“Look at what’s happened in Boston,” he said. “Remember what happened here on 9/11. Remember all of those who’ve been killed by gun violence and the families they left behind.”The mayor described criticism of the police as politically motivated. “The attacks most often come from those who play no constructive role in keeping our city safe but, rather, view their jobs as pointing fingers from the steps of City Hall,” he said.
In other words, the naysayers are putting us at risk. I consider myself one of the naysayers, which means in the mayor's mind, I play no constructive role in keeping our city safe. The battle lines are drawn.
In fairness, one of the core duties of the executive branch, and specifically the chief executive, is to protect the safety of the public. Faulting the mayor for his focus on safety would be to misapprehend his role in government. But the dichotomy drawn is a false one, and a guy as smart as Bloomberg knows it.
The options aren't perfect safety versus totally unsafe. Nor is the Chief Executive's concern limited to providing perfect safety. All of government, by definition as it exists by virtue of a Constitution, has responsibilities, but they are inherently limited by the same Constitution that creates the existence of government and provides for its authority. So the duty is to provide for safety, within the parameters provided by the Constitution.
Let's be real. Bloomberg's argument resonates with people because fear is a base instinct. Fight or flight. It doesn't take higher order thinking, but natural reflect, to recognize and deal with fear. People don't like to think, as thinking takes effort and we're a lazy breed.
There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking.
--Sir Joshua Reynolds
And if we didn't have those nasty rights reserved to the people, whether expressly or implicitly, the government could impose a far safer world. It would be safer if the police could stop anyone they wanted on the street at any time for any reason or no reason to search for weapons or contraband. Same is true if they could perform a "dynamic entry" into our homes in the middle of the night. It may wake up a lot of otherwise nice people, but they would occasionally find something illegal and dangerous, and would save others from it.
Safety from crime has always mattered. People value their safety over other people's rights. Not their own rights, perhaps, but other people's for sure. It takes a lot of thinking to appreciate why the rights of good people (like us) are preserved by affording and protecting the rights of bad people (like them). Most people aren't up to the task. Most people won't even give it a try. Their head starts to pound and they either walk away or yell bad words at you. It's not a good way to make friends at parties.
The New York Times editorial excoriates Mayor Bloomberg for his elevating safety over rights using arguments that appeal to ignorance and save the public from its need for thinking.
Mr. Bloomberg’s suggestion that the program has been responsible for historic drops in crime is also implausible. Crime has declined all over the country, including in places that have not used New York’s aggressively invasive techniques. Besides, if crime rates and street stops had a strong correlation, the murder rate would have gone up in 2012, when stops declined by about 20 percent. In fact, the murder rate fell in 2012 to an all-time low.
Correlation does not imply causation is the answer to a basic logical fallacy. Logic isn't in fashion these days, however. "Crime is down," is far easier to digest, and so do whatever it is you're doing, mayor. It's working. It must be. And if it's not, who cares? As long as I feel safer, and it's not me paying the price for it, we're cool.
But the voices of the naysayers, people like me, threaten to spoil the safety of the others.
Mr. Bloomberg’s implication that the program’s critics are more interested in vexing City Hall than in keeping the streets clear of murderers was especially reprehensible. No one is opposed to using effective, constitutional means of fighting crime. The problem is that over the last decade the Police Department has shown utter contempt for Fourth Amendment guarantees of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. And worse, these tactics have been used largely against young black and Hispanic men.
Criminal defense lawyers have long explained to our clients that we will zealously defend them within the bounds of the law. We will use every means the law allows, but we do not go a step beyond what the law allows. I write this not to pat us on the back, but to show that the concept is hardly foreign to government or a constitutional democracy. If we can adhere to such a rule, so too can the police. So too can a man as smart as Mayor Bloomberg.
But here's the kicker. For all his efforts to protect us from harm, whether from people of color, or odd foreign names, or our own gluttony, we can be safer but never safe. There will always be a means for a person inclined to do harm to another person to accomplish his goal. Believing that if we pay the price for freedom by relinquishing liberty, we can make our world safe is a lie we tell ourselves so we can sleep at night.
Mayor Bloomberg argues that we must accept the violation of our constitutional rights if we are to achieve safety.
Mr. Bloomberg may never change his views. But his stubborn refusal to see the program’s dangers has not stopped three civil rights lawsuits from going forward in federal court and the City Council from trying to curb the use of tactics that have alienated minority communities from the police and made law-abiding citizens feel like criminals in their own neighborhoods.
To the extent there is any marginal safety to be gained, it will never be worth the price. No one is opposed to using effective, constitutional means to fight crime, and that's as far as government's authority extends. Think about it, even if it gives you a headache.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/05/04/unsafe-at-half-the-price.aspx?ref=rss
attorney fees attorney finder attorney law attorney lawyer attorneys
No comments:
Post a Comment