Don't you mean the alleged "criminal's" civil liberties? Oh sorry, its guilty until proved innocent - I keep forgetting.
Look, do not let the legalese mumbo jumbo be a substitute for common sense. The legal profession wants monopoly on deciding what is pro- and and what is anti- social (just like the doctors want the monopoly on deciding what is good for your health). That monopoly is manifested, inter alia, by excessive legal formalism - a person can be caught in the very act of committing a crime, but if the proper legal rituals are not followed to the letter, he will walk innocent.
Contrary to what you may think, I do value civil liberties, but I am not fundamentalist in that - I am not going to substitute common sense with a dogma. Where I live (inner city Baltimore) I do not see many cops harassing innocent people. What I see is a bunch of hoodlums harassing everyone around them - anything from blasting their car radios at 2AM, to shouting obscenities, to demanding money, to breaking into cars and homes, and to assaulting people. And I also see a bunch of hoodlums-in-training following the footseps of their older buddies, and vandalizing everything around them.
These people destroy the quality of life (and lives!) and every normal person wants them out of their neighborhood. And if they get a raw treatment in the process - hey, if you choose to act like a gangster do not be surprised if someone takes you for the real thing and treats accordingly.
I think there is a balance between civil liberties, individuals rights, and public safety. Apparently, many people in this country have problems finding that balance and oscillate between fascism and nihilism.
wojtek
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021004/f47c0ef5/attachment.htm>