Constitutional comparisons

The intense debate about the Sandy Hook killings rages on.  Liberals are screaming about gun control, conservatives push back that gun control isn't the issue.  Somewhere in the middle lies the answer. 

One argument that's being trotted out by liberals is especially enlightening.  Comparisons are being made with gun control laws in other countries and the relative scarcity of deaths by guns in those countries.  Critics of gun control point to countries like Switzerland, Australia and Japan and cite comparatively small numbers of deaths by guns.  Statistics don't lie, even if they can be made to support whatever argument one likes.

But at the root of this liberal usage of comparative analysis is cognitive dissonance.  When recourse to this line of reasoning is made, wide gaps in the reasoning begin to shine through.  Liberals want to use foreign laws and statistics to repeal the Second Amendment.  The slippery slope that that starts is scarier than they realize.

If we can use comparative analysis with foreign laws and statistics to repeal the Second Amendment, why can't we use it to repeal the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment?  Instead of having an unfettered right to speech, let's say that we employ a version of the British Official Secrets Act, where the government can come in and suppress speech because national secrets might be compromised.  Or, as the British are wont to use it, to suppress speech because the speech may be embarrassing to the government.  What if such a movement had been used to repeal the First Amendment prior to Watergate?  Would the nefarious actions of Nixon's bagmen been revealed?

How about the Fourth Amendment?  Shall we use other nation's laws and statistics to solve crimes to run roughshod over individuals' rights in the name of solving crimes?  In so doing, shall we overlook the abuses that may very well arise from this unfettered governmental power?

The Sixth Amendment mandates speedy trials, including the rights to be notified of the accusation, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel.  Liberals rail when mention is made of doing away with the Miranda warning, which stems from the Sixth Amendment.  Both Miranda and Escobedo had their convictions thrown out because their Sixth Amendment rights were deemed to have been violated.  Other countries now have variations of the Miranda warnings, but only recently. 

In the same vein, accused criminals are presumed guilty and must prove their innocence.  That would make the prosecutors' jobs much easier.  Should we adopt that approach as well?

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment.  Should we adopt the Turkish use of the bastinado and allow people to be beaten by prison guards in jails? 

The problem with adopting other countries' legal practices and using their statistics to justify their adoption is that it leads us to the slippery slope of adjusting our Constitution to meet the legal standards of other countries.  Sometimes there are things we can adapt to our legal standards that originate in other countries, but many times other countries' legal standards are not nearly as finely tuned as our standards are.

My position on gun control remains unchanged:  Make it more difficult for criminals and people with mental disabilities to obtain and use guns.  Don't punish lawful gunowners for the actions of those who will not or cannot abide by the law.  Once you do that, all our other freedoms are in jeopardy.

(c) 2012 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles