|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:Do you think giving peasants the same treatment as the cops will improve things? Nope. I also don't think there are any peasants. Now that I've answered your question, will you answer mine? Do you think the way that we deal with 'peasants' (by which I assume you mean poor people with no political sway) committing manslaughter is effective? Xoidanor posted:A combination of over-zealous police unions, career officers, "tough on crime" politicians, a focus on arrests in the stats, the for profit prison system and the inherit racial biases of most Americans. How about you actually contribute to the discussion instead of simply asking questions that have already been answered again and again in this very thread? I'm trying to focus on police reform. I also don't think the for-profit prison system (which is a much smaller part of the prison system than people think) is to blame, because we see the same general problems in the not-for-profit prison system. The prison guard's union in California, for example, mostly serving public prisons and jails, is one of the most revanchist, anti-progressive forces in the state. I'm not sure why career officers (do you mean police officers?) are part of the problem, but I completely agree that tough on crime politicians and a focus on arrests (and clearances) are the problem. The reason I'm harping on this is that things are being offered up, like the cameras and oversight boards, as though that's the start of a real solution. They're not; they are potentially helpful, but without addressing the root causes, most especially the political cause, we're not going to really get anywhere. It's very similar to trying to address crime without addressing the root causes of crime. I think the biggest and most important part of police reform is making the prosecutor's office a non-political role. It's difficult to enact laws preventing people from running for office, but it's not impossible. I think that a push to bar prosecutors from seeking public office--as well as reforming the prosecutor's office so that they have a general duty to keep crime low in an area rather than to prosecute crimes, but that'd be much tricker--along with pushing for judges to be selected equally from prosecutorial and defense backgrounds would be the most effective and long-lasting way to reform police conduct. In addition, a lot of the 4th amendment problems with the police lie in the judiciary; to that end, we need more progressives of the Kagan/Sotomayor type on the Supreme Court, who may not be ideal but at least generally rule for defendants and suspect's rights.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Nope. You're fine with the way the peasants are currently punished for manslaughter? But you don't think holding cops to the same standard will help?? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:You're fine with the way the peasants are currently punished for manslaughter? But you don't think holding cops to the same standard will help?? I am not at all fine with the way that ordinary people are currently punished for manslaughter. I thought it would be kind of obvious I don't think that the way ordinary people are punished for manslaughter is good from the way that I posed the question about effectiveness, but there you go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I absolutely think that's a good idea. So why do the police make pointless arrests? Stupid laws that incentivize non-violent criminal behavior -- if it weren't for the fact that New York treats tobacco as more of a controlled substance than some areas of te U.S. and Europe treat marijuana, then there would be no issue over a guy selling loosie cigarettes in the first place. Cops going for low-hanging fruit -- cops have arrest quotas and crimes of visibility like dealing in untaxed cigarettes or drugs are a great way to meet them. Finding child molestors takes work, and cops are both generally lazy and unwilling to invest too much time per arrest, lest they fail to meet their quota. Cops being racist & sadistic -- they enjoy hurting people and when the opportunity to hurt a black man without consequence comes up, they will do so. Heavy recruitment out of the military to police deparments + macho culture + cops are perpetually at war with "civilians" mindset -- overwhelming force is the first response to any situation and all situations are viewed as life-or-death. There's no surprise that cops used lethal force because they view themselves as being one second away from being murdered at all times by any non-cop. In this thread, we have people claiming to be ex-cops who openly admit this and claim it's justified. What you don't seem to get is all of this pretty much goes back to "bad people become cops because cops are required to do bad things." Yes, we should reform the laws and the culture, but in the meantime, the oversight system and the internal structure of policing has been irredeemably poisoned because it is filled exclusively with people who think the above is awesome. We could make marginal improvements by fixing any one thing in a vacuum, but this might require things like "disciplining a cop who has friends who post on the Internet" so I'm not sure you would actually support anything beyond the abstract notion of this, when it comes down to actually doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Stupid laws that incentivize non-violent criminal behavior -- if it weren't for the fact that New York treats tobacco as more of a controlled substance than some areas of te U.S. and Europe treat marijuana, then there would be no issue over a guy selling loosie cigarettes in the first place. See. the bits where you're claiming that cops are lazy, racist, sadists is where you just start seeming like a weirdo. The structural problems you're talking about are all very real, but if you think that cops aren't interested in arresting child molesters, I don't know what to say. Some cops are lazy. Some are not. Most are like most of us, somewhat lazy, somewhat not. quote:Heavy recruitment out of the military to police deparments + macho culture + cops are perpetually at war with "civilians" mindset -- overwhelming force is the first response to any situation and all situations are viewed as life-or-death. Most people in the military don't think that overwhelming force is the first response to any situation or that all situations are viewed as life or death, so your equation doesn't really work. quote:What you don't seem to get is all of this pretty much goes back to "bad people become cops because cops are required to do bad things." To the extent that is true, that is exactly what I'm saying. I'm really not sure why you can't see that. quote:Yes, we should reform the laws and the culture, but in the meantime, the oversight system and the internal structure of policing has been irredeemably poisoned because it is filled exclusively with people who think the above is awesome. But it's not exclusively filled with people like that. Why do you feel the need to make these dumb categorical statements, instead of reasonable ones? quote:We could make marginal improvements by fixing any one thing in a vacuum, but this might require things like "disciplining a cop who has friends who post on the Internet" so I'm not sure you would actually support anything beyond the abstract notion of this, when it comes down to actually doing it. If either of my friends committed a crime or an abuse of power I would completely support disciplining them. I can't see from any of this what you're actually proposing to reform the police.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
See, I think police accountability for crimes is worthless. But don't paint me as being out of touch or disinterested in practical solutions! Because you see, I actually favor a world where the concept of crime itself comes to an end. There's no sense holding police to account until we can achieve this world (see below) 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:See, I think police accountability for crimes is worthless. But don't paint me as being out of touch or disinterested in practical solutions! Because you see, I actually favor a world where the concept of crime itself comes to an end. That's pretty dumb. I don't think police accountability for crimes is worthless, either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't think police accountability for crimes is worthless, either. You sure had us fooled then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:You sure had us fooled then. I really shouldn't have, because nothing I said at any point, in any way, could have been interpreted in saying I don't believe in police accountability for crimes. What I am saying, and what I am frankly baffled at the bizarre reaction to, is that if you fix only the problems at the police level, the police will eventually revert to the state they're in now, because the state they're in now is because of systemic problems in the legal system, political demands that are made of the police, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What I am saying, and what I am frankly baffled at the bizarre reaction to, is that if you fix only the problems at the police level, the police will eventually revert to the state they're in now, because the state they're in now is because of systemic problems in the legal system, political demands that are made of the police, etc. You're being completely obtuse to the point that you're likely trolling.  You've been told repeatedly that nobody here is honestly arguing for a purge of the police, because I think everyone here recognizes that the problem isn't singularly one with the police. You've ignored this. How would you suggest reforming the police that you ostensibly agree are problematic? Because your Nuremburg-esque defense that the police are mindless automatons subject wholly to the will of corrupt politicians and lawyers is cool but doesn't really fly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I really shouldn't have, because nothing I said at any point, in any way, could have been interpreted in saying I don't believe in police accountability for crimes. Obdicut posted:I'm mainly not interested in laying down blame. I'm not into laying down blame for criminals, either. It seems completely pointless to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:You're being completely obtuse to the point that you're likely trolling. Nope. I'm being completely sincere, and, again, I'm just baffled why the idea that reforming the police requires reforming other parts of the connected system gets me the lesat bit of pushback. quote:You've been told repeatedly that nobody here is honestly arguing for a purge of the police, because I think everyone here recognizes that the problem isn't singularly one with the police. You've ignored this. I haven't accused anyone of wanting a purge of the police. I've asked if people wanted it, with the expectation of the answer being 'no'. quote:How would you suggest reforming the police that you ostensibly agree are problematic? Because your Nuremburg-esque defense that the police are mindless automatons subject wholly to the will of corrupt politicians and lawyers is cool but doesn't really fly. I've already stated this clearly, but let me state it again. I think the biggest and most important part of police reform is making the prosecutor's office a non-political role. It's difficult to enact laws preventing people from running for office, but it's not impossible. I think that a push to bar prosecutors from seeking public office--as well as reforming the prosecutor's office so that they have a general duty to keep crime low in an area rather than to prosecute crimes, but that'd be much tricker--along with pushing for judges to be selected equally from prosecutorial and defense backgrounds would be the most effective and long-lasting way to reform police conduct. In addition, a lot of the 4th amendment problems with the police lie in the judiciary; to that end, we need more progressives of the Kagan/Sotomayor type on the Supreme Court, who may not be ideal but at least generally rule for defendants and suspect's rights. I also don't think police are mindless automatons, any more than I think that drug dealers are mindless automatons. I think in both cases, behavior is influences by the sociological circumstances they're in. I haven't, at any point, argued that any cop should be let off for any crime that they commit or are in any way not legally responsible for their actions--in fact, I made that explicitly clear--so the Nuremberg thing is just silly. I could add to the above what I've said in other posts about fixing civil forfeiture on the legislative level, too. I think civil forfeiture is bad. I don't think that the reason that cops can do it is because of some archaic law that everyone is powerless to address, but because the legislative bodies and executive authorities are perfectly happy for cops to use civil forfeiture powers. If we want to stop civil forfeiture, the best way is to legally bar its use, not to try to reform all of police culture so that they will abstain from using it. Did you honestly think that I don't want any criminals to be arrested? That's your honest interpretation of what I've said, that by saying I'm not interested in assigning blame I don't want anyone held legally accountable for any crimes they commit?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
I don't know, you're all over the place. I can only go off of what you've written.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't know, you're all over the place. I can only go off of what you've written. I'm really not all over the place, and you're doing an intentionally uncharitable, dull interpretation of what I wrote. Just like I don't think that it's necessary or useful to figure out how much drug dealers to blame for their actions versus how much is because of sociological reasons, I don't think it's necessary or useful to figure that out about cops and corruption or abuse of power. We absolutely know that there are systemic reasons why drug dealers exist, and addressing those reasons, rather than trying to figure out something in drug dealer culture or what have you that's to blame, is the way to address drug dealers (mainly, of course, decriminalization and making addiction a medical and not a legal problem). I don't think that reforming police departments without reforming other parts of the system will do long-term good, because the pressures and political demands and the rest would still be in place and police departments would quickly come to resemble what they do now. If you disagree with this, can you explain why? Do you think that if we kept prosecutors as a political position who have the incentive to make cases, meaning that they target vulnerable groups who can't effectively legally defend themselves, and use things like civil forfeiture to inhibit those who can afford to defend themselves, and we kept the laws in place that give the police the current powers that they have, and had our general societal attitude towards 'criminals', that the police wouldn't become what they are, again, even if you totally cleaned house now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Why are you obsessed with "it happening again"? Clean house, if it happens again fix it again. Maybe you've watched too many blockbuster movies or something because I don't think there are too many problems in life that you can fix once and walk away from. The same criticism would apply to your proposed reforms of the political and legal systems; the power dynamics and blocs will still be in place, so things will just go back to the way they are. That's an obvious enough point that I wonder why you are constantly trying to redirect the conversation away from concrete changes that can be imposed directly upon police departments and towards broader issues that are more challenging to address. I suspect that it could be because you've heard your cop buddies say "politics man, the system is corrupt" while you were out drinking. No, your cop buddies are to blame as well; them, their unions, their us vs. civilians attitude. No one who joins up and stays is free from blame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why are you obsessed with "it happening again"? Clean house, if it happens again fix it again. Because that's a horrible plan, just like 'Arrest all the drug dealers' would be a horrible plan for dealing with drug dealers. That's why I'm 'obsessed' with it. You'd seriously be happy with a cycle of the police gaining more and more powers of search and seizure, getting more and more punitive, more and more likely to abuse power, and then pruning them back, over and over? Where is this repeated political will to do this going to come from? quote:Maybe you've watched too many blockbuster movies or something because I don't think there are too many problems in life that you can fix once and walk away from. I'm not suggesting you walk away from it, though. I'm suggesting we make systemic changes--systemic changes of the kind advocated by the Innocence Project, the ACLU, and all sorts of other civil rights organizations. quote:The same criticism would apply to your proposed reforms of the political and legal systems; the power dynamics and blocs will still be in place, so things will just go back to the way they are. This is why I keep including the cultural part: yes, if we don't change the way that our citizens view criminals and criminality, particularly the huge punitive desire we have, things would go back to the way they were. I do think, however, that changing the legal and political structure would have at least some cultural effect that could be built on. I absolutely agree that broader changes are also necessary in our society that relate to the way we see criminals, including our race problem, our contempt for poor people, the undue influence the rich have over our political process. But I think that the reforms I'm talking about would help to address those problems, whereas I don't think that just reforming the cops is going to have nearly as much of a permeating effect. Compared to prosecutors, cops do not have a lot of power, and the power that they have is delegated to them by the legislature. quote:That's an obvious enough point that I wonder why you are constantly trying to redirect the conversation away from concrete changes that can be imposed directly upon police departments and towards broader issues that are more challenging to address. Because the more challenging issues are also the only ones that will change things substantially over time. Have you read "Logics of History" by Sewell? http://www.amazon.com/Logics-History-Transformation-Chicago-Practices/dp/0226749185 It's a really great book in general, and one of the things he's most concerned about his how instituations change. It may help to change your mind that the best solution is just constantly reforming the police departments when they get corrupted. quote:I suspect that it could be because you've heard your cop buddies say "politics man, the system is corrupt" while you were out drinking. No, your cop buddies are to blame as well; them, their unions, their us vs. civilians attitude. No one who joins up and stays is free from blame. Again, I really don't care about this moralistic blame-throwing game. I don't think it gets us anywhere, and I think it detracts from long-term solutions. you apparently don't believe in long term solutions, just in letting the police become corrupt and then reforming them over and over, in an endless cycle. So I think that's the root of our disagreement: you either don't think long-term change is possible, or that it's so unpredictable and difficult you're content with short-term change, even while acknowledging it won't last, with your solution being to just repeat the reforms over and over. I really don't think that would work, partially because I don't think that you could win that political battle over and over and partially because a lot of the problems are rooted in the 4th amendment decisions of the Supreme Court, which allow the police a lot of the latitude that they have. Expecting to be able to consistently reform the police so that they don't use powers that are delegated to them because they're moral and upright seems very wishful-thinking to me, but I'd be perfectly happy to hear why you think that's possible and the best solution--how this periodic reform would work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
I don't know if anyone else was aware of this; since I follow police abuse issues and had managed not to hear of it yet, I thought I'd share it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Terrance_Williams_and_Felipe_Santos A cop almost certainly murdered two people after arresting them for the most minor crime there is (driving without a license). He did eventually get fired (again, only after doing this TWICE) but the investigation has been stonewalled and perfunctory with key witnesses not even interviewed. This is the reality of policing in the U.S. -- it attracts disturbed people and lets them know there will be no consequences for their actions. Oh, and there are even articles talking about the cop's friends. Even he has friends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:This is the reality of policing in the U.S. -- it attracts disturbed people and lets them know there will be no consequences for their actions. It attracts disturbed people at least in part BECAUSE it lets them know there will be no consequences for their actions. (I know you're not disagreeing with this, just saying.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
So this cop I know posted a Picture on facebook of a citizen yelling at a cop and when the cop yells as a citizen all the cell phone cameras come out and this was our resulting conversation quote:Komrade: Don't like being under public scrutiny don't be cop Did I handle this the best? No I could have made some better arguments, but holy crap is it hard to respond to some of the inane bullshit. And I guess I learned you really can't just tell a cop to stop acting like an rear end in a top hat .
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Cops admitting that you become an outlaw by the original meaning of that word, who won't get a police response to a crime if you are an police abuse activist or basically anyone they don't like for any reason, is not surprising. It happened to me, btw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
quote:I'm mainly not interested in laying down blame. I'm not into laying down blame for criminals, either. It seems completely pointless to me. You might want to look at countries that have low corruption indexes and compare this with your 'not into laying blame' attitude. There's even material for either side of the political aisle here! If you're a pro 'TUFF ON CRIMES!' pro punishment right wing person, look at Singapore: the state doesn't pull any punches for cops or officials, and in fact gets a substantial part of it's schadenfreude budget from hitting corrupt assholes with extremely brutal penalties. The cop who shot the wood carver in the OP probably would not only be in jail if he were working in Singapore, he'd be put into the same cellblock as people he'd formerly arrested. It's unethical, but keeping officials scared of that kind of reprisal (seems to have) worked. If you're a little less bloodthirsty, you can look at the low countries, which have basically solved the problem with extraordinary amounts of paper work. Cops have to fill out forms & document everything they do, or risk losing their jobs. They have to get special permission in most cases to even get access to firearms. It turns out that when beating someone up or shooting them is taken from the realm of 'gut reaction' to 'prefaced by long form explaining why violence was the only solution', you get less authoritarian brutality. Go figure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
The Ender posted:You might want to look at countries that have low corruption indexes and compare this with your 'not into laying blame' attitude. I really doubt US police's days are low on paperwork. But granting that we are--do you have any source saying that it's this paperwork that is the reason for the lower corruption in those countries? I'd think the cause would be pretty multivarious and now attributable to a single thing, like paperwork. Do you really think that's all that's necessary? Likewise, do you think that's all that's necessary is brutal penalties? I also think that you haven't paid much attention to my explanations of what I mean by blame and why it's not important.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Likewise, do you think that's all that's necessary is brutal penalties? How about ANY penalties instead of essentially a pat on the back? At least getting them off the drat force to take away their license to operate. Like holy cow man, I mean do you also think that murder shouldn't carry a penalty when it's committed by a regular civilian? I don't understand how we're suddenly debating the merits of penalizing people for committing crimes at all, as soon as it's cops we're talking about penalizing. Or do you think penalties deter civilians but don't deter cops? Absolutely not one single person in here has said that this is "all that's necessary" but it's a significant chunk of what's necessary and I have no idea why you're pushing against it so hard. The precipitous drop in excessive force when cops wear lapel cams shows that they do know they're doing something wrong, and knowing that they may be held to account for it vs. knowing that they'll get away with it DOES make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:How about ANY penalties instead of essentially a pat on the back? At least getting them off the drat force to take away their license to operate. Like holy cow man, I mean do you also think that murder shouldn't carry a penalty when it's committed by a regular civilian? Please quote me saying that murder shouldn't carry a penalty for a cop, or whatever the hell it is you think I said. quote:I don't understand how we're suddenly debating the merits of penalizing people for committing crimes at all, as soon as it's cops we're talking about penalizing. We're not. Nobody is saying that people who commit crimes shouldn't be penalized. quote:Or do you think penalties deter civilians but don't deter cops? Absolutely not one single person in here has said that this is "all that's necessary" but it's a significant chunk of what's necessary and I have no idea why you're pushing against it so hard. The precipitous drop in excessive force when cops wear lapel cams shows that they do know they're doing something wrong, and knowing that they may be held to account for it vs. knowing that they'll get away with it DOES make a difference. I think lapel cameras are a good thing. As I've said. My point, again, is not that things are fine and dandy and nothing should change, but that if we want real, substantive change, we have to change the inputs into the police force--the laws, and the ways that prosecutors are politicized and incentivized to prosecute unjustly. I've had this argued against to the point that SedanChair says we should just re-cleanse the cops every once in awhile, someone else denying that prosecutors benefit from civil forfeiture, and in general a studied insistence on not looking at why police departments have become the way they are. If the purpose of the thread is to talk about police reform, why is there such amazing hostility to me saying "The way to achieve police reform is through a general reform of the justice system, because the police are neither alone in being problematic nor are they the most powerful and influential parts of the justice system." There should be no reason at all why saying that is controversial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Likewise, do you think that's all that's necessary is brutal penalties? American has proven it can do that. It has also proven it can do fuckall else. Brutal penalties for cops until they and/or the DoJ unfuck themselves and join the rest of the world in the 21st century.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Nope. I'm being completely sincere, and, again, I'm just baffled why the idea that reforming the police requires reforming other parts of the connected system gets me the lesat bit of pushback.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I really doubt US police's days are low on paperwork. But granting that we are--do you have any source saying that it's this paperwork that is the reason for the lower corruption in those countries? I'd think the cause would be pretty multivarious and now attributable to a single thing, like paperwork. Do you really think that's all that's necessary? Likewise, do you think that's all that's necessary is brutal penalties? Literally every point that has been raised you have warped into a strawman whereby the point is taken and interpreted by you to be the only cause of The Problem, which you then claim as too narrow and unreasonable to waste time fussing over. Either argue in good faith or 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:Literally every point that has been raised you have warped into a strawman whereby the point is taken and interpreted by you to be the only cause of The Problem, which you then claim as too narrow and unreasonable to waste time fussing over. B-be civil or he'll leave! Why can't we just agree that the truth is somewhere in the middle? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Because what you're basically coming across as saying is "well, fixing x won't solve all of the problems, so why should we fix x?" I've never said 'why should we fix x". I've said "In addition to fixing x, we have to fix y, because x comes about because of y". If you think I've said 'why should we fix x', then please quote me doing so. ryonguy posted:Literally every point that has been raised you have warped into a strawman whereby the point is taken and interpreted by you to be the only cause of The Problem, which you then claim as too narrow and unreasonable to waste time fussing over. I'm arguing in good faith, and you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's not worth fussing over. What I'm saying is that if it's worth attempting to temporarily fix it, it should really be worth fixing it long-term, too. Again, this really should not be in the least bit a controversial position to take. I do think that SedanChair's proposal to not attempt to address systemic problems in the rest of the system and instead just occasionally re-cleanse the police is a foolish one, but I have no problem, and in fact would like to see, increased civilian oversight boards, cameras on lapels, etc. I simply am saying they will not solve the problem, and that they would be easily reversible if we don't also change our laws, change the way that prosecutors operate, and get better judicial rulings on 4th amendment protections. I also think that oversight boards are of dubious value in that they will generally resemble the power structure of the area anyway and so they're not a very good safeguard against police abuse in those areas, but they definitely can be in areas like Oakland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
You get around civilian oversight boards rubber stamping police decisions by giving them investigatory and discipline powers, and then appointing people to them who are unlikely to rubberstamp stamp police decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:You get around civilian oversight boards rubber stamping police decisions by giving them investigatory and discipline powers, and then appointing people to them who are unlikely to rubberstamp stamp police decisions. Right. Which goes to the "How do you appoint people to them who are unlikely to rubberstamp police decisions" problem, and we're outside the police realm and into politics again. How are you going to do that in a town that elects Sherrif Joe, for example?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:My point, again, is not that things are fine and dandy and nothing should change, but that if we want real, substantive change, we have to change the inputs into the police force--the laws, and the ways that prosecutors are politicized and incentivized to prosecute unjustly. I've had this argued against to the point that SedanChair says we should just re-cleanse the cops every once in awhile Why is that so outré to you? All systems and institutions become corrupt over time, of course you have to re-cleanse them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Right. Which goes to the "How do you appoint people to them who are unlikely to rubberstamp police decisions" problem, and we're outside the police realm and into politics again. How are you going to do that in a town that elects Sherrif Joe, for example? Do whatever Singapore's doing with their police.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:Do whatever Singapore's doing with their police. I think that Singapore's law enforcement model, while it achieves a low crime rate, does so with a really unreasonable amount of restriction of personal freedoms. I don't think you can separate out their legal system as it applies to cops and other officials out from their legal system in general. Do you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think that Singapore's law enforcement model, while it achieves a low crime rate, does so with a really unreasonable amount of restriction of personal freedoms. I don't think you can separate out their legal system as it applies to cops and other officials out from their legal system in general. Do you? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Can you explain why you think that's possible, and what it is you think that Singapore is doing with it's police that is so effectively working to keep corruption low?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Can you explain why you think that's possible Why isn't it? You're making the claim. Obdicut posted:and what it is you think that Singapore is doing with it's police that is so effectively working to keep corruption low? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt_Practices_Investigation_Bureau
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
More police oversight, less floggings for spitting in public? Hell I'm just spitballing here
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:why is there such amazing hostility to me saying "The way to achieve police reform is through a general reform of the justice system, because the police are neither alone in being problematic nor are they the most powerful and influential parts of the justice system." Because it's the cop equivalent of "why are you worrying about the Redskins' name when people are dying in Gaza!" You can do more than one thing at once, and people are rightly interpreting your insistence that we wait until some entirely different problem is completely solved to address problems with police culture as a bad-faith deflection. What have you personally done to achieve "general reform of the justice system" other than using it as a shield for your cop friends?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think that Singapore's law enforcement model, while it achieves a low crime rate, does so with a really unreasonable amount of restriction of personal freedoms. I don't think you can separate out their legal system as it applies to cops and other officials out from their legal system in general. Do you? I can't even parse this statement / question. Singapore has demonstrably low corruption, and experts whose job it is to study things like corruption in institutes of authority say it is because of their draconian oversight / penalization system. You're disputing that claim, or...?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:53
|
|