[Buttons840]

Best idea I've heard is that the public defenders office (or whatever, I'm not expert here) should be responsible for investigating and prosecuting police. There's already a natural opposition there. The current system works if people have infallible integrity (hint, they don't), this change would make the system work if people have human nature.

[Arrath]

The Public Defenders system is already chronically underfunded, understaffed, and far overworked. Sadly I don't think they would be the best avenue for trying to hold the police to account.

[justinclift]

Sounds like there needs to be something like "civil forfeiture" for the Public Defenders system, allowing them to seize the assets of suspected dishonest police and police departments.

Which they can then either keep, or sell off to raise funds for themselves.

[qingcharles]

This. They can't even defend the rights of the public because they are so overworked :(

[debatem1]

Public defenders would need resources akin to or larger than the prosecutor's office in order to take on this role. I don't know that there has ever been a time in America where the public cared more about defending the wrongly accused than convicting the genuinely guilty, but if there was it surely isn't now.

[Buttons840]

Yeah, sadly, I know your right. But for the sake of argument, the prosecutors office and the defenders office should be equally funded. It should be in the law that they are equally funded.

This makes sense, average people understand that attorneys defending a murderer aren't bad people, those attorneys are just doing their job and they play an important part of the legal system. Fewer think about the imbalance of resources and how that skews the results. It makes sense that examining both sides properly requires equal resources allocated to both sides.

As you say, it's a long shot, but it's an idea worth trying for. If nothing else, maybe people can remember to include it in the next government we form after the collapse (half joking).