This past week eight arrests were made of the leaders of the extreme right wing group called the Hutaree Militia. This Michigan based group had been monitored for years by the FBI but not until now had any arrests been made.
The word Hutaree, although not found in any English dictionary, means, according to the members of the group "christian warriors". The investigation revealed that the main goal of the militia was to assassinate any local or federal law enforcement. The FBI's files show the Hutaree's plan of attack included:
-killing a member of law enforcement after a traffic stop
-killing an officer at their home
-ambushing officers in rural communities
-luring an officer to a false 911 call
-attacking a funeral procession of a downed officer
Clearly these people should not be on the streets, as the rationale for such acts of violence is not attainable by any sane person. The thing is that all eight people are being put in jail awaiting trial. Normally people are innocent, and therfore free, until proven guilty, but not in this instance. Although they have only been found conspiring these plans, they are considered a threat to all. I believe that these people should be in prison awaiting trial but a part of me thinks back to the civil liberties aspect of our class. Is this right? Is it a violation of their civil liberties to put these people away who have not even been convicted of anything thus far?
I think that's a good question. It seems that in this situation them being kept in jail is appropriate, as even if someone has not been proven guilty, releasing them might put the public at risk, making it appropriate. It's well within the law.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are some instances where it might be misused. I recall hearing of another story where two men, who bought some coconut rock candy, were arrested by police and kept in jail for an entire week because the police thought they possessed crack. It wasn't tested until 5 days later, and then they were set free. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/22/2010-01-22_bronx_men_to_file_2m_suit_against_city_after_cops_arrested_them_for_crack_that_w.html
Perhaps the best people can do is to make sure police officers follow procedure as reasonably as possible. Whether or not a person ends up being guilty/innocent after trial isn't necessarily important as long as the information at the time of the arrest makes it seem very likely they would have been a risk to have on the streets. In some cases, like with the crack-that-was-actually-candy, I think the people arrested were wronged (the police could have easily done an on-scene test and saved the arrested people a lot of trouble), and in such cases some form of reparations might be a good idea, or more strong punitive measures against cops who are deemed to have not followed procedure well.