This is a problem, given most people are rarely in circumstances where they need to assert rights, hence the rights of people are not confirmed by regular testing, rather are only conspicuous when those rights are absent in circumstances that they should be there, and this is made public.
The sensors by which we detect problems with our rights are passive, but that encourages law enforcement to hack the system to stealth rights violations so they continue to go undetected.
You know, Gwiz, you're absolutely right. Plea bargaining was legal (under qualified circumstances) after the Brady v. US ruling in 1970.
I remember also in the news media during the 80s the notion that plea-bargaining was unethical and procedurally unacceptable. It was implied to be criminal for the prosecution and defense to even negotiate outside the court, even with people getting in trouble for trying. This idea was preponderant in the (Los-Angeles-based) television I consumed. So yeah, I, too, wonder where I got that from.
In fictional media, plea-bargaining was regarded as a device of corrupted agents. A plea-bargain attempt pointed to a PA on the take just as much as secret police and preponderance of security cameras pointed to a dystopian police state.
Some time in the 90s, plea-bargaining became not only acceptable, but the norm. Lampshaded thoroughly by Sorkin (albeit in military courts) in A Few Good Men. It's around the same time as when a handful of SWAT raids made it into the media as a new trend, given that they weren't hostage-barricade situations, and in one case, shot up a family.
I'm getting a lot of work out of my Rumsfeld paraphrase.
You create a society with the people you have, not the people you wish you had.
Whenever we decide to blame the people (or blame a demographic of the people) it just goes to show that no, the US Constitution wasn't enough. Human beings are not angels, and we don't have the capacity to always know our personal best interests, and vote for them (rather than values voting or defensive voting).
There are many many ways our government could be improved that we already know but cannot change due to too much disenfranchisement. And then we have problems we know will eventually wreck the next iteration that our framers knew when they made this one. I think they hoped the system would stay intact long enough that we could fix it.
People are people. You can demand rationality of a single person, but not of a voting bloc. Certainly not of a population. Non-point-source vigilance always becomes a tragedy of the commons.
Not a literal screen-saver that automatically runs, but knowing he wasn't going to be getting any input from the computer that would push past his DVD/media player, he puts it on while doing tedious hand-sorting of paper files.
Having been tasked with the hand-sorting of paper files, I would have enjoyed some kind of media distraction (though yeah, not necessarily porn). That's the sort of shit-work that a manager assigns someone to let them know they're under-appreciated -- though in the era of paper files, it had to be done.
Also, as a clerk buried deep in the bowels of a multi-national general contracting corporation, I was one of the the first computer-savvy clerics they had, for whom they had no tasks and would say Here's a computer. Do computer stuff.
I gave them a list of computer stuff that might be useful and waited. And waited. And waited. After about the third day of zero tasks, I installed a flight sim.
So to be fair, I suspect that this guy chose poorly his distracting media, but wasn't tasked with doing actual work. I personally don't think watching porn while on stand-by should be more odious than watching Gilligan's Island (or whatever these guys are watching) while on standby. But our society has some serious hang-ups about sex so Porn = NSFW.
Also the sudden interest by law enforcement in possession of pirated media
It seems our law enforcement gets its cues from big media such as the MPAA and RIAA, or have ever since the Dotcom bust. But this is the primary reason why they take an interest in your electronics at the border, going so far as to confiscate them or withhold them for hours while they transfer all your data for analysis.
Hope there was nothing private on there. Expect any cheesecake shots to be shared around the precinct.
There's a thing I missed somewhere between the Eighties and today, which was where it became socially acceptable, even ethical for a company or a person to seek to make money without ethical or moral considerations.
I remember learning even before Microeconomics about tricks like price gouging, cartels, creating monopolies, dumping, war profiteering (and on and on) were things you weren't supposed to do because, though you would profit, you would also wreck the economy or the society in the process.
It was for this reason that it surprised me that Romney's experience at Bain Capital was considered an asset to his resume as a presidential candidate, when the business strategy of Bain was to buy up other companies, use their credit to take out huge loans, and then sell the company leaving them with the debt so that they go bankrupt.
I don't know Comcast's 2014 profit margin, but Time Warner's was 95%. That's better than drugs or guns or government contracts.
Teamchaos, are you saying that this is the way things should be?
Law enforcement officers should be able to not resort to... the use of force except as a last resort or at very worst in proportion to the force they're encountering. A crabby suspect is not cause for taser fire.
Acting that belligerently to virtually any cop will draw the same kind of treatment
Maybe it shouldn't.
It's one of those corrupt politicians sorts of things. We expect politicians to be corrupt, but that's not to say they ought to be.
Law enforcement officers should be able to not resort to
And if I recall, it was the officer, not the suspect, who initiated the shoving match. As a civilian who is used to de-escalating matters, my response to her would be You can stand anywhere you like. You can even hang out with us while we wait for the K-9 team, though I doubt you'll find our company much comfort.
If you cannot mete out force with care and reservation, maybe you shouldn't have the authority to mete out force at all.