2 ms·

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 n

• 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.