Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-10-14
DETECTIVES AND GUILT.

The Chicago Herald is puzzled to know
why detectives always, or nearly always
furnish proof of guilt" 1t asks why they
seldom, if ever, furnish convincing proof
of innocence, especially if the detective
is set to watch woman?
When man hires a detective to watch thu
movements of another, and that other
woman, does he say to the detective search 70
evil, or search for innocence? If after vail
hunt for something that even,has the appear
ance of evil, does the man clutch at the report
as proof of innocence, or is it received witt
disappointment? If, on the other hand, action
that may be as far removed from sin as HEAVIER
is from the earth, but having a look of mystery
and possible guilt, are poured into the ears o
the employer, is it met with doubt and an lncli
nation TO give the woman the benefit of tht
doubt, or taken as triumphant satisfactory proof
The detective by education and habit
searches for guilt only. That is the bust
ness of his life, to ascertain what proofs Of
guilt can be produced. If any are found,
the matter most likely is ventilated in
Court. Hence it is that the public hears
of the detective officer mainly as asso-
ciated with the production of evidence Of
guilt.
But there are cases in which officers dc
find that there is no guilt, and report the
fact /; many cases in which their research
does establish innocence. But in the latter
instances the public, in the very nature OF
things, hears little or nothing of the result
of the inquiry.
So that it is not fair to the detective to
associate him only with the evolution OF
proofs of guilt Nevertheless it is true
that the calling of the detective makes
him suspicious being; an unsympathetic
man; tends to develop in him distrust
and leads him to look upon charge of
crime as prima facie evidence of guilt.
So far as the employment of detectives
to shadow or watch women is concerned,
the officer certainly does encourage the
suspicion of the employer much oftener
than he undertakes to defeat his employ
ment and sacrifice his purse by disabusing
the fancy of his principal. He who sus-
peCtS HIS WIG VI ulSlOy any anu puilS d UC-
tective as Waterman upon her actions,
viii, in nine cases out of ten, set the officer
adrift and employ another to serve his pur-
pose, if the first reports to him nothing to
feed his suspicion and pamper his jealousy.
The detective knows this perfectly well,
and contents himself with reporting
everything that may possibly have even a
slightly suspicious cast.
1t is sad enough that this is true; but
detectives are human beings, and no better
or unselfsh than the average man who is
given specific task to do for wages. In
each case the effort is to please the en-
sployer, to win his approval and the reward
promised. But there are in all other vo-
cations innunerable instances of men who
refuse in employment to cater to the sus-
picions of employers. The detective, how
ever, accepts his employment for that ex-
press purpose, and it is rare therefore,
that he is disposed to cut the ground from
under his own feet. 1t is for this reason
that the private detective is the cause of
so much of i'll, and is entitled to so little
of the respect Of the community.