The first election I remember; I was in the fourth grade. I was a liberal Democrat. I consider myself to still basically be a liberal Democrat. I am not a libertine Democrat. There is a great deal of difference. The first time I ever voted for a Republican was in 2000 for President Bush. In 2004, I voted only for Republicans. I will not vote for a Democrat until the libertine Democrats no longer control the party unless a specific Democrat eschews all libertine policies.

One of the basic democratic concepts in this country is that an individual is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The libertine Democrats of today have abandoned that basic concept of government. Nothing new. They have abandoned much of the basic concepts of liberal Democrats to achieve their libertine ends. (I don't care what the Republicans believe or have done in the past in regard to this concept--one of their arguments as to why it is proper to ignore this concept. One is innnocent until proven guilty in a court of law.) Of course this means, the suspicion of guilt; the accusation of guilt; the arrest for a crime; and the trial for a crime has not determined that individual to be guilty. One is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law--only a conviction determines that individual to be guilty.

In Tucson in 1999, an University of Arizona football player was arrested for domestic violence. A segment of the university population was demanding that he be removed from the football team. I wrote the following letter to the editor to the university's newspaper. (I was attending school there that semester.)

A crime occurs on campus. I am the only witness. You are alone and in the vicinity of the crime scene. I identify you as the culprit. You are arrested, charged, and booked. Should you be suspended from school until your trial is completed?

I thought a person was supposed to be innocent until proven guilty under our legal system. Being arrested and charged with a crime is not the same as being guilty. Is it the proper procedure to punish before conviction? From what I have read in the Wildcat recently, it seems some members of this community would prefer punishment before conviction unless, of course, they were the one being accused of an illegal act.

As a side note, the football player was never indicted nor convicted of any crime. To have been punished for something he did not do according to the legal system is wrong. But even if he had been tried and convicted, to be punished before that conviction would have still been wrong!