[mindslight]

> Dont you agree that individuals are flawed? Some dated kind of homo economicus should't be your model of individuals

I don't understand your question here.

> how would you fix eg. the corruption of power, causing police men to overstep?

The same way as for everyone else, with incentives based on post-facto enforcement. There's no justification for police to escape being bound by our laws.

You prosecute them personally for say 2nd degree murder, getting rid of "qualified immunity" or other entity liability shield. My point is precisely that the system currently lacks this justice (eg George Floyd's murderers being prosecuted was an unlikely event), and you can't rely on just training cops to be "less bad".

For lesser offenses, there would need to be a finding whether their actions were congruent with written department policy (in which case the department would be on the hook for damages and/or criminal conspiracy), or whether they were not (in which case they would be individual perps as above). But this liability should extend all the way to wrongful arrest/imprisonment, righting corruption like "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" and other externalities that have become routine.

[74B5]

I disagree. Punishment is not a fix. Criminals don't consider "for 5 year prison i will do it for 10, i wont". Negative examples, like a rouge cop being shamed and convicted, is not strictly required, simple training of the cops misbehaviour leading to consequences would achieve the same.

>you can't rely on just training cops to be "less bad"

Neither can punishment. My point is the individuals cognitive flaws that cause mistakes are a weak point of libertarian thinking. Everyone justifies their (bad) actions post hoc, barely anyone see themself as the bad guys and only education for other perspectives can change that.

[mindslight]

> Punishment is not a fix. Criminals don't consider "for 5 year prison i will do it for 10, i wont".

There is an argument to be made that longer sentences aren't a deterrent, but surely some sentence is a deterrent. Furthermore there is an argument to be made that punishment is not the end all to reducing crime (for example improving people's condition will make them less likely to commit crime), but surely some combination of both is necessary. Either way, it's wholly hypocritical for criminal police officers to get the kind-understanding approach while non-police criminals get the hardline cruel approach. Treat both the same, and then we can talk about where the proper balance lies.

>> you can't rely on just training cops to be "less bad"

> Neither can punishment.

I wasn't advocating for only punishment, rather adding punishment. Without repercussions, you're relying on police officers voluntarily accepting the training. Especially with regards to racism, this seems quite naive.

> My point is the individuals cognitive flaws that cause mistakes are a weak point of libertarian thinking

At this point we're not even talking about mistakes, but willful malice. When police march down a street slashing the tires of every parked car, that's deliberate criminal malice no matter how they try to spin it after the fact.

> barely anyone see themself as the bad guys and only education for other perspectives can change that.

Yes, one strong way of changing someone's perspective is to jail them. If there's no stick, then there's no need to follow the carrot.