5 ms·

I've thought about this a lot, and have some thoughts about what we need to achieve police reform in the US 1. Re-organizing police departments into a hierarch

I've thought about this a lot, and have some thoughts about what we need to achieve police reform in the US 1. Re-organizing police departments into a hierarchy. Currently we have a bunch of different districts with their own regulations and leadership. In some the police chief is appointed by the mayor, in others there's the sheriff system where the law enforcement leader is elected. But I don't think local elections are a sufficient check on power, same for appointments my mayors. Departments need to be re-organized under a hierarchy, with police departments of individual districts reporting to a regional police department (which can be on county lines or some other organizational system, though this level could be skipped for less populated states) which in turn reports to a state-wide police department. While there are state-wide police organizations now (AKA state troopers) with responsibilities broken up by jurisdiction (i.e. only state troopers enforcing traffic laws on state highways) there isn't an actual hierarchy of command. Setting this up will actually make things more efficient, because you can better pool resources, but the main benefit is that it makes it easier to regulate police conduct across the entire state. Currently each police department has their own regulations. It also opens the door to creating more centralized internal affairs divisions and prosecution, so that the local district attorney who works with the police department every day isn't the one deciding what police misconduct cases to prosecute. 2. We should establish an accrediting body for police departments, made up of legal experts, law enforcement professionals, and others. This body should determine and publish best practices (for use of force standards, training, organization, etc), and be able to review and certify departments. Then states and the federal government can require that police departments be certified by this agency in order to receive funding. Public outrage doesn't seem to be doing much to compel changes in behavior, lets see if the threat of denied funding and re-possessing military surplus hardware will do it (fun fact: the program by which most police departments get surplus military gear is structured so that the department doesn't actually own the equipment, and the federal government has the power to rep-possess it if they see fit). 3. Establishing federal and state resources to actively audit police conduct, investigate corruption, and prosecute cases. This should actually be expanded to all local governing bodies, because there is plenty of corruption in small local governments that goes unnoticed, but there should be a specific focus on police abuses.

scotuswroteus 5y ago
You're suggesting that some totalizing entity can ensure that this total reorg happens without any influence by the current sources perpetuating the status quo. The article reflects a level of sophistication in coopting reform efforts most moderates aren't capable of accounting for: >"The unit, named the Civil Rights and Public Integrity Detail, has pursued a long-running investigation into one of Villanueva’s most vocal critics" >"The idea for the team was rooted in Villanueva’s upstart campaign for sheriff in 2018. While trying to persuade liberal voters he would be a progressive reformer, he also vowed to address what he said was widespread corruption among the department’s senior ranks that led to deputies being unfairly disciplined." >"After taking office, Villanueva took steps to make good on his campaign promise, including hiring back deputies who he said had been wrongly fired."
- openasocket 5y ago
  In this case you have a unit which reports directly to the sheriff, who in turn answers to no authority besides the voters. And the people (and journalists) have a very limited ability to audit the inner workings of a police department. With the reforms I mentioned we're adding additional, independent forms of oversight. A regional police administration could be required by law to randomly audit and publish reports on the activities of a local department, and an accreditation board can require their own audits. Most importantly, is tying accreditation to funding. Officers will report corruption if that corruption could lead to de-crediting, which in turns means layoffs, pay cuts, and reduced equipment. It will even change the incentives for police unions. When police misconduct has the potential to cut into the bottom line of officers, it is in the best interests of unions to also help minimize misconduct. And collective bargaining agreements are with the police departments, not with the accrediting body, meaning unions would have limited influence over certification standards. Absolutely these sorts of solutions are not a panacea, and there is still plenty of room for things to go wrong. Corruption at the higher echelons of state-wide authorities would have more impact due to this centralization of authority. The accrediting body has to walk a fine line: it needs to be seen as a body of peers by police officers (in the same way lawyers view the BAR association) while at the same time enforcing best practices and leading reforms. There's a balancing act there that has to be done right. And even with all of this corruption can still happen, but it might re-align incentives and work to reduce some of the serious issues we see with America's police forces.

scotuswroteus 5y ago

You're suggesting that some totalizing entity can ensure that this total reorg happens without any influence by the current sources perpetuating the status quo. The article reflects a level of sophistication in coopting reform efforts most moderates aren't capable of accounting for: >"The unit, named the Civil Rights and Public Integrity Detail, has pursued a long-running investigation into one of Villanueva’s most vocal critics" >"The idea for the team was rooted in Villanueva’s upstart campaign for sheriff in 2018. While trying to persuade liberal voters he would be a progressive reformer, he also vowed to address what he said was widespread corruption among the department’s senior ranks that led to deputies being unfairly disciplined." >"After taking office, Villanueva took steps to make good on his campaign promise, including hiring back deputies who he said had been wrongly fired."

openasocket 5y ago
In this case you have a unit which reports directly to the sheriff, who in turn answers to no authority besides the voters. And the people (and journalists) have a very limited ability to audit the inner workings of a police department. With the reforms I mentioned we're adding additional, independent forms of oversight. A regional police administration could be required by law to randomly audit and publish reports on the activities of a local department, and an accreditation board can require their own audits. Most importantly, is tying accreditation to funding. Officers will report corruption if that corruption could lead to de-crediting, which in turns means layoffs, pay cuts, and reduced equipment. It will even change the incentives for police unions. When police misconduct has the potential to cut into the bottom line of officers, it is in the best interests of unions to also help minimize misconduct. And collective bargaining agreements are with the police departments, not with the accrediting body, meaning unions would have limited influence over certification standards. Absolutely these sorts of solutions are not a panacea, and there is still plenty of room for things to go wrong. Corruption at the higher echelons of state-wide authorities would have more impact due to this centralization of authority. The accrediting body has to walk a fine line: it needs to be seen as a body of peers by police officers (in the same way lawyers view the BAR association) while at the same time enforcing best practices and leading reforms. There's a balancing act there that has to be done right. And even with all of this corruption can still happen, but it might re-align incentives and work to reduce some of the serious issues we see with America's police forces.