THE LORD REDEEMS
Policy Positions
We asked the question: For those who need to be redeemed, what issues are most hindering that, or else causing them to be redeemed in the first place?
We then produced the following policy positions:
TLR 1
Publicly owned, funded, controlled or coordinated systems or procedures of justice— which includes, but is not limited to, jury selection and jury instructions— should be prohibited from discriminating against individuals who will not affirm that they are morally flexible. It should be illegal for judges or court procedures to filter out jurors on the basis of preexisting firmly held beliefs or moral convictions, or to filter out jurors using terms which may through their ambiguity lead a juror to assume they should exclude themselves on the same basis.
Explanation: The outcome of a jury trial can be manipulated through who is allowed to be a juror. When jury selection is taking place, there is an attempt to filter out jurors who cannot be unbiased in the case. For example, this filtration could be used justly to exclude potential jurors who are tied to the case in some way. However, this same filtration process can also be used unjustly to discriminate against individuals who have firmly established moral convictions. Individuals who have firmly established moral convictions cannot receive a fair trial if jurors who are of the same cohort are specifically excluded. Even if a juror does not select themselves out, they will be on notice that the standard that they are expected to adhere to is that they must not base their decision on strong moral convictions.
Example 1:
Question:
"Do you have any strong beliefs or opinions about [issue relevant to the case- example: “drag shows”] that might make it difficult for you to remain unbiased and objective during the trial?"
Problem:
Many trials are cases which involve moral issues, such as public drag show performances. This question would attempt to exclude anyone from the jury who has a strong belief or opinion about this topic. This includes individuals on both sides of the issue. A question phased this way should be expected to intentionally bias the resulting jury towards morally flexible individuals, or individuals who have less experience with the topic. It should also be expected to discriminate against cohorts who have firmly held beliefs on both sides of the issue. It should also be expected to favor the side of the case representing the minority position, because without this filter the views of the community would be represented proportionally, and with it represented with an imposed artificial balance. This discriminates against all community majority viewpoints in favor of community minority viewpoints. And it should be expected to be less likely to result in a hung jury, when arguably the jury should be hung.
Example 2:
Question:
"Can you think of any reason, personal or otherwise, why you might have difficulty rendering a fair and impartial verdict based solely on the evidence presented and the law as instructed by the court?"
Problem:
How a prospective juror interprets the word impartial is subjective. Suppose the trial is about public nudity at a pride parade. Some prospective jurors should be expected to already have strong opinions on both sides of this issue. They may have community positions on either side of the issue. A question phased this way should be expected to intentionally bias the resulting jury towards morally flexible individuals, or individuals who have less experience with the topic. It should also be expected to discriminate against cohorts who have firmly held beliefs on both sides of the issue. It should also be expected to favor the side of the case representing the minority position, because without this filter the views of the community would be represented proportionally, and with it represented with an imposed artificial balance. This discriminates against all community majority viewpoints in favor of community minority viewpoints. And it should be expected to be less likely to result in a hung jury, when arguably the jury should be hung.
TLR 2
Publicly owned, funded, controlled or coordinated law enforcement, public safety, and judicial process should be prohibited from engaging in discrimination through exemption. Discrimination through exemption is hereby defined as not enforcing laws against certain categories of individuals while continuing to enforce against others. It encompasses selective enforcement on the part of law enforcement, selective exemption in prosecutorial discretion, and selective disposition in rulings on the part of judges. There should also be remedies for each whenever they may occur.
Explanation: It is easy to recognize discrimination in law enforcement when categories of individuals are treated unlawfully. It is more difficult to recognize discrimination in law enforcement, and yet similarly occurs, when categories of individuals are required to follow laws that others are not. For example, if a heterosexual man were to flash a woman in the park they may be arrested, and yet a pride parade marcher may march naked down a public street and not be arrested. Had no law against public nudity existed, we would have said that the heterosexual male flasher was discriminated against because it is not against the law and the pride parade marcher was allowed to do the equivalent. When it is reversed, and a law which prohibits public nudity does exist, allowing someone to march nude in a public parade discriminates against all other groups. Every individual should receive equal treatment under the law.
TLR 3
Gift taxes— which includes, but are not limited to, gifts between private parties, gifts between relatives, and all gifts willed for inheritance upon death or otherwise— should be prohibited and eliminated. These gifts include, but are not limited to, ransoms— which are gifts required to be given for the purposes of redemption. This includes any form of property— which includes, but is not limited to, money, currency, precious metals, commodities, securities, real estate, art, patents, or rights. This includes, but is not limited to, the same which is owned by, or else agency given to, individuals, organizations, corporations, and government agencies. This includes the extraction of value in terms other than “tax” or “taxation”, which may be analogous in some way and yet labeled under another name.
Explanation: When in the course of intending to redeem an individual or property, although the act of giving a gift or ransom by a third party may not be prohibited, taxation prescribed for the gift can have the effect of being a de facto prohibition. The degree to which this is the case is determined by the amount of taxation prescribed. Nevertheless, the property belongs to the owner. If the owner is prohibited from transmitting the property without taxation, then the ownership of that asset (or the part of the asset which is taxed) has effectively been confiscated. This form of confiscation should be recognized as illegal. This method is particularly harmful as it stands in the way of redeeming that which should be redeemed. There are other ways to tax.