Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire She Blows
I can see both sides of it, but the case against them being allowed to do it is much stronger, IMHO.
|
There is no case for it at all. Think it through. What if police argued for the exemption to rob banks or embezzle funds or assault or murder people in order to catch bank robbers, embezzlers, assaulters or murderers? The only thing I can really come close on is speeders and police often speed or have to speed (so they say) to catch speeders, but it leads sometimes to high speed chases where people die. That is a terrible outcome for a usually and basically otherwise victim-less crime. It is just stupid (mostly) to allow cops to violate laws to catch those who violate laws. It leads to this pervasive attitude in cops that the laws don't apply to them and if you watch how cops drive they don't signal and they speed all the time. It basically fosters arrogant and disrespectful assholes as the people who enforce our laws. A bad policy and approach overall IMHO.
BTW, how do I get into law enforcement in Hawaii? I'd be happy with just DATY and BBBJ to make my case LOL
"The procedures and conduct of the undercover officers are regulated by department rules, which by nature have to be confidential," Honolulu Police Maj. Jerry Inouye told the House Judiciary Committee. "Because if prostitution suspects, pimps and other people are privy to that information, they're going to know exactly how far the undercover officer can and cannot go."
Yea, yea, exemption from prosecution and secret rules enforced by those who the rules are supposed to keep in line. That is a recipe for ethical behavior. After all it has worked well in Congress, Wall Street and in private industry hasn't it?
"All allegations of misconduct are investigated and the appropriate disciplinary action taken," said Michelle Yu, Honolulu police spokeswoman, in an email.
"It's not clear, however, what the punishment would be. The disclosure laws for police misconduct in Hawaii make it impossible to know if an on-duty officer had faced discipline or accusations of having sex with a prostitute."
Another hypothetical case, a 16 year old is trafficked and pimped out in Honolulu. An undercover officer calls her up from BP and goes over, pays her $100 and has sex with her, then arrests her and they jail her, put her in interrogation and get her to try to give up her trafficker and pimp. Is she going to trust the guy who fucked her, a minor, at all in interrogation? Is he exempt from charges even though he fucked a minor? Hey, maybe he needed to take some illegal Viagra and do some blow to convince the 16 year old (well actually it turned out she was a really mature 12 year old) that he was really a john/hobbyist. Oh, and since one visit wasn't really enough to cement the case, they had to have a party with her and two of her friends (the 14 year old and the 15 year old) and five other officers in a gang bang to really pile up the evidence. Sounds like sound law enforcement policy for the basically victimless crime of prostitution, but since it was done with minors there was a terrible felony in the trafficking, but how does all that LE activity really help that case? Get my drift? Love that LE!
Cops want cake and to eat it!
