4 ms·

Want Better Policing? Make It Easier to Fire Bad Cops

38 points by DocFeind 5y ago

underseacables 5y ago
“ But many government employees—especially police officers, who have the legal right to use deadly force—have no licensing system.” I’m glad they included government employees in general, the protection given to government employees is enviable. as I understand it, it takes a monumental amount of bad behavior to be fired from government, and even then, if you were an employee such as a teacher, you’re less likely to be fired and more likely to be put in a room to collect your paycheck and not do anything. In my humble opinion, firing a public employee should be significantly easier than anyone else.
- throwaway984393 5y ago
  > firing a public employee should be significantly easier than anyone else. ............ Why?
  - thrill 5y ago
    Because the taxpayer is on the hook for their misdeeds.
    - throwaway984393 5y ago
      Why should that make them easier to fire? Aside from children and people who make less than $12K a year, most people in the country are (or were) taxpayers. There are other non-public jobs which, if the employee doesn't do their job, someone is on the hook for their misdeeds. Since most people are (or were) taxpayers, the people on the hook for private employees are also taxpayers. Therefore, all people who are on the hook for any employee's misdeeds, are taxpayers. Taxpayers are on the hook for any employee's misdeeds. But you want to hold public employees more responsible than private. Why?
      - underseacables 5y ago
        Consider the contrapositive, why shouldn’t it be easier to fire a public employee? Why do they get more protections than anyone else? I get a strong impression you might not be American, or at the very least may not understand the significant advantage being a government employee gets you. A government employee can sexually harassed someone, commit minor crimes, steal, and they are for bidden from being fired. Anyone else would be fired. No I recognize your throwaway account, so I don’t know if you’re a troll or you’re actually serious, but I encourage you to think carefully and once again consider why should employees in the public trust be given greater protections than the private? This is not a debate of whether they should have it or not, they do have it, and whether it’s severe tax delinquency, crimes committed, or even theft of public property, they cannot be fired.
        throwaway984393 5y ago
        > A government employee can sexually harassed someone, commit minor crimes, steal, and they are for bidden from being fired. If they're a union employee and they're protected by the union. There are government employees that aren't in unions, and there are private sector employees who are in unions. So again, why hold only public sector employees more responsible? > consider why should employees in the public trust be given greater protections than the private? Well first of all, the employees we're talking about aren't in the public trust. The public trust refers to elected officials (or that some resources are being held for use by the public). You don't elect teachers; they're hired by the school, given too little resources, too many students, too much work to do, put at risk daily, and then we threaten to fire them quicker than we'd fire a hedge fund manager who stole 500 billion dollars of the public's money. Second, we're not talking about whether they get more trust, we're talking about whether or not they should get higher penalties than private-sector employees. You're conflating the two because you don't like the fact that government union workers are protected, which is actually a third thing: 1) should government workers in the public trust get more protections than the private (that depends), 2) why can government workers not get fired easily (because they're in a union, not because they're govt workers), 3) government workers should be fired more easily than private-sector workers (...why?).
  - underseacables 5y ago
    Aside from the fact that they work for the public? One word: trust. Why should employees of the government be harder to fire in the private sector? That is the real question you should ask yourself. Why does the public sector deserve more protections in the private sector? They don’t. They should be held to a higher standard because they are working in the public trust.
SpikeDad 5y ago
True but the real solution is citizen oversight. Every state should have a citizen oversight system like juries. If there is police complaint or misconduct a citizen's jury should be conviened to review the complain and render a sentence - suspension or removal from the force. The jury should be totally independent of the police force and have the final say - police department has no say or ability to change the decision. Officers could have the right to bring the case to the state supreme court for appeal. Police would then have no expectation of the blue wall to save them or some bozo chief of police good old boy system or frankly pressure from public groups.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  Having rolled this over I think a couple of things. Police departments should be allowed to hire anyone they please to be a cop. Cops should be apprenticed by departments that are certified to do so. The oversight boards should be composed entirely of public defenders.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    Public defenders already have the oversight of their peers, and this doesn't disincentivize them from putting their own above the people they are employed to defend
    - curryst 5y ago
      Public defenders have an adversarial relationship with police. They don't have to worry about pushback because the police were never going to help them anyways. Public defenders also don't really have oversight of police. They might be able to get the evidence from a particular act thrown out of court, but they have no authority to levy any kind of punishment. They can't file charges against anyone, only the DA can. I think this makes sense. Part of the issue is that the DA and the police work on the same team; there's a clear conflict of interest. They should also grant the power to file charges to a party without conflicts of interest, if there were any to begin with.
alkonaut 5y ago
And/or harder to hire bad cops. Training to become a policeman should take several years and selection and scrutiny should be a very strict. Unless 90% of applicants are rejected, I’d worry about the wrong people being accepted.
hackeraccount 5y ago
This but for public school teachers.
mrmeeee 5y ago
Will that work for teachers too or is it just a cop thing?

38 points by DocFeind 5y ago

“ But many government employees—especially police officers, who have the legal right to use deadly force—have no licensing system.” I’m glad they included government employees in general, the protection given to government employees is enviable. as I understand it, it takes a monumental amount of bad behavior to be fired from government, and even then, if you were an employee such as a teacher, you’re less likely to be fired and more likely to be put in a room to collect your paycheck and not do anything. In my humble opinion, firing a public employee should be significantly easier than anyone else.

throwaway984393 5y ago
> firing a public employee should be significantly easier than anyone else. ............ Why?
- thrill 5y ago
  Because the taxpayer is on the hook for their misdeeds.
  - throwaway984393 5y ago
    Why should that make them easier to fire? Aside from children and people who make less than $12K a year, most people in the country are (or were) taxpayers. There are other non-public jobs which, if the employee doesn't do their job, someone is on the hook for their misdeeds. Since most people are (or were) taxpayers, the people on the hook for private employees are also taxpayers. Therefore, all people who are on the hook for any employee's misdeeds, are taxpayers. Taxpayers are on the hook for any employee's misdeeds. But you want to hold public employees more responsible than private. Why?
    - underseacables 5y ago
      Consider the contrapositive, why shouldn’t it be easier to fire a public employee? Why do they get more protections than anyone else? I get a strong impression you might not be American, or at the very least may not understand the significant advantage being a government employee gets you. A government employee can sexually harassed someone, commit minor crimes, steal, and they are for bidden from being fired. Anyone else would be fired. No I recognize your throwaway account, so I don’t know if you’re a troll or you’re actually serious, but I encourage you to think carefully and once again consider why should employees in the public trust be given greater protections than the private? This is not a debate of whether they should have it or not, they do have it, and whether it’s severe tax delinquency, crimes committed, or even theft of public property, they cannot be fired.
      - throwaway984393 5y ago
        > A government employee can sexually harassed someone, commit minor crimes, steal, and they are for bidden from being fired. If they're a union employee and they're protected by the union. There are government employees that aren't in unions, and there are private sector employees who are in unions. So again, why hold only public sector employees more responsible? > consider why should employees in the public trust be given greater protections than the private? Well first of all, the employees we're talking about aren't in the public trust. The public trust refers to elected officials (or that some resources are being held for use by the public). You don't elect teachers; they're hired by the school, given too little resources, too many students, too much work to do, put at risk daily, and then we threaten to fire them quicker than we'd fire a hedge fund manager who stole 500 billion dollars of the public's money. Second, we're not talking about whether they get more trust, we're talking about whether or not they should get higher penalties than private-sector employees. You're conflating the two because you don't like the fact that government union workers are protected, which is actually a third thing: 1) should government workers in the public trust get more protections than the private (that depends), 2) why can government workers not get fired easily (because they're in a union, not because they're govt workers), 3) government workers should be fired more easily than private-sector workers (...why?).
- underseacables 5y ago
  Aside from the fact that they work for the public? One word: trust. Why should employees of the government be harder to fire in the private sector? That is the real question you should ask yourself. Why does the public sector deserve more protections in the private sector? They don’t. They should be held to a higher standard because they are working in the public trust.

SpikeDad 5y ago

True but the real solution is citizen oversight. Every state should have a citizen oversight system like juries. If there is police complaint or misconduct a citizen's jury should be conviened to review the complain and render a sentence - suspension or removal from the force. The jury should be totally independent of the police force and have the final say - police department has no say or ability to change the decision. Officers could have the right to bring the case to the state supreme court for appeal. Police would then have no expectation of the blue wall to save them or some bozo chief of police good old boy system or frankly pressure from public groups.

Gibbon1 5y ago
Having rolled this over I think a couple of things. Police departments should be allowed to hire anyone they please to be a cop. Cops should be apprenticed by departments that are certified to do so. The oversight boards should be composed entirely of public defenders.
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  Public defenders already have the oversight of their peers, and this doesn't disincentivize them from putting their own above the people they are employed to defend
  - curryst 5y ago
    Public defenders have an adversarial relationship with police. They don't have to worry about pushback because the police were never going to help them anyways. Public defenders also don't really have oversight of police. They might be able to get the evidence from a particular act thrown out of court, but they have no authority to levy any kind of punishment. They can't file charges against anyone, only the DA can. I think this makes sense. Part of the issue is that the DA and the police work on the same team; there's a clear conflict of interest. They should also grant the power to file charges to a party without conflicts of interest, if there were any to begin with.

alkonaut 5y ago

And/or harder to hire bad cops. Training to become a policeman should take several years and selection and scrutiny should be a very strict. Unless 90% of applicants are rejected, I’d worry about the wrong people being accepted.

hackeraccount 5y ago

This but for public school teachers.

mrmeeee 5y ago

Will that work for teachers too or is it just a cop thing?