10 ms·

The simplest way to fix a huge amount of problems that exist in the USA would be to start holding the police accountable for their actions. This is police corr

by anm89 6y ago

The simplest way to fix a huge amount of problems that exist in the USA would be to start holding the police accountable for their actions. This is police corruption, an especially harmful category of corruption that undermindes our entire legal system. It should be 5 years minimum in federal prison. Police should recieve drastically stronger charges and sentences when they violate the law, not the other way around. If someone above was found to have known about it and didn't report it should be 2x. You show me a problem in modern america (maybe except healthcare) and I bet I could argue this one policy would fix it in one roundabout way or another. It won't happen for a bunch of structural reasons unless a major party took it up as a major part of their platform but it would work. Come to think of it, this is one of the very few things one of the major parties could do to get me to vote for them.

secabeen 6y ago
And to be clear, to to common refrain "well, if cops were going to be held responsible for their actions, they wouldn't put their lives at risk, they've be extra conservative!", my answer to you is: "fine, we don't want those people to be cops anyways."
- kaesar14 6y ago
  And if it really is that much more dangerous and risky to be a cop because of this, pay them more! People put their health on the line to be GARBAGEMEN for cryin' out loud! They do it because the pay is good, and the benefits are solid. Make the cops earn the inordinate salaries they pull home.
  - 34679 6y ago
    According to multiple "Most Dangerous Jobs" lists, being a garbage collector is far more dangerous than being a police officer.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    Police officer salary isn't that great from the data I've been able to find. Nationwide average is 48K/yr. 57k/yr in NYC, 55k/yr in LA. This is roughly the same range as a public school teacher, slightly less.
    - dzonga 6y ago
      what you don't see often mentioned is lots of cop jobs come with overtime. that even in a small city like temple terrace fl, the avg pay incl overtime is over 75k. in NY cops regularly clear 120k
      - bmelton 6y ago
        Anecdotally amongst lawyers, perhaps, but I've heard tale by many that this is largely accomplished by choosing to arrest someone just a few minutes before their shift ends, which requires them to get overtime for the hours of paperwork involved.
      - lmm 6y ago
        Police working overtime is not healthy for anyone. Pay them a salary that puts them at a point where they won't want to.
    - coryrc 6y ago
      They can retire at 55 and get paid that salary for the rest of their lives. You also appear to be incorrect: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/23/police-officer-salary-state/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/23/polic...
    - listenallyall 6y ago
      Dude this is FUD. NYC's own page clearly states salary at 5 1/2 years is $85,292. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/police-officers/po-benefits.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/police-officers/po-be... Starting salary: $42,500 Salary after 5 ½ years: $85,292. Including holiday pay, longevity pay, uniform allowance, night differential and overtime, police officers may potentially earn over $100,000 per year. Add to that: opportunities to get promoted, "private security" gigs, near 100% job security, and a lifetime pension based on their final (highest-paid) years.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    It turns out that most of the apparently high paid cops are simply committing overtime fraud and relying on the union to cover for them.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    The local "expired registration" cop makes $153k/yr with <6 years of experience. How much more do they really need to be paid? Minor side-rant: I know the law here is that you need to have the physical sticker, but why does the police department feel that the middle of a pandemic is the right time to take advantage of the DMV being slow to mail those stickers out? I bought the damned tags months ago, and they arrived in the mail this weekend...grumble grumble.
- anm89 6y ago
  Strong agree, take that extra payroll and give it back to the cops willing to stick around and make it a respectable job again.
dsr_ 6y ago
Require malpractice insurance for police; require that they pay it themselves, not as part of a union or from their civilian employer. Require insurance companies to set prices solely by service record of the individual and of the unit and of the city/county/state employer. Commit a felony, lose your insurance coverage, be unemployable. Happens to doctors; why shouldn't it happen to police? Go to work for a misbehaving department, watch your premium rise. Act professionally your whole career, watch your premium drop. Everybody likes incentives here. Police don't have many right now.
- dantheman 6y ago
  When you violate someones rights the actually get compensated, instead of getting a judgement that doesn't get paid.
  - sigstoat 6y ago
    or gets paid by the community the officer harmed. :(
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  The problem with this is a case against a professional tends to pull in other professionals as witnesses. You may not end up solving the problem because cops may refuse to testify against other cops. The solution is to rely on common sense, it is unknown if that will happen.
  - neltnerb 6y ago
    First off, who would offer insurance to individual police other than the police union? And the police union has a bunch of influence over the other cops who might cause everyone's premiums to go up if they tell the truth? I dunno, I think it's a good try but a more direct approach is warranted. Fire people with a history of complaints. Promote people who don't tolerate bad behavior. Vote for people who will do that, and if that means reconstituting the police force from scratch like in Camden so be it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-jersey-city-disbanded-its-police-force-here-s-what-n1231677d https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-jersey-city-disband...
sergefaguet 6y ago
Thing is this doesn’t merely exist as these cards. It is extremely easy to get out of police incidents with social skills and high-quality ability to manipulate people. Because people are fallible. So there will always be differential applications of justice because justice is a game, just like every other social system. And automated policing can be played too, just in slightly different ways. So when people are shocked by this or talk about how this must be fixed in one way or another that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how complex reality works and how systems are implemented. And wishful thinking. Instead it is much more interesting to understand how things work and to embrace them. And if someone refuses to accept reality, it will be to their detriment.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > Instead it is much more interesting to understand how things work and to embrace them. And if someone refuses to accept reality, it will be to their detriment. Are you suggesting we embrace police giving certain members of society more rights or ability to break the rules more than others?
- bena 6y ago
  If. You forgot the "if". It is extremely easy to get out of police incidents with social skills and high-quality ability to manipulate people if you happen to be a white male. So while justice may be a game to you, to a significant portion of the American public, it's a game they've already lost. Ask a black family and a white family what "the talk" means. You will get two answers. For white families, "the talk" is about sex. For black families, "the talk" is about how you might just killed because your skin is a little too dark to be walking in certain areas. The talk is about how to keep your hands visible at all times when you have any encounter with police. The talk is about how you will be treated as less than other people, you cannot let that ever make you angry, never let it cause your voice to raise, to always be conciliatory. Because you might get killed. So I'm glad you find it interesting. It still needs to be fixed.
  - nervousvarun 6y ago
    Wow anecdotal is anecdotal but I'm white and definitely got that "Talk" from my dad when I was 15 and a permit driver (US). He got very serious and said "son: 1) Never take make any sudden movements when a cop is approaching your car 2) Don't reach for your wallet until he asks you to. 3) Always say "Yes sir" or "Yes Mam" 4) Keep your hands in your lap or on the wheel where he can see them." I distinctly remember talking with friends and they got the same talk. We were all white, suburban kids in the southern US. I still basically do all 4 of those things anytime I'm pulled over (don't speed and haven't pulled over in prob 20 years but I know I would still act that way). Police are definitely out of hand in this country but now genuinely curious how many people get this parental "talk" by race.
justchilly 6y ago
Is there evidence that this is big enough problem that it warrants a major party to take it up as a major part of their platform? Against a backdrop of climate change, disease, the economy, and so on. To share a perspective that many on the right have, this seems like a problem but one that gets far more attention than it deserves because it elicits strong emotions, riles up voters, etc.
- ElijahLynn 6y ago
  Part of the issue is I bet the vast majority of U.S. politicians have one of these cards themselves and use it routinely.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > this seems like a problem but one that gets far more attention than it deserves because it elicits strong emotions, riles up voters, etc. Undermining trust in society is an enormous problem. The whole reason the west was successful is because people can go about their day without having to worry about nominal costs of corruption in day to day life. Also, many issues can be handled at one time, and this is a pretty straight forward and quick and easy problem to fix. It’s obviously illegal, it’s obviously corruption, the only question is how much does society want to tolerate it. And the more it tolerates it, the more the parameters of which corruption is okay gets pushed. Eventually, you end up like a third world country where you expect to pay a bribe or know someone to get anything done. Edit: also, notice that the US currently has a president whose well known business practice was to not pay vendors and tangle up them up in court. And he’s openly proud about it. In any high trust society, brazen theft and dishonesty like that would be highly shameful, much less get you elected as a leader.
  - WorldMaker 6y ago
    One perspective: at least 6 amendments in the Bill of Rights are directly about the relationship between the People and their police (most written prior to the concept of "police" as a separate entity from the country's militia forces/military, so not phrased as such, but is still known to directly apply). It's easy to argue that the remaining amendments all have indirect application to the police. This seems clear evidence that the trust relationship with police was a critical ingredient to the Bill of Rights writers, an essentially a foundational principle in the US Constitution. Aside: reviewing the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia there's a remark that as of 2018 the Third Amendment (no quartering of Soldiers) has never been invoked in a Supreme Court case. I cannot believe that the Third Amendment has never been invoked in a fight against "civil forfeiture" yet! [1] Yes, the wording of the Third Amendment specifically states "Soldier" and "home" but it seems to me clear that the intent should cover "police" under "Soldier" (again, given the document predates modern police), and "home" should be easily extendable to other private property. The more I think on it, the more I think civil forfeiture is directly a Third Amendment violation. But what do I know, I am not a lawyer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
on_and_off 6y ago
it goes deeper than having laws against police abuse though. As I understand it, the police investigates police abuses. I find that very shocking. My own country has lots of the same issues, but at least it is a separate branch of police which investigates abuse, not a colleague who will have to deal with the backlash if they report dirty acts. Also DAs have to prosecute these crimes. The same DAs who have to work day to day with the same police department. There are huge conflicts of interest in there. We need both to end qualified immunity (I did not go into this, but it has soo many issues as well) and have an organization dedicated to investigate police abuse. It needs both to have the authority to do so and to be entirely independent from the accused. note : in the context here this is not just police corruption (even though that's something that should be taken seriously) but any kind of police abuse.
- ordinaryradical 6y ago
  This is why the public defender's office should be handling the prosecuting of police and the DA should become their defender. You maintain the adversial nature of the current legal system, and you also fund the PD office more effectively. Win win win.
  - JadeNB 6y ago
    > This is why the public defender's office should be handling the prosecuting of police and the DA should become their defender. You maintain the adversial nature of the current legal system, and you also fund the PD office more effectively. Win win win. It sounds good on the face of it, but, even assuming that the public defender's office is staffed with amazing defense lawyers, it seems to me that there's no reason to believe that they'll be able to serve as amazing prosecutors.
    - bigiain 6y ago
      > there's no reason to believe that they'll be able to serve as amazing prosecutors. Seems to me there's an awful lot of well documented police behaviour that totally doesn't need "amazing prosecutors" to secure convictions. A high school kid standing up and saying "Here's 40 bystander phone videos of the defendant officer using unreasonable force. There are affidavits from all the photographers in exhibit b. The prosecution rests." (And the flip side to your argument also holds, the Das won't haver the most skilled/experienced defenders available either. Seems totally fair to me.)
jimbob45 6y ago
Police corruption is a nebulous issue prone to outlier emotional anecdotes. It can never be “solved” and can be used, as seen in the parent post, to justify virtually any policy. It is incredibly difficult to accurately study and the data can be highly subjective.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
peterpeppers 6y ago
Great point. Many citizens don't know that "qualified immunity" is a thing that protects police officers from being held accountable. QUOTE: "Tragically, thousands have died at the hands of law enforcement over the years, and the death toll continues to rise," said Judge Carlton Reeves, of the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. "Qualified immunity has served as a shield for these officers, protecting them from accountability." SOURCES: - https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/ask-the-author-reuters-on-the-consequences-of-qualified-immunity-for-police-officers/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/ask-the-author-reuters-on... - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/politics/qualified-immunity-federal-judge/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/politics/qualified-immunity-f... - https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/876212065/an-immune-system https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/876212065/an-immune-system
- aqme28 6y ago
  The craziest thing to me about qualified immunity is that no law was ever passed to create it. It was invented out of whole cloth by 20 years of supreme court decisions.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Many, less controversial doctrines and holdings come to pass the same way, from the 'laws' against insider trading, to the current incorporation of the bill of rights.[1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#United_States [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
  - forbiddenvoid 6y ago
    Yeah. That's literally the foundation of the entire American legal system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
    - 6y ago
bigmilesjr 6y ago
Exactly. good points
tehjoker 6y ago
They're not going to do that, which is why people asking for harm reduction call for defunding the police. They are harmful, so we need less of them. They don't prevent crime, so there's little point to having them around. Other problems with America stem from allowing a few people to control everything who then run rampant. Rather we should restructure things with stronger institutions that have more democratic buy in.
scarface74 6y ago
Who is going to investigate the police? How many police officers are willing to report wrongdoing on their fellow officers? How many politicians or DA’s are willing to be “tough on police”? No party is going to run on a platform of being tough on police. Most Americans actually “Back the Blue”. They protect the good folks from “them”.
- anm89 6y ago
  Make an independent body with only this job.
- gowld 6y ago
  Democrats have been working on it for over a decade. Even George W Bush engaged in some consent decrees, under the auspices Joe Biden's 1994 crime bill. It's only in the past 4 years that the Federal government stopped trying to reduce police brutality and started openly encouraging it.
ridgeguy 6y ago
Really think these would be helpful: 1. Demilitarize police 2. Make police disciplinary and complaint records public 3. Eliminate qualified immunity for police These would be a good starting point.
prostoalex 6y ago
It seems that a bunch of countries with centralized police forces have an institute of ombudsman or other people representatives, whose operations are taxpayer-funded and provide free/cheap venues to someone who’s been wronged by the police or other authorities. In the US alternatives seem to be * reporting to internal affairs, which is kinda laughable and conflict-prone as that dept reports to the chief of police * have a PR-worthy case appealing enough for ACLU or some law firm to take your case pro bono * finance it yourself, unless it just so happens that your assets have been seized by the agency that wronged you, in which case it’s back to the other two Edward Snowden points out the ridiculousness of his situation in “Permanent Record” - in a fair court trial NSA’s argument would be fair game, but his own counter-argument would disclose classified information and would therefore be inadmissible.
AmericanChopper 6y ago
This type of case isn’t very clear cut, because a police officer is allowed to let somebody off with a warning. They’re obviously not allowed to let PBA members off as a blanked policy, but good luck proving that they’re doing it. I worked with one police department once a long time ago that tried to institute a policy never letting police or police union member off with warnings. So if an officer stopped a car for an infraction, and found out the driver was police or a police union member, they had to give them a ticket for it. It was arguably pretty successful, especially since there were a lot of rumours that people were driving about with union cards trying to get tickets (no idea how true that was).
- sokoloff 6y ago
  It seems it would take about 15 minutes for a signaling mechanism to emerge. Cars that had a particular shield sticker left of the license plate would not be stopped. (The display of such stickers would probably be protected speech.)
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Which would take just about as long to catch on with the public as a way to avoid tickets. There is no perfect system to address a problem like this. But if officers/union members know they’re at least as likely to avoid the possibility of leniency as they are to encourage it, then they are both less likely to commit traffic infringements to begin with and less likely to try corruptly weasel out of them.
acituan 6y ago
I find it naive that people directly jump to policy design phase and start suggesting fixes. This framing implies that current policies are a result of not having thought any better at the time of enactment and simply fixing these codes will fix everything else. It is not like there is a shortage of policy experts and academics on these topics. They have had better ideas than any of us can slap together on a hacker forum. I want to suggest another framing; some of the problems current policies give way might as well be features and not a bugs. It certainly has the desired consequences for certain stakeholders. The emotional reactions and lack thereof the public has based on the general impression police casts might as well be "working as intended". Without figuring out that link, designing the best policy solution will still achieve nothing.
- anm89 6y ago
  I would make this same argument in some cases but this is something with a clear route to action and would be a single piece of legislation to implement. I wouldn't call enforcing existing laws and hold up the basic tenets of our system "jumping to policy design". Yes I understand the current system benefits a lot of stakeholders. I directly acknowledge that in my post. Unless you are saying the police are going to coup the government to prevent passing legislation here than there isn't much they could do if you got support for this legislation.
  - acituan 6y ago
    > It should be 5 years minimum in federal prison. Police should recieve drastically stronger charges and sentences when they violate the law, not the other way around. If someone above was found to have known about it and didn't report it should be 2x. This is an attempt at policy design. It sounds reasonable, but in all likelihood you are not an expert, which is important not because of credentials, but because it would have provided us with the expertise to make an informed decision. How much would it cost to implement and operate, paid by whom, at what percentage we would expect to see an improvement, by what target metric, would there be any side effects etc. Just because it seems like a clear route of action and a single piece of legislation doesn’t mean it is simple, and it doesn’t get a free pass because it sounds nice. > Unless you are saying the police are going to coup the government to prevent passing legislation here than there isn't much they could do if you got support for this legislation That is not about what the opposition could do, but again about the framing of the problem. Firstly, assuming police is your main opposition is overly simplistic and mostly wrong. Sure, police will be after their own self interest, but they are given that power because it aligns with other interests. Secondly, thinking that it is on us to debate and think about piecemeal legislations to fix things is already a sign of grave imbalance. You have a right to demand “think about this and fix it” from your policymakers, who already are in contact with an army of experts. The fact that you think it is on to you to take this action means whatever mechanism we use to choose and hold those policymakers accountable is drifting towards not working well. That is a more important root cause than any pet policy people feel passionate about. In fact, it is the perfect hangout for a false sense of agency and distraction, while things are rotten at a much much deeper level. We think we are doing good by participating in democratic processes in this way, but parameters of our participation has been altered way before this particular issue. I suggest focusing on those higher order parameters than tweaking a variable here and there.
gorgoiler 6y ago
One could also advocate for truth and reconciliation with victims, alongside an amnesty for all past police crimes. Finding any kind of masterminds behind the current culture and bringing them to justice doesn’t feel tractable. The situation sometimes feels bad enough to warrant drastic measures, though these feelings have increased a lot since I expatriated, but the linked article is also genuinely shocking.
kyle_martin1 6y ago
I'm not convinced. Show me at least three examples where this works in an existing government jobs that matches the same criteria-- extreme risk, unpredictable situations, low pay, low appreciation. Perhaps you could work as a police officer in the USA for a few years to get an authentic perspective. Based on your ideas, it seems like you're a large consumer of media narrative. There's no magic pill buddy.
kiba 6y ago
I doubt harsher sentences or new policies will fix anything. I think what would be more effective is that the police see punishments for any wrongdoings at all, but that's not even my preferred strategies.
austincheney 6y ago
> Police should recieve drastically stronger charges and sentences when they violate the law, not the other way around. The problem that most people are concerned with is implicit bias, which includes systemic racism. Corruption is important too but it’s a matter of probable intent where implicit bias is certainly not. That said be very explicit about which problem you wish solved in which priority because will not be solved in the same way. The distinction is important because if police are to be held to a higher standard for ethics violations, such as anti-corruption, those standards cannot themselves be resultant from systemic bias, such as guilt by association, and achieve the outcome you are hoping for. It has to come from provable intent and legal common person standards (expectation of knowledge). Additionally there needs to be a clear distinction as to whether more aggressive anti-corruption is an enforcement action or a sentencing recommendation. That distinction bears its own second and third order consequences. Getting that wrong to satisfy a hasty generalization will produce all kinds of unintended consequences not directly associated with policing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stanski 6y ago
No party would ever take this on. They might mumble something out of the corner of their mouth to get elected but politicians are way too scared of the police union. This is not a problem with the US only and goes beyond systemic racism too, even though that's what's in focus right now.

by anm89 6y ago

secabeen 6y ago

And to be clear, to to common refrain "well, if cops were going to be held responsible for their actions, they wouldn't put their lives at risk, they've be extra conservative!", my answer to you is: "fine, we don't want those people to be cops anyways."

kaesar14 6y ago
And if it really is that much more dangerous and risky to be a cop because of this, pay them more! People put their health on the line to be GARBAGEMEN for cryin' out loud! They do it because the pay is good, and the benefits are solid. Make the cops earn the inordinate salaries they pull home.
- 34679 6y ago
  According to multiple "Most Dangerous Jobs" lists, being a garbage collector is far more dangerous than being a police officer.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  Police officer salary isn't that great from the data I've been able to find. Nationwide average is 48K/yr. 57k/yr in NYC, 55k/yr in LA. This is roughly the same range as a public school teacher, slightly less.
  - dzonga 6y ago
    what you don't see often mentioned is lots of cop jobs come with overtime. that even in a small city like temple terrace fl, the avg pay incl overtime is over 75k. in NY cops regularly clear 120k
    - bmelton 6y ago
      Anecdotally amongst lawyers, perhaps, but I've heard tale by many that this is largely accomplished by choosing to arrest someone just a few minutes before their shift ends, which requires them to get overtime for the hours of paperwork involved.
    - lmm 6y ago
      Police working overtime is not healthy for anyone. Pay them a salary that puts them at a point where they won't want to.
  - coryrc 6y ago
    They can retire at 55 and get paid that salary for the rest of their lives. You also appear to be incorrect: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/23/police-officer-salary-state/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/23/polic...
  - listenallyall 6y ago
    Dude this is FUD. NYC's own page clearly states salary at 5 1/2 years is $85,292. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/police-officers/po-benefits.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/police-officers/po-be... Starting salary: $42,500 Salary after 5 ½ years: $85,292. Including holiday pay, longevity pay, uniform allowance, night differential and overtime, police officers may potentially earn over $100,000 per year. Add to that: opportunities to get promoted, "private security" gigs, near 100% job security, and a lifetime pension based on their final (highest-paid) years.
- pjc50 6y ago
  It turns out that most of the apparently high paid cops are simply committing overtime fraud and relying on the union to cover for them.
- hansvm 6y ago
  The local "expired registration" cop makes $153k/yr with <6 years of experience. How much more do they really need to be paid? Minor side-rant: I know the law here is that you need to have the physical sticker, but why does the police department feel that the middle of a pandemic is the right time to take advantage of the DMV being slow to mail those stickers out? I bought the damned tags months ago, and they arrived in the mail this weekend...grumble grumble.
anm89 6y ago
Strong agree, take that extra payroll and give it back to the cops willing to stick around and make it a respectable job again.

dsr_ 6y ago

Require malpractice insurance for police; require that they pay it themselves, not as part of a union or from their civilian employer. Require insurance companies to set prices solely by service record of the individual and of the unit and of the city/county/state employer. Commit a felony, lose your insurance coverage, be unemployable. Happens to doctors; why shouldn't it happen to police? Go to work for a misbehaving department, watch your premium rise. Act professionally your whole career, watch your premium drop. Everybody likes incentives here. Police don't have many right now.

dantheman 6y ago
When you violate someones rights the actually get compensated, instead of getting a judgement that doesn't get paid.
- sigstoat 6y ago
  or gets paid by the community the officer harmed. :(
R0b0t1 6y ago
The problem with this is a case against a professional tends to pull in other professionals as witnesses. You may not end up solving the problem because cops may refuse to testify against other cops. The solution is to rely on common sense, it is unknown if that will happen.
- neltnerb 6y ago
  First off, who would offer insurance to individual police other than the police union? And the police union has a bunch of influence over the other cops who might cause everyone's premiums to go up if they tell the truth? I dunno, I think it's a good try but a more direct approach is warranted. Fire people with a history of complaints. Promote people who don't tolerate bad behavior. Vote for people who will do that, and if that means reconstituting the police force from scratch like in Camden so be it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-jersey-city-disbanded-its-police-force-here-s-what-n1231677d https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-jersey-city-disband...

sergefaguet 6y ago

Thing is this doesn’t merely exist as these cards. It is extremely easy to get out of police incidents with social skills and high-quality ability to manipulate people. Because people are fallible. So there will always be differential applications of justice because justice is a game, just like every other social system. And automated policing can be played too, just in slightly different ways. So when people are shocked by this or talk about how this must be fixed in one way or another that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how complex reality works and how systems are implemented. And wishful thinking. Instead it is much more interesting to understand how things work and to embrace them. And if someone refuses to accept reality, it will be to their detriment.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> Instead it is much more interesting to understand how things work and to embrace them. And if someone refuses to accept reality, it will be to their detriment. Are you suggesting we embrace police giving certain members of society more rights or ability to break the rules more than others?
bena 6y ago
If. You forgot the "if". It is extremely easy to get out of police incidents with social skills and high-quality ability to manipulate people if you happen to be a white male. So while justice may be a game to you, to a significant portion of the American public, it's a game they've already lost. Ask a black family and a white family what "the talk" means. You will get two answers. For white families, "the talk" is about sex. For black families, "the talk" is about how you might just killed because your skin is a little too dark to be walking in certain areas. The talk is about how to keep your hands visible at all times when you have any encounter with police. The talk is about how you will be treated as less than other people, you cannot let that ever make you angry, never let it cause your voice to raise, to always be conciliatory. Because you might get killed. So I'm glad you find it interesting. It still needs to be fixed.
- nervousvarun 6y ago
  Wow anecdotal is anecdotal but I'm white and definitely got that "Talk" from my dad when I was 15 and a permit driver (US). He got very serious and said "son: 1) Never take make any sudden movements when a cop is approaching your car 2) Don't reach for your wallet until he asks you to. 3) Always say "Yes sir" or "Yes Mam" 4) Keep your hands in your lap or on the wheel where he can see them." I distinctly remember talking with friends and they got the same talk. We were all white, suburban kids in the southern US. I still basically do all 4 of those things anytime I'm pulled over (don't speed and haven't pulled over in prob 20 years but I know I would still act that way). Police are definitely out of hand in this country but now genuinely curious how many people get this parental "talk" by race.

justchilly 6y ago

Is there evidence that this is big enough problem that it warrants a major party to take it up as a major part of their platform? Against a backdrop of climate change, disease, the economy, and so on. To share a perspective that many on the right have, this seems like a problem but one that gets far more attention than it deserves because it elicits strong emotions, riles up voters, etc.

ElijahLynn 6y ago
Part of the issue is I bet the vast majority of U.S. politicians have one of these cards themselves and use it routinely.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
> this seems like a problem but one that gets far more attention than it deserves because it elicits strong emotions, riles up voters, etc. Undermining trust in society is an enormous problem. The whole reason the west was successful is because people can go about their day without having to worry about nominal costs of corruption in day to day life. Also, many issues can be handled at one time, and this is a pretty straight forward and quick and easy problem to fix. It’s obviously illegal, it’s obviously corruption, the only question is how much does society want to tolerate it. And the more it tolerates it, the more the parameters of which corruption is okay gets pushed. Eventually, you end up like a third world country where you expect to pay a bribe or know someone to get anything done. Edit: also, notice that the US currently has a president whose well known business practice was to not pay vendors and tangle up them up in court. And he’s openly proud about it. In any high trust society, brazen theft and dishonesty like that would be highly shameful, much less get you elected as a leader.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  One perspective: at least 6 amendments in the Bill of Rights are directly about the relationship between the People and their police (most written prior to the concept of "police" as a separate entity from the country's militia forces/military, so not phrased as such, but is still known to directly apply). It's easy to argue that the remaining amendments all have indirect application to the police. This seems clear evidence that the trust relationship with police was a critical ingredient to the Bill of Rights writers, an essentially a foundational principle in the US Constitution. Aside: reviewing the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia there's a remark that as of 2018 the Third Amendment (no quartering of Soldiers) has never been invoked in a Supreme Court case. I cannot believe that the Third Amendment has never been invoked in a fight against "civil forfeiture" yet! [1] Yes, the wording of the Third Amendment specifically states "Soldier" and "home" but it seems to me clear that the intent should cover "police" under "Soldier" (again, given the document predates modern police), and "home" should be easily extendable to other private property. The more I think on it, the more I think civil forfeiture is directly a Third Amendment violation. But what do I know, I am not a lawyer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

on_and_off 6y ago

it goes deeper than having laws against police abuse though. As I understand it, the police investigates police abuses. I find that very shocking. My own country has lots of the same issues, but at least it is a separate branch of police which investigates abuse, not a colleague who will have to deal with the backlash if they report dirty acts. Also DAs have to prosecute these crimes. The same DAs who have to work day to day with the same police department. There are huge conflicts of interest in there. We need both to end qualified immunity (I did not go into this, but it has soo many issues as well) and have an organization dedicated to investigate police abuse. It needs both to have the authority to do so and to be entirely independent from the accused. note : in the context here this is not just police corruption (even though that's something that should be taken seriously) but any kind of police abuse.

ordinaryradical 6y ago
This is why the public defender's office should be handling the prosecuting of police and the DA should become their defender. You maintain the adversial nature of the current legal system, and you also fund the PD office more effectively. Win win win.
- JadeNB 6y ago
  > This is why the public defender's office should be handling the prosecuting of police and the DA should become their defender. You maintain the adversial nature of the current legal system, and you also fund the PD office more effectively. Win win win. It sounds good on the face of it, but, even assuming that the public defender's office is staffed with amazing defense lawyers, it seems to me that there's no reason to believe that they'll be able to serve as amazing prosecutors.
  - bigiain 6y ago
    > there's no reason to believe that they'll be able to serve as amazing prosecutors. Seems to me there's an awful lot of well documented police behaviour that totally doesn't need "amazing prosecutors" to secure convictions. A high school kid standing up and saying "Here's 40 bystander phone videos of the defendant officer using unreasonable force. There are affidavits from all the photographers in exhibit b. The prosecution rests." (And the flip side to your argument also holds, the Das won't haver the most skilled/experienced defenders available either. Seems totally fair to me.)

jimbob45 6y ago

Police corruption is a nebulous issue prone to outlier emotional anecdotes. It can never be “solved” and can be used, as seen in the parent post, to justify virtually any policy. It is incredibly difficult to accurately study and the data can be highly subjective.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

peterpeppers 6y ago

Great point. Many citizens don't know that "qualified immunity" is a thing that protects police officers from being held accountable. QUOTE: "Tragically, thousands have died at the hands of law enforcement over the years, and the death toll continues to rise," said Judge Carlton Reeves, of the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. "Qualified immunity has served as a shield for these officers, protecting them from accountability." SOURCES: - https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/ask-the-author-reuters-on-the-consequences-of-qualified-immunity-for-police-officers/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/ask-the-author-reuters-on... - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/politics/qualified-immunity-federal-judge/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/politics/qualified-immunity-f... - https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/876212065/an-immune-system https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/876212065/an-immune-system

aqme28 6y ago
The craziest thing to me about qualified immunity is that no law was ever passed to create it. It was invented out of whole cloth by 20 years of supreme court decisions.
- nickff 6y ago
  Many, less controversial doctrines and holdings come to pass the same way, from the 'laws' against insider trading, to the current incorporation of the bill of rights.[1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#United_States [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
- forbiddenvoid 6y ago
  Yeah. That's literally the foundation of the entire American legal system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
  - 6y ago

bigmilesjr 6y ago

Exactly. good points

tehjoker 6y ago

They're not going to do that, which is why people asking for harm reduction call for defunding the police. They are harmful, so we need less of them. They don't prevent crime, so there's little point to having them around. Other problems with America stem from allowing a few people to control everything who then run rampant. Rather we should restructure things with stronger institutions that have more democratic buy in.

scarface74 6y ago

Who is going to investigate the police? How many police officers are willing to report wrongdoing on their fellow officers? How many politicians or DA’s are willing to be “tough on police”? No party is going to run on a platform of being tough on police. Most Americans actually “Back the Blue”. They protect the good folks from “them”.

anm89 6y ago
Make an independent body with only this job.
gowld 6y ago
Democrats have been working on it for over a decade. Even George W Bush engaged in some consent decrees, under the auspices Joe Biden's 1994 crime bill. It's only in the past 4 years that the Federal government stopped trying to reduce police brutality and started openly encouraging it.

ridgeguy 6y ago

Really think these would be helpful: 1. Demilitarize police 2. Make police disciplinary and complaint records public 3. Eliminate qualified immunity for police These would be a good starting point.

prostoalex 6y ago

It seems that a bunch of countries with centralized police forces have an institute of ombudsman or other people representatives, whose operations are taxpayer-funded and provide free/cheap venues to someone who’s been wronged by the police or other authorities. In the US alternatives seem to be * reporting to internal affairs, which is kinda laughable and conflict-prone as that dept reports to the chief of police * have a PR-worthy case appealing enough for ACLU or some law firm to take your case pro bono * finance it yourself, unless it just so happens that your assets have been seized by the agency that wronged you, in which case it’s back to the other two Edward Snowden points out the ridiculousness of his situation in “Permanent Record” - in a fair court trial NSA’s argument would be fair game, but his own counter-argument would disclose classified information and would therefore be inadmissible.

AmericanChopper 6y ago

This type of case isn’t very clear cut, because a police officer is allowed to let somebody off with a warning. They’re obviously not allowed to let PBA members off as a blanked policy, but good luck proving that they’re doing it. I worked with one police department once a long time ago that tried to institute a policy never letting police or police union member off with warnings. So if an officer stopped a car for an infraction, and found out the driver was police or a police union member, they had to give them a ticket for it. It was arguably pretty successful, especially since there were a lot of rumours that people were driving about with union cards trying to get tickets (no idea how true that was).

sokoloff 6y ago
It seems it would take about 15 minutes for a signaling mechanism to emerge. Cars that had a particular shield sticker left of the license plate would not be stopped. (The display of such stickers would probably be protected speech.)
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Which would take just about as long to catch on with the public as a way to avoid tickets. There is no perfect system to address a problem like this. But if officers/union members know they’re at least as likely to avoid the possibility of leniency as they are to encourage it, then they are both less likely to commit traffic infringements to begin with and less likely to try corruptly weasel out of them.

acituan 6y ago

I find it naive that people directly jump to policy design phase and start suggesting fixes. This framing implies that current policies are a result of not having thought any better at the time of enactment and simply fixing these codes will fix everything else. It is not like there is a shortage of policy experts and academics on these topics. They have had better ideas than any of us can slap together on a hacker forum. I want to suggest another framing; some of the problems current policies give way might as well be features and not a bugs. It certainly has the desired consequences for certain stakeholders. The emotional reactions and lack thereof the public has based on the general impression police casts might as well be "working as intended". Without figuring out that link, designing the best policy solution will still achieve nothing.

anm89 6y ago
I would make this same argument in some cases but this is something with a clear route to action and would be a single piece of legislation to implement. I wouldn't call enforcing existing laws and hold up the basic tenets of our system "jumping to policy design". Yes I understand the current system benefits a lot of stakeholders. I directly acknowledge that in my post. Unless you are saying the police are going to coup the government to prevent passing legislation here than there isn't much they could do if you got support for this legislation.
- acituan 6y ago
  > It should be 5 years minimum in federal prison. Police should recieve drastically stronger charges and sentences when they violate the law, not the other way around. If someone above was found to have known about it and didn't report it should be 2x. This is an attempt at policy design. It sounds reasonable, but in all likelihood you are not an expert, which is important not because of credentials, but because it would have provided us with the expertise to make an informed decision. How much would it cost to implement and operate, paid by whom, at what percentage we would expect to see an improvement, by what target metric, would there be any side effects etc. Just because it seems like a clear route of action and a single piece of legislation doesn’t mean it is simple, and it doesn’t get a free pass because it sounds nice. > Unless you are saying the police are going to coup the government to prevent passing legislation here than there isn't much they could do if you got support for this legislation That is not about what the opposition could do, but again about the framing of the problem. Firstly, assuming police is your main opposition is overly simplistic and mostly wrong. Sure, police will be after their own self interest, but they are given that power because it aligns with other interests. Secondly, thinking that it is on us to debate and think about piecemeal legislations to fix things is already a sign of grave imbalance. You have a right to demand “think about this and fix it” from your policymakers, who already are in contact with an army of experts. The fact that you think it is on to you to take this action means whatever mechanism we use to choose and hold those policymakers accountable is drifting towards not working well. That is a more important root cause than any pet policy people feel passionate about. In fact, it is the perfect hangout for a false sense of agency and distraction, while things are rotten at a much much deeper level. We think we are doing good by participating in democratic processes in this way, but parameters of our participation has been altered way before this particular issue. I suggest focusing on those higher order parameters than tweaking a variable here and there.

gorgoiler 6y ago

One could also advocate for truth and reconciliation with victims, alongside an amnesty for all past police crimes. Finding any kind of masterminds behind the current culture and bringing them to justice doesn’t feel tractable. The situation sometimes feels bad enough to warrant drastic measures, though these feelings have increased a lot since I expatriated, but the linked article is also genuinely shocking.

kyle_martin1 6y ago

I'm not convinced. Show me at least three examples where this works in an existing government jobs that matches the same criteria-- extreme risk, unpredictable situations, low pay, low appreciation. Perhaps you could work as a police officer in the USA for a few years to get an authentic perspective. Based on your ideas, it seems like you're a large consumer of media narrative. There's no magic pill buddy.

kiba 6y ago

I doubt harsher sentences or new policies will fix anything. I think what would be more effective is that the police see punishments for any wrongdoings at all, but that's not even my preferred strategies.

austincheney 6y ago

> Police should recieve drastically stronger charges and sentences when they violate the law, not the other way around. The problem that most people are concerned with is implicit bias, which includes systemic racism. Corruption is important too but it’s a matter of probable intent where implicit bias is certainly not. That said be very explicit about which problem you wish solved in which priority because will not be solved in the same way. The distinction is important because if police are to be held to a higher standard for ethics violations, such as anti-corruption, those standards cannot themselves be resultant from systemic bias, such as guilt by association, and achieve the outcome you are hoping for. It has to come from provable intent and legal common person standards (expectation of knowledge). Additionally there needs to be a clear distinction as to whether more aggressive anti-corruption is an enforcement action or a sentencing recommendation. That distinction bears its own second and third order consequences. Getting that wrong to satisfy a hasty generalization will produce all kinds of unintended consequences not directly associated with policing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

stanski 6y ago

No party would ever take this on. They might mumble something out of the corner of their mouth to get elected but politicians are way too scared of the police union. This is not a problem with the US only and goes beyond systemic racism too, even though that's what's in focus right now.