| | It's obvious that this discussion comes down to advocates of preventative law versus the rest.
To a libertarian, the principle of preventative law is abhorrent. It must be. It's the very antithesis of innocent until proven guilty, security in your person & property, & the right to remain silent. Every preventative law is a violation of at least one of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.
You can only justify preventative law on the basis of pragmatism or expediency. Hence, you dispense with the principle & anything goes, potentially. I say potentially because advocates of PL see their actions as a trade-off between maximum freedom & public safety, & not as a draconian violation of rights. And, in many cases, they're correct. Problem is, once you've dispensed with the principle, it's oh-so-easy to do it again & again in ever more wide ranging applications.
Example: in my New Zealand the police, with a court order, can require a convicted person to provide a blood sample for the purposes of storing that person's DNA in a database for future forensic use. That is, if the person, in the commission of a future crime leaves a DNA sample, it's much easier to identify them & bring them to justice. Mmm, on the face of it, it seems like a good idea.
Now you could debate the rights & wrongs of that power from both sides but here's where it leads. A few years ago, one of our cabinet ministers advocated that every newborn should have a blood sample taken & it's DNA stored on a national database. This would allow the police to easily identify criminals, especially in rape, murder and assault cases. Brilliant!! Can you imagine what a boon this would have been for the police? How could you argue against it? Most babies have a little blood taken after birth to test for common problems & few parents are silly enough to object to it. So, why not just take some of that blood and extract the DNA?
What harm is done? None, apparently. So what if the state has a DNA sample? Let's say that you could make the database unhackable with no danger of the DNA ever falling into the wrong hands. Perfect!
And while we're at it, let's give the police the power to conduct random searches of homes. No need to fear. The police will behave nicely & they'll even be given sensitivity training so they don't come across like robbers while they're rummaging through your lingerie drawer...
Or maybe everyone could be required to have a yearly blood test to check that they aren't using any illegal substances. After all, companies test employees and so do sports organisations. Why shouldn't the state?
Only the guilty have anything to fear...
Fact is, all this should be left to the common law, decisions being made on the basis of established *principle*. Crimes can only be detected & punished *after* the fact. Or did Minority Report suddenly become real?
Ross
NB: I'll admit, it's not always easy to do the right thing. Take a discussion that we had on SOLO some years ago. We had some that believed that if your neighbor wanted to construct a nuclear weapon in his basement then that was his right. After all, where's the crime? No harm done... until he accidently detonates it :-) Anyone got an answer?
(Edited by Ross Elliot
on 9/24, 4:48pm)
|
|
