Abuse
of Trust
Do you really believe that if Officer
Steve Molen had been a regular person instead of a police officer he
would have gotten the sweet deal his attorneys were able to
negotiate? I sure don't and there are some costs to be weighed with
this deal. Already the Eastern District Federal Judge that was to
hear the charges in his district has weighed in with his criticism.
The cases that were to be heard in his court were plea bargained away
for Officer Molen's guilty plea to one count of violating a person's
civil rights. He will serve 6 mon6hs of home incarceration and
eight years of parole rather than the ten years possible on each
count. The Federal Prosecutors said that their goal was to get Molen
out of the police force and prevent him from working as a law
enforcement officer and that was accomplished. That is a specious
and farcical statement the principles of which would never be
available to a person not well connected.
The appearance of a miscarriage of
justice can often be just as far reaching as actual miscarriage.
While it appears that an actual miscarriage occurred here it does
meet legal requirements but only due to the often symbiotic
relationship of prosecutors, police and judges. It is no secret that
all too often the different agencies work together to assure either
conviction or prosecution. That is often not a miscarriage but
sometimes that relationship can have the appearance of favoritism and
that is deadly to the faith in our exercise of what should be blind
justice. That is why the use of plea bargaining must be transparent
and not be misconstrued by tongue in cheek justifications by those
who are charged with the unprejudiced application of the law.
In theory and in practice Officer Molen
was innocent until proven guilty of the charges brought against him
and that is what we must believe. However, the preponderance of
evidence can weigh heavily enough that one must act cautiously in the
observance of that benefit of doubt. Officer Molen was kept on the
Sheriff Department's payroll as an active officer from the time the
accusations came to light until his resignation. At the very least
Officer Molen should have been removed from active duty and suspended
with pay. An internal investigation should have been conducted and
executive departmental action taken. Since his accusers included
some other police officers the veracity of those allegations should
have carried more weight.
I presume the Sheriff's office has
protocol to deal with situations like this and if that is so then
either it was not followed or it should be reevaluated. The
appearance is that a good old boy network exists and police officers
must not be bothered with a little thing like trampling on one's
civil rights in the pursuit of exacting vengeance against an
offender. The mantra of law enforcement is “to protect and to
serve” but allowing those entrusted with that charge to escape the
results of failure to strictly adhere to legal requirements causes
citizens to lose trust. That trust is a gift given by citizens to
people who are allowed to use extraordinary force to protect the rest
of us from harm. If it is perceived that the citizenry is at risk by
giving that trust then that trust is withdrawn and the job of law
enforcement loses its most valuable tool. It then becomes just a
paramilitary organization that forces obedience rather than a
civilian police force that can engender compliance and foster trust.
I fear that many officers see themselves as the former rather than
the latter.
It is a noble thing that we here in the
United States have in our voluntary submission to legal authority.
It is necessary to the existence of a free and democratic society.
Many countries around the world do not enjoy that presumption that
the police are our protectors and are seen largely as enforcers and
they are feared. We should never be in unreasonable fear of our duly
appointed officers because they should be seen and should see
themselves as servants to the people. If that lack of fear and the
trust is abused then the job of law enforcement falls on a slippery
slope to tyranny.
It appears that the trust of the people
in our law enforcement and judicial system has been weakened. It
must not be so. I do believe that mercy is a key component of our
judicial system but it must be seen as mercy and not favoritism. It
must also be that law enforcement officers be held accountable to at
least as strict a standard as the general public and one could argue
a higher standard since they are placed in a position to cause more
harm if that trust is abused.
In many parts of our state it is just
accepted that certain individuals and officers will be treated
differently than the general public. We have seen entire county
governments shot through with corruption and illegality. The
openness of it can only be construed as favoritism and injustice.
Locally we are fortunate that we haven't seen a lot of such behavior
but it is not hard to find a person whose civil rights have been
trampled on by powers that be. That must not be so. Those
enumerated rights are the most significant thing that sets our legal
system apart from much of the rest of the world.
My take is this. Police officers
should not act in a way to demonstrate disdain for the people they
serve. If accused of such behavior they should be dealt with as
swiftly and surely as the people they regulate. An enforcement
officer, prosecutor or judge should always act without prejudice and
with temperance and must always be subject to action if found to not
be doing so. We must sincerely appreciate their actions on our
behalf but abuse of that trust is deep and long lasting.
No comments:
Post a Comment