Every time a law is violated in a high-profile case, there are calls to strengthen the law. But the problem is usually not the law; the problem is that someone violated the law. And if the problem is a violation of a law, then how, exactly, is a tougher law supposed to solve the problem?
The fact that a law is broken is not an argument against the law that was broken. Laws against robbery and theft are violated all the time. But that doesn't mean they are bad laws. It means there are bad people who don't follow them. If someone knows how to write a law in a way in which it cannot be broken, then they need to explain exactly how this can be done.
Speaker of the House Greg Stumbo's response to Amanda Ross's murder is to put ankle bracelets on people who have been accused of domestic violence.
“I don't think that it's unreasonable, when the circumstances warrant it, that judges be granted that power,” he said Wednesday. “There's a cost factor involved … but it's not cost-prohibitive.”Does it bother anyone that the Speaker of the State House doesn't seem to be familiar with the concept that people are innocent until proven guilty? How exactly does he propose to take away someone's freedom when they have not been found guilty of any crime?
Since when do we punish people for being accused of a crime? If they have committed a crime, they need to be punished. But taking away the rights of people who have been accused of crimes has never been a part of the law.
Where's the ACLU when you need them?