3 ms·
Save your blood and accept the simple fact that "the police" are a actually a set of more-or-less independent small government departments who get to beat peopl
by javajosh 4y ago
Save your blood and accept the simple fact that "the police" are a actually a set of more-or-less independent small government departments who get to beat people up and get away with it. And then arrest the beaten up person putting them in jail indefinitely before trial, and creating an immediate huge financial and social burden on that person. Mostly the public is unaware of this because the frog has boiled in fits and starts, the last big temp increases happened because of 9/11 under Bush and Obama and the distro of military gear to PDs. Tell me: what about this situation implies "self-restraint" is a key virtue of PDs?
I'll tell you what the problem is. It's the justice system itself. It's extremely slow and expensive. Defense lawyers have perverse incentives -- delays make money. Prosecution have perverse incentives -- they just want easy wins. The courts have perverse incentives -- they don't want to decide cases. So you get a system rooted in all-powerful patrolmen who effectively serve as judge, jury and executioner, with the rest of it serving as a willing, very highly paid window dressing. So why would a PD ever say no to getting any legal advantage?
The solution must be to rethink justice from top to bottom, such that excesses like this are punished meaningfully. I'm uncharacteristically optimistic about the possibility, mainly because of computers and the internet. Justice is about making sound decisions informed by reality after applying agreed upon rules (laws), and it requires a judge/jury. Computers can help with each of these elements in ways barely explored by modern-day courts. They can help with information gathering and jury selection/operation. If we wanted, we could have same day trials of higher quality than the months or years long things we have today.
For people aware of these problems, the only solutions they hear involve fixing the justice with new legislation or by electing the right sheriff, mayor, police chief, or if a higher level of government steps in (like the FBI or federal courts). Or even worse that odious pablum "just vote" - if you've been served shit for dinner it won't taste better if you push it 'round your plate.
(If someone with infinite money (and with open-minded connections with judges in various courts, and supportive politicians) wants to fund a serious effort in this area, please reach out to me, because this need is critical.)
- landemva 4y agoAs you wrote, redress in the courts is expensive and unlikely to succeed against the government. The USSC made-up doctrine of government immunity should be removed. BLM got side-tracked into ineffectiveness by avoiding this underlying problem.
- javajosh 4y agoIt's simply because the courts are not in the habit of doing their jobs anymore. They are expected to hold the LEO accountable to the law just as much as the citizen, but the de facto system aligns the executive and judicial completely, such that neither is willing to take action against the other. If the courts were faster, more flexible, they would have more experience holding the executive accountable, and issues like leveraging surveillance capitalism in investigations and prosecutions, or the unjustified murder of unarmed citizens, of any race, would routinely result in speedy, accurate application of the law to everyone involved. The badge should never have meant protection from the law, but these perverse incentives have conspired to make it so, and the solution is NOT legislation about cops, as much as it seems like it should be, but rather legislation about courts.
- landemva 4y ago> but rather legislation about courts. Government prosecutes criminal law. There are various reasons, including politics or career progression, that government prosecutors overlook some crimes. Individuals don't successfully charge others with criminal violations. Individuals prosecute civil law. If civil law penalties continue to be unavailable because 'government immunity', then bad actors in government will not be restrained through the courts. I'm uncertain what court legislation you would propose, other than removal of USSC doctrine of government immunity.
- javajosh 4y agoLegislation, as far as I understand it, determines the composition, operation and funding of the court system in addition to the law itself. It will probably require significant legislation to, for example, allow justices to run a jury trial entirely online and have the outcome binding. But I'm not a lawyer; perhaps the courts actually have great leeway with how they conduct trials, which would actually be a very good thing for the kinds of reforms I have in mind.