[ikeboy]

We should indeed get rid of many laws because the benefit is outweighed by the abuse.

America has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world (used to be #1) but suggest that maybe we're overcriminalized and you must be talking nonsense.

[caconym_]

You are not suggesting that "maybe we're overcriminalized". You are suggesting that we should not hold law enforcement accountable for egregious abuses of power that do real harm to real people. You think it should not be considered criminal for a police officer to put somebody in prison (under threat of bodily harm or death, by default) just because they feel like it, or whatever. You think police officers should be able to rape innocent travelers on the side of the road and face no consequences for it. You think police officers should be able to scream conflicting orders at somebody and then shoot them in the head because "they were reaching for a weapon".

Or do you not? All these things happen in America, and the officers involved almost never face meaningful consequences. Where do you draw the line, if at all?

[ikeboy]

I haven't said those things.

Rape and murder are existing crimes, and they should be applied equally to police officers.

I think that the core problem with the system is not individual bad actors, but overcriminalization and the acceptance of that by judges and juries. To solve that you need actual reform, and adding a new crime that would inevitably be weaponized is not the way.

The whole concept of holding people "accountable" is the wrong frame. It's precisely that mindset that created this highly flawed system. I want to reduce bad things, not to feel good because people who did bad things are punished.

And when you think about how to prevent bad cases from being brought, you need to systematically reduce the power of those who can make such decisions.

Added: I do want strong civil liability for these cases, which we do have, which is why OP was able to get a good settlement. We should expand that to federal cases and lower the threshold.

[ceejayoz]

> Rape and murder are existing crimes, and they should be applied equally to police officers.

How about kidnapping and false imprisonment, as in this case?

[ikeboy]

As I mentioned elsewhere, neither currently apply because due process of law was followed.

[ceejayoz]

How can a deliberate blatant violation of the First Amendment be "due process of law"?

[ikeboy]

Look up the elements of false imprisonment.

When there's a warrant, even if wrongly granted, the arrest and imprisonment is considered lawful.

[caconym_]

> I haven't said those things.

No, but they clearly follow from what you have said.

> Rape and murder are existing crimes, and they should be applied equally to police officers.

Okay, but they aren't, because police enjoy broad immunity and benefit of the doubt from (and during) prosecution. How do you suggest we fix this?

Additionally, I am not sure you appreciate the magnitude of harm that can be caused by locking somebody up for months. They can lose their house, their job, their pets, their kids. They miss important life events. The payout in this case was fully justified, though, of course---since the officer himself was not held accountable---it is the taxpayer who will foot the bill.

> The whole concept of holding people "accountable" is the wrong frame. It's precisely that mindset that created this highly flawed system. I want to reduce bad things, not to feel good because people who did bad things are punished.

Holding people accountable is not the same as pursuing retributive justice for its own sake. I agree that the latter is bad and that it is pervasive in our justice system. But I don't agree that we shouldn't hold people responsible in any way for what they have done, especially if there are no mitigating factors.

[ikeboy]

I would get rid of all forms of immunity and mandate body cameras. Probably also raise requirements for police officers. And part of it is reducing the scope of what the cops are meant to enforce.

I appreciate the massive harms done by incarceration, which I why I support vastly reducing it.

[caconym_]

> I would get rid of all forms of immunity

IIUC getting rid of "all forms of immunity" would essentially make it impossible for police officers to arrest anybody in good faith without exposing themselves to criminal prosecution (maybe that's what you want). But weakening or eliminating QI, which shields officers from civil liability, is sorely needed.

You didn't ask, but I'm not necessarily in favor of throwing cops in jail in many of these misconduct cases (for practical reasons at the very least). What should happen is that they be thrown off the force for good and prevented from working in law enforcement ever again. I don't believe you would need new criminal statutes to accomplish this, but what you would need (per jurisdiction) is political will to make it happen, perhaps starting with an independent review commission or similar, but making sure they can't just go one county or state over will be much more difficult.

> mandate body cameras

They just turn them off, or the footage gets "lost". This won't work without much broader reform (and, dare I say it, accountability).

> Probably also raise requirements for police officers

I agree.