By John M. Rogitz

As if raising taxes to compensate for out-of-control government spending wasn’t enough, now the California Legislature wants you to do even more of the government’s work for them.  In the wake of a recent gang-rape attack by thugs at a homecoming party in Richmond, California, the California Assembly overwhelmingly passed a bill putting an affirmative duty on their fellow citizens to report violent crimes or face up to six months in jail and a $1,500 fine.  That’s right, all that simply for being witness to a crime and not reporting it!

As if Big Brother watching our every move wasn’t enough, now we have to squeal on each other too?  I need to let you all in on a little secret: Dating back to the English traditions on which American society was founded, the law has been extremely reluctant to put affirmative duties on people to do something.  We have plenty of laws telling us not to do certain things, but not many laws telling us we have to do certain things.

After all, that makes sense.  We’re a free society.  It’s the police’s job to bust criminals, not ours.  Isn’t that why we established a police force in the first place?  We don’t have to rat on our fellow citizens the way societies in the past have been required to do.  For instance, we don’t have to tell the Soviets that Christians are practicing in the basement next door or tell the Nazis that Jews are hiding in our closet.

Now, don’t mistake my position for insensitivity.  My heart truly goes out to that poor girl who was raped.  I hope every one of those gang-banging parasites gets the death penalty.  But it is law enforcement’s responsibility to find witnesses to be used at trial.  It’s not our responsibility to come forth, we have our own lives to live.  Only after the government has done its homework and initiated a trial may citizens be compelled to testify, not before.

News outlets reported that as many as 20 people witnessed the Richmond tragedy and not one called the police.  As much as you or I may have felt compelled to call 911, these people did not.  But that doesn’t change the government’s burden to produce the evidence themselves.  This is yet another knee-jerk reaction by a completely misguided Democratic legislature.  I don’t think people truly appreciate what a profound shift in responsibility this will become if it passes California’s Senate and is signed by the Governator.

The good news is that, even if the bill becomes law, it’s almost completely unenforceable.  After all, if cops can’t even catch criminals now without our help, they’ll never be able to track down and prosecute witnesses as well.  But that still doesn’t make my point moot – this is a significant shift in law enforcement responsibility, as well-intentioned as it may be.

In order to back up my position that the law discourages placing affirmative duties on people, I researched US Supreme Court cases where the Court examined other laws requiring people to nark on their fellow citizens.  Needless to say, I couldn’t find any.  Want to know why I couldn’t find any?  Because no other legislative body has been stupid enough to enact such a ridiculous law!

The closest case I could find dealing with affirmative duties placed on the citizenry came from way back in the 1970s, when the Supreme Court struck down a Wisconsin law compelling formal high school education for Wisconsin children.  The Amish sued, saying the law interfered with their religious beliefs, particularly the belief that such formal education would corrupt their children and endanger their salvation.

Even as critical as a high-school education may be to success in society, the Supreme Court still would not enforce an affirmative duty on Amish parents to enroll their children in high school because it interfered with their religious freedom.

What’s that you say?  American jurisprudence doesn’t like to interfere with our freedom?  Wow, how strange.

Shoot, the 5^th Amendment itself disallows the government from compelling defendants to testify at their own trial.  Requiring a defendant to testify against himself or herself would clearly be in the interest of justice (at least in one sense) in the same way that requiring Californians to report violent crimes is too.

Those are but two examples of how our legal system disfavors placing affirmative duties on people to do a particular thing.  How are we to be responsible for reporting every act that could possibly be construed as “violent?”  We’re too busy minding our own business and being productive members of society.  Maybe the California Assembly should mind its own business, do its job and stay out of the lives of the people it claims to represent. Just a thought.

COPYRIGHT 2010 JOHN M. ROGITZ