Following the broader issues relating to civil society it is increasingly seen as acceptable that 'dogs' are able to give evidential 'cause for suspicion' based on the inherent quality of its nose, the efficacy of its training, the enviroment it is in, the ability of its handler to not give cues, and of course... as we are all paying the bill here, the cost benefit that demonstrates any outcomes.
It authored by a chap that I know through my work in drug policy [· Sebastian Saville is executive director of drugs charity Release.]
However, while the core initiative is about targeting drugs and drug users and it is another jurisdiction, the increasingly 'get tough' calls for more police and resources to catch 'neer do wells' will inevitably bring up policy and actions that are being 'seen to be doing something'. This is one such case. A case I would argue that the 'end does not justify the means', it was published in the British newspaper, the Guardian. see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/%20…%20andalcohol
I welcome feedback from readers. What is your thoughts on this use of dogs?Sniffer dog checks bite into our civil liberties. Replies can be made either here via the bloggers comment box below, or the at the popular NZ website 'doglinks' forums link (requires registration... good if you have a dog)
No comments:
Post a Comment