters the shop. Startled, you spin and in a nervous reaction, fire without thinking, instantly killing the teenage girl, Mary Jones.

Officer Blue, just two shops away, hears your gun shot, and draws his gun. He investigates. You see the officer with gun in hand first. Thinking only of escape, you shoot striking the officer. Before he dies, Officer Blue gets off three shots.

The first strikes you in the leg. His second shot misses you, but strikes Mrs. Harris, killing her instantly. As Blue spins and crumples to the ground, he squeezes off his third shot, which somehow strikes and kills your friend, the lookout.

In the hospital, your court-appointed attorney informs you that the state's attorney has charged you with armed robbery with a gun. That you expected. He then says you also are charged with four counts of felony murder.

You are charged with murdering Mrs. Harris, Mary Jones, Officer Blue and Max, your friend.

You are stunned. Doesn’t murder require an intent to kill? You had no such intention. Your only intent was to commit a simple armed robbery and then escape. Furthermore, you didn't kill the shop keeper or Max; Officer Blue did.

Your attorney explains you committed your armed robbery a week too soon. He tells you Democrats in the Legislature just passed a new law called the SAFE-T Act. It was apparently enacted and signed by the Democratic governor, who now are making it safer for criminals to commit armed robberies.

Now, when somebody is killed during your armed robbery, you can't be charged with murder, if those killed were killed by somebody other than you or one of your co-defendants. Unfortunately for you, the law is not retroactive. It makes the streets safer only for armed robbers who committed their armed robberies after the effective date of the SAFE-T Act.

But, you ask: "How can I be charged with killing somebody I didn't kill? That's injustice!"

Your public defender explains: "You intended to rob Mrs. Harris. And when you took the gun along, you intended to use it at least to facilitate your escape. But as a rational man, you knew there was a substantial probability you might have to use the gun. Otherwise, why take it? Moreover, it was entirely foreseeable, if you committed this robbery, somebody might be killed. You also knew the police might be called to the armed robbery, and they might shoot either you, or miss you and kill someone else.

"That too was reasonably foreseeable.

"You put into motion everything that happened in that jewelry store. Everybody knows that armed robberies can go wrong and a natural and probable consequence of an armed robbery is that a perpetrator, a responding cop, a passer-by or even a lookout can he struck and killed by a bullet.

"You knew and could foresee that your armed robbery could result in all those deaths. You chose to act in disregard of the reasonably foreseeable consequences. You are not an innocent victim. You were the prime mover of all these events."

"Even if your buddy, Max, hadn’t been killed, he could have been charged with murder, too, even though he never fired a shot. He, too, acted in disregard of the reasonably foreseeable consequences."

So the issue is this: Should an armed robber and his accomplices be responsible for every death that occurs during the course of an armed robbery? Or just those deaths that he or his accomplices personally cause?

Look at it from a different angle: Would any of the people in my scenario be dead if the armed robber and his accomplice hadn’t decided to rob Mrs. Harris’ store? Absent this armed robbery, all these people would still be alive. The robbers set the whole train of events in motion, and they knew – as anyone would – that in any armed robbery with a gun, victims, bystanders, cops and even fellow robbers could get killed. Thus, the murder charges

The deceptively labeled SAFE-T Act, like Illinois' bail "reform," is a fraud upon the public enacted into law by fools who lack the common sense to hold public office.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 19, 2022

Armed robbers applaud Illinois Legislature's revision of the "Felony Murder Rule"

What follows are the opinions of a curmudgeon and retired judge. It comes in two parts, with the second to follow tomorrow.

On Sunday, Jan. 30, 2022, The Dispatch-Argus, in what can only be fairly described as an act of gross journalistic malpractice, irresponsibly turned the front and second pages of its paper over to a group of activists, labeling themselves "Injustice Watch."

In that article, deceptively titled, "Felony murder called flawed," the Dispatch-Argus allowed "Injustice Watch" to portray as a victim a convicted murderer named Gerald Berry, who when he was 20 years old knowingly and intentionally allowed himself to be persuaded by his friends to join them in perpetrating a residential burglary and armed robbery to obtain some "quick money." That armed robbery resulted in the deaths of one of the homeowners and one of Berry's armed robber friends.

According to the Injustice Watch article, Berry said, "It was just shocking … It was unbelievable because that’s not what we thought was going to happen."

Berry's complaint is that he was unjustly found guilty of not just the death of the homeowner, but also the death of one of his armed robber buddies. Berry, who remained in the get-away car and knowingly and intentionally acted as the lookout, is portrayed in the article as a victim of a bad law.

Really?

Today, it seems clear that if you are an activist group, claiming to be against "injustice," you can write up an absurd and dangerous "bill" and easily persuade the Democrats in the Illinois Legislature to pass it, and Illinois' Democratic governor to sign it into law. It's simple. Give it a cutesy name, such as "SAFE-T Act," and the Democrats will trip over themselves to vote for it. I blame the Democrats in the Illinois Legislature because they have absolute control of both the House and Senate.

The "SAFE-T Act," however, is aptly named. The act makes crime a whole lot safer for armed robbers and other felons using guns to escape prosecution for, and the conviction of, murder for at least some of the homicides occasioned by their armed robberies.

To see why, compare the words of the old first-degree murder statute with those of the new "SAFE-T Act."

The prior Illinois first-degree murder statute read:

"A person who kills an individual without lawful justification, commits first-degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death, he is attempting or committing a forcible felony ..."

Under that statute, if anyone was killed during the course of the armed robbery, all of the armed robbers were liable to be prosecuted under the felony murder rule for every death that rose out of the armed robbery.

A felony murder was a homicide that occurred during the perpetration of a "forcible felony." The legislature had defined the term "forcible felony" to include the crimes of armed robbery and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

The new "SAFE-T Act" reads:

"A person who kills an individual without lawful justification, commits first-degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death, he, acting alone, with one or more other participants, commits or attempts to commit a forcible felony ... and in the course of which or in furtherance of such crime or flight therefrom, he or another participant causes the death of another person."

Previously an armed robber was indictable for every death that occurred during his armed robbery. Now he is liable only if he, or one of his accomplices, does the killing.

It shouldn't be too difficult to see how this change makes it harder to prosecute criminals in the deaths of people, deaths that wouldn’t have happened if people like Gerald Berry hadn’t taken part in forcible felonies.

When this column continues tomorrow, I’ll present a situation that will make it clear why the new "SAFE-T-Act" is a bad law, and why the changes it made to the murder statute makes prosecuting crimes harder; why it makes sense to be able to prosecute people for murder even if they didn’t pull the trigger.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 18, 2022

Dear Government: Be Consistent on Bodily Choice

Do you have an absolute right to make decisions about your body? Yes or no?


When it comes to abortion, it is extremely difficult to find any prominent Democrat holding national office who would say, "a woman does not have an absolute right to make decisions about her own body!" Tulsi Gabbard tried and was savaged.


But what about when it comes to women being subjected to President Biden's Covid vaccination mandates? If a woman "has the absolute right to make decisions about her own body," how can any president make them for her?


On Sept. 9, 2021, Vice President Kamela Harris, while hosting a Reproductive Rights Roundtable in the vice-president's Ceremonial White House Office, advised the participants that:

"The President and I are unequivocal in our support of Roe v. Wade ... and the right of women to make decisions for themselves, with whomever they choose, — about their own bodies.... the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable. The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is their decision; it is their body." 


"When people are able to design their lives in a way that they can determine their own futures, we are a stronger democracy and we are a stronger nation.

"When people are able to make choices without government interference for themselves — in terms of their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their family, in consultation with whomever they may choose — we are a stronger society."

But if the president and vice president are indeed unequivocal in their support of the right of women to make their own decisions about their own bodies, and that that right is not negotiable, where do the president and vice president get off telling every woman — not to mention every man in America — that they must, in some cases, wear Covid masks and that they have to get vaccinated under penalty of being discharged from our Armed Forces, or being fired by their employers for failure to comply?


If you are a Democrat, one of Biden's or Dr. Anthony Faucci's disciples, your rational argument will immediately appear:

"The Covid does not only affect the woman. If she contracts Covid she can infect her children, her husband and indeed any person with whom she comes into contact. That transmission can cause sickness, hospitalization and even death to the infected person. Therefore, in this instance, the interests of the state — the public welfare —override the woman's otherwise non-negotiable right to make her own decisions about her own body."

The gist of your position is that a woman does not have the absolute right to make decisions about her own body, if it might cause death or serious sickness to another individual.


If that, indeed, is your justification for the distinction that you draw, then to be logical and rational, you must ask at least the following questions.

"When a woman exercises the right of control over her own body and aborts her child, doesn't that choice absolutely guarantee the death of the child in her womb?"

Is the child in its mother's womb merely a "part" of its mother, like a finger or a mole, or is it a separate human person in temporary residence? Does the child carry its own unique DNA, or does it possess only its mother's DNA?


If your justification for overriding a woman's non-negotiable right to absolute control of her own body, and mandating that women get Covid-vaccinated, is that they might transmit Covid, which might result in another human's death, then how can you justify allowing a woman absolute control of her own body when aborting will with certainty result in the death of the child in her womb? Or don't children's lives matter?


This op-ed does not argue that abortion is never justifiable. Nor is it an argument the State can never mandate public health measures such as mass vaccinations. It is an argument against a government taking utterly inconsistent positions.


Our constitutional right of freedom of speech is not absolute. Libel, slander, and incitement to riot have never been deemed guaranteed free speech.


The right to freely practice the religion of your choice does not give you license to eat your neighbor's children.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 4, 2022

The problem with 7% inflation

On May 22, 2020, Joe Biden, the Democrats' candidate for president, appeared on CNBC's "Squawk Box" and promised the American people, 

"Nobody making under 400,000 bucks would have their taxes raised. Period! Bingo!"

Then on Aug. 23, 2020, candidate Biden doubled down on ABC's "20/20" and pledged to every American that, 

"I will raise taxes for anybody making over $400,000. … No new taxes [for people making less than $400,000]; there would be no need for [any]."

To be perfectly honest, I don't give a fig whether Congress increases federal income taxes to 90% on billionaires, or imposes a 90% confiscatory tax on their wealth.


If a billionaire has $1 billion stashed in his savings account, or in gold bars or in stocks or bonds, and the government confiscates 90% of it, the billionaire should be able to still get on rather nicely with his remaining $100 million.


And if the billionaire is allowed to retain $100 million of his $1 billion yearly income, he'll still have a lot more money to spend than anybody I know, and will probably not need SNAP benefits and an EBT card.

But what I am concerned about is what President Biden and his progressive brain trust are doing to the poor and to those on fixed incomes.f you voted for Biden, remember his promise:

"Nobody making under 400,000 bucks would have their taxes raised. Period! Bingo!"

The progressives, who have espoused Modern Monetary Theory, claim to believe that the government can create, or print, as much money as it needs to fund whatever program it sees as being worth funding, without any adverse consequences. History has repeatedly demonstrated that so-called "economic theory" to be hogwash. 

Around 1700, John Law tried it in France. The result was the catastrophic "Mississippi Bubble." 

The Weimar Republic tried it after World War I, and it destroyed the middle and lower classes and opened the door to Adolf Hitler.

Chavez and Maduro tried it in Venezuela and turned the county into an economic basket case.


The truth of the matter is that inflation is a tax. It's a regressive tax. It is a cruel tax that hits the poor and those on fixed incomes the hardest.

To demonstrate that statement, consider that in September of 2021, the average monthly Social Security retirement benefit was $1,559. That sum included the 2021 cost of living adjustment of 1.3%.

Now, assume you were one of the people getting that $1,559 check each month during 2021.

You got 12 monthly Social Security checks during 2021. Each one equaled $1,559. But during that time the cost of goods and services increased. The Bureau of Labor Statistics advises that, "over the last 12 months, the 'all items index' increased 7.0 percent before seasonal adjustment."

By Dec. 31, 2021, your $1,559 check's purchasing power was reduced by 7%. Your $1,559 check could then buy only $1,450 worth of goods and services — if that.


Now in 2022, you will be getting a 5.8% cost of living adjustment — an additional $93 per month. So your monthly 2020 Social Security check will be about $1,692 per month. Sounds great, doesn't it?

Think again. Your 2022 $1,692 check will have a purchasing power of $1,450 + $93, or $1,543 at the beginning of 2022.

And if inflation in 2022 increases by only another 7%, your $1,692 check will purchase only $1,435 worth of goods and services by December of 2022. If, however, inflation increases to 12% for 2022, by December your $1,692 check will purchase only $1,358 worth of goods and services.


What is true for Social Security benefits, is also true for welfare benefits and wages. If your take-home wage is $2,400 per month today, by year's end, with 7% inflation, your $2,400 will buy only $2,232 worth of goods and services — if you're lucky.


It is true that inflation affects the income and wealth of a billionaire the same way. But if a billionaire has a billion dollars in the bank, and earns $100 million per year, even if his wealth and income are reduced by 7%, he is still going to come out better than you.

In truth, inflation is a regressive tax that affects everybody in the country. The super-rich, however, always seem to find a "life preserver" or two, thrown to them by their good friends in Congress. Otherwise known as "loopholes."


If you voted for President Biden and progressive policies, don't complain. You did this to yourself.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 24, 2022

The answer to a teacher's strike

On Jan. 4, the membership of the Chicago Teachers Union voted to "suspend in-person teaching in the Chicago Public schools." That union represents 25,000 Chicago Public School teachers and staff. And 73% of those voting, voted to close the schools. Therefore, 340,000 public school students were locked out of their schools.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, labeled the strike, "an illegal work stoppage" and filed an unfair labor practice complaint. Chicago Public Schools and the union came to an agreement, which was narrowly ratified last week, but the schools were closed for days.

Unfortunately, Gov. J.B. Pritzker last year signed a bill passed by the Democrats in the Illinois legislature that gives the teachers union the power to use students as bargaining chips during its negotiations with the Chicago Public School Board.

According to the Illinois Policy Institute, "House Bill 2275, signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on April 4, repeals a portion of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act that limited negotiations between CPS and CTU to issues related to wages and benefits.

"Now CPS will be forced to bargain over everything, including subjects such as class schedules, hours and places of instruction.

 "The bottom line: The increased number of issues that must be resolved during bargaining increases opportunities for CTU to disagree with CPS — and escalates the union’s likelihood of going on strike."

So if the teachers union can bargain over schedules, hours and places of instruction, why can't the union strike once negotiations deadlock? If the union and the board are at loggerheads over the "place of instruction" (in school or at home), how can the strike be illegal?

But here's what a Chicago parent whose child or children are locked out of the public schools can do: Send your child to a private school, if you can afford it, or if financial assistance is available. Or you can leave Illinois and move to another state where the teachers unions don't control the Democratic mayor and governors, and run the state.

How about Arizona? Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, has proposed to halt a similar "power grab" by Arizona teachers unions. Ducey proposes to give every parent education-related aid in the sum of $7,000 to assist them in placing their children in any school that's open!

The governor says the state is taking "preemptive action."

In a series of online posts he said:

"We're making sure in-person learning remains an option for all Arizona families and students. 

 

"With the new 'Open for Learning Recovery Benefit Program,' if a school closes for even one day, students and families who meet the income requirements will have access to instruction that best meets their needs. 

 

"It funds up to $7,000 for needs related to approved child care, school-coordinated transportation, online tutoring and school tuition. 

 

"We will continue to work with families, public health experts and school leaders to ensure our kids can stay in the classroom and parents have a choice – always."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has lauded Ducey's plan. "Governor Ducey's announcement that Arizona will give the education money to parents if their school is closed is the most creative response yet to the teachers union putting children last. Chicago should follow his lead."

In America, if you're wealthy, you can send your child to the private school of your choice. If you are poor, you don't have that option. The poor face a monopoly; the public school system monopoly specifies where your child will go to school.

When a state provides public funding to allow the parents to send their children to the school of their choice — whether public or private — that monopoly is broken.

According to the Chicago Public Education Fund, "in FY20, CPS has a total budget of $7.0 billion, excluding capital funding." [$20,588 per student].


At my old high school, Notre Dame College Prep of Niles, Ill., tuition for 2021-22 is $13,400. Alleman High School tuition for 2021-22 is $5,500, and is discounted for more than one child.

Chicago Public Schools and their unions are not revenue deprived. They are a virtual monopoly. They can strike with impunity because once they lock the school doors, most public school parents have no choice.

Ducey's plan to use revenues that would normally go to the public schools to allow the parents a choice, when the unions exercise their choice to close the schools, makes sense. Only a politician who gets major funding from such unions would object.

Ducey's plan should appeal even to the likes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She hates monopolies. She wants to give every American $1,000 a month even if they don't want to work. She voted to give convicted criminals in the state penitentiaries economic recovery checks. If she had no objection to how such money is spent, why would she object to poor parents spending free money to send their children to better schools, or at least schools with their doors open?

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 16, 2022

Medical science is not infallible

Should Facebook and Twitter ban postings recommending certain drugs for the treatment of Covid, but not endorsed by Dr. Tony Fauci? The CDC? The government?

Recently Dr. Fauci, the face of the Biden administration's war on Covid, told the world, if they criticize Tony Fauci, "they are really criticizing science, because I represent science."

Fauci's claim is not new. It is a claim of "eminent doctors" over the centuries to silence any doctor — or lesser person — who dared to propose alternate treatments to those endorsed by prevailing "medical science."

In 1537 in France, the masters of the medical profession were the physicians of the teaching faculty of the University of Paris. They were certain they were the medical "science" of their day. Gun shots were to be treated by pouring boiling oil on the wound. If the arm or leg received a serious wound, it was to be amputated as quickly as possible. To stop bleeding, you sealed the blood vessel with a white hot iron.

In those days, amputations and cautery were considered beneath the physician's dignity. They were left to surgeons, or to their barber assistants. One such barber was Ambrose Paré. He served France as a military surgeon in its 1537 campaign in Italy.

When he ran out of oil to boil to apply to the soldiers' wounds, he used what he had — a compound of turpentine, rose oil and egg yolk. He soon learned that those treated with his compound did far better than those whose wounds were treated with boiling oil.

Paré next began tying off blood vessels following amputation rather than using cautery. He found the amputees fared far better, not withstanding that the use of the white-hot iron was prescribed by medical "science."

Louis Pasteur was not a medical doctor. He was a chemist. In the 1850s, while dean of sciences at the University of Lille, he began analysis of the process of fermentation — the process by which grape juice changed to wine. The prevailing scientific wisdom was that fermentation was the result of an unstable body decomposing. After years of experiment, Pasteur proved that fermentation was not the result of an unstable substance dying, but of a wildly active multiplication of living cells. His "ferments"were microscopic living beings. Each type of fermentation was produced by its own specific ferment. These ferments were not spontaneously "born" within the fermented matter, but were introduced from the outside. Pasteur further deduced that microscopic beings might also be the causes of human sickness and death.

But at the time, the medical profession — "medical science" — attributed sickness and death to "morbid spontaneity," and not to a specific invading microorganism. Time and further scientific experimentation once again proved France's keepers of "medical science" wrong, and Pasteur right.

Pasteur begged doctors to use clean bed sheets in hospitals, to sanitize their instruments by flame, and to wash before treating a patient after performing a post-mortem dissection. "Medical science" of the day scoffed. His work to create an immunization for anthrax drew ridicule from doctors and veterinaries alike. But mere chemist Pasteur was right.


In the mid-19th century, while Joseph Lister was practicing surgery in Edinburgh, he noticed that 43% of the hospital's surgery patients there died. In Paris, 60% died; in Munich, 80%. The pattern was always the same. The operation went well, but then slight swelling developed followed by inflammation. Lister observed that simple fractures which were set, healed well; gangrene and septicemia occurred only in compound, open fractures. Lister concluded these infections were not the result of "spontaneous generation" or even the air. They were caused by tiny organisms in the air.

To kill these organisms, Lister began to use carbolic acid as a disinfectant. Instruments, bandages, ligatures were all bathed in carbolic acid. Lister set aside the traditional surgeon's black frock coat and wore a clean white apron. Acid was sprayed into the air. The result was an 11 year-old boy with a compound fracture came through the operation without infection.

Lister continued his experiment and kept detailed records. But while deaths dropped dramatically in his ward, his hospital colleagues followed the established "medical science" in their wards. For eight years, they ignored Lister's papers in The Lancet, as well as the morbidity in their wards, and the lack thereof in Lister's. It wasn't until 1877 that Lister's critics grudgingly admitted that he was right. That recognition came not from Edinburgh, but from London where he was made a professor at London's King's College.

Dr. Fauci has to know that medical science is not static. Best medical practice is nothing more than considered judgments based on observations, questions, hypothesis, experiments, interpreting results and making conclusions. Some medical judgments pass the test of time; others don't.

The most any doctor can say, is that "I am following what are judged to be today's best practices." Indeed Fauci has told the American people as much. He's said scientists need more information before drawing conclusions about omicron's severity.

Had Facebook and Twitter been around in the days of Paré, Pasteur, Lister, et al., would they have been blocked for proposing treatments not approved by the leading physicians of their day? Probably.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 10, 2021

Stephen Colbert: "We should change the law."

 Are you part of the mob criticizing the verdicts of the jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial? President Biden was.

"While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken ....," he said.

Biden then added, "I didn't watch the trial." Of course, the jurors did.

And then there was Stephen Colbert's inane criticism. 

"Cards on the table, I am not a legal expert so I can't tell you whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse broke the law. But I can tell you this, if he didn't break the law we should change the law."

OK, Mr. non-legal expert. Since you don't know "whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse broke the law," why do you want it changed? And exactly what do you want changed?

Perhaps we should begin by abolishing the right to self-defense? Or maybe just the right to use deadly force when acting in self-defense? Or the right to use a gun in self-defense?

Or maybe we should change the procedures of trial?

Perhaps instead of the "presumption of innocence," all persons charged by the government with serious crimes, should be presumed guilty? After all, if the President or one of his U.S. Attorneys thinks you're guilty, don't they have solid evidence to back that up?

If a grand jury finds probable cause to indict you, aren't you probably guilty?

And if you are probably guilty, shouldn't you be presumed guilty?

Perhaps the requirement that the defendant be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt should be abolished. Many defendants who are probably guilty are found not guilty because of that rule. And when grand jury has found that the defendant is "probably guilty," shouldn't the defendant have to prove himself not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Or at least prove himself to the jury's satisfaction that he is not guilty.

Or maybe we should abolish the rules of evidence? Why shouldn't the government be able to use a little hearsay if that will help convict a defendant who has already been found "probably guilty" by the grand jury's indictment, or the prosecutor's information?

In America, the judge is the sole judge of the law, and the jurors are the sole judges of the facts. The judge is a government official; the jurors aren't. And until twelve jurors – your fellow citizens – find you guilty, no judge can deprive you of your life, liberty or property.

Perhaps comedian Colbert would like to see that changed? How about allowing a simple majority of the 12 jurors to find you guilty? How about giving the judge the right to disregard the jury's verdict, and pronounce guilt himself?

How about allowing the judge to direct the jurors to enter a verdict of "guilty?"

How about abolishing the jury altogether? Why not get rid of an "independent judiciary?" Allow the President to appoint any of his officials to preside over your trial, even if the President, as in the case of Rittenhouse, used his photo in a 2020 campaign ad, claiming President Trump supported white-racism?

Or maybe an indicted man should be required to face trial without an attorney?

If you think such "improvements" could never be a part of American law, you are woefully ignorant of the history of Anglo-American law.

We have a record of the 1603 trial of Sir Walter Raleigh for treason. During that trial, the judges considered themselves part of the prosecution. They helped gather statements from witnesses to be used against Raleigh. They deemed it their duty to see that an indicted man was found guilty. Raleigh was denied counsel.

Because the judges believed a man on trial for his life might lie under oath, he was denied the right to testify under oath on his own behalf. Given the grand jury indictment, Raleigh was presumed guilty. The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was at the time, unknown. Hearsay and hearsay upon hearsay were admitted into evidence against Raleigh. He was not allowed to confront and cross-examine his accusers. He was not allowed to call Lord Cobham into court to allow Cobham to testify that his deposition gathered and used by the prosecution against Raleigh was made after one of the judges told Cobham that he could face the rack if he would not testify against Raleigh.

Add to that the fact that the jurors knew that they could be punished by fine or jail for "perjury" if they returned a "false verdict" – if their verdict displeased the King.

So which of these improvements would funnyman Colbert opt for? It is easy to criticize a jury when in Biden's words, you "did not watch it." But that jury sat and heard all the evidence the prosecutor could adduce against Rittenhouse.

It watched numerous videos of the shootings. And then deliberated for three days before rendering its verdicts.

It is good that President Biden said, "we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken." But for him to be "angry" with the jury without having seen nor heard the evidence that the jury did, is disgraceful. For Colbert to want to change the law with no specification of what he would change, is bizarre — not funny.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 3, 2021