Good Morning Late Wednesday Birds.
ChatterBank8 mins ago
How far should undercover policemen be allowed to go?
23 Answers
With the collapse of the trial against the Environmental activists it's emerged that the undercover policeman was rather deply involved in their activities.
Renting vans to transport them and activities and casing the joint for example, identifying good entry points.
Is this acceptable behaviour - if so how much further could he have gone - would finding new targets and planning attacks recruiting new members be OK?
Where exactly is the line here?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12158198
Renting vans to transport them and activities and casing the joint for example, identifying good entry points.
Is this acceptable behaviour - if so how much further could he have gone - would finding new targets and planning attacks recruiting new members be OK?
Where exactly is the line here?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12158198
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There was an undercover cop on radio2 yesterday lunchtime who basically said that if the ends justify the means ( i.e. If important arrests are the end result) then WITHIN REASON anything goes. He alluded to the fact that, for example, driving a getaway car would be acceptable. I do think that identifying new targets and recruiting new members is outside this remit as this swings the balance in the favour of the criminals rather than the police.
i think 7 years of infiltration in any type of 'gang' is too much. there nmust come a point where you empathise or get so involved that you are swept along ? if this were an islamic terrorist cell or an underworld crime syndicate, results and some prosectutiosn would have been expected after 1 or 2 years.
I remember reading (I can't think, at the moment, where I can get a link) that during the American Anti-Vietnam protests some radical cells were substantially comprised of under-cover 'feds'.........all unknown to each other and all urging their 'brothers and sisters' to acts of increasing violence.
If Kennedy/Stone was asked to do the things he did and did so to maintain his cover, fair enough..........if he volunteered, that's a different kettle of fish.
With respect to the failed court-case, there is a difference between 'going native' as the newspapers allege, and being unable or unwilling to present the type of evidence his senior officers wanted.
If Kennedy/Stone was asked to do the things he did and did so to maintain his cover, fair enough..........if he volunteered, that's a different kettle of fish.
With respect to the failed court-case, there is a difference between 'going native' as the newspapers allege, and being unable or unwilling to present the type of evidence his senior officers wanted.
The acts of 'Agents Provocateur' have always been devisive.
If you can prompt a nasty-ba$*** to crime and remove a threat, there is a moral viewpoint that says that the end justifies the means.............
However, if you make an essentially honest person, in extremis, an offer which they don't/can't/won't refuse I think they area is substantially more grey.
If you can prompt a nasty-ba$*** to crime and remove a threat, there is a moral viewpoint that says that the end justifies the means.............
However, if you make an essentially honest person, in extremis, an offer which they don't/can't/won't refuse I think they area is substantially more grey.
-- answer removed --
This is a very vexing question, jake.
I have a close relative who is with Special Branch. His work has taken him into the situations under discussion here and I have often spoken to him about the difficulties such work presents. I have to say that I have conflicting views on this work, especially the “agent provocateur” type of activities.
I believe there is little doubt that without such work a large amount of organised criminal activity would go undetected. I therefore believe that such work, whilst perhaps unpalatable to some people, is vital. Your question “how far should they go”, though, presents me with a dilemma. Normally I would condemn any action that might encourage others to begin or continue with criminal activity. However, I believe there is a line (which I have drawn) which has on one side people who might be persuaded with a bit of a nudge to commit crimes whilst on the other there are those already involved in crime and would continue their activities whether nudged or not.
In my (admittedly simplistic) world, provocation by undercover police is not justified in the former, but fully justified in the latter. But of course, the line is not always easy to draw and that is where the justice system has to make judgements on what is acceptable and what is not.
In this particular case if the officer had not “turned turtle” I imagine his activities may have been ruled as acceptable. In my simplistic view I imagine the judgement would have to be made on the question of whether the miscreants would have undertaken their activities without his involvement. It seems highly likely that they would have done and his interference made little difference to their actions.
But the end cannot always justify the means and without much more detail (which we are not going to get) I suppose we cannot really say whether he had gone too far or not..
I have a close relative who is with Special Branch. His work has taken him into the situations under discussion here and I have often spoken to him about the difficulties such work presents. I have to say that I have conflicting views on this work, especially the “agent provocateur” type of activities.
I believe there is little doubt that without such work a large amount of organised criminal activity would go undetected. I therefore believe that such work, whilst perhaps unpalatable to some people, is vital. Your question “how far should they go”, though, presents me with a dilemma. Normally I would condemn any action that might encourage others to begin or continue with criminal activity. However, I believe there is a line (which I have drawn) which has on one side people who might be persuaded with a bit of a nudge to commit crimes whilst on the other there are those already involved in crime and would continue their activities whether nudged or not.
In my (admittedly simplistic) world, provocation by undercover police is not justified in the former, but fully justified in the latter. But of course, the line is not always easy to draw and that is where the justice system has to make judgements on what is acceptable and what is not.
In this particular case if the officer had not “turned turtle” I imagine his activities may have been ruled as acceptable. In my simplistic view I imagine the judgement would have to be made on the question of whether the miscreants would have undertaken their activities without his involvement. It seems highly likely that they would have done and his interference made little difference to their actions.
But the end cannot always justify the means and without much more detail (which we are not going to get) I suppose we cannot really say whether he had gone too far or not..
Latest Posts
Crosswords9 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Anybody Watching The New Matlock
Film, Media & TV14 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.