CRIME Follow-up to my idea for helping law enforcement respond more eff ectively to life-threatening disappearances and abductions

From: Tao, Greg (greg.tao@private)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 23:09:05 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: CRIME Checkpoint versus Sonicwall"

    I appreciate all the thoughtful feedback.  The more I hear from folks, the
    more I realize this topic is within the scope of the mailing list because it
    relates to computer crime investigations too.
    
    First, let me say that it is refreshing to hear so many people concerned
    about the freedom we enjoy as Americans.  Those of you who know me
    personally know that I too care deeply about our freedom, particularly about
    our First Freedom, the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the 2nd
    Amendment, which I consider to be the ultimate guarantor of freedom.  My
    late uncle, who was with the 2nd Marine Division during WW2 often reminded
    me about the price of freedom, so I can't ever forget...
    
    I'd like to take a different approach now.  Rather than solicit feedback
    about my proposal, which was admittedly just the ranting of a fellow who was
    as deeply upset as everybody else about the conclusion to the Oregon City
    case, I'd like to explore the question of balancing our civil rights vs. the
    public good.  We'll go down an pointless rat hole if we debate the merits of
    my original idea which was never intended as a be-all/end-all solution.
    
    ...so let's look at the current situation with open minds to see how we can
    make this country a better and safer place.
    
    I'll start with the assertion that there are situations where our civil
    rights are temporarily superceded by a greater concern.  Some examples:
    -- In the military, there is no "free speech" as we know it in the civilian
    world. You have UCMJ, and for good reason...to maintain the unified chain of
    command
    -- Firemen responding to a fire don't need a warrant to search a house for
    people...they just save lives cutting through walls if necessary
    -- While law-abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms,
    convicted felons do not
    -- There is the cliché example that the right of free speech does not mean
    you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater
    -- Airport security personnel don't need a warrant to run everybody through
    metal detectors and other security checkpoints
    -- House-by-house searches are authorized under certain circumstances when a
    criminal at large poses a clear and present danger to the community.
    Admittedly, I have no clue what the criteria is for such searches, but you
    see them on the news from time to time
    
    I'd like to see if there is *some* reasonable and useful change we can make
    to our criminal justice system that can reduce the amount of denied or
    deferred justice resulting from things like:
    -- evidence thrown out on a technicality (e.g. cast iron skillet used by
    Ward Weaver to beat an ex-wife)
    -- evidence not admissible due to a technicality (e.g. the police weren't
    authorized to search Stoudamire's marijuana)
    -- law enforcement not able to search obvious places of interest due to the
    stringent requirements for getting a search warrant
    
    The problem we face is that in the case of predatory murderers who abduct
    and kill people, time is of the essence when a person goes missing.  I've
    heard people describe the first 48 hours as critical.  These predators most
    often know their victims and live or operate within some proximity of them.
    Furthermore, they often fit a certain criminal profile involving prior
    violent criminal behavior.
    
    I'm thinking that there must be *some* way to allow law enforcement to
    investigate these crimes more freely in a manner that doesn't trample on the
    intentions of our Bill of Rights.  The status quo just feels like it
    protects criminals more than it does honest people.
    
    Another point to consider:  As the Framers of our Constitution stated in the
    Declaration of Independence, government derives its just powers from the
    consent of the governed, so law enforcement will ultimately be limited by
    the will of the people.  However, the limits we place on law enforcement say
    a lot about ourselves, both good and bad.  The accountability we hold those
    with power shows we seek fair treatment for all.  Yet our willingness to
    allow criminal investigations to stall for fear of minor inconveniences or
    the possibility that searches might uncover some popular criminal activity
    such as recreational "soft" drug use shows a somewhat insensitive aspect of
    our culture, particularly when delay in criminal investigation can cost
    lives.  I am reminded of Kitty Genovese in New York City.  For those of you
    not familiar with the name, check out http://www.lihistory.com/8/hs818a.htm.
    No less than 38 of her neighbors witnessed her being stabbed to death over
    the course of 35 minutes.
    
    I wonder if we as a society are collectively doing the same thing as Kitty
    Genovese's neighbors by not opening up our communities to more liberal
    searches by law enforcement when human lives are at stake.
    
    There's got to be something we can do besides accept the status quo...
    
    Thanks,
    
    Greg Tao
    greg.tao@private
    Disclaimer: These are my personal views and opinions, not the views and
    opinions of my employer.
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Aug 28 2002 - 00:19:56 PDT