COM 0314.036 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~I 63D BILL OF RIGHTS i For instance, if a person were to manufacture cocaine, angel dust or what have you, f~. if it's for the purpose of manufacturing for personal use, I don't see how anyone can say--if that be [he will of this body--I don't see how anyone can say that there's a com- pelling state interest to go in there. This language seems to say that it's all right for ' a person to do anything he wants as long as we cannot show that someone else will be affected. So, in other words, again the manufacture of drugs--I don't even know.... li i; CHAIRMAN: Why don't you finish up, Delegate Tam, as I understand your 10 minutes is almost up. n DELEGATE TAM: I'm near the end, Mr. Chairman. I don't even know if this particular matter-- Let me stop with that and just say that almost any criminal conduct will be virtually impossible to stop. I would like to know what particular matters are being addressed by this amendment. The concept is nice; it's like a motherhood con- cept--it's veiy nice. But what is this proposal seeking to remedy? What evil is it trying [o correct? If it can correct an evil that the standing committee report of 10 years ago does not cover--fine. But if it cannot, if it doesn't go beyond that and in fact will only ~j~ encourage criminal conduct, then I would speak against it, CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Delegate Tam. Would you care to speak last, also? DELEGATE TAM: Yes, Mr. Chairman. °+i ~ CHAIRMAN: Is there further discussion on the amendment to delete this section in the committee proposal? Delegate Hino is recognized. {'i. DELEGATE HA'O: Mr, Chairman, I have been asked by my BORSE committee chairman r,~; to speak against this amendment. First of all, I'd like to allay the fears of law enforcement officials and people connected with law enforcement that this provision will make i[ a little i'~ more difficult for the law to be enforced. This factor was recognized during our committee's de]iberations. And in deference to concerns raised by Delegate Chong, we decided in the committee that Article I, Section 5, which presently contains provisions for searches and seizures, would not be changed at all. We left the two provisions that the 1968 convention proposed as is. Ii Instead we proposed that this privacy provision be put in a separate section, of and by itself, to show that it was not the intent of the committee to upset any kind of prec- edents on criminal justice or law enforcement procedures; that this privacy provision would refer to and protect the rights of noncriminals. This privacy proposal, IDIr. Chairman, looks to the future, not to the injuries of the past. This is one of [he few pro- posals in this Convention that recognizes that because of our limited resources in land and water and because of the growth of our population, some time in the future all of us are going to have to gave up some individual liberties and freedoms if we are to live har- moniously in these Islands. This proposa! then alerts the legislature to the fact that when we do have to give up these freedoms, that when the legislature makes up certain rules and regulations for us, that they not forget the right of privacy, individual dignity; that whenever they make regulations so that we may live together harmoniously, they take the least intrusive means to accomplish this task. The privacy proposal is more like an inoculation [o prevent future undesirable events. It recognizes the inevitability of government encroachment upon certain of our rights which we take for granted today. As our State becomes more and more crowded, we know that some of the rights we take for granted are going to have to be encroached upon. This is merely a request for the legislature that when they -look at our rights of privacy, that they look at the rights of individuals and really take the least intrusive means. ' Now, there are other reasons which were discussed in our committee as to why privacy serves society, and I'd like [o bring up two of these. Privacy fosters [he growth of autonomous, free-thinking individuals, which is necessary for self-government. The controls on government, aside from law enforcement, prevent government from acquir- ~j ing powerful tools of repression. We have many more reasons why privacy is indeed another good issue. Privacy is the kind of right that is not lost until you experience it yourself. Most people in high places don't feel that they have a need for the right i'~ :'vea