3 ms·

> The police pension plan is the public coffers; it's a fund set aside to fulfill a contractual obligation of the public agency and which the contributing agenc

> The police pension plan is the public coffers; it's a fund set aside to fulfill a contractual obligation of the public agency and which the contributing agency is legally obligated (barring discharge in bankruptcy) to make up any shortfall in. Since we're presumably already talking about changing the law, we could presumably set up a system whereby those legal obligations are reduced according to those judgements. I don't actually advocate it, but (paraphrasing) "that doesn't even make sense" isn't the most interesting response.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Since we're presumably already talking about changing the law, we could presumably set up a system whereby those legal obligations are reduced according to those judgements. I mean, sure, we could presumably amend the Constitution to weaken due process protections to allow that kind of collective punishment, but that's a fairly drastic measure with enormous knock-on effects. But also, that takes much deeper and wider political support at all levels to pass than just electing DAs that will prosecute cops for crimes; if law enforcement has enough politics pull to prevent the latter, it has more than enough to prevent dismantling fundamental Constitutional guarantees just to make punishment of officers not proven to be directly involved in wrongdoing easier. > I don't actually advocate it, but (paraphrasing) "that doesn't even make sense" isn't the most interesting response. It may not be the most entertaining, but the proposal is incoherent on many levels, so its really the only possible response.
- Teever 5y ago
  While I'm skeptical that the only way to implement this kind of system is through a constitutional amendment but I agree with you that constitution amendments to explicitly place limitations on domestic law enforcement would be a really good idea. What other policies do you think we should put in place to rein in corrupt law enforcement in America?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > What other policies do you think we should put in place to rein in corrupt law enforcement in America While reforming QI so its not functionally absolute immunity is probably beneficial, corruption in law enforcement in the US is not principally a policy problem, it's principally a problem of people not believing it's enough of a problem not to consistently defer to law enforcement recommendations at the ballot box, particularly when it comes to electing the people who will implement the existing (and any potential future) policies intended to hold police accountable.
    - Teever 5y ago
      It sounds like you don't really feel that the issues that others have with law enforcement in America are a problem.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > It sounds like you don't really feel that the issues that others have with law enforcement in America are a problem. I’m not sure which issues you are referring to; if they are the ones that get heavy media coverage of widespread complaints, I think they are largely real problems, some quite severe, and that they barely scratch the surface of real, systemic problems in American policing. My issue is with people pushing “solutions” that ignore the nature of those problems and the political context creating/supporting the problems, not with the idea that they are problems.
      - dllthomas 5y ago
        It is perfectly possible - and should be more common! - to believe that something is a crucially important problem and still believe that a proposed solution is a bad idea. Especially - but not only - when the proposed solution seems (as I think this one seems to dragonwriter) unlikely to actually solve the problem.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  > It may not be the most entertaining, but the proposal is incoherent on many levels, so its really the only possible response. I didn't mean entertaining, exactly, so much as that it seemed unlikely to convince anyone who held the opposite view since it (shallowly) seemed easily worked around. It was an important part of the more interesting argument, which you've elaborated on further and which this morning I would have expected to convince - "it is probably harder than the thing we need, and also still relies on the thing we need" seems pretty conclusive if accurate.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Since we're presumably already talking about changing the law, we could presumably set up a system whereby those legal obligations are reduced according to those judgements. I mean, sure, we could presumably amend the Constitution to weaken due process protections to allow that kind of collective punishment, but that's a fairly drastic measure with enormous knock-on effects. But also, that takes much deeper and wider political support at all levels to pass than just electing DAs that will prosecute cops for crimes; if law enforcement has enough politics pull to prevent the latter, it has more than enough to prevent dismantling fundamental Constitutional guarantees just to make punishment of officers not proven to be directly involved in wrongdoing easier. > I don't actually advocate it, but (paraphrasing) "that doesn't even make sense" isn't the most interesting response. It may not be the most entertaining, but the proposal is incoherent on many levels, so its really the only possible response.

Teever 5y ago
While I'm skeptical that the only way to implement this kind of system is through a constitutional amendment but I agree with you that constitution amendments to explicitly place limitations on domestic law enforcement would be a really good idea. What other policies do you think we should put in place to rein in corrupt law enforcement in America?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > What other policies do you think we should put in place to rein in corrupt law enforcement in America While reforming QI so its not functionally absolute immunity is probably beneficial, corruption in law enforcement in the US is not principally a policy problem, it's principally a problem of people not believing it's enough of a problem not to consistently defer to law enforcement recommendations at the ballot box, particularly when it comes to electing the people who will implement the existing (and any potential future) policies intended to hold police accountable.
  - Teever 5y ago
    It sounds like you don't really feel that the issues that others have with law enforcement in America are a problem.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > It sounds like you don't really feel that the issues that others have with law enforcement in America are a problem. I’m not sure which issues you are referring to; if they are the ones that get heavy media coverage of widespread complaints, I think they are largely real problems, some quite severe, and that they barely scratch the surface of real, systemic problems in American policing. My issue is with people pushing “solutions” that ignore the nature of those problems and the political context creating/supporting the problems, not with the idea that they are problems.
    - dllthomas 5y ago
      It is perfectly possible - and should be more common! - to believe that something is a crucially important problem and still believe that a proposed solution is a bad idea. Especially - but not only - when the proposed solution seems (as I think this one seems to dragonwriter) unlikely to actually solve the problem.
dllthomas 5y ago
> It may not be the most entertaining, but the proposal is incoherent on many levels, so its really the only possible response. I didn't mean entertaining, exactly, so much as that it seemed unlikely to convince anyone who held the opposite view since it (shallowly) seemed easily worked around. It was an important part of the more interesting argument, which you've elaborated on further and which this morning I would have expected to convince - "it is probably harder than the thing we need, and also still relies on the thing we need" seems pretty conclusive if accurate.