zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
This is why we need civilian oversight of every police department. Cops are generally too corrupt and/or too incompetent to investigate their own. They've proven their inability to hold themselves accountable for their actions, so it's up to the rest of us to do it.

>>psycho+Mg
Effective civilian oversight is made damn hard by the political power wielded by the police. Most of this article is in fact about the ways in which NYC's existing civilian review board is neutered and undermined by police department control of every aspect of its work: investigation, adjudication, and punishment.

Investigation:

> civilian investigators don’t have direct access to the [body cam] footage. They email requests to the NYPD, which decides which footage is relevant. The department takes its time.

Adjudication:

> [E]ven if the CCRB substantiates a case, the commissioner still has complete authority over what to do next. He can decide to simply ignore the recommended punishment. The commissioner can also let the case go before an internal NYPD judge (whose boss is the commissioner). If the judge decides punishment is merited, the commissioner can overturn or downgrade that, too.

Punishment:

>In 2018, the CCRB looked into about 3,000 allegations of misuse of force. It was able to substantiate 73 of those allegations. The biggest punishment? Nine officers who lost vacation days, according to CCRB records.

>>chocka+9p
All of these problems come from the department being fully controlled by the police union.

I am typically a pro-union person. I even think that police unions, as a concept, should exist.

But police unions, as implemented, are the reason that civilian oversight of police is impossible.

Typical unions consist of line workers - with maybe line managers. They are then overseen by professional managers, directors, etc, who are not part of the union. The union advocates for the line workers, in opposition to managers.

Police department unions are completely different. Every level of management, except for the very top (The mayor and city council) are part of the union. And, unsurprisingly, this leads to a huge conflict of interest, where the line workers aren't opposed by the managers - but are working together, against the civilian authorities.

To draw a parallel, it would be like the entirety of GM, including the CEO, being part of the UAW union. Do you think that would represent shareholder & board interests well? Or would it lead to a completely out of control company, that would operate without any care for board oversight?