Paraphrasing from the Mishnah, it is said that one who saves a single soul saves an entire world, and one who destroys a single life also destroys a world. (Sanhedrin 4:9). I am not a talmudic scholar and therefore have no idea if that is an accurate quote However, the words were lyrics to a song we sang on the Chapel on the Hill at Camp Harlam and I have been thinking about them a lot the last few days.
Detroit police were given a no-knock warrant to search for a 34 year old man wanted as a suspect for a brutal murder. They "announced their presence" at 20 to 1 in the morning by breaking down the door, throwing a stun grenade, and storming the apartment building where the suspect was thought to be hiding. The suspect was caught, although it is not clear where, but in the confusion, where stunned family members were dealing with what seemed like a raiding army in the middle of the night and police were left with a crowded apartment in the pitch black, 7 year old Aiyana Jones was shot deadby a policeman's bullet in front of her horrified family.
I recognize that accidents happen. I recognize that tragedies happen. I recognize that the police are sometimes confronted with dangerous criminals and put themselves at risk in many situations. However, as a society, we need to decide whether we are willing to tolerate a system where an innocent person is killed to capture an allegedly guilty one.
It is not only a question of the use of the controversial "no-knock" warrant which has led to many fatalities among innocents. We see it all the time with high-speed police chases as well. Suspect tries to flee, officer gives chase, situation devolves into a high speed chase and either the suspect or the police officer crashes their car and an innocent is hurt or killed. As a society, do we tolerate the high chance of an innocent being hurt or killed in a high-speed chase in order to catch the alleged bad guy? Does it matter if he is wanted for murder or driving with a suspended license? There are legitimate arguments on both sides. If we forbid police from giving chase, we encourage suspects to simply flee. If we give police the ability to give chase, too many innocents are at risk.
While there are certainly equities on both sides of the equation, we do not tolerate such collateral consequences in other areas. The law imposes strict liability on defendants if a death happens as a result of a crime. If a defendant went into a store with a fake gun, stole a pack of tic tacs at "gunpoint" and the clerk has a heart attack and dies, the defendant has committed "felony-murder" and is tried as if he committed murder. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine and wars throughout modern history, there is an ongoing debate about the collateral consequences of war. Countries are routinely condemned when an airstrike misses its targetand kills civilians.
Perhaps the best "war" analogy is the problem of the use of human shields. In Hollywood it is the suspect standing behind the innocent bank teller with the entire NYPD with their guns drawn. With the possible exception of a Keanu Reeves movie, the safety of the hostage is never sacrificed to capture the suspect. In real life, it is the question of rockets being fired from civilian locations in order to prevent (or welcome) return fire. If militants or an army are firing rockets, or placing snipers, in civilian locations, like a hospital, is the opposing military justified in targeting that civilian location, killing civilians, in order to root out the actual wrongdoer?
I recognize that honest people can disagree about these issues. My colleague in my criminal defense practice was the chief of narcotics for almost 20 years in the District Attorney's office of a major Northeast city. He says in his 20 years in narcotics he never had as much of an injury to a civilian in a no-knock narcotics raid. He swears they are essential in protecting the lives of police who do perhaps the most dangerous job in the entire force. While I value my colleague's opinion more than perhaps anyone else I know, On this topic I have to disagree.
The protection of civilians under international law is premised on the same ideals as the American criminal justice system. It is more important to protect the innocent than it is to punish the guilty. The Constitutional structure of American criminal justice is premised on the idea that sometimes a society has to tolerate letting the "guilty" go free in order to protect the innocent. The tragedy of a person wrongfully convictedfar outweighs the pain from letting a "guilty" person go free. And no suspect is worth the life of an innocent 7 year old girl.