Lessig discusses the three conceptions of the Fourth Amendment in his book and how they might affect how future laws. One of these conceptions of privacy involves viewing privacy as a means to protect the dignity of the individual(s) being searched. This is essentially saying that it doesn’t matter whether or not a person is burdened, but the very act of being searched without just cause is embarrassing and humiliating. In my opinion, I think that dignity should not be the primary means of interpreting the Fourth Amendment, although it should still be considered. Defining the Fourth Amendment in this view hinders both opponents and champions of this interpretation. Those people who say that dignity should not be taken into account in searching a person and his/her property are very misguided. First off, the search of anything private has the potential to be embarrassing, resulting in a blow to a person’s sense of dignity. There are various actions or various objects that we possess, although they may be perfectly legal, may cause embarrassment if they were disclosed to others whom we are not comfortable with. For example, most people don’t want their medical records exposed, even for common procedures. Why? A person might have an STD, which isn’t illegal to have, but is potentially humiliating to reveal to someone you don’t trust. People who favor defining the Fourth Amendment in this fashion make it impossible for the searches and warrants to be conducted. The amendment calls for searches prompted by a “probable cause”. This lends to the fact that as long as there may be a good reason to search, then it must be conducted no matter how the person being searched feels. Also, people who get caught committing illegal crimes often feel embarrassed and ashamed of they’ve done. If we arrest people based on how it affects their dignity, most criminals could not be prosecuted under most circumstances. This line of thinking basically renders the courts useless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I do not think that Lessig means that dignity should be taken into account over law. He is definately not saying that we should arrest people only if it doesn’t effect their dignity. I believe he is saying that everyone has the right to maintain their dignity, BUT people who commit crimes forfeit that right. However, if we follow “innocent until proven guilty” the dignity of civilians should be protected at the highest level. We cannot assume someone is guilty without probable cause, and we should not take someone’s dignity away without the same probable cause. However in some cases that “probable cause” is simply being of a certain race, or living in a certain neighborhood. There should be set rules indicating what entails legal searches. An officer should not be able to decide at their whim who they would like to search or who looks guilty. Allowing officers to do this leaves no regulation as to who has their dignity removed.
Post a Comment