Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade was arrested by law enforcement authorities for alleged crimes. The manner in which the arrest was effected has drawn outrage from some and expression of regret by Secretary of State John Kerry. The diplomat was strip-searched, including a cavity search, and placed in a cell with others described as drug addicts and prostitutes.
To defend their actions, law enforcement officials offer they followed standard procedures in the arrest process. To further buttress their position that the diplomat was not mistreated, we were told she was accorded privileges not normally provided to persons under arrest. For example, the diplomat was allowed to use the telephone for a lengthy period of time to make arrangements for her children while she was being held.
Law enforcement can’t have it both ways. They can’t defend their actions by saying they followed standard procedures and then claim they provided special treatment to the diplomat.
Has law enforcement adopted practices that are too heavy- handed and have as a purpose something other than officer safety and the requirements needed to take suspects into custody? Are the practices meant to demean and humiliate so as to make suspects much more easily manipulated in the criminal justice system? Must practices that demean and humiliate be standard in all cases?
A cherished principle of the American criminal justice system is suspects are presumed innocent.
It is difficult to reconcile the treatment of the diplomat with that presumption. Her treatment is defensible if we presume her to be guilty or that she was carrying contraband in her body cavity while taking her children to school.
Law enforcement officials must tailor practices that take into account the presumption of innocence, the safety of suspects and officers and the requirements for humane treatment.
MICHAEL LEE KOBE, Palestine, Texas