A solution to end police corruption

I have a very simple solution for police corruption.

Well, its not really a solution but here me out.

The DA needs police testimony in many cases as evidence for pretrail. What the DA wants to do is scare the defendant into a plea bargain to save time and money and to alleviate the caseload. So basically whats happening is is the DA is maintaining a positive relationship with the local PD for higher conviction rates so they can climb the later and for other political and budgeting reasons.

So what im proposing is a change to the trail process to stop this obvious conflict of interests from happening and so that the DA can move forward with prosecuting police corruption and complaints unhindered.

Well?

a reply to: onequestion

So what im proposing is a change to the trail process to stop this obvious conflict of interests from happening and so that the DA can move forward with prosecuting police corruption and complaints unhindered.

I believe, in the case of police corruption/abuse, a civilian board should be in charge, picked from the community, much like a jury. All potential members should be screened for contacts or friends, family, etc on the dept and dis qualified if they have any connections. If there are charges to be filed, then they should have the power to do so. Keep local politics out of it. There will never be justice as long as the police are investigating themselves.

a reply to: DAVID64

I like it.

A tribunal.

a reply to: DAVID64

Ironic that most 'civilian' oversight committees like this tend to be former police officers, or loosely connected to the field in some way shape or form...

a reply to: onequestion

The surest way to end police corruption is to join the local police dep't. This way You'll 'truly know' that it won't happen on Your shift... It also happens to be a great J.O.B. with flexible hours, when I went back to Patrol from Narcs, I worked Fri.-Sat. and Sun. 0700-19:30 and had the rest of the week to play golf...


I hope You realize that I'm not trying to be cute, snarky but in all reality, this is the only way to truly know as opposed to 'feel' "think" 'believed' and it is obviously important to You. Have You ever been on a "ride-along"? Sure, it is a "powerful" position and 'some' abuse that power and 'some' are falsely accused of abusing that power...

I started after watching the formation of the "L.A. Flush" (4 clubs and 1 King, Rodney.) and I never got beat up in high school...

namaste

Proud member of LEAP™

The only viable option is to implant chips into the entire human population, that inhibits the very thing that makes us human. I wouldn't suggest meaningless gestures as solutions, and real solutions should be executed quickly and quietly.

How do you fix the true cause of corruption which is humanity?
Their is no profession anywhere you can find that hasn't had or does have someone corrupt operating in it.

a reply to: DAVID64

I believe, in the case of police corruption/abuse, a civilian board should be in charge, picked from the community, much like a jury.

Picked by whom?

All potential members should be screened for contacts or friends, family, etc on the dept and dis qualified if they have any connections.

Screened by whom?

If there are charges to be filed, then they should have the power to do so.

Like a grand jury?

a reply to: Phage

The problem with the grand jury is the DA. Exactly what i said in my op.

a reply to: onequestion

So what im proposing is a change to the trail process to stop this obvious conflict of interests from happening and so that the DA can move forward with prosecuting police corruption and complaints unhindered.

So you just want the DA to be able to take someone to court without the "interference" of a grand jury (which is composed of citizens and is rotated on a regular basis) or a judge?

a reply to: Phage

No i want to make it so the DA doesnt have to rely on police testimony creating a conflict of interest in cases where prosecutes are responsible for prosecuting a case involving an officer.

Or, not a DA but... ummm... might have to create a new position and make that their responsibility.



My op has the wrong angle.

The solution is to not have DAs prosecute cases involving officers. Need someone else to do it.

a reply to: onequestion

No i want to make it so the DA doesnt have to rely on police testimony

Oh, I see. You want to limit the evidence which is presented to the grand jury.

a reply to: Phage

No thats not what im saying give me a break. Jeez.

What im saying is that there is a conflict of interest between local police departmants and the district attorneys office because they rely on their testimony to keep higher convictions rates.

a reply to: onequestion
That is what you said. You said you did not want the DA to rely on police testimony. The only way to prevent that is to ignore police testimony. Rule it inadmissible.

rely on their testimony to keep higher convictions rates.

DAs want higher conviction rates? Why?

a reply to: onequestion

No. I'm asking you questions.
One of which actually made you think about what you wrote in your OP. Right?
Keep thinking.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah but you understand the point of the thread, so why are you pedantically picking apart semantics instead of constructively adding to the general idea of the thread?

a reply to: onequestion

constructively adding to the general idea of the thread?

You don't think that asking questions about proposed solutions can help the reasoning process?
Have you ever heard of the Socratic method?

Why do you think that DAs want to show a "higher conviction rate?"

originally posted by: onequestion
I have a very simple solution for police corruption.

Well, its not really a solution but here me out.

The DA needs police testimony in many cases as evidence for pretrail. What the DA wants to do is scare the defendant into a plea bargain to save time and money and to alleviate the caseload. So basically whats happening is is the DA is maintaining a positive relationship with the local PD for higher conviction rates so they can climb the later and for other political and budgeting reasons.

So what im proposing is a change to the trail process to stop this obvious conflict of interests from happening and so that the DA can move forward with prosecuting police corruption and complaints unhindered.

Well?

I'll try and be gentle.

That isn't how it works....at all. You proposed a change.....like what? DA's don't just whip out prosecutions against cops. There's internal investigations, charges have to be brought up by a grand jury who issues a true bill. Indictments are issued and then prosecuted. DA's are only prosecutors against an already criminally charged person. DA's are almost always on the cops side, they're prosecuting the arrestees of the cops after all, it's their job. They don't create warrants. Most DA's are pretty happy in their jobs and there aren't many rungs left to climb in that ladder. They're state employees, get great bennies and lots of respect from the judicial system members.