Because if I do what my boss told me to do, what has been done for ages without consequence, and you’re going to pass a law putting me in jail for it, I will expend every effort to thwart it. If, on the other hand, you’re saying “stop it,” my give-a-shit factor is lower.
The broader public is indifferent about the Fourth Amendment. Polling and elections and listening to phone calls from constituents shows this. Activating a concentrated mass of political energy against yourself, in this context, is not a bright idea.
Also, it’s wild how cavalierly we’re willing to contemplate taking away someone’s freedoms in a conversation about other freedoms.
Because we have explicit laws set up that already say this isn't an excuse. If your boss tells you to rob his neighbor, that won't save you. If your boss tells you to drive drunk you'll still get arrested for drunk driving. The agency is yours. The question is if a reasonable person would know this a violation of the fourth amendment and I'm pretty confident the answer is definitively yes. And we're talking about cops, who are trained professionals. Who are supposed to be trained in the law. They should know more than a reasonable person.
> The broader public is indifferent about the Fourth Amendment.
You're confused. The broader public is jaded. They've given up hope after decades of abuse. Losing hope is not the same as being indifferent. Even ambivalent would be a better word but I'd still say jaded. We're tired. We're exhausted. Depressed. Worn out. But not indifferent.
This was supposed to be an important freedom; a pivotal one in fact. It deserves more protection than "oopsie! Ok we promise to stop violating the rights of untold thousands".
I think it shows considerable restraint, to ask for the incarceration of a handful of offenders, compared to the flagrant abuse of the rest of everybody.
> Also, it’s wild how cavalierly we’re willing to contemplate taking away someone’s freedoms in a conversation about other freedoms.
When someone abuses power and privilege in order to take away freedoms from the powerless, the powerless wanting to take away the freedoms of the powerful is to be expected.
Even if you take this one capability away from the privileged and powerful, they will remain privileged and powerful. They've demonstrated a willingness to abuse their position to hurt others.
In contrast with removing only one capability from their arsenal, it would be better if the abusers would also be stripped of their power and privilege for having abused one of said powers and privileges.
That doesn't necessarily require incarceration, logically speaking. Sure, the wounded may feel better if it did, but the goal of policy in this situation isn't to please. But at least the individuals who violated constitutional rights are no longer trustworthy.
> Even if you take this one capability away from the privileged and powerful, they will remain privileged and powerful
I’m all for firing the people and banning them from public service. I just don’t see the benefit of putting them in jail. From their perspective, what they’re doing is legal. Moreover, it’s deeply precedented.
And again, it’s a false economy. Threaten to put people in jail around a freedom that ranks low in voters’ minds and you’ll wind up with nothing.
I think our criminal justice system is overly punitive, but I see violating a fundamental right as much much worse than e.g. dealing drugs which I'd possibly spend years in jail for. Is spending years in jail for that reasonable? No. It's a mind bogglingly disproportionate punishment. But violation of fundamental rights is a heinous crime and I'd expect the punishment for it to be greater than the punishment for drug crime. Hence a call for jail time.
