Re: Man gets life in prison for spitting [on a cop]

On Saturday 05 July 2003 12:18 am, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Friday 04 July 2003 03:42, Daniel Cassidy wrote:
> > I don't see how the fact that the man victim was a public servant makes
> > any difference.
>
> as a private citizen going about our private duties we have choice as to
> where we go and when and what we do once we get there. we do have the law
> to protect us when a crime is committed against us.
>
> as a public servant, you don't have a choice: society has said you will do
> <whatever it is>.

As a public servant, you have just as much choice as any employee of any 
business - you can either do your job and get paid, or not do your job and 
starve. This applies to anyone else as much as it applies to a public 
servant, and is no justification for artifically elevating one element of 
society above another.

> they are given by society the responsibility of upholding
> our societally agreed upon rules and regulations. (the previous sentence is
> a bit "utopian", but i'm sure you can fill in the details where the
> simplicity leaves spaces) as such they are given special priveleges in
> order to be able to carry out this duty effectively.

Sure, but why does this mean that a crime carried out against one of these 
particular human beings is such a great amount worse than a crime carried out 
against any other human being? Spitting in the face of a human being is a 
foul and detestable action, but our society is so unequal that if it happens 
in the school yard, it is simply ignored, if it happens in the street between 
two strangers the worst that is likely to happen is that one will receive a 
police caution (though I am not a lawyer), yet if it is committed against any 
public servant (and, by the sound of the report, not necessarily one who is 
required to be placed in danger by their job) somehow this becomes worthy of 
a life sentence.

Does such an absurd inequality really help public servants carry out their 
duties? If so, wouldn't it also help a psychologist, a private doctor, shop 
assistant, milkman or salesman, or anyone else who has to come into contact 
with the public? In my part time work as a shop assistant, an extremely large 
and ebullient customer threatened to 'knock me out' for failing to change a 
pound coin (I am not making this up). Although it thankfully did not occur, I 
don't find it inconceivable that this customer could have spat in my face, 
and that I could have caught a cold as a result. Since I'm placed in this 
kind of danger, doesn't this make me deserving of protection too?

I also, of course, run the risk of being held up by armed thieves and forced 
to hand over the contents of my till. This kind of danger is perhaps not as 
high as the danger in which police officers are sometimes required to place 
themselves, but it is certainly higher than the danger experienced by, for 
example, a clerk working in an office. Furthermore, a police officer is 
trained and equipped to deal with this kind of risk, whereas I have received 
no training whatsoever and am totally unequipped, unless you count a security 
'call' button which, by all accounts, is totally ignored by our security 
staff. 

All profesions involve personal risk of some degree, and different professions 
carry different risks. This is a fact of life and a result of different 
people having different jobs, not something that applies exclusively to those 
working in the public sector.

> for instance, you or i can't just put someone in handcuffs, read them their
> rights, and chuck 'em in the nearest jail cell. even just putting handcuffs
> on someone would be a crime on our part. we don't have the same rights to
> weaponry on the open streets (at least here in Canada =) that the police
> do.

Although I abhor gun crime, there's something of an argument against the 
latter, and I believe, although perhaps I'm wrong, that it is something that 
American citizens are very proud of - that the right to bear arms is a 
necessary precaution against the possibility of government becoming 
tyrannical.

One danger of protecting government officials and/or employees to a greater 
extent than other citizens are protected is that the possibility develops 
that respect for the authority of government will become too great, that this 
respect will turn to fear, and that this fear will lead to the development of 
tyranny.

Possessing a firearm with a view to upholding the ideals of freedom in the 
case that government becomes tyrannical requires the owner to have some small 
level of disresepect for the authority of said government. In my view, this 
disrespect is a healthy and necessary thing in any functional, non-tyrannical 
democracy, and is not something that should be actively fought against.

> we aren't allowed to use certain radio frequencies.

Equally, we can't use certain other radio frequencies because certain 
commercial entities have successfully bid for the right to use them 
exclusively. This is a completely different matter of deciding how to assign 
a limited, non palpable resource that cannot be directly 'owned' or traded. 
It's no surprise that some of this resource is assigned for governmental use.

> we can't take
> people's children from them or demand to be let into their house to
> investigate the state of their children's wellbeing. etc, etc, etc... all
> these allowances enable effective action on their part.

Equally, I cannot just set up a surgery and claim to be a heart surgeon. These 
kind of limitations and allowances apply just as much to private professions 
as to governmental or civil service roles.

> when it comes to protection of such public servants, they are not only a
> prime target for abuse but they are routinely put in dangerous situations.
> they are therefore due extra protection. without such protection it would
> make it harder for them to do their job.

I'm not sure that disproportional punishment for crimes against these 
individuals necessarily provides more protection. I am also not sure that 
this is a healthy view to take with regards to such issues as human rights 
and equality.

Police exist to protect citizens; it makes no sense to consider crimes against 
individual police officers to be so much worse than crimes against the 
citizens they are supposedly protecting. It is disgusting that a horrendous 
crime such as marital abuse goes almost unpunished when compared to what 
would barely be considered a slap on the wrist offense, were it not 
administered to a government official.

In Nazi Germany and Occupied Europe, the murder of a citizen would be 
considered almost unimportant, but injuring a German officer may well have 
resulted in retaliation against a whole community. This is of course far more 
extreme, but I think there is a parallel.

> it's sort of like how in many sports there are special rules for special
> players (in American football the kicker and quarterback both have special
> protection, in real football the has several special rules, in hockey the
> goaly has special protection, etc)

It isn't like this at all, because we are talking about a blanket law, and not 
something which is so specific.

> the other side of the coin is when public servants are given TOO MUCH
> protection. this can, and does, result in a loss of acountability,
> encourages abuses of power, and/or doesn't enable them to do their duties
> better in any way, shape or form.
>
> there's also the issue, that you noted, about which public servants are
> protected in which ways. uniform protection probably makes as little sense
> as uniform allowances does.
>
> ballance and reasonability. like life itself, i guess. =)

Well, perhaps this part of your message should have been at the top.

-- 
Dan.

Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.