OCR Text |
Show PS Tht OcSy UtxSi Chrootefc, Stat Burger's remarks: cause for concern Reactions to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger's "get tough on crime" address Sunday to the American Bar Association are mixed. The ABA president called the speech "bold and innovative," while a Harvard law professor called for Burger's resignation. Our criticism of the chief is somewhat milder. A call for Burger's resignation is templing, but the fear of who his replacement might be overwhelms that temptation. Burger's pedantic attitude is a bore, and his remarks on crime are frightening and inappropriate. Burger's address focused on crime and its "reign of terror" across America. In order to deal with the rise in crime rates, the Chief Justice called for a "damage control program," and outlined its possible provisions. A large part of the proposed program is reformation of criminal court proceedings. It is difficult to find anyone in disagreement with that idea, but Burger's specific reforms cause alarm. "Our search for justice must not be twisted into a search for technical errors," Burger said, while calling for appeals of conviction to be limited to one try. Any subsequent appeals should be limited to "miscarriages of justice," as in cases of mistaken identity. Burger also called for a tightening of bail standards, saying that bail should be granted on a scale of future dangerousness." The seriousness of the charge, and the suspect's past record would determine who could and could not be released on bail. Burger's proposals are alarming on several counts. While it is true that arrest and court proceedings are often held up by "technicalities" such as infractions in search and seizure procedures, those technicalities exist for a reason. Burger's comments that a second appeal should be limited to cases involving miscarriage of justice claims, ignores incidents such as beating a suspect to obtain a confession or an illegal search. If those violations are mere technicalities and not miscarriages of justice, then the system is wrong. As for Burger's intent to deny bail to those suspects who may prove to be dangerous, we have to ask, how can future dangerousness be decided? Burger's proposed criteria are vague at best. Condemnation of crime is understandable, for who isn't upset about crime? But Burger's solutions to the problem do not do justice to a system that claims to be fair to all and counts procedural safeguards designed to protect the accused as a part of that fairness. Finally, Burger's own examination of his role on the Supreme Court his public appearances Burger is happy to play legal troubleshooter or judicial pedant, but his job as chief justice is to act as arbiter between prosecution and defense. He is not, at this time, a prosecutor, and should save that job for retirement. is in order. In YStdbMsdsy. Mnwy 11, 1S31 MYNG GOODWIN Capitalism and liberty Capitalism and freedom. These two words have been pounded into our consciousness as a pair. Like love and marriage, they go together like a horse and carriage. But is it true that you can't have one without the other? Milton Friedman wrote a book titled Capitalism and Freedom in which he argues that the capitalist economic system naturally promotes political freedom. Friedman knows that we all want political freedom. His objective is to convince us that we must support capitalism if we want to enjoy political freedom. Friedman writes: "Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain, Germany at various times in the last 70 years, Japan before World Wars I and II, tzarist Russia in the decades before World War are all societies that cannot I conceivably be described as politically free. Yet, in each, private enterprise was the dominant form of economic organization. It is therefore clearly possible to have economic arrangements that are fundamentally capitalist and political arrangements that are not free." Capitalism and freedom don't always go together. You can have capitalism without freedom. How does this happen? Why are some capitalist nations ruled by fascist or military dictatorships? Friedman does not raise these questions. He seems reluctant to even admit that there is such a thing as totalitarian capitalism. Is there any necessary connection at all between capitalism and political freedom? Historically, yes. Capitalist societies were created through revolution against absolute monarchies. The American revolution was also a war of national liberation. Capitalism started out with a good reputation for political freedom; it was a great stride forward. The economic ideology of capitalism sounds like it has something to do with freedom. Free enterprise, free market. At least the word "free" is used frequently. But exponents of capitalist ideology are reluctant to examine the actual history and present reality of the capitalist system. There used to be some similarity between capitalist ideology and the reality of American society. A large proportion of small-scal- Americans used to be independent producers (mostly farmers) and their families. The natural dynamics of competitive capitalism have created a vastly different society today a tremendously wealthy few have won the competition. e, Control of industrial production and financial capital has been centralized in the hands of a small segment of society, the capitalists. The economic power of this tiny minority enables them to dominate the political processes, from the information and communications media to the government itself. Does political freedom flow naturally from a system that concentrates economic power in fewer and fewer hands? Does the capitalist class foster and promote political freedom? Remember that it was popular pressure which forced the "founding fathers" to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Today it is grassroots organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union that defend the Bill of Rights against employers and the government. It is popular grassroots movements that have worked to promote equal rights, suffrage and freedom for women, minorities and youth. Working people have struggled against violent repression to exercise rights to protest, strike and organize unions. It is the strength and determination of workers' organizations and progressive popular movements that determines the degree of political freedom in capitalist society. We have a vital interest in political freedom. The capitalists don't. This can be clearly seen in the Third World countries. Look at Chile, for example, where the U.S. government and U.S. corporations plotted the overthrow of a democratically elected socialist president, Salvador Allende. The d military dictatorship not only murdered Allende, they also killed tens of thousand of workers in outright military attack on working class neighborhoods. Political freedom and democratic rights were abolished. Labor unions and opposition parties were banned. A regime of torture and massive repression was instituted. And a n American became economic adviser to this totalitarian capitalist regime. Milton Friedman. Here at home the capitalist class is pushing a "move to the right" that threatens our U.S.-backe- well-know- political freedom. One side of their ideological arsenal is the false claim that we can trust them to look out for our political freedom. The other side of the capitalist ideological offensive is intensified anti-socialis- m or anti-communis- We know that there can be capitalism without freedom but can there be freedom without capitalism? That will be the subject of my next column. catching up... The leading British Roman Catholic private school, Downside, has, according to The Associated Press, decided that admitting girls to its precincts hasn't been a idea. good Downside, originally founded 275 years ago by an order of Benedictine monks, was one of many British private schools that broke with tradition in the 1970s and started admitting girls to its two senior classes. But, although there has been no scandal or obvious problem, "I'm afraid the experiment has not worked," said Dom Philip Jepp, headmaster. He claimed the 13 females out of 500 enrolled in the classes were under "terrific emotional and psychological pressure. I don't think that monks are equipped to talk to teen-ag- e girls about with their that personal lives." anything might go wrong The girls already enrolled who live outside the boarding school will be able to graduate, but there will be no new female admissions, he said. all-ma- le Several months ago I reported that Norman Mailer had married a woman to legitimize his child, then divorced her so he could marry his sixth "true love," Norris Church. Well, wife number four, Beverly Rentz Bentley Mailer, who was granted a divorce from Mailer last March, to be effective last September, has been granted a hearing on a motion to dismiss the divorce which, incidentally, would also tend to dismiss his last two marriages. Did you follow all that? The woman is asking that the divorce be vacated because she isn't happy with her child-suppo- rt and alimony is she time At the receiving $575 a week payments. present week for each of their a increases and $200 plus two sons. She is also guaranteed money for the boys' schooling clear through college. Mailer's attorney, Monroe Inker, opposes the hearing, scheduled for March 9, saying, 'The only result will be that the previous Mrs. Mailer will be able to go back to court "ad nauseum" over alimony and property division. Poor Mailer. All that effort to legitimize his various cost-of-livi- children and Bev (whom he also married for the purpose of legitimizing a child) wants to make it meaningless in the eyes of the law. Etiquette is to be the keyword in Chicago social circles, and to make sure of that, Mayor Jane Byrne is paying an "etiquette aide" $35,000 a year. n for her The woman, Noreen McBride, is is her and task to ensure Chicago a it "gracefulness" reputation as an "international city," a wire report said. The concept was developed to try and override the reputation Chicago has as a mob city, a remnant from the Al Capone well-know- days. Critics have claimed that the position is unnecessary, but I don't know. It offers great employment opportunities. For $35,000 maybe even I could become graceful. The Bonehead Club of Dallas, Texas, has named brothers Boneheads of the Year, an award that is seldom coveted and regularly presented. Nelson Bunker Hunt and sibling W. Herbert Hunt received the "honor" for the millions of dollars they made and lost in the 1980 silver market. The club said the brothers, the first dual winners, were double boneheads because they not only took a tremendous financial loss, but they also got blamed for the whole mess. Their brother Lamar has won the award twice, so the Hunts appear to have a definite corner on boneheadedness. The Bonehead of the Year Award, the highest honor the club gives, is presented annually at this time to someone who has, in the club's words, "committed a monumental goof." For those who missed the papers Monday, Ronald Reagan has announced that he will seek in 1984. Should he be successful, our president will be 77 when he leaves office. Since Valentine's Day is just around the corner, this seems like a good time to warn you of what approaches do and don't work with members of the opposite sex. Esquire carried the following list of the 10 most popular and the 10 least popular one-lin- e approaches, taken from a Boston study by College professor Chris Kleinke and two of his assistants. First they asked a group of university students to list all of the opening lines they could think of. Then they asked the group to go through the list and rank them. The most preferred lines were: 1) Hi. 2) Hi. My name is Joe. (If your name isn't Joe, you might want to pass on this one.) 3) I feel a little embarrassed about this, but I'd like to meet you. 4) That's a pretty shirt you have on. 5) You have beautiful hair. 6) You have beautiful eyes. 7) Can I sit here and talk with you awhile? 8) How are you doing? 9) Pardon me. We've never been introduced. ? (Sex is not a good word to fill in 10) Do you like the here, by way.) Least preferred: 1) Is that really your hair? 2) You remind me of someone I used to date. 3) Your place or mine? 4) I'm easy. How about you? 5) Isn't it cold? Let's make some body heat. 6) What's your excuse for existence? 7) Didn't I see you in Playboy last month? 8) What's cooking, good looking? 9) 10) Hi, I'm wealthy. Do you fool around? Lois Collins |