Arizona State Senator Scott Bundgaard was driving on the freeway with his girlfriend Aubry Ballard when they got into a physical dispute. Officers were called in to investigate, and they arrested Ballard and took her to jail while Bundgaard was allowed to go.
The two were on their way home from a charity "Dancing with the Stars" fundraiser and Ballard accused Bundgaard of inappropriately touching his partner. Bundgaard states that "she proceeded to throw my clothes and other things out of my car on a freeway as I took her home," which caused the physical dispute. Bundgaard says he tried to prevent his girlfriend from causing him bodily harm, which resulted in marks on her knees. He then said he pulled her out of the car but denied hitting or pushing her. However, it was only Ballard who was arresed and forced to spend 17 hous in jail.
The Arizona constitution states that legislators are immune from arrest "in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace" and grants them immunity from civil process when the legislator is in session. However, Bundgaard says that he is waiving this right to immunity and wants to be charged if he did something wrong.
Although Bungaard waives his right to immunity, do you think that this type of protection should be given to lawmakers? Are they allowed certain privileges such as protection from civil law when the legislator is in session? Is this an appropriate law to ensure that the law-making process isn't hindered?
Monday, February 28, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I sort of started laughing when I read the beggining of Tony's article. But realized how this can be a serious issue. I think it is noble that Bundgaard thinks he deserves to be arrested if he had done anything illegal, but I still think he shouldn't get arrested. I think that lawmakers should be given protection like this, but not too much in fear that they may take advantage of it. I think that making sure that our lawmakers are protected will ensure that the law-making process is not hindered because imagine a lawmaker being pulled over for speeding. He would need to spend time to take driving education classes again instead of using that time to negotiate a law between the other lawmakers.
I have to disagree with Chad on this issue. I do not believe legislators deserve any kind of immunity from the law AT ALL. This law is BEGGING to be abused. Police are usually aloud temporary immunity from certain laws (such as speeding) but that's only because it serves the interest of the community as a whole. What does giving a legislator immunity really do...Sorry Chad, but I highly doubt that traffic school would prevent any legislators from solving Arizona's many problems (seriously it's like Pakistan down there).
I can't say anything about Bundgaard though. I don't know anything about him or his girlfriend, but I applaud him for waiving his ridiculous immunization rights. No citizen is above the law. Not even the President can get away with shoplifting.
This protection to lawmakers is terrible. I didn't even know that was a law. Why is that a law? Oh well...
NO ONE is above the law. The people that think they're above the law are usually the bad guys in movies. Am i right? And then the good guy goes above the law to defeat the bad guy, but then takes the punishment afterward. Or, if the movie is bad, gets released.
I believe that this law is completely unnecessary and should be removed from, well, existence. If legislators are exempt from the law, where did the "justice for all" go? I'm going to have to agree with Aaron on this topic. Although, I do agree with Chad on the nobility of the senator waiving his right. But, that's just common sense. There is an immense amount of potential for this law to be abused, and I'm assuming it's probably already been. Anyone who breaks the law should and must be held accountable for their actions.
Post a Comment