Relationship between Public Safety and Individual Rights - Coursework Example

Relationship between public safety and individual rights Introduction Public safety and individual rights are contentious issues in the United States with different people holding divergent views. After 9/11 attacks, the United States has systematically formulated a number of legislations and built numerous infrastructures that aim to enhance the safety of the nation. While the government continues to carry out extensive investment in the safety of the country, Americans have systematically lost a number of their basic liberties a feature that continues to raise controversy. The country has one of the most exclusive bill of rights that protects the civil liberties. However, the modern security threats in the country compel the government to enact laws and develop infrastructure some of which often contravene on the same civil liberties (Menéndez & Eriksen, 2006, Pg. 91). The relationship between public safety and individual rights is, therefore, an elusive issue since Americans have often sacrificed some of their rights with the view to enhancing the safety of the country as the discussion below portrays. Privacy concerns are among the leading concerns of citizens in the endeavors of enhancing the safety of the nation. The government has installed effective Closed Circuit Television cameras in major cities throughout the country. The cameras provide dedicated surveillance of citizens in such major instalments in the cities as bus stations, the streets and in residential estates. Private businesses such as banks, hotels and institution of education have also installed such cameras a feature that ensures that citizens have a dedicated surveillance with law enforcement officers watching and recording their lives. The cameras provide a reliable information in the fight of both terrorism and homeland security. The law enforcement agents have CCTV footages to identify, arrest and prosecute the terrorists who carried out the Boston bombings. Law enforcers argue that the cameras help them identify and carry out surveillance of suspicious characters. They use the footages in averting crimes and in noticing accidents in the streets thereby saving lives. While such arguments are valid with most Americans appreciating the input of the cameras, it implies that Americans have surrendered their right to privacy to the law enforcers who can follow a civilian for days. The government collaborates with private premises with effective surveillance cameras. This ensures that the law enforcers can carry out a dedicated surveillance for days. Such cameras affect other civilians as well who must always supplant their rights to privacy in order to cope with the intense surveillance in the society. Another equally contentious issue is the claim that the National Security Agency uses a program known as PRISM to spy on electronic mails. Apparently, the National Security Agency contravenes a number of constitutional provisions as it spies on emails in search of potential threats in the country. Additionally, the agency uses such unorthodox means as tapping phones in carrying out its surveillance function. The agency has been in the center of a diplomatic row with other European countries with allegations of tapping the phones of other presidents and world leaders. Spying on private communication is a violation of the basic provisions of the bill of rights and presents a situation where the citizens must choose between public safety and individual rights (Greenberg, 2006, Pg. 76). Spying on private communication is a major violation of the First Amendment of the American constitution that safeguards the freedom of speech. The agency argued that the program sought to track terrorists and drug lords among other criminals. They allude to the success of the program in helping thwart a number of potential threats to the country. While such arguments are legitimate and continue to enhance public confidence, they also show the government’s disregard for constitutional provisions as it continues to use public safety as an excuse to violate on basic human rights. President Obama’s administration has enhanced the use of the program and used it to gag the media. Various government agencies use the program to spy on reporters’ emails and phone conversations with the view to identifying the sources of government leaks. As explained earlier, the American constitution strives to protect the value of human life and dignity. As such, the constitution and other laws in the country provide systematic and legal ways for the operations of the law enforcers. The legal provision that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty is a major constitutional provision that seeks to safeguard the dispensation of justice in the country. However, the government considers terrorism a major crime that motivates law enforcers to violate a number of the constitutional provisions (Etzioni & Marsh, 2003, Pg. 213). The process of arresting a suspect, for example, should follow a particular procedure that begins with the arresting officer reading out the Miranda warning to the culprit. The Miranda warnings help protect the suspect by ensuring that suspects do not incriminate themselves. Additionally, the law guides the process of investigations often requiring law enforcers to present search and arrest warrants to the suspects. An investigator should not use unorthodox means to acquire either information or evidence on a case. The laws provide defenders with the ability to appeal court cases and accuse the prosecutors of using the evidence they acquired illegally. Such is always a serous claim that often results in overturning court rulings. The fight against terrorism among other serious crimes, on the other hand, is always a serious crime that law enforcers often violate a number of such constitutional provisions. Law enforcers use excessive force when arresting suspects and may always use unorthodox means in acquiring information to prove the guilt of a suspect. The laws further state that every accused person has the right to pay bail and attend court proceedings from home. The judicial service has always shown reluctance in giving bail to suspects of terrorism among other heinous crimes. The American government has tightened security at all entry points in the country. The American-Mexican border is a major security risk to the country. In enhancing the security of the country, the government has since closed the borders and instituted border patrol officers who vet every individual entering the country. The government carries out extensive violations of the rights of the people entering the country. In such places as the entry points, the law permits law enforcement officers to carry out arbitrary searches without producing any warrants. The arguments in the validation of such acts are the fact that the officers carry out such out of the country. However, they are gross violations t basic rights of the population given the fact that some of the travelers are always Americans traveling back into their country. Americans have since learnt to give up such basic rights and allow officers to carry arbitrary searches without warrants at border points. Torture, police brutality, and secret detention are yet some other outright violations of human rights. The American government engages in such acts secretly especially when handling terror suspects. According to the American constitution, torture is an illegal practice punishable by law. Such a constitutional provision captured in the bill of rights with the eight amendment to the constitution stating that the country will not condone excessive bails, imposition of excessive fines and the use of both cruel and unusual punishments (Cohn,(2012, Pg. 161). Despite such clear and concise legal provisions, allegations of torture, secret detention of suspects and police brutality are a common phenomenon in the management of terror among other serious crimes. Members of the United States government, law enforcement agencies and the military have often used torture both in the country and abroad. The justification for such heinous actions is always the claim that the government agencies strive to improve the safety of the public. Both American and international laws abhor torture. However, a number of American law enforcement agencies use torture as a sure way of obtaining vita information that relates to acts of terrorism and security threats the country faces. Apparently, tortures have proven effective in obtaining information. Suspects respond to intense pain with the government and military having specially trained individuals who know how to inflict pain through torture. The American government has had a number of clandestine facilities including a holding facility in Guantanamo bay where the military held prisoners arbitrarily and tortured them in order to obtain terror related information. More interestingly is the fact that the American government used the facility to hold and torture both American citizens and non-Americans, an allegation that shows the country’s disregard to international laws in its attempt to enhance public safety (Harbury, 2005, Pg 87). In a conclusion, confusion and controversy are rife in the discussion of the relationship between individual rights and public safety. The country has a number of clear and concise laws that seek to safeguard individual right. However, the government has always shown disregard to the basic constitutional and legal provisions in its attempt to enhance public safety. From the instalment of surveillance cameras that limit privacy to the use of torture and the obvious disregard for the procedures of investigating, arresting and holding suspects, the law enforcement agencies continue to trample on the rights of the individuals. Citizens have therefore often supplanted their individual rights with the need to enhance public safety. References Cohn, M. (2012). The United States and torture: Interrogation, incarceration, and abuse. New York: New York University Press. Etzioni, A., & Marsh, J. H. (2003). Rights vs. public safety after 9/11: America in the age of terrorism. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. Greenberg, K. J. (2006). The torture debate in America. New York: Cambridge University Press. Harbury, J. K. (2005). Truth, torture, and the American way: The history and consequences of U.S. involvement in torture. Boston, Mass: Beacon Press. Menéndez, A. J., & Eriksen, E. O. (2006). Arguing fundamental rights. Dordrecht: Springer. Read More