Originally published at customerservant.com. You can comment here or there.

This is crossposted from Source

The ACLU in its extreme ideals of society unravels due process from the reasons
it was created to serve. The ACLU maintains that it is their purpose to ensure
due process and the police to tend to domestic tranquility. I agree that the roles
should be separate. I think the opposite would be an invitation to disaster. The
ACLU’s sincerity in their statement might be more believable if, as we shall show,
they were not so often in opposition of law enforcement. It is generally accepted
that domestic tranquility is absolutely necessary to the process of liberty. What
is often less understood is how the exclusive concern for due process can also be
damaging to liberty.

I think we can all agree on how important domestic tranquility is to maintaining
liberty. What good are all of our freedoms if we are afraid to practice them?
The only liberties worth having are ones that we can enjoy without fear. This simply
can’t be done if a society is filled with crime and violence.

The ACLU do not share these moderate views on society. They have a much more extreme
viewpoint.

“According to the ACLU,” writes Jeffrey Leeds, “there
is no right to live in a quiet or pleasant society, but there is a right to speak,
to seek to persuade, to have unpopular or even stupid views. Moreover, there is
no right even to live in a safe society. The ACLU will work to vindicate a convicted
criminal’s rights to due process, even if it means setting a killer free.”Source

Leeds isn’t exaggerating. One ACLU official Dorothy Ehrlich can be quoted as saying,
“the citizens’ need to be ‘free from criminal activity’….is not, in the legal
sense, a ‘right’ at all (and thus is nowhere mentioned in the Bill of Rights) but,
rather, an essential social good, like fire prevention, or adequate medical care,
or the prevention of famine.” Source

Funny that an official from the ACLU is stating that if a right isn’t mentioned
in the Constitution then it isn’t a right at all. After all, this is the organization
that defends abortion on demand, and the sale of child porn. These are not
mentioned in the Constitution either.

The ACLU’s skewed views toward crime can also be seen in its approach toward crime
victims. The ACLU has shown very little interest in the rights of crime victims.
When it comes down to it, the rights of criminals seem to always override the rights
of the victims. For example, the ACLU opposes the use of a crime victim impact
statement in capital sentencing because it “unconstitutionally requires consideration
of factors which have no bearing on the defendant’s responsibility or guilt.”
Of course the courts have ruled otherwise.

While the ACLU says they have our liberty as its mission, its policies in the area
of criminal justice have only aggravated and accelerated the already terrible problems
of maintaining domestic tranquility. Their opposition to the death penalty doesn’t
bother me by itself. It is the ACLU general attitude toward criminal justice as
a whole that I deem dangerous. Throughout its history it has fought many court
battles to:

Eliminate all prison sentencing from criminal judicial procedure
except in a few “extreme” cases of utter incorrigibility-and only then
as the penalty of last resort.Source

Let me briefly interrupt my list for a little perspective on this particular policy.

In conjunction with their opposition to the death penalty in all cases
this particular policy is quite disturbing to me. It would seem that the ACLU wants
rehabilitation and probation to be the primary means of preventing crime in all
but the most extreme cases.

“Deprivation of an individual’s physical freedom is one of
the most severe interferences with liberty that the state can impose. Moreover,
imprisonment is harsh, frequently counterproductive, and costly.” This explains
why the ACLU holds that “a suspended sentence with probation should be the
preferred sentence, to be chosen generally unless the circumstances plainly call
for greater severity.” The Union favors alternative sentencing and lists
the reintegration of the offender into the community as “the most appropriate
correctional approach.” Here’s the clincher: “probation should be authorized
by the legislature in every case and exceptions to the principle are not favored.”
Prior to 1991, when this policy was revised, the Union said that only such serious
crimes as “murder or treason” should qualify as exceptions. The explicit
referencing of those two crimes was deleted because of the public embarrassment
it caused the organization.Source

Let us continue with the list:

Disallow capital punishment in any and all
situations as a violation of the constitution’s “cruel and unusual punishment”
clause;

Discredit deterrence as a basis for incarceration;

Oppose rehabilitative confinement;

Block all sentencing guidelines that seek restitution to the victims of criminal
behavior;

Mandate suspended sentences with probation as the primary form of “treatment”
for criminal offenders;

Restrict all court sentencing discretion through the legislative process or direct
judicial intervention in trial proceedings-thus severely crippling the principle
of trial by jury;

Eliminate all mandatory sentencing laws;

Facilitate mandatory early parole and release programs;

And, oppose new construction or expansion of jails, prisons, and detention centers.
Source

In addition the ACLU is also involved in limiting the power of law enforcement to
maintain domestic tranquility:

Severely restrict search and arrest procedures even when evidence
of guilt is available;

Hinder protective or corrective police action at crime scenes;

Invalidate airport bomb detectors, drunk driving checkpoints, periodic or random
drug screening, and other preventative security measures;

Prohibit the free exchange of criminal records between law enforcement agencies;

Limit even the most sound and non-prejudicial police interrogation and investigation
techniques;

Institute national or regional bureaucratic control over law enforcement agencies-thus
effectively, removing local accountability;

Severely restrict riot control, swat team, and antiterrorist activities and efforts;

Make most surveillance operations, stakeout procedures, and community crackdowns
illegal;

Prohibit the eviction of drug dealers and other incorrigibles from public housing
projects;

Deregulate and decriminalize all “victimless crimes”-such as prostitution, drug use and abuse, gambling, sodomy,
or the production , exhibition, and sale of vile and obscene materials-despite the
proven link between such vices and serious crime.Source

There is one recommendation that the ACLU makes on how to stem crime: strong
gun control legislation. It adopted its first gun-control policy
in the late sixties which was actually pretty reasonable. For the sake of brevity
on such a broad topic I will not quote it. Suffice it to say that most of today’s
liberals would not agree with it.

However…

In 1971 the Union took the position that the ownership of guns,
any guns, aside from guns owned by the militia, was not constitutionally protected.Source

The ACLU’s policy towards the second
amendment is:

?The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court?s long-standing interpretation
of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the
individual?s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of
a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession
of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is
no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.?

It is strange for the ACLU to use such a dated ruling as precedent, when many more
recent cases have ruled otherwise.

The ACLU’s approach to crime, its prevention, and punishment clearly are not in
the mainstream opinion of most Americans. The organization has consistently been
an adversary of law enforcement. The Union’s perspective is almost entirely focused
on the criminal which makes many people conclude that rather being a defender of
civil liberties, the ACLU is actually the champion of criminal liberties.

Roger Baldwin once actually admitted that he could not in good
conscience serve on a jury because he simply “would never take part in convicting
anyone.” When asked how society could possibly continue to exist without some
sort of penal justice system, eh tersely snapped, “That’s your problem.”Source

The ACLU’s pandering to criminals, lack of interest in true victims, and opposition
to law enforcement are not solutions to society’s burden with crime. I advise everyone
to use common sense, and not to follow the extreme positions of the ACLU when it
comes to preventing and punishing crime.

This was a production of target=”_blank”>Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would
like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing
list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.