The Media & St Patricks Day Sobriety Checkpoints

Jeanwah

vant0037 wrote:

I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.

So you see no problem with drunk driving in America? Typically, more people are more wrapped up in their freedoms and rights here over any social problems here. Why? Because we're a capitalistic and selfish society. We're looking out for only ourselves here, where Australia may be actually concerned with drunk drivers on the road who kill innocent people if not ruin lives. It's a social issue, therefore it's dealt with in Australia quite unlike it is here, because we are capitalist, they're more socialist. They care. Being more concerned with racial profiling is just a copout for the not dealing with problem of drunk driving here. And we don't. If people have to be forewarned about checkpoints and to avoid them, there is no concern really with nailing drunk drivers or to ensure safety on the roads.

vant0037

Jeanwah wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.

So you see no problem with drunk driving in America? Typically, more people are more wrapped up in their freedoms and rights here over any social problems here. Why? Because we're a capitalistic and selfish society. We're looking out for only ourselves here, where Australia may be actually concerned with drunk drivers on the road who kill innocent people if not ruin lives. It's a social issue, therefore it's dealt with in Australia quite unlike it is here, because we are capitalist, they're more socialist. They care. Being more concerned with racial profiling is just a copout for the not dealing with problem of drunk driving here. And we don't. If people have to be forewarned about checkpoints and to avoid them, there is no concern really with nailing drunk drivers or to ensure safety on the roads.

Please point out where I said drunk driving is not a problem. As I have throughout this thread, I am merely defending what the law is. Sheesh.

Jeanwah

vant0037 wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.

So you see no problem with drunk driving in America? Typically, more people are more wrapped up in their freedoms and rights here over any social problems here. Why? Because we're a capitalistic and selfish society. We're looking out for only ourselves here, where Australia may be actually concerned with drunk drivers on the road who kill innocent people if not ruin lives. It's a social issue, therefore it's dealt with in Australia quite unlike it is here, because we are capitalist, they're more socialist. They care. Being more concerned with racial profiling is just a copout for the not dealing with problem of drunk driving here. And we don't. If people have to be forewarned about checkpoints and to avoid them, there is no concern really with nailing drunk drivers or to ensure safety on the roads.

Please point out where I said drunk driving is not a problem. As I have throughout this thread, I am merely defending what the law is. Sheesh.

You didn't say it. But you didn't address it either. I'm asking you a question.

JonnyPistachio

I just ride my bike. But I can get a DUI on a bike I think. :?

vant0037

Jeanwah wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.

So you see no problem with drunk driving in America? Typically, more people are more wrapped up in their freedoms and rights here over any social problems here. Why? Because we're a capitalistic and selfish society. We're looking out for only ourselves here, where Australia may be actually concerned with drunk drivers on the road who kill innocent people if not ruin lives. It's a social issue, therefore it's dealt with in Australia quite unlike it is here, because we are capitalist, they're more socialist. They care. Being more concerned with racial profiling is just a copout for the not dealing with problem of drunk driving here. And we don't. If people have to be forewarned about checkpoints and to avoid them, there is no concern really with nailing drunk drivers or to ensure safety on the roads.

It's also quite easy to downplay racial profiling if you've never been the victim of it.

But again, lets keep the argument in mind: I'm defending the requirement that police have a valid reason for stopping a driver, not because I'm selfish or insane or because I support drunk drivers (three things that have been unfairly attributed to me now), but because its the only means to ensure that cops in Birmingham, LA, NYC, Tulsa or Texas don't exploit their authority. Quite the contrary to being about selfishness, checking state power against abuse protects the vulnerable members of a society. As a white middle class male, this couldn't be about me.

I point out racial profiling in Australia, where police do have some ability to arbitrarily enforce the law, as an example of the tradeoffs. Easy for white people or non-marginalized populations to simply say "racial profiling or arbitrary law enforcement isn't as bad as drunk driving" if you're not experiencing it.

But again, this isn't about qualifying one evil as better or worse than another. This is about recognizing that the origins of the law in the US are rooted in equal protection, civil liberties, and social justice.

No one wants drunk drivers to get away. But I'm not prepared to trust that officers, if given complete discretion, will not abuse that power, especially not given American history, without facts showing the Australian way is more effective at stopping DWIs (that's been an unchecked assumption in this thread so far), and especially not when I wouldn't be the likeliest victim of unbridled police power.

vant0037

Jeanwah wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

Please point out where I said drunk driving is not a problem. As I have throughout this thread, I am merely defending what the law is. Sheesh.

You didn't say it. But you didn't address it either. I'm asking you a question.

Yes drunk driving is a problem. My argument is that unchecked police power to randomly enforce the law isn't the solution, it's an invitation for abuse.

Jeanwah

vant0037 wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

Please point out where I said drunk driving is not a problem. As I have throughout this thread, I am merely defending what the law is. Sheesh.

You didn't say it. But you didn't address it either. I'm asking you a question.

Yes drunk driving is a problem. My argument is that unchecked police power to randomly enforce the law isn't the solution, it's an invitation for abuse.

Then what is the solution, Mr. Lawyer, without involving the racial profiling stance.

even flow - question mark

The fact that you can't have a thimble of alcohol without blowing over, it is a good thing that people know where the check points are.

I not for drinking and driving. But I'm for people who can hold their booze and still drive.

vant0037

Jeanwah wrote:

Then what is the solution, Mr. Lawyer, without involving the racial profiling stance.

Wow, so much for respectful debate, huh?

What is the solution to what? Stopping drunk driving? I don't know, education? Treatment? Comprehensive collateral consequences?

Again, if your point is that stopping drunk driving and random breath tests are synonymous, please cite support and facts for that.

I'm not sure I have the answer to stopping drunk driving. But giving police arbitrary and unilateral discretion to enforce a particular set of laws - as history has shown time and time again - is not the solution.

aerial

Jeanwah wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.

So you see no problem with drunk driving in America? Typically, more people are more wrapped up in their freedoms and rights here over any social problems here. Why? Because we're a capitalistic and selfish society. We're looking out for only ourselves here, where Australia may be actually concerned with drunk drivers on the road who kill innocent people if not ruin lives. It's a social issue, therefore it's dealt with in Australia quite unlike it is here, because we are capitalist, they're more socialist. They care. Being more concerned with racial profiling is just a copout for the not dealing with problem of drunk driving here. And we don't. If people have to be forewarned about checkpoints and to avoid them, there is no concern really with nailing drunk drivers or to ensure safety on the roads.

Americans should be wrapped up in there freedoms and rights. Americans fought for those freedoms and people died so that we can live somewhat free. I do agree there are plenty of capitalist and selfish Americans but I see those as the ones trying to keep us from our rights. The selfish ones come from being raised that way. As stardust1976 stated he would still drive drunk if he thought he could get away with it. I see that as selfish. There are other reasons people drive drunk. One is youth. When your young you feel as nothing is going to happen to you and you don't really think you will die. Then there are alcoholics that just can't kick it.
When I was young I drove intoxicated sooo many times I am amazed I am still living. Now that I am so much more mature I never drive intoxicated. I also hardly drink anymore but if I have a few drinks its always at home under a social setting.
No one can assure safety on the roads or any where else. I agree the the authorities do not have these checks for safety. I feel they do it to create revenue for the city. When you get a DUI here in Florida it will cost you about 30 grand in fines, lawyers, and classes. Personally I think that should be outlawed also. It can really hurt especially if they have a family. I have seen a young family barely able to feed there child because the father had his license taken away had tons of fines and it was a real hardship to get to work. He did not hurt anyone and it was a first offense. Hell he had a hard time getting to the classes that they made him go to.

stardust1976

vant0037 wrote:

stardust1976 wrote:

And on most points relating to this idea, I agree that the ends do not justify the means. I am not an idiot. But in this case, the ends DO justify it. There is absolutely no harm to anyone if you choose to not get in the car after drinking, absolutely regardless of what motivated you to not do that.

As for the rest of it - I'm sorry you feel I was coming off aggressively? I wasn't, so there was no need to tell me to calm down, and I never said it was personal - I was merely making you see that the person you were assuming to be Australian is in fact an American, as he had already mentioned but you had refused to see that.

Despite the fact that you are a lawyer and obviously know much much more than I do on American law, I am still entitled to my opinion. And my opinion, as an outside perspective, is this. American law in this case is silly and seems to set the stage for people to break the law on the basis that it is unconstitutional for the police to stop and ask them to blow into a breathalyser. It looks from the outside perspective, that a person is allowed to break the law purely on the idea that the police cannot stop them and ask them to prove they are not drunk, even though the law says if you are driving you must be under .08 or whatever the limit is there. That to me seems quite ridiculous and I am completely and 100% allowed that opinion. From my outside perspective it seems that a person is allowed to drink drive and get away with it so long as the police have no idea that you are actually doing it - if you give them probable cause to pull you over they can, but if you drive normally despite being over the limit, you cannot be pulled over and asked to prove you're drunk. I honestly don't see the difference between this, and some criminal breaking into your house but pretending to be a removalist to do so. He looks like he is doing the right thing, but in actuality he is breaking the law. Yet if you do that exact same principle in your car there, you can and do get away with it. I just don't see the difference, and that is why it comes across as insane to me.

So on that note, will have to respectfully agree to disagree, because I am quite sure that your arguing skills, no matter how insane the point seems to be, are going to be better than mine, because that is your job. Your job is to fight the point, whether right or wrong until you win. And I have no desire at all to argue back and forth about this any further. You win, but our laws in this case make far far more sense.

Boy, a few backhanded compliments there. Thanks. But it's not my job to "argue until I win." It's to uphold the Constitution. To prosecute in search of justice, not convictions. I took an oath. I take it seriously.

A few points:

First, I wasn't mistaken that Thorns is an American. He stated his friends' (presumably Australians) position on the issue, and I disagreed with it. Thus my reference to an Australian misunderstanding American law.

Second, let's be clear on what we're talking about. You seem to be arguing with me on whether I agree or disagree with checkpoints. I am merely defending the American legal requirement that police possess a legal reason prior to stopping a driver. Please point out where I argued for or against checkpoints.

Third, again, calling my point insane or our laws lunacy does not make your point more valid or correct. It makes you seem disrespectful, hasty, and unwilling to have a reasoned discussion based on anything other than your opinion. That's why I continue to implore you to research why the law here is what it is before you call it crazy or hasty. I'd gladly discuss it with you if your argument is based on the most cursory of research, and not only your opinion.

Fourth, you are right. You're completely entitled to an opinion. But once you offer that opinion up to the world, especially in a forum of ideas, prepare to be challenged on it.

Fifth, your statement of what American law on drunk driving is, well, a misstatement (conveniently too, as it fits your opinion). Most drunk driving laws are NOT "you can drive drunk unless you get caught." But our laws also prohibit an officer from stopping a vehicle without a reason. We take seriously the idea that our police officers are charged with enforcing the law equally, and that they not have the ability to pick and choose whom they enforce it against. A random stop, without more, puts an enormous amount of discretion, power and authority in an officer's hands, which in America, can be a dangerous thing. In Johannesburg, Turkey, the Phillipines or Belfast, it's a dangerous thing.

Now, protection against arbitrary enforcement of the law doesn't ensure that DWI drivers get away scot-free, so long as they can drive undetected. Whether or not a DWI driver goes detected by cops has nothing to with the legal prohibition against random stops. Imagine a DWI driver going through a town with only one officer on duty. If that officer is out on a call, that DWI driver gets away. Problem? Sure. Would random stops fix it? Nope. The fact that some criminals get away and making sure cops don't abuse their power are two separate things. The only thing the above legal protection does is ensure that if the officer is making the stop for any reason but a valid, legal and inarbitrary one, the person will have a remedy in court. That's equal protection before the law. We take it seriously here.

I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.

They were compliments - I am positive you are very good at your job.

So they way I see it now is this - you have a problem with RBT's because you don't trust police? And apparently pretty much no one does. So you don't believe that a police officer who has sworn to uphold the law will actually do so unbiasedly?

I think that's a different issue to not believing in RBT's. And I'm sorry if my naivety on your laws comes across as anything other than what it is - which is a total lack of understanding of how society can claim to function when things simply don't make sense.

Perhaps it boils down to the fact that I believe in and trust the police to do their job, and while I don't believe there is no corruption or racial profiling and the like here (I am not naive completely in the ways of the world), I still choose to believe that the police will do the job they are paid to do to the best of their ability without prejudice for the most part. Police are human just like everyone else and so there will be ones who do abuse the power, but the majority I believe won't.

I think this is where the biggest sticking point is for me. If the vast majority of Americans don't trust their police to do the right thing, why would anything change? From my point of view it seems so simple - rewrite the outdated laws in favour of new ones that actually do something, and have police enforce them without prejudice.

Of course this is idealistic and I am fairly certain would never happen, but it just seems obvious. If something isn't working, then you fix it - but it seems like the problems that exist will never be fixed because most people from what I have seen are too stubborn to believe that change IS possible. No one will believe the police because of the past, and so therefore nothing will ever change.

Yes I have an idealistic view of the world and society, but this just seems sad to me. Society should be about the good of all, not about "I am going to protect my individual rights because otherwise I think the police will abuse any power I give them".

I guess in the end, Americans can joke all they like about Australia being founded by convicts, and America being the land of the free - but it seems to me that we Australians are far more 'free' than you are. We for the most part still have our trust in our police forces, and we still have the naivety to believe that change can happen for things we don't like, simply by people power. For the most part, we still have faith in people.

It just seems sad to me that no one thinks having the police randomly stop you to ensure you are doing the right thing, would not be abused by them. It's a sad reflection on society and I guess that's where I am getting worked up about it.

vant0037

stardust1976 wrote:

So they way I see it now is this - you have a problem with RBT's because you don't trust police? And apparently pretty much no one does. So you don't believe that a police officer who has sworn to uphold the law will actually do so unbiasedly?

I'm a criminal prosecutor. Virtually every cop I have ever dealt with has been a good, fair and honest one. It's not that I think every cop is a raging Ku Klux Klan member, ready to imprison any African-American they come across. But personal biases are often much subtler and inform our simplest choices. Think: red cars and why they are ticketed more frequently.

stardust1976 wrote:

Police are human just like everyone else and so there will be ones who do abuse the power, but the majority I believe won't.

This is exactly why a prohibition on complete officer discretion is a good thing. Most cops are really good, honest people. But good honest people can have biases too. Sometimes they're very strong - outright racism, for instance, and other times, they're less pronounced - stopping foreign cars, for instance. Doesn't it make sense then, to add one more check in that officer's mind, before he or she makes a stop, to think, "can I legally stop this car? Have they broken the law? If not, why hassle them?" The reality you're ignoring is that we are seeing what happens if police can randomly stop someone (in your country, mind you): minorities and vulnerable populations are stopped, arrested, searched, investigated far more than other groups. Why wouldn't that be a concern to you? Without a check, abuse happens.

stardust1976 wrote:

I think this is where the biggest sticking point is for me. If the vast majority of Americans don't trust their police to do the right thing, why would anything change? From my point of view it seems so simple - rewrite the outdated laws in favour of new ones that actually do something, and have police enforce them without prejudice.

Why would we rewrite "outdated" laws (again, the crux of 4th Amendment law has developed less than 50 years ago) if we believe them adequate protection against police abuse? What new laws should we write? You've made an assumption that the majority of Americans don't trust police to do the right thing. I think that's a misstatement. I think the majority of Americans prefer rules and regulations that ensure all cops, including that portion of bad cops, can't do the wrong thing. Nuanced but important difference.

stardust1976 wrote:

It just seems sad to me that no one thinks having the police randomly stop you to ensure you are doing the right thing, would not be abused by them. It's a sad reflection on society.

Sad reflection or not, it's true and it's not uniquely American either (as you admitted earlier). Most first world countries have had fairly prominent issues with police corruption, abuse of power, racial profiling etc in recent years. So if we are seeing that there are cops who will abuse their power in some form, why is a law requiring that said cop have a legal reason stop a person (or the case gets dismissed) a bad thing?

vant0037

Much of what I'm reading is based on the assumption that DWI enforcement in America is inadequate, when compared to Australia. Is it? It's different, certainly, but do random breath tests stop DWIs more frequently than American DWI enforcement? I'm asking, genuinely, because I can't find many statistics.

I would think, hypothetically speaking, that random breath tests would be less effective, if only because of it's very nature: it's random! Imagine trying to find someone who's committed a crime, randomly (this is what the random breath tests are doing), vs. trying to find someone who's committed a crime based on outward observations (this is required in American DWI enforcement). Why would the random way be any more effective?

Look at it from a hypothetical standpoint.

Officer with ability to administer random breath test: cop is parked on side of the road, observes five cars pass by, observes no driving or equipment violations, stops the fourth car and administers random breath test. Driver passes.

Officer with requirement to possess reasonable, articulable suspicion before stopping someone: cop is parked on side of the road, observes five cars pass by, observes no driving or equipment violations, stops no cars.

So which resulted in more DWI arrests? Neither of course. All that happened was one driver was stopped in Australia and wasn't in the States.

Now, what happens more often than not in America, is the officer will observe vehicles and for whatever reason (whim, bias, prejudice, suspicious driver etc), will begin the follow the vehicles. After observation, the officer will observe trademark driving conduct of the impaired driver - swerving, speeding up, slowing down, illegal turns, drifting, coasting etc. Those would all be legal reasons to stop the driver! All the American version requires is an additional step (finding a legal reason to initiate a stop) beyond whatever inadequate reason drew their attention in the first place. This has the added benefit of (1) protecting the driver's civil liberties, AND (2) increasing the likelihood that the officer is actually stopping an impaired driver. In other words, requiring the officer to have a legal reason to stop then requires the officer to do additional observation before stopping someone, which in turn increases the effectiveness and accuracy of police work, all the while protecting the driver from undue harassment. Why wouldn't this be a better way? Can you point to numbers showing that random breath tests are a more effective way? I haven't found any.

This argument has gotten off track because there are a lot of strawmen and assumptions being thrown around. A prohibition on random stops in America doesn't mean officers are helpless to stop DWI offenses. It means they have to go one step further than their own personal biases and suspicions - and point to a legal reason - before stopping someone.

None of this says anything about checkpoints. But as we're seeing in many first-world countries, without checks on an officer's ability to enforce the law, abuse happens.

stardust1976

vant0037 wrote:

Sad reflection or not, it's true and it's not uniquely American either (as you admitted earlier). Most first world countries have had fairly prominent issues with police corruption, abuse of power, racial profiling etc in recent years. So if we are seeing that there are cops who will abuse their power in some form, why is a law requiring that said cop have a legal reason stop a person (or the case gets dismissed) a bad thing?

I was talking to my husband about this after I posted, and I guess for me it boils down to this: while I can see your point of view, and I honestly can even if I don't agree with it or like it, I am an idealist.

While the rational part of my brain understands the issues underlying this law, the idealist part screams at me that it is wrong. It simply and honestly do not understand the logic behind making something illegal, yet preventing the police checking your legality while driving, therefore making it fairly easy for someone to break the law. Now don't get me wrong - I UNDERSTAND the reasons you have outlines and they kind of make sense, BUT I think it's sad that judgements are made based on past actions.

My idealist sensibilities yell at me that this is wrong and the general American public should WANT change in this area because they should want to do something about drunk driving, but they don't believe their police force will be unbiased and do the right thing for the most part. It's more about protecting the individual rights than the rights of a greater society. And this I agree is not simply an American issue. It just seems more prevalent there, but that could also be because I have not been exposed to many other cultures either.

So please don't get me wrong - I like a good argument and I apologise if I came across as narky or whatever. I sometimes think I should have been a lawyer myself because I enjoy arguing so much sometimes, but then I get a bit irrational on points I believe strongly in like this one.

I guess we really will just have to agree to disagree - my idea of a utopian society where everybody has equal rights and is treated the same regardless of race, gender or ethnic background, and where the criminals are punished accordingly and people are happy and always believe the best of each other, will never be. I do know that. I just get frustrated I guess, when something seems obvious to me, but others can't see what I am getting at.

vant0037

stardust1976 wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

Sad reflection or not, it's true and it's not uniquely American either (as you admitted earlier). Most first world countries have had fairly prominent issues with police corruption, abuse of power, racial profiling etc in recent years. So if we are seeing that there are cops who will abuse their power in some form, why is a law requiring that said cop have a legal reason stop a person (or the case gets dismissed) a bad thing?

I was talking to my husband about this after I posted, and I guess for me it boils down to this: while I can see your point of view, and I honestly can even if I don't agree with it or like it, I am an idealist.

While the rational part of my brain understands the issues underlying this law, the idealist part screams at me that it is wrong. It simply and honestly do not understand the logic behind making something illegal, yet preventing the police checking your legality while driving, therefore making it fairly easy for someone to break the law. Now don't get me wrong - I UNDERSTAND the reasons you have outlines and they kind of make sense, BUT I think it's sad that judgements are made based on past actions.

My idealist sensibilities yell at me that this is wrong and the general American public should WANT change in this area because they should want to do something about drunk driving, but they don't believe their police force will be unbiased and do the right thing for the most part. It's more about protecting the individual rights than the rights of a greater society. And this I agree is not simply an American issue. It just seems more prevalent there, but that could also be because I have not been exposed to many other cultures either.

So please don't get me wrong - I like a good argument and I apologise if I came across as narky or whatever. I sometimes think I should have been a lawyer myself because I enjoy arguing so much sometimes, but then I get a bit irrational on points I believe strongly in like this one.

I guess we really will just have to agree to disagree - my idea of a utopian society where everybody has equal rights and is treated the same regardless of race, gender or ethnic background, and where the criminals are punished accordingly and people are happy and always believe the best of each other, will never be. I do know that. I just get frustrated I guess, when something seems obvious to me, but others can't see what I am getting at.

:thumbup:

dancepartner

I like that these check points come under strict criteria; (thanks Norm for the info).
Also, I see these check points coming on with more regularity & this bothers me. Once we get used to this (one more invasive control edict), then more & more & more are sure to follow.
Drunk driving needs addressed. Jeanwha points out that too many people with multiple DUI's are still driving. Why? Why do child molesters get to return to society? Why do habitual, violent wife beaters get to go home?
In America, in general, I believe we are being foolish in how we go about many control edicts. So worried we might trample the rights of a wrongdoer, we instead infringe on the freedoms of the lawful.

mikepegg44

dancepartner wrote:

So worried we might trample the rights of a wrongdoer, we instead infringe on the freedoms of the lawful.

Punishment for criminal behavior is strange. What is appropriate? In my opinion it is understandable to be frustrated at the seemingly arbitrary sentencing that happens. But if we don't protect the rights of the accused we are no better than the worst dictatorships in the world. Enough innocent people spend years in prison when police work and due process is followed to the letter of the law, imagine what would happen if we relaxed those standards even slightly.

The protections for wrongdoers are important, they don't infringe on the rights of the lawful, those lawful citizens are given the same protections when they are accused of being the 'wrongdoer'

dancepartner

mikepegg44 wrote:

dancepartner wrote:

So worried we might trample the rights of a wrongdoer, we instead infringe on the freedoms of the lawful.

Punishment for criminal behavior is strange. What is appropriate? In my opinion it is understandable to be frustrated at the seemingly arbitrary sentencing that happens. But if we don't protect the rights of the accused we are no better than the worst dictatorships in the world. Enough innocent people spend years in prison when police work and due process is followed to the letter of the law, imagine what would happen if we relaxed those standards even slightly.

The protections for wrongdoers are important, they don't infringe on the rights of the lawful, those lawful citizens are given the same protections when they are accused of being the 'wrongdoer'

Yep. That's true. I simply meant we are looking less & less like a free society intended for lawful citizens.

mikepegg44

dancepartner wrote:

Yep. That's true. I simply meant we are looking less & less like a free society intended for lawful citizens.

ah yes, that I agree with. It seems we punish the person who can control themselves because of all those who cannot.

MotoDC

Thorns wrote:

]Also while not the same of course, but to say that there isn't issues of profiling, or of improper search and seizures of people in Australia is wrong. The Aboriginals of Australia are treated with as much, if not more prejudice then anything I witnessed in America.

The argument that this point implies is a bit of a lose/lose. Either profiling is not an issue in Australia, in which case the Australian viewpoint on American search/seizure protections isn’t really relevant. In that scenario, you guys live in a socioeconomic utopia with no need for citizen protections. Kudos, we DO have profiling, so we need protections. Or in fact profiling is an issue in Australia, in which case it is morally incumbent upon Australia to enact additional protections for its subjugated classes. Now, you could agree with that, but then argue that Australia should be allowed pick and choose which circumstances require protections for citizens and which don’t. e.g., DUIs don’t, so RBTs are cool, but stops for suspicion of possession of marijuana do, so an Aussie cop can’t just hop into someone’s trunk and look around for a dimebag. The problem there, as I see it, is that you then become subject to the same sort of biases that we’re trying to protect from in the first place –- perhaps not those of race or socioeconomics, but simply those of opinion. That is, the opinion on when your citizen deserves protection from preemptive search/seizure and when he does not. Then the bias would come from lawmakers, rather than the beat cop, but frankly I’m much more afraid of lawmakers and the lobbiests that influence them than I am the average beat cop.