If a large group happens to have enough issues that it's a constant social debate, and that large group happens to be PAID to be in the group (as opposed to doi

If a large group happens to have enough issues that it's a constant social debate, and that large group happens to be PAID to be in the group (as opposed to doing something without a reward, or being born into a condition), it's a very different kind of expectation one should be talking about. Furthermore, if that group is one of the only groups of people supposed to enforce what a society codified as its morals and ethics, there's a strong argument to be made to have a much, much lower threshold for the sample sizes needed to view problematic acts as unacceptable. Trying to compare countries is an interesting remark.. how about this article, which will give a response to your "bad apples" rhethoric?[0] The article is about Canada, so I guess if we set our gold standard to the US then everywhere in the world is a dreamland. How about if we compare it to the Netherlands or Norway though? Since arguably a lot of Canadian policies, the political compass, and the culture are at the very least in-between the US and those other developed nations. Finally, striving for improvements in a system as a proportion of how badly everyone does when the enforcement of moral and social norms is pretty rarely negotiable for the majority of a population, seems to me like we're extending the benefit of the doubt to a privileged subset of a population that hasn't proven a satisfying-enough track record to deserve such gratitude. [0] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/