This case involving the persistent problem with law enforcement personnel in the criminal justice system with police harassment fears leading to inaction poses a couple of very interesting and perplexing questions about the nature of the criminal justice system more generally. The most important question to consider is, of course, could this have been prevented if the police has arrested the young man who might have gone on to receive some psychiatric services while locked up? The simple answer is that yes, this might have been a deterrent and might have prevented (or even just delayed) the tragedy but unfortunately, this answer is far too easy. In short, for fear of being overbearing, the law enforcement personnel were merely forced to not be proactive for fear of being accused of police harassment since they had questionable rights to take the man into custody.

Without being able to point to a specific crime, law enforcement could not arrest the man. Being insane or aggressive is not a crime in our criminal justice system, even when it seems as though it should be in cases like this. Without a crime or act of violence, the police were unable to arrest this man and although an arrest might have saved the lives of these people, it would not have been just or legal by any means. If this country allowed its criminal justice system to arrest people because they “seemed” guilty of something or because they “heard” a particular person might be capable of violent crimes, this would be a much different society. According to the codes governing the American criminal justice system a person is innocent until proven guilty (i.e. in this case there was no evidence to signal or “prove” that a wrong had been committed) and more importantly, if arrested, a person must exhibit clear signs that they are dangerous and the officers must have just cause to make an arrest. In this case those elements were not present. In short, while it sounds cold or heartless, the man should not have been arrested by law—even if it would have prevented an awful and senseless crimes.

The powers of the police and other law enforcement agencies in our criminal justice system, as the above article and case study makes quite clear, are often rather paradoxical. On the one hand, these law enforcement agencies wish to make it a safer and better world for all citizens but sometimes, it is impossible to do what might seem right because of laws governing investigations. If there is one over-arching truth, however, it is that no matter what the criminal justice system does, it will almost always face criticism from one party or another. Another high-profile case exhibits this quite well. It is the case of a young basketball player for the Celtics named Telfair who was arrested on weapons possession charges recently. Although he was a player for a major team and a well-known person, this did not prevent police from pulling him over and seeing a gun under the seat. Telfair is losing his position on Celtics, even though he has pleaded “not guilty” to the charges, which interrupts the “innocent until proven guilty” norm. However, this standard of innocence only applies to the legal and criminal justice system; not to a private enterprise such as the Boston Celtics.

The other main issue involved with this case of the police interactions is the way the police handled the original arrest. According to the report, Telfair and a friend of his were pulled over because they were doing 77 MPH in a 45 zone, which is perfectly just cause for an officer to pursue a possible arrest or citation. After being pulled over, Telfair proffered an invalid license, at which point the officer ordered both men to step out of the car. At this time the officer noticed the gun and made the arrest. The interesting part is that both men denied knowledge of the gun being present under the seat.

This case has sparked controversy not only because of the fact that a popular player is being removed from a nationally-recognized team and has a history of being a decent person and supporting 17 members of his family but there is still no reason why there should be questions about how the police went about their investigation. In fact, one of the side issues at play here is how the police should respond to any criticism for attempting to pull over someone who is well-liked and charge them with anything. Various scattered reports (not in this particular article and certainly not on credible news mediums) are even suggesting a plant of damaging material; the gun as a racially-motivated police operation. The fact remains that like in the previous case discussed, there is only so much police can do. In the above case they did all they could within the confines of their duty and limits and in this case, they did something perfectly within their rights (ordering the passengers out and searching the car). No matter what, the criminal justice system is always open to public scrutiny and criticism.

Other essays and articles in the Arguments and Random Archives related to this topic include :Issues Surrounding the Rights of Prisoners •  A Reasoned Approach to Medical Marijuana and the Law •   Summary and Analysis of Life in Prison by Stanley “Tookie” Williams  •  An Argument in Favor of Capital Punishment  •  Argumentative Analysis of the Essay “First Amendment Junkie” by Susan Jacoby