(1) Maybe. We should definitely do it, just like we instruct people not to fall asleep while they are smoking, or let their Christmas trees get dry, or hundreds of other stupid and negligent things that put the lives of firefighters in danger.
(2) I doubt it. To the extent we have such a focus today–and I think most people still don’t know much about the issue–I would bet that professed respect and trust for the cops has increased not decreased. In any event, which aspects of policing we choose to focus on is unlikely to be a significant determinant of antipathy to and suspicion of cops when we’re only a few decades removed from cops being a tool of racist apartheid and while we are still in the midst of a brutal war on drugs waged largely and unfairly against black people. Stop-and-frisk has led to far more antipathy toward cops than the tenor of coverage of the Michael Brown case on MSNBC, I’m pretty sure.
I don’t want to see cops prosecuted automatically. I would abolish grand juries for all crimes because I think they are useless, but I don’t think that would make much difference in this area because I think prosecutors will just choose not to indict instead of getting a grand jury to do that for them.
I do think having some kind of independent prosecutor involved in police cases is an idea worth exploring. But as I have said in several of my comments, I don’t think there’s an easy fix for the conflict-of-interest problem. So I would rather focus on reducing the need for tense police encounters as much as possible, improving community trust and relations, and arranging for more reliable evidence when something does go wrong (i.e., body cameras).
Yeah, it is a waste of time, that pesky Constitution. :dubious:
*No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, …
*
The thing is- the GJ can & has stopped a purely political witch hunt indictment. In the case of the police, the GJ can step in when the DA is pressured to charge a police officer by rioting, and not bring charges- so that a innocent cop who has no good evidence against him does not have his career and life ruined by a meaningless trial.
We could also save time and resources by just accepting the polls, and not bothering with elections. :rolleyes:
Well, again, having set on a GJ, they ask you both “do you think cops always tell the truth” and “do you think cops mostly lie” - and they get rid of both. Which is exactly as it should be. They dont want jurors whose minds are already made up.
Grand juries are not a constitutional right at the state level, which is where police get criminally prosecuted. And the fact that the Supreme Court did not see fit to incorporate that right against the states is pretty obviously suggestive that it isn’t a fundamental right at all.
If you kicked off “cops mostly tell the truth” along with “cops mostly lie” then I’d be happy. That is symmetry.
Where is this the case? I’d like to see a cite where a DA can’t file his own charges.
That could create an ethics, integrity, and conflict of interest crises. In the case of a corrupt police department you’re saying the DA would be powerless to prosecute unless the department had a whistle blower to file charges? I don’t buy this.
"In the 162,000 federal grand jury cases in 2010, do you know how many returned non-indictment? "
And many States have Constitutions that mirror the Federal, including requirements for a Grand Jury, so it is a constitutional right at the state level.
I believe that cops* mostly* tell the truth, since they can be fired for lying and they take a Oath to defend and protect the Constitution.
A minority of states have constitutionally required grand juries, and not all of those states require them in every case. Obviously, I was saying the quoted language you provided does not set forth a constitutional requirement for the states.
That’s nice. So what? Either having an opinion about the likelihood for a police officer to lie–in the abstract!–is enough to boot someone, or it isn’t. It’s a problem that some pre-existing opinions on the subject are OK but others are not.
I agree with you that GJs are mostly a waste of justice system resources (and also that cops lie a lot more than many people think).
But that said, I don’t see the lack of symetry as being some sort of problem other than to the extent that it makes the GJ more of a rubber stamp than it otherwise would be. Basically, GJs indict whoever the DA wants to indict, and don’t indict whoever he doesn’t want to indict, which is exactly what the situation would be if they didn’t exist.
Except- once in a while they don’t- which is what makes them worth it. And we also forget that many DA’s are thus reluctant to try and push a bogus indictment onto a GJ since a failure to get a True Bill is embarrassing. So- *less bogus charges. *
Hell,“almost every”* Criminal trial ends in a conviction, so why bother with trials, after all they are thus “a huge waste of time and resources”.
For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate
I don’t know, I would think anyone worried about not getting a GJ indictment would be pretty sure he wouldn’t get a conviction, and wouldn’t bring the charges either.
I suppose it works in the very rare case where the guy would feel political pressure to indict and is using the GJ as cover. But that’s a tiny percentage of the cases.
Because this is where your argument actually does work.
You dont need a conviction to ruin a political opponent or anyone you dont like. Just a indictment means bad publicity leading often to a loss of career, huge legal expenses, and a large bail bond* fee.
for some reason spellcheck thought “bail bond” should be “bad bong”. :eek::p:D
There were no professional police forces as such in the entire English-speaking world for something like a hundred-year span ending less than 200 years ago. Militia functions were, as I understand it, taken by the citizenry as a civic duty. That’s where “the right to bear arms” comes from: Free citizens were supposed to be prepared and willing to serve in a posse.
Maybe we should go back to that, instead of outsourcing the militia function to what seem to be street gangs. Put citizens on patrol as a duty of citizenship. Then there can be professionals in the detective corps and internal affairs.
“Your confidence”? “Taken a hit”? Seriously? Maybe you think “bail bond” should be “bad bong”, also?
Meanwhile, back at the thread, the OP said, “I was recently watching Real Time with Bill Maher. And he brought up a good point. He said, if every shooting is found to be done “by the book”, maybe it is time to throw out that (proverbial) book. I.e., change the law. Surely the police don’t require that much protection.”
When Maher was babbling something about “by the book”, and “throw out that book”, do you think he meant the dictionary?
Yes, and in most cases, Appeals dont work thus they are thus “a huge waste of time and resources”.
The thing is- the GJ is just one more tool that stops an innocent man from being found guilty. Just one more 1% sieve. And since it stops charges from being filed in the first place, it stops the legal system from ruining a mans life even if he is eventually found Not Guilty.
Actaully all I have to read is: The Missouri grand jury that voted against indicting Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson considered thousands of pages of testimony and evidence.
The Voice of the People has been heard, the decision was made under a democratic process.
