Its a trade off. For the last few decades (at least) government policy/lawmaking has been leaning towards more invasive surveillance of the general public. This certainly makes police work easier, as they already have monitoring systems in place that allow them to collect information much more easily. They may already have a file on a suspect.
The down side is that public opinion and policy making are constantly changing. A person who is constantly monitored needs to worry that any activity they take part in today, regardless of how legal/acceptable, may become unacceptable tomorrow. Take, for example, boycotting by Canadian citizens of goods made in Israeli settlements. A year ago one may have disagreed with the sentiment, but it certainly wouldn't have seemed illegal. Today the Canadian government is threatening to bring these citizens up on hate crime charges. (As an aside I am not deeply familiar with this particular issue and am using it only as and example and as described at face value. Its entirely possible that some people have committed hate crimes.)
The Canadian government certainly already has files on some, if not all, of the biggest actors in this movement.
In a truly democratic society we need to tolerate and even bolster the voice of dissent. We claim to value our (nearly) unlimited freedom of speech. But a person who needs to worry that all of their words are recorded and can be used out of context later to condemn them will be less likely to voice their dissent. That loss of freedom is the cost of making police job's as easy as possible.
The down side is that public opinion and policy making are constantly changing
Don't forget the issue of abuse of surveillance data- see for example NSA and CIA analysts using our databases to stalk their exes, or cops using their legally-acquired surveillance powers in illegal ways to suppress dissent.
And there's another facet that I don't hear discussed enough- Take, for example, the crime of speeding. What if speeding resulted in immediate traffic fines, 100% of the time, with perfect enforcement. Is that how we want it to work? Speeding is always possibile, and always punishable? Or is it actually better to live in a world where speeding carries the risk of traffic fines?
Because constitutional protections are not black and white. They protect not just against grossly anti-constitutional laws, but against stupid laws, too, by making them impractical, but not unconstitutional, to enforce.
Some people have never had bad law enforcement experiences. I know someone whose brother was shot to death in a traffic stop. I know a woman who was stalked by a deputy. And I know of an entire city neighborhood that got tear gassed because the PD drove protestors into a residential area. In the early evening.
Cops are people too, and sometimes people are assholes. Really, really big assholes. This is why we have rules instead of a police state. Well, had.
Hmm, I wonder what the closest analogue to that statement is that's actually found in the writings of the Founding Fathers. I assume manny of them would agree with it, but the quote itself is from a century later, when a British Confederate-sympathizer was criticizing papal infallibility.
Because it's easier to put innocent people in prison than it is to catch those who are actually guilty, so making cops' jobs as easy as possible pretty much requires mass quantities of false imprisonment.
Comments
Why not make cops jobs as easy as possible?
Its a trade off. For the last few decades (at least) government policy/lawmaking has been leaning towards more invasive surveillance of the general public. This certainly makes police work easier, as they already have monitoring systems in place that allow them to collect information much more easily. They may already have a file on a suspect.
The down side is that public opinion and policy making are constantly changing. A person who is constantly monitored needs to worry that any activity they take part in today, regardless of how legal/acceptable, may become unacceptable tomorrow. Take, for example, boycotting by Canadian citizens of goods made in Israeli settlements. A year ago one may have disagreed with the sentiment, but it certainly wouldn't have seemed illegal. Today the Canadian government is threatening to bring these citizens up on hate crime charges. (As an aside I am not deeply familiar with this particular issue and am using it only as and example and as described at face value. Its entirely possible that some people have committed hate crimes.)
The Canadian government certainly already has files on some, if not all, of the biggest actors in this movement.
In a truly democratic society we need to tolerate and even bolster the voice of dissent. We claim to value our (nearly) unlimited freedom of speech. But a person who needs to worry that all of their words are recorded and can be used out of context later to condemn them will be less likely to voice their dissent. That loss of freedom is the cost of making police job's as easy as possible.
Don't forget the issue of abuse of surveillance data- see for example NSA and CIA analysts using our databases to stalk their exes, or cops using their legally-acquired surveillance powers in illegal ways to suppress dissent.
And there's another facet that I don't hear discussed enough- Take, for example, the crime of speeding. What if speeding resulted in immediate traffic fines, 100% of the time, with perfect enforcement. Is that how we want it to work? Speeding is always possibile, and always punishable? Or is it actually better to live in a world where speeding carries the risk of traffic fines?
Your question doesn't respond to what you quoted. The _purpose of America_ is not to make cops' jobs as easy as possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_o...
Because constitutional protections are not black and white. They protect not just against grossly anti-constitutional laws, but against stupid laws, too, by making them impractical, but not unconstitutional, to enforce.
Haven't watched much news lately? Those in power will abuse their power. Thus we must limit their ability to do such.
Some people have never had bad law enforcement experiences. I know someone whose brother was shot to death in a traffic stop. I know a woman who was stalked by a deputy. And I know of an entire city neighborhood that got tear gassed because the PD drove protestors into a residential area. In the early evening.
Cops are people too, and sometimes people are assholes. Really, really big assholes. This is why we have rules instead of a police state. Well, had.
If that was the absolute top priority of this country, what would America look like?
Because the Founding Fathers understood the nature of authority (absolute power corrupts absolutely).
Hmm, I wonder what the closest analogue to that statement is that's actually found in the writings of the Founding Fathers. I assume manny of them would agree with it, but the quote itself is from a century later, when a British Confederate-sympathizer was criticizing papal infallibility.
Which is why I put it in parentheses, not quotation marks.
Because it's easier to put innocent people in prison than it is to catch those who are actually guilty, so making cops' jobs as easy as possible pretty much requires mass quantities of false imprisonment.