John Whitehead's Commentary
Camera-Toting Cops Turn Innocent Citizens Into Suspected Criminals
The latest attempt to take a bite out of crime comes from the Wilmington, Del., police force. It sounds more like a B-grade version of Steven Spielberg's action-detective futuristic thriller Minority Report, however, than a law enforcement effort to make our communities safer.
In the film, which is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, Tom Cruise plays John Anderton, Chief of the Department of Pre-Crime in Washington, DC. Working in a city in which there has been no murder committed in six years--due in large part to his efforts--Anderton uses precognitive technology to capture would-be criminals before they can do any damage. Unfortunately for Anderton, the technology, which can be manipulated, targets him as the next casualty in the government's war on crime, and the chase is on.
In a similar effort, Wilmington law enforcement officials have adopted a somewhat less cognitive, yet equally flawed technique for identifying would-be criminals--a photo album of sorts. Supposedly created this past June to stop street-level drug dealers, these "jump-out squads" (so named because the police officers "jump out" of marked and unmarked vehicles and make quick arrests) assist law enforcement officials in identifying perpetrators of future crimes by photographing potential "suspects," taking down their names and addresses and filing them away in a database until the information is needed.
Unfortunately, the majority of individuals whose names have been entered into this police database--200 so far, most of them minority males--have never even been convicted of committing a crime. And a large number of them tend to be in poor, high-crime neighborhoods. In fact, from what little is known about the program, the only criteria for being included in the database is that you seem suspicious to the officer on duty.
Thus, you could be dressed in your most comfortable weekend clothes, standing outside a store, doing nothing but daydreaming while waiting for your wife to show up--and arouse suspicion. Or maybe you're running down the street because you're late for work. That could also be considered suspicious behavior.
Or maybe you're just standing around talking with some friends. According to an ABC News report, that was enough for Wilmington police officers to stop a group of men and inform them that they were violating loitering laws, which prevent people from blocking public places. After alerting them to their potentially "criminal" activity, the officers took down their names and addresses and snapped their photographs before letting them go.
Still, you might wonder what's so harmful about a handful of snapshots. But it's what happens after the photographs get filed away for future use that is worrying civil libertarians and criminal defense attorneys. Suddenly, you're a suspect for every crime that's ever been committed. And it's not just you. It could be your wife, your neighbor, or your children who fall under the cloud of suspicion. Since the list isn't made public, you'd never know you were a suspect until you got called in for questioning for a crime you did not commit.
Such prevention programs invite abuse because, in the hands of the wrong officials, innocent people could easily find themselves under investigation. Yet the mayor of Wilmington, James Baker, doesn't seem overly disturbed by the prospect of innocent people being wrongly targeted for crimes they did not commit. In fact, he seems to be wholeheartedly behind the effort. Labeling the criticism of the database program as "asinine and intellectually bankrupt," Baker declared, "I don't care what anyone but a court of law thinks. Until a court says otherwise, if I say it's constitutional, it's constitutional."
Baker is not alone in his cavalier attitude toward crime prevention. Despite the fact that the Constitution and international human rights laws clearly state that a person is innocent until proven guilty, the trend in law enforcement has been toward a mindset that everyone is suspect until proof is found that they are criminal. However, this idea of a suspect class is antithetical to the bedrock principles of equality, due process and justice for all on which this country supposedly stands strong.
Realistically, the police cannot and should not be expected to try to preempt crimes. That would invite massive intrusions into the daily activities of every law-abiding citizen. Even the concept is a dangerous one because, in order to prevent crime in our homes or businesses, the police would need cameras to spy on our every move. This would include cameras not only in our homes and on the streets but constant monitoring of our phones, the Internet and our travels--all in the name of possibly catching a potential criminal.
No doubt we live in an unsure time. And, out of fear, people are more willing to give away their basic rights and power to those they think can protect them. The problem is, however, that in doing so, one is no longer protected from one's protectors.
In the end, we are seeing one more brick being laid down for a police state, which is the unfortunate direction our society has been taking since Sept. 11. And there can be no doubt about the outcome. Minority Report might have had a happy ending for Tom Cruise, but there can be no happy ending for the many innocent people caught in what is bound to be a tangled web of bureaucracy and terror.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
In the film, which is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, Tom Cruise plays John Anderton, Chief of the Department of Pre-Crime in Washington, DC. Working in a city in which there has been no murder committed in six years--due in large part to his efforts--Anderton uses precognitive technology to capture would-be criminals before they can do any damage. Unfortunately for Anderton, the technology, which can be manipulated, targets him as the next casualty in the government's war on crime, and the chase is on.
In a similar effort, Wilmington law enforcement officials have adopted a somewhat less cognitive, yet equally flawed technique for identifying would-be criminals--a photo album of sorts. Supposedly created this past June to stop street-level drug dealers, these "jump-out squads" (so named because the police officers "jump out" of marked and unmarked vehicles and make quick arrests) assist law enforcement officials in identifying perpetrators of future crimes by photographing potential "suspects," taking down their names and addresses and filing them away in a database until the information is needed.
Unfortunately, the majority of individuals whose names have been entered into this police database--200 so far, most of them minority males--have never even been convicted of committing a crime. And a large number of them tend to be in poor, high-crime neighborhoods. In fact, from what little is known about the program, the only criteria for being included in the database is that you seem suspicious to the officer on duty.
Thus, you could be dressed in your most comfortable weekend clothes, standing outside a store, doing nothing but daydreaming while waiting for your wife to show up--and arouse suspicion. Or maybe you're running down the street because you're late for work. That could also be considered suspicious behavior.
Or maybe you're just standing around talking with some friends. According to an ABC News report, that was enough for Wilmington police officers to stop a group of men and inform them that they were violating loitering laws, which prevent people from blocking public places. After alerting them to their potentially "criminal" activity, the officers took down their names and addresses and snapped their photographs before letting them go.
Still, you might wonder what's so harmful about a handful of snapshots. But it's what happens after the photographs get filed away for future use that is worrying civil libertarians and criminal defense attorneys. Suddenly, you're a suspect for every crime that's ever been committed. And it's not just you. It could be your wife, your neighbor, or your children who fall under the cloud of suspicion. Since the list isn't made public, you'd never know you were a suspect until you got called in for questioning for a crime you did not commit.
Such prevention programs invite abuse because, in the hands of the wrong officials, innocent people could easily find themselves under investigation. Yet the mayor of Wilmington, James Baker, doesn't seem overly disturbed by the prospect of innocent people being wrongly targeted for crimes they did not commit. In fact, he seems to be wholeheartedly behind the effort. Labeling the criticism of the database program as "asinine and intellectually bankrupt," Baker declared, "I don't care what anyone but a court of law thinks. Until a court says otherwise, if I say it's constitutional, it's constitutional."
Baker is not alone in his cavalier attitude toward crime prevention. Despite the fact that the Constitution and international human rights laws clearly state that a person is innocent until proven guilty, the trend in law enforcement has been toward a mindset that everyone is suspect until proof is found that they are criminal. However, this idea of a suspect class is antithetical to the bedrock principles of equality, due process and justice for all on which this country supposedly stands strong.
Realistically, the police cannot and should not be expected to try to preempt crimes. That would invite massive intrusions into the daily activities of every law-abiding citizen. Even the concept is a dangerous one because, in order to prevent crime in our homes or businesses, the police would need cameras to spy on our every move. This would include cameras not only in our homes and on the streets but constant monitoring of our phones, the Internet and our travels--all in the name of possibly catching a potential criminal.
No doubt we live in an unsure time. And, out of fear, people are more willing to give away their basic rights and power to those they think can protect them. The problem is, however, that in doing so, one is no longer protected from one's protectors.
In the end, we are seeing one more brick being laid down for a police state, which is the unfortunate direction our society has been taking since Sept. 11. And there can be no doubt about the outcome. Minority Report might have had a happy ending for Tom Cruise, but there can be no happy ending for the many innocent people caught in what is bound to be a tangled web of bureaucracy and terror.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
