I am going to make a moral argument for now.
Let’s assume that we agree that there is such a thing as a crime and that we agree that a particular act is a crime. Let’s further assume that we agree this particular crime warrants a specific set of reactions and punishments. For this argument to hold we will also have to assume that the person ‘suspected’ or ‘convicted’ of the crime is also responsible for the crime and ‘guilty’ for the crime.
If the agreed upon standard for reacting to a suspected crime violation is to assume innocence until proven guilty, then it is a manifest contradiction to assume guilt until proven innocent. It is furthermore a violation of our social agreement and social contract with the authorities, which is a far greater CRIME because they have sworn an additional oath to honor those agreements, something that the average citizen has not. When an officer presumes guilt and assaults and batters a ‘suspected’ crime violator and proceeds to beat or murder them, then that is a violation of the social contract; it supersedes the agreed upon response and is not listed in the punishments for the ‘crime’ thus, making the entire situation unjust and in violation; a manifest contradiction of our agreement.
Assuming that the individual ‘suspected’ of the crime is actually responsible and guilty, and further assuming that the officers presumed them innocent until proven guilty, and further assuming that they were not ill-treated in violation of our social contract and their additional oath to uphold that contract; then there is a specific set of punishments that society has agreed are relative to the crime.
Death, murder, rape, harassment, hazing, or torture are not listed among the specific set of punishments for that particular crime.
However, that is what our legal and penal system is sentencing people to and none of us agreed to that. Therefore, all the people and institutions responsible for this violation of our social agreement and contract are in non-compliance, are in violation of their additional oath, and are the greatest criminals in this nation.
This argument, as you noticed in the beginning and throughout assumes quite a lot. It assumes that their is no racial, economic, or gender bias. It assumes that we agree to the laws as they are written and the outcomes of those laws. It assumes that we know what the sanctions are and that we agree to them. It assumes that oaths have actually been taken by our officers and that they can and should be held accountable. It assumes that the agreement we have made with our officials means anything at all.
However, if nothing has become glaringly clear over the last year, it is that all of these assumptions prove to be false and that means the entire system and all of its orchestraters, colluders, contractors, politicians, merchants and so on, are in violation. If this is true, then it must be the case that they do not serve us, THE PEOPLE, and that contradicts the entire United States Constitution, which invalidates our entire government.
The United States government is not a legitimate government; it does not receive consent from THE PEOPLE, it mandates it; and that is an autocratic, totalitarian system, not a representative democracy.