5 ms·
In Germany, we do not have any "Police Bill of Rights", as far as I know, but in practice, it works out quite similarly in cases of police misconduct or outrigh
by krylon 12y ago
In Germany, we do not have any "Police Bill of Rights", as far as I know, but in practice, it works out quite similarly in cases of police misconduct or outright brutality.
The DA's office, which depends on the police to perform investigations for them, is quite reluctant to investigate police officers in the first place. And when they do, the police force will behave quite uncooperatively, testify only in favor of the accused police officer, evidence will get "lost" mysteriously, and so forth.
Plus, if somebody sues a police officer for brutality, the usual reaction is to counter-sue for slander or false accusation (falsely accusing somebody of a crime is itself a crime under German law). In these cases, the best one can hope for is that the police drops its charges if you drop yours.
I remember a case from a few years back that exemplifies the problem over here quite well: The police had a warrant so search the home of somebody accused of drug trafficking. They did however, by accident, drive to the wrong address and - because of alleged "imminent danger" - kick down the door. They did not find any drugs or other illegal stuff at the place (because it was the wrong place). But the person whose appartment they searched wanted the police to pay for his door. The police refused, so he sued. The judge's statement when he dismissed the case came down to "Tough luck, dude, deal with it".
I find the very idea of a "Police Bill of Rights" repulsive. The police's job - formally speaking - is to enforce the law; as such, the law should be applied to them the same as to everybody else.
If anything, the police - precisely because they are allowed, under certain circumstances, to beat and kill people - should be held to a stricter standard.
It is also interesting that the police union here in Germany rarely if ever does what a union is supposed to do, namely to work towards better working conditions - better pay, shorter hours, and so forth - for their members, instead they mainly seem to advocate for more surveillance and against police accountability.
- scarmig 12y agoI wonder if there's a way to decouple the role of prosecutional evidence gathering from the role of public security that the police play. Basically having two departments with an iron wall of separation between them, so they're effectively neutral toward each other, if not adversarial. I'm not sure, though, how it even currently works in most places. Does anywhere do it like that?
- frandroid 12y agoOntario has the SIU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Investigations_Unit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Investigations_Unit Unfortunately, police are still extremely uncooperative and it has had more or less teeth over the years, depending on who gets appointed.
- higherpurpose 12y agoThat's why it shouldn't be local DA's to investigate local police. There should be another agency to do it, which has nothing to do with the police. In the same way it shouldn't be the DoJ that investigates Congress for acts of corruption. DoJ is huge and has many agencies that depend on Congress to give them more powers and increase the budget. Therefore DoJ is reliant on Congress in a big way. There should be a special agency with its sole purpose of investigating political corruption, like it exists in some countries in Europe. This makes their mission clear, and it encourages that agency to enforce the laws against corruption to justify their existence.