Refining Democracy: Pornography in Democracy

December 22, 2010

Refining Democracy: Pornography in Democracy
By T.S.Khanna, 12-22-2010.

What distinguishes man from animal is man’s superior culture. It takes many generations to build culture but only a few to destroy it.

Pornography is not a part of the democratic culture. The Supreme Court has made it so by its interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. A vast majority of people and legislators do not accept it. Its imposition pollutes the well-distilled democratic culture in America.

Framers of the Constitution intentionally kept its language concise and general to allow enough elbowroom for the succeeding legislatures to interpret the basic principles to suit the changing political climate.

However, our judicial system, under the process of judicial review, has taken over the role of interpreting the constitution. This is creating a negative effect on the cultural values enshrined by the vast majority of Americans.

Judges, by their strict training in law and “blind justice” philosophy are unable to see the impact of their interpretations of the constitution on the American culture. Insulated from public needs, pressures, or social repercussions, judges faithfully read the inert pages of the constitution and put their own life into them.

Their interpretations vary with their predilections and personal values. Yet, they seem to believe that their interpretations represent the “original intent” of the Framers. Quite often, their convoluted reasoning of equality under the law violates the common sense. This process keeps equating the worst part of human being to the best part of human culture.

It is hard to imagine that the Framers intended the legalization and spread of pornography as part of democratic culture. Probably they are spinning in their graves.

In a democracy, power to rule must reside in popular majority through their representatives. Minorities must be protected from the tyranny of majority but the minority’s fancies and preferences must not be protected at the expense of the majority. For example, porno business cannot be protected by the equal treatment under the law. It must not be legalized against the will of the majority. The majority is suffering and their children’s minds are being destroyed.

The Constitutional provisions and clauses involving political and social repercussions must not be judged by strict legal criteria. In such cases, interpretation of the Constitution should be the responsibility of the legislature, responsive to the sovereign people.

Jury Selection Process

Jury Selection Process
By T.S. Khanna, December 10, 2010.

“The difference between a rut and a grave is that the rut is longer”. Sometimes, certain traditions, religious or political, create such deep ruts that we cannot think outside those ruts. That is what stops the progress. Based on personal observations, I believe that our jury selection process is in a rut.

To select twelve jurors, forty persons are called at random. Most of them, unwilling to perform jury duty, come with ready-made excuses of partiality. Some others do not have an understanding of the responsibility of this duty, and yet, some others do not have the command and fluency of English language (National Language) to participate meaningfully in the court proceedings.

Considering the time and effort expended by the Court staff, District Attorney’s office, Security Checks, Defense Attorney, and the summoned candidates, huge expense is involved for the candidates, the taxpayer and the party accused in every little case that goes for jury trial. This is done in the name of better justice but offers no assurance re the improved quality of justice.

The selection process itself is flawed in fulfilling the aim of selecting an impartial jury. The judge, the prosecutor and the defense attorney know too little about the candidates to select them or reject them, yet hey fulfill the ritual only guessing at the net result. Not selected candidates feel lucky. The net result may likely be a disgruntled, unwilling, and inattentive jury.

I would suggest that the jury selection process may follow a procedure similar to the one used in selecting the Grand Jury:
1. Invite the applications of those who wish to serve on the jury,
2. Make a background check re the citizenship, character, and fluency in English language,
3. Keep a pool of qualified candidates on record and call them at random as and when needed for any case.
4. Use the measures of quality (if any) of justice delivered for comparison.

This process, besides saving the huge expense, will also avoid creating the ill will between the government and the unwilling summoned candidates.