4 ms·

It still boggles my mind that police misconduct is supposed to be investigated and prosecuted by the accused person's peers. How is this not an obvious conflict

by whack 10y ago

It still boggles my mind that police misconduct is supposed to be investigated and prosecuted by the accused person's peers. How is this not an obvious conflict of interests? Mandate body-cams for every single cop nationwide. Have all misconducts investigated by a completely separate department. Convict a few cops for perjury if they lie on the stand to help their peers. These three steps should go a long way towards mitigating gross misconduct.

noobiemcfoob 10y ago
It's not that it isn't an obvious conflict of interest. I believe it stems from the same realm as the military courts. Namely, civilians and noncombatants are not the peers of soldiers (or cops) because of the vast difference in experiences and mission. That's not a statement of support. Personally, I reject all military-esque ideas within a police force and consider them terribly dangerous.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > It's not that it isn't an obvious conflict of interest. I believe it stems from the same realm as the military courts. Namely, civilians and noncombatants are not the peers of soldiers (or cops) because of the vast difference in experiences and mission. I don't think that's right, which is why we don't have police courts with a separate system of law and judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys that are also police officers, the way the military is. Instead, the theory is the opposite, overlooking the inherent conflict of interest and just holding that police are just like everyone else, so that, just as it would be the police department that handled the investigation, arrest, etc. if any random person was accused of a crime, so to, if a police officer is accused of a crime, its the police department that performs those functions. To have someone else do that when police are the subject of the accusation would be an acknowledgement that there is a difference between the police and everyone else when it comes to criminal investigations.

by whack 10y ago

noobiemcfoob 10y ago

It's not that it isn't an obvious conflict of interest. I believe it stems from the same realm as the military courts. Namely, civilians and noncombatants are not the peers of soldiers (or cops) because of the vast difference in experiences and mission. That's not a statement of support. Personally, I reject all military-esque ideas within a police force and consider them terribly dangerous.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> It's not that it isn't an obvious conflict of interest. I believe it stems from the same realm as the military courts. Namely, civilians and noncombatants are not the peers of soldiers (or cops) because of the vast difference in experiences and mission. I don't think that's right, which is why we don't have police courts with a separate system of law and judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys that are also police officers, the way the military is. Instead, the theory is the opposite, overlooking the inherent conflict of interest and just holding that police are just like everyone else, so that, just as it would be the police department that handled the investigation, arrest, etc. if any random person was accused of a crime, so to, if a police officer is accused of a crime, its the police department that performs those functions. To have someone else do that when police are the subject of the accusation would be an acknowledgement that there is a difference between the police and everyone else when it comes to criminal investigations.