Where to draw the line?

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

Ok, so the US has the unenviable distinction of being the least free “free country” in the world, ever since the passing of the Patriot Act of Terrorism (which is what they would call if if they were honest). But then I read the paper in Canada of a couple of thugs who were caught with guns in their car after a shooting in a club; they were released b/c the cops, who used some form of instinct (or good ol’ fashioned racial profiling: “hmm…there’s a couple of young black men leaving a club in a Jag following a shooting…”) should not have checked them b/c the tip they got re. a number of cars involved did not include that particular make and colour. I am not a fan of racial profiling and I know it exists in Canada (and the US), BUT THEY WERE CAUGHT WITH ILLEGAL GUNS IN THEIR CAR!!!

And now there’s the case of the owner of a marijuana grow-op who was busted when cops chased two dangerous dogs into his home–they observed that it was a grow-op while there, without a warrant (sorry, violent dogs prowling outside on the loose don’t wait for warrants…). Now, I’ve got nothing against weed, but grow-ops are often run by, or connected to, gangs of all stripes and colours…And he’ll probably get off b/c of the lack of warrant at the time of entry!

Of course this kind of crap has gone on in the States for years (and has led to countless movies). I’m wondering if, subsequent to the Congress having signed away every American’s constitutional rights, this kind of problem (SERIOUS criminals getting off on technicalities) has decreased. Anyone know?

2

I have always been of the opinion that it is better for a hundred guilty men to go free than it is for one innocent man to be convicted. Certain rights must be protected no matter what the circumstances; and probable cause is one of these. The police have tremendous power, and this power can corrupt if not for an unchanging system of checks and balances. No probable cause=no warrant=no arrest. If the rules are bent due to circumstance, it is a slippery slope.

The 2 gents in the car should not have been searched because there was no legitimate probable cause to search them. The fact that they had illegal guns is irrelevant. The procedures the police are required to follow protect all of us from an illegal search. I don’t want to be in a situation where I summon the police to my home for protection and end up in jail for marijuana possesion. (Okay, realistically, I’d probably just be fined here in good old Lotus Land, but I’m sure you see my point) If we allowed a conviction to stand that was initially based on racial profiling, then what’s to stop the police from searching every person based on appearance? We can’t just protect the legal and civil rights of “nice people”. If one member of our society is allowed to have their rights violated, the rights of all our members is in jeopardy.

Outlaw motorcycle gangs are reprehensible and I would like to see all of them put out of business, but legally. In regards to grow-ops, most are operated by those unfortunate souls who owe money or favours to a particular gang. They are made to run a grow-op as a means of appeasing the gang and under the threat of violence to themselves or their families. High-ranking gang members are so far removed from any hands-on illegal activity that they are untouchable. Imprisoning some poor sap who got himself mixed up with the wrong people won’t stop gang activity, he’ll just be replaced by the next guy with a drug addiction or an outstanding debt. Political and police corruption keep the gangs in operation.

I’ve been falsely imprisoned due to my Feminist rantings in good old red-neck Alberta(on the steps of the provincial legislature with lots of media coverage) When the local paper, doing a follow-up story, investigated why I was held without cause for 3 days, they were told it was a “computer error”. In reality, they wanted to “teach me a lesson”, handcuffing me in front of my neighbors,subjecting me to a full strip search, etc. etc. I wonder what would have happened without the media there to protect me…

3

This is one of the issues I have so much trouble with. As your example below (actually, in next post) indicates, police (and gov’ts) can and do abuse their power, no doubt about it. And I would never advocate such abuses. What I would like to see is some stats on how often a police officer’s instinct correctly identifies a bad guy. That is, a number of my students have been cops and they have talked about situations where they just KNOW something is wrong. I believe that cops can develop such a radar.

Personally, I would love to do an experiment where cops are free to “act on instinct” and see what percentage of the time they are CORRECT. If they are incorrect even, say, 10% of the time, game over: no more actions without probable cause (heck, we could make the criterion EVEN ONCE and then game over). We don’t know all of the details of the guns in car case, and I hope to learn more about it. If the cop sensed that something was wrong, I want to commend him for nabbing two bad guys. That’s my take on the matter.

But I’m still wishy washy b/c I personally believe in the death penalty on principle. However, similar to your statement above, even ONE mistake is too many, and the fact that justice is not usually meted out fairly (that is, the majority of ppl on death row are too poor to afford better lawyers) prevents me from SUPPORTING the death penalty. And, as we know in North America and elsewhere, there are too many cases of people being convicted of death-penalty warranted crimes due to shady and incompetent prosecutors, cops, etc. We know this for fact b/c such people often refuse to bend even after new, irrefutable evidence is made available (one sad example is what has been captured in two movies on the murders in “Robin Hood ___” --three teens convicted in bible belt county (first was much better, though the second proves to me, beyond any doubt, who the real killer is–I felt that in the first movie as well, as did many…)).

Gotta run so I’ll continue after (writing from different computer and can’t save it…).

4

I agree, but I also believe that some members do things that make them more likely to be stopped/searched; being a certain race should NOT be one of those things, and that’s not what I am condoning. But like I said in the previous message, some cops I’m sure have developed a radar re. human behaviour, just as psychologists, judges, salespeople, criminals, etc. But the problem is the corruption or abuse of power you refer to. If cops could TRULY be held accountable for profiling, then I hope that they would be more likely to act on their instincts “honourably” and nab more bad guys than red tape allows them to do.

I’m not sure how it is in Alberta (or any other place), but in my place many of the grow-ops are run by good ol’ criminals. Yes, they may be far down the line from the top gang members and some of them do become involved for the reasons you mentioned. But many get into the biz for PROFIT, pure and simple. And yes, many become associated with gangs b/c the gangs find out about them and demand a piece of the pie, lest “something happen” to them, but they know of the risks before getting into the biz. I happen to know a number of people who are directly or indirectly involved in the trade. Of course, things would be different if we legalized pot, but that’s another story (and I read recently of concerns that it wouldn’t actually change anything b/c these gangs would just end up exporting to the States…).

BTW, the corruption also extends to the lawyers and judges of course; once again, several acquaintances have told me about the system and how the right lawyers get them off b/c of connections/relations with the cops, judges, etc. (pissed the hell out of me, but I’m not going to tell them that–I value my life…).

[quote]
I’ve been falsely imprisoned due to my Feminist rantings…/quote]

Sorry to read that. Damn feminists…You’re as bad as those peaceful protesters that caused my hard earned $$ to be wasted on pepper spray, intimidation, and unfair arrsests (not to mention the millions of $$ that also went to protecting those hero dictators whom said protesters were harrassing…of course, these protesters also caused millions to be wasted during Klein’s brother-in-harms Mike Harris’ reign of common sense terror…freaking protesters filling up my tax-run jail cells…and don’t get me started on those trouble-making un-armed native Indians… :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: )

5

As an ammendment to my previous statement, I’m for the death penalty in cases where the person cannot or does not want to be rehabilitated, and has committed a BAD crime (to me, murder, attempted murder, violent crimes with weapon where the victim COULD have been killed but was spared by pure luck (okay, that’s an iffy one), sex crimes against children (not sure where to draw the age limit), and a few other examples I’m sure would qualify IMO). And this would have to be cases where we are 10000% certain that the person was guilty.

And yes, factors such as mental, psychological, and psychiatric conditions should be taken into account, as well as history, all of which make my thoughts on the matter pretty sticky and iffy (i.e., who decides WHAT EXACTLY would constitute extenuating circumstances?). But this is my “heart” talking, not my “mind.” For example, and I’ve had this discussion elsewhere, in my HEART, if someone were ever to sexually assault one of my little girls, I would feel justified in killing that person with my bare hands–and I would not want to go to jail for that. But someone could argue why THAT piece of vengeance is acceptable while a gang member avenging his brother’s murder is not…that kind of dilemma makes such issues problematic…

Just a few happy thoughts while I try to avoid work…

6

how about letting police officers gamble? say you are a police officer that uses unconventional methods for identifying bad guys. why should you be punished when your guess is corect? maybe every police officer should be allowed to guess (and the evidence collected accepted in court) until they are wrong. if you made one wrong guess, no more for you.

7

As your example below (actually, in next post) indicates, police (and gov’ts) can and do abuse their power, no doubt about it. And I would never advocate such abuses. What I would like to see is some stats on how often a police officer’s instinct correctly identifies a bad guy. That is, a number of my students have been cops and they have talked about situations where they just KNOW something is wrong. I believe that cops can develop such a radar.
Personally, I would love to do an experiment where cops are free to “act on instinct” and see what percentage of the time they are CORRECT. If they are incorrect even, say, 10% of the time, game over: no more actions without probable cause (heck, we could make the criterion EVEN ONCE and then game over).

I’m sure many cops do have an instinct for ferreting out criminals. However, you have acknowledged that the police already abuse their existing powers. If they were permitted to arrest people soley on instinct it would only serve to increase this abuse of power. Any person could be detained without cause, based on the instinct of one individual.

If this were the case, anyone who has a beef with their boss, ex-spouse,business partner,etc.etc…has the option of bribing a corrupt cop to arrest them. The corrupt cop doesn’t have to have a shred of evidence…they can just march up to the person and handcuff them. Their “police sixth sense” gives them a licence to arrest any person at any time. Any cop you inadvertently piss off,whether it be in the course of her job or in general society, can throw you in the clink. Use up their 9% allowable false arrest quota, and then move on to real criminals.

Enforcing justice is like any other kind of complicated job, it requires planning,procedure,and logical conclusions based on empirical evidence.

I wouldn’t want my surgeon to operate “on instinct”,I want x-rays,blood tests,biopsies,MRIs, and whatever is needed to conclusively prove that I need the surgery. In my former job, I could tell when certain people needed a root canal before doing any tests, but I would never dream of suggesting so to the dentist before I did a percussion test and took an x-ray. Hey, I was right 98% of the time, so why bother with diagnostics? Because I was wrong 2% of the time…and even that is too much.

8

thinktank and shyster,

I want to reiterate what I wrote above, which is that my thoughts on allowing cops to use “intuition” would have to be tempered with ACCOUNTABILITY. That is, if a cop screws up 1, 2, or 3 times (or whatever limit we use), then s/he would be held accountable (e.g., unpaid suspension, etc). Moreover, arresting someone does not mean conviction, so by the same token, if someone’s conviction record is poor (standards would have to be determined, of course) for reasons attributable to the COP or his/her arrest, then once again that cop would be held accountable in some way.

I think with such a system, we would be far less likely to see the abuses you mention, shyster. Also, I’m not talking about sending cops out on a bad-guy scavenger hunt. I’m saying, there are times in a cop’s job that things happen and s/he has to make a judgment call; in such times–like the two cases I’ve referred to–I want them to be able to act in MY best interests: that is, protect the “good guys” from the BAD GUYS when the opportunity presents itself.

I understand your medical/dental analogy, shyster, but I don’t think it’s appropriate. I’d prefer a surgery analogy, whereby a surgeon is in the middle of an operation and something unexpected happens (as is wont to happen). In that case, the surgeon has to make a judgment call, usually without the tests and consulting and so on you mention. I’d much rather a doctor do THAT than not act at all, and trust that she is competent and ethical (and “instinctual”) enough to do the right thing. As we know, this sort of thing happens all the time, though the “failure” rates are unacceptably high. So if society gives doctors that kind of leeway when life and death is on the line, why can’t we grant similar leeway to cops when bad guys’ freedom or capture is on the line?

9

Hey, stop and think a minute. How many ‘guilty’ people have been released from prison when DNA proved their innocence? The ‘system’ makes enough mistakes even with the safeguards in place. You want to give intuition a try? How many years would you like to spend in prison till they finally decide that an officer made a ‘mistake’?

JT

10

Points taken, but the fact is I am concurrently advocating MORE ACCOUNTABILITY for the kinds of mistakes cops and prosecutors’ offices have made over the years. Maybe I should re-state the situation that motivated my original message: BAD GUYS WERE CAUGHT WITH WEAPONS IN THEIR CAR, LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRIME WHERE WEAPONS WERE USED. I’m talking about BAD GUYS BEING CAUGHT WITH EVIDENCE IN THEIR POSSESSION. If they had a legitimate reason for having said weapons in their car :unamused:, I’m sure the courts would release them…

I am NOT talking about imprisoning people on intuition. Maybe I should have been clearer, but I’m saying that if cops stop someone on intuition and FIND SOMETHING BAD, that person should be JAILED.

11

I understand your medical/dental analogy, shyster, but I don’t think it’s appropriate. I’d prefer a surgery analogy, whereby a surgeon is in the middle of an operation and something unexpected happens (as is wont to happen). In that case, the surgeon has to make a judgment call, usually without the tests and consulting and so on you mention. I’d much rather a doctor do THAT than not act at all, and trust that she is competent and ethical (and “instinctual”) enough to do the right thing. As we know, this sort of thing happens all the time, though the “failure” rates are unacceptably high. So if society gives doctors that kind of leeway when life and death is on the line, why can’t we grant similar leeway to cops when bad guys’ freedom or capture is on the line?

Nope…faulty analogy. During surgery, the surgeon has already performed the diagnostic tests to determine that the surgery is needed. The diagnosis before the surgery is what correlates to probable cause before a search. The police already use their instincts during an active investigation, like a surgeon may have to rely on their instincts during surgery.

The matter is the reasons why a person is searched & arrested or a surgery is performed. There must be clear evidence or a logical basis upon which a person is searched or a surgery performed.

12

Hmmm…good point at the start. Okay, then let’s switch the analogy, which, ironically, will blow up in my face in this twisted society of ours (and the US):

I’m eating dinner and something gets stuck in my throat–I’m losing oxygen FAST and will be brain dead if someone doesn’t act NOW. A doctor comes along and begins to help (heck, does a tracheowhatchamacallit) and must make certain decisions. I’m willing to cut her some slack and am not going to sue her for getting blood all over my shirt as she saves my life. She’s IN THE MOMENT/SITUATION and must make sudden decisions based on years of training and experience. I want her to ACT NOW with the best intentions (and skills) to save my life, as opposed to trying to get me to sign a consent form for the operation, or running to an internet cafe to see if she can google “tracheowhatchamacallit” and make sure that it’s the right choice to make.

Now, the irony is that people have the f’in GALL to sue people when they save their life or help out ("when he saved my life with the hiemlich manuever, he bruised my ribs so I’ll sue his ass… :unamused: ). But notwithstanding those sick, ungrateful, greedy, unethical, immoral, soul-less bastards/bitches (who are encouraged by sick, ungrateful, greedy, unethical, immoral, soul-less bastard/bitch lawyers), I hope my analogy hasn’t drifted too far away from the original argument. IMO, it doesn’t, but I’ll leave that to the judge (or your instincts…).

13

I’m eating dinner and something gets stuck in my throat–I’m losing oxygen FAST and will be brain dead if someone doesn’t act NOW. A doctor comes along and begins to help (heck, does a tracheowhatchamacallit) and must make certain decisions. I’m willing to cut her some slack and am not going to sue her for getting blood all over my shirt as she saves my life. She’s IN THE MOMENT/SITUATION and must make sudden decisions based on years of training and experience. I want her to ACT NOW with the best intentions (and skills) to save my life, as opposed to trying to get me to sign a consent form for the operation, or running to an internet cafe to see if she can google “tracheowhatchamacallit” and make sure that it’s the right choice to make.

Better, but in the aforementioned circumstance, it is a life or death emergency. The police will act immediately if a life is threatened.

14

Save the Life… no matter what the repercusions could be. Life is more important than any monetary value. If you get sued… so be it !

didnt anybody watch I-Robot ? :smiley:

15

Ahhh…now, not to get all “minority report” (actually, Kurt Vonnegut also had a short story about a similar theme…what was it called?), but could we not argue that a cop stopping a suspected killer IS acting to prevent a life from being threatened? That is, research has proven that the BEST predictor of future actions is one’s PAST actions. Thus, if cops intuit that someone leaving the scene of a VOILENT, GUN-RELATED crime appears to be a bad guy and therefore stop him (AND FIND GUNS IN THE CAR!), are they not reducing the probability that he will KILL AGAIN (or at least use guns in a violent crime again)? Remember, this is what happened and this is what inspired me to write my original post in this thread.

Okay, Shyster, I’ll let you buy me a drink to celebrate the airtightness of my argument…there there…it’s okay…it’s okay… :wink: :wink: :wink: :sunglasses:

16

I am very brand new here… but sir, i can sense by your statements that you are in fact quite biased, NO?
Wonder why is it canadians are more worried about american than their own country? Is all you guys know how to do is bitch and nag ? :laughing:

Quite a closed mind id say for trying to pose as a philosopher… tell us what is canada doing about the $8.million dollars they are spending to give heroin leaglly to addicts? this just went down this week im sure/

but we really dont give a crap, think about it… its just more american mind control so we can send you all of our undesireables such as our Gays and Addicts, you can have them anyway. :confused:

17

A few points.

  1. Psyque has never claimed to be a Philosopher.

  2. People are allowed to be worried about countries other than their own. Didn’t Americans worry about Iraq and all those WMD’s.

  3. It is possible that some Americans do not share your apathy.

18

Very good points, GCT.

Also, I don’t know artifact and I haven’t read any of his/her posts (not any that I recall), so I will base my response to only his/her post above:

Artifact,

  1. show me where my statements are wrong

  2. I am criticizing Canada as much as the US re. this matter–stop being paranoid and insecure…it leads to, well, it leads to the 2004 election results…

  3. Not sure about the 8 million for heroin you are referring to (haven’t read the papers about that, but I am a day behind…). But it’s probably what we call HARM REDUCTION. It’s an approach used in many countries, whereby we try to reduce the social and financial costs of certain problems (e.g., heroin use) by trying to eliminate related harmful behaviours (i.e., sharing dirty needles that leads to high rates of HIV, hepatitis, and other diseased which kill people and also cost far more than 8 million dollars…). Then there is the conservative approach: “just say no.” EVERY study ever conducted has PROVEN that this approach does NOT work. For instance, EVERY study has shown that kids whose sex ed consists of being told not to have sex have the HIGHEST RATES of teen pregnancies and STDs/STIs. Conversely, kids whose sex ed consists of PROPER education (e.g., negotiating sexual behaviours such as using condoms) have the LOWEST RATES of teen pregnancies and STDs/STIs. Do they have less sex? No. Do the first group of “just say no” kids have less sex? No. But you do the math…sheeeeesh.

  4. re. Your “gays and addicts” line–>If you expect me to respond to your blatant ignorance (if it was supposed to be humour, then please work on your routine…Jon Stewart you’re not…), maybe you should take a page from Nancy Reagan and “just say no to drugs”…

19

Ahhh…now, not to get all “minority report” (actually, Kurt Vonnegut also had a short story about a similar theme…what was it called?), but could we not argue that a cop stopping a suspected killer IS acting to prevent a life from being threatened?

Hey…where did this “suspected killer” come from? Originally it was just about allowing cops to use intuition in place of probable cause as a reason to search suspected criminals.

That is, research has proven that the BEST predictor of future actions is one’s PAST actions. Thus, if cops intuit that someone leaving the scene of a VIOLENT, GUN-RELATED crime appears to be a bad guy and therefore stop him (AND FIND GUNS IN THE CAR!)

The cops would search anyone leaving the scene of a violent crime, because being seen leaving the site of a violent crime would constitute probable cause. The cops already use one’s past actions as one reason to label them a suspect; it’s called a criminal record. This is a combo of logic and research,not intuition.

Are they not reducing the probability that he will KILL AGAIN (or at least use guns in a violent crime again)? Remember, this is what happened and this is what inspired me to write my original post in this thread.

Again, where did this “killer” specification come from? As well, if the police officer is basing her suspicions of a person upon their past behaviours, this is not intuition, it is reasoning.

Okay, Shyster, I’ll let you buy me a drink to celebrate the airtightness of my argument…there there…it’s okay…it’s okay… :wink: :wink: :wink: :sunglasses:

I’ll still pour you 3 fingers of Johnny Walker Blue…this is fun.

:smiley:

20

Remember, that was the original scenario. Cops were given a description of some cars leaving the scene of a crime and stopped a car that didn’t fit the descriptions given. For whatever reason they stopped the car, they found guns. Sure, I used that example to expand my thesis to other cases, but sensing an opportunity to strike at a weakness in your argument (while deflty covering up weaknesses in my own…shhh…don’t tell anyone… :blush:), I’m going back to the original context.

See above…Oddly, the paper hasn’t followed up on the story so I don’t know the specifics beyond what I’ve written here and above.

Again, see above. But I am once again deftly mixing arguments here (I’m sure some brainy philosopher-type person could come up with a name for what I’m doing re. mixing arguments…I sure as hell don’t know… :wink: ), as the cop in my argument does not necessarily know of the person’s past. She is merely acting on instinct. But the RESULT is that she is putting away a bad guy who would most likely do harm again, based on his history of doing harm.
[/quote]

Now that’s a good start…better than the one “blue” finger I’m used to receiving… :blush: