5.  Criminal Justice
    by William Stone, III
    wrs{at}0ap.org

Exclusive to TLE

Those of us in South Dakota have been granted a rare opportunity to ponder
the failings of government-supplied justice.  Last Saturday, on his way to
his nominal home in Brandon, South Dakota Congressman Bill Janklow rammed a
motorcycle driven by Randolph E. Scott of Minnesota.  Janklow was
approaching an intersection at a high speed, failed to obey the posted
stopsign, and struck Scott, who had the right of way.  Scott sustained
fatal injuries.

Any way one looks at this incident, Janklow was in the wrong. Legally, he
failed to obey a posted speed limit, striking Scott at 70 to 75 miles per
hour at the intersection of two two-lane highways. Janklow failed to obey a
posted stopsign.  He appears to have lied in his report to the police,
stating that he swerved to avoid another vehicle in his lane of traffic --
yet the existence of this vehicle cannot be corroborated.

From the perspective of the Zero Aggression Principle (the only thing I'm
truly concerned with), Janklow incorrectly judged the safe speed for his
environment.  While this isn't in itself an Initiation of Force, his speed
combined with his failure to observe another approaching vehicle led to
one.

Morally, Janklow has initiated force against Scott, and Scott is due
restitution for harm.

Unfortunately, it is inherently impossible to provide restitution for
causing an individual's death.  The best that Janklow could possibly do
would be to provide Scott's survivors with the same support and assistance
for what would have been the remainder of Scott's life. Given the emotional
and financial commitments inherent in any individual's existence, even this
would never truly suffice.

From a legal standpoint, it seems clear that Janklow is guilty of some form
of involuntary manslaughter.  However, therein lies the problem:

Bill Janklow is a career politician.  He is former Governor of South
Dakota, on multiple occasions and winning several re-elections.  Were it
not for term limits, he'd still hold the office.

A non-South Dakotan would surmise that Janklow is a well-loved statesman.
After all, why would he be repeatedly elected, first to Governor, then to
the US House.  Sadly, Janklow is universally despised.  The fact of the
matter is that over the years, Janklow built a corrupt political machine in
South Dakota.  It is an evil mechanism designed to allow Janklow to acquire
and maintain power to the exclusion of all other considerations.  It's a
political machine a Chicago Alderman would admire -- and having spent the
decade of the
1990s in Chicago, I know whereof I speak.

We can expect, therefore, that the "criminal justice" system in
South Dakota will work its magic in Janklow's favor, and the criminal will
receive all the justice.

Consider the preferential treatment Janklow has already received: It's
quite certain that if I had killed a biker while wildly speeding and
ignoring a stopsign, I'd've been charged with manslaughter and spent
Saturday night in jail.  I'd've not been given the consideration of a full
week's investigation and methodical examination of the meager facts.  My
obvious fault in the matter
would have had the investigating officer reading me my rights as the
ambulance carried away my victim.

That is, if they still read you your rights in the United States.  In the
wake of recent Supreme Court rulings, perhaps he'd've simply booked me,
taken me back to the station house, and beaten a confession out of me.

In any event, if it had been me, I'd've been in jail Saturday, not
wandering around free and uncharged while the county Sheriff wrung his
hands and wished for a way to avoid having to commit political suicide by
charging the most despotic individual in South Dakota history with any kind
of crime.

Here's my prediction of what will now happen:

Janklow will use his political power and the petty little he's spent a
lifetime building, and arrange to have absolutely no charges filed against
him.

On the off chance that some shred of the "criminal justice"
system in South Dakota operates as it was intended, Janklow will use his
empire to have the charges reduced from the obvious criminal charge of
manslaughter to something civil.  Perhaps he'll arrange to be charged with
violating Scott's civil rights, at most.  He'll be fined a paltry sum or
settle out of court, and be back on the job without ever actually appearing
in court.

The one thing that Janklow will never allow to happen is the one thing that
would happen to any other South Dakotan:  be sent to prison, probably for
the remainder of his life.

You see, if Janklow steps into any of South Dakota's prisons, he'll be
confronted with individuals that his immoral laws and political empire put
there.  Some of them will wish to exact revenge. Janklow's life expectancy
in a South Dakota prison could be measured in days.  Perhaps hours.

In a free society in which individuals self-govern guided by the Zero
Aggression Principle, the responsibility of a force initiator like Janklow
is purely moral:  he must provide restitution to his victim, to the best of
his ability.  In a free society, Janklow and the Scott's survivors would
contract with an adjudicator.  He would hear the facts and negotiate some
form of restitution, which would probably entail financial support
consistent with what Scott would have provided for the remainder of his
life, plus restitution for the emotional suffering caused by the removal of
Scott from their lives
forever.

In all likelihood, Scott would never have been involved in the
accident.Janklow has a long history of force initiation.  In a free society
in which Janklow's victims were capable of defending themselves against
such predators, Janklow would no doubt have been appropriately dealt with
by one of his intended victims decades ago.

Regardless, in a free society, Janklow need not worry about being raped and
killed in prison.  A free society is disinterested in exacting revenge or
punishing force initiators.  Rather, a free society exacts restitution to
return a victim to the state he was in prior to the initiation of force.

Should Janklow fail to attempt to provide restitution to his victim, a free
society would employ a form of "excommunication."  Bereft of
immoral laws that require individuals to associate with one another, laws
that manufacture crimes in which there are no victims, and crimes designed
simply to regulate behavior, the number of force initiators becomes a very
small group.  The overwhelming majority are individuals who have initiated
force by accident or, like Janklow, through negligence.  Intentional force
initiators will be a dying
breed -- literally.  As Robert A. Heinlein noted, an armed society is a
polite society:  without immoral laws that disarm the average individual
(gun control laws), most sociopaths will find honest work rather than risk
death.  Those few who can't control their impulses will eventually be
killed by an intended victim.

Largely free of crime, the 24x7 news channels of a free society will resort
to publicizing events as trivial as check-bouncing.  Assuming Janklow
failed to provide restitution, in short order his picture and story would
be plastered all over the news and Internet.  Talking heads will discuss
his likely fate and what a disgusting excuse for a human being he is.

About the point at which Janklow reached the notoriety of Jean-Benet
Ramsey, he would find it impossible to trade for even the basic necessities
of life.  He'd be reduced to living out of garbage cans and sleeping under
overpasses, providing a concrete example of why initiating force is a very
bad idea.

In short order, he'd either provide restitution or die.

That's what would happen in a free society in which individuals self-govern
guided by the Zero Aggression Principle.  Unfortunately, we live in a
police state in which government rules with raw, naked force, and Bill
Janklow has amassed a political empire that allows him to manipulate that
force to his own benefit.

Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars!


--
William Stone, III is a computer nerd (RHCE, CCNP, CISSP) and Executive
Director of the Zero Aggression Institute (http://www.0ap.org). He seeks
the Libertarian Party's nomination for the 2004 Senate race in South
Dakota.

---