Blue Lives Matter

[VikingsGuy]

I don't think that private business is necessarily an evil thing. Government should stay out of "running things" as much as possible. For many reasons, but one is to let the specialist/experts run it. But I do think there has to be checks and balances in place to protect all parties involved. Difficult to enforce, but necessary.

I have a pro-privatized bias in general, but I do think when executing (no pun intended) upon government's gravest power (the power to eliminate personal liberty/freedom) it should be done directly by the government and should not be delegated to the private market.

On this, I believe @BuzzH and I agree - private prisons are a very bad idea.

 

[westbranch]

I have significant cynicism concerning private prisons. IMO, if a government finds the need to incarcerate an individual, it should not be a profit center for anyone. Once you enter into an agreement to partner with a private prison,, you are at least tacitly agreeing to supply customers for the private prison into the future.

Any marginal decline in prisoner numbers,,,you know damn well the private prison does not want that headcount decline coming out of their headcount.

I find private prisons extremely repugnant at every level.

A lot of the private prison agreements had quotas for keeping beds full as well or the state would pay penalties. This analysis is from 2013.

Private Prison Quotas Drive Mass Incarceration and Deter Reform, Study Finds

eji.org

Advocacy group In the Public Interest obtained and analyzed 62 contracts between states and local jurisdictions and private prison companies that govern the operation of 77 county and state-level facilities. Sixty-five percent contained occupancy requirements between 80 and 100%, with many around 90%. Arizona (100%), Louisiana (96%), Oklahoma (98%), and Virginia (95%) had the highest quotas.

Arizona officials ended up paying $3 million for empty beds because the state stopped sending new inmates to a “dysfunctional” for-profit prison after three inmates escaped in 2010.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

I have a pro-privatized bias in general, but I do think when executing (no pun intended) upon governments gravest power (the power to eliminate personal liberty/freedom) it should be done directly by the government and should not be delegated to the private market.

On this, I believe @BuzzH and I agree - private prisons are a very bad idea.

Probably... I understand your point about personal liberty/freedom, as I did not see it that way. But you (both of you) probably deal with the negative side and see more of it's "running" than I do. For that reason I will accept your argument because I don't see it from experience. I just believe that governments should not be running things, the people should. And if the people (jury) elect to take someones liberty away, shouldn't the people run the operation? As I said, with checks and balances. So, can it be fixed to work? And, what would it take? Probably more than we can discuss here, but I think are valid questions before discrediting completely. At least for me...

 

[noharleyyet]

Nievity in children is cute, but in adults it's scary.

*naivety...for proper condescension, spellin' matters

 

[Randi]

I am hoping and praying that you fellows continue to discuss this calmly so the thread doesn't get shut down, because the topic is of interest to me

I would like to see the inmates who want an education be able to get one while incarcerated . The availability of learning on line helps to some degree.

There are some people who are just evil, IMHO, and they must not be allowed back onto the streets ( BTW it is not up to me to decide who stays in jail and who doesn't )

But for those who made a mistake and want to contribute to society if given the opportunity or was raised in an environment that did not help them when they were young, an education of some kind, even a trade, would help them when they get out. I know there are currently programs set up to accomplish this and I hope these programs are expanded and made available to all you want to take advantage of them.

Flatlandhunter. Thank you for your service. A big thank you to all those on the forum who put their lives on the line everyday for us. As well as all of you gentlemen who have done so in the past and are now retired. Thank you.

I am so very glad I do not live in downtown Portland ---or Seattle---or Chicago--or New York and feel sorry for the law abiding citizens who do AND for those business that are being looted and burned, and for the LEO's who are trying to protect those business and non rioting citizens, while being yelled at, spit on, and in some cases shot.

 

[BuzzH]

I have a pro-privatized bias in general, but I do think when executing (no pun intended) upon governments gravest power (the power to eliminate personal liberty/freedom) it should be done directly by the government and should not be delegated to the private market.

On this, I believe @BuzzH and I agree - private prisons are a very bad idea.

...and yet who defends the poor people being sent to prison for petty theft, unpaid parking tickets, ridiculous MJ laws, etc.?

I'll tell you who, 12 year old public defenders fresh out of law school.

IMO, the highest paid attorneys in the United States should be public defenders and these BS laws that they use to lock up non-violent offenders for profit would probably come to a screeching halt.

We don't want to spend money on defending those that cant afford good legal representation, but can spend a boat load to make sure another private run prison gets built.

Its a rigged system...big-time. Then we wonder why people are fed up and want to exercise their rights to demonstrate to force change?

We shouldn't have to force change that's the right thing to do...

 

[VikingsGuy]

...and yet who defends the poor people being sent to prison for petty theft, unpaid parking tickets, ridiculous MJ laws, etc.?

I'll tell you who, 12 year old public defenders fresh out of law school.

IMO, the highest paid attorneys in the United States should be public defenders and these BS laws that they use to lock up non-violent offenders for profit would probably come to a screeching halt.

We don't want to spend money on defending those that cant afford good legal representation, but can spend a boat load to make sure another private run prison gets built.

Its a rigged system...big-time. Then we wonder why people are fed up and want to exercise their rights to demonstrate to force change?

We shouldn't have to force change that's the right thing to do...

Except for the highest-paid lawyer part we agree.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I like to understand how we actually got there rather than taking an easy superficial read and blaming "others", but as you say, ymmv

Also, saving fact-checking task of @wllm1313 on this one - there have been a number of sentence reduction laws passed at the state and fed level during the era of private prisons.

We've also seen cases of judges imposing longer sentences/harsher sentences in order to boost incarceration in order to receive kickbacks.

I would say that in this instance, the symptons (private prisons) deserve to be treated, as well as the disease (systemic racism enshrined in our legal code).

 

[Irrelevant]

IMO, the highest paid attorneys in the United States should be public defenders and these BS laws that they use to lock up non-violent offenders for profit would probably come to a screeching halt.

You'd also never get a poaching conviction.

 

[VikingsGuy]

At this risk of posting something, too long, too complex, and too nuanced for productive internet discussion I offer the following.

A while back on HT someone posted a link to Eliezer Yudkowsky's very long list of things that should be included in the concept of police reform. My initial reaction was to dismiss it as too much, too far. But then I decided to edit to a place that I could conceivably agree to as an exercise of finding middle ground with an idea I struggled with. I deleted some, edited some, added some, but where I could potentially agree, I left Elierzer's original text. I am not saying I would go all the way on the following, but this is a list of changes that are at least worth serious consideration by reasonable people. Each point I believe addresses a small part of the current situation that results in a state of broad incarceration, anti-police sentiment, and hopelessness by many. Note that eliminating armed LEOs is not on the list.

Again, I am not saying I would vote for all of these, but at least they are worth considering, as underneath each is a real-world problem that needs a better solution than the status quo.


- De-militarization. No city or county may possess weapons above some level that stops well short of tanks. If the police need to use more force than this, they need to refer the operation to a specially authorized operation at the state level. "Program 1033" for reselling military equipment as police equipment is obviously shut down.

- Reset the tone back to community servants rather than modern rambo-swat approach. Train empathy and de-escalation, not high end combat techniques.

- Comprehensive de-forfeiture reform. Police departments, like every other aspect of government, must derive all of the budget from the general fund and relinquish all of their revenues without exception to the general fund. All fines, fees, and forfeitures imposed by any organization operating with the authority of government must be remitted directly to the state general fund of that government and may not be retained by the organization which has been delegated the authority to impose that fee, fine, or forfeiture.

- Comprehensive de-privatization of prisons and other corrections apparatus.

- Comprehensive de-criminalization. Possession and sale of recreational drugs in recreational amounts is decriminalized. Prostitution, both buying and selling, is decriminalized. "Vagrancy" is not a separate crime apart from particular harms. Detention for mis-demeanors need to be revisited.

- Delegalize police unions. Police unions cannot be recognized by the government, cannot be bargained with directly by the government, and have no recognized authority to extract union fees from the police. People authorized by the government to use deadly force must be ultimately supervised by elected authority; and the government may not by any route bargain away the authority of present or future elected officials to remove any person authorized by the government to use deadly force.

- Separate investigation. The body which is responsible for carrying out investigations of police misconduct must have separate management and budget from the police, and must report along separate lines leading to an elected official. All use of deadly force triggers an investigation by this separate body.

- Speedy trials. Other than murder, kidnapping, child abuse and rape, the system may not arrest or jail more people than it has resources to give a trial starting within 60 days of detaining that person. This period may be extended at the request of the defense, but not of the prosecution. Some levels of government may need to hire more judges, decrease the complexity of the law, or reduce the number of crimes, in order to give people speedy trials; this is a feature rather than bug. Expand the trial system first, rather than only expanding the also-expensive prison and punitive system.

- Outlaw plea-bargaining. Either the crime is committed and can be proved or it is not. The practice of over charging in order to get innocent people to plead to a lesser offense is being abused at all levels.

- Body cams with teeth. Any purported malfunction of a police cam is legal reason to discard the officer's testimony. A confession is not admissible evidence unless the entire interrogation procedure was recorded. Any citizen has the right to record interaction with the police or any other aspect of government. Any exception to this operation in the form of an undercover sting operation must be authorized similar to search warrants.

- Systematic selective enforcement of a law is grounds for Constitutional rejection of that law; it is contrary to the nature of a "law" that the government not enforce it equally or predicatably. Demonstrating that some people are routinely being allowed to use marijuana in practice, eg, they are using it on television and not being arrested, is legal as well as moral reason to challenge enforcement on the few. The Fourteenth Amendment may not be evaded by passing laws which supposedly apply to everyone but are actually being enforced only on a racial minority, or any kind of minority. And frankly, selective enforcement causes problems beyond mere racial disparities.

- No further fee or fine associated with court processes may be imposed on a person unless it has been explicitly incorporated into the total sentence for a crime of which they have been convicted. A parole agreement may not include paying for $10,000 classes unless a judge sentenced you to that (apparently this is a thing that happens). (This is trying to further reduce the 'predatory' nature of the current relationship between governments and some marginalized communities.)

- Driver's licenses should be suspended or revoked only for crimes directly related to bad driving. (Seems to be a big deal in practice when it comes to cascading problems between marginalized people and the government.)

- Qualified immunity is revised to encourage higher standards of conduct on police.

- Outlaw all mandatory minimum sentences at all levels of government except in the case of murder, kidnapping, child abuse and rape. They have proven to simply be a terrible idea in practice.

- All quotas for fines, arrests, prosecutions, or convictions, are outlawed at all levels of government.

- Do not use armed police to address minor issues like non-violent neighborhood complaints, vagrancy, homelessness, medical 911 calls, OD calls, etc, Use trained social workers/medical workers for this.


FWIW - here is the original link: https://medium.com/@yudkowsky/a-comprehensive-reboot-of-law-enforcement-b76bfab850a3

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't agree w/ a few points, @VikingsGuy but that's a very well done list.

I do believe we need police unions. Any group of workers should have the right to organize and unionize. That doesn't excuse abuse of authority or power, but it does recognize that workers should always have the ability to join together in order to promote better working conditions. I think part of the problem may be the culture of union leadership, of police depts, etc. It's such a close knit group who have to have each other's backs, especially now, that eliminating unions would also destabilize the workforce. Reform, not elimination, should be the goal. That has to come from the police union members, however.

I'm torn on de-militarization. I do believe that in some communities, M-Raps, armored personnel carriers, etc should be available to PD's, especially in major municipalities where the scale and scope of the mission could require that kind of heavy machinery. TR famously modernized the police by insisting they all have the same duty weapon. Easier to manage the arsenal that way. In the 1980's we saw Federal and local LEO's get outgunned in the Cocaine Cowboy days of Miami & southern FLA. We saw that in the North Hollywood Shootout, and I think we're seeing it today with militias carrying AR's, body armor, etc. I'm not saying that the Bemidji or Bozeman Police Depts need them, but LA, NY, Chicago might, and adding the bureaucratic layer of a state-level response team with that equipment could cost lives unless there are MOU's put in place with iron-clad guarantees of action well before this new state police force is authorized.

The plea-bargaining section makes me nervous as well. When used appropriately, it helps ensure some justice is attained rather than none, so I'd prefer to see reform, rather than elimination.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I don't agree w/ a few points, @VikingsGuy but that's a very well done list.

I do believe we need police unions. Any group of workers should have the right to organize and unionize. That doesn't excuse abuse of authority or power, but it does recognize that workers should always have the ability to join together in order to promote better working conditions. I think part of the problem may be the culture of union leadership, of police depts, etc. It's such a close knit group who have to have each other's backs, especially now, that eliminating unions would also destabilize the workforce. Reform, not elimination, should be the goal. That has to come from the police union members, however.

I'm torn on de-militarization. I do believe that in some communities, M-Raps, armored personnel carriers, etc should be available to PD's, especially in major municipalities where the scale and scope of the mission could require that kind of heavy machinery. TR famously modernized the police by insisting they all have the same duty weapon. Easier to manage the arsenal that way. In the 1980's we saw Federal and local LEO's get outgunned in the Cocaine Cowboy days of Miami & southern FLA. We saw that in the North Hollywood Shootout, and I think we're seeing it today with militias carrying AR's, body armor, etc. I'm not saying that the Bemidji or Bozeman Police Depts need them, but LA, NY, Chicago might, and adding the bureaucratic layer of a state-level response team with that equipment could cost lives unless there are MOU's put in place with iron-clad guarantees of action well before this new state police force is authorized.

The plea-bargaining section makes me nervous as well. When used appropriately, it helps ensure some justice is attained rather than none, so I'd prefer to see reform, rather than elimination.

We will agree to disagree on unions, but I have the same concerns you have on the other two - not sure what the right balance is, but I am sure the current balance is wrong.

 

[Ben Lamb]

We will agree to disagree on unions, but I have the same concerns you have on the other two - not sure what the right balance is, but I am sure the current balance is wrong.

Perhaps the balance on unions is to not have specialized unions for LEO's, but rather have them be a part of the larger public employee unions.

The other two are difficult, no doubt. But we kicked Hitler's ass and spooled up from nothing to do so, we can find policy ideas that work amongst citizens.

I think the MRAP/militarization issue can be reformed through data and real-world scenarios. SWAT teams have proven their worth time and time again. Perhaps what we're looking at is really just a modernization of that unit. The threats of the last century are far different today, to include digital aspects, increased access to firepower, etc. The appropriations process in congress is tedious, awful and full of roadblocks. Perhaps there could be a select committee in House or Senate Approps to look at requests from PD's who declare a need for this type of equipment. You never want safety to be sacrificed for cost-analysis, but there is the backstop of the National Guard in certain traumatic circumstances, or as you mentioned, state units that could help until local resources are developed. That would then give the state a tactical response unit for the rest of the state that doesn't need to use that kind of force but once in a blue moon.

 

[3855WIN]

I’ve sat on two juries over the years. One was a murder case and the other was kidnap/rape.
I was impressed with the public defenders that both were provided. The murder trial got a hung jury and the rape got a guilty verdict. But both defenders did about all they could do with what they were provided.

Randi, there are truly evil people, such as the one from the rape case. The victim called him a devil. But for the most part, we have some people who are bad at times. They can be rehabilitated.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Perhaps the balance on unions is to not have specialized unions for LEO's, but rather have them be a part of the larger public employee unions.

That is a good thought. I have no concern with collective negotiation of salaries, benefits, and workplace conditions, but discipline and termination must be in the sole discretion of leadership (subject to the normal workplace discrimination laws) - mediation and arbitration have proven to prevent progress and I don't believe can be merely tweaked.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The other two are difficult, no doubt. But we kicked Hitler's ass and spooled up from nothing to do so, we can find policy ideas that work amongst citizens.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

 

[Sytes]

Blue Lives Matter... Sworn Officers must be permitted to use all tools available to safely and effectively apprehend, protect, etc... and return home after each shift of the career long employment. (10,000+ days).

Unions w/o a focus on police responsibilities is akin to a jury lacking the Judge guidance with respect to Graham v Conner, Terry Stop (using Graham v Conner steps as well), etc...

Stop clear cutting the orchard over a few bad apples. The problem with people that lack understanding of the daily, ever evolving circumstances. The escalation of a person for petty theft... because they needed their next PCP hit...

 

[Randi]

I’ve sat on two juries over the years. One was a murder case and the other was kidnap/rape.
I was impressed with the public defenders that both were provided. The murder trial got a hung jury and the rape got a guilty verdict. But both defenders did about all they could do with what they were provided.

Randi, there are truly evil people, such as the one from the rape case. The victim called him a devil. But for the most part, we have some people who are bad at times. They can be rehabilitated.

which was my point. thank you

the Germans bombed Pear Harbor ? Where were the Japanese ? Maybe you were making a point that went over my head however---that happens a lot

 

[VikingsGuy]

Stop clear cutting the orchard over a few bad apples. The problem with people that lack understanding of the daily, ever evolving circumstances. The escalation of a person for petty theft... because they needed their next PCP hit...

My conversion from a blind supporter of the blue line was not caused by agitators or social media, it has come from friends who are officers who are tired of the status quo too, but believe any attempt to voice their concerns would be career limiting. @Sytes, you have a tough job and I thank you for your service, but respectfully I disagree with your oversimplification, and I do so with knowledge and understanding that came directly from LEOs I know.

 

[VikingsGuy]

the Germans bombed Pear Harbor ? Where were the Japanese ? Maybe you were making a point that went over my head however---that happens a lot