STATUL DE DREPT VERSUS STATUL POLIŢIENESC – ASPECTE COMPARATIVE

Summary: The legal status of institutions with police powers in the state of the police, has been and still is a fundamental issue on which the democratic or totalitarian nature of a state depends. The democratic functioning of the state of law cannot be conceived outside a regulatory framework, to coordinate the behavior of individuals according to the established type of behavior in society.
We know that the Police is the public authority, which implements the po-licies of the state in the areas of competence entrusted to it, provides state security services, having the primary mission to protect people, respect their rights and freedoms, to enforce the law, achieve the control and prevent cri-me, maintaining and ensuring public order.
It is known that when the principle of the precedence of law does not pre-vail in a state, the fundamental human rights and freedoms are not protected at the proper level. When the interests of the state are clearly superior in relation to those of the human and these interests are ensured by methods of coercion applied by repressive bodies, such a state is qualified as a police state, antipode of the state of law, democratic. Therefore, the qualification ,,police state” has a negative significance, in relation to international stan-dards regarding the state of law, fundamental human rights and freedoms and the principles of humanism, social equity and justice.
The implementation of Police activities, first, is related to their legal framing in the legal construction existing in a state and making them known to the public. Subsequently, the endowment, development, allocation of necessary re-sources should not be associated with the tendency of creation/development of the police state, but the most effective implementation of the state’s police law. Likewise, capacity building, giving certain levers, even in a repressive aspect, must be linked to the real needs and problems that exist in society.