The debate about the police in is a good opportunity to clarify the public about what, exactly, is the defense of the debate about crime.
The defense of human rights has a moral dimension, related to the dignity of the human person — including criminals under the custody of the State. These values are what define political liberalism and modern civilization.
The countries we consider developed are those that most respect human rights. “Acting within the limits of the law” when dealing with criminals is just one case of the general rule “acting within the limits of the law.”
But this column is not moral preaching. It is cautionary advice about how much power we should give to state officials.
It is not “criminal punishment” that inspires those who argue that police officers can only act within the law. It’s the fear of handing over to the police, who are human beings like everyone else, powers of life and death typical of a dictator.
History does not suggest that a large percentage of dictators knew how to use their power sparingly.
This is not about discussing whether the criminal is a saint, but about admitting that the State is not.
Recent episodes of police violence show this well. When and signaled that the police would no longer be accountable to anyone, a police officer felt free to .
Do you know the “system constraints” that you thought prevented the fight against crime? In fact, they prevented the police from throwing people off the bridge.
Yes, they place limits on what the police officer should do. But they also make it difficult for them to take bribes, throw people off the bridge, and ignore a crime that they should be repressing.
They also record acts of police heroism, moments in which police officers refuse bribes, and help analyze what went right or wrong in a given operation. And, above all: they guarantee that the State will act within the law.
In Brazil, human rights take the blame for the security crisis. It’s an excuse that fits everything. The police chief receives bribes from drug trafficking. When charged for his inaction, he lies that he does nothing for the sake of human rights.
The ruler who does not know how to equip, train and pay an efficient police force lies in the fact that human rights NGOs tie his hands. The deputy, the judge, everyone says that it’s the fault of the bearded guy from the humanities faculty who has much less power than them.
It doesn’t make sense. The vast majority of these are not resolved. That is, even if you want to authorize the police to kill all those responsible, no one knows who is responsible for the vast majority of crimes committed in Brazil.
If we were able to investigate satisfactorily, we would probably already be organized enough to not need to kill anyone who wasn’t shooting in our direction.
If we remove the illusion that the problem of public security is human rights, our lives will become more difficult.
We will have to face complex questions about how to organize the police, how to improve laws. We will debate more difficult problems, but at least we will debate real problems.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
