It never ceases to amaze me how powerful asking for forgiveness can be, and in kind, forgiving. It equally ceases to amaze me how stubborn some people can be in refusing to ever admit being wrong. Because that would be weak. To me, it’s cowardice; it takes more balls to swallow pride, than it is to ignore the issue.

I remember when I was still a student at UCI that there was a professor who was doing some controversial research pertaining to the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. She would ask witnesses highly suggestible questions after they had viewed a traumatic scene, and voila! The witnesses would “remember” it the way she suggested. Apparently she got harassed a lot for such research, from media and law enforcement alike.  Supposedly one reporter would actually hound her, and sit in all her classes, trying to sensationalize her work as depicting all eyewitnesses as lying, incompetent boobs.  I *think* the researcher in question was Professor Elizabeth F. Loftus, but I’m not sure. Oh, ha, I didn’t finish watching the second video above, but Professor Loftus is in it.

Even among my friends, it’s kind of interesting to see who is more consistent and who is not. When there’s a common memory among multiple friends, there’s usually divergence. Then there’s always that person who, after a few months, will pass off someone else’s words and ideas as their own.

False imprisonment is pretty much the biggest reason why I’ve mellowed out with the death penalty. I know, I’m liberal, I should be against it by default, but with particularly heinous crimes, I just can’t help it. But with so much room for error in our system, the death penalty just isn’t right. Which makes Texas and Japan particularly scary to me, both liberal democratic governments. I’ve read that Japan has a prosecution rate over 95%. In other words, if you’ve been accused, and you stand trial, you are almost certainly going to be found guilty. The defensive rationale is “only the truly guilty get that far” or some BS like that. So don’t get to that stage. Because after that, they can execute your ass with only a few hours prior warning (look it up). Then Texas is Texas. There was one case, I wish I could be more specific, but I don’t recall the names anymore, where an “arson expert” who was about as much of an expert as I am at the bbq grill, pretty much singlehandedly lead to the execution of the accused. Multiple real experts from out of state looked at the evidence, and determined that the first guy had no idea wtf he was talking about.

Anyway some links:

PBS’s site for Jennifer’s case

Edutopia links on witness testimony research

The short answer is, “Yes.”

Ah, abortion, the nuclear option of topics. Debating gay rights is a cakewalk in comparison. It’s times like these that I’m thankful I’m male. It’s such a sticky topic that I’ll be shamefully honest: I don’t have a well formed opinion either way. Is the fetus a person, is it not a person, when is it a person, when is my hamburger gonna be done? So yeah, I take the easy route, and choose not to think about it. Let the women decide!

Anyway, my friend Brian wrote an anti-FOCA post on his Facebook. Brian is one of the few rational conservatives whom I deeply respect -i.e. he doesn’t make my eyebrows twitch and we can debate rationally and civilly without insults. So FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act, what is it? There’s actually not too much information about it, except your typical super biased yay and nay sites. But it’s essentially legislation to formally “codify the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade“, rights that have been trimmed during the Bush II era. Obama has vowed to sign it if it ever reaches his desk. So of course, you got the crazy conservative groups coming out of the woodwork claiming that FOCA will allow all hell to break loose: Christian hospitals will be forced to commit abortions, late-term abortions will be a dime a dozen, blah blah blah. In fact, here’s one alarmist claim verbatim:

“Pro-Abortion Lawmakers Propose “FOCA” to Invalidate All Limits on Abortion”

Is it true? I wanted to find out, but like I said, there isn’t that much information. The wiki doens’t help much, either. I did find the following, however, laws that have been in effect since the late 70’s:

(b) Prohibition of public officials and public authorities from imposition of certain requirements contrary to religious beliefs or moral convictions
The receipt of any grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act [42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.] by any individual or entity does not authorize any court or any public official or other public authority to require—

(1) such individual to perform or assist in the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if his performance or assistance in the performance of such procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions; or

(2) such entity to—

(A) make its facilities available for the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance of such procedure or abortion in such facilities is prohibited by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions, or

(B) provide any personnel for the performance or assistance in the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance or assistance in the performance of such procedures or abortion by such personnel would be contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such personnel.

In other words, hospitals that receive public funds cannot be compelled by the government to perform abortions. So no, it would appear that faith-based hospitals that receive Federal funding would not be forced to commit abortions. Scratch one against the conservatives, it would seem.

However, at first glance, there does appear to be a hole. Section C states:

(c) Discrimination prohibition
(1) No entity which receives a grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act [42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.] after June 18, 1973, may—

(A) discriminate in the employment, promotion, or termination of employment of any physician or other health care personnel, or

(B) discriminate in the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel, because he performed or assisted in the performance of a lawful sterilization procedure or abortion, because he refused to perform or assist in the performance of such a procedure or abortion on the grounds that his performance or assistance in the performance of the procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions, or because of his religious beliefs or moral convictions respecting sterilization procedures or abortions.

In other words, while a religious hospital receiving Federal funding can’t be compelled to perform an abortion, they can’t purposely not hire personnel that would be willing to perform an abortion, because that would be discrimination. “Yes, this is a Christian hospital, and yes, our doctor is a LeVayan Satanist. He will perform your abortion.” Back in favor of the Religious Right?

Kinda, maybe. One more “however.” Back to Section (b)(2)(A) in the very beginning:

does not authorize any court or any public official or other public authority to require—

(2) such entity to—

(A) make its facilities available for the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance of such procedure or abortion in such facilities is prohibited by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions, or

While they can’t discriminate against who they can hire, they don’t have to actually provide the facilities to perform an abortion. So the “offending” doctor would have to go to a different hospital. Religious conscience is mostly spared, other than the discomfort of having an “abortionist” as a coworker. Although I suspect the social dynamics at the workplace would cause someone like that to find employment elsewhere anyway. Not to mention that discrimination at the hiring phase is incredibly easy to get away with in the first place.

Back to FOCA. I’ve read the bill, S. 1173, and it doesn’t appear to affect the aforementioned laws; so no, passing FOCA should not force religious hospitals to perform abortions. However, the bill is definitely quite vague.

Here’s the meat of the bill:

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not–

(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

Pretty simple, right? The government can’t interfere with pro-choice, and if an individual is interfered with by a violation of FOCA, that individual can sue. It looks like it can co-exist with existing laws so far.

However, “viability” as defined by FOCA seems a bit broad:

(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability’ means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

That’s not the worst demarcation point, but it seems to give the physician enormous leeway. While the the spirit of the bill seems to be against late-term or partial-birth abortion unless the woman’s life is in danger, the physician has almost no oversight. The limits as written aren’t really limits if the sole arbiter of said limits is the physician him- or herself. Is that OK? I’m not really sure. I would lean towards “no.” How many unethical doctors are out there? I doubt there’s much, if any, data on it. And with no oversight, that’s not going to change. Yet something like this would probably be incredibly difficult to oversee (but not impossible).

Reading further led me to Section 6:

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

That section would appear to negate nigh everything. So was the claim that religious facilities could be forced to perform abortions not so alarmist after all? It appears possible. “Every” is a pretty encompassing word.

Then, after researching Roe vs Wade, FOCA actually seems to go beyond merely codifying it. Roe vs Wade ruled:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

That is similar to FOCA but different in important aspects. Basically, during the first trimester, abortion is restricted to the judgment of the attending physician, and not the government. But after the first trimester, the State can effect laws regulating abortion in various ways. FOCA on the other hand, would appear to eliminate that priviledge completely, as well as push back the first cut off from the end of the first trimester to “viability.”

While Roe vs Wade didn’t exactly iron out the definition of “viability” either (it did attempt to, typifying week 22 which is some point during trimester 2), it at least allowed States the flexibility of creating relevant laws as a stopgap solution. That can either work for or against pro-choice/pro-life. That’s one characteristic of the state system (depending on who you ask, that’s a good or a bad thing). With FOCA, it’s entirely in the hands of the physician.

So after reading all this, FOCA just seems a bit too undefined, a bit too unlimited. You know, for such a complicated issue, it’s amazing only less than half a page of text was dedicated to actual law-making. Here, I can actually summarize it in 3 lines:

1. No government interference.
2. Otherwise you can sue.
3. All previous laws are superseded by this one.

Ullllltra combo! Hey, I can be a legislator, too! I would be very surprised if the Democrats allowed the bill, as it stands, to reach Obama’s desk. As it stands, the potential to eliminate religious exceptions and the seeming complete reliance upon perfect ethical physician behavior seems a bit…unrefined. But hey, people have been screaming for simplified laws, and here we are, we got a small, catch-all bill.

My head is starting to spin. I’m not a lawyer, so if i’ve made any errors, please correct me.

Knights Armaments made a ballistics application package that lets you mount an iTouch/iPhone to your rifle. The main site is being slashdotted, so it might not load, but here’s an excerpt of its features:

You can set firearm / ammunition profiles, then call up the saved profile and enter your environment information, for example, distance, wind direction, elevation and temperature.

Ignoring the thought of using it on the living, it actually seems like it’d be pretty cool for competition target fire.

Oh, and the child porno thing. Teens charged with producing child porno by taking pictures of themselves. That has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve heard lately. I love the commentary on /.

Oops, forgot about this. But I had previously made a case for mandatory police video monitoring, and now we have a BART passenger shot in the back by an officer. According to witnesses and the cell phone video, the greatly outnumbered victim was face down on the ground asking not to be tazed. Then, for some reason, an officer whipped out a pistol and blew him away.

Click on the video tab if you want to see the footage. I don’t think it actually shows the part where he gets blown away, but it’s hard to tell.

I wonder what would have happened if video hadn’t been taken? I bet they’d say some BS about how he attacked officers, blah blah blah, reached for an AK-47 and a couple of grenades, and we’d just nod our heads grudgingly, count our blessings that it didn’t happen to us, and forget about it days later.

This is one reason why I’m not really that opposed to British-style public CCTV. In a public place, you don’t really have any expectation of privacy. It’s not like there would be cameras set up by your house or anything. And if the man really wanted to track you, they could do it without CCTV’s anyway as it is.  Obscurity is not security.

This tragedy would be exactly what anti-gun-control supporters would cite as a good reason for having arms at home. So, I’m curious, what is the left wing response to that? I’ve heard various reasons, ranging from, “it’s for the greater good that you aren’t armed, even if you or your family die” to really absurd, nigh far-left, “if you’re going to die (presumably), you may as well accept it, and not resist.” Both of those hint of arrogance, and don’t really satisfy, to put it mildly. 

Well, to get the ball rolling, here’s an interesting essay supporting gun rights (random aside: It also happens to be heavily plagiarized and falsely attributed to some Marine). 

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

While I found his essay insightful, the key problem is that it relies on this part: “When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.” That simply isn’t true. That’s as ideal as a violent-less society. Yes, the weapon has equalized disparity of raw strength, but that only leads to development of tactics, both poor and exceptional, something we humans are quite good at.  At best, that could work, maybe, in a 1:1 ratio, something akin to a showdown from the Old West. We could talk things out in the middle of the street, each knowing the other is armed. But the minute you turn your back, I’ve gained tactical superiority. The gun won’t help you there. The LAPD officer slain in his vehicle with a surprise attack from behind comes to mind. I suppose we could face each other all day, until one of us leaves. Or perhaps I will defeat you in raw speed and outdraw you, out-reload you. Start mixing in more tactics, and you get further breakdown from the ideal. Perhaps I shall strafe you from my car, like a gangbanger. Perhaps I will bring some friends, outnumber you, flank you, suppressive fire you. 

Notwithstanding tactics or numbers, the basis is flawed in of itself. It relies on the hope that people are perfectly rational. We are not. I spoke of poor tactics. You have a gun, I have a gun. Maybe I’ll just open the assault anyway because I love to gamble. Otherwise, why would “gangbangers” continue the fight against each other? Surely they know the other side is armed as well.  Even at the military level, the national level, say, World War I, where advancement was nearly pointless in the face of MG fire, we still fought. The only successful example to date is the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine with WMDs. Yet, I can only wonder when an extremist terrorist will throw that out the window as well. MAD relies on rational, institutional states. The terrorist will not care about mutual destruction. In fact, he’ll probably be at Ground Zero, giving the finger. Indeed, the essay’s argument is really just a personnel version of MAD, but without the reliability of WMD, and without the stability of a state. 

Essay aside, arming the public en masse also relies on successful individuals being on edge, being tactically aware at all times. I am not convinced the public can handle that. They can barely handle driving. How many unaware drivers do you see everyday? Personally, I love driving in moderate traffic. Projecting efficient paths, predicting behavior and “next moves” of other drivers, that’s all fun to me (and no, I am not a weaver). Does everyone do that? I doubt it. I’ve seen some amazingly stupid things on the 405 in my day.  Do I calculate that all the time? No. Perhaps I’m tired, and I just want to chug along in the slow lane. Sometimes, we civilians just want to relax, be safe, and lower our guards. 

But now you have a gun, she has a gun, I have a gun. She draws on you for some reason known only to you two. I don’t see that. You respond and draw on her. After a hail of bullets, you win. I draw on you, the deranged maniac opening on poor little her. Now I’m the deranged Asian going Virginia Tech on people. Everyone draws on me. Now we’ve just recreated Face/Off at Barnes and Nobles. And all I wanted was The Giving Tree for my kid. What the fuck. 

Enter Libertarian, Stage Right. Well, the fools that can’t handle it should just be culled for their stupidity, right? Our society will be stronger for it, somewhat like a modern Spartan society (which happens to no longer exist).  I won’t comment much here, but it really just seems like another unattainable ideal. Another random note: Libertarian who was a fierce opponent of seatbelt laws dies after being ejected from a vehicle for not wearing his seatbelt. Thanks David for that one.

So yeah, what to do? Ideally, she would have been armed. I want her to have been armed. It may have avoided a sad story. But then, I think about duplicating that across all of society, and I realize I’m only wishing for the ideal, that is, “everyone that truly needs to be armed, or can responsibly handle being armed, should be armed.” But it doesn’t happen that way. One could try creating all sorts of crazy, complex licensing schemes, but that would only result in a situation of the haves and the have-nots, something that I do not believe can be sustained in the long run in terms of equity and justice.  So what’s the solution? No idea.

So we have the police. Who were late, by 48 minutes (not their fault in this case; I don’t consider dispatchers as technically police). The unwatched guards of society. They are the haves, we are the have-nots.

I came across this vid on YouTube of a woman in handcuffs demanding a lawyer and a phone call. The officer turns off the camera, and when it comes back on, she’s lying in a pool of her own blood with two badly bruised eyes and a couple broken teeth. She gets wheeled away to the hospital. The officer claims she fell. He was then fired. No criminal charges were filed against him. Done deal, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB_Hl4bcQNc

Well, it lead me to other links, even more disturbing. The next one was of a woman who had been assaulted, and called 911. Yet, she was arrested, stripped bare by male and female officers, and left in a cell, naked for six hours. She ended up covering herself with toilet paper. Not one officer was disciplined. Apparently, a technicality allows them to strip people in custody, without it being classified as a strip search, therefore allowing members of the opposite sex to help where normally it would have been forbidden. As long as they think you’re a suicide threat, they can strip you.  The conditions that trigger that assumption appear to be extremely weak. She aptly felt she had been “raped without penetration” (it still amazes me how many of my fellow men [typically right-wing, cough] still don’t understand the nature of rape. It’s about power and humiliation, not the actual sex. The only equivalent for a male, is being raped by another male). Several other women came forward describing similar experiences at this police station. The state attorney chose not to do anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PF6_Q-6cvw

And then, we have the infamous Chicago PD. I swear they’ve got to have some of the most corrupt officers in the country, on par or maybe even eclipsing the LAPD (see female bartender case, screwdriver-in-the-anus case, protection racket case). A woman calls 911 after a scuffle breaks out at a party. Apparently another woman had hit an off-duty officer at said party. Instead, the caller is mistaken for the attacker, and she is thrown in the back of a cop car, handcuffed.  One of the cops asks the off duty officer if he’d like a free shot at her. He then breaks her nose, and her left orbital eye socket with three punches. They ignore her pleas for medical attention until she passes out sometime later. None of the three officers were disciplined, even after another female officer filed a professional complaint on her behalf. The state attorney found “no criminal intent.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QqqeEfpuw

Now that I’ve gotten all those out of way, what is the counter to police corruption? We’re supposed to be a nation of checks and balances. We’ve got the legislative, executive, and judicial. They are three parts of one unit, the government, and they work fairly well when checking each other. But the nation includes another unit, the people. The government and people check and balance each other, sort of, in a, I would argue, highly asymmetric fashion in favor of the government. Gun nuts have realized this for probably as long as America has been around, but I don’t think arming the public to the teeth is the answer. The people can vote for members of all three branches, but that’s fairly weak in terms of active oversight. We vote, what, every 4-6 years (and somehow Bush still managed a second term)? We do have free press, but the press is fickle, resulting in a fairly unreliable, indirect check. It seems driven more by profit these days as well. The government, on the other hand, has massive checks against the people. It creates laws, most of which the people aren’t even aware of, it enforces laws at its discretion, and it passes judgment at its discretion in non-jury cases. I don’t mean to imply it can do whatever it wants, just that it has seemingly free reign when there is no oversight.

Actually, I’m going to break the government back down into its three pieces because I think within itself the checks and balances versus the people are also asymmetric.

• With the legislative branch, you vote for the legislators. Their proceedings are generally recorded, I believe.
• With the judicial, you vote for some judges. You get a lawyer, an extra-government entity. Court proceedings are also recorded. A jury of the people may be present.
• With the executive, you do vote for top level members. But it seems like once you go down that rabbit hole at the bottom level, there is very little accountability. As the above videos can show, your ass is theirs. Until you break out of the executive phase and enter the judicial phase, you don’t really have reliable public accountability. There is no active check from the people. You’ll get a lawyer eventually, but there is plenty of time where it will just be you. And the only enforcer against police corruption is the executive itself, leaving us with the executive checking the executive. That’s not good.

For woman number two, the grand jury chose not to press against the officers. The grand jury system is interesting. It works quite well when the defendants aren’t cops. The DA goes in and makes his/her case in front of the grand jury arguing why so and so should be taken to trial. The defendant is usually at a very large disadvantage at this stage, having limited ability to defend. I guess the rationale is “if you’re innocent, you can prove it at the actual trial.” Basically, the DA has a LOT of power to determine what cases actually go to trial.  From the Wiki:

In practice, a grand jury rarely acts in a manner contrary to the wishes of the prosecutor. Judge Sol Wachtler, the former Chief Judge of New York State, was quoted as saying that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”

And it looks like for this woman, the DA chose to protect the officers. I believe the DA opted not to show the video, nor have her testify in front of the grand jury. If they weren’t officers, I’d bet money that he/she would have taken it to trial. The problem is it’s a self-feeding loop. Officers provide DA’s with criminal fodder to prosecute. Sometimes, DA’s were even officers themselves; combine that with the good ol’ “Blue Wall“, where officers turn a blind eye to crimes committed by other officers, and it becomes less surprising why these DA’s did nothing. And sure, some departments have an internal affairs department, but it’s still the executive trying to keep itself in check (and again, the Blue Wall). I should mention that I’ve called the cops once, as a victim, and like the woman in the video, I was treated like a perp. Go Irvine PD!

For woman number three, even though her face was broken, the DA found no evidence of criminal intent. Wow. Can you imagine a DA telling a non-officer that? “Oh, you just broke someone’s face with repeated punches? Well, I don’t think there was criminal intent.”

Woman number one. The officer got fired, but no charges were filed against him because of the classic he-said-she-said.

Basically, officers are granted enormous power. Their word is worth more than your lowly citizen’s word by sheer weight of public trust. The rational goes like this: There’s more of us, than there are of them; therefore, officers, being assumed of higher morality, have no incentive to provide false testimony against you, because you’re a stranger. That makes no sense. If the officer feels like being a dick, that’s incentive enough.

Anyway, there’s something common in all three videos, other than the fact that the victims were all women. It’s the fact that a video camera was present. So is that a possible check? Mandatory video surveillance? I think it’s certainly a good candidate. We’re already moving in that direction as it is. Most cop cars are equipped with cameras. Police stations, too.  It helps them put away real criminals, and it helps the innocent against corruption.

But the laws and standards seem very weak. It appears officers are free to shut off cameras at questionable moments, assuming cameras are even present. For woman number one, police policy allowed the camera to be shut off at that moment during her alleged fall. Why? No idea. For woman number two, some of the videos just happened to disappear or the cameras turned out to be broken when lawyers requested them. Laws won’t prevent that, but they can actually add some teeth to video surveillance handling. Last year, a Chicago police officer beat the shit out of a female bartender. He got away with it. His department fully supported him….up until the point where surveillance footage was released. Then the department pulled a 180 and booted his ass. Rodney King deserves a mention.

We’re in the modern 21st century now. Maybe we didn’t have the technology before, but today we do. The far right like to argue that if you’ve got nothing to hide, you shouldn’t mind having some privacy taken away with surveillance. Well, why not the other way? Even more so, officers should have nothing to hide. All officers not serving in covert operations should be recorded. While acting in the capacity of an on-duty officer, they are public servants. It helps them nail the real crooks, and protects the innocent from corrupt cops. Less corrupt cops, means more respect for the badge. I recently read about one city that is actually wireless networking all their surveillance cameras on police cruisers. It’s mainly to help them, but it should help the innocent as well. Then, we need laws actually formalizing how data is handled, when it can and cannot be deleted, how to secure them, etc. Hell, even the President’s communications are monitored to an extent. Governors, too.  It doesn’t really seem that difficult. It’s mainly a basic IT problem. If we can have the NSA work with AT&T to funnel the damn Internet into a classified room, we can formalize camera laws in stations and cruisers.  If we can have intersection cameras, or public CCTV, we certainly could handle cameras pointed at the police, too.

Clearly, these videos show that footage alone won’t bring justice. But it’s scary to think how many cases don’t even get as far as these because there was no video.

Lastly, the FBI does handle civil rights abuse cases, coming down on the local executive sometimes, but it seems pretty fickle about that, too. It’s just a pipe dream, but if we’re going to have the executive watching the executive, strengthening the federal police in that fashion might work, too, especially in conjunction with strengthened camera laws.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. I am not a lawyer.  If I’ve misunderstood something, please let me know.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/98928/i_spent_16_years_in_jail_for_a_crime_i_didn%27t_commit._here%27s_what_should_be_done./?page=1

I was wrongfully convicted in 1990 of a murder and rape in Peekskill, N.Y. DNA taken from semen found in the victim did not match my DNA. But misconduct at every stage of the criminal justice system led me to spend 16 years of my life in prison. That misconduct included a coerced, false confession when I was 16, extracted after many days of interrogation overseen by current Peekskill Police Chief Eugene Tumolo and others, as well as the falsification of other evidence.

I read another article the other day comparing European and American ideas of “innocent until proven guilty,” but specifically in regards to the media. Here, the media can post your picture, and say how you touched a kid in his special spot, or murdered twenty people, and, innocent or not, your reputation takes a permanent hit. Whereas in Europe, a gag order is placed on fucking everyone. So if you come out innocent, no one is the wiser as to what transpired. Anyway, interesting stuff. I’ll have to find it.