|
"You
Can't Handle The Truth"
by
Gary W. Sykes, Ph.D.
Anyone
who has seen the movie, A Few Good
Men, remembers the classic scene
in which Col. Jessup (played by Jack
Nicholson) uses that classic retort
in responding to an attorney's demand
for "the truth." Going further,
Jessup explodes, "We stand on
the ramparts and provide the security
under which you sleep! So, just say
thank you and go on your way."
Put another way, he is letting it
be known that, in his view, citizens
have no right to question or criticize
how the military goes about their
assigned tasks. Arrogant you say?
Not so fast.
There
are several fundamental issues in
play here. First is the proper role
and limits of authorized power in
a society governed by rules. Another
is concern for a system based on the
rule of law when men and women make
the law, interpret the law and apply
the law. But the ultimate issue at
hand is this: at what point can men
and women go beyond the law in terms
of a higher good?
The
"truth" we can't handle
is what it takes to provide protection
when the predators have no sense of
the rules or lack human decency. What
lurks in this issue is the troubling
knowledge that to protect may be a
higher value than the law. In walking
down that pathway there is the potential
for both heroism and tyranny.
In
a New York Times article, Bob
Herbert wrote, "(T)here is a
widespread notion ... that a police
department can only be effective if
a certain number of its officers behave
like thugs. According to this notion,
gratuitous brutality, a nasty attitude
and the harassment of innocent people
are essential components of successful
police work." A corollary to
this viewpoint is that it is sometimes
necessary to go beyond the rules in
order to protect the whole. National
and community security are the prime
directives of government in any society,
but in a democracy where the rule
of law is valued, the security function
becomes a much more complicated issue.
When
we say the function of police is to
protect, we place the security function
first. The primacy of the security
function asserts itself in times of
war, crisis and crime waves, and Americans,
if the situation warrants, will place
the Bill of Rights on hold in order
to be safe. If it comes to a choice
between the values of security and
the rule of law – it is no contest.
Historical examples are everywhere.
How,
then, can liberal democracies protect
themselves when they are confronted
with criminal organizations that refuse
to play by any rules? It is the same
dilemma police confront when dealing
with the genuine predators on the
streets (the real bad guys). The temptation
might be to look the other way when
"street justice" is employed
because the danger and necessity of
the circumstances tend to compel the
actions. This moral position elevates
"getting the bad guy" above
adherence to the rule of law embodied
in the oath "to support and defend
the Constitution of the United States."
And there's the rub.
Administering
"justice," beyond due process
justice, can be heroic if the threat
is clear, the criminal intent is overt
and the response is measured in proportion
to the evil. And perhaps most importantly,
not administered in secrecy. The cloak
of secrecy, after all, provides enormous
potential for the abuse of power,
and when those abuses come to light
(as they always do) the moral justification
of the cause is destroyed. As Herbert
concludes in his article, "(T)huggish
cops bring no benefits to the city.
Their behavior undermines the efforts
of cops who do a good and even heroic
job day in and day out."
Addressing
the tension between "street justice"
and "due process justice"
is not easy or simple.
|
