4 ms·

Police should be held to the highest standard: as they have a monopoly on legal force. The end of 'qualified immunity' and the start of personal insurance akin

Police should be held to the highest standard: as they have a monopoly on legal force. The end of 'qualified immunity' and the start of personal insurance akin to what surgeons have would do a lot to reform the police. They should also be trained better (certainly longer than 1 semester), actually study the law they have to enforce, and pass a bar-like exam: They should be exceptional people. Instead, we have a system that prunes people that are 'too smart' to be cops (https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...).

mathiaspoint 1y ago
You think ending qualified immunity would attract intelligent people?
- altruios 1y ago
  Yes. In the same way doctors are intelligent without qualified immunity. If doctors gain qualified immunity: I would expect the quality of doctors to go down. Qualified immunity only attracts bullies, and opportunists. Qualified immunity rewards bad behavior, it does nothing to promote good behavior.
  - mathiaspoint 1y ago
    I think most intelligent people are going to model out the expected outcome of their career choices at least intuitively. If becoming a cop more likely leads to ruin it will be less attractive to the kinds of people who think ahead.
    - altruios 1y ago
      a good cop would not be “ruined” by being held accountable to their actions. Do not excuse evil. > I think most intelligent people are going to model out the expected outcome of their career choices at least intuitively And yet we have doctors who face exactly the same risks as is being proposed. Your argument is flawed and 1-dimensional. People choose their careers on many factors. If we make it so good cops are rewarded (by having cheaper insurance), we have more good cops. That’s a win. Qualified immunity must go.
      - s1artibartfast 1y ago
        Qualified immunity needs a new standard, but it is necessary. It makes no sense to hold police personally liable for doing exactly what they are trained and instructed to do. We don't hold individual construction workers personally liable if they are following a certified blueprint and the building code.
        altruios 1y ago
        You are characterizing police brutality - what we want to curb - as something they are trained to do… this is disingenuous at best. If a police officer kills someone innocent, or enters the wrong house and shoots someone… they absolutely should be held criminally accountable: as they have committed a crime. Being a police officer shouldn’t excuse you from doing crime, come on. Again: higher standards. And you should be asking yourself why you are okay with lower standards than “police should at least not be shooting innocent people in their sleep after entering the wrong house” We really need better training for police: hopefully we at least agree on that…
        s1artibartfast 1y ago
        I think you are confused as to what qualified immunity is, and the different possible standards. There is a lot more than police brutality, and brutality isnt protected.
        mathiaspoint 1y ago
        If you had the option of a position with feduciary duty and lower pay would you pick it? Probably not. That's essentially what you're arguing for.
        altruios 1y ago
        Who said anything about lower pay? Higher education would increase their market value. Private insurance would also make their wages higher since the city wouldn't have to have a slush fund to payout for their mistakes. Higher standards also mean higher pay.
pstuart 1y ago
Police should be self-insured, backed by their pension fund. They have no skin in the game for accountability of their abuses, and the taxpayers end up paying for it. "According to the data, 65 out of the nation's 300 largest cities spend 40 percent or more of their general budgets on policing." https://www.statista.com/chart/10593/how-much-do-us-cities-spend-on-policing/
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  Over the last decade, NYC has paid out an average of one million dollars per week in settlements for abuse of force by NYPD.
  - pstuart 1y ago
    And we collectively pretend like there's nothing wrong with that. Like so many other subjects, we have Left and Right pitted against each other to allow this to be the status quo. It would be technically "simple" to reform the police but it will never be easy because people aren't willing to have the challenging conversations of what's wrong and what needs to change.
- mritterhoff 1y ago
  Amazing policy idea, I love it.
analog31 1y ago
The system that they serve could be held to higher standards. If prosecutors had to defend the behavior of the police when trying to convict someone, at the risk of having to set a guilty person free, the behavior would improve. Instead, we make it easier to convict people, for instance by allowing broader surveillance, plea bargaining system, etc. Of course this is an idealized concept, related to Deming's point that quality control is a manager problem not a worker problem. An issue within police forces today is that not all the "training" comes from above. Police and the military -- and many other people of course -- are immersed in fascist, fundamentalist propaganda.

mathiaspoint 1y ago

You think ending qualified immunity would attract intelligent people?

altruios 1y ago
Yes. In the same way doctors are intelligent without qualified immunity. If doctors gain qualified immunity: I would expect the quality of doctors to go down. Qualified immunity only attracts bullies, and opportunists. Qualified immunity rewards bad behavior, it does nothing to promote good behavior.
- mathiaspoint 1y ago
  I think most intelligent people are going to model out the expected outcome of their career choices at least intuitively. If becoming a cop more likely leads to ruin it will be less attractive to the kinds of people who think ahead.
  - altruios 1y ago
    a good cop would not be “ruined” by being held accountable to their actions. Do not excuse evil. > I think most intelligent people are going to model out the expected outcome of their career choices at least intuitively And yet we have doctors who face exactly the same risks as is being proposed. Your argument is flawed and 1-dimensional. People choose their careers on many factors. If we make it so good cops are rewarded (by having cheaper insurance), we have more good cops. That’s a win. Qualified immunity must go.
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      Qualified immunity needs a new standard, but it is necessary. It makes no sense to hold police personally liable for doing exactly what they are trained and instructed to do. We don't hold individual construction workers personally liable if they are following a certified blueprint and the building code.
      - altruios 1y ago
        You are characterizing police brutality - what we want to curb - as something they are trained to do… this is disingenuous at best. If a police officer kills someone innocent, or enters the wrong house and shoots someone… they absolutely should be held criminally accountable: as they have committed a crime. Being a police officer shouldn’t excuse you from doing crime, come on. Again: higher standards. And you should be asking yourself why you are okay with lower standards than “police should at least not be shooting innocent people in their sleep after entering the wrong house” We really need better training for police: hopefully we at least agree on that…
        s1artibartfast 1y ago
        I think you are confused as to what qualified immunity is, and the different possible standards. There is a lot more than police brutality, and brutality isnt protected.
        mathiaspoint 1y ago
        If you had the option of a position with feduciary duty and lower pay would you pick it? Probably not. That's essentially what you're arguing for.
        altruios 1y ago
        Who said anything about lower pay? Higher education would increase their market value. Private insurance would also make their wages higher since the city wouldn't have to have a slush fund to payout for their mistakes. Higher standards also mean higher pay.

pstuart 1y ago

Police should be self-insured, backed by their pension fund. They have no skin in the game for accountability of their abuses, and the taxpayers end up paying for it. "According to the data, 65 out of the nation's 300 largest cities spend 40 percent or more of their general budgets on policing." https://www.statista.com/chart/10593/how-much-do-us-cities-spend-on-policing/

FireBeyond 1y ago
Over the last decade, NYC has paid out an average of one million dollars per week in settlements for abuse of force by NYPD.
- pstuart 1y ago
  And we collectively pretend like there's nothing wrong with that. Like so many other subjects, we have Left and Right pitted against each other to allow this to be the status quo. It would be technically "simple" to reform the police but it will never be easy because people aren't willing to have the challenging conversations of what's wrong and what needs to change.
mritterhoff 1y ago
Amazing policy idea, I love it.

analog31 1y ago

The system that they serve could be held to higher standards. If prosecutors had to defend the behavior of the police when trying to convict someone, at the risk of having to set a guilty person free, the behavior would improve. Instead, we make it easier to convict people, for instance by allowing broader surveillance, plea bargaining system, etc. Of course this is an idealized concept, related to Deming's point that quality control is a manager problem not a worker problem. An issue within police forces today is that not all the "training" comes from above. Police and the military -- and many other people of course -- are immersed in fascist, fundamentalist propaganda.