Who’s putting kids in danger?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The world is a big, bad place. It really is. Which is why we have to protect children. No one will argue with that. Which is why there are tons of laws on the books criminalizing conduct that harms children, for the most part with extra penalties. I agree.
One of these laws is the prohibition against selling drugs in a school zone (or within a certain radius around a school, park or some other such location where children congregate). Whatever your views on drugs, I think you would be hard pressed to argue against the notion that children need not be in the presence of drugs or drug activity. We certainly don’t want drugs being sold in the presence of children. Someone sells drugs within 1500 feet of a school, they’re arrested and prosecuted (although in a state like CT, you’d be hard-pressed to find a spot that isn’t within 1500 feet of a school).
So why, then, do police engage in a very curious practice? Those who practice criminal law probably know what I’m about to say.
Cops target a dealer, perhaps making a hand-to-hand through an undercover officer. That’s not enough and they want more. So they arrange to make another purchase and another. Sometimes, they arrange for these transactions to take place in a parking lot of a pharmacy. Sometimes, coincidentally, the parking lot is within 1500 feet of a school.
Arresting a suspect for sale of narcotics isn’t enough - they want to tack on the added punishment of a sale w/in 1500 feet. So to accomplish that, they lure the suspect to a location they know to be w/in 1500 feet of a school.
If we are supposed to be protecting children from this behavior, then why are cops setting up such behavior in the presence of the very children we are trying to protect?
Curious, isn’t it?
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
This also reminds me of the several DUIs that I defended in which the officer lurks in the parking lot of a bar, watches the drunk stumble out and get into his car, and waits for him to drive away. Only after the drunk is out on the street, risking the life and limb of other drivers and pedestrians, does the cop stop the vehicle.
No sense in intervening and avoiding a dangerous situation if you can’t make an arrest, right?
I rather like the thoughts of getting scum of the street for a longer period of time.
No matter what the cost? No — it’s simply bad policy. The legitimacy of law enforcement isn’t based upon its “we can do it because we say we can” attitude. It’s based upon a moral authority which, when eroded, calls into question all of law enforcement’s actions.
Like it or not, law enforcement ought to be held to a higher standard — otherwise they’re just competing with the criminals at the expense of their true purpose. We’re all familiar with the “To Protect and Serve” motto. This slogan isn’t an accident. Law enforcement’s primary purpose is to protect the community — arresting violators is secondary. Creating dangerous situations (such as purposefully luring drug dealers into areas where children are likely to be present or sitting idly by and watching while drunk drivers zoom off onto the street) doesn’t protect or serve the public. It’s just stupid and short-sighted. It elevates the “competition with the criminals” above law enforcement’s true purpose which is protecting you and me.