.:standing on principles:.

I'm always torn between giving the police the power to stop illegal activity and protecting our rights as people. I watch so much Law and Order that I sympathise with the police, while at the same time I watch enough movies about communism and the regime of totalitarian governments that I fear giving the police such power. I think that police should knock, wait and then assess whether to enter or wait a little longer. If they feel that the situation should be conducted without a knock warrant, then they should get that warrant. What to do with them and the evidence they seize when they violate that law is something I haven't quite figured out. I don't like the exclusionary rule when I hear about a guilty man going free. I don't think I know about the exclusionary rule being used when the wrong person is caught because then the case should be thrown out all together. However, it's contrary to our constitutional thought to say that the exclusionary rule allows a guilty man to go free precisely because of the fact that all are assumed innocent until proven guilty. When a man is judged he is judged as "not guilty" or "guilty", not as "innocent". I'm not quite sure what the difference is between "not guilty" and "innocent" but I suspect it has to do with the order. One who is innocent is not guilty, but it is not necessarily true that one is not guilty is innocent. I suppose that is a result of the crime the person is accused of. If John Doe were charged with murder and that is what the jury is deliberating, to say that he is not guilty means that he did not the do that particular crime, but it could be true that he committed manslaughter and so was not innocent on a larger scale. I have no idea but that is just a thought...

On the subject, I know a lot of people and kids watch the show 24. I was an Alias fan so I kinda didn't want to like the show. After seeing a few episodes and watching a few years of Alias, I can conclude that these shows are scary in a political sense. As we watch the shows we become wrapped up in the protagonist, we sympathise, we want her/him to get the bad guys, and at any means necessary. So then of course when in real life the president wishes to spy on Americans the outrage is mixed. 24 and Alias fans would surely support the use of wire tapping if that allowed Agent Bristow or Jack Bauer get the terrorist. So my fear is that as we as a country engross ourselves in the shows where the government is the good guy fighting the bad guy who is a terrorist, we erode our conviction to uphold personal liberty even if that comes at the cost of our safety. It's a principles versus practice debate. In fact, the economists would refer to it as a risk threshold: upholding principles is doesn't protect us physically and is therefore risky, doing what is necessary in practice, alternatively, protects us physically and is therefore less risky. If we are risk-adverse then we'll support more government intervention and we'll stand less frequently on principle. The problem however, is that I'm talking about physical protection from some nebulous bad guy. We've seen over and over again what happens when we fear for our safety and give power to a hero who will promise us safety. He becomes the government who protects us. As we allot him power, we lose our own. History has show the results of extremely powerful governments. Totalitarianism scares me. What scares me more is that totalitarianism usually arises out of a people's belief in the saving power of a charismatic politician who promises safety or prosperity, but the other half of the deal is our civil liberties.

on the ipod: money tree by the dansettes
related movie: v for vendetta
& its great quote: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."