Have you ever watched a pendulum? It swings left of center, raises slightly as it does, slows and finally stops, but only for an instant. Then inexorably it starts to swing back toward the center, but in doing so it picks up momentum till it passes the center. Its momentum causes it to move past the center and on to the right, to an apogee on the other side. And in the social arena we see the same patterns, public opinion swings to one side, then the other. And we often wonder what drives it. I don't profess to be a social science expert but I have spent over 55 years watching people. And this pendulum effect happens time and again. Let's look at an example.
In the late 1950's television was still a new media, it was flexing its muscles and learning how it could impact society. I doubt that the leaders of the industry had even a clue of the effect they could have. One of the lead shows of the day was Jack Webb's Dragnet. This was the original series, done on black and white and starred Jack as Joe Friday. His partner was in this series was Frank Smith, played by Ben Alexander. These were made in the fifties (1952-59), the earliest 15 years before the ones we now see with on TVLand with Harry Morgan as Bill Gannon. The show was hard hitting for the day but much in the style of the later shows like Highway Patrol (Broderick Crawford). They depicted police work as it was in that time, long interrogations, tripping up suspects to have them divulge information, break them and have them confess. The suspects were given little quarter in this area. It was definitely far short of the Judge Roy Bean, Law West of the Pecos theme of, "Arrest them, give them a fair and speedy trial and a proper hanging before sundown." But it was hard nosed police work.
Out of this era came several shows that were different. They were the beginning of a new wave. The first I can remember was "The Court of Last Resort". This show depicted a group of police, lawyers and judges that would take a case that looked like the person was falsely convicted and review it. In every case they found some miscarriage of justice, the person was freed. You got the idea that the legal system was there to convict, not administer justice. Another show was called "Mr. District Attorney". It began, "Champion of the people, defender of human rights… It is my duty as district attorney to"… His duties included protecting the innocent. These shows often majored on diminished capacity of defendants and police excesses. The pendulum of the media had begun its deadly swing.
As time went on the "hard line" shows were replaced. In fact Dragnet is the only one I can remember running beyond the early sixties. Even shows like "Hill Street Blues" took the much softer line. Police excesses were frequently shown in the programs that followed and even good solid police work was frequently depicted in a bad light. The police were oppressive. They beat suspects into confessions of crimes they did not commit. The concept of recanting forced confessions became the norm.
And out of this time came Miranda! The police must advise the suspect of his rights before questioning him. They must jump through hoops to make sure these rights are not violated. There are now over 40,000 pages of laws that cover the search of a person and car that is stopped by the police along the highway. If three of the best constitutional law experts made a police stop of four armed felons they would have a better chance of successfully subduing the men than making a legal search of the car. Pity the poor officer with a bachelor's degree in criminal justice. He has no chance at all of making a search that will be legal.
And this abuse of legal technicalities is even now being targeted by television. Even before "Hill Street Blues" the series "1 Adam 12" decried the way the hands of the police were tied by the legal requirements. But it has taken the series, "Law and Order" for television to crank this to a fever pitch. I believe this show is somewhat of a watershed, a point of change. It and shows like it will begin to change public opinion. And let's face it public opinion shapes public policy, even in the courts, if by no other means by being the mover behind changing laws or impacting judicial appointments. I believe these shows will cause the pendulum to begin its reverse swing, in fact, the public outcries in some blatant cases has already begun the process.
So where will this take us? Look at the pendulum. I may not see it in my lifetime but I believe the search and interrogation powers of the police will be allowed to grow. Like the rise of the pendulum, it will be very slow at first, but it is certain. And it will increase in speed. This will come by changes to laws and by changes to interpretations of the current laws by the courts. If necessary public pressure will change the makeup of even the Supreme Court. I believe that in twenty years the liberal Justices will roll over in their graves when they see it change. And like the swing of the pendulum in the last 30 years, it will certainly go too far.
Some will say this is impossible, the court is immune from public pressure. Miranda was not the result of a change in a law. It was the result of a change in the court's interpretation of that law. Like many other decisions, the court made the laws, in fact a violation of their charter in the constitution. Of course, there is no check on the courts, and they ruled making laws unconstitutional was constitutional.
Peter, Paul and Mary sang it well, "How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?" How many deaths at the hands of hardened criminals, set free by judicial stupidity, will it take till they know that too many people have died? "The answer is blowing in the wind." What will it take? Public outcry is one. A victim close to a Supreme Court Justice is another. I pray that this will not be the case but this may be the catalyst that may some day foster the change.
