|| From Airstrip One to MegaCity One
||Aug. 15th, 2006 09:13 am|
Can't even find the anger to comment.
It's not an either-or question, except to the daily Mail and its ilk. Strange as they might find it, limits to Police powers are generally a Good Thing.
If, for some reason, it's deemed neccessary to exclude someone from a specific area, or take their car, then the courts can grant that power against that specific person.
Seperation of function between executive, legislative, judicial and legal enforcement agencies does not prevent "justice"; it is a basic and essential requirement of a liberal and (supposedly) democratic society.
Ouch. I appear to be turning into my (other) grandfather.
I suppose the main problem is getting the courts to do something about these people once they've been apprehended. I heard a while back that courts are run so as not to keep the judge waiting - several cases are scheduled to be heard at once so that if one or more parties to one case are not available, another take its place. Don't know if this is the case, but it seems both plausible and remarkably inefficient.
There's also the pervasive lack of respect for the authority of the courts, and that strikes me as being slightly harder to fix.
(I'm not against limiting the powers of the Police, BTW - I'd rather they had some useful and effective ones.)