Rasmussen Law Offices, PLLC

Aaron M. Rasmussen, Attorney At Law | 1312 N. Monroe St. | Spokane, WA | 99201 | 509.241.0513
Home     DUI/DWI Law     Attorney Biography     Contact Us     Useful Links     Site Map      


Rasmussen Law Offices, PLLC, is a small, independently owned firm in Spokane, Washington, that specializes in criminal defense.  We represent people who have been charged with all types of crimes, from minor traffic violations to major violent crimes. There is no crime too big or too small for us to handle.

The Rasmussen Law Blog

February 21

Human Dignity and the South African Constitution
"Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected."  Constitution of South Africa, section 10.

It is not surprising that in the aftermath of Apartheid South Africa adopted a constitution that was explicitly protective of human rights.  Their Bill of Rights is comprehensive, to say the least. In addition to nearly all the rights contained in our own American Bill of Rights, the South African Constitution guarantees its citizens the following:
  • "Everyone has the right to privacy."  (Section 14);
  • "Everyone has the right to life." (Section 11);
  • "Everyone has the right to fair labour practices." (Section 23);
  • "Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health and well-being; and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations[.]" (Section 24);
  • "Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing." (Section 26); and,
  • "Everyone has the right of access to any information held by the state." (Section 32).
That's just a few of them - there are many, many more.  Children, for example, have the right to "a name and a nationality"; "to family care or parental care"; and "to basic nutrition, shelter, basic health care services and social services."  (Section 28).

Human dignity is both an explicit right and a guiding principle for the interpretation of the other provisions of their constitution. As a result, South African courts have developed an interesting body of case law in which the concept of human dignity is continuously being explored and defined. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law, recently published an article which reviews this topic nicely, focusing on the issue of autonomy as an element of human dignity.

Generally, South African Courts have defined human dignity as the right of all persons to seek personal fulfillment:

"Human dignity cannot be fully valued or respected unless individuals are able to develop their humanity, their "humanness" to the full extent of its potential. Each human being is uniquely talented. Part of the dignity of every human being is the fact and awareness of this uniqueness. An individual's human dignity cannot be fully respected or valued unless the individual is permitted to develop his or her unique talents optimally."

And essential to the concept of human dignity is personal autonomy, defined as, "the ability to regulate one’s own affairs, even to one’s own detriment."

Human dignity is the kind of intangible concept that the law is not always well-equipped to deliver. The law is, unfortunately, a fairly blunt instrument that can harm even as it seeks to protect - it's primary purpose is to keep society from descending into chaos.  More esoteric values are hard to define, let alone enforce. Imagine a law that entitled every person to "self-esteem" or "good will".  What would that mean, exactly? But the law has a spirit, and making human dignity the constitutional right of every person is essentially an attempt to ensure that the letter of the law will not prevail over its spirit. Not a bad goal at all.


12:10 AM GMT  |  Read comments(0)

February 18

Senate Comes Out in Favor of Honesty
The Washington Senate passed a bill on Tuesday that reads as follows:

"It is the policy of the state of Washington that all commissioned, appointed, and elected law enforcement personnel be truthful and honest in the conduct of their official business."

So why has the legislature (or at least the Senate - the House hasn't weighed in yet) felt the need to state the obvious?

In 2001 Kitsap County tried to fire Deputy Brian LaFrance for over 29 documented instances of misconduct including instances of dishonesty.  The Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff's Guild filed a grievance, the case went to arbitration, and the arbitrator ordered that LaFrance be reinstated. The Supreme Court upheld the arbitrator's decision, holding that, "there is no statute or other explicit, well defined, and dominant expression of public policy that requires the automatic termination of an officer found to have been untruthful."  Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap County, slip op. 80720-5 (Wash. 10/29/2009).

Justice Johnson, in dissent, criticizes the majority for failing to "discern the strong public policy against employing police officers with serious, documented dishonesty and misconduct."

Hopefully this bill will make it easier to hold the police accountable for their misconduct.


6:00 PM GMT  |  Read comments(0)

February 17

Supreme Court Set to Hear Oral Argument in Terrorism Support Case
The case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is set for oral argument in front of the Supreme Court next week, and it has the Justice Department twisted around like a pretzel.  The plaintiffs were, up until about 1996, working to help the PKK (a Kurdish nationalist group based in Turkey) by lobbying Congress, teaching and advising them on human rights, promoting the peaceful resolution of political disputes, and advocating for the human rights of minority populations represented by the PKK.  (Later, the plaintiffs would also seek to work with the PLLE, another group classified as a "terrorist organization", in these same ways.)

The PKK was declared to be a "terrorist organization" in 1996 by the Secretary of State, making it illegal under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) to offer them material support in the form of "personnel" or "services", among other things.  This put the Humanitarian Law Project and the other plaintiffs in the case in a peculiar situation.  Their entire purpose was to reduce the violence in the region by offering the PKK a political alternative.  But by instructing the PKK in political advocacy they were committing a federal crime.  They argued, among other things, that the AEDPA infringed their First Amendment Rights to engage in pure political speech, and that the law was unconstitutionally vague (i.e., what does it mean to provide a terrorist with a service?)  So the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, requesting a declaratory ruling from the court that the AEDPA did not apply to their proposed activities.

Not so fast, said the Justice Department.  Offering support of any kind to a terrorist organization is a crime, even if the impetus is to draw them away from violence and into the political process.

Oddly enough, the Justice Department concedes that the plaintiffs have a First Amendment right to join the PKK (Freedom of Association); the right to speak publicly in favor of the PKK and even to glorify any acts of terrorism that they may commit (Freedom of Speech); and the right to encourage their Congressional representatives to look favorably on the PKK (the Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances).  These are all protected First Amendment activities - but if you teach the PKK how to do these things on their own behalf, or otherwise assist them in these same activities, you are committing a crime, even if you are working to contribute to the overall reduction of violence.  A peculiar argument designed to prevent a desirable outcome: the political resolution of disputes without resort to violence.



1:28 PM GMT  |  Read comments(0)


 
Quick Links: