DECEMBER 10, 1971
Long Hair Faces Trial
In Present Courts
How much does long hair mean to you? Would you cut it to avoid going to jail or paying a fine?
I do not think it should be necessary to sacrifice part of your body for your freedom, liberty, or justice in the courts. Hair is part of your body, and bow you dress yourself is part of your personal freedom. Just as cutting off limbs as a form of punishment has become outmoded and considered barbaric, so must a system where a dress code is established in court.
When facing a judge, he not only has the authority, but usu-ally exercises it, to request you cut your hair and "make yourself more presentable."
How is one man to say what is presentable? I'm sure he can easily justify his request stating it is to your benefit to be attired in an acceptable manner. A proper impression will assist the accused in obtaining a fair trial (a constitutional right).
Somehow I failed to read in the Constitution the part stating that appearance is necessary in the attempt of receiving justice.
What has our court system come to that we must dress up in costumes in order to get a fair trial? The outward appearance does not change the character of the individual in question.
Legally the judge has the authority to demand you to remain silent and to see to it that you are abiding by the law of human decency which states that you must be clothed and use no vulgarity. He also has the right to make decisions as to the proper courtroom etiquette.
All inclusive, I do not see how on one hand the Supreme Court has made the decision it is unconstitutional for a school to demand a student cut his hair and then turn around and openly suggest it would be to his benefit, if he is interested in a fair trial, to make himself "more presentable," as the judge would see fit.
Who is to say one man's code of attire is proper or shows better judgment and character than another man's. When considering the codes in our courts of law, they are an abridgement of our inalienable rights themselves. An expen-sive lawyer is able to work around these rules, but lawyers of this sort are hard to acquire.
How can young people rebel against the status quo of government, economy, and schools when they permit and openly condone our backward system of justice with their compliance to its rules, no matter of their infringement upon personal freedom?
I see no answer unless it is because the people of America are afraid of the law. Our judicial branch must be the one branch of which we are not afraid; for it was created to preserve the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of every American, regardless. To accept the courts is to condone them.