Lindsay Lohan Given Absurd Sentence

MAY 12, 2011

By JOHN SEILER

One thing I’d like to know is how many millions of our tax dollars the government spent to convict beautiful actress Lindsay Lohan of petty theft. You know they spent that much because the government didn’t want an O.J. Simpson situation in which they lose a high-profile case involving a celebrity.

Lindsay was sentenced yesterday. In a sensible system, she would only have to give back the stolen goods, which she already did, and pay the aggrieved party some compensation. Instead, here’s what she got, as reported by the L.A. Times:

* “three years’  probation. Any violations could land her in jail.” This is just slavery.

* “Lohan has applied to be part of a home electronic monitoring program. That will be decided June 17, when she is scheduled to surrender to authorities.” This is a high-tech version of putting a ball-and-chain on you.

The only reason she might not be sent to the slammer is because of jail overcrowding and shrinking state and local budgets. So we can thank California’s effective bankruptcy for keeping a pretty petty thief from being locked up in one of the state’s hellacious jails.

The United States incarcerates more people than any country on earth — nearly 1 percent of the whole population is behind bars. Its “justice” system gives long sentences to petty thieves and minor drug users. And taxpayers, of course, foot the bill.

This nonsense started about 40 years ago, after the crime wave of the 1960s. Typically, things were taken too far. As the L.A. Times noted in another article

the number of inmates grew from 76,000 in 1988 to nearly 170,000 today.

The number of incarcerated Californians had surged in the two previous decades, as voters and lawmakers approved tough-on-crime measures such as the “three-strikes” law. The costs of state prisons has soared as well, doubling since 2000.

Robbing Taxpayers

Obviously, we want violent offenders locked up. But almost everybody else should be dealt with in other ways. About $8 billion a year goes to California’s prisons, 10 percent of the state budget. It costs about $133 a day to house one prisoner — in prisons with brutal conditions.

The real victims here are taxpayers robbed by government.

The reason is the police-prosectuors-guards complex of power that scares people into providing massive pay, perks and pensions to the “law enforcement community.” And more people incarcerated means more “product” for their sick business. Not surprisingly, the prison guards’ and police officers’ unions are among the most powerful in the state.

It’s like in the Soviet Union of Stalin’s day. When the government need slave labor to build a canal or some other labor-intensive project, the  NKVD/KGB would round up hundreds of thousands of people on false charges and ship them to the slave labor camps of the Gulag.

In the case of Linsday Lohan, she’s a high-profile “example” made to show the rest of us that “even the rich must follow the law” — meaning, obey the dictates of the government.

Another high-profile case was Martha Stewart, who was framed by the government and sent to prison. William L. Anderson and Candice E. Jackson wrote about what happened at the time of Martha’s prosecution. They described the federal “justice” system. But their analysis applies also to state and local systems, which have been subsumed into the federal system. They wrote:

We hold that the federal criminal system that convicted her is an abomination to justice and is the destroyer of those precious “Rights of Englishmen” that this nation inherited from Great Britain (and especially the famed jurist William Blackstone) more than two centuries ago. What exists today in the federal courts is nothing less than a shadow justice system, an evil twin of the common law that served us so well for so long, a system that keeps the trappings of common law, but is more like Stalin’s Soviet Union than Blackstone’s England.

Born of political expediency and of the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20thcenturies, the federal criminal system is nothing less than a mechanism that permits prosecutors to do an end run around the Constitutional protections that the framers of that document believed were the natural rights of individuals. While we know that many readers will disagree with the following statement, we hold that it is true and will demonstrate why we believe such a thing: modern federal criminal laws and policies hold much more in common with Josef Stalin’s U.S.S.R. in the 1930s than it does the Constitution of the United States….

While we have linked this page before, we remind readers of the powerful 10-part 1998 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette series on federal prosecutorial misconduct written by Bill Moushey. One of us spoke on the telephone recently to one of the prosecutors named in the series (who allegedly tried to frame one of his targets), and it was clear from our conversation that he believed he could do what he wanted, when he wanted, and that he was above the law. (Jurors complained that they thought Stewart to be “arrogant.” This prosecutor’s arrogance made Stewart’s alleged haughtiness look like the demeanor a humble peasant.)….

In the end, we see a shadow set of laws that are written not to protect anyone, but only to improve the probability of prosecutors gaining convictions. William Blackstone, who coined the term “Rights of Englishmen,” declared that the law was to be a “shield” to protect the innocent and to put firm boundaries around the workings of government agents.
Blackstone’s shield in the federal system now is a weapon that the state uses against everyone else. The “Rights of Englishmen” are now dead. The federal courts have the looks and trappings of that once-magnificent system of laws that was part and parcel to the very meaning of the United States of America. But while it may seem that the modern system is a continuation of that system we inherited from Great Britain, the system inside is rotten. It does not protect citizens from the state; instead, it gives the state all of the weapons (federal prosecutors like to call them “tools”) it needs to declare everyone a criminal.

Lohan Making Nice

Lindsay now is making nice to the system that has tormented her. In the place of her previous refreshing insolence toward the “justice” system, she said in a statement:

I am glad to be able to put this past me and move on with my life and my career. I support the judge’s decision and hold myself accountable for being in this situation.

I have already started my community service at the Downtown Women’s Center and thank everyone there for their warm welcome. I hope to be able to fulfill my obligation without any press attention. I think the media spotlight should be on issues such as homelessness and domestic violence instead of on me.

That’s understandable. But I hope that, when Lindsay finally gets the Soviet-style “justice” system off her back in about three years, she’ll become a force for restoring Americans’ rights and liberties. She has felt first hand the iron fist of tyranny smashing down on her.

Free Lindsay Lohan!

 

 

 

 

No comments

Write a comment
  1. Sol
    Sol 12 May, 2011, 14:00

    The criminal justice (sic) system has very little to do with justice and virtually nothing to do with making victims whole and rehabilitation. No, it’s main purpose is to instill obedience to the state.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

2014 promises water fight over Delta tunnels

Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed twin tunnels under the California Delta will continue to be a major policy issue throughout 2014

Anaheim Gives Pass To Pervert Cop

Steven Greenhut: Increasingly, we have become a two-tier society where those who enforce the laws are held to a much

Grim LAT: Bullet train $25B short. Dim Sac Bee: What $25B? All soon to be well!

On Monday, a Sacramento judge dealt a devastating setback to the California bullet train. The most serious of several obstacles