@freemo as I understand it, the problem isn't a lack of rules defining unacceptable behaviour, or even consequences prescribed for breaking the rules. The problem is that the prosecutor is usually disincentivised from going after the cops, so the prescribed consequences are only rarely imposed.
From the prosecutor's perspective, maintaining a good working relationship with the police is important, since they're responsible for collecting the evidence the he uses to win convictions every day. So he does them little favours which ultimately make it unlikely an officer is convicted for on-duty behaviour in all but the worst cases.
And I don't know how you fix this. You might appoint a special prosecutor who only targets cops, so he doesn't need police cooperation to score convictions against civilians - but this role is eventually going to be subject to regulatory capture and wind up in the hands of someone friendly to the cops. You might create a separate unit tasked solely with investigating their fellow cops - but the ones appointed to this unit are going to be the doofi who aren't more valuable in other roles. How can you guarantee both the independence and competence of your oversight solution?
Any solution you come up with is going to be pitting you against perps who have a better-than-civilian understanding of the law, the rules concerning evidence, and ways lawbreakers can escape consequence. So you need to have as robust a system as possible, because the people searching it for weaknesses are very good at finding them.
@khird Thats a good point.
The DA and State Attorneys are the ones who would serve in both capacities int he current system. On the one hand they rely on police to bring them evidence and thus need a good working relationship with them, thus are disencentivized to prosecute them.
They would also be the ones responsible for prosecuting them, so it creates a conflict of interest...
Seems to me the solution is clear.. Split the DA's office into two parts. one group of attorneys who job it is to work with police to convict criminals, and entierly separate state departmartment of attorneys who job it is to prosecute police officers.
Conflict of interest solved.
In the future I will add this as a 9th point to my ramblings, thank you.
@freemo Maybe. But it seems to me the police-prosecution department is still going to be subject to regulatory capture or defanging. What happens when a new mayor gets elected on a law-and-order platform? He'll appoint a cop-friendly leader of the department, or reduce its funding, or promote the better prosecutors away from the job leaving only the idiots who aren't effective at convicting cops. Then he can speechify about how he's fighting the deep state which is obstructing the police from doing their jobs, destroying America, etc.
@khird Well thats not a very good argument. You are basically saying "What if we have stupid politicians who refuse to support the laws that fix the problem".. well sure, that is legitimate.. Thats why we are rioting, and, when your not busy rioting, how about just not voting for those politicians?
Any solution will ultimately require the people to vote and elect politicians that support and maintain the solution. You cant protect against that in any way other than having a society that votes responsibly.
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.