I was thinking of the question within the perspective that we follow the idea that everyone is inocent until proven guilty. If that was true, then doesn't it mean that cops should give everyone they think is guilty a summons to appear in court. I don't mind the current system I just wonder how it fits in with the idea that everyone is afforded the presumption of inocence in the eyes of the law. Jason
With the crazy cops tasering folks and so on, I doubt everyone always is afforded the presumption of inocence in the eyes of the law.
It's sort of a battle of rights and justice. If we didn't arrest people and hold them for trial the guilty would just evade the trial. So we have to hold onto them until their guilt is proven. This is why, most of the time, bail exsists.
Innocent until proven guilty, yes. But, in the meantime, depending on the severity of the offense, society needs to be protected from potential repeats and to be assured that the suspect will show up in court. That's why there's a whole range of possibilities from a summons (no arrest) to arrest w/ no bail, or bail in various amounts, or release on one's own recognizance (you just agree that you will show up) or home detention (house arrest w/ electronic monitoring).
Nice responses here on a touchy subject. A better OP question would be: How come cops often (usually) get away with throwing their government-given weight around like bullies when we have a government-granted principle of innocent until proven guilty? Why aren't cops (usually) held against high standards of professionalism?
I know some nice cops, I have been pulled over by nice cops and not so nice ones. Like in any other profession some people abuse power. -edit-Officers of the law should be held to a higher standard.-edit- Lamb Of God-Omerta Some would agree.
You betcha. Like the saying goes: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The more power one is given, the closer one should be scrutinized to be sure that that trust is not being abused - and not by others who are given the same power. Internal affairs is a joke.
Especially when it's a mob that has that power. I know that the police and government aren't perfect, but I generally trust them. The alternative is unacceptable to me. (Not everyone can afford to turn their home into an armed camp.) As for why it's legal to arrest: People can't be trusted, that's why. It's human nature. All defendants will attempt to skip town unless they are either in jail, or secured by a bond of some sort. And when that fails, we have bounty hunters.
That's certainly an interesting position given that history has shown time and again that the most significant threat to the welfare of the individual is the state.
I don't agree. I consider the state to be the most significant *protector* of the welfare of the individual. The state will respect my rights; a mob will not. Without a state to defend me, I would be faced with the constant threat of attack from anyone who just felt like taking a shot at me, or wanted to take my property (or even my life) - when people can do anything, they will do everything, and thus no one could ever be safe. At least now, there's some semblance of order and stability to try and prevent that. I don't have the ability or the courage to just whip out an arsenal to defend myself. And I wouldn't last three seconds in a fight, I know this. Does this mean I deserve to die, because I'm weak?
It certainly has that potential. They're two sides of the same coin: power. The real question is to what degree the structure of the system is responsible for the behaviours that it then seeks to regulate. The notion of property is fundamentally anti-social, there is no intrinsic link between the possessor and the thing possessed, the relationship merely entails a negative social construct: the denial of the thing to others.
People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people. Remember, remember the fifth of November.... What!?! The 8th you say? well damn. Can we restart this thread in 362 days?
^ We are aware that the 5th of November is an anniversary of the government (king) overcoming the plot of an anarchist, yes? We burn effigies of the anarchist. In our case, both the internal Professional Standards Dept. and the external IPCC.
I think sojourner was referencing V For Vendetta. Which is quite comical, really, since that novel (and film) commits the classic fallacy of creating a fictional government that is so over the top brutal and repressive that it implies that all governments must be like that, which is obviously not the case.
I worry about Jason. As is so often the case, he misses the bleedin' obvious. A reason I don't normally read his threads.
The relevant word here is, "internal." Almost anyone can become a cop. You just need to be the right age and have kept your nose clean. You don't need any education and you certainly don't need to be too smart - probably better if you aren't. This is NOT a group that can be trusted to police itself. Probably no group of human beings should be given that trust but certainly not cops.