My earlier post about friction between students and campus cops at Loyola seems to be a recurrent theme. The following writer expounds upon the theme already established. Student are not criminals and should not automatically be treated as such. If Loyola were smart, they'd start some sort of dialog between the students and the officers. These guys don't want to be parental and killjoys, they're just trying to get a paycheck. They'd be happier if they could look the other way when students are having a beer and a laugh. The problem is the administration requires them to be the bad guy. The students are breaking the law and the school has to comply with the law or face a lawsuit or loss of funding from the state.
I had lunch with the late great Harold Ridley once. I asked him about the policy and he was staunchly against the students. I was both surprised and dismayed. He argued that the students studies were not sufficiently rigorous to merit such hooliganism and they should be more responsible. Granted. If drinking and driving and such a concern and safety is paramount, why not open a bar on campus. It's a very small school and everyone knows everyone. They could keep out the underage crowd very easily. A Senior's Club if you will. It would become a great tradition, something Loyola is sorely lacking. For a school that was founded in 1862, there is a total lack of secular tradition. We don't have a fight song or a cheer that has endured, there are no Dooley Days or what have you. The lack of tradition is a glaring hole in the "Loyola Experience".
As long as no one gets hurt, police must enforce elsewhere - Opinion
"To protect and serve" is the motto of law enforcement officials nationwide. However, the police are not specifically tailored to the citizens that they seek to protect. Therefore, their ability to serve efficiently is limited.
The notion of modern police began in 1829 with the London Metropolitan Police and quickly spread to the United States in select cities such as Boston and New York. It was here in America that the police first identified with particular political parties, formed unions, and used affirmative action to hire employees.
These ties inevitably contributed to the downfall of the police department; unions worked less efficiently and were polarized while equal opportunity employment policies removed age and weight requirements for prospective officers, effectively ensuring that old and unfit officers could qualify to protect American citizens.
Furthermore, many police officers let the power of working for the government's executive branch get to their heads. It is not an unfamiliar sight when a police officer abuses his or her power and authority. For example, have you ever seen a police officer give a speeder a ticket and then drive off at an even faster rate?
Or even here at Loyola when campus police officers give out parking tickets in front of Newman Towers and then park their vehicles in the same spots. Since when are the police not subject to the law? Who will give them their tickets?
In fact, the notion of the purpose of the law has changed considerably since our nation's founding, and our freedom is the primary victim of that.
Justice Casey Percell once said, "it is not the responsibility of the government to prevent a citizen from harming him or herself." Yet, Baltimore City and Campus Police will go out of their way to bust underage drinkers who pose no threat to society while leaving the criminals of one of America's most notorious crime-ridden cities busy on the streets.
If students want to drink alcohol until they pass out, or smoke drugs until they can't function, or drive without wearing a seat belt, then the law should allow them to do so. The police have no place in telling people what to do with their own lives, insofar as those people are not affecting anyone else. America was supposed to be a free society, not one in which the government told people how to live their lives.
What if we were able to have a police force that protected us in the way that we wanted to be protected, without intrusion into our lives? Not only that, but this police force would be vastly more efficient and cheaper than the government monopoly we have today. This is possible through the privatization of the police into separate protection companies.
Private police, such as private companies' security guards, already outnumber the public police by more than three times in the United States.
In a privatized police setting, various companies around the nation would vie for business by offering the most affordable and effective measures of protection for their clients, who would be American citizens.
Through competition the companies would continually develop better methods of tracking criminals, protecting property, and most importantly, keeping clients safe. Additionally, these companies would be forced to hire only the most qualified of applicants in order to stay as competitive (a.k.a. successful) as possible.
However, it would take an overhaul of the entire judicial system in order to give back freedom to Americans.
The notion of having privatized courts is difficult because there may be different interpretations of what the law should be which, in turn, could lead to an overabundance of cases filed.
Instead, the law should be up for election every few years. State by state and city by city, citizens would vote on various law systems.
Each system would include different types of laws presented by a chief judge and his or her aids, including full-time jurors. This would eliminate the necessity of jury duty for every other working American, who should not have to take time (and money) out of his or her workday in order to serve the government.
In this scenario, the chief judges and their staffs would have to appeal to the majority of the population that they are trying to reside over. In this way, the laws would be dictated democratically by the people instead of by bureaucrats.
If the majority of residents of Baltimore County wanted marijuana to be legalized, then, come next election, they would have the power to make it so.
Freedom is not simply being allowed to do whatever you desire within the law, it is living your life how you deem fit. Today's America is a place where the government continually interferes with more parts of individuals' lives. It is time to end that trend.
I had lunch with the late great Harold Ridley once. I asked him about the policy and he was staunchly against the students. I was both surprised and dismayed. He argued that the students studies were not sufficiently rigorous to merit such hooliganism and they should be more responsible. Granted. If drinking and driving and such a concern and safety is paramount, why not open a bar on campus. It's a very small school and everyone knows everyone. They could keep out the underage crowd very easily. A Senior's Club if you will. It would become a great tradition, something Loyola is sorely lacking. For a school that was founded in 1862, there is a total lack of secular tradition. We don't have a fight song or a cheer that has endured, there are no Dooley Days or what have you. The lack of tradition is a glaring hole in the "Loyola Experience".
As long as no one gets hurt, police must enforce elsewhere - Opinion
"To protect and serve" is the motto of law enforcement officials nationwide. However, the police are not specifically tailored to the citizens that they seek to protect. Therefore, their ability to serve efficiently is limited.
The notion of modern police began in 1829 with the London Metropolitan Police and quickly spread to the United States in select cities such as Boston and New York. It was here in America that the police first identified with particular political parties, formed unions, and used affirmative action to hire employees.
These ties inevitably contributed to the downfall of the police department; unions worked less efficiently and were polarized while equal opportunity employment policies removed age and weight requirements for prospective officers, effectively ensuring that old and unfit officers could qualify to protect American citizens.
Furthermore, many police officers let the power of working for the government's executive branch get to their heads. It is not an unfamiliar sight when a police officer abuses his or her power and authority. For example, have you ever seen a police officer give a speeder a ticket and then drive off at an even faster rate?
Or even here at Loyola when campus police officers give out parking tickets in front of Newman Towers and then park their vehicles in the same spots. Since when are the police not subject to the law? Who will give them their tickets?
In fact, the notion of the purpose of the law has changed considerably since our nation's founding, and our freedom is the primary victim of that.
Justice Casey Percell once said, "it is not the responsibility of the government to prevent a citizen from harming him or herself." Yet, Baltimore City and Campus Police will go out of their way to bust underage drinkers who pose no threat to society while leaving the criminals of one of America's most notorious crime-ridden cities busy on the streets.
If students want to drink alcohol until they pass out, or smoke drugs until they can't function, or drive without wearing a seat belt, then the law should allow them to do so. The police have no place in telling people what to do with their own lives, insofar as those people are not affecting anyone else. America was supposed to be a free society, not one in which the government told people how to live their lives.
What if we were able to have a police force that protected us in the way that we wanted to be protected, without intrusion into our lives? Not only that, but this police force would be vastly more efficient and cheaper than the government monopoly we have today. This is possible through the privatization of the police into separate protection companies.
Private police, such as private companies' security guards, already outnumber the public police by more than three times in the United States.
In a privatized police setting, various companies around the nation would vie for business by offering the most affordable and effective measures of protection for their clients, who would be American citizens.
Through competition the companies would continually develop better methods of tracking criminals, protecting property, and most importantly, keeping clients safe. Additionally, these companies would be forced to hire only the most qualified of applicants in order to stay as competitive (a.k.a. successful) as possible.
However, it would take an overhaul of the entire judicial system in order to give back freedom to Americans.
The notion of having privatized courts is difficult because there may be different interpretations of what the law should be which, in turn, could lead to an overabundance of cases filed.
Instead, the law should be up for election every few years. State by state and city by city, citizens would vote on various law systems.
Each system would include different types of laws presented by a chief judge and his or her aids, including full-time jurors. This would eliminate the necessity of jury duty for every other working American, who should not have to take time (and money) out of his or her workday in order to serve the government.
In this scenario, the chief judges and their staffs would have to appeal to the majority of the population that they are trying to reside over. In this way, the laws would be dictated democratically by the people instead of by bureaucrats.
If the majority of residents of Baltimore County wanted marijuana to be legalized, then, come next election, they would have the power to make it so.
Freedom is not simply being allowed to do whatever you desire within the law, it is living your life how you deem fit. Today's America is a place where the government continually interferes with more parts of individuals' lives. It is time to end that trend.
Comments