A lot of times in Media, Television, Movies, Games etc. you’ll see this leader of a huge crime organization where its shown that the government or law enforcement of that universe obviously know that they’re involved in illegal activity, but they “don’t have enough evidence to put them in jail” This is where my question comes in, what stops this government from just doing it anyway? If they obviously know they’re evil than why can’t they just stop them anyway, Its not like keeping them out of jail will be MORE helpful for the world?
In: Other
Constitutional law.
One of the responsibility of judges is to require the State to PROVE rather than just “know” that the person is guilty.
Think about the alternative: whenever anyone is inconvenient, the government could just say “we know” that they are guilty of arbitrary-crime-X, and put them in jail.
You are basically asking why the government cannot commit unlawful action against their own people.
Functionally, they can and have done so. The government could disappear you overnight if they really wanted to. However, if the government makes this a common policy, then they may have to face the wrath of the people. This is specially the case with someone as high profile as a mob boss. It would hard to disappear them overnight.
In short, the government follows the laws so not encourage the people to rise against them.
If they can put Al Capone in jail without sufficient proof to even attempt a trial – then they can do the same to me, they can do the same to you.
A pretty good rule of thumb, is to think of what you’d like the court to do if it was your turn tomorrow.
>Its not like keeping them out of jail will be MORE helpful for the world?
I like to think that keeping the justice system just is much more helpful than anything that could happen to one man.
Because you can’t just arrest, prosecute, convict, and imprison someone based on vaguely “being a bad guy” – or at least not in countries with the rule of law. In the U.S. The Constitution and lots of laws and Supreme Court decisions are very clear on that.
The person has to have committed a specific crime as defined in a law somewhere, and there has to be actual evidence that that person committed that specific crime – enough evidence to convince a jury that person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
So maybe John Doe is well-known in the neighborhood as being a drug dealer. So what? It’s not a crime for people to believe you’re a drug dealer. There has to be actual, concrete evidence that you are selling drugs in a way that violates a specific law. Actual, real evidence would be something like being caught on camera selling drugs, or the testimony of an undercover police officer who bought drugs directly from John Doe along with a lab report that shows the substance he bought was an illegal drug.
In the US we don’t allow this kind of tyranny. Government officials don’t get to say “I know they are a criminal” and therefore jail, execute or otherwise punish people. We may have some messy parts in our system, but thankfully this isn’t one of them.
Besides, there is no law against being the head of an organization if you can’t prove the organization is violating laws.
We have laws. We have courts. We don’t put people in prison without at least the right to hold a trial to share the evidence & testimony against them.
Because if the government could just jail anyone they deem “evil” it becomes a slippery slope. Because all it takes is one person to define someone they don’t like as being evil (dissidents, opponents, etc). Evil is a subjective thing. Think about how half of the country is treating women’s reproductive rights. You’ll see why you don’t want to give that much power to the government.
I was jailed in 2006 for shouting while transgender. I would have done hard time, but I won my case with a good attorney.
Civil liberties are everything…if you can afford a lawyer.
My dad, who did a sting as a cop back in the 60s, used to say ‘Most of the time you know who did it, it’s just getting the evidence to prove it in court that’s the tricky bit’. So for example, let’s say you bring out a witness who says your guy did some crime. But it turns out that that witness is lying to cover his own crimes or he’s lying for some other reason. Sometimes your evidence is all circumstantial and not direct and so you have to build up sufficent barely smoking guns to look like something that a jury might accept as pointing towards guilt.
If I tell someone to commit and crime and they tell the police what said, the police don’t have enough evidence to arrest me. It’s like that but with more middlemen.
Because laws get in the way.
You are asking for what President Nayib Bukele did in El Salvador.
In order to deal with the gangs he suspended the constitution and arrested some 80 000 people. Basically everyone even suspected of having a connection to the gangs.
Under Bukele, El Salvador has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, with an estimated 2 percent of its adult population behind bars.
The constitution has not been in effect for about 2 years at this point and Nayib Bukele is without doubt the acting dictator of El Salvador.
At the same time his actions had very positive effects on the safety in the country and he enjoys widespread support among citizens.
But it’s a slippery slope. Now you have a dictator and it’s a question if he will ever attempt to transition back to democracy or stay as a dictator for life.
Even if we assume that he is the most benevolent and competent dictator with nothing, but the best intentions in mind. No man rules forever and he will be replaced at some point.
Latest Answers