THE NEED FOR A LOGICALLY PLANNED WORLD

B.  OUR LEGAL SYSTEMS

Similar ro yesterday's paragraphs concerning government and law, improvements seem to be required concerning our various legal systems as well.  To begin with, I must repeat and stress that what I say here is not imagined as, nor an attempt to be, a prescription.  It is, rather, but a call to action, and an offer of suggestions.  Concerning the within subject, for example, although I am trained in the Law, I would leave it to scholars and jurists more knowledgeable and experienced in such matters to improve on said suggestions, and to perhaps one day create as well a logical and beneficial Constitution for the world.

I would further suggest that such an assembly examine all statutes currently in effect in all corners of the globe; and blend the best of them into a body of laws that would be likewise logical and beneficial for all of mankind--and therefore imposed equally upon everyone.

Of course, such determinations and enactments must never abridge the freedom or equality of any person or group.  All must be afforded equality under the law.  And all must enjoy freedom regarding speech, assembly, organization, religion, and travel--limited only by the necessity to prevent anyone from doing harm to the persons, property, or freedoms, of himself or others.

Freedom of speech should be extended as well to written publications, radio, television, the Internet, and all other such media as should now exist or come along in the future--subject, again, to the same limitations as regards harm to oneself or others.

Everyone should be immune from abridgments of liberty and freedom, such as any and all forms of slavery, governmental appropriation (without due need and proper compensation), unjust coercion, and objectively unreasonable censorship.  Moreover, there should be no compulsory membership in, or prohibition of participation in, any political or religious organization or ideology--unless such organization or ideology be clearly and objectively harmful to its practitioners or others.  Arbitrary searches or seizures of any sort ought never be carried on--except as necessary for the safety of persons or property (as has unfortunately become somewhat frequently necessary today, as a defense against terrorism).

And this freedom and equality must be afforded to everyone, regardless of gender, race, religious affiliation, or geographic locatoion.

                                                                   * * * * *

A universal criminal code would need to be enacted, so as to create a uniform global system of criminal justice, and worldwide maintenance of law and order.  Manpower and equipment should be available as needed on a worldwide basis in order to effectively accomplish this.

Today in many places there is a lack of those resources which are necessary to prevent criminal activity.  Drugs are often smuggled out of small, poor countries that are ill-equipped to control such traffic.  Some nation-states actually rely on said activities as a source of revenue.  The governmental entity anticipated herein would be sufficiently endowed, from a worldwide standpoint, to effectively prevent such activities at their sources.

Such a criminal code would need to be drawn up by an international panel of jurists having expertise in such branches of law as are related thereto.  Crime itself musty be viewed and dealt with as a worldwide problem, needing control and eradication on a worldwide basis.  The idea of something being forbidden and punished here, while freely practiced somewhere else, is illogical and foolish.

As described earlier, there would no longer be any need for armies or other military.  However, there would still need to be a strong quasi-military presence everywhere, having as its function the preventuion and suppression of criminal activity, the protection of all people, and the preservation of the general peace.

People arrested for crimes would always be entitled to just and proper treatment, representation by counsel, and an opportunity to prove their innocence.  Of course, the burden would always be upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.  One wonders whether the present jury system in place in many countries, including the United States, is truly the most dependable answer.  Moreover, the complex confusing system of evidentiary rules, coupled with the "chess game" scenarios that take place in the courtroom during criminal proceedings, have probably permitted many a guilty criminal to go free, and many an innocent person to go to jail--or worse, to his death.

It seems within the realm of possibility that these same or similar judicial experts as were referred to above can create a system whereby the innocence or guilt of criminal defendants can be more accurately ascertained.  And perhaps (venturing further into the future--and sounding today like science-fiction), computer programs might one day be devised which would reliably analyze all of the facts and details of a case; and constitute a safer way to determine guilt or innocence than the current, at times emotional, ritual of impressing a judge and/or jury.

In addition, upon conviction for a crime, a defendant should be sentenced appropriately.  I personally do not believe in the logic of capital punishment, mainly because it cannot be retracted following a determination that it was improperly carried out; and also because a life sentence with no possibility of parole probably constitutes a stronger deterrent than going to sleep upon receipt of a lethal injection--following ten or more years of appeals and other such wrangling.  I further believe that the present system of fines, imprisonment, house arrest, and parole, that are today used in the United States and many other parts of the world should be improved upon, so as to actually rehabilitate the criminal who desires to be rehabilitated--and to motivate the criminal to desire rehabilitation.

On the other hand, worldwide improvements in social conditions, as well as some of the other changes advocated herein, might serve to breed less contempt and hatred on the part of disadvantaged people toward law and order; and thus result in a reduction of criminal activity everywhere.

Having practiced law for quite a few years, I have furthermore come to conclude that the current system of adjudication, both civil as well as criminal, which is followed in a large portion of our world, wherein judges and juries, with their usually unintentional, inborn or acquired, moods and biases, is a throwback to medieval times is less than ideal.  I wholeheartedly believe that logic, maximum efficiency, and justice will lie in the adoption of a worldwide uniform system of mediation and arbitration.  This would accomplish, among other things:
a.  the end of an arrangement wherein matters are perceived, legislated, and dealt with in a variety of different fashions, depending upon the particular locale where it happens to occur;
b.  the end of a system wherein controversies are played out and resolved in the "chess game" atmosphere of a courtroom, ruled over by the monarch-like personage of one or more judges;
c.  the "black or white" results that frequently emanate from the pursuit of one's legal remedies;
d.  the frequent inability to air or have considered certain factors, circumstances, or evidence, that might have significant impact upon the outcome of the proceedings, due to the strictures of rules devised decades, and even centuries, ago; and
e.  the disabling requirement to strictly follow a rule of law based upon a decision reached in a case perhaps many years ago, and/or perhaps far away, whose application may no longer be timely or appropriate, but whose tenor can continue to rule over jurists who hesitate to disturb the "status quo" of "stare decisis."

                                                            * * * * *