Key Issues in the Public Safety versus Civil Rights Debate - Essay Example

Assignment Supervisor Key Issues in the Public Safety versus Civil Rights Debate In four highlighted areas, this essay will give the prevailing ideas regarding the tension which exists between public safety concerns, and civil rights. The role of the law and of the State are explored generally, and then the four areas of focus as examined in terms of the background to them, and both positive and negative opinions regarding them. Capital Punishment, Gun Ownership, Police Pursuit, and Hate Crime are discussed. It is supposed that the State is able to enforce law, but that the law so enforced must be for the benefit both of the society at large and of the individual, if a human rights culture is to be maintained in the United States of America. Introduction In the novel, The Prince, Machiavelli implies that the state holds all authority. This Machiavellian perspective explicitly argues that all morality, power and natural law should be controlled by the rulers of the state, in the interests of national security and the continuance of the rulers’ power. In the essay, “On Liberty” John Stuart Mill suggests that “The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others” (John Stuart Mill in Hart, 1963:4-5). Could the purpose of law be as simply stated as: a set of rules to protect society and the individuals within it, and always the safety of the society is more important than that of the individual? In the world’s largest democracy, where human rights principles are constitutionally entrenched, the prioritization of the community over the individual can undoubtedly be seriously questioned. Whether there is moral justification for a law or a security-related need for a law, there has to be widespread agreement within a community or society which recognizes that law (Hart, 1994: 258). Individuals within a society must recognize, acknowledge the validity of, and agree to abide by a law. In the debate over whether public safety is more important than civil rights in the United States of America (US), such questions about the nature of the law, the validity of laws, and the need for community security of the population must be addressed. In at least four instances, forming the basis of the thesis of this paper, the conflict between civil rights and laws enacted to promote national security is notable. Thesis Statement Four elements of public safety versus civil rights debates will be discussed and evaluated in this paper: The death penalty Gun control Pursuit driving Hate crimes In examining these aspects, it will be proposed that in each of these cases, a fundamental threat to civil rights can be seen. Background In the light of democratic principles, is it justifiable to remove one person’s rights for the presumed greater good? At any given time, certain acts may be seen as immoral, or threatening to the greater good. Authorities in society then interpret the law to agree with their own morality. Because of their political or economic power of these authorities, laws made will attempt to regulate what is considered threatening or immoral in such a society. What is considered threatening to the status quo or immoral according to the authorities will become illegal. Laws can only be valid when private citizens meet their obligations, or obey the rules, according to the law, and public officials enact the conduct set out within those laws to manage and enact the legal system (Hart, 2004: 110, 116). Laws do serve to coerce the members of a society into acceptable behaviors and practices, but is necessary to consider whether what is acceptable or appropriate, or just the construct of politically and economically powerful people. The death penalty is enacted in a number of US States, most often as a deterrent to murder. As a public safety issue, murder is evidently a priority crime and as such, easy to propose harsh action in response to. Yet the debate continues, and the US Supreme Court in 2007 was assessing the Constitutionality of lethal injections, and similar challenges to the death penalty continue. In 2005, 846 American servicemen and women died in Iraq; 10,100 civilians died within the shores of the US from gunshot wounds (Galliard, 2008, p. 37). The need to regulate the ownership and use of handguns and other personally owned weapons in the US is clear. The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the US states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The implication is that in times of war, and other direct threat, that the US should be able to muster an army in its defense. The question is thus whether public safety is justification for the present demand for private gun ownership, in light of the effective standing military force of the US. After a request through the Texas Public Information Act, the statistical information to show how safe the San Antonio Police Department had been during chases, was released. For six years from 2003 to 2009, 1200 public police chases had occurred; every third chase reached speeds of 60 m.p.h. or more; 40% of all chases caused damage to other cars or property; and one in five chases resulted in an injury (Ruff, 2010, website). Geoffrey Alpert, a researcher from the University of South Carolina suggests that police policies related to vehicle chases need to be more effectively formulated and implemented: “the longer a chase goes on … the more likely you’re going to have serious injury” (Ruff, 2010, website). Perhaps the San Antonio evidence can be extrapolated to national prevalence of the danger of police chase policies – again the argument to examine this area, and the balance or lack of balance in its relationship to public safety needs examination. The Federal Bureau of Investigation received 7,163 reported of hate crime incidents in 2005. Intimidation, simple assault, and aggravated assault were reported, and almost 4,900 of these reports were related to race. Close to 84% of hate crimes accompanied other violent crimes, and this prevalence of this crime extends into schools – 38% of students were in 2005 exposed to some form of hate-related intimidation (Writer unknown, 2011, criminal.law.com website). Of great concern is the tendency in the US toward hate crime being motivated by the white male “paranoia that they are an endangered species” and seeking to “permanently establish racial separatism by any means necessary” (Writer unknown, 2011, criminal.law.com website). The contention is that “hate crimes are a form of terrorism. The attack is against the community as a whole” (Herek, 2001, cited on criminal.law.com website). Findings The Death Penalty After a four year moratorium the US Supreme Court delivered the decision that the death penalty could again be used in US Courts. Currently, the conclusions of economists that an increase in executions necessarily leads to a decrease in murders, proved through at least a dozen studies, is opening debate widely again (Liptak, 2007, p. 39). Evidence exists to show that the death penalty has some deterrent effect but really academic studies are not possible due to the numbers: in 2003, 16,000 homicides resulted in only 153 death sentences, and 65 executions. In contrast, 30-100 violent crimes were deterred, according to a 2003 study, due to prison conditions, and specifically due to reported prison deaths, not related to the death penalty (Liptak, 2007, p.39). Nonetheless, statistics showing that the murder rate declined nationally in the US throughout the 1990s also show that the rates fell at a higher rate in States that use the death penalty (Jacoby, 2002, p. 13). Gun Control The US has as many as 65 million gun owners, and close to 230 million guns in private ownership (Galliard, 2008, p.37). This is despite a number of historical initiatives designed to regulate the use of guns by private citizens. In 1993, the Brady Bill enforced a five-day waiting period for people buying a handgun. In 1994, Congress passed a ten year ban on the manufacture and sale of certain types of semi-automatic assault weapons. By 2004, this ban is not renewed, after a Congressional vote, and in 2007, a Federal Appeals Court ruling indicated that Washington’s ban on handguns was in contradiction of the Second Amendment (Biskupic, 2008, website). By the2008 ruling the Supreme Court had reaffirmed the individual’s right to own and use firearms for self defense (District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 2008). While debate continues about the right, for example, to carry concealed firearms, the general principle remains. The US citizen has a right to own and use a firearm, felons may not possess firearms, and there are strict conditions on the sale of firearms across the country. Further restrictions are in existence: the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has, for example, a list of ten categories of people who may not legally receive or possess firearms. And perhaps all that remains – given the numbers of guns already owned by Americans – is do decide which level of government should regulate and police gun ownership. Pursuit Driving The Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution are related directly to two US Supreme Court decisions ruling on police pursuit driving. The Sacramento v. Lewis #96-1337, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) case ruled that a police officer in pursuit does not “violate substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution by causing death though deliberate of reckless indifference to life in a high speed automobile chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender” and that only the deliberate casing of harm to someone other than a suspect could be considered arbitrary conduct, and this be a due process violation (Farber, 2007, p. 101). In opposition to this point of view, the case Brower v. County of Inyo #87-248, 489 U.S. 593 (1989) decided that the driver of a stolen car, when he died after crashing into a police road block, made the police guilty for having violated the motorist’s constitutional rights – specifically the Fourth Amendment – by forcing an unreasonable search and seizure. The police had placed an eighteen-wheeler right across a highway, directly in the path of the pursued vehicle, behind a curve, and with police vehicle headlights aimed at the oncoming vehicle so as to blind the driver. The fatal collision was thus considered to be caused by the actions of the police, and this was viewed as a “seizure” since the police had intentionally aimed to stop a citizen in the roadblock (Farber, 2007, pp. 103-104). Thus the purpose and intention of the police in such cases is of most importance. The Courts will determine the extent of that intent on the part of the police, and public safety, it would seem, does still in some cases receive the greatest consideration. Hate Crimes Hate crimes differ from ordinary crimes because the motivation of the offender is definable as a base motivation, the actual crime, and added to that, a bias motivation, the reason that the offender committed the crime, due to an existing prejudice against the person/group of people who are the victims of the crime. The victims of hate crime are thus selected by perpetrators based not on who they are, but on what they are, and represent to the criminal. Forty six States in the US and the District of Columbia gave legislated hate crime laws, and perhaps one of the most significant US Supreme Court decisions in this area is represented by the overturned judgment in the R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992), when the Supreme Court ruled that some words could not be punished based on their content, while others were not (Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparity in the Criminal Justice System, 2004). The implication of widespread hate crime legislation is sometimes, though, ironically, the cause of the suppression of police compliance with federal hate crime law; police reporting of hate crimes; and even the likelihood of prosecuting hate crime offenses (Writer unknown, 2011, criminal.law.com website). Extending on the irony that legislation slows down prosecution in some instances, the ratio of African-Americans, Latinos and Native Americans found in every stage of the Criminal Justice System is higher than the ratio of any other ethnic or racial group in the US (Johnson & Widder Heilman, 2001, website).Thus, more minority groups are stopped, investigated and arrested more often by the police; they appear more often in the courts; and more members of these groups, proportional to total numbers, can be found in correctional facilities. The Constitutional Rights Foundation reports that over 25% of black males, and 16% of Hispanic males spend time in prison while only 4% of white males do – it must be remembered that only 12% of the population of the USA is black (Moore, 2011, website). About 40% of people sentenced to death in the USA are black males. Hate crime legislation does not appear to have every much effect at all. Conclusion An overarching definition of Security must include more than just the traditional role of government and civic society to protect and serve citizens. Currently, it is the combination of responses to evolving threats and hazards from all levels of American society and government. Law enforcement must be realistically able to protect US citizens, both physically and in terms of their rights. The aims of current institutions such as the Department of Homeland Security is to ensure that those seeking to harm the USA find fewer opportunities to do so, given the preparedness on all levels of society (Rose, 2004, p. 307). A clearly stated mission in the documentation published by the DHS is the need to mature and strengthen the homeland security enterprise. Emphasis is placed on the collective efforts and shared responsibilities of all authorities, as well as the family, the individual and the community. “Shared awareness of risks and threats …capable communities …innovative approaches and solutions” are highlighted (DHS website, Fiscal Year 2012 Budget request). The danger is that in these objectives, the inherently human-rights culture of the US is eroded. (2,238 words) References Biskupic, J. (2008) Do you have a legal right to own a gun? On usatoday.com available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm . Accessed November 26, 2011 Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparity in the Criminal Justice System (2004) Annual Report and Recommendations 2003-2004 Connecticut: Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparity in the Justice System Farber, B. (Ed) (2007) Civil Liability Law in AELE Monthly Law Journal 2997 (2) Park Ridge, Ill.,: AELE Law Enforcement Legal Centre. pp. 101-108 Galliard, L. (2008) Public Safety Trumps Outdated, Irrelevant Second Amendment in The Seattle Times newspaper March 10, 2008 Hart, H.L.A. (1994) The Concept of Law Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. Hart, H.L.A (1963) Law, Liberty and Morality Stanford: Stanford University Press Jacoby, J. (2002) Capital Punishment Saves Lives in The Boston Globe, June 6, 2002 Johnson, T.L. & Widder Heilman, C. (2001) An Embarrassment to All Minnesotans: Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System. Minnesota Bar Association Website: available at http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2001/may-jun01/racial-disparity.htm Accessed November 27, 2011 Liptak, A, (2007) Does the Death penalty Save Lives? A New Debate in New York Times Newspaper November 18, 2007 Moore, S. (2011) Definition of Disparity in Criminal Justice on eHow Website available at http://www.ehow.com/facts_4855867_definition-disparity-criminal-justice.html#ixzz1b3ayiuBp Accessed November 19, 2011 Rose, Adam (2004) Defining and Measuring Economic Resilience to Disasters in Disaster Prevention and Management, Volume 13, Number 4, pp. 307-314 New York: Emerald Group Publishing Limited Ruff, J. (2010) Police Pursuits: Does risk outweigh benefits? On the My San Antonio website available at http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Police-pursuits-Does-risk-outweigh-benefits-787565.php# Accessed November 29, 2011 The Kasen Law Firm, LLC Statement posted in Deportation Defense on Monday, August 22, 2011 available at http://www.charlestonimmigrationlawyer.com/2011/08/groups-continue-to-fight-secure-communities-Program.shtml Accessed November 26, 2011 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2011) Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request available at http://www.dsca.mil/ Accessed November 28, 2011 Writer Unknown (2011) Supreme Court Rules Background Checks of NASAs Contractor Employees Legal available at The US Supreme Court Website http://www.supremecourt.gov/ and http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Staffing-Training/Background-Checks/Supreme-Court-Rules-Background-Checks-of-NASAs-Con/?source=RSA&effort=4 Accessed November 26, 2011 Writer Unknown (2011) Law Overview on the website Criminal Laws.com available at http://criminal.laws.com/hate-crimes Accessed November 29, 2011 The US Supreme Court Website http://www.supremecourt.gov/ and http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Staffing-Training/Background-Checks/Supreme-Court-Rules-Background-Checks-of-NASAs-Con/?source=RSA&effort=4 Accessed November 26, 2011 Read More