Law and order (so spam)

CM · Post by CM » Mon May 13, 2002 7:26 am

I was bored yesterday, so me and 2 indians friends watched an indian movie with an interesting premise. I know it has come up before, but i was wondering what SYMers thought of it.

It is the good old, police is contrainted by the law theme. In the indian movie, they got 2 expert marksmen to take out known gangsters and criminals, who the police could not touch legally. Through out the movie they were basically doing stuff the police could not legally do.

Now comes the question; was the police right in employing such methods? The police is bound by the law, while the criminals are not. It is thus far more difficult in my eyes for the police to do their job properly.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon May 13, 2002 7:44 am

In a democratic society, we rely upon the police to perform their jobs (ie-"to protect and serve") by enforcing the law of the land. In order to do so with any credibility, they must operate within the law, whether they like it or not, and whether it makes their job hard or not.

If the police do not obey the law, they are no better than the criminals they are sworn to apprehend. If the law circumvents basic freedoms and concepts integral to democratic society (ie-a free press, voting, due process, etc.), then the law becomes a tool of tyranny, not freedom.

The law protects criminals and non-criminals alike. It assumes us innocence until proven guilt. If the police decide who should live and who should die, or who is guilty and who is not, then they become not our protectors, but a mechanism for a single person to become judge, jury and executioner.

Yes, sometimes, the bad guys will win. As you say, criminals are not bound by the law or codes of conduct, but if we exempt police from those laws, they will no longer protect us; instead they will become oppressors.

Jace · Post by **Jace** » Mon May 13, 2002 7:46 am

This reminds me of an American movie (can't remember which one - but there are probably lots that fit) where a lawyer was struggling to come to terms with the morality of defending (sometimes successfully) murderers and rapist that he knows are guilty. How can you give 100% effort to defending someone who is evil and still believe in the system. The upshot is you either abandon morality and just look out for your self, or you accept that the system is not perfect but that the rule of law is what enables society to function.

IMO, where police operate outside of the rule of law, you are in danger. It is one of the reasons I am very concerned in the UK where the Gov't is thinking of privatising parts of the Police force. How do you regulate a police force where the bottom line is shareholder profit?

To end this ramble, I think that the rule of law is very important and, while many laws are moraly suspect and just plain wrong, it is one of the halmarks of social colapse when the police force believe that they can opperate outside of the rule of law. When they can do it without penalty, then the rule of law no longer exists.

CM · Post by CM » Mon May 13, 2002 7:52 am

I understand where you guys are coming from. I don't have an opinion on the issue, as in Pakistan where the police force sucks. Heck private bodyguards are better trained and equiped than the police force, the criminals get away with everything, including assassinating leaders, when everybody on the street knows who did it. But the police can't do anything because there is no evidence or some one is bribed etc. HDL you said in some cases the criminal gets away. The problem is that in Pakistan and most third world nations, they always get away.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon May 13, 2002 8:00 am

Part of my perspective comes from living in the United States. While we have a long and glorious history of police and judicial corruption and graft, we also do not have a history of assassination and private security forces holding sway over our legal system.

We also do not have the tribalism and ethnic in-fighting that characterise many developing countries. The result is that the rule of law is often more readily accepted in the United States, Canada and western Europe than it is in most other countries, where might makes right and the "only lawyer is named 'Kalashnikov' ".

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 13, 2002 9:05 am

If you can find it, rent a copy of Orson Welles' neglected film classic, Touch of Evil. It's a tragedy disguised as a mystery thriller, with a central figure--a corrupt police captain--who shows how precarious the balance is between the zeal for justice, and the rule of law.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Mon May 13, 2002 9:10 am

In think that with not too much effort this question boils down* to 'Is it better for people to do what they want, or should people have to obey the law?'. One should always obey the law, IMHO, because even if you believe the law to be wrong, you may well just be insane...If the majority think that the law is wrong, chances are it is - There are exceptions though, but to deal with them we have to know exactly what is right and what is wrong without any outside reference, which is a very difficult (impossible?) and much more serious question all together. I'd still like to discuss it though

...

*excuse cliches.

CM · Post by CM » Tue May 14, 2002 6:31 am

Thanks Fable, i will check for that movie. If i can find it in europe that is!

HDL, yeah that would be an issue. In countries where lawlessness prevails, does the govt have the right to use illegal measures like fighting the criminals at their own game to ensure the protection of its people. If you don't understand what I am rambling on about i mean:

If there is a weak law and order situation like in Pakistan. Isn't it the govts duty to its people to protect them in anyway possible. Even if that means provide a force which can take out criminals without the need for a rule book?

That is for anyone who wants to answer the question, not just for HDL.

Frogus, so you are sayin rule of law is by far the most important thing, even if it means criminals do get away on mere techinicalities like an improper search not the right paper work was filed in. I do believe some criminals have been let out on such things in the US. Is that true?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue May 14, 2002 6:44 am

Originally posted by fable
If you can find it, rent a copy of Orson Welles' neglected film classic, Touch of Evil. It's a tragedy disguised as a mystery thriller, with a central figure--a corrupt police captain--who shows how precarious the balance is between the zeal for justice, and the rule of law.

A truly great film, my only problem is Orson Welles himself, his acting sometimes verges on the camp. Charleton Heston as a mexican is also a little strained.

I really like it, but it hasn't aged particularly well in my opinion.

@CM, i echo HLDs points on this subject, when the law become lawless it creates anarchy.

Azmodan · Post by **Azmodan** » Tue May 14, 2002 6:48 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
In a democratic society, we rely upon the police to perform their jobs (ie-"to protect and serve") by enforcing the law of the land. In order to do so with any credibility, they must operate within the law, whether they like it or not, and whether it makes their job hard or not.

The law protects criminals and non-criminals alike. It assumes us innocence until proven guilt. If the police decide who should live and who should die, or who is guilty and who is not, then they become not our protectors, but a mechanism for a single person to become judge, jury and executioner.

Now i am going to be chased out of here or something. but my the innocent until proven guilty, do just NOT work. I can give you the Exampel of Mumia Abu Jamal. If there should be someone here who don't know who he is. he is an ex. very active Black Panther, (and offcourse he is black). He was arrestet for killing an police officer. And he currently sit's on deathrow. There is hard proof that he never could have killed this police man (unless he was superman, and could run faster than lightning). But he do not get pardoned, because the state needed someone to state an exaple to the public. He was arrestet and is going to be killed, for his political involvment, nothing else. Where is the innocent until proven guilty here?!. and the list goes on. The law inforcement is the army of the rich. Offcourse i will allso say that i don't think that murderes should walk around on the streets and so. but what i was trying to say, is that the police somehow becomes both the acting and judging power. and that is WRONG.
(im not so good at making myself understood in English, so bear with me, politics are hard to discuss in a foreign language)

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue May 14, 2002 7:07 am

Innocence until proven guilt does work, at least in principle, as does the due process of the law. Are there exceptions? Yes. Are innocent people wrongly convicted of crimes? Yes. Do the bad guys sometimes get away? Yes. Should we abandon our ideals of how jurisprudence should work? No.

Democracy is founded upon a bunch of high-minded ideals. However, it is enacted by humans, who are prone to selfishness, error and corruption. I have read about Mumia Abu-Jamal. I also know that the state of Florida has executed several people who have been later proven to have been innocent of the crime for which they were put to death (I cannot comment about other states).

People are wrongly arrested, convicted and imprisoned in the United States on a basis that is not regular, but nor is it unheardof. This is especially true of black and minority groups. Execution is one punishment for which there is no compensation. If the trials of O.J. and Ted Kennedy prove anything is that money and power talk, and if you don't have either, you're at a severe disadvantage in the American court system.

So should we condemn the legal systems in the United States and the west? No, because for all of its faults, it still the best system in the world, and it's far preferable to the next option.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue May 14, 2002 10:18 am

Here here. Nothing's perfect, and I am not the type to say 'ah well, nothing's perfect after all...**** it.'. The fact is though that the only way in which a criminal justice system which catches all criminals all the time could be created, is a kind of 1984 scenario. If we are going to say that the US's legal system is no good because some people are corrupt and bad, we might as well say that the US's legal system is no good because people break the law all the time. We know that people are bad, so what do we do about it? A fair legal system which is pretty much what we've got (or it's pretty much what me and HLD have anyway...can't speak for elsewhere).

@CM

Frogus, so you are sayin rule of law is by far the most important thing, even if it means criminals do get away on mere techinicalities like an improper search not the right paper work was filed in.

Yes. Because if we then say 'ahh, but he got away because of a technicality!', criminals will then ask us to define 'technicality'.
We could define it, and put it into the law, at which point we have got nowhere because now criminals will just be let out on technicalities of the new legal system.
Or, we could say that one of the defining characteristics of this type of petty technicality is that it is undefinable, and is all down to human judgement on the spur of the moment. Well then, criminals will say 'why has a policeman got the right to decide whether or not the technicalities of the law should be ignored, and why haven't I?'. If we let small technicalities go, the whole system wears away.

@Az

The law inforcement is the army of the rich.

The law enforcers are an army of everyone...although I admit that big money holds great influence sometimes. However, would you prefer that paupers held great influence? Obviously the entire population of the planet cannot vote on every single case - at some point someone must have some power (even mao would agree I think). So far there is no evidence to say that rich people are more evil than poor people, or any other type of people (unless Bill Gates has had it destroyed

)

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Tue May 14, 2002 11:07 am

I tend to share Azmodan's views on this topic....

There are countless incidents of police brutality and abuse of power in alledgedly democratic nations. Simply put, the police are an arm of the State and the elite classes....

Kent State comes to mind.....as just one example....

I do agree, however, that there does need to be some type of law enforcement....but it needs to be implemented far more justly than is usually the case.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue May 14, 2002 11:43 am

People are absolutely right to point out police abuses and brutality, as well as judicial corruption and collusion between police chiefs and city attorneys (both of whom often fill elected posts) to favourably skew crime statistics. The people who often bear the brunt of these abuses are the lower classes and minority groups. We saw the results of this sort of thing in Los Angeles about ten years ago.

My question to you guys is this: What system would you have instead of the one we've got? Stalags? Private armies? Some sort of Darwinian law enforcement heirarchy?

One of the main reasons government exists is to protect its citizens. Law enforcement is a necessary function of government, at the local, state and national level. Our criminal judicial system is also a cumbersome entity requiring judges, clerks, prosecutors and defenders. At each point in the process, from investigation to arrest to arraignment to prosectution to incarceration, there exists a chance for someone to be screwed by the system.

Why do people in the system let bad guys go free or prosecute innocent people? Sometimes it's a vendetta, sometimes it's about meeting a quota, sometimes it's corruption; the list of reasons go on and on. It doesn't help that law enforcement and court officers are public servants who are typically paid a pittance for what they have at stake.

I happen to know a fair number of police officers. All of them are good people who take pride in their jobs and realise that they are paid less than they could get in other professions for the privilege of putting on a badge, gun and bulletproof vest every day so they can possibly be killed protecting you and I. I also happen to know that there are some bad cops out there who look the other way if someone slips them a wad of money (or who will slip national security secrets to the other side) and engage in other aberrant behaviour. However, in the United States, these bad cops are far and away the exception, not the rule.

I also do not believe that cops serve the rich and powerful before they serve the everyday people. In fact, many police officers are blue-collar folks who think of themselves as being closer to the lower class folks and not the upper classes for whom you are accusing them of being puppets. That said, money talks. Being rich, powerful or being a celebrity brings with it access to expedite or hinder an investigation or prosecution. However, I do not believe that there is an institutional conspiracy within law enforcement agencies to promote the rich people's agenda ahead of poorer folks.

@dragon wench:
The folks at Kent State who fired on the student protestors weren't professional law enforcement officers. They were National Guardsmen who were called up to quell several days of looting and rioting in Kent, OH. The students had been volitile for several days before the National Guard was mobilised. Does that excuse the Ohio National Guard for killing seven(?) kids? No, but people need to stop thinking that it was a cold-blooded massacre perpetrated against a bunch of flower-power hippies who where minding their own business on the university quad singing songs and painting peace symbols on each others faces.

The United States is far more tolerant of protest marches and the like than many other countries, going so far as to protecting a lot of marchers and protestors (like KKK rallies) from counter-protestors. In this way, law enforcement acts as the protectors of people who otherwise might not have their voices heard.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue May 14, 2002 1:16 pm

Policing can go horribly wrong, and everyone's complaints do take place all the time, just not in the West, and usually not in (real) democracies.

As a matter of fact, I see this as a perfect opportunity to remind everyone to join Amnesty International (yeah, I know...any excuse...

) Where you can help stop the real abuses of police status, and the cases where corruption turns the police force into a mob of thugs out for personal glory, violence, and repression. How about starting with Brazil or Columbia, before the US's Police Force come under criticism?