Gautam wrote:
*snip*
> The second problem I have with this is your idea that because
> policemen _chose_ to do what they do they deserve no special
> protection. Exactly the opposite is the case. _Not all choices are
> equally virtuous_. A police officer _chooses_ to put his life at risk
> in order to defend society against its malefactors. That is not a
> morally neutral choice - it is a positive one. In return, society
> owes those who implement its laws certain things. The first and most
> important of those is honor. As we should respect soldiers for what
> they do, so should we respect police officers and fire fighters for
> what they do - because all three put their lives at risk to protect
> those who (presumptively) would not necessarily do the same were the
> situations reversed. The second, however, is that society must take
> every step that it can to protect those officers - to make sure that
> this sacrifice remains potential, as opposed to actual. One of the
> easiest things that can be done is to say, simply, that killing an
> officer of the law is not simply killing an individual person - it is
> an assault on the fabric of society itself, and as such, must be met
> with the harshest possible punishment. Police officers are not above
> the law, but they are the instruments of the law, and because they are
> human beings who have demonstrated their willingness to risk their
> lives on behalf of their fellow men, punishing those who harm them
> does not give them a special status - it is the least that society can
> do to protect its guardians.
Based upon the above, then, do you feel that officers that violate the trust
between the police and the public (through corruption, use of excessive
force or other crimes) should be punished more harshly?
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 32384792
