Simon Asks about Intrusion Justification

[Dave Bird]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <20021025161145.GB25000@himalia.ftel.co.uk>, Ian G Batten: 
>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:
>>
>> Why?  Because it is done reasonably.  When I get pulled over for speeding
>> it's reasonable.  A fair cop.  Those suspected (and indeed guilty) of
>> committing crime should be aware of the consequences - whether it's
>> speeding, dealing in unfit meat or drug trafficking.  When I get pulled over
>
>The full implications of this have only dawned on me.  Are you seriously
>suggesting that if I am wrongfully suspected of a crime, the onus is on
>me to be aware of the consequences of that suspicion and to accept them?
>
>> and I haven't been speeding, or my house searched when I haven't been
>> dealing in unfit meat or illicit drugs then I wouldn't feel so good about
>> it.  The issue would be whether the invetigator was being reasonable or
>
>So, Simon, is it the Home Office's contention that the set of people
>``suspected'' of a crime and the set of people who ``haven't been
>[carrying out crime]'' do not intersect?

 I think John Wadham's remarks,  *** while correct so far as they go
 and exactly as stated ***  are unhelpful to the debate in many ways.
 They cannot be a guide for action. They can only apply in retrospect:
"We can see in hindsight, now that these people have been convicted
 of a crime, that it was right to intrude on their privacy: it found
 evidence which convicted them of a real crime, therefore we can verify
 in hindsight that there were adequate grounds to do it.  Just as there
 are adequate grounds to restrict their freedom of movement by
 sentencing them to jail now they are convicted."


 Unfortunately, it is no guide at all in advance.  Investigations are
 done BEFORE people are convicted beyond reasonable doubt, OR NOT,
 of a crime, while they are still presumed innocent.  You cannot use
 your godlike foresight to know they will be convicted and thus
 justify actions in the present.

 What you have to judge in advance is that "there is sufficient 
 probable cause to think these people need investigating for
 an alleged crime, and it is a sufficiently serious matter, 
 that XYZ intrusions into their privacy are justified."


 This is normally judged by a court, and results in the issue
 of a warrant.

>
>You're right: being searched for crimes you didn't commit is bad.  Why
>should the fact that you are a suspect make it any better?  You appear
>to be expounding the oft-stated view of the Home Office, the Home
>Secretary and the police that all suspects are guilty of something, as
>otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.
>
>There is a world of difference between being convicted of something and
>merely being a suspect, no matter how much the Home Office would prefer
>it to be otherwise.
>
>ian
>
>
>
>
>

- -- 
   ^-^-^-@@-^-;-^   http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
        (..)__u     news:alt.smoking.mooses

       happy as a clam at high tide -. <_" .-._.-.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBPbn+pXpGxv7MBb4WEQJVXgCfbf2tLJmh+cgJjBsuX6vY+WUuffAAoNuM
5JjTDgoPXpbLarQJRf5sQ8tH
=i0eG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----