It has often been remarked that the line between those that break the law and those that enforce it is a fine one. Studies have shown that similar personality types are attracted to both vocations.

So I suppose we should not be surprised when we read news reports such as this one being reported by a local TV station.

It seems that a HPD sergeant has been arrested and charged with kidnapping another policeman's girlfriend and holding her for $300,000 ransom. What makes this a bit more bizarre is that this man is a member of HPD's Internal Affairs Unit, the outfit tasked with investigating wrongdoing by the force at large.

Presumably, (at least one would hope) the members of this unit are recruited from the ranks of experienced officers with reputations for integrity and immaculate service records.

However, having been in the past witness to the workings of Internal Affairs, it does not surprise me. The unit seems to be as effective in defending officers against the consequences of abuse of power as it is in prosecting them.

While I am willing to stipulate for the sake of argument that there must be exceptions, I believe that many who choose a career in law enforcement do so because that career gives them relative immunity from the laws they are tasked to enforce. I've seen policemen violate laws ranging from relatively harmless traffic violations to felonies as serious as tax evasion, perjury, extortion, and assault, all with a cavalier attitude that the laws in this case should not apply to them.

To be fair, this is not unique to them. Others in the judicial system (I cannot bring myself to call it the justice system) manifest this behavior also. Judges, prosecuting attorneys, even lower level administrative personnel such as court clerks and legal secretaries often take hypocritical advantage of their informal networks to disregard the law without fear of the the consequences.

Such is human nature in any institution, and we are not likely to be able to change it.

So, my question becomes this - should those tasked to enforce the law be held to heavier sentences when they are found guilty of breaking it?

Codified law already makes a distinction with respect to persons crimes are committed against. For example, slaying a policeman automatically qualifies as a capital crime in most, if not all, states. (I've not done an exhaustive search) Killing of a private citizen does not.

So, if they enjoy an enhanced degree of protection, should they not also be held to a more rigorous code of obedience to the law, and not more freedom from it?

To be given what we call in the Marines the "special trust and confidence" of the people, only to abuse that trust, seems to me to be in and of itself a crime meriting the strongest possible punishments.

Perhaps then we will see a decrease in criminal behavior by those we pay to stop it.