How to make a balance between police officers’ conducts and the necessity of law enforcement to preserve citizens’ rights
Introduction and the Importance of Debate
Undoubtedly, different purposes have been cited whenever law makers are approving acts. Security and safety, poverty eradication, reduction of inequalities and justice are closely connected in a desired world. Law is coming to remove social disarray and decrease public and individual angst raised by intractable forms of behavior in the context of law. Vividly all people aspire to live in a society with freedom and peace expected as a must. Therefore, lawyers and legal professions are deeply conflicted about such an ancient sense in order to reach a clear, precise, strong and effective priority, not just as a way-out. To answer these real needs, lawyers and academics as well as the judges cooperatively are searching and even struggling to define a criterion preserving the balanced stage based on the necessity of the fighting with criminals and respecting the vastly accepted rights of all people including the accused and the convicts.
The Necessity of Governing Law
One of the most significant parts of investigating in criminal cases is the respect of law when the law does not allow investigators, prosecutors or police officers to behave illegally or unnecessarily in a critical point standing where there is no solution to explore who committed crimes or when, where or why they occurred. Unnecessary tactics or illegal tools have been defined by the law and fair trial principles covered by governing of the rule of law notion and human rights attitudes. Legal rules including acts, regulations, instrumental administrative orders, governmental decisions as well as judicial and tribunal verdicts have defined a certain structure for officers. As a result, they have to behave as dictated by the law.
Problems and Real Challenge
The problem is where they do not want to behave legally or the necessity of their jobs puts them under a serious pressure to do differently. Generally, breach of law is not accepted. Hence, legality and legitimacy of their results should be based on above the board behaviors. Therefore, both litigants and accused persons are not obliged to grant consent for illegal activities conceived necessary by the certain compulsion for collecting data or preparing evidence. Consequently, two sides are described: “Justice” and “Human rights”. This challenge is not a new-found phenomenon. In the whole history of the law, a grieving challenge has been reported between justice and power. Powerful authorities to support their sovereignties are always struggling to change the game in order to meet their needs controlling their people and putting them even under an implied legal pressure or monocracy for example by the media or social networks. Such a perspective supports their interests, never defined necessarily under national interest. The result is a kind of juris-dynamic. Because fighting with crimes without concerning legal necessities is just a justification for deepening the roots of power more and more. This a start point to raise a dictatorial state. Law is standing, therefore, to push it back on a reasonable balanced point.
The Real Meaning of Justice and The Conflict of Interest
On the other side, the meaning of justice is just not defined to reach equity merely or punish all people who committed crimes necessarily or did torts logically. Law is here to protect and manage the peoples’ relations basically. The philosophy of justice is an absolute notion. Hence, it is not completely possible to be achieved. Consequently, this attitude conceptually is taken as a given in law. People should be judged in their personal story of their lives. Person by person approach is different. The cases should be attended to differently and individually. Even if great of criminals are investigated in a case, there is no reason to behave similarly. The logic is that no legal and legitimate excuse is to judge by personal sense or bias. Hence it is a strange expectation from officers to behave like a judge, because they do not have enough skills or need to behave similarly due to their positions. It is not hard to comprehend that they are facing the conflict of interest conceptually.
To sum up, the function of law is determined to manage all people who live in the territory of sovereignties. This idea is supported by the common law academically. While it is obvious that making a balance between the necessity of controlling criminal atmosphere of a society and restricting powerful players in the structure of law is to justify many principles of the fair trial recognized by the principles acknowledged in developed judicial systems and approved globally by the international human rights instruments. In my opinion, it is not possible to allow all administrative officers to investigate, collect, obtain, assess and analyze any kinds of document, evidence, data, confession or any statement of witness or eyewitness, out of legal and legitimate infrastructures recognizing or categorizing the right of citizens and their society as a whole, even if logic or the necessity of social interests supports them. Law is law.