Recently while reading former San Diego cop Norm Stamper's book "Breaking Rank" I came across what may in fact be a reference to one of the figures I've described in my most recent diary "Trespassing Against Us".
Apparently while Stamper was instructing a class of cops here at San Diego State back in the "mid-seventies" he brought in a guest lecturer who was the head of the local defenders office presumably in San Diego.
I can't help but wonder if Stamper's referring to Joe Cocktails--the head of the public defender's office that I mention meeting with in my diary.
The book passage in question occurs at the beginning of Chapter 5 and concerns a conversation Stamper relates between one of the veteran cop (students) and the guest lecturer who he only refers to as "the lawyer".
The cop is berating the lawyer for defending criminals. The lawyer responds by asking the cop if something less than a spirited, competent defense "would make it easier for your side to win?" To this the cop readily agrees that it would. The lawyer responds "Wrong!" and goes on to describe how such an approach would lead to laziness on the part of the prosecutor and unwillingness on the part of the DA to "hire sharp attorneys" explaining "that's how systems work."
BTW the prosecutor in my case is a top notch UVA law school grad-- presented a challenge she's very likely not a lazy but a killer kitten.
Anyways, the lawyer then asks the cop "how long do you think it would take for the effects to be felt on your work?" since "[c]onvictions would be delivered on a silver platter" and "police work would become even sloppier and more unprofessional than it already is." He wraps up by telling the cop if such an approach were the case "you sir wouldn't be the cop you are today."
That leads me to conclude if this "lawyer" and Joe Cocktails are one in the same, then perhaps he, given a healthy societal structure, wouldn't be the person he is today.
I guess the bigger question is, given our current society, where do you draw the line between going-along to get-along and actually breaking rank? According to San Diego Councilmember Donna Frye (this is the same link I provided in the diary page):
"The person I need to rely on is me, and when it comes to certain decisions, I am not going to make them politically. And I really do not care what the consequences are to me politically, if I think something’s not right."
The author of the same article makes the assertion about Frye:
"[H]er disdain for go-along-to-get-along convention and distaste for behind-the-scenes politicking has kept her on the outside looking in, which, in the final analysis, is where she’s comfortable."
For me, the final analysis regards choices. Choosing between obedience to what you believe to be right and obedience to the more worldly dictates of power.
In making that choice, analysis limited to simply "thinking for yourself" will inevitably favor the side with the power. After all, power is easily understood--sometimes more so than right or wrong. It can have an unambiguous affect on your self-interests.
Very likely, if the examples of Donna Frye and Joe Cocktails provide an indication, the crucial test isn't so much finding the right thing to do as to keep-on doing it once you think you've found it.