Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't laugh, the empire state building owners refuse to honor Mother Theresa with the lights because they claim she's a destructive force. I'm not kidding
some ... don't have the right ... personality ... self-discipline and self-constraint
That's the same for every profession & every group of people. Humans are fallible.
Quote:
Any ... quota system mandating a set number of summonses or arrests per time period (i.e., per day or per week) needs to be eliminated by law.
Quotas have been renamed 'performance standards'. A surprising number of officers do little or no police work, unless a sergeant is standing over them, something that s/he would prefer not to be doing. Some officers are overzealous. "He'd give his own mother a ticket." We need a happy medium.
Quote:
I believe in a very, very strong, iron-fisted response to true criminality.
Easier said than done. Draconian laws backfire. Drug mules got 15-year sentences under the Rockefeller Drug Laws, while dealers who were not carrying the drugs skated.
Quote:
We can't have officers on the take to any degree
Agreed. We should also not have any lawyers, judges or politicians on the take, businessmen who cheat their customers or the tax man, slumlords, etc.
Quote:
an officer ... is supposed to represent the system of laws as formulated by the COURTS and the JUDICIARY and POLITICAL SYSTEM of our society, and the rules and laws by which you are supposed to operate within are not to be made up by yourselves but are drawn up by the justice system and political system.
I wish the system of laws worked as well as you seem to think it does. Nothing drives rookies to despair more than good arrests dismissed by a lazy ADA or a biased judge, or a repeat offended released from jail or given probation, only to resume a life of crime. Eventually, they become used to it, then cynical. Some decide to impose street justice.
Quote:
I ... support ... wholesale surveillance of all members and institutions of our society
If we are a nation of laws, this is contrary to basic concepts of freedom.
Quote:
I even support "stop & frisk". ... I will not support ... criminal ... behavior on the part of law enforcement itself.
How about, if surveillance and S&F are made illegal?
Quote:
some posters in this thread ... always ... defend ALL their fellow officers
There are others who always attack police, no matter the circumstances. It evens out.
Quote:
You wouldn't defend those behaviors ... if they were committed against yourselves ... your family ... or friends ... yet you'll ... look the other way when it is done ... by your fellow officers ... against some members of the public?
Many police shows & movies feature a popular character who works outside the rules of the dept. People seem to love Dirty Harry. It extends beyond police work. http://deathwishfiles.com/Death%20Wish%2021.JPG
Quote:
Criminality on anyone’s part is not to be defended but condemned and fought against.
Do you understand the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibita? Malum in se - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A major area for corruption is vice: activities that many do, but won't openly admit. Gambling was evil. Now we have casinos & the lottery. Prostitution was awful, now there are bunny ranches & 'massage' ads. Liquor was banned by the Constitution. Prohibition encouraged more corruption than ever. Drugs were once legal, than made illegal, now some are legalized again, or available if you pay a doctor & a pharmacist. Homosexuality. etc.
Last edited by bigjake54; 10-28-2014 at 02:20 PM..
That's the same for every profession & every group of people. Humans are fallible.
Quotas have been renamed 'performance standards'. A surprising number of officers do little or no police work, unless a sergeant is standing over them, something that s/he would prefer not to be doing. Some officers are overzealous. "He'd give his own mother a ticket." We need a happy medium.
Easier said than done. Draconian laws backfire. Drug mules got 15-year sentences under the Rockefeller Drug Laws, while dealers who were not carrying the drugs skated.
Agreed. We should also not have any lawyers, judges or politicians on the take, businessmen who cheat their customers or the tax man, slumlords, etc.
I wish the system of laws worked as well as you seem to think it does. Nothing drives rookies to despair more than good arrests dismissed by a lazy ADA or a biased judge, or a repeat offended released from jail or given probation, only to resume a life of crime. Eventually, they become used to it, then cynical. Some decide to impose street justice.
If we are a nation of laws, this is contrary to basic concepts of freedom.
How about, if surveillance and S&F are made illegal?
There are others who always attack police, no matter the circumstances. It evens out.
Many police shows & movies feature a popular character who works outside the rules of the dept. People seem to love Dirty Harry. It extends beyond police work. http://deathwishfiles.com/Death%20Wish%2021.JPG
Do you understand the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibita? Malum in se - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A major area for corruption is vice: activities that many do, but won't openly admit. Gambling was evil. Now we have casinos & the lottery. Prostitution was awful, now there are bunny ranches & 'massage' ads. Liquor was banned by the Constitution. Prohibition encouraged more corruption than ever. Drugs were once legal, than made illegal, now some are legalized again, or available if you pay a doctor & a pharmacist. Homosexuality. etc.
A somewhat long-ish response on my part, but everything can't always be addressed reasonably and be done justice by always putting it all very short and brief (unfortunately):
I'm only talking about true indeniable crimes (i.e., malum in se) . . . that is, crimes against persons or property which are evil by their very nature. That is, truly vicitimizing crimes (e.g, those which perpetuate violence, which oppress or subjugate others, which involve robbery or theft or vandalism or destruction of property, acts of terror, gangsterism, hooliganism, and so on). Not those things which are or have previously been called "crimes" on paper but are really "victimless" or of "debatable victimizing status" (i.e., malum prohibitum).
Example: Should offering someone of legal age and legal status money to have sexual relations with you to be considered a crime? Or rather shold it just be deemed as a private matter or transaction between two adult individuals? Of course now, if it involves abduction and subjugation of persons to serve as prostitutes or sexual slaves and involves third parties such as pimps, criminal syndicates, human traffickers and slavery rings and the like, then obviously that is inherently criminal. Or even if just only two persons (e.g., an adult man and an adult woman) and it ever entails the perpetuation of force or violence or the violation of another's free will, then that is another matter and should be deemed an obvious crime and should have with severe penalties.
Why should gambling have ever been considered illegal? If you want to do it, do it . . . and if you don't want to do it, don't do it.
Why should drinking have ever been considered illegal? It is not the act of drinking itself that is wrong (though perhaps foolish in my own eyes, as I haver never been a drinker nor drugger) but the wrong is with what sometimes occurs with those who drink (e.g., driving under the influence). THAT (e.g., drunk driving) should be a crime and with severe penalties.
Let's replace my use of the phrase "iron-fisted" with "tough, no-nonsense" (or, in certain cirumstances, even "tough, no-nonsense, take no prisoners"). For instance, Rudy Giuliani's approach to cleaning up NYC of its high criminality and its quality-of-life challenges. We need such an approach designed into the system nationwide from the very top down to the very bottom in dealing with organized crime/gangs/syndicates/slavery rings, with perpetuators of violence and of terror, with street crime, with home invasions, and so on . . . yet it goes without saying that the police on all levels of government need to be well-trained in how they take a "tough, no-nonsense approach" without at times going way overboard where it isn't warranted or not quite warranted (i.e., they need to be able to not see every situation they encounter as "pure black and white" as to how they approach the situation but also see all the shades of gray and even see of the other colors of the color spectrum). None of these "malum in se" behaviors or deeds would be debatable as to their criminality (i.e., never ever ever will our society ever deem that these behaviors or deeds are acceptable or tolerable and therefore decriminalize them). Whereas deeming homosexuality or interracial marriage or alcohol consumption or gambling and the like as a "crime" was spurious from the start. So, for example, while I personally deplore drinking and drug-taking and am not into gambling, they don't need to be criminalized but just managed and watched over.
It would seem that, for such a "tough, no-nonsense" approach to true criminality to be successful all-in-all, it would have to be as a result of a wholesale redesign of our criminal justice system from the very top down to the very bottom. So therefore, for instance, it can hopefully minimize, if not nearly eliminate, the likelihoods of "good arrests being dismissed by a lazy ADA or a biased judge, or a repeat offender released from jail or given probation, only to resume a life of crime" . . . or such occurrences will hopefully be kept at a minimum or will be a lark if they ever occur. For instance, those who perpetuate street crime and/or terror as a way-of-life (e.g, the street gangs and syndicates, terror groups or lone-wolf terrorists, human traffickers) need to all be deemed as "enemy combatants" (i.e., those who act like "the enemy within" in our society) and dealt with like we deal with foreign terrer groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. That is, a "take-no-prisoners" approach. After all, these criminal elements don't "play by the rules" but rather throw out any and all rules. By-and-large, they can't be bargained with; they are like walking, living, breathing "Terminators" who just can't be reasoned with or rehabilitated. They need to be taken out of commission (like the Navy Seals went in and took out Osama Bin Laden). That is what I mean by what I earlier called "iron-fisted" but perhaps we can call it "a truly tough, no-nonsense approach".
You said "I wish the system of laws worked as well as you seem to think it does" I don't think it works well; I think it needs to be made to work well by a systematic top-to-bottom redesign . . . and not just in New York City or New York State but nationwide.
So you see, I most certainly am gung-ho on dealing with true undeniable criminality (i.e., malum in se). I am most certainly no apologist for the criminal element in our society but quite the contrary. And yet this also includes not tolerating criminality on the part of the law enforcement and criminal justice community and all its individual members and participants. If one critiques the behavior of some individuals or elements within the law enforcement community, this does not necessarily make them a "cop hater" or "law hater" as some have posited.
Look at me, for instance: Do I come across as a "cop hater" or some type of "apologist for the criminal element"? Beyond the policies I stated above that I support being implemented, I even support the NSA, FBI, etc. being able to monitor our communications (email, phone, Internet, et al) . . . not that I like it personally but I recognize the challenges we are up against with the perpetrators of terror, criminal syndicates and rings, human traffickers and enslavers, serial killers and mass murderers, and the like and recognize that we need to allow all the necessary tools to be at the avail of the intelligence and policing communities Even though I do know well that it is a very slippery slope in allowing this degree of latitude to the NSA, FBI etc., but what else can we do? Tie their hands behind their backs in dealing with these criminal elements? I don't want it ideally but see its seeming necessity in dealing with these criminal elements. And I might be able to see the sense of some implementation of "stop and frisk" to prevail (depending on how it is done and in what contexts) . . . and/or perhaps much more camera surveillance permeating our society through-and-through to allow the well-staffed, well-equipped, and well-funded policing authorities that I also want to see prevail to be able to keep a close watch on all that prevails in our habitats at-large. Does that sound like a "cop hater" or "criminal apologist" to any of you (even to any present or former law enforcement officers on this forum who are reading this thread)?
So you see, if I am receptive to what a Frank Serpico states in his article in "Politico" magazine which started this thread, it reflects my view that we can't tolerate "malum in se" criminality on anyone's part . . . not just on the part of the criminal element but also on the part of those within the law enforcement system. So why is there all this animosity from many within the law enforcement community to what Frank Serpico did? They're concerned with and offended by criminals within the law enforcement community being "ratted on" but not with the actual criminal behavior itself? Or they kind of "poo-poo" away the incidence of such criminality and say "Oh, it's just an isolated instance here-and-there". To whatever degree it occurs, it needs to be dealt with severely. You shouldn't have ANY degree of tolerance for such types of persons within your ranks. I wish that everyone in the law enforcement and criminal justice system, from the very top to the very bottom, had the outlook and moral center that Frank Serpico had or has. You or I may not agree with every single thing Frank Serpico says (e.g., the police may have been in the right in Ferguson, MO or they may have been in the wrong . . . I don't know, as I wasn't there to know what truly happened before, during, and after the alleged or purported or real incidents spoken about) but he does come from a good place in the heart. He is not an enemy of the function of police in society; he just did not want to be in cahoots with the criminal element while serving as an officer of the law (i.e., taking bribes, payoffs, et al) and couldn't tolerate working with others who condoned this by actively engaging in it or supporting it or by simply looking the other way.
Anyone expect anything to happen to this judge? Traffic photos prove judge lied about ticket: city lawyers | New York Post
Why would an NYC judge lie, & sue, over a $115 traffic citation? Arrogance? Ignorance? Your guess is as good as mine. Yet, he decides the fates of others daily. Are we to believe that all his decisions are impartial and unbiased?
Anyone expect anything to happen to this judge? Traffic photos prove judge lied about ticket: city lawyers | New York Post
Why would an NYC judge lie, & sue, over a $115 traffic citation? Arrogance? Ignorance? Your guess is as good as mine. Yet, he decides the fates of others daily. Are we to believe that all his decisions are impartial and unbiased?
That's why, as I stated in my earlier postings, we need video surveillance and multiple levels of inspection & accountability by independent inspection or investigation units to be all-pervasive on ALL levels of operation of the law enforcement and criminal justice system (from the very top down to the very bottom level). In other words, for us to not start on the assuming that all officers of the court and all enforcement officers and other employees, as well as public officials, are all of good character (some are, some aren't, and some start out good but become bad sometime down the line). In other words, I don't trust the system from the start; I place provisional trust in a pervasisve to-be-implemented system of checks and balances (i.e., multiple levels and layers of oversight by parties other than the ones being monitored or investigated . .. that is, we shouldn't have such persons policing themselves).
In line with this, all police interactions should be recorded on camera (with the police using body cameras and using dash camera in their vehicles). But then, to prevent the police from altering whatever is recorded, perhaps whatever is recorded can be transmitted wirelessly to an independent investigations dept. in the D.A.'s or Attorney General's office or wherever. You get the picture of what I'm saying.
You see, I am very hard and no-nonsense on the criminal element in the world out there (the "malum in se" element, as you referred to it) yet just as well, I am not wholly trusting of those given the power over the general polulation at-large. I don't assume that all players in the law enforcement and criminal justice system will always do their job and do it rightly and properly. We humans are all prone to being fallen, so there needs to be strong checks-and-balances always in effect on all levels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
