Another Letter
[XIII 463] 2.
ANOTHER LETTER8
Dear Friend, a little inaccuracy slipped into my last letter, which I hasten to correct. I wrote that the billfold was found in the lining of the servant’s coat, but I was later informed that it had fallen through a hole in the lining onto the street and was brought to the police station by the honest finder on the evening of the same day the interrogation ended. But you will easily perceive that this does not change the case itself. “The police’s unwarrantable, yes, indefensible, conduct on this occasion consists in its HAVING NEGLECTED TO MAKE SURE THAT A CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED BEFORE INSTITUTING AN INTERROGATION.”* [XIII 464] This ought to have been done just the same, in either case, as the facts have now proved to be or if the billfold had been found in the lining of the servant’s coat. The police should have been sent out into all the streets where Poulsen’s servant had been; they should have stopped at all the houses along the way and asked if any such billfold had been seen, and when nothing came to light on the matter, they should not have interrogated any of the persons whose testimony possibly could lead to any clue, for they had no positive proof that any crime had been committed. And for the sake of the legal system, this must be definitely and decisively upheld, for otherwise our most sacred personal rights will never be safe. Without a doubt the police should have searched the servant’s coat first of all, but when the billfold was not found in it, they should not for that reason have resorted to any provisional interrogation of any person, because there was no positive proof that any crime had been committed. This must always be established first before any investigation by the police may be made. This is precisely “THE POINT” in the whole affair. That frequently it cannot be known at the time the investigation begins whether there is a crime, that often precisely this has to be brought to light through the testimony of the persons involved, that personal and property security would be exposed to obvious dangers if no preliminary investigations may be initiated by the police unless it was first established that a crime had been committed, that a most detailed investigation of the case is in the interest of persons who otherwise could innocently fall under suspicion, that a person is not charged with thievery simply because he is asked for information he might have about a case in hand, that it is neither an “injury nor a disgrace” to provide information for examining magistrates but on the contrary that this is something to which [XIII 465] every good citizen will submit in order to add his bit to the maintenance of law and order—all these are nothing but legal subtleties, these idle quibbles, these meaningless assertions that we ever and forever have to hear from our ultra-Danish lawyers who slavishly walk in the footsteps of Stampe, Colbjørnsen, and Ørsted.9 Why in the world do we have a police force if it cannot know whether or not a crime has been committed without first holding an interrogation? Is it not the plain duty of the police as police to know this? Why are the police paid, may I ask, if they are not even capable of knowing that much? I hear that a fellow from Nørrebro was found drowned in Ladegaard River early one morning. What do the police do? Is it not indefensible? Is it not shocking? Are not our most sacred personal rights in jeopardy? Instead of first of all making sure that a crime has been committed, the police resort to taking testimony from all the people in the neighborhood. In my opinion, it was the police’s absolute duty to know that the dead man had gotten drunk the night before and in his drunken state had fallen into the water. Why do we have police if they cannot know in advance even such a simple thing without first taking testimony from people in order to gather information? Why? Answer me if you can. Likewise, I hear that a short time ago in a rural district—for you must not believe, my friend, that this evil is limited to Copenhagen; no, unfortunately it is spread over the whole country—a mill burned down. The police made detailed investigations, and testimony was taken from a great many people, until finally it became as clear as two plus two equals four that the mill had caught on fire by spontaneous combustion. Is the spontaneous combustion of a mill a crime? Have you ever heard anything like it? Should not the police have made sure in advance that a crime existed “before it charged innocent people with arson”? Do those fellows not know the difference between dolus, culpa, and casus [deceit, guilt, and accident]?10 Do they not know that there is no such thing as an accidental crime? How did they study their law, if they do not know such a simple thing, and as vigilant and zealous policemen should they not, as is becoming and suitable to zealous and vigilant police, know in advance whether this was dolus or culpa or merely casus? Quos ego [I will teach them]!11 Therefore, the statement that [XIII 466] Fædrelandet makes is as solid and fixed as the Round Tower [Rundetaarn]:12 The police must not institute any inquiry before it has positive proof that a crime has been committed. If the police can do that, then the guarantee of rights is done for; then, as we have said, it is an old fable in which only good-natured, superstitious people believe, that there is a good legal system here in this country, and, as Fædrelandet so truthfully and correctly expresses it, “men’s most sacred rights can then in no way be said to be properly protected.”