4 ms·

The illustrated guide to law is fascinating and enjoyable [1] . For americans, at least, the whole thing is pretty wonderful. There is a whole section on crimi

by jfoutz 10y ago

The illustrated guide to law is fascinating and enjoyable [1] . For americans, at least, the whole thing is pretty wonderful. There is a whole section on criminal procedure. The gist is, the police are expected to cross the line, infringing on rights on a fairly regular basis. It's up to the courts to throw out the excessive or egregious uses of power. Which, when you think about it, makes a lot of sense. They shouldn't step way over the line, ever. but you want police to push hard to find the "bad guys". sometimes they go excessively far and the bad guys go free. The thinking is, sometimes pushing to hard, and letting people go (innocent or not!) is preferable to timid officers that don't approach the line at all. We all want the "bad guys" to get caught. It's whole different sections of government that decide where the line is. The police should push using every tool they have until the courts or the legislature say it's to much. You won't find a police officer, DA, defense attorney or judge that says the system is perfect. I think it's a pretty good heuristic though, the innocent pay a (hopefully) small price from time to time, in exchange more "bad guys" get caught. [1] http://lawcomic.net/ http://lawcomic.net/

alanwatts 10y ago
>I think it's a pretty good heuristic though, the innocent pay a (hopefully) small price from time to time, in exchange more "bad guys" get caught. The architects of our legal framework thought otherwise: >it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever. -John Adams' Argument for the Defense: 3–4 December 1770 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/05-03-02-0001-0004-0016 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/05-03-02-0001-0...
hx87 10y ago
I'd be inclined to agree, if and only if "going too far" comes with its own (judicial, not administrative) punishments, not just letting the suspect go free. Otherwise the incentive structure is screwed up, since the police suffer personal consequences when they don't go far enough but do not when they go too far.
kej 10y ago
>It's whole different sections of government that decide where the line is. The police should push using every tool they have until the courts or the legislature say it's to much. That works until the police start hiding what they're doing from the courts and the legislature. Look at the hoops they've jumped through to keep Stingray information away from judicial scrutiny, even dropping entire cases rather than letting Stringray details come to light. That's the whole intention of parallel construction, too. You step way over the line to collect evidence illegally, but then you find a way to pretend you only stepped over a little bit. Checks and balances only work when each side knows what the other is up to.

by jfoutz 10y ago

alanwatts 10y ago

>I think it's a pretty good heuristic though, the innocent pay a (hopefully) small price from time to time, in exchange more "bad guys" get caught. The architects of our legal framework thought otherwise: >it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever. -John Adams' Argument for the Defense: 3–4 December 1770 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/05-03-02-0001-0004-0016 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/05-03-02-0001-0...

hx87 10y ago

I'd be inclined to agree, if and only if "going too far" comes with its own (judicial, not administrative) punishments, not just letting the suspect go free. Otherwise the incentive structure is screwed up, since the police suffer personal consequences when they don't go far enough but do not when they go too far.

kej 10y ago

>It's whole different sections of government that decide where the line is. The police should push using every tool they have until the courts or the legislature say it's to much. That works until the police start hiding what they're doing from the courts and the legislature. Look at the hoops they've jumped through to keep Stingray information away from judicial scrutiny, even dropping entire cases rather than letting Stringray details come to light. That's the whole intention of parallel construction, too. You step way over the line to collect evidence illegally, but then you find a way to pretend you only stepped over a little bit. Checks and balances only work when each side knows what the other is up to.