He has already placed himself under a cloud of suspicion by the community, and while he still possess the same essential rights, he cannot be regarded deserving of the same attention as the boy. Cappa's rights must be respected to the fullest because he, in so far as anyone knows, has always respected the rights of others. Smoot has not. The temporary abridgment of Smoot's rights in order to ensure the Natural Rights of Mickey Cappa would seem to be in accord with an ideal of happiness for all. In this kind of situation, the existence of a predator or abductor in the community represents a threat to everyone's natural rights. It is a threat that should be removed. If indeed, Sylvester Smoot is innocent, his interrogation can be viewed as means both of making sure that Mickey Cappa's rights were protected, as well as away of showing to the community-at-large that he, Smoot, is no involved in the abduction. Ultimately, Smoot's innocence could serve as a step on the path to Smoot's full re-integration into community, as this instance would show that he had not committed the kind of crime for which he had previously been convicted. In either case, Smoot's own Natural Rights would not have been violated, because - if innocent - he would have been held only temporarily and would have, in a way, be working toward clearing his own name of...
This has never been proven, nor has it been shown that anyone but Mickey Cappa was involve din the boy's disappearance.
Police Chief Jones:
I'll lose my job if I don't find that boy."
This is a fallacious assumption, as Police Jones, cannot know how the public, or the local administration will react if the boy is never found.
Detectives:
Smoot will confess if we offer him leniency."
This, too, is fallacious, as it assumes that Smoot believes police can prove that he committed the crime, even if he is the perpetrator.
