Just some weeks ago the Seattle Police Department announced they would
no longer be calling offenders as 'suspects' in their police reports and would
now be referring to these individuals as 'community members.' You can read more about the story here.
Has political correctness (PC) finally gone too far?
I say 'yes'! Especially when it comes to our police agencies.
Without question, our police are required to be upstanding citizens who are will to be held accountable for their actions to a higher standard than your average citizen. Officers are also required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as it pertains to the citizens they serve. However, political correctness has the tendency to fluctuate with trends, and this could potentially bring about favoritism towards one group over another.
What happens when a targeted group is in favor or is the fad?
Will the police hesitate to enforce the law equitably, using ‘police
discretion’ as a crutch?
What happens when that same group falls out of favor?
Will the police then enforce the law overbearingly against them?
While this aspect of PC seems trivial to some, it does raise the issue
of validity with regards to impartially enforcing the laws of our states and
nation. It is plausible that an officer, who may be considering a ‘community
member’ as a suspect in a crime they are investigating, could hesitate in taking
appropriate investigative measures to determine if,
in fact, the subject is the actual offender.
Such inequities already occur
nationwide when people of notoriety or prestige are suspect of crimes.
For example, while serving as an officer,
I was privy to a case where a City Council representative neglected to watch their toddler grandchild. After
realizing that they had not seen the youngster for some time, they found their
grandchild floating dead in the unsecured backyard swimming pool. While any
average citizen would have been charged
with child neglect under the state statutes, this City Council rep was not, the
police calling the incident an ‘unfortunate accident.'
At the time, it was politically incorrect to think of such esteemed persons as
suspects and offenders.
Merriam-Webster’s (2017) dictionary defines a suspect as: “regarded or deserving to be regarded with suspicion.” Notice this definition does not indicate
that a suspect is a perpetrator or offender. It merely shows that the person is under suspicion. Suspect is exactly what they are if police are considering
the individual as a person possibly responsible
for the crime.
Another contingency concerning the issue of changing this
terminology stems from the protocol of court procedures. The investigating officer needs to carefully weigh
at what juncture during the investigation the subject becomes a suspect, and
then the perpetrator, during a criminal
investigation with an identified offender. During trials I was often
asked by defense counsel, “Detective, at
what point in the investigation did you
consider my client a suspect?”
Clarity of the individual’s role in the investigation becomes inherently important
as individual rights may automatically
attach to the suspect at certain points in any given investigation to include the need
for Miranda in given statements and search warrants for seeking evidence.
For example, let’s say an officer is investigating a burglary in
the neighborhood where the suspect broke out a rear basement window to gain
entry into the house. The officer, who may be privy to information that a
convicted burglar was recently released back into the community following a
jail sentence, where the subject’s m.o. is kicking out basement windows to gain
entry. The officer has no physical evidence to establish probable cause to
charge the suspect, but would logically
suspect them of the crime until
further information put the suspect in or out of the offense.
If later that same day of taking the report the officer saw the
suspect walking down the street in the neighborhood and stopped them to ask
questions, a host of rights may attach to the suspect. The courts would wrangle
over whether or not the officer’s actions were a stop or detention, which would dictate if and when Miranda rights would
attach.
Imagine the officer having such an encounter with the suspect on
the street. Here are two possible ways documenting the encounter in a police
report narrative could occur:
“While
on patrol, this officer observed community member Danny Dirtball* walking in the
neighborhood and spoke with him about the recent burglary.”
or
“While
on patrol, this officer observed suspect Danny Dirtball* walking in the
neighborhood and spoke with him about the recent burglary.”
The former example sounds like a casual encounter
and conversation between an officer and a law-abiding citizen. Where, the
latter gives notice to other officers, supervisors, attorneys, juries, and
judges, who are reading the report, that the subject is a suspect, and that in determining whether Constitutional rights were
applicable in the given instance due consideration needs to be considered.
PC has indeed become a way
of life for many in our society. I understand the need for one to choose their words as so
not to offend others. I would expect this courtesy extended to me. However, I believe that
exercising PC in regards to re-framing the nomenclature of suspects softens one's
perception of an individual and their involvement in criminal activity to a
point where Constitutional rights may be overlooked or denied.
The Seattle Police Department should give this idea more thought
before implementing it into practice.
*Danny Dirtball is a fictitious name used for the example.
References:
Merriam-Webster (2017). Suspect. Retrieved from
No comments:
Post a Comment