8 ms·

Allowing citizens to initiate enforcement sounds like a potentially good idea. Are you saying that citizens can prosecute police on behalf of the state? Where h

Allowing citizens to initiate enforcement sounds like a potentially good idea. Are you saying that citizens can prosecute police on behalf of the state? Where has it been tried before? I might have some reservations with this, but proving that cops committed crimes is actually extremely commonplace. It happens in criminal courtrooms on a daily basis, as the primary vector to get evidence thrown out against a defendant. When cops commit crimes while gathering evidence, those criminal actions taint the evidence. The problem is that nobody ever prosecutes the cops for the crime. The evidence gets thrown out, criminals walk free, and then nothing happens after that. It would be nice if the same defense attorney that proved the cop acted unlawfully could follow up by putting the cop in prison.

djbebs 5y ago
To be perfectly honest I see no reason why all the prosecutorial powers vested exclusively on the state should be exclusive to the state. There should be nothing that the executive branch does in terms of investigation and prosecution, that the average citizen should be legally barred from doing. This includes prosecuting crimes in criminal court, requesting and enforcing warrants, and so on. The only difference between an average citizen and the government employees doing these things should be that the government employes are being paid to do these things as a full time job.
- zepto 5y ago
  That would result just in sovereign citizens doing an unlimited amount of paper terrorism.
  - djbebs 5y ago
    As opposed to the state? Simply add a cost to prosecutions that fail, with it going towards the winner.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      > with it going towards the winner. The cops will abuse the shit out of that. That gives them a monetary incentive to botch investigations when their buddies are involved.
      - jdasdf 5y ago
        Hence the: >There should be nothing that the executive branch does in terms of investigation and prosecution, that the average citizen should be legally barred from doing. >This includes prosecuting crimes in criminal court, requesting and enforcing warrants, and so on. >The only difference between an average citizen and the government employees doing these things should be that the government employes are being paid to do these things as a full time job. If the cops botch their investigations... Well there's nothing stopping anyone else from conducting their own. Might as well conduct one into the cops botching of the investigation too.
      - darksaints 5y ago
        What makes you think someone prosecuting a police officer would rely on the police investigating the officer?
      - anchpop 5y ago
        they already have an incentive to botch investigations when their buddies are involved. Maybe this makes the incentive slightly greater but you shouldn’t rely on cops to investigate their buddies anyway
    - zepto 5y ago
      > As opposed to the state? Ok, so you consider the state to be equivalent to sovereign citizens? Also, how about investigations that never go to a prosecution? It’s pretty simple to harass someone that way.
      - djbebs 5y ago
        Yes? I dont see why the state should be considered special. Ultimately it is supposed to work for the people, is it not? It's powers are delegated to it by the people. I dont see "only the state should have the right to harass people" as a legitimate argument. If it's simple to harass someone that way, then making it available to everyone will increase the need to fix a broken system where people can be arbitrarily harassed.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  Some states (like Pennsylvania[1], for example) do have a process for "private criminal complaints". It's not without major drawbacks. The process can be (and has been) abused by people who simply want to make life difficult for others. Texas also recently took the concept you've described but implemented the inverse with SB-8[2] which allows citizens to do precisely what the government itself is legally barred from doing. [1]https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/234/chapter5/s506.html https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secur... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act
mindslight 5y ago
One of the problems is that there are different types of "illegal". The laws we're familiar with specify both that doing something is illegal, and also spell out a penalty for violation. But benerally the laws that set out government procedures don't specify any consequences for failing to follow the procedure. So the best that can happen after years of court time (with the government agents being paid the whole time), is a court judgement to stop doing something. There is no personal liability for the offending agents, no liquidated damages for the victims, no conspiracy charges for management's illegal policies, etc. In general, the state has a massive blindspot towards damages that it itself inflicts. As we can expect from any natural system, it has settled into creating ever more externalities. Cops have been abusing "you might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" for forever. Now that moral hazard is everywhere. In a just society, much of the state's activities would be viewed as just another actor on a level playing field, and would therefore be directly liable the damages it itself causes to innocent parties.
- darksaints 5y ago
  I agree with you to some extent, but a lot of the corrupt behavior of police is actually illegal with explicit laws and sentencing. For example, "you might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". That is an arrest without probable cause, as if the officer thinks that the defendant can beat the rap, he doesn't have enough evidence to arrest. That is a chargeable offense known as Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, and it carries a max penalty of 10 years in prison. The biggest problem is our chickenshit prosecutors, not a lack of criminal laws that apply to the police. We could have more, certainly, but we don't even apply the ones we have.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    I agree with what you're saying too, and the problem needs to be attacked from every angle it can be. However, referencing a completely different law kind of makes my point. Straight "kidnapping" and "false imprisonment" would be the appropriate charges. Yet the corrupt cop is still allowed to hide behind their nominal position, despite deliberately acting outside its authority. When I wrote my comment I was thinking of the TSA, which has done many things that were later slapped down by the court, but with no punishment for having violated the law for so long. Because despite being illegal, their actions were "policy" and thus apparently every crime they already committed is let slide. If the problem were just corrupt prosecutors, then we would expect to still see plenty of civil suits - individuals can still sue on their own. Yet if you ask an attorney about doing so, they'll just laugh. And even when the situation is serious enough to warrant a civil suit, it's still the city getting sued rather than the person who happens to be employed as an officer. The equivalent in the tech world would be cracking as a hobby, and when caught passing the responsibility off to your employer because you were using your work-provided laptop. But obviously that doesn't fly in the private sector.

djbebs 5y ago

To be perfectly honest I see no reason why all the prosecutorial powers vested exclusively on the state should be exclusive to the state. There should be nothing that the executive branch does in terms of investigation and prosecution, that the average citizen should be legally barred from doing. This includes prosecuting crimes in criminal court, requesting and enforcing warrants, and so on. The only difference between an average citizen and the government employees doing these things should be that the government employes are being paid to do these things as a full time job.

zepto 5y ago
That would result just in sovereign citizens doing an unlimited amount of paper terrorism.
- djbebs 5y ago
  As opposed to the state? Simply add a cost to prosecutions that fail, with it going towards the winner.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    > with it going towards the winner. The cops will abuse the shit out of that. That gives them a monetary incentive to botch investigations when their buddies are involved.
    - jdasdf 5y ago
      Hence the: >There should be nothing that the executive branch does in terms of investigation and prosecution, that the average citizen should be legally barred from doing. >This includes prosecuting crimes in criminal court, requesting and enforcing warrants, and so on. >The only difference between an average citizen and the government employees doing these things should be that the government employes are being paid to do these things as a full time job. If the cops botch their investigations... Well there's nothing stopping anyone else from conducting their own. Might as well conduct one into the cops botching of the investigation too.
    - darksaints 5y ago
      What makes you think someone prosecuting a police officer would rely on the police investigating the officer?
    - anchpop 5y ago
      they already have an incentive to botch investigations when their buddies are involved. Maybe this makes the incentive slightly greater but you shouldn’t rely on cops to investigate their buddies anyway
  - zepto 5y ago
    > As opposed to the state? Ok, so you consider the state to be equivalent to sovereign citizens? Also, how about investigations that never go to a prosecution? It’s pretty simple to harass someone that way.
    - djbebs 5y ago
      Yes? I dont see why the state should be considered special. Ultimately it is supposed to work for the people, is it not? It's powers are delegated to it by the people. I dont see "only the state should have the right to harass people" as a legitimate argument. If it's simple to harass someone that way, then making it available to everyone will increase the need to fix a broken system where people can be arbitrarily harassed.
elliekelly 5y ago
Some states (like Pennsylvania[1], for example) do have a process for "private criminal complaints". It's not without major drawbacks. The process can be (and has been) abused by people who simply want to make life difficult for others. Texas also recently took the concept you've described but implemented the inverse with SB-8[2] which allows citizens to do precisely what the government itself is legally barred from doing. [1]https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/234/chapter5/s506.html https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secur... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act

mindslight 5y ago

One of the problems is that there are different types of "illegal". The laws we're familiar with specify both that doing something is illegal, and also spell out a penalty for violation. But benerally the laws that set out government procedures don't specify any consequences for failing to follow the procedure. So the best that can happen after years of court time (with the government agents being paid the whole time), is a court judgement to stop doing something. There is no personal liability for the offending agents, no liquidated damages for the victims, no conspiracy charges for management's illegal policies, etc. In general, the state has a massive blindspot towards damages that it itself inflicts. As we can expect from any natural system, it has settled into creating ever more externalities. Cops have been abusing "you might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" for forever. Now that moral hazard is everywhere. In a just society, much of the state's activities would be viewed as just another actor on a level playing field, and would therefore be directly liable the damages it itself causes to innocent parties.

darksaints 5y ago
I agree with you to some extent, but a lot of the corrupt behavior of police is actually illegal with explicit laws and sentencing. For example, "you might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". That is an arrest without probable cause, as if the officer thinks that the defendant can beat the rap, he doesn't have enough evidence to arrest. That is a chargeable offense known as Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, and it carries a max penalty of 10 years in prison. The biggest problem is our chickenshit prosecutors, not a lack of criminal laws that apply to the police. We could have more, certainly, but we don't even apply the ones we have.
- mindslight 5y ago
  I agree with what you're saying too, and the problem needs to be attacked from every angle it can be. However, referencing a completely different law kind of makes my point. Straight "kidnapping" and "false imprisonment" would be the appropriate charges. Yet the corrupt cop is still allowed to hide behind their nominal position, despite deliberately acting outside its authority. When I wrote my comment I was thinking of the TSA, which has done many things that were later slapped down by the court, but with no punishment for having violated the law for so long. Because despite being illegal, their actions were "policy" and thus apparently every crime they already committed is let slide. If the problem were just corrupt prosecutors, then we would expect to still see plenty of civil suits - individuals can still sue on their own. Yet if you ask an attorney about doing so, they'll just laugh. And even when the situation is serious enough to warrant a civil suit, it's still the city getting sued rather than the person who happens to be employed as an officer. The equivalent in the tech world would be cracking as a hobby, and when caught passing the responsibility off to your employer because you were using your work-provided laptop. But obviously that doesn't fly in the private sector.