There’s no factual answer. I’m asking for opinions.
In your opinion if the Chief of police publicly confesses to doing something that is a felony do you think he should be charged with it? If the D.A. decide not to prosecute, do you think the Chief should still resign his position? If he doesn’t resign, do you think he has any credibility as a cop?
What if the law is an archaic one, but still on the books as a felony. Does that influence your opinion?
Of course. Why are you playing games with us and not giving us all of the details?
If, for example, it’s a sodomy law or something, I wouldn’t care at all. My feelings on this depend entirely on the specifics and that includes what this crime is.
It shouldn’t come to a question of the Chief resigning from his job. Really, I wouldn’t expect anyone to give up that easily. He should be removed from his job by whatever government put him there, at the very least. Surely his fellow officers wouldn’t want to work with someone who doesn’t bother to follow the law. Or maybe I’m naive.
If the law is one that the police are supposed to enforce then that government can consider whether they want to enforce it or repeal it. I don’t think any other citizen gets the option of saying “Aw, that law is old. Nobody follows it anymore.”
Of course the Chief should be charged and be judged in a court of law where he can present his defence if any or hope for jury nullification.
He should only resign if he’s found guilty - otherwise you’re presuming his guilt. In the interim he should be suspended if it’s deemed necessary.
so, in other words, only the laws you care about should be enforced. Rather than petitioning your representatives in the state legislature to repeal such laws you think the police should just not enforce them.
And how far does this get taken? There are people who oppose drug laws, traffic laws, weapons laws, etc.. I’ll bet we could find someone who thinks murder should be legal. But rather than have the laws changed we should just have them but not enforce them?
Also, if the Chief is not prosecuted for the admitted felony, and he later arrests someone for committing the same offense (and that person is prosecuted) does that not make the Chief “above the law”?
What’s influencing my opinion is that you appear to be trying to conceal the part of the story that you feel might cause people to reach the “wrong” conclusion. That makes me think the Chief of Police probably has a much stronger case than you’re suggesting he has.
In an ideal world, yes.
Either way works with me.
No, because their opinion isn’t as valid as mine.
I suppose so.
Why not just give us all of the details so that we can have a proper discussion?
The hinge is the law is archaic. I personally think it should be repealed as it involves an activity I don’t think the state needs to get involved in. There are other avenues of law that can deal with it.
But for now it is on the books, it is a felony, and a prominent law enforcement official publicly admitted to violating this law. He was not arrested, he was not prosecuted, he was not removed from his position, and he did not resign.
My opinion is he should have resigned in lieu of being fired or charged and that should have been the end of it. But nothing happened to him. Therefore I feel he has no credibility as a law enforcement officer.
But I wanted to see how others felt.
What is the felony?
I am getting the feeling that it is a sodomy law. If this is true, I am totally fine with the outcome as described in the OP. I would change my mind if others had been recently prosecuted for the same thing in the jurisdiction particularly if the Chief was involved in the arrest of the individual.
Does it matter? That’s one of the things I’m trying to assess here. As the Chief of police is it okay if he committed one felony but not a different one?
Deleted
Yes. It’s ok to commit a felony if, for example, it is an archaic law that hasn’t been enforced in decades. There are still sodomy laws in some states. Are you saying that a police chief in those states should have to resign if the chief is a man who had sex with another man? There have been Supreme Court decisions that probably nullify those laws so maybe technically they don’t count but they are still on the books.
Rather than having our representatives at the state capitol change or repeal laws that we collectively no longer like, we just have our law enforcement personnel not enforce them?
Doesn’t this defeat the entire purpose of having a legislature?
No.
How so?
And if the law is so archaic and unused, why isn’t it just repealed?
And if it is not repealed, who decides it shouldn’t be enforced?
Whats the line - “the perfect is the enemy of the good?”
Let me turn it around on you - do you want your legislature wasting their time searching for old, archaic laws to repeal, or doing things that will help the people that they were elected to serve?
Should police officers charge every motorist that does 56 mph in a 55 zone?
No. But that is an infraction, not a criminal offense. The OP is talking about a felony.
Also, the OP is talking about the Chief of police, not just any Joe Sixpack.
I think I pretty accurately anticipated where you were going with this.
Except that, yes, in the eyes of the law, and in my eyes, the Chief of police IS Joe Sixpack. Or Jane Sixpack.
In our state, each county elects something called a “high bailiff”. This position is almost entirely a sinecure, and people who run for it do so more or less for the fun of it. Almost no one actually knows what the job of the high bailiff actually entails.
It turns out that, when a county sheriff has committed a criminal offense, the high bailiff is the only person legally entitled to arrest him. We had a case a couple of years ago where a sheriff was investigated for embezzlement (or something or other), and, while the actual taking into custody was done by officers of the state police, the high bailiff had to go and be present to make the whole thing legal.
I assume this is a holdover from olden days where the sheriff was pretty much the highest law authority around.