- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I can understand that given the quality of people with whom the average police officer is required to interact, it is easy to become jaded, particularly regarding those know or supposed to be criminals.
I also see a strong trend toward criminalizing more and more behavior, much of it clearly beyond the proper reach of government.
I would like to have a dollar for every time I have heard an argument on INGO based on the notion that 'the law is the law' represents a self-justification not subject to question and/or read the phrase 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes'. It always seems to come down to a final point at which the person posting will declare that the only requirement to avoid unpleasant situations with the criminal justice system is to be perfect to the state's satisfaction.
I have seen arguments in a recent thread regarding the death of a petty drug offender suggesting that if a person gets caught coloring outside the lines, there is nothing wrong with offering that person a choice between years, perhaps decades, in prison for a charge based on presumption with no particular proof of actual intent (and in the case in recent memory, a grand jury persuaded that there was no intent to distribute, hence no felony) and a lifetime criminal record that effectively excludes you from polite society and any hope of a decent job, or being the police/state's b***h with no limits on what may be required.
To our lawmen: You swore to uphold the Constitution, not the will of 51% of the legislature. Constitutional rights and basic human dignity are the right of all, not just the pretty people and perfect people. Where do you draw the line?
It is also important to consider that these questions are not necessarily the product of acting as a criminal advocate but rather recognizing that if arbitrary and unlimited .gov force can be used against anyone, it can be used against everyone, including Yours Truly.
I also see a strong trend toward criminalizing more and more behavior, much of it clearly beyond the proper reach of government.
I would like to have a dollar for every time I have heard an argument on INGO based on the notion that 'the law is the law' represents a self-justification not subject to question and/or read the phrase 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes'. It always seems to come down to a final point at which the person posting will declare that the only requirement to avoid unpleasant situations with the criminal justice system is to be perfect to the state's satisfaction.
I have seen arguments in a recent thread regarding the death of a petty drug offender suggesting that if a person gets caught coloring outside the lines, there is nothing wrong with offering that person a choice between years, perhaps decades, in prison for a charge based on presumption with no particular proof of actual intent (and in the case in recent memory, a grand jury persuaded that there was no intent to distribute, hence no felony) and a lifetime criminal record that effectively excludes you from polite society and any hope of a decent job, or being the police/state's b***h with no limits on what may be required.
To our lawmen: You swore to uphold the Constitution, not the will of 51% of the legislature. Constitutional rights and basic human dignity are the right of all, not just the pretty people and perfect people. Where do you draw the line?
It is also important to consider that these questions are not necessarily the product of acting as a criminal advocate but rather recognizing that if arbitrary and unlimited .gov force can be used against anyone, it can be used against everyone, including Yours Truly.
