Guns: Chicago 2012 - 3,066 shootings, 503 murders

In 2012, the city of Chicago led the nation in recorded homicides. Please pause for a moment and ponder these numbers – 3,066 shootings and 503 murders in 365 days. These stifling figures constitute an average of nearly 10 shootings and 1.5 murders per day. It is also worth noting that these are the incidents reported to the police.

With that many documented shootings, the number of murders could easily have doubled since every shooting is potentially fatal – even those intended only to deliver a message or warning. Of the two or three dozen murder trials I have handled in 22 years, a gun was used as the murder weapon in almost every case. Sadly, many people carry a gun today, especially in the city. I have repeatedly heard the people arrested for gun possession explain to me in court that because of the abundance of firearms on the street, they need it for their own protection. My on the job experience bears this out. Everybody has a gun.

            Please ponder a second question: How many times have you lost your temper in life? Anger has probably enabled you on one or more occasions to have the requisite intent necessary to exhibit the motive, ill will or intense passion that has revealed itself many times in homicide cases. At this point, there is only one contributing circumstance needed to move from intent to completion. How do alcohol, drugs and mental health issues increase the risk of violent action? How about intense and continuous stress, friends or acquaintances with a hair trigger temper or a propensity for violence – what affect do they have on the final result. Simply the wrong people, places and circumstances – these are the factors that spur violence.

            I am not addressing the person who plans and “lies in wait” to take a life. Premeditation[1] or intent can arise in an instant; it doesn’t have to be intended, at least for a specific period of time. [2]

            My aim is to bring attention to the great number of murders committed under unplanned circumstances - an argument with a spouse, relative or even a stranger that gets out of hand. In regards to intimate relationships, how close does a person who is going through a divorce or separation get to have the requisite intent to kill? I learned long ago that love and hate are deeply rooted emotions, but that they are often not found on opposite ends of the continuum. They are not polar opposites, but exist next to one another. There are times when they join forces, making it difficult to tell the two apart. “Was that one love? Was this one hate?”

In the annals of mankind, you don’t hate a stranger who you don’t at least know by personal experience or by reputation, stereotype, perception or fear. The worst crimes in history have taken place during civil wars, acts of genocide, religious differences, racial prejudice, ethnic cleansing and wars with neighbors who hate each other. People with knowledge of these things teach us directly, as well as indirectly, who to fear. The media in all its forms contributes greatly to our perception of those people – those who are different from us. We quickly learn who to be careful around and who to avoid.

 My point can be concluded with the fact that the criminal homicide laws in Pennsylvania have five different levels or degrees of murder, and only first degree includes the premeditated intent to kill. Second degree murder encompasses killings that happen during a felony, like a burglary, robbery or rape. There is no premeditated intent to kill; but the crime went terribly awry and resulted in murder. The third category includes all other forms of killing, where there were no other crimes committed and there is no evidence of pre-meditation. Voluntary homicide is the fourth category. It also excludes the intent of malice, and is not felony murder. In fact, it is not even considered murder. It is defined by acting under intense provocation or being blinded by rage. Involuntary manslaughter, which is the fifth category, is also not considered a felony murder under law. It is distinguished from manslaughter because it is not committed by blind rage or intense provocation. It is a crime of criminal negligence such as dumping a load of stones at a construction site without looking to see if anyone is in the path of danger.

There are also many examples where shootings have occurred over trivial things - fighting over a parking space, being cut off in traffic or other forms of road rage. In addition to the wrong people, places and circumstances one is confronted with, timing is also a factor in this issue. [3]

It seems logical that if there were not so many hand guns available, these conflicts might not be so quickly resolved with finality. These resolutions with a gun involved are usually final. We can’t turn back the clock, but we can as a society cut the finality of the tragedy by striving to prevent the availability of the deadly weapon. Then perhaps a cooling off time will be in place in which case the potential killing might be avoided and the whole incident be a warning to take positive action as an alternative to violence.

---

[1] Two young friends went to a night club. One cheated in line ahead of the rest. The guy in line, for some bizarre reason, got “goosed” by the man behind him. He told his friend, who immediately walked back to his car, got his gun, returned and shot the “gooser.” Fortunately the victim lived. This was an actual case before me.

[2] I recently read this on the internet: “I don’t like making plans for the day because then the word “premeditated” gets thrown around the courtroom. (from someecards.com)

[3] Consider the man walking down the street in the middle of the night when he is approached by another man. The first person became a defendant because he used a knife to fight off the aggressor. He countered the momentum of the intruder with deadly force, however he could have greatly reduced or eliminated the likelihood of such a confrontation even happening by walking on the same street at 3 p.m. instead of 3 a.m.  Was he looking for trouble by walking around that time of day with a knife? He claimed he wasn’t looking for trouble, but wanted to be protected if needed. It is a matter of freedom versus responsibility to avoid dangerous and risky people, places, things and times of day or night.  

Humor That Makes Us Laugh and Cry: Part II

Losing it in court

Many of the truths I have witnessed have not only crossed the border into the realm of strangeness, but sadly are, in no small part, caused by the human foibles of mental health problems and alcohol and/or drug abuse. Humor has been a part of my experiences on the bench. But humor can be sweet and sour. After all, humor cannot exist without roots to the tragic truth below its surface.

Several years ago, I happened to be in court where I met another young man. He was charged with walking into a mom and pop grocery store, proceeding to the freezer in the back of the store, grabbing three half gallons of ice cream and simply walking out the front door – completely ignoring the cashier. He was quickly apprehended while walking down the sidewalk carrying the ice cream.

Having been in criminal court (at that time 20 years ago) for two years, I soon learned some cases languish in the magisterial court for too long. These were defendants held in jail for minor offenses who could not post bail. For instance, during this assignment, I met at least three different men who had taken shopping carts home from the super market without returning them. At least that was the theory, perhaps someone else committed the theft of the cart and abandoned it until a homeless person found it. That detail is unknown, but the cart was used by each of the defendants to hold every personal item they owned.

Around this time, the legislature, after apparently receiving “heat” from the Pennsylvania Mercantile Association, cracked down on the “criminals” who absconded with these carts by, of course, increasing the punishment for cart theft. This made it a more serious offense – one that the district justice (as they were known at that time but are now known as magisterial district judge) could no longer handle as a lesser offense with a summary criminal grading. These homeless people were charged with misdemeanor offenses and thus had to have a preliminary arraignment, followed by a preliminary hearing before a district justice could send the case to us for trial or other disposition. Perhaps the defendant should be released on bail during this time…except for one thing. The defendant, being homeless, could not even provide a legitimate address. The district justice concluded that he had to set secured bail. Of course we cannot expect a homeless person to even post the minimum secured bail, so each defendant sat in Berks County Prison during the delay.

Our ice cream thief was not in possession of a cart, but he did steal one and a half gallons of cold refreshment. Secured bail was also set in this case. The defendant didn’t have a prayer of posting any money for bail. Due to jailed defendants like this I had to monitor the inmate list as soon as possible, when they first appeared in court for arraignment. Until this time the court master conducted arraignment. I changed the procedure from that day forward, handling all criminal cases before me rather than the master. The sooner I could monitor these cases the better.

Indubitably

It happens to be Ash Wednesday and I’m arraigning the newest group of defendants, including the ice cream guy. The public defender requested that we immediately dispose of the charges against this young man. Apparently, the commonwealth attorney agreed to a guilty plea, with both sides requesting that I sentence him to time served so he could be released from jail that day.

He entered his guilty plea and it was my job to determine a sentence. Not surprisingly, I agreed to the time served sentence request. He had already spent approximately 50 days in Berks County Prison. Everything went smoothly and it was now my turn to advise him of his appeal rights, which went as follows:

Judge: You understand that you may file a post sentence motion before this court and that you have only 10 days to do so?

Defendant: Yes.

Judge: And you understand you have the right to file an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and that you must do so within 30 days and that you have the right to legal counsel to aid you.

He stood tall, as if on his toes, looked me right in the eye and answered, “Indubitably.”

I don’t know how long he waited to use that word or if he had ever uttered it before. I do know however that he had observed while sitting in court that day that I drink a lot of water. He was also fully aware that he was not free to leave until I was finished with him. I noticed my chair moving back and forth as I looked down at my papers while trying to continue to advise him (while not looking him in the eye) that if he can’t afford a lawyer one would be appointed for him free of charge. I was never able to continue. Again the court room had been filled with representatives from every type of group mentioned in Part I and they had heard the exchange. It started with strong attempts to refrain from openly laughing, but his spirit had spread and now I’m no longer successful in displaying the proper judicial demeanor. To make matters worse, the defendant attempted to be helpful by saying: Do you want to take a break? (more laughter) Do you need a glass of water? (even more laughter) Take as much time as you need – I’m not going anywhere.

We all lost it!

That night while enjoying Charlie and Mary Ann’s homemade soup in the church’s social room, I told this story to a table of parishioners before attending church. The next Monday at the regularly scheduled church council meeting I was surprised to see the gift of a t-shirt at my seat, along with the plethora of church business before us. The gift was signed by Anony Mouse, “The Church Mouse” and in bold letters across the front of my shirt was the word: INDUBITABLY.

I never saw the young man again. I don’t know if he has been naughty or nice. Unfortunately, the lady known as “The Church Mouse” moved from Fleetwood. She and her husband enrolled in a local church. As for the shirt, I wore it regularly until my wife allowed it to pass onto the hereafter life. It eventually joined our supply of domestic cleaning rags.

Humor That Makes Us Laugh and Cry: Part I

Part I

It has been said that TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION. I always attributed this quote to well-known American author Mark Twain, along with the answer to the question, “why?:” That’s because fiction is limited by plausible explanations, whereas truth is not.
             Many of the truths I have witnessed have not only crossed the border into the realm of strangeness, but sadly are, in no small part, caused by the human foibles attached to mental health problems and alcohol and/or drug abuse. As 2014 begins, I intend to share the humor enclosed in my experiences on the bench, though it will be both sweet and sour. After all, humor cannot exist without roots to truth and sadness below its surface.

Picture this: A courtroom filled with defendants, defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, sheriff’s deputies, interpreters, witnesses and families of the defendant[1]. Of course there is a court reporter who “writes” down everything said during the proceedings, my staff, usually news reporters, police officers and myself. I’m moving right along with the list when the district attorney called the next case. A young man in handcuffs and ankle shackles walks in from the lock-up. He is visibly talking to himself. I read that the defendant was facing a drug charge and am also fully aware that street drugs are often used as a poor man’s prescription plan to treat mental health issues. When this occurs, the problems of anti-social behavior grow much worse because now a mentally disabled person is exhibiting deviant behavior with added complications from perhaps a low I.Q. and a drug addiction.

I felt confident in asking this young man if he was taking drugs to combat his mental health issues. In other words, let’s get to the point. Before any attorney spoke, he turned toward me and proudly responded to my question by saying “I don’t have a mental health issue you mother fucker!”

Needless to say, people can be their own worst enemy. After his proclamation, I didn’t do anything further with him and his contemptuous behavior. What’s the point? However, consider a child custody case where the father represented himself in the proceedings. He was requesting that I grant him primary physical custody of his child. Before we could even address the merits of his petition or the case itself, the clerk raised the court by announcing that court was in session and everyone was to please rise. The father didn’t and refused to do so. I do not take these things personally. Of course he is showing no respect for the court as an institution, but, imagine, he will soon stand before the same court asking that I right the wrong of his custody case because he clearly has the best intentions in his heart and mind regarding his children. To ensure his success, he introduces himself on his day in court, in essence, by proclaiming he will not follow the laws and will disregard authority. Despite a sheriff deputy’s suggestion to cooperate, he continued to refuse to stand. This is very telling.

Alcohol Abuse

It is not surprising that in my 22 years on the bench that I have seen my share of alcohol abuse cases.

·         People coming directly to court after being influenced to various degrees by alcohol consumption. (In other words, being drunk or under the influence of alcohol in court.)

·         A woman who appeared drunk for her guilty plea anticipated her immediate sentence of three days in jail. What is a judge to do? She was too drunk to knowingly enter a guilty plea. Should I have revoked her bail and put her in prison for the weekend so that when she was sober the court could properly dispose of the case? Draw your own conclusions.

·         People who cause or attempt to cause a variety of alterations regarding their court-ordered urine analysis. How? 1) Trying to substitute someone else’s urine 2) Giving a sample that revealed no alcohol in the system, but also showed the sample was not the appropriate temperature of approximately 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. It was in fact room temperature, almost like it was filled by dipping the cup into toilet water and submitting it as a legitimate sample. 3) People who look me in the eye and swear that they have not been drinking and immediately register a 2.2 on the portable breath test. 4) With a blood alcohol content of 4.0 registering on the adult probation’s portable breath test, a man came to court under the influence of alcohol, and except for the odor of alcohol, he didn’t talk or act as if he was.

Sadly, too many people have experienced the tragedy of alcohol abuse. From a D.U.I. arrest to a domestic violence issue, there is no one who can negatively influence the life of a child like his own mother or father. Of the wide spectrum of cases handled in court, the worst tragedies are homicide by vehicle while under the influence. Over the years, I have sentenced about 20 different defendants who found themselves in this situation. It’s sorrowful for many reasons. In some cases the defendant sits and cries hysterically as witness after witness comes forth and tells him or her about the victim who was shockingly taken from their lives in an instant. Spouse, father, mother, daughter, brother, son – the victim was a healthy, loving, and supportive rock of the family, but in a second was removed forever by a drunk driver for no reason at all.

These sentences for D.U.I. homicide by vehicle carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 to 6 years in prison. Once again, a judge has no option but to follow the prosecutor’s mandated sentence, when he, the district attorney chooses to invoke the mandatory, even if the judge believes that two wrongs (the tragic death of the victim and now the mandated sentence for the defendant perhaps being too long) don’t make a right.

Next week Part II: More humor that makes us both laugh and cry

---

[1] These are important days for family members because they can see their loved one without having to travel 100 miles for a visit in a state prison.

Questions to Ponder Part II: Discriminatory Enforcement of our Criminal Lives

We have mostly enforced the tough on crime laws in the cities where politically, the people’s clout is minimal. Last week, I opened Part I by posing seven questions for the reader to ponder. The answer to each is found by sorting through the devastation that our criminal justice system has caused our cities to suffer in the last 40+ years, particularly the mounting casualties suffered by city residents as a result of the war on drugs. It’s much easier to pass tough laws and institute programs that impact minorities in our cities than if the legislative or executive branches did so in our suburbs. And it’s an endless cycle. The more we incarcerate the more the crime rate increases so that the general public clamors for tougher laws in the cities to deal with the burgeoning crime problem which is caused, at least to some degree by this tough on crime philosophy.

Of what do I speak? Examples range from mandatory minimum sentences for any drug transaction within 1,000 feet of a school to increasing violence by telling defendants who are arrested that the best way to have the mandatory minimum sentence dropped is by being a police informant to rat out others who use or possess drugs - friends, family, neighbors-anyone will do.

Snitches get stitches

He’s told that if his cooperation leads to many more arrests, that “accomplishment” will be taken into consideration by the prosecutor to get his sentence reduced. Sadly the criminal justice system is increasingly familiar with this threat (and promise). There is so much retaliation for cooperation with the police that there are plenty of eyewitnesses that fail to testify because of the harm that could be inflicted on them and their families.

The use of school zone mandatory minimum sentences has no definitive effect on crime[1]

The problem with mandatory minimum sentences for defendants within a thousand feet of a school zone is that city school zones are nearly always within 1,000 feet of the drug arrest, resulting in almost every city resident being subject to this tougher sentence. Whereas, almost the opposite is the case in the suburbs and in the country where of course a much higher rate of white people reside and where nearly every drug transaction is not within 1,000 feet of a school. So where is drug enforcement the greatest? Are “tough” drug laws effective? Is it logical? Has it worked?

Now, this “tough on drugs” law might at least appear to be a reasonable response to the drug problem if the facts were to tell us that. But they don’t. First of all we have arrested more people, seized more illegal drugs, destroyed the family structure and at the same time created a greater chance of violent retaliation for all the many drug informants. There should be no drug problem today. We should have won the war on drugs, but despite increasing law enforcement  in the cities, the drug problem hasn’t gotten better; it’s gotten worse. Furthermore, I’ve never had one school zone mandatory minimum sentence that actually involved a student, teacher or staff that was conducted on school property including school kids going to and from school.

I’m not saying drug deals don’t happen in school, however, we in Berks County have never once had a drug case within 1,000 feet of a school that had anything at all to even remotely do with a school property or school activities. In fact, most of the cases that get to court involve transactions that occur when school is not in session. Most are in the evening and middle of the night during the summer and on weekends in locations that may be as far as four blocks from a school, but still within 1,000 feet.

Crack cocaine v. powder

Crack cocaine is a drug of preference for minorities while powdered cocaine is mostly used by white people in the suburbs. For 25 years federal mandatory minimum sentences punished crack cocaine sales 100 times more than powder! In other words, possession with intent to deliver five grams of crack received the same mandatory minimum sentence as powder but only if the weight of the powder is 100 times greater, 500 grams. That discrepancy was criticized for many years because it discriminated against minorities – so they changed it. However, Congress did not make them equal in punishment for the same weight. It was reduced to 10 to 1. It’s still discriminatory but not as unfair an inequity as before – but still an inequity.

Stop and Frisk

In addition, some of the “enforcement” of drug laws come from police officers stopping minorities, asking for identification and ultimately permission to search them. These are not cases where the officer has any probable cause to believe any crime has or will occur or to reasonably suspect the citizen even possesses contraband or the fruits of any crime. There are hundreds of thousands of stop and frisk practices that occur in every major city in the United States every year! Philadelphia and New York, among others have faced civil litigation because 85-90% of all stops are of minorities. They don’t conduct stop and frisk in the suburbs or in the countryside, where more than 85-90% of people are white.

Conclusion

The war on drugs has failed. The drug problem’s worse than ever and also includes increased violence in our country and in other countries that fight this war. In the last decade, Mexico has cracked down on their drug problem. What is the result? The drug problem has grown worse and the murder rate has gone through the roof. There have been more than 50,000 violent deaths in Mexico in the last 10 years,  most in retaliation and range from victims who are a member of a different drug cartel, to elected officials who enforce the laws to those who provide evidence to the government in an attempt to help their own case.

Locally our prisons are bursting at the seams with drug offenders, most of which are small fish in the drug enterprise. If they were big fish, we would have greater results from the war on drugs. That’s logical. A few examples of the extremely large seizures throughout history in the U.S. and in other countries, and one must ask is the drug problem corrected? Is it even better today?: France 2013 – 1.4 tons of cocaine in 31 unclaimed suitcases in luggage on a flight from Caracus. During 1984 in Columbia, $1.2 billion worth of cocaine, which is 14 tons, was seized after a raid on a jungle lab controlled by Pablo Escobar. In 1989, a Los Angeles warehouse stored 21.4 tons or the equivalent of 1.38 billion powder doses of the drug. If not seized, it had a street value in Los Angeles of more than $6 billion. Drug agents also seized 13.8 tons of cocaine in Columbia in 2005 and the U.S. Coast Guard found 20 tons of powder on a Panamanian ship.

The annual budget for the PA Department of Corrections alone has increased 1900% from 1980 ($94 million) to today, as it is about to exceed $2 billion annually. And this does not include 50 prisons, and numerous halfway houses and federal prisons throughout Pennsylvania. What have they accomplished?

The family structure in our cities has deteriorated from the over incarceration of parents. We know that a higher percentage of minorities are living in our cities and that an inordinately higher percentage of the minority population is put in prison so far from home that family contact is impossible. (See footnote 2)

What can we do? Contact your legislator and request that we attack this problem from all aspects, not just by putting tougher crimes on the books and beefing up the city law enforcement presence as we’ve done over and over again in the past four decades.

---

[1] This is the conclusion of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing from its study conducted about four years ago, yet school zone mandatories continue in full force and effect in Pennsylvania.

[2]My wife recently retired as an elementary school counselor in the Reading School District. She and our grown daughter still make school visits to the kids as they progress through the grades. They decided to invite them to a lunch at our home over the holidays. One child couldn’t join them. Her mother was incarcerated, so the “separated” father seized the opportunity to stop paying child support by bringing her to live with him, thus cutting all contact the child had with her grandmother, who had raised the family, since mom went away. The grandmother told my wife she can’t invite the child to lunch because the father won’t answer her phone calls. She does know that dad is living with a 20-year-old mother of two. The young mother treats the child as an outcast, giving all her love and attention to her own children. The grandmother has hired an attorney to obtain custody of the child again. The mother? She is incarcerated at the opposite end of the state, an 8-hour drive to the state prison in Erie, Pennsylvania.

 

Under what circumstances do defendants become snitches or confidential informants? Questions to Ponder: Part I

Do drug law enforcement procedures and mandated sentencing laws contribute to poverty and violence in our cities?

Where are the gangs located?

Where are kids raised by a single parent or no parents?

Where do most of the inmates in prison come from?

Where has our family structure suffered the most?

Do we make the situation worse with our tough drug enforcement policy?


Earlier this year, a New York Times article written, by John Tierney, featured four reasons why so many city families who reside in low-income neighborhoods become trapped in poverty:

1. The parents can't find jobs and if they do, it's minimum wage, well below the poverty level.
2. The most lucrative job is one that, sadly, is most prevalent - illegal drug sales.
3. Incarceration follows. [1]

4. "Prison has become the new poverty trap," according to Bruce Western, a Harvard sociologist - " a routine event for poor African American men and their families creating an enduring disadvantage at the very bottom of society."

In late 2011, as a trial court judge of 20 years, I felt compelled to publish a book on this very subject. The entire second chapter of my book, Justice or Just This - A Constitutional Trespass (www.jeffreysprecher.com) is dedicated to the devastation of the family structure. For instance, women - most likely mothers - have incarceration rates 11 times greater now than 30 years ago.

The battles are fought in the city

We have lost the "war on drugs" and what's worse, taken far too many city residents prisoner. I firmly believe we have unintentionally declared war on our cities and the statistics prove it. Although illegal drug use is the same for blacks and whites, the incarceration rate per capita is not. We all have seen reports concluding African Americans have been arrested and imprisoned at a far greater rate than whites. Mr. Tierney points out such a statistic:

"Among African-Americans who have grown up during the era of mass incarceration, one in four has had a parent locked up at some point during childhood. For black men in their early 20s and early 30s without a high school diploma, the incarceration rate is so high - nearly 40 percent nationwide - that they're more likely to be behind bars than to have a job."

28 years of progress?

Mr. Tierney's article further shows , by graph, that children of inmates has increased in numbers five-fold from half a million in 1980 to over 2.5 million by 2008. At the same time the employment rate for black men without a high school diploma decreased from 60% employment in 1980 to just 28% in 2008 while the incarceration rate for black men without that degree increased from 10% in 1980 to nearly 40% in 2008.

Education is essential

A similar statistic is published on subway cars in Philadelphia: "Without a high school diploma, you're up to 66 times more likely to end up a defendant in the criminal justice system" (quoting the Public Broadcasting System).

---

[1] And new prisons, especially those in Pennsylvania, are located far away which makes parental contact with the children back home expensive and nearly impossible to attain. (Quote from author)

Right or Just Popular? State and Church Decision Making.

The U.S. and its three equal branches of government that check and balance one another is the fairest and most effective form of government. It is the best, but remains imperfect. Certainly it is far better than an oligarchy, a dictatorship, the royal family governing the people, a monarchy et al.

All power corrupts. We’ve seen countless examples, even in America, that absolute power corrupts absolutely. With the implementation of checks and balances, it stands to reason that corruption will likely be detected and reported, and that consequences will follow for those who abuse their government-given power that citizens allocate to their leaders.

Corruption, its detection and prosecution, is not the only benefit of co-equal, separate branches of government monitoring those elected to office. Two of the three branches require that the will of the people be heard and carried out in the laws that are made.  The executive and the legislative branches are both perfect examples of representative government, of the people and for the people. If it’s popular, we’ll vote for it. But is the will of the people always what is best for the country? There is a third branch, one that protects against the others blindly following what the people want, to the point of infringing on the rights and freedoms of others. There are multiple examples of this process being followed throughout our nation’s history, especially with regard to those who have minimal political influence and thus suffer at the hands of those in power passing discriminatory laws.

Also, the “haves” control the making of laws sometimes directly designed and enforced to keep the “have-nots” in check. It is rarely explained by the “haves” as controlling the “have nots.” It is typically justified by the “haves” as necessary for the safety of the general public or to maintain the status quo. A violent crime being committed is a proper transition into passing a law that “over kills,” one that does more harm than good, that is popular without being just and that does not negatively impact “the haves,” but does the “have nots.” No legislation is really effective to begin with because these heinous crimes have occurred since the beginning of time. Even with tough laws that severely punish the perpetrator, crime continues to exist. Existing effective laws are almost always in place and thus the new law may seem like a good idea, but it isn’t. New laws often affect far more people than originally intended or if one is even able to zero in on the next perpetrator.

What is the byproduct of this type of political action? Why do these two branches traditionally attempt to pass popular laws that are not very effective? It is because the masses will support it because it also “appears” to be a sound idea. Thus it gets and/or keeps someone in political office. It is the oldest and most fundamental trick in the book. It keeps the politician popular. Despite not doing what is right, it is what is popular and leads to their re-election.

With one of the government’s branches it is not intended to be that way. By design, these public officials serve 10-year terms as judges in Pennsylvania as opposed to two or four-year terms, and then run for retention, not re-election. This is to ensure they will not be voted out of office if they do not follow the will of the people. The founding fathers would want the judiciary to do what is right, not just what is popular. They are the only ones protected against being forced to do only what is popular. Let’s go back in time to see what two powerful leaders did 2,000 years ago when faced with the question: right or popular?

                 Some Lessons from the Bible:  Is it Right or Just Popular?

“As soon as it was morning, the chief priest held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, lead him away, and handed him over to Pilate.”

Now at the festival, he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. Then he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he realized it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for him instead. Pilate spoke to them again, “Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” They shouted back, “Crucify him.” Pilate asked them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him.” So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them, and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.

“By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.”

(Retold from Mark 15: Verses 1-15)

Pontius Pilate did what was popular, not what was right, in his decision to crucify Jesus. How many powerful people paint themselves in a corner, and/or choose the easiest path over the most difficult? Is it right, or just popular? Is it the easy way? Is it justice or it just is. Let’s take a look at King Herod and the leadership decision he made.

King Herod had stolen his brother’s wife, Herodias, and John the Baptist criticized him for doing this. Herod at his birthday party told his daughter he would give her any gift she wanted. She had just finished entertaining his powerful friends with a sultry dance. Her mother (the wife that was stolen) wanted revenge against John the Baptist for criticizing her and Herod, and so she told the daughter to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a silver platter.

The king was sorry, but he was embarrassed to break his oath in front of his guests. Herodias wanted John killed in revenge but without Herod’s approval, she was powerless. This leader, in front of many other leaders and politicians at the party, had a choice to either tell her how immoral she was for her request or to grant the wish, and not renege on the promise. John the Baptist was beheaded. (from Mark 6: 16-30)

This is America - be what you want to be.

Every time I speak to children, such as when the D.A.R.E. program was in our public schools, I always speak of the pursuit of a dream and how in America you can be almost anything you want to be. We live in the greatest country in the world. I’m proud to live in the United States and would not have it any other way. It is truly the land of opportunity.

I’m a perfect example of this. Until the last months of my senior year of high school, I wasn’t sure I even wanted to go on to college. As with so many other high school kids, I had uncertainty (to say the least) about what I wanted to do when, and if, I grew up. I was at least certain that I could succeed if I worked hard. Not everyone saw it that way. I’ll never forget what my high school counselor told me. He said I’d never get into college if I applied and if I did get in, I’d never finish.

That reminds me of a “retired” doctor whom I’m proud to call my friend. He told me he worked in a laboratory in his first year of medical school and thus was told he was not required, as his fellow students were, to take his chemistry labs. I guess they never told his professor that. To his dismay, he received a failing grade in chemistry and was informed by his professor that he would have to study chemistry all summer and then pass a very difficult exam to make up for his absences. All he had to do to get a passing grade was to do the “make up work.”

His family had received his grade report for the semester and their reaction to the failing grade in chemistry ranged from utter shock to deep disappointment. You see, Doc, in my opinion, is a genius and he should certainly never fail any grade, and his family knew this. Well, the summer was a blur for my friend. He studied for long hours – everyday. Doc did eventually pass that nearly impossible chemistry exam. His medical studies continued and after a long successful career as a treating physician he is spending his “retirement” in his laboratory researching for medical advances in areas of critical illness including diabetes. He admits he was forced that summer to suffer his way into the ultimate position of a top medical chemist, for which he is renowned today throughout the world. That summer of hell earned him the advanced knowledge of chemistry, the most essential of sciences which has greatly benefited him to this day.

Perhaps that’s what my counselor had in mind; perhaps he didn’t. I’ll never know because that was 45 years ago.

The point of this story is you can and should be what you want to be. You can do it. You only need the passion, the drive, the commitment. Everyone should follow their dream. It’s an exciting, unpredictable journey, sometimes with unanticipated wondrous results. Ah, the doors that open and the people you meet.

Who knows even in high school what they are going to be. Even in college, changes in direction are usually made an average of three times before graduation. I personally am an example of this as is my genius friend. He completed seminary and was expected to be a priest. He also had enrolled in the military and was a sniper in the marine corp. His medical career was Doc’s final change. Me – well, I match that in the number of times I changed my major in college: Phys. Ed. (Coaching), the ministry and you know the rest of my story. 

Wherever you live, whatever the challenges you face now or as you travel on your life’s journey, FOLLOW YOUR DREAMS. It was my dream in the study of law; it was Doc’s dream to be a doctor.

People came to the USA from all over the world to obtain a better job and/or the education that is not available back home and the life that they dream of having for themselves and their families.

Dare to dream.