Pubdate: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 Source: Tribune Review (PA) Copyright: 2000 Tribune-Review Publishing Co. Contact: http://triblive.com/ Author: Harold Kyriazi Note: The writer, a neurobiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, sits on the boards of directors for the Pennsylvania and Allegheny County Libertarian Party. GOOD COP, BAD COP Television shows and movies often depict scenes in which police officers, in order to get a criminal suspect to talk, take turns interrogating. One officer acts like an angry beast, about to explode in violence, while the other is reasonable and sympathetic, befriends the suspect, and suggests ways to appease the beast's anger, such as by telling the truth. They call the ruse ``good cop, bad cop.'' Our society has developed a pernicious case of a deadly malady that results in the same officer being, simultaneously, both a good cop and a bad cop. This is because in carrying out some of his orders, he must violate the rights of citizens whose rights he is sworn to protect. We began putting our police officers in this impossible bind when we decided that it was the job of government to protect us not only from others, but from ourselves (and our own bad judgment) as well. I refer to laws against various recreational drugs, gambling and sex-for-pay - victimless ``crimes.'' Unfortunately, in trying to police ourselves this way, everyone becomes a victim, not of vice, but of the vice squad. Because to do their job, vice-squad officers must become the all-seeing eyes of Big Brother - snooping here, entrapping there, decimating our Bill of Rights everywhere. SPECIOUS INVASIONS This country has witnessed numerous instances over the past decade of police breaking into the homes of innocent citizens and killing them, all because of our nation's ``Drug War'' hysteria. Recently we have seen our national ``drug czar'' send our military troops and $1.6 billion overseas to ``help'' Colombians by poisoning their marijuana and coca crops (``Drug czar visits jungle,'' Tribune-Review, Feb. 25). Scores of innocent people are killed every year in the cross fire of drug war-induced urban gang turf wars. Drug dealers, spurred on by the promise of large future profits, peddle drugs to children to get them hooked. And the seizure of the private property of those merely suspected of illegal activity, who aren't even charged with a crime let alone convicted of one, is now a multibillion-dollar source of revenue for police departments across the United States. The latter was made possible by the RICO (Racketeer Influence Corrupt Organization) anti-racketeering laws designed for use against drug kingpins, but which are now used mostly against average citizens. (An organization called FEAR - Forfeiture Endangers American Rights - has a Web site (www.fear.org) that is chock-full of useful, and blood-boiling, information.) You may wonder how it is that here, in the supposed land of the free, we're not even free to enjoy our vices anymore? Even during our Victorian era, personal vices were viewed as something to be corrected by a minister's admonitions, not by a policeman's club. Our situation seems to be due less to residual puritanism than to our progressive move toward socialism throughout the 20th century, such that now everyone is responsible for all and no one is responsible for anything. With unemployment benefits and welfare being paid by everyone's taxes, it's now everyone's business when anyone isn't working. With Medicaid and Medicare, it's everyone's business when anyone endangers somebody's health. (The current bete noires are smoking and doing drugs, but skydiving, eating fatty food and other risky behaviors can't be far behind). So, with the best of intentions, we're enforcing laws against prostitution, gambling and recreational drugs that put police in the following bind: If they choose to enforce the law, they must use force against people who are minding their own business and not hurting anyone else, which goes against common decency and the basic moral tenet of ``live and let live.'' But if they leave them alone, they're not doing their job. To see the immorality of the law, ask yourself if you'd feel justified, as an ordinary citizen, in trying to physically subdue and handcuff people who were off by themselves, peacefully smoking marijuana cigarettes, snorting cocaine, or even shooting heroin into their veins. By contrast, would you feel justified in trying to physically subdue and handcuff someone who was mugging an elderly person? I hope the latter, and not the former! DICHOTOMY OF STATE Getting back to our police officers' dilemma, they usually can't just ignore people who are openly engaged in vice activities, because citizens, quite reasonably, complain about prostitutes soliciting in their neighborhood, open-air drug markets, etc. And state lottery officials complain about illegal gambling operations cutting into the state's take. (Gambling is so bad for us, you see, that the state has to run it and get us hooked on their benign form of it. It helps senior citizens, don't you know?) And so police officers can't always look the other way, even though their best instincts tell them they should. To keep citizens' complaints down to a minimum, and to keep vice out of the public eye, officers sometimes reach informal agreements with those in the vice business, such that the latter conduct their activities out of public view and the police leave them alone - often for a price. And, for their money, these officers provide not only noninterference, but can also arrest the competition of their favored vice-dealer and keep other officers in line (like that jerk Serpico, who thought he was being good by not taking bribes, but who actually upset an efficient operation with which everyone was reasonably satisfied). So, when people speak of a ``good cop gone bad,'' they're usually mistaken, because being ``bad,'' or ``on the take,'' is more in line with basic morality - not using force against those who aren't using force or fraud against others. Bad is now good, good is actually bad, and we've turned our criminal justice system upside down. Of course, some officers really do turn bad, as disclosures in New York and, more recently, Los Angeles have revealed, doing things like cold-bloodedly killing and stealing from drug dealers. But, with some of our laws so at odds with basic morality, it's no wonder that cops occasionally get confused about right and wrong behavior. Do we as a society wish to continue putting our police officers in this impossible bind, where to do their assigned job they must violate the Bill of Rights and all standards of common decency? Or, do we wish to recognize that if there's no victim there's no crime and begin putting our vice squad officers to work stopping real criminals, like murderers, rapists, muggers, and thieves? - --- MAP posted-by: Derek Rea