While I find it patently ridiculous that there would be any sort of statutory barrier to a police officer using any force necessary to stop a criminal, this post at RedState raises a different issue for me.
The executive summary is that a state senator in New York has, for the third time, proposed legislation making it a crime for a police officer to “shoot to kill.” The article aptly points out that there’s really no other kind of shooting. Shooting someone is the execution of deadly force, regardless of where you intend to, or actually do, hit them. But the update to the post, noting that the senator in question has been blind since birth, raised a question in my mind: as a general rule, are people in the Senator’s position fit to serve as stewards of public policy?
That is, can someone who has been blind since birth be adequately informed about the things on which they’re voting. This bill is a good example, can the Senator even possibly understand how difficult it could potentially be to shoot someone in the arm or leg as opposed to the torso? This may be an isolated issue, but I suspect that it’s not.
That’s not to say that I’m purporting to know the “right” answer here, I’m actually posing the question. Are there issues on which lacking some major faculty like vision or hearing could be a serious detriment to the execution of sound public policy?
If so, should people with such disabilities be barred from election to those sorts of positions? I’d probably say no, but we have to consider that the person’s blindness could probably not be mentioned in political campaigns due to the ridiculously PC nature of society so the fact that they are blind would probably be beyond discussion and, therefore, not adequately weighed by the public.
Bloggers: feel free to just post at your place. Send me (comment, IM, email) the link and I’ll link you from this post.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Eh, there may be a point in there somewhere, but I think the reasons against this particular bill have more to do with fear, equal protection, and substantive due process than vision. Many people with 20/20 vision support this kind of crap, and I don’t think if this guy suddenly ceased to be blind he’d change his mind.
February 25th, 2006 at 8:35 am
and what about women, don’t we want our civil servants to have the ability to reason?
February 25th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
New Cop: I’m seeking a position in your police force.
Chief: Ok. You must realize the responsibilities… you must serve the law faithfully and responsibly. You will be issued a weapon which will be used for executing the law. But a law just passed that say you can’t use it. But you have to, it’s in your job description. But if you shoot someone and they don’t live, you’ll be charged with manslaughter. But if you don’t, you’ll be fired.
New Cop: No thanks, I’ll go work for the mob. It’s alot less political.
February 25th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
To suggest that a person’s disability should be “weighed by the public” when deciding whether they are adequately prepared to make public policy is ridiculous. Should a person’s race, height, sex, or hair color be considered? Each of these are a purely physical attribute - much like blindess.
Yes, it is reasonable that a blind politician may have a slight difficulty understanding how hard it is to shoot someone, but there are countless examples of this in our society. Tell me how many presidents, senators, or representatives were ever on Medicare and understand what that is like. How many went to purely public schools and took out student loans? How many have ever been affected with AIDS or will have to depend on SS when they retire?
It is a reality of our political system that people are not able to experience every single position in life and therefore must set public policy guided by values, advice from advisors, public support, economics, etc.
I have never once heard it suggested that a President is not capable of setting foreign aid policy even though he himself has never been on foreign aid, and suggesting that someone who is disabled is not capable respresents the fear and ignorance our society has about disabled individuals. Would it even be suggested that a person in the same position as the Senator, but able-bodied, wouldn’t be able to set policy on this issue even though he or she had never fired a gun?
Some of our most notable presidents, most significantly FDR and Abe Lincoln, were disabled. They both hid their disabilities from the public. Does a peson have to hide their disability to get a fair shot?
And finally, I disagree that a person’s disability wouldn’t be talked about in an election period. Yes an opponent might not mention it in an open debate, but it would be discussed in the court of public opinion. How many jokes were made about Bob Dole’s paralyzed arm?