Pubdate: Thu, 12 Oct 2006
Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Copyright: 2006 Boulder Weekly
Contact:  http://www.boulderweekly.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/57
Author: Ari Armstrong
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)

CANDIDATES UNDERMINE RIGHTS

I continue to contemplate which candidate for governor I'm going to 
vote against. Ritter doesn't support a woman's right to an abortion. 
When Ritter was Denver's district attorney, his office approved a 
misguided search warrant against a bookstore (as I discussed 
previously). He has indicated that he'd try to further politicize 
medicine and restrict the right to bear arms. While Ritter has 
admitted to using marijuana, he favors keeping legal penalties for 
possession of under an ounce of the plant by adults over 21.

Ritter has been unfriendly toward the First, Second and Fourth 
Amendments, and he has also scorned the Fifth Amendment's due-process 
clause and the Sixth Amendment's jury protections. In 2002, 
then-District Attorney Ritter fought against reforming the state's 
asset forfeiture laws to require a criminal conviction (with a few 
exceptions) and higher standards of proof before police can keep a 
suspect's property.

Ritter argued against the reform because sometimes there is a "person 
on the jury who frustrates our attempts to get a conviction." Damn 
those juries, anyway. What are they thinking, not rubber-stamping the 
prosecutor's case? Ritter said, "We lose drug cases we should not, 
cases that are fairly solid cases."

Due process? Prosecutor Gus Sandstrom argued that even if you're 
found "not guilty" by a jury, that still "does not mean you're 
innocent of criminal activity." Prosecutor Bob Grant complained that, 
under the requirements of the reform, "The burden of proof is shifted 
to us." I always thought that was the idea. Ritter added that, if 
people are carrying more cash than the police think they should have, 
they should be able to demonstrate "evidence of legitimacy." That's 
the presumption of guilt.

If Ritter becomes the next governor of Colorado, he must stop looking 
at the world through the eyes of a prosecutor. Prosecutors tend to 
think that the cops are always right, the accused are always wrong, 
and more power in the hands of government is always an improvement. 
That's somewhat understandable, because prosecutors see the nastiest 
side of humanity on a daily basis. Prosecutors have a tough job and 
generally do it well.

But sometimes prosecutors forget that criminality is the exception, 
not the rule, in human society. Reducing crime is crucial, but 
protecting individual rights is the higher principle. Without 
safeguards, the power of police and prosecutors can imperil justice 
rather than serve it. To protect individual rights, the powers of 
government must be strictly limited.

Thankfully, Republican Shawn Mitchell and Democrat Bill Thiebaut 
shepherded the reform bill through the legislature.

Then-Sen. Thiebaut argued, "It is inappropriate for law enforcement 
to seize and liquidate people's property before they are convicted of 
a crime. If you're an innocent person, you shouldn't have your 
property taken away, and if it is taken away, you should have due 
process, even if you're guilty."

The House passed the reform measure 51-11, the Senate passed it 
23-10, and Gov. Bill Owens signed it.

A major reason to vote against Republican Bob Beauprez is that he 
injects religion into politics.

As I discussed in this column on Oct. 21, 2004, I decided to vote for 
John Kerry over George Bush because of the same issue. My comments 
also apply to this race: "the Republican Party has decided to pander 
to the religious right and snub the secularists who champion 
liberty." Beauprez is considerably worse than Ritter about pushing 
religion into politics, though he's not as bad as Bush.

While Ritter has downplayed his opposition to abortion, Beauprez has 
made it a campaign theme, pointing out that he wants even more 
restrictions than Ritter does. The idea that the state should outlaw 
the abortion even of a few undifferentiated cells obviously comes 
from a religious view of God's role in conception.

An Aug. 16 story in the Rocky Mountain News discussed the answers of 
Janet Rowland, Beauprez's running mate, for a 2004 questionnaire from 
Western Colorado's Christian Chronicles. Her answers were appalling.

"What is your position regarding President Bush's 'faith-based 
initiatives?'" Rowland answered, "I fully support it. I introduced 
faith-based programs into the Department of Human Services." 
Funneling our tax dollars to religious organizations is an affront to 
our rights to control our own income and decide which, if any, 
religion to support. (According to a Sept. 26 story in the Rocky, 
Owens also praised Bush's faith-based tax programs.)

"Do you believe that creationism should be taught in our schools 
along with the theory of evolution or just one?" Rowland answered, 
"Either both or neither. All religions are welcomed in the schools 
except Christianity. This is wrong." So Rowland demands that schools 
either stop teaching science or start teaching mythology as science, 
again on the taxpayer's dime.

"How do you feel about the issue of 'separation of church and 
state'?" Rowland answered, "It's not in the Constitution. We should 
have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion." We 
shouldn't have freedom from religion? That's theocracy. We certainly 
do have freedom from religion, if we have any rights at all.

Yet Beauprez selected Rowland to become his successor, should he 
remain in office. Apparently, to maintain our right to remain free 
from religion, we have to vote to remain free from the Republican Party 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake