Is it moral to join law enforcement?

[Groovenstein]

I'm going to handle my clinic issue by telling the boss straight up, right from the get-go. She already knows that I don't care for drug laws. If I decide to do the clinic, I'll tell her that where there is a reasonable justification for not bringing charges, defendant-favorable plea bargains, etc. I will make it. I'm not going to be subversive or make ridiculous decisions, as that would not only annihilate my grade, but also my ability to do the work that I want to do in minimizing, to the extent I can, the harmful effects of such laws.

Also, I think honesty preserves respect for the rule of law. For example, when I reported for jury duty on a drug case, I told the judge straight up that I would not convict under any circumstances. Of course, I was immediately dismissed. That's different than a job, though, because jury duty is compulsory. A job I can avoid, or try to get favorable terms.

[DavidOdden]

I'm not sure I understand, so instead of trying to answer and spending several posts clarifying, I'll just ask you to restate your questions.

You started an answer with your Miranda example, so I'm basically just asking for the bigger answer, i.e. following that reasoning in more detail. If the case against Smith is so solid that a tainted confession is irrelevant, then the jury should see through Miranda protection and conclude "Clearly, he did it", and they convict anyhow. But what if the confession is all they have? I was reading a piece in the NY Times about how the Red Chinese police are able to secure detailed confessions from their victims by application of force where the prisoner is not beaten when they guess the right answer. I wouldn't limit Miranda-type protections to just that kind of beating strategy.

So to press the issue a bit further, what level of coersion do you think is acceptable for police to use in order to secure a confession, at least for your own reasonable doubt standard (setting aside the existing legal standard)? There's a strategy of repeated questioning, designed to wear down the accused, which may result in false confessions. So I'm betting that your interest would be more aimed at false confessions than improperly obtained confessions. (Certainly, my interest would be primarily in whether the confession was true). But how do you judge whether a confession is true or false? Again, suppose that the only evidence is the confession -- what facts would lead you to believe that the confession was true, or that it was false? Black and blue marks would be pretty telling, but the lack of such black and blue marks would not automatically persuade me of the true nature of the confession (when the confession had been recanted, as I assume it was). That would have to come from a confidence that the police were following a procedure that did not coerce the suspect. (I just got Speaking of Crime, but haven't read it; I have read Solan's paper on the Bronstein-literality asymmetry observed in consent searches vs. requests for attorney, which is what I'm getting at -- a skilled interrogator can cause a person to conclude that they have no right to silence, without literally saying so).

So: the presumption here is that there is evidence that the drug-accused did also violate someone's rights, and yet they were not convicted for the act. Why were they not convicted? If you have a suspicious confession and no other evidence of the rights-crime, is that actually enough, under your own standard of evidence, to convict of the rights-crime? (Which then leads to the substitute-crime conviction, a la Capone).

[Pancho Villa]

I am planning on joining the DPD (Dallas Police Department) for my own ends. I do not think it is necessary to avoid the field. I can say that I will access the feasibility of bending the rules re: irrational laws and see if I can't avoid enforcing laws I disagree with to some extent. But I will not sacrifice the experience that I think is necessary for the furherance of my goals because of other people.

A rational man would not bother violating the laws in a situation where a normal police officer would catch him - and an irrational man has just as big a hand in the presence of those laws on the books as anything else.

[Groovenstein]

When would it be right to substitute your feeling "but obviously he is guilty" for a contrary judgment by jurors? . . . when would I be willing to judge that my grip on reality is better than that of a panel of jurors or judges, and withhold assistance that I would otherwise render to a stranger?

Jeez, David, I forgot about this thread. For crying out loud, if there's anywhere else I left you hanging, please let me know. I hate teases, and have no intentions of becoming one.

Regarding my judgment versus that of a jury, I can not imagine a scenario in which I would be more confident in a jury's judgment than my own. Can you? A jury will never have more evidence than I do. They get to see what the law says they can see. I get to see everything. Prior bad acts? I know about them, they may not. Illegally obtained confessions? I know about them, they don't.

About judging the accuracy of a confession, before I discuss that further I have a question. Do you think it's even plausible that a confession would ever be the only piece of evidence I have on which to base my determination? Maybe that might be the only piece of evidence a jury has (though I wonder whether such a case would ever make it to trial), but me? Regardless of whether his "confession" was improperly obtained due to the "interrogation," Williams' knew the location of the body. I'm pretty confident at that point that he did it. (Maybe this isn't the best example, but it does make some sense.)

[Groovenstein]

And now Betsy Speicher has thrown yet another little kink into my inquiry. See post and post of hers in another thread. So, perhaps the most effective way for me to help get drug laws repealed is to seek the harshest penalty for anyone and everyone being anywhere near anything that could possibly have something to do with drugs? In Nebraska this would be easy, as the Unicam passed a law recently that restricts the sales of Sudafed, since pseudoephedrine is supposedly a meth ingredient. Maybe hauling someone off to the slammer for buying too much Sudafed really would get the point across!

[Edited to add that while drug laws are not the biggest bone I have to pick with the government, they would be the ones most frequently encountered as a prosecutor.]

Edited October 15, 2005 by Groovenstein

[DavidOdden]

Regarding my judgment versus that of a jury, I can not imagine a scenario in which I would be more confident in a jury's judgment than my own. Can you?

I would probably need to implant listening devices behind your ear and clandestinely observe you for a few years before saying for sure. So yeah, necessarily you get to know more than the jury, and the main issue is whether you could set aside all prejudices and weigh the evidence in a fashion that would make Solomon drool. For example, could you disregard an illegal confession, or would that knowledge be lurking in the background?

Do you think it's even plausible that a confession would ever be the only piece of evidence I have on which to base my determination?

It seems unlikely in American society. In Red China, you might be targetted for punishment for some political reason such as protesting the confiscation of your property, and that could lead to abuse of process as a way to retaliate covertly. In America, there would probably have to be some other fact that brought you to the attention of the police. The only alternative would be a person walking in off the streets and volunteering a confession, without being a suspect. I don't think being a homeless black man counts as "evidence" of committing a crime, but it can be a reason to question a person. Then the issue is, what might cause an officer to make the inference that this person committed the crime. I really don't know. Hopefully, it would include something like "and he was seen lurking in the shadows near the crime, just 5 minutes before the act", and not just "we've had our eyes on him for some time".

Betsy's version of the bad-law problem has merit, and a few years ago I decided to adopt a quasi-Scalia, live by the sword, die by the sword approach, in matters that I have to deal with. Rule 34.2(a) is a terrible rule, but it was adopted for some reason, and it does get enforced unfairly against some people, so why in the world should it not be enforced against all people. In the context of my life, I observe such rampant contempt for acting on the basis of objective principle (all cases are treated as unique, to be judged on their own, with no reference to anything); so naturally I am drawn to a "strict enforcement" POV in the hopes that people will eventually understand the consequences of bad laws. However: university rules are much easier to change than actual statutes, faculty are more responsive to the idea that the rules themselves should be right, and there is much less populism underlying university rule-making, compared to the insane "summary executions for drug dealers" approach that exists in the US.

Could you argue for imposing the death penalty against a person who bought too much Sudafed, if it were made a capital crime (in short, could you work as a prosecutor in Singapore)? If not, I guess you are not totally on board with the "these are the consequences" view, and if you are not willing to be principled about acting on principle, then maybe it's necessary to re-examine the principle.

[Groovenstein]

I would probably need to implant listening devices behind your ear and clandestinely observe you for a few years before saying for sure. So yeah, necessarily you get to know more than the jury, and the main issue is whether you could set aside all prejudices and weigh the evidence in a fashion that would make Solomon drool. For example, could you disregard an illegal confession, or would that knowledge be lurking in the background?

Stalker. Could I disregard an illegal confession? I think so, but why would I have to? To satisfy my personal standard of guilt or innocence, my concern is only whether the confession is true, not whether it was legally obtained. Brewer v. Williams (link in my above post) is a great example. Even though the nine robes in Washington said it was illegally obtained, I'd consider that "confession" pretty reliable considering that the guy knew where the body was.

In America, there would probably have to be some other fact that brought you to the attention of the police. . . .

Not only that, but if someone does just waltz in and confess unsuspected, I can look at facts after I receive the confession that would confirm or deny its truth.

Could you argue for imposing the death penalty against a person who bought too much Sudafed, if it were made a capital crime (in short, could you work as a prosecutor in Singapore)? If not, I guess you are not totally on board with the "these are the consequences" view, and if you are not willing to be principled about acting on principle, then maybe it's necessary to re-examine the principle.

Interesting question, and right now, I don't know the answer. Damn you people and your intellectual challenges!

[DavidOdden]

Could I disregard an illegal confession? I think so, but why would I have to? To satisfy my personal standard of guilt or innocence, my concern is only whether the confession is true, not whether it was legally obtained.

In a Brewer case there is not just the evidence in the confession, there is the evidence external to but pointed at by the confession. The issue should be, IMOO, exactly whether a confession should be accepted as true. On the face of it, a coerced confession should be disbelieved, but additional facts might indicate that the confession is real. I didn't mean to imply that all illegal confessions should be tossed out, but some should be: the rule that should be followed is that a confession is true if volunteered and false if coerced, but this is a defeasible rule subject to analysis of the degree of coersion or any external factors.

A major part of the problem with tainted confession law is that it isn't criminal (at least to the best of my knowledge). Of course society has to decide to what extent it is allowed for police to violate people's rights in the pursuit of justice. If there are to be any limits on the tactics that police can use to get a confession, then there should be real consequences for going over that line. If the law says that you must stop interrogating a suspect when they request an attorney, they you must stop when they request an attorney. If the law says that you must stop interrogation when a suspect has made request three requests for an attorney, then you must stop when they make that third request. And go to jail for breaking the law, just like any other citizen who breaks the law. Establishing actual law pertaining to proper and improper use of force by the government, and enforcing penalties against violators, would largely remove all of the reason for the current system of throwing out tainted confessions.

[Groovenstein]

The issue should be, IMOO, exactly whether a confession should be accepted as true. . . . I didn't mean to imply that all illegal confessions should be tossed out . . .

I agree with this paragraph entirely insofar as my own standard is concerned. Insofar as admissibility in court goes, however, I think exclusion is the appropriate remedy, i.e. that all illegally obtained confessions should be inadmissible. For my personal inquiry, I don't care how a confession was obtained, because officers are not making interrogation decisions to satisfy me. I guess a better way to put this is that the deterrence rationale of the exclusionary rule makes sense when you're talking about a court proceeding, but not some guy's conscience. I am not comfortable with the idea of a legal proceeding that admits illegally obtained evidence. It sounds like you are. Am I misinterpreting you? If not, why do you think that some illegal confessions should be admissible?

A major part of the problem with tainted confession law is that it isn't criminal (at least to the best of my knowledge). . . . Establishing actual law pertaining to proper and improper use of force by the government, and enforcing penalties against violators, would largely remove all of the reason for the current system of throwing out tainted confessions.

I too have no knowledge of what criminal penalties, if any, there are for an officer who illegally obtains evidence. Perhaps our rational officer friend can bring his knowledge to bear on this? Are there departmental sanctions or something? In the civil arena, you could (at least theoretically) bring a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for constitutional violations, subject (for cops) to a qualified immunity defense.

I agree that there should be criminal penalties for officers who obtain evidence illegally. I am not quite sure what you mean by the last sentence I quoted. Is it that criminal penalties would reduce the existence of many tainted confessions because they would be a more effective deterrent, that criminal penalties would be a more appropriate "remedy" than exclusion, or something else?

[DavidOdden]

I am not comfortable with the idea of a legal proceeding that admits illegally obtained evidence. It sounds like you are.

Not comfortable, no. I'm also not comfortable with actual criminals getting off on a minor technicality. My reasoning is that with the current system, an officer has little disincentive to violate a man's rights in the hope of getting a confession. There may be social repercussions or reprimands if he frequently gets his confessions tossed, but nothing really jarring, like jail time or a huge fine. Making this a statutory matter would (should) force clarity on what constitutes legal vs. illegal conduct with a suspect. However, I admit that even if there are criminal penalties for extracting an illegal confession, evidentiary exclusion would be still appropriate. There are two principles that bring about exclusion: deterrence and the sanctity of law. Even if deterrence is handled via statute, there is the integrity of the process, so we should keep the exclusion.

[Unconquered]

My reasoning is that with the current system, an officer has little disincentive to violate a man's rights in the hope of getting a confession.

I think it's much worse than that. For some grossly non-objective law, where any property used in some "crimes" becomes forfeit and then becomes the property of the state, with, as I understand it, some cut for the police department, there is an active incentive for the police to go after people.

[Michero]

I would rather see a conscientious, thoughtful Objectivist in law-enforcement than one who gleefuly advocates non-objective laws.

I have to disagree with that. A service that really protects mens' rigths will attract good conscientious officers. A service that doesn't will attract men who do not think and that service will fail to do much of anything. Good officers lend credibility (politicians can point to them as evidence of their success) to a bad service and confuse the public.

[Groovenstein]

Not comfortable, no. I'm also not comfortable with actual criminals getting off on a minor technicality.

Okay, I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I'm not comfortable with the latter, either, though of course I sleep a little easier knowing the importance of those technicalities.

I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post.

For some grossly non-objective law, where any property used in some "crimes" becomes forfeit and then becomes the property of the state, with, as I understand it, some cut for the police department, there is an active incentive for the police to go after people.

I'd be okay with asset forfeiture under a system of objective laws (though I can't even think of a context in which it would make sense under objective laws, so I may retract this upon reflection), but under the current system it is an atrocity. If I'm reading this right, the DEA placed 129 vehicles (over $3 million) it swindled into official use last year.

[Jay P]

....

I'd be okay with asset forfeiture under a system of objective laws (though I can't even think of a context in which it would make sense under objective laws, so I may retract this upon reflection), but under the current system it is an atrocity. If I'm reading this right, the DEA placed 129 vehicles (over $3 million) it swindled into official use last year.

The big problem with forfeiture today is that you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to have your property seized. For example, in the case of drug laws, all the authorities have to do is have some reason to believe that the property was used to commit a crime. (I'm pretty sure there have been cases of the police confiscating large quantities of cash from a person because he "fit the profile of a drug dealer", but he never was charged with a crime; certainly not convicted of one.)

[DavidOdden]

The big problem with forfeiture today is that you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to have your property seized.

For example, US v. Liberty Ave. [710 F. Supp. 46] where drug sellers had invaded a man's property, and he was cooperating with the police to get them out. But they were apparently ticked off at him over just how obsequious he was supposed to be, so they threw 21 USC 881 at him.

[Groovenstein]

The big problem with forfeiture today is that you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to have your property seized.

No doubt. I wonder how large or small of a drop we would see even if you had to be convicted. Sadly, I don't think the problem would go away, given the incredible number of drug convictions at all levels.

[EC]

This is equivalent of saying that a moral police officer would quit his job. (We had an earlier thread about this somewhere -- re: the morality of being a public prosecutor.)

Yes it is. And that is exactly my position, as law enforcement applies to the context of today's world if he is not willing to not enforce immoral laws.

[Thales]

A moral police officer would personally choose not to enforce non-objective law and would being willing to risk his job for it not use it in attempted justification of his evasion of the morality of his actions.

Anybody who does that would surely lose his job. If that were to happen, we'd end up with only bad cops enforcing the laws. Do you want that? The fact is we need police officers to uphold laws, because laws (the good ones) are vital to a free society. Without them, we'd be in a really bad way.

[EC]

I agree. But what we have now is mostly bad cops enforcing bad laws.

I also challenge your implification that we still live in a "free society". This is not the case and has not been so for a very long time. Remember comparing our nation with all others that are far worse is not a defense but a condemnation of what this country should be.

Arguing that a moral cop should keep his job in an immoral society for the sake of the principal of law is the same justification that allowed for the enactment of Directive No. 10-289 in AS.

[Captain Nate]

A moral police officer would personally choose not to enforce non-objective law and would being willing to risk his job for it not use it in attempted justification of his evasion of the morality of his actions.

I don't think this is a rational expectation. How can we have a society of law & order, if the police unilaterally decide what laws they will or will not enforce? It'd almost be the equivilant eliminating civilian control of the armed forces if the army and its soldiers could just say, "We don't like this law/war/situation" and just quit.

[EC]

I don't think this is a rational expectation. How can we have a society of law & order, if the police unilaterally decide what laws they will or will not enforce? It'd almost be the equivilant eliminating civilian control of the armed forces if the army and its soldiers could just say, "We don't like this law/war/situation" and just quit.

Simple they choose to enforce the ones that are objectively valid and only those. Un-objective laws are invalid and enforcing them is immoral. It's not a "unilateral" decision, but a decision based on objective moral principles which if ignored negate the existence of a just society requiring the rule of law. Laws are derived from moral principles, and "laws" that negate morality do nothing to further a society but instead hasten its destruction. Ergo, it is entirely proper for an officer to not enforce such laws.

[Thales]

I agree. But what we have now is mostly bad cops enforcing bad laws.

I find that hard to believe. My question is, how do you know this? I've personally not had a problem with cops in a long time. In fact, my last dealing was very pleasant.

I also challenge your implification that we still live in a "free society". This is not the case and has not been so for a very long time. Remember comparing our nation with all others that are far worse is not a defense but a condemnation of what this country should be.

I don't have an exact equation for this, but we have many freedoms, EC. Historically speaking we're in great shape. Few in history have had any where near the freedoms we have, and that is something to celebrity and be happy about. Yes, there are many corrupt things going on that need to be defeated, but don't over state things.

Arguing that a moral cop should keep his job in an immoral society for the sake of the principal of law is the same justification that allowed for the enactment of Directive No. 10-289 in AS.

We aren't in a state any where near as bad as that. Ayn Rand was projecting a world that was far more backward than the one we're living in.

What you're promoting is not reasonable. Think about it. Without laws, we'd have anarchy, and anarchy would decidedly not be better than what we have now. Better than Nazi Germany maybe, but certainly we're very far from that.

[EC]

I am NOT and NEVER will promote anarchy or "no laws". What I am promoting is simple; that only objective and rational laws be enforced.

[Groovenstein]

EC, I have questions about how each officer is to enforce only objective and rational laws. For one thing, each officer must know for himself whether each law is objective and rational. It seems to me that would require each officer to be both a legal and philosophical powerhouse. Would you say that before one becomes an officer one must know the propriety of every single law he will be responsible for enforcing? If not, then how should the officer handle enforcing those laws about which he does not know the propriety?

[Thales]

I am NOT and NEVER will promote anarchy or "no laws". What I am promoting is simple; that only objective and rational laws be enforced.

But you can't have police officers deciding which laws are just and which aren't. Groovenstein makes an excellent point on that. You have to have some degree of respect for the checks and balances of the system. The system is in place to make this a system of laws, not of men. Only in the most egregious cases would it make sense for an officer to not enforce a law.

The other problem I have with that is that it doesn't seem possible. Unless I'm wrong, I'd imagine any officer who doesn't enforce a law he is required to, would be in danger of losing his job.