4 ms·

As 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 remo

As 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 ago
It'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 ago
    Legislation, 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.

javajosh 4y ago

It'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 ago
  Legislation, 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.