Tuesday, February 24, 2009
"Much of what we read on the LRC page and elsewhere involves unjust or criminal actions by people employed by governments. Whether it be the aftermath of the infamous Duke Lacrosse Non-Rape. Non-Kidnapping, and Non-Sexual Assault Case, the Little Rascals Case, or yet another situation involving a wrongful prosecution and conviction, we are given example after example of government wrongdoing and outright criminal behavior. In any of these stories, one or more of all of the following will have occurred: (1) Prosecutors hide exculpatory eviodence or just lie, (2) prosecutors suborn perjured testimony, (3) police officers lie on the witness stand, and (4) judges sit back and do nothing while an innocent person is railroaded. ... What we rarely see, however, are the people who were at fault ever being charged as criminals or being on the end of lawsuits brought by the victims. Most of the times, the real victims have no recourse at all. The reason is that governments confer immunity upon those privileged to work in the police and 'justice' systems. ... In subsequent rulings, courts have spread immunity to prosecutors and police and others in government 'acting in their official duties.' ... If one steps back and examines the reasons given for immunity, they translate to the following: judges and legialators are not willing to expose the government employees in the 'justice' system to legal liability because it might 'distract' them from their duties or make them legally vulnerable. This reasoning is rich, very rich, and absolutely ironic. What they are saying is that police and those employed by the courts should not be subject to the very legal procedures that they force upon the rest of us. ... We cannot make police, prosecutors, and judges into honest people. However, we also have to understand that the very immunity that protects these goverment employees also provides a powerful incetive for fundamentally dishonest people to seek these careers", my emphasis, William Anderson (WA) 3 February 2009 at http://www.lewrockewell.com/anderson/anderson238.html.
"In fact, one of the reasons that Mallin was so sure of her identification was that police investigators insisted that Cole was the man and, in effect, confirmed for her the identification she had made. ... Let me put this case another way: Mike Brown, Cole's attorney, did a better job of investigating the case that did the Lubbock Police and Jim Bob Darnell. In fact, the official investigators failed in their efforts, and ultimately depended upon lies, bullying, and intimidation. ... I am not interested in hearing how police simply 'made a mistake'. If Mike Brown could figure out the case, why were the police and prosecution so reluctant to to the same?", WA, 8 February 2009 at http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson239.html.
Imagine suing SEC, OCC or Fed employees for negligence. Would we be in today's mess? Imagine suing the SDNY US attorneys for wasting government resources on prosecting insignificant financial crimes while no one in a position of authority at Citigroup, among other entities, has been indicted for anything. Imagine. Incentives count!
In part, this police inadequacy is a result of the drug war. See my 28 November 2007 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2007/11/law-is-ass-6.html. Don't be too enamored of the FBI either. Remember Unabomber, Joe Jett or the Richard Jewell cases?