Ahh, yes. It's nearing mid-February and the New Mexico State Legislature is in full swing. This year is a big two month session (barring any calls back to the Roundhouse from the governor--this has happened quite frequently over the last few years), so almost everything is being discussed. I think state legislators think they have all the time in the world during these two month sessions--until that last week comes up and they actually have to try and pass something.

Here in New Mexico, being a state legislator is part-time work. There was a big to-do last year when it was revealed that many state legislators were making their part-time job something of a full-time venture. Many logged more than half the year doing "official duties," for which they are paid per diems and mileage expenses. Of course, this is the way the elected want it. It is truly having their cake and eating it, too. The kicker being that many of the state legislators are also paid consultants for the companies they are supposed to be passing laws about. It's a pretty comfy situation for a private prison to pay a powerful state senator as a consultant to the government.

And that could explain this first bill I'm going to go off about: Called the "get tough on criminals" package by those cliché-ridden elected officials, it is a Republican initiative to send a message to the criminal element of the state--or as a way to keep those private prisons full. I'm not sure which.

Here are the particulars: 1. Cut down on death penalty appeals. 2. Expand the death penalty to cases of multiple murders and crimes against children under the age of 10. 3. Require a life sentence without parole for some violent crimes. 4. Punish people who encourage youths to participate in gang activity. 5. Increase jail time for youths who commit a crime while using a firearm. 6. Add jail time for someone who steals cars as part of a crime, using racketeering laws. 7. Create "drug-free" residential zones, meaning drug pushers would get more jail time for dealing in "drug-free" areas.

Whew! That's a lot of anti-crime going on. As if crime laws are deterrents, and not revenge (I'm sorry, punishment). But I'll get particular. Many of these initiatives seem inherently unconstitutional. Cutting down on appeals seems to violate due process (and if the state is going to kill someone, shouldn't the killer get as much of a chance to get out of it as every other criminal?).

The death penalty (if a state chooses to have one) should be considered for multiple murders--but let's consider the biggest multiple murder crime of the last few years in this area. In the Hollywood Video killings of 1996, one man was convicted of killing five people (and a woman returned testimony for life in prison instead of death). But the case against him was largely circumstantial and depended on the testimony of ex-felons. The death penalty was not sought because it was feared the jury would not want to convict and send a man to death on such evidence. The man is in jail for something like 300 years--we all assume he'll die there--so it's kind of like a long term death penalty. So what does a little word change in the law do to a case like this? Nothing. As for the death penalty for crimes to children under the age of 10--does this mean someone can get killed for slapping a child? Just wondering.

Let me say a little thing about mandatory sentencing (which some of this bill seems to address): All crimes, like all people, are different. Circumstances and other factors should be considered in all punishment. Tying the hands of judges and jury for certain crimes only leads to fuller prisons and more life criminals--once you've been in jail for a long period of time, there is no chance for a normal life. You almost have to operate beneath the law because no one will give you a real job.

Punishing people for something they say seems to be a violation of the freedom of speech--even if the speech is telling kids to join gangs.

As for the adding of additional time for crimes involving firearms and stolen cars, please see my little thing about mandatory sentencing.

And as for the "drug-free" residential zones, let me just say this: Isn't the entire country a "drug-free" zone? Correct me if I'm wrong (or if the wording is strange--this doesn't include prescription drugs, does it?), but if something is illegal, how can you make it more illegal just because of where it happens?

Oh my, look at the time. I was going to go into a deep look at the insurance laws of this state, but I'll keep my mouthing off to a minimum. This state has a law mandating that everyone who drives a car (or every car on the road) must be covered by insurance, but 35 percent of drivers are not. That's a full third of people not obeying the law. Quite a large minority, I'd say.

Here's my proposal. Include no fault insurance on the registration fees of cars, with rebates for those who choose to cover their car with an alternate insurance program.

Matt Worley has paid his insurance company more than the purchase price of his car for liability insurance, but has never had a claim.