zlacker

[parent] [thread] 14 comments
1. tialar+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-01 17:34:54
Technically qualified immunity does not shield officers from prosecution it only stops them from being sued.

So a pretty reasonable question you'd ask in the rest of the world is: Why aren't these cops prosecuted for excessive violence? The use of civil rights lawsuits in the US was a workaround for an already broken legal system that doesn't punish wrong doing by certain people.

replies(3): >>Mattic+Z2 >>jandre+G3 >>syshum+ar
2. Mattic+Z2[view] [source] 2020-06-01 17:49:20
>>tialar+(OP)
This reddit thread from years ago (IIRC it got linked from a bunch of subreddits) explained some of the difficulties really well: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/2qv6o0/...
3. jandre+G3[view] [source] 2020-06-01 17:51:47
>>tialar+(OP)
In short the prosecutor's office has to work closely with the police to do their job. They are strongly discouraged from bringing cases against cops to avoid hurting the relationship between the two parties.
replies(2): >>tehweb+Zf >>ncalla+Gj
◧◩
4. tehweb+Zf[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 18:50:55
>>jandre+G3
Seems like if an independent agency and prosecutor should be in charge of every single police complaint. I think every state already has a state police department and prosecutor, seems like the entire bureaucracy problem is a policy issue?
replies(1): >>Ericso+Yj
◧◩
5. ncalla+Gj[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 19:11:25
>>jandre+G3
I strongly agree with this. We need an independent prosecutorial agency for handling police matters.

The police and prosecutors need to work closely together to function. It's unreasonable to ask the prosecutors to then also prosecute police powers. It's biased and unjust—even when the actors are all doing their best to act in good faith.

replies(1): >>jakela+zn
◧◩◪
6. Ericso+Yj[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 19:13:03
>>tehweb+Zf
But the prosecutors shouldn't have such a relationship with the police in the first police.

- While the (especially Anglo-American) courtroom is adversarial, prosecutors shouldn't be at all compensated (money, promotion, etc.) by who they lock up. Something based on future crime rates would be much better.

- Rather than DA's needing the police, the police should need the DA. Arresting someone that isn't convicted should reflect very poorly on the police.

That side, both groups are badly in need of complete replacement, which makes it hard to talk how they ought to work together when the real "ought" goes so much further

replies(3): >>SamRei+Zr >>marcos+yt >>kortil+fv
◧◩◪
7. jakela+zn[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 19:30:56
>>ncalla+Gj
The problem is, who will gather evidence for this prosecutorial agency? Does it need its own police force as well? Who investigates bad actors at this new agency? Where does the ouroboros end?
replies(2): >>ncalla+vq >>kortil+4u
◧◩◪◨
8. ncalla+vq[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 19:45:05
>>jakela+zn
Yes, I think it should be an investigatory agency with subpoena power. It could replace the IA department at offices.

We currently allow PDs to investigate themselves, which is a mockery of justice.

It ends at subpoena and arresting power. The courts would mediate disputes as they already do.

replies(1): >>closep+6W1
9. syshum+ar[view] [source] 2020-06-01 19:48:32
>>tialar+(OP)
"We have investigated ourselves and found we have done nothing wrong"

Until the concept of "Internal Affairs" dies and we get an actual independent investigative arm or some other strategy that will continue

The only time an outside investigator is called in, normally is because someone dies AND the public is upset about that death.

◧◩◪◨
10. SamRei+Zr[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 19:53:50
>>Ericso+Yj
This just is not any way to run an incentive system. Prosecutors don't have a lever with which to manipulate future crime rates. Drug use, domestic violence, murders [1], etcetera, isn't going to stop happening.

In fact, the most effective way for prosecutors to improve their crime rate would be to persecute the high-crime racial demographics until they move out of town.

[1] edit: the non-organized-crime kind

replies(1): >>SamRei+vS9
◧◩◪◨
11. marcos+yt[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 20:02:24
>>Ericso+Yj
You know, that's completely against modernity but... you don't have to micro-measure final performance on every job at the contributor level.

It's not great to rely on intermediate performance, but it is often less worse than the alternative.

◧◩◪◨
12. kortil+4u[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 20:05:31
>>jakela+zn
The new agency would just answer to the existing system. Balance of powers and all.
◧◩◪◨
13. kortil+fv[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 20:10:55
>>Ericso+Yj
> Something based on future crime rates would be much better.

What? A prosecutor’s purpose is not to prevent other crime nor to reduce recidivism. It’s strictly to ensure that crimes that do happen meet justice.

“Unsolved crimes” might be closer, but the prosecutors would definitely need to absorb the detective arm of the police branch at that point.

◧◩◪◨⬒
14. closep+6W1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-02 07:46:35
>>ncalla+vq
People confess in interview rooms because they are naive about the criminal justice system and thrown off balance by its sudden collision with their lives.

People testify because they feel greater loyalty to society as a whole than to the defendants.

Neither of those things are going to work against cops.

◧◩◪◨⬒
15. SamRei+vS9[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-04 17:15:32
>>SamRei+Zr
I admit it, I was wrong.

https://twitter.com/Eric_Schmitt/status/1268195075953176576

[go to top]