Cops vs. Criminals? Try Cops vs. Citizens.
Cops don't bust criminals. They can't bust criminals. Not if we wish to maintain the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Contrary to popular opinion (even I am prone to forgetting this), 'innocent until proven guilty' is not a right. Placing the burden of proof on the accuser rather than the accused is, however, a standard practice in our legal system. A damn good one at that!
Cops bust people. A court of law that could very well involve a Constitutionally guaranteed jury of one's peers determines if a crime was committed. Until that time, we should presume the person(s) innocent.
The next time you look through mug shots, observe an arrest, or even hear of one in the news try to think of 'the perp' as just another citizen or at the very least 'the accused'.
Or perhaps you like the idea of cops viewing everyone as potential criminals. Who am I to judge, jury or execute?
2 comments:
A court of law that could very well involve a Constitutionally guaranteed jury of one's peers determines if a crime was committed.
While I strongly agree with your general statement, there is a technical error in the above quoted sentence. Rarely does the jury or court get to decide if a crime has been committed, more often they decide whether or not the citizen facing trial committed the crime that other agencies have identified.
For example, the County Medical Examiner might determine foul play was involved and rule a death a homicide. Then the cops pick someone to frame for it.
:)
I could try to feign that the quoted sentence contained an implied 'by that individual' at the end of it. Instead I will grant that you are technically correct. In law, technicalities have a lot of pull.
Post a Comment