Is 30 years enough?
The crime of the century: Slugger Barry Bonds might have lied to a federal grand jury! For this he faces up to 30 years in prison. Sounds like he may get off easy since we simply cannot have people obstructing the valuable functions of government. Chaos would surely follow. 30 years isn't enough.
On a blighter side, the report states that "White House spokesman Tony Fratto said: 'The president is very disappointed to hear this.'" Thank goodness the Oracle of DC spoke. Now I know what to parrot when asked about Bonds and doping, "Like the president, I am very disappointed to hear this."
Comments (11)
It was horrible. I couldn't eat a thing this morning -- just stared into the abyss.
Thank goodness the Feds are here to protect us from dangerous steroid users.
Hopefully they will keep this riff raff off the street, otherwise five-year old tee-ball players might start using the needle...
Published: November 15, 2007 10:35 PM
I have lost faith in humanity. Only government can set me free.
Published: November 16, 2007 12:05 AM
I checked myself into rehab.
I think I might have used too many caffeinated beverages on study nights. If it ain't a crime now, it ought to be. Where is thou, Government?!
Published: November 16, 2007 12:32 AM
Well, these charges are absurd and should be dismissed immediately, because Barry Bonds did not commit a crime, even if he did as the government alleges.
As Barry Bonds has a right to his body (this is self-evidently true), he has a right to take steroids if he chooses to do so (regardless of whether or not they are harmful, which is debatable).
As for the question of lying to the government, nobody has any responsibility to tell the truth to the government, as the government is simply the organization that claims a monopoly on crime (mass murder known as "war" and robbery writ large known as "taxation" are 2 examples). As nobody has any moral responsibility to be honest to criminals (if a burglar asks you if there are any valuables in your house, do you have to tell the truth?), lying to the government cannot be a legitimate crime.
Published: November 16, 2007 12:40 AM
llp:
I understand what you're saying and agree to an extent. But the charge isn't lying to the government, but lying under oath. If someone was on trial for killing someone close to you, you'd want people to tell the truth during the trial.
But "obstruction of justice" is a ridiculous charge. The government itself is an obstruction in the arteries of justice. Hampering their efforts is helping justice.
Published: November 16, 2007 8:10 AM
"If someone was on trial for killing someone close to you, you'd want people to tell the truth during the trial."
The question is, do you have the right to force someone to tell the truth? Oaths are fine if they're taken voluntarily, but a witness under subpoena is deprived of any choice in the matter. An oath taken with a proverbial gun to one's head is no more valid than a police-coerced confession of guilt.
Published: November 16, 2007 9:51 AM
Skip: Good comment and you brought up a good point. The law says that one coerced into swearing something is true cannot be held liable for not doing so. This is known as "Under Duress" and is a legal right.
I agree that Bonds did nothing wrong either morally or legally. If everyone does it, it is not cheating. There could even be a situation of negative cheating if one does not do it. It kind of reminds me of signing the 1040 under penalty of perjury.
Published: November 16, 2007 10:00 AM
Why don't members of Bush's cabinet have to testify under oath in front of congress?
Good thing for Bonds- he wasn't caught with Liberty Dollars.
Published: November 16, 2007 12:06 PM
DonL, if the rules of his league/game/employer are that he not take steroids and he takes steroids, he has cheated the rules. Cheating has nothing to do with the acts of others. If all are breaking the rules (cheating), then one could argue that there Bonds didn't have much of an advantage, but they are all still cheats.
Published: November 16, 2007 12:22 PM
Maybe the president was "disappointed" with his federal prosecutors. If so, he can rectify the situation with an 11th hour commutation of Barry Bonds' sentence. Just like he did for his pal Scooter Libby.
Published: November 16, 2007 1:27 PM
Probably it's redundant to point it out on this forum but I can't hold it in:
Performance enchancing drug abuse control/punishment is one of the cases where the free market works spectacularly well: the private sports association ban cheaters from competitions for years or maybe forever, take away their prizes and so on. There is absolutely no reason to make this a crime, because it isn't: it's a breach of contract and the punishments for breaking it are quite dire I think. Those who aren't deterred by the prospect of ruining the future career AND making their previous achievements null and void won't be much more deterred by jail.
Published: November 19, 2007 5:22 AM