BBC News talks about an interesting little struggle going on in the UK. In the House of Commons a vote went forth about extending the legal time that UK police can hold a "terror suspect" in custody up to 42 days. I say "Why 42? Why not 45 or 32 or 37". The house Lib Dems and Conservatives are a little upset as it looks like the Labor party may have bought the vote. Ah lovely politics at work. Fortunately there is still the House of Lords to hopefully squash this little thing.
Personally I find this whole "terror suspect" thing to be foolishness. They are making an arbitrary distinction and then putting legal ramifications behind it that makes "holding" time different depending on what they think you may be doing. Now I don't totally disagree with this when I'm dealing with my children. However I find it a problem with the government that has the authority to kill people does start making cases that X person may is a terror suspect with out any proof. In some ways this law could be very good however as many things this law is prone to abuse. We see it all the time with the police. They are a government organization expected to get results and what do they use for results? Arrest records. "We caught 200 suspected terrorist last year and have 300 this year! Hurray for us we are doing a good job." I liken this to the police many that made the mistake of blurting out "we need to catch more people to fill the quota for speeding".
I am a believer that police should never have quotas because then it brings them to the point where they may have to start fudging numbers in order to get money. What happens if the UK passes this law and they don't start catching enough "terror suspects" in order to make the people feel safe? What happens is they start going after people who are marginally suspect at best, "Get'm boys he bought two bags of fertilizer!". It wasn't that far past memory that the police in Britan shot and killed a "suspected terrorist". Granted I would probably rather being taken to jail for 42 days instead of being brought down to the ground at the tube and THEN shot. Sorry not just shot but shot 5 times!
Don't get me wrong, I feel for the officers that could very well have been in fear for their lives. However, I don't understand why they didn't shoot him when he wasn't in the subway? But that is second guessing and that is what happens when police are given to much leeway. The question is what kind of balance should they be given and should this "tool", as the US FBI likes to call it, be given to them?
One way that people can avoid some of this issues is to get to know your neighborhood police officer. Regrettably this is really only possible in small towns. In big cities the police are covering ground all over the place and tend to start suspecting everyone of something. Not sure how I like that idea. Then again I'm not sure how big city police help out that much? More often then not they arrive after the fact so the deterrent they offer is only as big as their presence. As the saying goes "Do what though wilt, with due regard for the policeman around the corner."
Personally I find this whole "terror suspect" thing to be foolishness. They are making an arbitrary distinction and then putting legal ramifications behind it that makes "holding" time different depending on what they think you may be doing. Now I don't totally disagree with this when I'm dealing with my children. However I find it a problem with the government that has the authority to kill people does start making cases that X person may is a terror suspect with out any proof. In some ways this law could be very good however as many things this law is prone to abuse. We see it all the time with the police. They are a government organization expected to get results and what do they use for results? Arrest records. "We caught 200 suspected terrorist last year and have 300 this year! Hurray for us we are doing a good job." I liken this to the police many that made the mistake of blurting out "we need to catch more people to fill the quota for speeding".
I am a believer that police should never have quotas because then it brings them to the point where they may have to start fudging numbers in order to get money. What happens if the UK passes this law and they don't start catching enough "terror suspects" in order to make the people feel safe? What happens is they start going after people who are marginally suspect at best, "Get'm boys he bought two bags of fertilizer!". It wasn't that far past memory that the police in Britan shot and killed a "suspected terrorist". Granted I would probably rather being taken to jail for 42 days instead of being brought down to the ground at the tube and THEN shot. Sorry not just shot but shot 5 times!
Don't get me wrong, I feel for the officers that could very well have been in fear for their lives. However, I don't understand why they didn't shoot him when he wasn't in the subway? But that is second guessing and that is what happens when police are given to much leeway. The question is what kind of balance should they be given and should this "tool", as the US FBI likes to call it, be given to them?
One way that people can avoid some of this issues is to get to know your neighborhood police officer. Regrettably this is really only possible in small towns. In big cities the police are covering ground all over the place and tend to start suspecting everyone of something. Not sure how I like that idea. Then again I'm not sure how big city police help out that much? More often then not they arrive after the fact so the deterrent they offer is only as big as their presence. As the saying goes "Do what though wilt, with due regard for the policeman around the corner."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment