http://glasses-justice.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
glasses-justice.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2010-03-30 02:19 pm
glasses-justice.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomhigh2010-03-30 02:19 pm
Entry tags:
Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #12, Mar 30]
If I asked each of you to tell me what rights free, law-abiding citizens should have," Alex began, "I imagine the list would be considerable. Privacy, for one. The right to walk down the street unassailed, the right to go about your daily business without undue interference. If I asked you, instead, for what rights criminals should have, while under investigation for crimes, the list would presumably be much shorter. The problem here is that an accused criminal is a free, law-abiding citizen until we prove that he isn't. Whatever rules apply to one, apply to all. We can't waive those laws because we believe someone to be guilty, or we'll do the same when we're confronted with an innocent person who is the victim of unfortunate circumstances.
"Here's an example. Let's say a police officer pulls over a driver for a routine traffic stop. The driver isn't violating any traffic laws, but the officer feels the driver is acting erratically, and wants to search the car. Can he? In most free societies, the cops do not have the right to search citizens sheerly based on whim. If a society did allow that, there would be nothing to stop a police officer with entirely too much free time from conducting nightly raids on any house he likes, and arresting the owners if he can find anything illegal. If that goes against your notion of fairness, then your society shouldn't allow the cop to open the trunk of the suspect's car. And should rule that if he does open that trunk, whatever he finds is inadmissible in a court of law. No matter if it's a pound of street drugs or a dead body.
"You could, when writing those rules, allow for strong exceptions. One being probable cause: if the driver is covered in blood and has a weapon on the passenger seat, a reasonable person would assume a crime has taken place, and the officer would be free to search. Another common exception is exigent circumstances. Leaving our roadside example for a moment: if a cop hears shots fired inside a house, there is an underlying assumption that someone has been fired upon, which means acting immediately could save a life.
"Let's try another situation. Your society believes that it is wrong for any government to lock up a person in secret, while committing no real offense, and leave that person in a basement dungeon awaiting a 'trial' that will never come. So your society sets rules that says all suspects must be publicly charged, have public trials, and those trials must take place in a reasonable time period after the arrest. What happens when your police officers are confronted with a subject that they believe to be guilty -- in the absence of compelling proof -- and that subject is attempting to leave your country? Can the cops arrest and detain him long enough to investigate the charges? If a town undergoes a serious crime wave, and the courts are flooded with cases, what happens when the judicial system can't try all of those defendants within that reasonable time period?"
Alex lifted her shoulders. "In my former job as a prosecutor, I dealt closely with cops. Many of them aren't fond of lawyers: they think we needlessly complicate everything. They believe we stand for the rights of the criminal. In my view, I stand for the rights of all citizens -- but the acid test of those rights will generally involve a criminal, trying to escape justice for his crimes. Like everything else we've talked about this term, it's a balancing act. Where should we draw those lines?"
"Here's an example. Let's say a police officer pulls over a driver for a routine traffic stop. The driver isn't violating any traffic laws, but the officer feels the driver is acting erratically, and wants to search the car. Can he? In most free societies, the cops do not have the right to search citizens sheerly based on whim. If a society did allow that, there would be nothing to stop a police officer with entirely too much free time from conducting nightly raids on any house he likes, and arresting the owners if he can find anything illegal. If that goes against your notion of fairness, then your society shouldn't allow the cop to open the trunk of the suspect's car. And should rule that if he does open that trunk, whatever he finds is inadmissible in a court of law. No matter if it's a pound of street drugs or a dead body.
"You could, when writing those rules, allow for strong exceptions. One being probable cause: if the driver is covered in blood and has a weapon on the passenger seat, a reasonable person would assume a crime has taken place, and the officer would be free to search. Another common exception is exigent circumstances. Leaving our roadside example for a moment: if a cop hears shots fired inside a house, there is an underlying assumption that someone has been fired upon, which means acting immediately could save a life.
"Let's try another situation. Your society believes that it is wrong for any government to lock up a person in secret, while committing no real offense, and leave that person in a basement dungeon awaiting a 'trial' that will never come. So your society sets rules that says all suspects must be publicly charged, have public trials, and those trials must take place in a reasonable time period after the arrest. What happens when your police officers are confronted with a subject that they believe to be guilty -- in the absence of compelling proof -- and that subject is attempting to leave your country? Can the cops arrest and detain him long enough to investigate the charges? If a town undergoes a serious crime wave, and the courts are flooded with cases, what happens when the judicial system can't try all of those defendants within that reasonable time period?"
Alex lifted her shoulders. "In my former job as a prosecutor, I dealt closely with cops. Many of them aren't fond of lawyers: they think we needlessly complicate everything. They believe we stand for the rights of the criminal. In my view, I stand for the rights of all citizens -- but the acid test of those rights will generally involve a criminal, trying to escape justice for his crimes. Like everything else we've talked about this term, it's a balancing act. Where should we draw those lines?"
Discussion - Specific Examples - JST12
Re: Discussion - Specific Examples - JST12
He thought some more. "But... a suspect shouldn't be allowed to leave the country. Because if they're guilty they could go somewhere with different laws and then not have to come back."
Re: Discussion - Specific Examples - JST12
Re: Discussion - Specific Examples - JST12