With great power comes great responsibility?
The broad, almost unfettered nature of state police power is the foundational engine that allows the legislative and administrative status quo to persist the way it has for decades with the vital records statute mess that this site aims to shed some light on.
But that is not the only thing that unfettered power is creating issues with. Automated license plate reading systems—such as Flock cameras—fit squarely under this exact conceptual umbrella.
In fact, technologies like nationwide or citywide camera networks represent a modern manifestation of how unchecked state power, combined with "preventative" or "public safety" justifications, bypasses traditional civil liberties norms. It's much the same as back in 2013 when Edward Snowden exposed vast, global mass surveillance programs. Both are much like the common law rights of public records, or the due process that is circumvented (at least on paper in the statues) when it comes to the strict liability language of vital records.
Going back to the root issue. Upstream, the legislature & agencies is where the root causes live.
Lawmakers pass broad, evidence-free laws, strict liability mandates, and harsh sentencing rules, backed by broad police powers. They rarely face direct accountability for whether those laws actually solve the problems they claim to target. Consider what the purpose of the strict liability language is. Clearly no DA has even pursed using that power because it will fail in a court room. Thus it's purpose was obviously to intimidate rather than anything with legal weight. Clearly that unfettered power drives that bullying. (Much the same way the president of the WRDA liked to refer to me multiple times by my full legal fist name.) There are multiple people to blame, who in my opinion are Not a good fit for a public servant positions.
We've recently read about Governor Tony Evers announcing a commutation process. Again this is totally inefficient, much in the same way having register of deeds officials "protect" and issue records from over 100 years ago.
When the legislature refuses to reform criminal sentencing, scale back over-criminalization, or fix structural flaws, an executive trying to offer relief has very few tools left. Short of a blanket legislative overhaul—which requires a legislature that is often completely gridlocked or ideologically opposed to change—clemency is essentially a unilateral emergency valve. Basically the downstream (the executive branch) like the governor is left managing the fallout.
After years worth of communicating with elected "leaders," who are clearly not interested in fixing this grand mess I see a broader issue.
What should be apparent by now is a large amount of passing he buck when it comes to lawmaking. You'd think the LRB or some law maker would have challenged this. But apparently their role is to draft what is asked of them, not second guess it. Disturbingly enough in 1989 the language had to be amended to allow financial institutions to copy records. The attorney general was forced to formally address the strict liability language because it was so broad that everyday business practices technically illegal. Instead of fixing it they made a piece meal carve out for financial institutions.
Perhaps people making laws shouldn't benefit from immunity so that there is some actual accountability? I mean how many times are junk laws passed as pork and then have to go through the long legal process of being overturned? Answer; more times than should ever be allowed. And what happens to the culprits behind that questionable all too common practice? Why nothing at all.... welcome to America the land where constitution unfortunately becomes a convenient high grade toilet paper to these people.
Summary thus far; representative type democracy provides a convenient shield rather than force some actual accountability. No wonder people in other states have to go so far as to get a writ of mandamus. I doubt anyone actually gets much service from their elected officials, and regular citizens are not even represented unless they are the donor class, or affiliated with the groups having lobbyists. I’d like to be proven wrong that the elected still represent the will of the electorate.
Narrowing and clarifying criminal laws—a concept often discussed in contrast to "overcriminalization"—would directly reduce court dockets, ease backlogs, and lower taxpayer costs.
I describe what we have as institutional negligence. And I can assure you that after you take a broader look at all the laws we have, this vital records issue is just one small example of it.
One solution to some of this might be requiring a mandatory impact assessment (a legally required evaluation before any new restrictions, administrative rule changes, or statutory overhauls) be enacted or implemented.
No comments:
Post a Comment