2
   

Torture by Police - understandable?

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 01:08 am
I back off of beating, torturing, threat of torturing, period, not so much for one case, as for all. Confessions can be false. Twirling on principled behavior here.

I can't tell you how many police procedurals/mysteries, etc. I have read where a little coercion doesn't usually hurt our hero or heroine protagonist's quest.

Still.

Slopes are slippery.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 01:27 am
dlowan wrote:
As such, while I find the police actions totally understandable, I believe that they were a rent in the fabric of the law, which, faulty as it is, I believe is an essential supporting pillar to any kind of civil civilisation, and that nobody may stand above it - and hence the police actions must be treated as a crime.

Of course, if the officer is found guilty, the judge might take into account the circumstances of the offence in sentencing. I would hate to be jury, or judge.


Nodding heavily ... [We don't have juries.]
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 02:27 am
Same dif in my opinion, Bill.

I still think it understandable.

But wrong.

It happens all the time, I believe, BTW. And not just in cases like this. And not just threats. So it goes.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2004 10:21 am
As a matter of law, torture is illegal and should remain so. Period.

As a matter of ethics, I agree with both sides at once. I think the police officer thought the situation was so severe that he'd break the law and be punished later, rather than fail to save a human life. The justices who decided his case were right to punish him rather than give him the legal equivalent of a rebate.

I guess the point here is that laws don't exist to make crimes impossible. They exist to make them expensive. The officer was willing to pay this price, and the court system made him pay it. Everybody acted honorably.
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2004 04:11 am
There is a lot of disagreement on criminal justice. I know a lot of people who agree that it is ok to chop off the hand of a thief. I feel that we should be much more evolved than using barbaric tactics.

I do not think anyone of authority, utilizing a badge and a gun, should be allowed to do anything illegal. If I threaten someone with physical harm, as a citizen, I will be punished by law. I do not see police officers as above the law. Unfortunately, they often are. This is not right by society.

The means does not justify the end. I find it completely unacceptable that we should overlook clearly illegal acts, such as threatening anyone with something as extreme as torture. Using physical threats against anyone is clearly illegal. With modern technology, I don't feel that this behavior earns respect for law enforcement. It does the exact opposite.

There are many alternatives this officer could have opted for and been ethical as well as legal with this situation. This guy didn't do that. He should be fired for not upholding the law he is supposed to enforce.

I'm sure we have all watched COPS. My daughter came to me outraged by police officers posing as prostitutes. These men were arrested when the officer used deceit and lies with a citizen after an agreed upon a price for a sexual act. My teen daughter was shocked. She didn't know this about law enforcement. She insisted that I watch this. She was in complete disbelief that officers of the law are liars and do deceive to make an arrest, especially when they elicited the entire situation to begin with.

If officers of the law are allowed to practice deceit and illegal physical threat, shouldn't this exact same behavior be acceptable for the rest of society? My teen daughter feels very strongly about lying and deceit as clearly wrong. I agree with her, it is wrong. This practice by police, in the name of justice, is shown as acceptable and displayed across national TV. I see something drastically wrong with today's law enforcement, just as my shocked daughter does.

No, the means does not justify the end. A gun and badge gives police a lot of power over guilty, but not convicted, as well as innocent people who are assumed to be guilty. Isn't it in our Constitution that no one is assumed guilty until a trial of their peers? Should law enforcement be allowed to practice clearly illegal threats of bodily harm or lying and deceit?

I feel this behavior seriously damages respect for the profession as well as confidence in our justice system. Police officers should set a better example of ethical behavior, even if dealing with the most unethical you can imagine. They chose this profession knowingly and are definitely not above the law.

We have very good technology today. Modern technology and legal, as well as ethical means of police behavior should be utilized, not illegal bodily threats of torture or lying and/or creating circumstance for illegal behavior to arrest. I strongly feel that law enforcement is making a bad turn today with unethical methods in the name of justice. This isn't right and undermines society.

Police are not above the law

The means does not justify the end.

Common sense!!!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2004 10:32 am
Quote:
Police are not above the law

The means does not justify the end.


I agree totally!!!
0 Replies
 
kev
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 03:36 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Noddy, Phoenix: Empty threats are OK in order to gain information from a suspect? OK, how about this situation: Police Chief is interrogating Suspect. He leaves the interrogation room for a moment and returns with a cell phone in his hand. He says to Suspect: "I have the fire department on the phone. They say that your house is on fire and your wife and children are trapped inside. They want to know what they should do. Now, if you confess, I'll tell them to rescue your family. If you don't, then I guess we'll just have to hope your wife and kids make it out of the house on their own. What do you want to do?"

There is, of course, no phone call and no fire. It is merely a ruse. Is Police Chief justified in using this kind of lie to elicit information?


Since the Perps children are in no danger what could be wrong with that strategy? If the perp is guilty we have the right result- he confesses, if he is innocent he cant confess to something of which he has no knowledge, and his family are in no danger anyway.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 03:38 pm
kev wrote:


Since the Perps children are in no danger what could be wrong with that strategy?


It's simply against the law: here, in the UK and all democratic countries.
0 Replies
 
kev
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 03:51 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
kev wrote:


Since the Perps children are in no danger what could be wrong with that strategy?


It's simply against the law: here, in the UK and all democratic countries.


I'm not sure that is true Walter, I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure that in the USA fibbing to suspects is not against the law, and since I know a couple of cops here, whether it is legal or not it goes on.

Besides if the innocent benefit shouldn't we all be grateful?

I'm still feeling sick over this f****** animal in Belgium who has killed several small girls, if the methods used to put this kind of filthy animal away does it really matter?

Why should we always give the killer the maximum amount of protection?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 03:53 pm
kev wrote:
Why should we always give the killer the maximum amount of protection?


Because we don't live in the stone age anymore, call ouself civilized, have laws, divided our powers in three parts, ......
0 Replies
 
kev
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 05:50 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
kev wrote:
Why should we always give the killer the maximum amount of protection?


Because we don't live in the stone age anymore, call ouself civilized, have laws, divided our powers in three parts, ......


Perhaps we should step back a little to when we cared about the lives of children and not predator paedophiles.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 12:26 am
I appreciate your opinion.

However, as a christian, a democrat and last but nor least as someone, who has done some years law at university, I do believe that EVERY person has some rights.

And that's, how other Basic Law starts:
Quote:

Article 1 [Human dignity]
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 12:51 am
Some of these responses are shocking to me! Are we not innocent until proven guilty in the US? I believe that is a Constitutional Right.

I fail to understand why we do not condone illegal acts of citizens, yet feel deception, lies, and even threatening behavior is completely acceptable from our police. The same exact behavior would be considered criminal of a citizen with no badge or gun.

I guess some people think that law enforcement is much above the law. You will regret the day you decided upon that if you are ever wrongly accused of any crime. Why do you think this is in our law to begin with? Because of past abuses in history. Read about it!!

No one is above the law. Our police officers should set a better example or be fired for any illegal act.

What are you people that think police are above the law, either Nazis or Commies is my guess. Read your Constitutional Rights!!! No police officer has the right to convict and use illegal tactics with today's technology available to presume guilt.

This is not only unconstitutional, but a violation of rights in the US. This is acceleration of humanity. Let's not go back to the Dark Ages. Some of these post are so out there that it is shamefull to the people who died fighting for rights for us to let them be taken so easily, with presumption only, not conviction by a jury of peers. This sickens me!!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 09:16 am
Wildflower63 wrote:
I fail to understand why we do not condone illegal acts of citizens, yet feel deception, lies, and even threatening behavior is completely acceptable from our police. The same exact behavior would be considered criminal of a citizen with no badge or gun.

Very well put.
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 03:14 pm
Thanks Joe! I feel our society is taking a huge step backwards today. Too many people died for our rights for us to allow uneducated police, which requires only a high school diploma, to enable rights to be taken away from any individual.

How much power are we realistically supposed to give police. They have nothing beyond a high school education, at least local police, who do use unreasonable tactics. They absolutely hate it the second an individual asks for legal representation. They do prey on ignorance. They do presume guilt when they very well are wrong in many cases of questioning. They discourage legal representation in order to exploit the rights of the individual.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 03:17 pm
Police here in Germany has always -now- college/university degrees - the Francfort vice-president is an "upper class" civil servant, with a law degree.
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 11:41 pm
I think any position of responsibility and authority should require a degree. It's a matter of who you know that gets you a job as a cop today. I know this work out freak that got to know cops at the gym. I know this guy also. He is a complete moron and should never have a job of this sort. Through social connection, he now has a badge and a gun. This bothers me, a lot. Actually, I find this scary for society.

Given the impact on society cops have, I am willing to pay them more money, but want to see educated people doing this work, not some moron at the gym with this sort of responsibility and authority.

I took quite a few college classes. The most important thing I have ever learned from it is self discipline. There are many degrees that are selective. I had to apply to the College of Nursing. I don't remember everything I had to do, but I do remember having to write a lengthy paper as to why I wanted to go into this field and why I felt they should accept me into the program. I strongly feel that law enforcement should be the exact same way, selective admission and college grads doing this work, not some friend at the gym getting an in.

I got in and thought that I went to boot camp or something even more horrible. You would fail out of a clinical for showing emotion. There is good reason behind this. For example, if I do a dressing change or participate in an emergency situation, by professional standard, your emotions have nothing to do with anything and you can scare patients easily by showing fear.

Intimidation was another tactic they used constantly. In truth, you are going to deal with a lot of criticism that is not deserved. It would be unreasonable for me to do anything but answer an upset family member's questions, problem solve, and remain calm, not fire back acting like school yard children. Doctors are going to be nasty acting also. I have patients to take care of. Any emotional outburst is reason to fire me. Any decision I make for a patient that acts horrible should always be in their best interest, not doing something like withholding pain medication when needed because an ill behaved patient made me angry.

I have the same control over an individual that a cop does, but I have to live up to higher standards. So should they. Cops are not required to, but they should be. I see a definite need for restructure when it comes to education and qualification of police. Ever heard never to take legal advice from a cop? I have. It is because they only know a fraction of the law in which they should to do their jobs in a professional mannor.

Local police do not have any professional standard or training. Those who are not self disciplined will never make it through college. Cops gossip about people they have dealt with. By law, I have to maintain strict confidentiality about my patients. It is illegal for me to even discuss a patient by name to my husband.

There should also be a standard of protecting personal privacy by not gossiping as they do at this small family store and gym I am a member of, but they do and word gets around. You want to know who did what and where, it isn't too difficult to hear it all. People love to spread this sort of gossip. It comes from our local police and flies from there.

I wouldn't suggest to anyone to do anything but kiss ass to a cop who happens to pull you over. There is a law about disorderly conduct, but you are not legally required to be nice. If you aren't, watch out! Our local police are known for charging someone with a criminal act, as they see fit, with no grounds at all only because someone wasn't too nice, but did not break the law of disorderly conduct. They think this is funny. I have heard them laugh about things like this which they see as a bad person in which the law allows them to slip through the cracks. And, so what? Who cares what their opinion of any individual is, even one with a criminal record. They are to evaluate a particular circumstance, not condem someone with thier sense of justice of ill will. They do it every day.

The subject of added criminal charge that they know wont hold water is pretty funny to cops, as a sense of justice the law doesn't allow. It isn't so funny for the individual to have to hire a lawyer over something cops know for a fact will be thrown out of court. It isn't funny being accused of a crime you did not commit, but this information of accusation, without conviction, is on a permanent record which prospective employers get. They actually damage future employment by their warped sense of humor and justice. I would guess that people accused of a crime, but not convicted, have to hire a lawyer again to keep informations of accusation by police not available to anyone, expongement is it called?

I go to the same gym that several of our local police do. I also know the people who own the little store. They think this is some social game. Friends of these officers don't have a problem with it. Friends of cops don't have to worry about this. The cop is talking about a complete stranger to a friend. Friends support friends.

I resent every dime I am taxed paying our local police. Yeah, they are nice to have around in an emergency, but that is what they are paid for. If a resident, such as myself, having no social contact with our local police can go to the gym and get the scoop on everyone easily, I see a big, huge problem.

Local police are hired by social affiliation initially. I am talking high school grads with no further education than make friends with cops here, with absolutely no qualifications required for this job, just a high school diploma is all you need. Once they get their foot in the door, anywhere, they are considered experienced. When they screw up at one place, they go to another all the time. Word has it that our local police chief was forced to either quit or be fired. This information came from his own brother!

What is screwed up is the fact that society allows people of responsibility and authority to carry a gun and badge with only a high school diploma. It is a scary thing to me that people put so much faith in law enforcement. Many don't deserve respect or faith that they will do the right thing by anyone. I very seriously doubt my observations of our local police are much different anywhere in the US.

I have heard enough cop gossip to last me a lifetime. Many times I feel cops are more criminal than the guy they pulled over for speeding that wasn't too happy with them, only to be slapped with charges that knowingly will be thrown out of a court of law thinking it's funny because someone gave them an attitude, but now have a criminal accusation. I also have a problem with privacy issues.

The last phone call I feel like making is to our local police. I know it will be spread all over town as a subject of gossip. I feel like I have to give them a blow job if I happen to get pulled over for speeding. I know they act on emotion, not law that they are supposed to enforce. I want them to stay as far as possible away from me and have access to a gun if an emergency takes place. I would rather shoot a burglar and hire a lawyer before opening my mouth to talk to a police officer. It really is that bad and I'm not joking.

By the way, police do hate lawyers. They are nice, but it is an act. Lawyers will protect individual rights. Police are well known to exploit this. If you haven't already heard, never take legal advice from a cop. They don't know what they are talking about, a lawyer does.

How much money are citizens really supposed to pay? I am already taxed for cops. If there is any slight problem, I will hire an attorney before opening my mouth to any cop and advise my kids to do the same. Justice is a bit expensive!!
0 Replies
 
blueprince
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 06:05 pm
I'm going to refer to a book, veven though it's fiction, it proves the point.
Noughts and Crosses, by Malorie Blackman.
Police officers capture a family, thinking that a member planted a bomb. The elder son is suspected, because his fingerprints were on the bomb case (presumably, he was throwing something into a bin and brushed the bomb) but he wasn't at the house at the time the police attacked.
The father however, was told that they'd captuired the elder son and he was as good as guilty already. So the father signed a confession, merely to keep his son being hung for a crime he didn't commit.
Sound fair?

It's the same principle, if you read carefully.


Also, I strongly recommend the Noughts and Crosses saga. No, I'm not being paid for spam.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2022 at 09:54:40