All posts by Thomas L. Knapp

Op-Eds

Cops Should be Held to Higher, Not Lower, Standards

Leave a comment
The six Baltimore Police officers charged in Freddie Gray’s homicide.
The six Baltimore Police officers charged in Freddie Gray’s homicide. Top row left to right: Caesar R. Goodson Jr., Garrett E. Miller and Edward M. Nero. Bottom row left to right: William G. Porter, Brian W. Rice and Alicia D. White. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I don’t live in Baltimore. I will not be a juror on any of the cases relating to Freddie Gray’s death from injuries he sustained while in police custody. I’m not going to predict the verdicts in those cases, or speculate as to what those verdicts should be.  Those accused of crimes are entitled to fair trials, presumption of innocence, and a burden on the prosecutor to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

That said, the handling of this case, and of most alleged crimes in which police officers are suspects, demonstrates some severe inequities that tend to explain why we see people protesting police violence on the streets.

If you and I go out and abduct someone off the street, hog-tie him, throw him in a vehicle, then drop him off severely injured at a hospital, we’re not going to walk free for a week between then and his death. After he dies, we’re not going get ten days off with pay while a prosecutor conducts a leisurely investigation. We’re not going to make bail without seeing the inside of a holding cell (if we’re allowed bail at all).

We’re going to go directly to jail, without passing Go. We’re going to be immediately charged with kidnapping and assault, and a few days later we’re going to be charged with murder. We’re going to cool our heels in jail for a couple of days before our arraignments and bail hearings.

Freddie Gray was arrested on April 12. He died on April 19. It wasn’t until April 21 that the six officers involved in his abduction and death were suspended (with pay). They were not charged with a crime until May 1. Then they were booked and immediately released on bail.

The difference between you and I and those six cops is that they’re government employees with shiny badges. That’s it. That’s all.

Defenders of the existing system want us believe that, having entrusted those government employees with those shiny badges, we owe them an additional duty of special lenience and extra benefit of doubt in all situations even remotely related to the exercise of their duties.

I say that’s exactly backward. The standards of behavior for cops should be higher, not lower, than for civilians precisely because of the special powers with which they are entrusted.

As soon as it became clear that the officers who arrested Freddie Gray had abused those powers — stopping him without probable cause and arresting him on charges for which they possessed no evidence (the knife he was carrying was legal), they should have been arrested and charged with false imprisonment and armed criminal action.  Followed, a few days later, by the charges relating to Gray’s death.

The “police force” as we know it is a young institution, dating back only a couple of centuries and mere decades in its current, abusively powerful form. The jury is still out on whether that institution can be reformed, or whether we’re better off abolishing it.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

 

Op-Eds

Yes, Mitt, We Have Mass Incarceration in America

Leave a comment

RGBStock.com Prison Photo

Quoth Mitt Romney on Fox and Friends: “We don’t have mass incarcerations in America. Individuals are brought before tribunals, and they have counsel. They’re given certain rights. Are we not going to lock people up who commit crimes?”

Finding hard statistics on how many Americans are caught up in the nation’s “justice” system is difficult. Here are a few, culled from various sources, which ring true:

One in every three Americans has a “criminal record.”

One in every thirty or so Americans is, at any given time, under some sort of “correctional supervision” — prison, jail, house arrest, probation or parole.

Double those numbers to get some idea of the “justice” system’s impact on African-Americans. Triple them and you’re starting to get into the ballpark when it comes to African-American males.

Two million Americans, give or take, are at any moment actually behind bars. Some polemicists highlight this figure as “the biggest per capita prison population in the world.” I don’t know if they’re right (official figures from, say, North Korea are naturally suspect), but they’ve definitely got a case.

92% of Americans accused of crimes accept “plea bargains,” admit to lesser charges, and forgo their right to trial in return for lighter sentences. 6% go to trial and are convicted. 2% go to trial and are acquitted.

The Mitt Romneys — and, not so long ago, the Bill Clintons — of the world refer euphemistically to this system as “rule of law.”

The rest of us refer to it as “government gone wild.”

How wild?

Wild enough that the most calculatedly centrist, mainstream politician on the American hustings, Hillary Clinton, thought it necessary to take a poke at the problem in reference to the riots in Baltimore following Freddie Gray’s abduction by police and death en route to jail, for the perfectly understandable “crime” of not wanting to hang around an area when the police showed up.

But apparently not too wild for Mitt Romney.  Following two failed presidential campaigns, Romney has re-branded himself as the talk circuit’s new Alfred E. Neuman — “what, me worry?”

Hillary has a point. Or, rather, she’s catching on late instead of never to an existential threat.

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, America cannot endure one third criminal and two thirds awaiting arrest. It will cease to be divided. It will re-embrace freedom or it will continue to devolve into totalitarian police statism.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

“Hysteria” or Not, the Iran Deal Will Happen

Leave a comment

RGBStock Reactor Towers

“There’s a lot of hysteria about this deal [with Iran over nuclear research],” US Secretary of State John Kerry told Israeli TV’s Channel 10 on May 3. “People really need to look at the facts, look at the science of what is behind those facts.”

So let’s look at three key facts and one key question.

Fact #1: There is not now, nor has there in more than a decade, been so much as a crumb of evidence that the Iranian regime is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. If you don’t believe me, ask the US Central Intelligence Agency or Israel’s Mossad — they say so too.

Fact #2: It follows from Fact #1 that the purpose of negotiations is not to prevent Iran from doing something it isn’t doing.

Fact #3: It follows from Fact #1 and Fact #2 that there must, then, be some other reason for these negotiations and the proposed deal.

These three facts bring up the big question: Why do the politicians of P5+1 (the US, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany) and Iran want a deal so badly?

Working backward, Iran’ s politicians are willing to negotiate because they want US and UN sanctions lifted.

Politicos from Russia, China, France, the UK and Germany want a deal for perfectly obvious reasons: Their countries sell things that Iranians want to buy (including but not limited to arms and nuclear reactor technology) and Iranians sell things that people from those other countries want to buy (including but not limited to oil).

US politicians are, on the other hand, divided on the matter.

Congressional Republicans (and some Democrats) don’t want a deal because for the last 40 years or so “we stand with Israel” has always been a winning political bet. Even more so recently, since casino mogul Sheldon Adelson started dangling large sums of money over the heads of Republican presidential aspirants who evince a willingness to obey the commands, no matter how cockamamie, of Benjamin Netanyahu.

US president Barack Obama and his administration want a deal for two reasons.

One is that thawing relations with Iran would make great “legacy material” for a president whose real accomplishments over 1 1/2 terms in office seem rather sparse.

The other is, really, the nut of the matter. Obama and Kerry know that if the US bucks out of these negotiations on some pretext, at least four of the other five countries (the possible exception being the UK, and that’s only a possibility) will negotiate their own deals with Iran, leaving the US odd man out and bringing “The American Century” to an ignominious end.

What’s at stake here is America’s claimed post-WWII “leadership of the free world.”

As a libertarian, this looks to me like a win-win situation. If Obama gets his way, peace breaks out (sort of, anyway). If the hawks get theirs, they will have painted themselves (and their constant proposals for military American misadventures) into a corner from which escape seems unlikely.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY