The Dirty Harry Problem

The Dirty Harry Problem

“When and to what extent does the morally good end warrant or justify an ethically, politically, or legally dangerous means for its achievement?” This is the question posed by Carl Klockars about the ever growing Dirty Harry problem in society. This has become a focus of mass media and even a source of profit. The name itself comes from a Hollywood movie staring Clint Eastwood. Well if you believe the movies then the answer is never, for along as the bad guy gets what he deserves than the means didn’t matter. But at some point doesn’t a line have to be drawn?

Yes, in some manner in some situations I believe that you must step off the position of power and leadership, and get your hands dirty. Klockars argues that all persons encountered by police officers in situation of enforcement, such as a traffic stop, must be considered guilty. The officer must take that stand in order to protect themselves. If nothing is found the person is merely innocent this time. This assumption doesn’t justify using dirty means however. Only when an officer knows guilt exists should dirty means come into effect.

There must be limits to these means; officers can not just go around using acts that are not considered legal, just because they are in a position of power. The dirty means are a last resource in a situation where something greater than the law hangs in the balance. Revenge or punishment does not fit these criteria; Klockars says that some officers may use these ideals of dirty means in order to punish the guilty. This is not what the dirty harry problem is about, however it may be how some people view the subject.

Klockars is correct when discussing, when only a dirty means will work. Departments must take some responsibility for the actions of the officers. Had the department trained the officers well? In many cases perfectly legal acts may produce the same results that, dirty ones do. This situation implies that the officers had no ideas as to how to conduct proper investigations, or they don’t understand the consequences for their actions, not only to them but the investigation, as the suspect will surely go free. But of course it is easy to preach from a classroom, those officers dealing with situations rely on instinct and gut feelings.

If the dirty means will work, what is the necessity that it must be used? That is a valid question if the dirty means will work; at what point do we decide to conduct those means? That is easily answered a life. Only a life can grant the destruction of a person’s right to a fair legal treatment. Why? Well simply put the victim of the dirty means is dirty. They are going to kill someone and will not release the information on how to save them. The rights of the victim are gone, the kidnapped child did nothing wrong to deserve their right to live be removed. That suspect did, they took the rights of their victim, and therefore said goodbye to those same rights. That is the only time that dirty acts, are justified by the end result. The saving of a life.

I do not believe that dirty or illegal means should be allowed I don’t think that laws should be passed that allow offers to bend the law on a hunch. What should be allowed is after thought. In Dirty Harry, Harry knew that the man he was punishing was guilty, and he believed that the girl was still alive. Harry had been beaten by this man, Harry’s partner had been shot and a life hung in the balance. The law must not condone Harry’s actions, but those extenuating