A couple of questions have been raised in recent classes that I didn't have proper answers for and would like to begin to address these in this format.
The first has to do with police violations of civil liberties on the street that though they do not lead to prosecutions (because they are proven to violate rights--for example, probable cause was not established) still impose costs on the accused because they take time and money to address. Sure you are not sent to prison, but you may be destitute as a result of the process. Do you have recourse? My hunch is that you do not--but that's just a hunch. The problem is that the police may still act with discretion and impose punishments on people (by arresting, questioning, accusing and prosecuting them) that can be just as significant as a prison term. So what use is the Bill of Rights if it does not in fact minimize police actions on the ground?
I can't answer that at the moment. This becomes a political issue. To what degree can the general population control police behavior?
The second question concerned John Adams and his rationale for defending the soldiers after the Boston Massacre. We usually argue that it had to do with his animosity towards the passionate mob and his support for the merchants and their access to British markets. But Adams would later join the "radicals" and support revolution, so his thought process had to be more complex. He was a prodigious writer, so certainly a paper trail of his thought process exists somewhere. I can't speak to its nuances.
I'll see what I can find out.
