Rights, Responsibilities, and Obligations

There is much talk about the rights of people to go about their daily lives free from government directives and restrictions. No one who understands the Constitution disagrees with such a position. But discussing rights without including the responsibilities and obligations such rights include obscures the point.

The final evaluation of the success or necessity of the social distancing, business closings, and other measures put in place to control the spread of COVID-19 will be a long time coming. Our knowledge of the virulence, infection rates, mortality rates, and recovery rates will take time to correlate as we gather data.

Responding to pandemics require judgment calls. These decisions impact lives. Failing to implement a reasonable plan to minimize the impact on people and medical resources can lead to disasters.

Overreaction can have the effect of the “boy who cried wolf” as people discount what they perceive as a draconian and unnecessary intrusion on their lives. When a genuine crisis arises—such as the one we face now— past poor experiences would cause people to ignore it.

We need to base the decision to relax restrictions on several factors.

  1. Our best and considered analysis of the risk of a renewed spike in exposures and infections.
  2. Our experience in treatment options learned throughout the pandemic so far and the demand capacity available in our medical facilities, including equipment stockpiles.
  3. A scientifically valid projection of the availability of improved drugs to treat and a vaccine to prevent the virus.
  4. The long-term economic impact on the country, businesses, and those forced onto the unemployment rolls.
  5. The rights of individuals to live their lives without restrictions.

These are not simple matters. They require a well thought out strategy that takes each factor into consideration in crafting a path back to normalcy.

Yet the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—the famous words from the Declaration of Independence—also come with obligations and responsibilities.

You have a right to live your life, and no one can deny it. But this right does not come without an obligation to allow others the same right.

You have the right to liberty but cannot deny others the same.

You may pursue whatever makes you happy, but not if it denies others the same joy.

No one can predict what the effect of relaxing restrictions will bring. It is one of the most critical judgment calls we will ever make. But we should remember almost eighty thousand Americans have died during this pandemic. Arguing over how we tally those deaths and whether it was underlying conditions or the virus itself that were the cause is an exercise in futility.

People died after contracting the virus. We need respond now, with the best information available, and re-evaluate once all the data is in. Then use that information to plan for the inevitable next one. Assuming facts not in evidence is dangerous.

The reality is, it won’t matter to those who may yet die what was the primary cause until we control this virus. Something has changed in the world and we need be very smart about how we deal with it.

Reasonable expectation of fulfilling your obligations to others does not infringe on your rights, it is a guarantee that others meet the same obligations.

The fact is we do not have a clear picture of the course, level of contagion, or proven method of controlling, treating, or preventing this virus. Until we do, focusing on your obligations to ensuring the rights of others is as important as insisting on exercising your own.

______________________________________________________________________________

Follow this blog for upcoming information on all new book releases. And please share this with readers everywhere. All comments are welcome. Or if you would like write a piece to be posted on my blog please send me a message.

Signup here for my email list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.

And for all my books to add to your memories of great reads…https://www.amazon.com/Joe-Broadmeadow/e/B00OWPE9GU

Advertisements

Miranda Warnings: Why do we name monumental USSC decisions after the perpetrators, rather than the victims?

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested. The arrest was primarily based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of a 17-year-old woman 10 days earlier.

After a prolonged interrogation he confessed. The conviction was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona. The “confession” was ruled inadmissible. A little known fact is he was retried and convicted again.

Every Lawyer, Police Officer, Law & Order fan, convict, and criminal alive knows the “Miranda warning”, no one knows the victim’s name.

Many probably think it was Congressional Legislation that created the “Miranda” Warning. It even became a verb in the form of “Mirandized”

“Did you Mirandize him?”

The name of a (twice) convicted rapist of a 17 year old girl became a cloak of protection, or a manner of invoking the protection.

“Hey man, I know my Miranda rights”

Ernesto Miranda himself died of stab wounds after an alcohol fueled bar fight a few years after his release from prison. On his body the police found “Miranda Warning” cards that Miranda would autograph for money.

Perhaps naming it for the perpetrators is the right thing to do, it reminds the government of their failure to exercise due care in the protection of their citizens rights.

Perhaps, by perpetuating the names of criminals, we as a people will demand better from our Police Officers, Prosecutors, and Judges.

It serves as a reminder of our failures, not a tribute to the defendant.

My original thought was to complain about the naming of decisions for perpetrators rather than the victims.

Then I realized that naming it for the perpetrators was correct, we need to be reminded of the names of evil and the benefit of living in a country that values justice for all.

And why would we want criminals to invoke the name of a Victim to insulate themselves.

My daughter aspires to a job wherein the fundamental tenet is everyone, regardless of the depravity of their act, is entitled to all the protections of justice.

Proud doesn’t even come close.

It is truly a wonderful commentary on a society that can raise individuals who can devote their lives to protecting all.

Those that can separate the person from the principle.

Justice from Justifiability

The ends from justifying the means.

So that is why I know decisions like Miranda v. Arizona and Escobedo v. Illinois are not an indication of a weakness in our system of justice.

It is not a fault that perpetrators names live on while the victims are long forgotten, but rather a reminder of the greatness of our system.

Leave the victims in peace and let the bad guys invoke other bad guys for protection.

If it ever stops, well, then we are truly in decline.