The law exists to ensure responsibility. When someone does wrong, the police and courts are here to correct for the lapses and crimes.
That’s how law “holds us responsible” for our actions.
The War on Drugs is fought, it has been argued, because recreational drug use makes people irresponsible. So police and courts must punish, etc., etc.
But Theory must be judged not on intent, but on results.
Which are too often atrocious.
When I wrote about Bounkham “Bou-Bou” Phonesavanh before — a toddler horribly maimed and almost killed by an incendiary during a completely fruitless drug raid on a home full of innocents — I identified the War on Drugs as the root problem: “Waging that war permits endless ‘botched raids’ like the one that almost killed Bou Bou,” I wrote last February. “So long as such invasions remain a standard means of trying to catch dealers with their stash — indeed, so long as the War on Drugs is being waged at all — innocent persons will always be needlessly at risk.…”
Now that the trial is over and the family has been rewarded not quite a million bucks in recompense, we can see, clearly, what’s wrong here.
Irresponsibility.
The police who did the foul deed? Unrepentant in court, offering bizarre excuses. What the police assailants claimed, the Pro Libertate blog summarized, “is that while he was sleeping, Baby Bou-Bou ambushed them.” An overstatement? Perhaps — but very slight.
Meanwhile, who pays? The taxpayers. Not the guilty cops.
If we continue to allow this “war” we will continue getting unaccountable policing and the tragedies that necessarily result.
In a word: irresponsibility.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
8 replies on “Judge by the Results”
“In a word: irresponsibility.”
Puleeez. Try “corruption” or “evil” or “barbarity” or so many others that accurately describe government behavior in our police state.
“Irresponsible” connotes lack of intent. These thugs know exactly what they’re doing and repeat the evil endlessly.
I agree, Paul. The unintended consequences of the war on drugs have outweighed any value. It certainly has not reduced drug use or made them hard to get. From a liberty point of view I don’t think that government should limit our freedom to take any food or drug we want. Government should only be able to limit a resulting activity that is harmful to others, like DUI.
But also Government should not support those who have undesirable effects of drug use like joblessness and addiction.
Paul, I agree. The unintended consequences of the war on drugs have outweighed any good that might have been done. The war certainly hasn’t decreased the use of drugs or made them harder to get. From a liberty point of view I don’t think that government should control what food or drugs we take. Government should only penalize harmful actions that are created by drug use, like DUI, which might hurt others. At the same tome I don’t think that government should take care of us if there are bad outcomes from drug use like addiction or joblessness.
Paul, I agree. The unintended consequences of the war on drugs have outweighed any good that might have been done. The war certainly hasn’t decreased the use of drugs or made them harder to get. From a liberty point of view I don’t think that government should control what food or drugs we take. Government should only penalize harmful actions that are created by drug use, like DUI, which might hurt others. At the same time I don’t think that government should take care of us if there are bad outcomes from drug use like addiction or joblessness.
.… who pays?
The taxpayers.
Never the guilty .…
“Sovereign” immunity has as much a place in Modern American life as do, say, queen Elizabeth Windsor and prince Charles Windsor. And/or any other of Mr George Three’s heirs and successors.
Brian Richard Allen
I take issue with your characterization of police as ‘irresponsible’ and ‘guilty cops’. The police didn’t pass the drug laws. But the same people who rail against the police for ‘allowing’ drug dealers to operate in their communities will also blame the police when an operation goes wrong. The police are in a no-win situation.
The police do need to be responsible; they are caught though too; all this brute force by most of the “legal” system: such carelessness and hasty judgments and railroading things through. The police here have been circumspect in a situation here but
know also of cases of excessive force i.e. “power tripping” and I know too they support the courts in criminal behaviors. Like “all” the legal people and institutions and the courts all the way through our state support each other in their mistakes and deliberate violations of the Constitution; they do that consistently over years of persecution and dishonesty about cases. The police are sometimes reacting in situations of duress and split second decision. Sounds like this was a blunder to start with and there needs to be justice for those people. Why do some have to fight so hard for basic right to life and due process? It can make ya crazed. They are “subhuman” in the justice and respect they receive but to be superhuman in their ability to rise above all odds and superhuman in their “maturity.”
The War on Drugs is now, regrettably, a jobs program, gainfully employing not just the gendarmes but also all of the millions of folks whose job it now is to house, feed, and otherwise maintain all those incarcerated for their victimless crimes. And the permanent felony blot on their records now renders those same victims permanently unemployed or unemployable except at either pick up labor where they are competing against the millions of illegals embraced by the President or else back in the drug trade that penalized them so heavily to start with.
Given the continued hostile environment in this country towards setting up or continuing manufacturing, we probably cannot afford to stop all of those War on Drugs make — work jobs. Absent something productive to do, it would massively expand the welfare state, generating even more anger, resentment, entitlement, and drug users.