Scalia’s Idiocy
Radley Balko is using Antonin Scalia’s own words in his opinion in the recent Supreme Court decision Hudson v. Michigan to make the justice look like a total idiot. It isn’t really that hard a job given the material Scalia gave him.
I haven’t personally read the whole decision…but this portion is startlingly dumb:
Another development over the past half-century that deters civil-rights violations is the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline. Even as long ago as 1989 we felt it proper to “assume” that unlawful police behavior “would be dealt with appropriately” by the authorities, but we now have increasing evidence that police forces across the United States take the constitutional rights of citizens seriously. There have been “wide ranging reforms in the education, training, and supervision” of police officers (cite omitted).
[…]
Moreover, modern police forces are staffed with professionals; it is not credible to assert that internal discipline, which can limit successful careers, will not have a deterrent effect. There is also evidence that the increasing use of various forms of citizen review can enhance police accountability.
I usually like Scalia but this kind of reasoning in a Supreme Court opinion is really weak…and a little scary. He basically seems to be saying that we don’t need constitutionally enforced protections of our fourth amendment rights anymore because police are more professional now than they were. WRONG!!! For more information on why Scalia sounds so incredibly stupid in his decision spend about 15 minutes scanning the posts at The Agitator. It should be stated that I don’t really disagree with the decision…I just think Scalia’s justification of the decision on the basis that Police are well trained and there is adequate discipline within their respective organizations is insane.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I love Scalia’s opinions, but this one is terrible.
Exclusion of evidence is a bad remedy, since it only helps the guilty. We need a remedy that helps the innocent–such as a fine if they police violate your 4th amendment rights. The police could raid my house all the time if they gave me $5,000 every time they raided it and didn’t fine what was in the search warrant.
There have to be remedies better than the exclusion of incriminating evidence, but Scalia is going about it all wrong.
Comment by Daniel — June 19, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
Dan is absolutely right. A penalty other than the exclusion of evidence is excactly what is needed in a case like the one decided.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — June 19, 2006 @ 1:33 pm