2 ms·

I agree, the focus qualified immunity is only looking at a small part of the problem. Sovereign immunity for law enforcement is the larger issue from which all

I agree, the focus qualified immunity is only looking at a small part of the problem. Sovereign immunity for law enforcement is the larger issue from which all the misaligned incentives flow. A cop who beats their spouse can't claim that it's just part of their job. The same should apply to any action outside the bounds of written department policies, civilly and criminally. Furthermore, innocent victims need to be compensated for the activities of the police department even when those activities are in line with department policies. If the police have a standoff and destroy a third party's house to get a suspect out, they should be jointly and severally liable for the damage. If the police arrest someone who is prosecuted and later found innocent or the charges are dropped, the person should be compensated for legal defense, time spent in jail, etc. Right now these externalities are effectively paid by a perverse reverse lottery where unlucky individuals get stuck covering the true cost of law enforcement, with little incentive for police departments to lessen their collateral damage. "You can be the rap but you can't beat the ride" should be seen as a bug to be fixed, rather than as a loophole of autocratic power to be exploited.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think that's a fair point and question with regard to how we handle collateral damage from police action. The most important piece is probably how we handle Bond and people under investigation as well as their arrest records after the fact. I don't think that arrest records that do not lead to conviction should be able to be used by Third parties, although I understand that their retention is valuable for police themselves. Ideally, holistic police oversight would take into account the damage they do and make sure that they take reasonable care to mitigate the damage. Ultimately the taxpayers should be on the hook one way or another for the full cost of police protection that they want
- mindslight 4y ago
  I'd say oversight and bail/bond issues are ultimately part of the poor incentives created by blanket sovereign immunity. If it were to cost $1k/day [0] to keep someone in jail awaiting trial, then those running the system have an actual tradeoff to make. Same thing if states have to start reimbursing the costs of bail bondsmen for those found innocent. I'm not arguing against considering the qualitative issues on their own. I just think attempts to address them directly without addressing the underlying poor incentives are somewhat doomed. Additionally, plea bargains have to be massively reformed for the incentives to be significant. Arrest records are an orthogonal topic squarely in the realm of commercial surveillance / data protection, which the US is sorely lacking. We need less narrow-scoped red tape like HIPAA and more general right to control all records about us ala GDPR. [0] direct incremental costs paid out in cash if they're acquitted, as opposed to the large fixed costs of staffing the jail which come out of someone else's budget.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I think that's a fair point and question with regard to how we handle collateral damage from police action. The most important piece is probably how we handle Bond and people under investigation as well as their arrest records after the fact. I don't think that arrest records that do not lead to conviction should be able to be used by Third parties, although I understand that their retention is valuable for police themselves. Ideally, holistic police oversight would take into account the damage they do and make sure that they take reasonable care to mitigate the damage. Ultimately the taxpayers should be on the hook one way or another for the full cost of police protection that they want

mindslight 4y ago
I'd say oversight and bail/bond issues are ultimately part of the poor incentives created by blanket sovereign immunity. If it were to cost $1k/day [0] to keep someone in jail awaiting trial, then those running the system have an actual tradeoff to make. Same thing if states have to start reimbursing the costs of bail bondsmen for those found innocent. I'm not arguing against considering the qualitative issues on their own. I just think attempts to address them directly without addressing the underlying poor incentives are somewhat doomed. Additionally, plea bargains have to be massively reformed for the incentives to be significant. Arrest records are an orthogonal topic squarely in the realm of commercial surveillance / data protection, which the US is sorely lacking. We need less narrow-scoped red tape like HIPAA and more general right to control all records about us ala GDPR. [0] direct incremental costs paid out in cash if they're acquitted, as opposed to the large fixed costs of staffing the jail which come out of someone else's budget.