I came across this article (Texas Teen Fights Removal of Bullet From His Forehead) on Fox News which raises some very interesting questions.
[From Article]
[/From Article]
To what lengths should the government be allowed to invade a person's privacy to prove guilt? Here in the USA we are considered innocent until proven guilty. While on trial, for the most part, we have the same freedoms awarded to any citizen including that of privacy and self, and that is where the problems start. Obviously the government has to be able to invade a suspects privacy to some degree to gather evidence which is why we have search warrants etc. However the question being raised in this case is how far is too far?
Depending on how one may look at the word "privacy" a DNA test very well could be just about as private as you can get. However, a DNA test requires only a quick cotton swab and not surgery under general anesthesia which opens an entirely new can of worms. It seems to me, from the way the article is worded, defendants are making the argument as a clear cut fact. Their concern, as well as the concern for many who are against allowing the surgery, is that if the prosecutors are allowed to to force this man to have the bullet removed it will open the door for the government to force more invasive surgeries onto suspects in the future.
While that may be a valid concern there is an argument on the other side of the coin that I do not feel should be ignored. Taking this case for example, removing the bullet could prove Joshua Bush's guilt (or innocence), and should Mr. Bush be innocent of the charges having the state pay for the bullet to be removed (saving him the expense) should be no problem for him. His refusal to allow the state to pay for the bullet to be removed is, in my humble opinion, additional evidence of his guilt.
I do understand the argument for those against allowing the prosecutors to remove the bullet. In fact I fully agree with it. However, rather than creating a clear cut stance that the government can't do something perhaps laws should be set in place to clearly dictate what circumstances it will be allowed. This circumstance, for instance, would be just one of those in which the state should have the right to have the bullet removed. The bullet, from what the article says, is in an area where it can be easily removed with no danger to Mr. Bush. On the other hand if the bullet where lodged in an area deeper in his body were there could be some risk to Mr. Bush then this would be a clear cut example saying the state could not force the removal of the bullet.
Privacy is important, and the government should always have clear and good reasons to invade it. It is unfortunate that cases which are not clear cut and seem to exist on both sides of a boundary such as this one come up from time to time. We, however, can not be blinded by either the need to gather the evidence or the protection of one man's rights to be held to as an example. It is unfortunate that people on both sides of the issue are trying to make this into a larger issue than it actually is. Sometimes abnormal things happen which can't be governed by the common law and must be handled as a one of a time thing. Obviously lawmakers can not foresee every possible outcome when they create laws, and from time to time we will have to be able to adapt to a one of a kind situation such as this one.
[From Article]
PORT ARTHUR, Texas In the middle of Joshua Bush's forehead, two inches above his eyes, lies the evidence that prosecutors say could send the teenager to prison for attempted murder: a 9 mm bullet, lodged just under the skin.
Prosecutors say it will prove that Bush, 17, tried to kill the owner of a used-car lot after a robbery in July. And they have obtained a search warrant to extract the slug.
[/From Article]
To what lengths should the government be allowed to invade a person's privacy to prove guilt? Here in the USA we are considered innocent until proven guilty. While on trial, for the most part, we have the same freedoms awarded to any citizen including that of privacy and self, and that is where the problems start. Obviously the government has to be able to invade a suspects privacy to some degree to gather evidence which is why we have search warrants etc. However the question being raised in this case is how far is too far?
Depending on how one may look at the word "privacy" a DNA test very well could be just about as private as you can get. However, a DNA test requires only a quick cotton swab and not surgery under general anesthesia which opens an entirely new can of worms. It seems to me, from the way the article is worded, defendants are making the argument as a clear cut fact. Their concern, as well as the concern for many who are against allowing the surgery, is that if the prosecutors are allowed to to force this man to have the bullet removed it will open the door for the government to force more invasive surgeries onto suspects in the future.
While that may be a valid concern there is an argument on the other side of the coin that I do not feel should be ignored. Taking this case for example, removing the bullet could prove Joshua Bush's guilt (or innocence), and should Mr. Bush be innocent of the charges having the state pay for the bullet to be removed (saving him the expense) should be no problem for him. His refusal to allow the state to pay for the bullet to be removed is, in my humble opinion, additional evidence of his guilt.
I do understand the argument for those against allowing the prosecutors to remove the bullet. In fact I fully agree with it. However, rather than creating a clear cut stance that the government can't do something perhaps laws should be set in place to clearly dictate what circumstances it will be allowed. This circumstance, for instance, would be just one of those in which the state should have the right to have the bullet removed. The bullet, from what the article says, is in an area where it can be easily removed with no danger to Mr. Bush. On the other hand if the bullet where lodged in an area deeper in his body were there could be some risk to Mr. Bush then this would be a clear cut example saying the state could not force the removal of the bullet.
Privacy is important, and the government should always have clear and good reasons to invade it. It is unfortunate that cases which are not clear cut and seem to exist on both sides of a boundary such as this one come up from time to time. We, however, can not be blinded by either the need to gather the evidence or the protection of one man's rights to be held to as an example. It is unfortunate that people on both sides of the issue are trying to make this into a larger issue than it actually is. Sometimes abnormal things happen which can't be governed by the common law and must be handled as a one of a time thing. Obviously lawmakers can not foresee every possible outcome when they create laws, and from time to time we will have to be able to adapt to a one of a kind situation such as this one.
powered by performancing firefox
No comments:
Post a Comment