Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 3, 1987)
Page 2/The BattaliorvTuesday, November 3, 1987 Opinion ' — ' '■ — a Does unbridled democracy really work? Today is elec tion day, the day that lies at the heart of our de mocracy. Today, citizens express their wishes at the polls, voting for the men and women they think will best represent them and their in terests. This sup posedly ensures the health of our “go vernment of the people, by the people, and for the people.” For centuries people have struggled to gain a greater voice in government. They have held that all people are equal and consquently that all should have an equal say in government. We believe that democracy is the best way to achieve this. While we admit to short comings in our system, we believe that a little more democracy will solve them. But we ought to pause a moment to consider how well our system really works and whether unbridled democ racy is as beneficial as we are led to be lieve. We all believe in the citizen’s right to participate in the political process. How many of you exercised that right today? If you voted, did you discharge your duty as a citizen to know the candidates and issues well before voting, or did you vote with only a vague knowledge? If you did not vote, was it because you didn’t t hink it was important or because you realized you did not know enough to make an informed choice? If this election is typical of an off year, 20 percent of the electorate might vote. State elections for governor and Congress in non-presidential election years are lucky to get 40 percent turn out. In presidential elections, our best turnout since 1932 was 62.8 percent in 1960, while the low was 51.1 percent in 1948. A good presidential turnout is about 60 percent of the electorate. One could say we treasure our right to vote. Even if everyone were to vote, it would be almost impossible to achieve informed voting as our system now stands. Voting without full information on a candidate is like buying a used car after glancing at its exterior. It may look good on the outside, but unless you look under the hood to determine how it will run, you are likely to be cheated. In our national elections, we vote with about as much information on the can didates as the naive car buyer. In state and local elections, we have less infor mation — and often none. Did you Brian Frederick Voters should give state right of appeal in courts Texas citizens today have the op portunity to give the state a limited right to appeal in criminal cases by voting for consti tutional Amendment 14. This is one of the most important criminal justice is sues ever presented to the voters of Texas. Since 1973, Texas has been the only state in the country in which the prosecution and victims have no right to appeal erroneous trial court legal rul ings." Under current law, the following sce nario easily could occur — but only in Texas: Assume that Charles Manson is paroled and comes to Texas. He breaks into a home and kills an entire family. He is arrested and freely confesses to the police. He then leads them to the weapon and the property stolen from the murder scene. If a trial judge wrongly decided that the police made a legal error in either arresting Manson or taking his confes sion, that confession and all of the evi dence obtained as a “fruit” of the “ille gal” arrest or confession would be inadmissible at trial. If the state had little or no other evidence of Manson’s guilt, it would be forced to dismiss the case and let the murderer walk free be cause of one man’s wrong ruling. The state, under current law, is powerless to challenge that judge’s incorrect ruling. No matter how egregious or mistaken a trial judge’s ruling, only the defendant has the right to appeal that judge’s rul ing to a higher court in Texas. This is not fair to either the victim of the crime or Texans at large. Texas now stands as the last bastion of unreviewable trial er ror when that error favors the de fendant. This year, the Texas Legislature en acted a law, sponsored by Sen. John Montford of Lubbock and Rep. James Hury of Galveston, that allows the state to appeal certain pre-trial and post-trial legal rulings. This bill received wide spread support from both Republicans and Democrats as well as law enforce ment groups across the state. But it will become law only if the vot ers approve a constitutional amendment to give the citizens and victims of crime in Texas the same rights they have ev erywhere else in the country. The amendment allows the state to appeal legal rulings, not factual find ings. For example, if a judge decided, at a pretrial hearing, that the defendant’s confession could not be admitted at trial because of a technical error by the po lice, his legal ruling could be appealed by the state to a higher court before trial. If the appellate court concluded that the trial judge had wrongly inter preted the law, it could reverse the trial judge. If it concluded that the trial judge was correct, then the state would quite prop erly be unable to use that evidence. This is as it should be. It is only right to make sure that trial judges are correctly inter preting the law before the case is dis missed for lack of admissible evidence. That is what this amendment assures. A judge’s or jury’s verdict that the de fendant is not guilty is a factual ruling and therefore would not be appealable under this amendment. There are many reasons — moral, philosophical, and practical — why the state ought to have a right to appeal is sues of law. First, the erroneous exclu sion of admissible evidence prevents cit izens from getting a fair trial. The citizens are endangered by criminals who are wrongly released. Second, the constitutional ban on prosecution appeals permits the legal is sues that have been wrongly decided by trial courts against the state to stand for ever as the law of the land. Further, the lack of an equal right to judicial review creates inconsistent in terpretations and application of the same law in different courtrooms. In consistency promotes “judge shopping” and gives law enforcement agents, attor neys, and the public mixed messages on what is the law. Some might question whether Texas can afford the costs of equal access to appellate courts at a time of state bud getary crisis. The answer is a resound ing yes. First, the societal cost in wrongly releasing culpable criminals is greater than any possible financial burden upon the state budget. Secondly, in dollars and cents, it may very well be less expen sive than the current system. Once an appeals court has litigated a controversial area, that law is less likely to be inconsistently applied, and both state and defendant less likely to appeal the same issue. If a legal ruling is ap pealed by the state before trial and the defendant wins, both he and the state save the cost of a full trial. In sum, it is long past time for Texas to join the rest of the nation in provid ing the state with equal access to appel late review of criminal trial court legal rulings. The citizens of this state should take advantage of their opportunity to vote for judicial evenhandedness and accountability. A “yes” vote on Amend ment 14 is a vote for fairness in the Texas criminal justice system. Cathleen Herasimchuk is on the staff of the Harris County District Attor ney’s Office. Cathleen Herasimchuk Guest Columnist The Battalion (USPS 045 360) Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editorial Board Sondra Pickard, Editor John Jarvis, Managing Editor Sue Krenek, Opinion Page Editor Rodney Rather, City Editor Robbyn Lister, News Editor Loyd Brumfield, Sports Editor Tracy Staton, Photo Editor Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper oper ated as a community service to Texas A&M and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editorial board or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or tne Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for stu dents in reporting, editing and photography classes within the De partment of Journalism. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and examina tion periods. Mail subscriptions are $17.44 per semester, $34.62 per school year and $36.44 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on re quest. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4111. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station TX 77843-4111. know anything valuable about the last judge you voted for other than his party affiliation? If a candidate looks good and says the right things, we vote for him. Even if we know where he stands on more than a few issues (very unlikely), it is difficult for us to gauge his character accurately. Character is more important than “stands” on a few issues, for character determines a man’s habitual actions. “Stands” will not get him through the crisis for which he does not have a pre determined course of action to guide him. It was once believed that if a man was unable to govern himself or his family, he certainly would be incapable of exer cising authority in more important mat ters, regardless of the fine words he could speak. We have many politicians who make fine promises and take the right “stands” on the issues but whose actions reveal them to be corrupt. They are not fit to govern our country be cause they lack the character to do what is right. We are hindered from choosing good officials in part by our system. The fed eral government exercises most of the power that matters in our country. State and local government, over which citi zens would be able to exercise the most control, is ignored. Attention is focused on national government, where it is dif ficult to know the merit of candidates. They are a name, a face, and maybe a vague platform, nothing more. This could be corrected by returning responsibility for most domestic con cerns to the states. The issues that affect most voters would be close to home where voters could be intelligently in volved. National government would then be free to concentrate on foreign policy, its proper primary concern. Per haps a coherent foreign policy would emerge from the present shambles. To help ensure that good men are elected to national posts, state legis latures should once again elect Senators while the electoral college alone elects the president. Most voters lack the time and inclination to properly evaluate these candidates. The choice of national leaders should be made by those whose work and associations give them the ability to chose more wisely. We have sacrificed the notion of the common good to pursue a purer de mocracy. Since voters discovered they could organize to get politicians to vote them benefits at public expense, special interest groups lobbying for special privileges have multiplied. We now have special interest groups Then for enf based on race, gender, sexual preft: ence, business, and labor among mat others. All of them want legislation bei efiting themselves while not giving damn about the general welfare oftl cially in nation. f. ss M W0 A&M er Thus, honest men upholding tli Ijaynigl general welfare can no longer elected. Constituents expect their ref phrey, ( gford, C rary, Cl busines: from H; don D. resentatives to vote them benefits fra the public coffers. Almost everyou wants something for nothing, and poS ticians must humor them to be elected Our problem then lies as much wiik a n 1381 ' corrupt voters as with politicians an the system. A populace that views ernment as an unlimited source o wealth and expects to profit from it sadly depraved. Because it hascometi believe that whatever the majority wane is right, it no longer sees any wrong! such a view. We need virtuous citizens and leaden who will put the nation’s good overthet own interests, for virtue alone can se cure us good government. Today’s elec tion is clearly not sufficient in itself secure it. B Threi from Ai Hum investm | ford is ment cc is man nership f oology ; device c retired; The Beta Pi honor : wide o neering j. Wa lecture Brian Frederick is a senior history m Memor; Russian major and a columnist forlh Battalion. ; “Many < have air Igo to g If tf passed, zos Val greates A&M V' Ken Texas i farm-n statewic And A&M a medicir Mail Call Vote yes for Proposition 19 EDITOR: Today the voters of Texas will go to the polls to consider several amendments to the Texas Constitution. One of the most important is Proposition 19, which will help Texas get the federal superconducting supercollider project. This $4.4 billion project will create a research lab that would put Texas and the nation at the forefront of physics research. Proposition 19 will authorize the sale of $500 million in general obligation bonds to entice Washington into considering Texas as the location of the project. The opportunities for improving the state’s education system and economy are great. The research universities of the state would benefit by drawing the world’s best scientists and researchers to work on the project. The economy would see an extra $20 billion pumped into it during the project’s life. A vote in favor of Proposition 19 is a vote for economic growth, jobs, and research for our universities. Mark Browning member, Texas A&M Legislative Study Group Heil” arm signals while our band plays? Granted, Aggies mock the Owls’ hand gestures, but Nazi salutes hardly seem amusing or appropriate. Jerri Sosville grad student Bork rejection isn't bad news MOB no match for A&M EDITOR: On Oct. 24 I attended my first Aggie football game. I also had the privilege of seeing the Aggie Band for the first time. The Rice Marching Owl Band (the MOB) was entertaining enough and cute, with their gimmicks and their domino act, their bubbles and balloons. But nothing could compare — or compete — with our cadets. Incidentally, is anyone else offended by the Owls’ “Sig EDITOR: I have allowed Brian Frederick’s past neo-Nazi rantings to pass without comment. But his distorted eulogy to the rejection of Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court requires clarification. Particularly repugnant because of its Doublethink approach (did Mr. Frederick study this method under President Reagan?) is his statement that Bork’s rejection “bodes ill for the future of our liberties.” Well, I hardly think that not having a man on our Supreme Court who said that a poll tax intended to keep blacks away from voting polls wasn’t so bad because it was “just a small tax” is a threat to our liberty. Come on, Mr. Frederick. Fascism should have gone out of style and lost any semblance of respectability long before either you or I were even born. You need to get your nose out of Mein Kampf and realize your breezy right-wing philosophy might not seem so correct in a situation where you are no longer protected by majority- aligned clout! Ramsey Sealy grad student Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author’s intent. Each letter must be signed and must include the classification, address and telephone number of the writer. Co BLOOM COUNTT by BerKe Breathed RIGHT... WRe HIRING 5Cf\&S TV PLAY OUR REGULAR CHARACTERS... RUPITlONd ARE 70PAY... FACT. THERE'S A GROUP OUTSIPE NOfN WHOSE CAREERS G0UL0 ALL USE a ume \ SHORING UP.