Wednesday, January 20, 2010
"If I'm Wrong, Then God Forgive Me."
Kelly here answers a question that we have come back to several times this short term. What happens when you cross the line and you are wrong? In Kelly's case, what if he had given Luis Hernandez "the worst beating of his life" and Hernandez didn't commit the crime? Again, we know Hernandez did, but the scenario leaves open the distinct possibility/probability that Kelly would beat an innocent man. So: what did you think of what Kelly did? For this one: forget that Hernandez is guilty. That's not the point. Would you condone Kelly's actions? Think too about how Kelly manipulates his suspect into the position of having to confess or get beaten. What do you think of Kelly's actions in this situation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I honestly think if Kelly beat Hernandez he would be crossing a serious line. Beating is only okay in my book if it is in self defense or if you don't get the information someone will die(like in Dirty Harry). Kelly said it perfectly when he told the other cop that he leaves his gun, watch, and the constitution out the door. That really isn't right in this kind of cases. Yes the cops what to get the bad guys behide bars, but there are much much much better ways to operate then using violence. They had enough evidence against Hernandez that they could have the trial and get him in prison without him confessing. They would get him for lying under oath and put him away for a while.
ReplyDeleteBut to truly answer the question, if Hernandez had been innocent the department would be screwed. Hernandez could sue them for a killing and ruin their reputation. That's why violence needs to be a last resort act.
I don't think that Kelly's actions were okay. First of all, it's against the law, and the police should, of all people, be following the law. In Dirty Harry it was different, because a life was immediately at stake. Harry broke the law to save a life. Kelly was only going to beat Hernandez in the interest of the law. That is, he was planning beat a confession out of him. Kelly was breaking the law only to punish someone for breaking another law. It's contradictory. Even though Hernandez killed someone, threatening to beat someone when they are supposed to be under the protection of their rights is still pretty bad. It's different when it's not a government person, but when Kelly works for the government and he does these kinds of things, our government is no longer fair to criminals. I think that once the government says they're going to treat citizens fairly, they should hold up to that standard that they have set. Also, Kelly let personal issues get in the way of his judgement. It's possible that in a different situation, with a different victim who was not associated with Kelly, Kelly wouldn't have done this. Nothing was at stake. Kelly should not have threatened to beat a suspect just to get him to confess.
ReplyDeleteWhen watching this episode I really didn’t like Kelly. He seemed completely dishonest. Even though he didn’t physically beat Hernandez, I think he already crossed the line with the threats. It wasn’t physical abuse but it was mental abuse. I think there really wasn’t any sense of justification for Kelly’s actions. I agree with Jocelyn that beating is okay if someone else is in danger. Kelly in this situation brought his personal feelings into the case. It seems completely backwards and the view of who is good and who is bad is blurred. Kelly is supposed to be the good guy, yet he threatens to give Hernandez the worst beating of his life. I don’t know who to believe is in the right. I want to believe Kelly is doing the right thing because he is supposed to be keeping me safe, but at the same time he scares me. The one who is said to be the criminal is never actually shown doing anything illegal, but the cop is shown doing illegal things. I don’t think Kelly is right for what he did, but my views becomes so skewed seeing the police as the bad guy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what the others have said so far. In this instance, especially if I don't know that Hernandez is guilty, Kelly's actions are not okay. Threatening someone just to get them to confess is not a justifiable action. Like Jocelyn said, if someone else is in danger, then I think there are more exceptions. In this case, however, it seemed like Kelly was threatening to beat him for convenience. Because he could and it would get the confession out faster. I don't think that's okay. As Rachel said, I definitely see Kelly as a bad guy in the show. Yes, he's "doing his job," but he's going about it in a manner that I cannot agree with. I'm talking specifically about the threat to beat Hernandez, but the trickery and manipulation is cutting in close in my book also. To answer john's question: no, I cannot condone this behavior.
ReplyDeleteI think that if Kelly had beat Hernandez he would have crossed the line. I think that what he did was almost crossing the line. This is because if Hernandez had been innocent I feel that in that situation he would have said he was guilty. I know if someone were threatening to give me the worst beating of my life I would say anything he wanted me to say. We touched on that a little in an earlier discussion. I agree with Jocelyn about Kelly when Kelly says he left the constitution out the door. I do not think this is the correct or even justified thing to do. He is trying to catch the bad guys but by threatening people, he could often lock up innocent citizens. I think there is a better way of going about getting evidence than beating someone up. Especially in this case because I think they had plenty of evidence to go against him without him admitting it right then.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Kelly manipulating the suspect and then threatening him to get a confession. I believe that Kelly crossed the line when he made this personal. Whether Hernandez was guilty or innocent, Kelly should not have made this personal. Yes we are all humans and make things personal but to threaten an "innocent" is crossing the line. I think that with the job of a policeman you should have "the skin for it" and not bring any emotions to the table otherwise you could jeopardize your job or wrongly accuse an innocent of a murder. If the victim was not related to the fellow policeman, i think Kelly would have handled this differently based on the situation and the circumstances. Whether or not Kelly made it personal, he should not have crossed that "line" because it is "immoral" and driving really close to the edges of the cliff. Kelly obviously violated Hernandez's rights to get the confession...It's very difficult to distinguish what should happen. I do believe that they both should be punished for what they did. If Hernandez was innocent then no, i think only Kelly who distinctively violated an "innocents'" rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel, it is really strange how this TV show portrayed the police officer as the "wrong do-er" while the actual murder never shown doing anything illegal.
I cannot defend or justify Kelly's actions. The way he plays the criminal mentally by giving him a false sense of hope, is unfair to say the least. The situation is completely imbalanced in the cops favor, and though the cop should have more power than the criminal, that power comes with a responsibility to not abuse it (which we undoubtedly see Kelly do when he threatens to beat him). I think that there was definitely a different way to approach the situation with the same outcome; the criminal behind bars. And with the possibility that the criminal could be innocent, not only is the situation more unbalanced and unfair, but it is in no way just or legal. Cops are empowered to enforce and uphold the law, which makes it easy for them to surpass it. With that system, its hard to trust the police, but that is something you have to do since they ensure your safety. So no, I don't think Kelly's actions were in any way okay. If that had been me, or any other innocent civilian, Kelly would have not only destroyed his job, but what is job represents and symbolizes; safety, security, and protection, which would then be replaced with fear. If we have police officers exhibiting similar actions to what Kelly did we loose that sense of protection. And in some way begin to be under the control of criminals.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what everyone has said about his issue, I would not condone Kelly’s actions. Throughout the entire show I did not really like Kelly, both his actions and personality. Kelly was very manipulative in the interrogation room and even before his threat to beat Hernandez he seemed to cross the line. I thought that Kelly began to cross the line when he started promising Hernandez less jail time, when in reality he wanted Hernandez to have the maximum about of jail time. When Kelly threatened to beat Hernandez I thought he really crossed the line. Even the threat alone was bad enough, if he had actually done it, I would not have felt that would have been okay. I also agree with Caroline, I think the beating would have been completely unnecessary because they already had evidence. Overall, I think Kelly crossed the line before he threatened to beat Hernandez; I can definitely not condone Kelly’s actions (even through most of the movie).
ReplyDeleteI think for the most part Kelly's manipulation of his suspect was well done. I honestly don't feel like he did anything wrong. He offered Hernandez his rights every step of the way, and he successfully persuaded a confession. As far as the threatening, I think this is delicate. There is a line that we as bystanders are not willing to tolerate and that is innocent people being coerced for information and such. Pretty much anything else we will justify and give our main characters the benefit of the doubt.
ReplyDeletePersonally, while watching Kelly, I did not think he would have beaten his suspect. It would have been blatantly against the police department's interrogation rules not to mention obvious. However, had Kelly beaten his suspect, and had he turned out to be innocent after all, it would be very hard to justify. When a detective makes the choice to go to that level, they are taking a huge risk, and they had better be right about their suspect.
I believe that Kelly crossed the line. He let his personal life get in the way of his actions. He threatened Hernandez because he supposively killed his friends father. I don't think Kelly should have been on that case because of that. Kelly manipulated the situation, even though he didn't beat Luis, he still abused his power to get the answer he wanted. i agree with Nicole on how he made it personal and as a cop you cant make anything personal or you will ruin the case. Kelly could have ruined his job as being a cop and every arrest he made. He didn't but he almost risked his job. I disagree with how Kelly said something like "it doesn't matter what you have to do as long as you get the job done". Just because you have the power of a law enforcer doesn't mean you can use that power to your advantage in personal situations.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think Kelly’s actions were acceptable at all, I think that he crossed a line between being reasonably manipulative and overly threatening. I do not think that beating the confession out of somebody by any means is right because you never know if the suspect will confess just to get you to stop hurting them. I think Kelly puts Hernandez in a situation that backs him into a corner. Not only will he get beaten if he doesn’t confess, it doesn’t matter if he did the crime or not he has to say he did or he could get extremely hurt. I thought the way Kelly manipulated him was out of line and could have cost him the case if anyone found out. I don’t think he took into consideration that if someone caught him it could not only jeopardize this case but it could also jeopardize all of his previous cases as well. I don’t think what Kelly did was right and I think that he could have handled the situation a lot better.
ReplyDeleteThese questions are always hard for me to answer. Nothing pisses me of more than a murderer getting away with it, but I also don't think that torture is a good method for interrogation. As we have said over and over people will admit to anything over torture. But he was guilty, and without a confession he might walkaway. In my heart I want to believe that it is wrong but something in me says that I would have acted similarly. I just honestly don't know.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Kelly did anything legally wrong, but in my mind he sort of stepped over the border of using his position of power to manipulate the suspect. He clearly had a huge advantage over the suspect, and he used that advantage to essentially trick him. I think although Kelly didn't do anything technically wrong, I was uncertain about how morally just he was. In a way, what Kelly did was very similar to what the other cop did in Homicide to get a confession. I do not agree with Kelly's methods, but at the same time, I don't think he could have made the arrest without them. Yes, I thought Kelly was very clever and obviously had a lot of experience, but I don't think that made his interrogation any more fair, and I don't think that qualifies as using his wits in a heroic way to capture a criminal. In some parts, he seemed to almost be openly mocking the suspect.
ReplyDeleteAs most people have already said, I can't agree with Kelly's actions because it was not a life or death situation like in Dirty Harry. I don't think beating the suspect is necessary to gain a confession here. But even still Luis did murder someone, and even if you take away that fact he still committed five cab robberies, and lied about them. Yes, Kelly's methods were dishonest but no one was physically hurt and they were effective. Were the threats against the law? I don't know honestly know but since he did not actually beat Luis I might have done exactly what Kelly did, even if I don't agree with it. I really don't fully know how to answer this question perfectly because I honestly can't say exactly what should happen here.
ReplyDeleteI am not clearly on one side or the other on the situation. I do believe that if Kelly were to have went through with the beating that he would have crossed the line. However, the fact that Hernandez could have gotten away with all those robberies and a murder if Kelly hadn't used the tactics he did makes me understand what Kelly did. And yet there is still that chance that Hernandez didn't do it so I think that if Kelly would have hit Hernandez that he would've been crossing the line. The situation definitely gets very foggy for me.
ReplyDeleteI do not condone Kelly's actions. Violence is never the answer, especially when it comes to the law. Kelly should not have threatened Luis because he was not 100% sure if Luis committed the crime. Although Kelly was determined to convict someone, threatening to beat someone is as the verge of crossing the line. If I was a detective determined to solve a case, I would want to do whatever it takes. However, I would have to realize that my assumptions might be inaccurate. In Kelly's favor, Luis happened to be guilty, but if he turned out to be innocent, things would have been different.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I definitely do not condone Kelly’s actions. He brutally manipulates Hernandez, both mentally and emotionally (and almost physically). It’s a terrible thing to do to any human being. Professionally, however, I feel less strongly against it (still against, though). I feel that if Kelly had actually beaten Hernandez, it would be completely and totally wrong. Because it was only the threat of violence, however, it seems less dangerous and more like harsh mental games (only slightly less worse, but still...). The manipulation up to that point could be considered in two ways. The first is that it’s immoral and wrong, and I’m definitely on that side. However, it’s effective, and as the young police officer says, Kelly is a master at what he does (Devil’s advocate here, I promise). I also think that the whole thing didn’t need to happen. Kelly had the evidence and the witnesses, but he wanted to cut corners by getting a confession. It goes back to the last episode of Homicide – to Kelly, Hernandez is just another case that needs to be out of the way as quickly as possible. Without the confession, Kelly would still have plenty to put Hernandez away. Instead, Kelly takes the shortcut and crosses that moral boundary in doing so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what everyone has said about if Kelly had beaten Hernandez, it would have been an abuse of his power and he would have crossed a line. I think that cops should never resort to torture because in the end, if their actions are discovered, it can only get them into trouble. I can understand why Harry tortured Scorpio in Dirty Harry, because in that particular situation, a girl’s life was on the line. But in NYPD Blue, there is no reason that the answer needed to be forced out of Hernandez. The cops had time and no one’s life was in danger. Harry tortured someone and broke the law to try to save a life, while Kelly almost tortured someone who broke the law to get a confession out of them. I agree with Shannon that what Kelly almost did was contradictory. He almost broke a law to punish someone else for breaking a law. I can understand that one might say that Harry did a similar deed, but he was doing it for the sake of a human life, and Kelly only did it in the interest of the law. Overall, I think that Kelly’s behavior was totally inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is not appropriate to force a confession out of a suspect no matter how guilty he or she may be. One of the reasons I disagree with this method is something that we talked about before. Which is that when people are being tortured they will say anything in order to make the person torturing them happy. People will confess to crimes that they did not commit and will say things that they would never normally say. The other main reason is that we are all created equal and we are all innocent until proven guilty. It is not okay for cops to pick and choose who is guilty because it defeats the purpose of the constitution. The last reason is that if cops will break the law in order to protect the law what is the point in having the law in the first place. Cops are not above the law and should not be able to force a confession.
ReplyDeleteHe had good intentions, but his method of getting the truth was dishonest. I don't know if it is illegal or not to lie the way he did to Luis, but I didn't agree with it. Instead of charging him with all of the charges at once he messed with Luis' head for a day. If Kelly had beaten a confession out of Luis, that definitely would have crossed the line. Again, I can't completely dislike Kelly for manipulating Luis, because he was doing it "for the greater good". I also think it was just a stupid thing of Kelly to do. What would stop Luis from telling people in court the Kelly had threatened to give him "the beating of his life" unless he confessed to the crime? That could not only let Luis walk, but jeopardize all of his previous arrests. His idea of doing these bad things so bad people don't walk could easily turn against him. It could let many bad people back onto the street and out of where they should be.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Kelly should be allowed to beat the witness to a confession only if he is sure that the suspect is guilty. It would be really hard to know for sure the suspect was guilty unless they made a confession off the record and now were denying the crime again. I believe that everyone has a fair chance top obey the law and if they don't then it is their fault only and they know they are going to be punished so I see know problem with Kelly beating out a confession as long as he is 100% sure the suspect is guilty.
ReplyDeleteI think that if Kelly didn't actually intend to beat up Luis, then what he did would have been ok. Kelly did not cross the line in my mind, but he was willing to. Had Kelly just pretended that he was going to torture Luis without actually intending to hurt him, that would have been ok, but he did intend to hurt Luis. While I was watching, I asked myself if Kelly would have reacted the same way had he not known the victim. I don't think that he would have. Had Kelly had the wrong guy, he probably wouldn't have cared because he was so filled with rage. Kelly didn't do what he did for justice, he did it for revenge.
ReplyDelete