We expect the police to be like the Lotus plant which lives, stands upright and displays its beauty even in filthy ponds – we each have to excel at what we do. Yet, the police have to deal with bad folks more frequently than the rest of us. Period. It’s not easy to remain different from the bad folks. And therein lies the challenge: bad folks taunt us; bad folks mock us; bad folks hurt us.
write2rest
In my last post about the police, I asked why cops shouldn’t abuse “almost certainly” reprehensible prisoners.
Some suggested I should ask how I would wish to be treated if I were the suspect. Some said there’s a chance the person “looks like, but is not” the guilty person. Some reminded me of the axiom “innocent until proven guilty.”
There’s truth in all those statements, but we can go deeper.
It’s often difficult to gather evidence or find sufficient, reliable witnesses to prove a crime. Rapists in particular benefit from this difficulty. And, many witnesses will not testify for fear of reprisals by friends of the accused.
Yet, we insist that the burden of proof must be satisfied: we insist that the police must not only apprehend criminals, they must produce evidence that the suspects did indeed commit the crimes they are accused of. We insist the police must obtain the evidence quickly, without harming suspects. We insist that the police must protect those who testify about what happened.
We expect the police to be like the Lotus plant which lives, stands upright and displays its beauty even in filthy ponds – we each have to excel at what we do. Yet, the police have to deal with bad folks more frequently than the rest of us. Period. It’s not easy to remain different from the bad folks. And therein lies the challenge: bad folks taunt us; bad folks mock us; bad folks hurt us.
The reason even a suspect is entitled to due process, entitled to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, entitled to be punished only by a duly appointed court of law, lies in civility. Being civil means treating each other politely and courteously, as fellow citizens with equal rights and responsibilities. [Seehere my post about the UN, Malaysia and civilization.]
Civility is a response to dignity, seeing “worth” in people because they are people.
On the 10th of December 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration begins with the word “dignity:”
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,”
The Declaration was issued after the end of World War II, after atrocity upon atrocity had been committed upon citizens both by their own fellow-citizens and by citizens of other nations. The Declaration was one of several responses to the brutal treatment of civilians and Prisoners of War.
This is the first part of Article 11:
“Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”
So, why shouldn’t the police – or anyone else for that matter – abuse even “almost certainly reprehensible prisoners”?
It’s because what I do to others is a reflection of who I am.
And that, I believe, is the primary reason why some of us feel so angry about the abuse of even “almost certainly reprehensible prisoners.”
As I write this, I have in my mind’s eye a short video of a number of young men who robbed a liquor store of a bottle of whisky and the contents of a cash register, threatening the cashier and a couple of others with a parang. In the previous paragraph, I said “some of us” because I saw comments on FB by others who basically said “the police should beat/shoot them.”
I’ve read about the brutal ways of Nazi guards in German concentration camps. I’ve heard first-hand accounts of the brutalization of Prisoners of War by Japanese guards. I’ve read Solzhenitsyn’s accounts of brutal Russian prison guards.
I’ve read of the failures of courts to convict war criminals. An AP report dated 2nd October 1946 says:
“Shortly after their acquittal, Schacht [Economics Minister], Von Papen [Diplomat] and Fritzsche [Deputy Propaganda Minister] strolled smilingly out of the jail and held a turbulent news conference at which Schacht was as cocky and belligerent as ever. The financier of Hitler's war machine said that there used to be "laws and free opinion in Germany," but "there appeared to be neither laws nor free opinion now."”
I’ve read of prison guards at concentration camps killed without being tried, for example:
"The "American Army Investigation of Alleged Mistreatment of German Guards at Dachau" found that about 15 Germans were killed (with another 4 or 5 wounded) after their surrender had been accepted. Two other reports collated years after the incident put the figure between 122 and 520 Germans killed after their surrender had been accepted.
As a result of the American Army investigation court-martial, charges were drawn up against Sparks and several other men under his command but, as General George S. Patton (the then recently appointed military governor of Bavaria) chose to dismiss the charges, the witnesses to the killings were never cross-examined in court and no one was found guilty. Many guards were also killed by the liberated prisoners, which made the issue more complex. Lee Miller visited the camp just after liberation, and photographed several guards who died at the prisoners' hands."
Yet I do not agree with those who say “the police should be free to abuse (and kill) reprehensible and certainly guilty prisoners.”
I disagree not merely because “the suspect should be treated like I would wish to be treated if I were the suspect” or “the suspect looks like, but is not the guilty person.”
I think even “reprehensible and certainly guilty prisoners” should not be abused because abuse demonstrates failure to recognize dignity and practice civility. Abusers refuse to comply with the limits a civilized society sets to authority: it’s the role of cops to investigate, apprehend suspects, gather evidence, protect victims and witnesses; it’s the role of judges to weigh evidence and mete out punishment. It’s the role of the public to be vigilant and respond if boundaries are crossed.
I have a word to describe people who encourage cops to behave like those whom our laws and enforcers are supposed to apprehend and punish: reprehensible.
Let's not give up expecting cops to excel. Let's be clear who’s a good cop and who’s a bad cop.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.