^ But that's the whole point. IAD is not an example of the cops policing themselves. They are an entirely separate division that does nothing *but* that. Officers working in IAD are usually outside the normal department chain of command, and report directly to the agency chief (or to civilian police commissioner). Several police departments also have separate civilian review boards as well.
I trust civilian review boards (I think they should be mandatory) but IAD are cops themselves and cannot be expected to be free of bias. More to the point, I don't believe they can be trusted to be free of bias.
^ IAD are not cops, at least not once they join. AFAIK, all they ever do is investigate other cops. So I believe that lessens any bias they might have.
Because child molesters and guys holding bloody knives should just have to sign and promise they'll show up in court.
Nobody is saying that. What I am saying is the phrase "Inocent until proven guilty" is a lie. Oviously to arrest someone there is some presumption of guilt or possible guilt involved. Were just lucky that this ideolgy hasn't been taken to the extreme Orwellian levels that it could go to if things got out of hand. Jason
Strictly, "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is just talking about how the government looks at them and how society should. It also means it's up to the prosecution to make a case, rather than the charged to prove innocence. That we hold people in jail until they make bail or win a court case doesn't violate IUPG in any way.
What about inocent people though that are arrested. In theory their rights have been violated. I don't think there is any soultion to this issue. You either have to trust a guilty person to show up for court or hope the cops never make a mistake. Jason
Rights? You don't have rights...you have responsibilities. I don't think a guilty person can be trusted or be responsible enough to show up for their courtdate. Hoping for a human being not to make a mistake...nevergonnahappen. Yes Jason, there is no perfect solution to this issue. I had a friend who was arrested, spent time in jail, made bail and then months later...was found innocent. The system is flawed, but so are people. Our "rights" need to be protected...but so does the general public...the line gets blurred and horrible things do happen to some innocent people. I just know it wouldn't be responsible for law enforcement to put their trust in criminals. Do I trust the judicial system and law enforcement? I don't have a choice unless I move to a desert Island or a remote part of artic and live alone.
Only if they were arrested without reasonable suspicion or held without charge in violation of habeas corpus. You have no right to freedom from lawful arrest.
If someone is inocent then doesn't that pretty much lend itself to the idea that there isn't much hard evidence to go on? I guess what I am asking two questions in this thread. How much evidence do you need to create 'reasonable suspicion"? The second question is this. What is a bigger sin. That a incocent man is arrested and jailed or that a guilty man escapes justice? I think it depends on the nature of the crime. It's better to inconvence someone to stop a serial killer than it is to try and find out who stole your tv set. Jason
No, not really. Evidence which seems compelling enough for an arrest can later turn out to be false, misinterpreted, countermanded or insignificant. But that's why an arrest doesn't instantly lead on to sentencing: you have a trial in between. Legally, the answer is roundabout: evidence which would lead a reasonable person to suspect they may be guilty of the offence. In reality, that means something that ties them to it, a witness, their presence where they shouldn't be at a crime scene, something like that. For example, if you come to a crime scene and Mr X is standign over a body with a knife and blood on his hands, I think a reasonable person would agree there is likely to be grounds for arrest on suspicion of having done it. Mr X may not have done it, and he'll have the chance to argue that later. Perhaps he performed CPR, getting blood on his hands, and then pulled out the knife. It would be up to the prosecution to prove that was not the case. But at the time, there was reasonable suspicion that he was responsible. Depends what you mean by 'jail'. If you mean arrested and held for the legally prescribed time then charged and bailed/remanded or released withotu charge, I don't have an issue. If you mean convicted and sentenced for the crime, yes that is worse than the guilty person getting away. You don't consider theft to be an offence worth arresting someone for? I think you might feel differently if it was your stuff.
I think it's okay to arrest people for theft. Heck I think people should be able to defend their property with guns so I have no problem with the concept. I just think there are worst crimes to worry about and i'm not sure I would waste alot of money and manpower on tracking down stolen property. I mean I want them to do it but at same time I am more worried about the pedophiles and serial killer's than I am a burglar who wants to steal things. Jason
No, that would be the "provocative" way of framing the question. Way to generalize police and police forces around a few horror stories you read online. What constitutes "throwing around their weight"? What evidence do you have to suggest that police who abuse their power usually get away with it without consequence? What evidence do you have to suggest that police usually aren't held to high standards of professionalism? There are millions of law enforcement officers in North America and if they were all as stupid, power-mad, abusive and corrupt as some people like to pretend they are on average we'd live in a hellhole. Most cops just do their jobs without incident, end of story.
No, Jason. If they have a bail review, in which a court official decides whether they are low-enough risk to be released pending trial, and under what circumstances, and then have a "speedy" (the exact legal definition of which I don't know) and otherwise legal trial, their rights have NOT been violated.
For Seattle cops it's high school, ex-military, clean record, past the entrance exam and get through training. The last two are the hard part, above average intelligence is the norm. The amount of law and police procedures you have to know to thick, unless your town is patrolled by Don Knotts, the cops around you are most likely smarter than you. Their job is certainly more dangerous. IUPG means just that, you haven't been proven guilty in a court of law. Just being arrested is never a finding of guilty, arrest means you're suspected of comitting a crime, nothing more. Even the smallest community need to have law enforcement, even if it's someone who drives through a couple of times a week.