While I compliment the Santa Barbara News Press for running news stories this last year that upset the powers-that-be of this town - in new and different ways - I have a criticism. And, it is a criticism of many small town newspapers/news-websites I have read over the years. In fact, I have leveled the same criticism at the Daily Nexus (UCSB's newspaper "of record") before. A reader in today's "Letter to the Editor" section of the News Press stated my criticism better than I will ever be able to. I would link to the letter, but the Santa Barbara News Press doesn't make that possible as they don't have a website that is free and open to the non-subscribing public. So, I'll paraphrase the letter and spread further the good message that 'Crime Blotters' are typically pure pro-police propaganda that masquerades as news. Much of what's printed in such blurbs is not at all newsworthy. And, what they don't tell you is that cops decide what to present and they actually write the prose. And, you guessed it, each and every blotter advances their agenda in the following not so transparent ways:
1. There's crime in this town (read: you are under threat).
2. Cops are nearly always successful at solving those crimes (read: you need us to deal with this threat).
3. So called "criminals" are stupid, drunk and/or evil. (read: they're anything but our relatives, neighbors...in fact, they're really not people at all but rather allegorical figurines representing what we hate about our own human vices and weaknesses)
4. Cops are ALWAYS portrayed as mild-mannered Ubermenches (or "supermen"), as conceived by Friedrich Nietzche, just doing an honest job and having to put up with a lot of nonsense from the general public. I won't say the latter part of that isn't generally the case but ALWAYS... really??
Strikingly absent from these blotters are stories about police officers arresting the wrong person, not solving the crime, causing a car accident, discharging their weapon accidentally, tasering someone without good cause, losing their cool (which often goes along with doing or saying something inappropriate or stupid), hitting on an arrestee, not really doing much of anything... ok, you get it. In other words, there is no balance in these in these "news" stories. They are, in fact, completely one sided and yet are not presented overtly as an advertisement nor propaganda. They carry with them the weight and credibility of the newspaper or website in/on-which they are are published. They are, at best, "info-tainment" as a lot of the blurbs are presented with a sense of humor (or at least a cop's sense of humor). It's really not that funny that someone was either the victim of a crime and/or that someone suffered a humiliating experience of being arrested and taken to jail. What these propaganda messages cause is a corruption of our justice system. Because of them, members of the public (e.g., potential jurors) form opinions about the way things are out there based on this form of misinformation. They are not at all receptive to defendants and their defenses. The presumption of innocence is hence rendered a joke. The joke is of course on all of us. We who live in a society where the odds are stacked heavily against the criminal defendant, where law enforcement enjoys impunity for their misdeeds and an undeserved degree of credibility, will sorely regret it when it is one of us (or our loved one) who is falsely accused of a crime. Trust me on that.
Showing posts with label criminal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criminal. Show all posts
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Monday, February 9, 2009
Bad Cop, No Donut?
Does the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Herring v. U.S., signal the end of the "exclusionary rule"? (For those who aren't students of criminal procedure, the "exclusionary rule" is what keeps evidence that was obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution from being used against a criminal defendant at trial and, if applied, often results in the entire case against them being dismissed).
Perhaps, yes. It is precedent for the idea that the criminal does not necessarily go free where the constable blundered or, as in this case, where the constabulary erred. The warrant upon which Mr. Herring was seized (i.e., "pulled over"), was entered into the computer erroneously, but not in bad faith, by someone other than the officer that pulled him over. Okay, so what? Well, according to the majority, the purpose of the exclusionary rule was to deter intentional misconduct by law enforcement. I guess I agree with that, but here's the point of separation. When we speak of institutions, we can find intent on the part of the higher ups (such as chiefs, and other administrators), or a more nebulous form of intent on behalf of the entire institution where they have failed to put systems in place which will limit the degree of intrusions into the private lives of law abiding people. Not telling police departments, as the Supremes could have, that their failure to develop and implement systems (through software, double-checking by human beings, etc.) to better ensure that information entered into the widely available databases may result in bad guys going free was an opportunity squandered. Incidentally, implementing such systems would also save a lot of valuable law enforcement time by making sure that their time is not wasted barking up the wrong trees. So, everybody could have won: The general public could have won, the police (in a broader sense) could have won, and an occasional undeserving criminal defendant could have won. The latter, according to the ingenious Warren Court, was a worthwhile price to pay for a freer society. The over-arching principals in force are that (1) there is no perfect solution to the problem (and, yes, to my conservative friends who don't know what it's like to be jacked up by cops for no reason, there IS a problem) and (2) that the American values of privacy and freedom that serve to allow us all to live without a rational worry that we will be subjected to the random and otherwise unfettered curiousities of law enforcement are worth sacrificing a small amount of security.
Another discussion that has emerged in the wake of Herring is: "what else might we do to deter police misconduct which violates the U.S. Constitution?". Here are some thoughts:
1. Deprive the offending officer of a paycheck for every violation.
2. Make the offending officer where a patch on his uniform that reads, "I violate people's consitutional rights".
3. Fire the offending officer.
4. Make the offending officer pay money damages to the defendant.
5. Exclude "some" of the illegally obtained evidence. (Hmmm...just the wrapper?)
6. Make the jury aware of the violation and tell them that they may decide to acquit the defendant on that basis. (That might work...maybe...uh, in a marijuana possession case.)
My experience teaches me that prosecutors, judges and cops hate the exclusionary rule so much, that they'll do nearly anything to get around it. What we see in reaction to it are very narrow readings of the rules, and usually a tortured reading of the facts (a very common work-around is to argue that officer didn't actually pull the person over for a dubious legal reason, they pulled them over for a totality of dubious reasons which, altogether, amount to one legal reason) . The less honest police officers will lie to cover up their violation. It's not at all hard to imagine how that happens. If they were lazy about understanding and respecting the Fourth Amendment, who's to say that they won't be just as lazy about understanding and respecting their duty to be honest (when under oath) and otherwise? A rule which does not burden the public safety as much as the "exclusionary rule" might solve this problem. However, would a cop lie to keep his job? Would he lie to avoid public shaming? Would he lie to save money? Would a judge or prosecutor avoid engaging in intellectual dishonesty in order to protect the cop from these various punishments? I say, let's not bother finding out.
Perhaps, yes. It is precedent for the idea that the criminal does not necessarily go free where the constable blundered or, as in this case, where the constabulary erred. The warrant upon which Mr. Herring was seized (i.e., "pulled over"), was entered into the computer erroneously, but not in bad faith, by someone other than the officer that pulled him over. Okay, so what? Well, according to the majority, the purpose of the exclusionary rule was to deter intentional misconduct by law enforcement. I guess I agree with that, but here's the point of separation. When we speak of institutions, we can find intent on the part of the higher ups (such as chiefs, and other administrators), or a more nebulous form of intent on behalf of the entire institution where they have failed to put systems in place which will limit the degree of intrusions into the private lives of law abiding people. Not telling police departments, as the Supremes could have, that their failure to develop and implement systems (through software, double-checking by human beings, etc.) to better ensure that information entered into the widely available databases may result in bad guys going free was an opportunity squandered. Incidentally, implementing such systems would also save a lot of valuable law enforcement time by making sure that their time is not wasted barking up the wrong trees. So, everybody could have won: The general public could have won, the police (in a broader sense) could have won, and an occasional undeserving criminal defendant could have won. The latter, according to the ingenious Warren Court, was a worthwhile price to pay for a freer society. The over-arching principals in force are that (1) there is no perfect solution to the problem (and, yes, to my conservative friends who don't know what it's like to be jacked up by cops for no reason, there IS a problem) and (2) that the American values of privacy and freedom that serve to allow us all to live without a rational worry that we will be subjected to the random and otherwise unfettered curiousities of law enforcement are worth sacrificing a small amount of security.
Another discussion that has emerged in the wake of Herring is: "what else might we do to deter police misconduct which violates the U.S. Constitution?". Here are some thoughts:
1. Deprive the offending officer of a paycheck for every violation.
2. Make the offending officer where a patch on his uniform that reads, "I violate people's consitutional rights".
3. Fire the offending officer.
4. Make the offending officer pay money damages to the defendant.
5. Exclude "some" of the illegally obtained evidence. (Hmmm...just the wrapper?)
6. Make the jury aware of the violation and tell them that they may decide to acquit the defendant on that basis. (That might work...maybe...uh, in a marijuana possession case.)
My experience teaches me that prosecutors, judges and cops hate the exclusionary rule so much, that they'll do nearly anything to get around it. What we see in reaction to it are very narrow readings of the rules, and usually a tortured reading of the facts (a very common work-around is to argue that officer didn't actually pull the person over for a dubious legal reason, they pulled them over for a totality of dubious reasons which, altogether, amount to one legal reason) . The less honest police officers will lie to cover up their violation. It's not at all hard to imagine how that happens. If they were lazy about understanding and respecting the Fourth Amendment, who's to say that they won't be just as lazy about understanding and respecting their duty to be honest (when under oath) and otherwise? A rule which does not burden the public safety as much as the "exclusionary rule" might solve this problem. However, would a cop lie to keep his job? Would he lie to avoid public shaming? Would he lie to save money? Would a judge or prosecutor avoid engaging in intellectual dishonesty in order to protect the cop from these various punishments? I say, let's not bother finding out.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
It's not really your space...
Now that nearly everyone in a certain age range (16-25) has a myspace and/or a facebook page, it is worth reminding "everyone" that what you put on your web page is available for everyone else to look at (and download), whether you want them to or not. And, it is a proven fact that some of these uninvited guests are people who want to take advantage of you in some way. Arming them with certain information can make it much easier to victimize you than ever before. These surfers can find out (from you) what your interests are, who you hang out with, what you like to do in your spare time, where you were last Saturday, where you plan on being this Saturday, etc. It's creepy to think about, isn't it? They can also easily start a dialogue with you, while pretending to be someone that they are not, putting you in an extremely vulnerable position. Whether these creeps want your money, or something more dear to you, they can't be trusted with your personal, if not private, information.
In addition to the creeps are other uninvited guests. Police detectives and other investigators, at an increasing rate, are visiting your web pages. And, no, they are not likely visiting you to catch the web-voyeurs who have no legitimate reason to be visiting. If the police are visiting your site, on the tax-payers' dime, it is likely because they see it as relevant, in some way, to a pending or future criminal case. They used to have to call or meet with people to gather intelligence and develop leads on their suspects. Now they can get far more data than ever before while sitting in their cubicles; and they might get some great photos too. This kind of intelligence can prove devastating to someone who stands accused of something.
If you are facing a criminal charge, or you think you are under investigation by the police, my advice to you is to take your web page off line, at least until the matter resolves. Moreover, be very mindful of what you leave on your hard-drive. The police can easily get a warrant to seize your computer, and what they find they will not hesitate to put on a projection screen in court at your trial or sentencing hearing. Local prosecutors are using this device to foil defense efforts on an increasing rate.
On a related note, be very careful of what you communicate on the web about sensitive and/or pending legal matters...and with whom. For instance, if you are facing a criminal charge, don't email the police on websites like Question Authority on the UCSB Police Website. I'm sure it might feel good to tell them a thing or two. Also, you might suppose that they are there to help. Perhaps they think that they are there to help. However, they are not bound by any law of privilege or code of ethics that would prevent them from using the information you supply them against you in court. In fact, they might even get a big pat on the back from the community if doing so helped solve a major crime. No one would feel sorry for you, "the criminal", if you were stupid enough to seek legal advice from a non-lawyer (much less a cop), on the internet. Think about it.
In addition to the creeps are other uninvited guests. Police detectives and other investigators, at an increasing rate, are visiting your web pages. And, no, they are not likely visiting you to catch the web-voyeurs who have no legitimate reason to be visiting. If the police are visiting your site, on the tax-payers' dime, it is likely because they see it as relevant, in some way, to a pending or future criminal case. They used to have to call or meet with people to gather intelligence and develop leads on their suspects. Now they can get far more data than ever before while sitting in their cubicles; and they might get some great photos too. This kind of intelligence can prove devastating to someone who stands accused of something.
If you are facing a criminal charge, or you think you are under investigation by the police, my advice to you is to take your web page off line, at least until the matter resolves. Moreover, be very mindful of what you leave on your hard-drive. The police can easily get a warrant to seize your computer, and what they find they will not hesitate to put on a projection screen in court at your trial or sentencing hearing. Local prosecutors are using this device to foil defense efforts on an increasing rate.
On a related note, be very careful of what you communicate on the web about sensitive and/or pending legal matters...and with whom. For instance, if you are facing a criminal charge, don't email the police on websites like Question Authority on the UCSB Police Website. I'm sure it might feel good to tell them a thing or two. Also, you might suppose that they are there to help. Perhaps they think that they are there to help. However, they are not bound by any law of privilege or code of ethics that would prevent them from using the information you supply them against you in court. In fact, they might even get a big pat on the back from the community if doing so helped solve a major crime. No one would feel sorry for you, "the criminal", if you were stupid enough to seek legal advice from a non-lawyer (much less a cop), on the internet. Think about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)