Controlling the police?
Oct. 30th, 2011 01:39 pmThat's a good question, which means I have no idea of the answer-- it's the sort of detail I'm not apt to accumulate. One would think there'd be laws with punishments nicely attached against imprisoning someone in conditions which probably violate the Geneva Conventions in order to extort false accusations from them, but you never know.
Nor do I know what procedures would be needed to bring criminal charges against police for something criminal that's vaguely police-procedure-shaped that they've done on the job.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-30 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-31 05:04 am (UTC)The further up the ladder the firings go, the better. But still better to target the individual supervisors, imo.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-31 07:58 am (UTC)What historically sort-of works is either or both of the following two things: 1) injured parties sue the city repeatedly until the city can't afford to keep the officer(s), and/or 2) reporters find the officer(s) fascinating enough that they keep reporting on their misdeeds, in greater and greater detail, until whoever is in charge of hiring/firing police is embarrassed into firing them.
Neither of these things work if the person in charge of hiring and firing police is so in favor of what the officer is doing that they think it's worth it, if no matter what the newspapers say they're proud of the offending officer(s), and if no matter how much it costs the city, it's not like it's them paying it or like it's coming out of their department's budget.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-31 08:55 am (UTC)