California keeps a secret list of criminal cops, but says you can’t have it

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/02/26/california-keeps-a-secret-list-of-criminal-cops-but-says-you-cant-have-it/

by rrauenza • 7 years ago

330 188 7 years ago

California IS a sanctuary state......

dsfyu404ed2• 7 years ago

Most of the big government states and many of the small government states give police a very wide berth and (until very recently) have had no problem enacting authoritarian policy, heavy handed policing, double standards for government and police, etc, etc. If you want the good of big government you have to make peace with the bad and historically people have made peace with a lot of "the bad" and buried their heads deeply in the sand with regard to police misconduct and similar matters.

This is only slowly beginning to change now that more police behavior is recorded on video and the public (and the politicians who control the government bureaucracies and who rely on support of said public) is less able to turn a blind eye to police and government misconduct.

Things are generally trending in a good direction when it comes to tolerance of misconduct by police and in government in general. Give it a decade or two.

biztos2• 7 years ago

What would be a "small-government state" that doesn't give the police as wide a berth as the "big-government states?"

And which are which? I'm assuming you consider California big-government based on your comment, and as a Californian I'm inclined to agree. But it seems Alaska leads in "State FTE's per 10K pop"[0] and Texas and Florida both have large absolute numbers of state employees according to that source.

Intuitively, and subject to my own prejudice, I would guess those states that have vocal majorities against activist government also tend to let the cops get away with all kinds of things, from aggressive civil forfeiture to assault and murder; and that states like California perhaps counterintuitively do so as well, maybe (or maybe not) to a lesser extent.

[0] http://www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-salaries/...

[Edit: typo]

lurker213• 7 years ago

people can't have it both ways!

api2• 7 years ago

Could there be a legitimate reason? Sometimes corrupt officials are placed under surveillance to catch other corrupt officials. If you out them you lose your information source.

Kinnard• 7 years ago

This is too easily gamed to suffice as a rationale.

ericcumbee• 7 years ago

They would have just cited the exception for records pertaining to ongoing investigations. I assume there is a provision in the Cal Open Records act, there is in the Georgia Open Records act.

badfrog3• 7 years ago

Another potential reason is that the list would be a great starting point for somebody who was looking for a police officer to bribe.

I'm not saying that's sufficient justification, just spitballing ideas.

api2• 7 years ago

That's a better idea than mine. It could also potentially out undercovers.

DoreenMichele2• 7 years ago

The fact that it's currently a secret actually makes them potentially vulnerable to blackmail. Airing it would remove that threat.

Shivetya• 7 years ago

Let us make it even more direct. All government employees who commit crimes while in the employ of any government agency should have the record made public if it leads to disciplinary action or above a class C misdemeanor which for many jurisdictions is fines up to 1k.

teachers, police, and fire, are some of the most protected classes of people when it comes to findings of wrong doing. Yet they are in positions we give our highest trust. From cops breaking the law to teachers getting caught abusing children, all are facts that are hidden from the public and at times only result in an offender being reassigned to different positions with pay.

having an accountable government starts by holding the individuals in it accountable. I would not just start with the three I listed, I would put them right in the same starting group as elected officials.

Spooky23• 7 years ago

It’s all about “incompetence”. Unions fight these disclosures because disclosing a policeman’s identity would potentially exclude the employee from certain jobs.

That gives the government an easy path to bypass the disciplinary process — just arrest an officer for some bullshit charge and transfer them to a job where their identity must be secret.

cascom2• 7 years ago

Except aren’t these convictions, not arrests?

ams61102• 7 years ago

Almost all criminal convictions are public record, unless sealed for a specific reason (youthful offender, perhaps).

Please cite an example of a teacher convicted of child abuse where that conviction was "hidden from the public." If anything, those cases are splashed across news websites even when there's nothing more than an accusation.

megaremote• 7 years ago

Please cite an example of a teacher convicted of child abuse where that conviction was "hidden from the public." If anything, those cases are splashed across news websites even when there's nothing more than an accusation.

How could they?

ellard• 7 years ago

I don't disagree with your sentiment. That said, these kinds of jobs are generally poorly paid positions relative to the amount of bullshit that they have to deal with pre-employment and during employment. If we want a higher volume of "good" folks applying for these jobs, we're going to have to make their lives easier and/or raise their pay. Teaching and Policework especially are both classically stereotyped as jobs that have idealistic, hard working, underpaid people who keep things running mixed with lazy/corrupt/incompetent folks who can't get fired because they need bodies or it's bad for the optics of the organization to do so.

hutzlibu• 7 years ago

What comes to my mind now, are countless stupid AAA movies, where some "hero" says of some former "hero", "no, we can't let the public know their hero failed them, they need to believe in the values he represented (not in the person)".

tedivm• 7 years ago

Teachers are the least protected class in this regard- teachers have been fired for posting pictures of themselves holding red solo cups on facebook.

ahaferburg• 7 years ago

How do other states/countries handle this?

magduf8• 7 years ago

For industrialized Western nations, far less corruptly.

For countries like Venezuela, probably a lot like the US.

Tsubasachan3• 7 years ago

Police officers are suspended pending investigations. And if you have a criminal record you can't be a policeman. All seems sensible to me.

nickles2• 7 years ago

In September, California passed the law (S.B. 1421) described in the article, supposedly allowing access to records of police misconduct. It is restricted to certain circumstances, but should unambiguously allow for possession and publication, for example, of a list of officers who molested children (a sexual assault against a member of the public).

Other states, like New York (CRL 50-a), have laws preventing public access to records of police misconduct, going so far as to hold proceedings against officers in secret [0]. Even efforts to post an anonymized list of violations have been blocked [1].

We require that other professions (e.g. doctors, lawyers, financial advisors) have complete, public records of professional misconduct as a matter of public safety (or awareness at a minimum). However, the very people who walk around with what amounts to a license to kill [2] are not held to the same standard. In fact, officers may be granted additional rights, shielding them from interrogation techniques that would otherwise be applied to members of the public [3].

[0] https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/new-yorks-section-5...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/nyregion/police-disciplin...

[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charge...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/24/...

gnopgnip• 7 years ago

There is certainly some grey area in how the law should be implemented. Should the police disclose only those who have been convicted of a crime AND who have exhausted all appeals?

nickles2• 7 years ago

Should the police disclose only those who have been convicted of a crime AND who have exhausted all appeals?

Are civilians afforded that privilege?

Consider the case of stockbrokers, for example. Regulations require that a broker immediately discloses, on a publicly accessible website [0], that they have become "a defendant or respondent in any securities- or commodities-related civil litigation or arbitration" [1]. This does not require a finding of guilt nor an exhaustion of appeals. While allegations of financial fraud are certainly concerning, a police officer convicted of molesting a child or sexual assaulting suspects is potentially shielded from similar levels of disclosure (as described in the article). Are stockbrokers subject to too much scrutiny, or are police officers subject to too little scrutiny?

Furthermore, the gray area in the law, when assigning the benefit of the doubt to the officer, puts the public in danger. In the Washington Post article cited above, the following example is referenced:

In 2007, Shreveport police officer Wiley Willis arrested 38-year-old Angela Garbarino on suspicion of drunken driving. While in custody, as captured on the video below, Garbarino begins arguing with Willis about what she said is her right to make a phone call. About a minute later, Willis walks over and turns off the video camera. When the camera comes back on, Garbarino is lying on the floor in a pool of her own blood. She was later photographed with severe facial injuries she says were the result of Willis beating her. Willis’ attorney stated that she tripped and fell while the camera was off. After the video went viral, Willis was fired, but has never been criminally charged.
Last month, the Shreveport Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board voted to reinstate Willis on the police force. He’ll get full back pay and benefits for the year-and-a-half he was fired. The reason? During the internal investigation of Willis, a polygraph machine operator failed to record the results of his Q&A with Willis. This apparently is a violation of Louisiana’s “Police Officer’s Bill of Rights,” a set of guidelines every department must follow when investigating officer misconduct.
Garbarino won a $400,000 settlement from the city of Shreveport last year.

This officer was reinstated on what is incontrovertibly a technicality. Since the appeal was successful, PO Willis' actions could be concealed from the public due to the gray area of the law. Is it in the public interest to hide such blatant misconduct?

[0] https://brokercheck.finra.org/

[1] http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2975/finra-4530-/

nimbius• 7 years ago

Disclosure: I am a former felon, convicted and sentenced for assaulting a carjacker. pro-tip: never take the public defender.

My question about this whole discussion is this: Whats the point. If prisons are designed as "correctional" facilities, which many good ones are, then you'll obviously move past being a felon and improve your life. If you keep a secret list of people you know have been convicted of a felony, you're tacitly admitting you either dont believe in prisons as an effective tool for correction, or you're looking for something more sinister...biblical retribution

And lets be honest, being a former felon IS a scarlet letter in the US. employers can discriminate against you, housing can discriminate against you in renting and in homeowners covenants, and you can be denied public services like disability and food stamps in some states. Former felons cant vote without a lengthy and expensive process of reinstatement.

Yes, i get that teachers, doctors, and police are certainly important positions, but again, the list. If you're just keeping it as part of their personnel and noting certain positions they shouldnt hold out of an abundance of caution in the face of an indeterminate outcome from mental rehabilitation or incarceration, then perhaps keep it secret. Use it as a blacklist if thats whats required for certain positions. however If you're just looking to shield felons from the inconvenience of incarceration or criminal charges, then reconsider it.

IshKebab• 7 years ago

I think it's pretty clear to most people that the US prison system is a deterrent and provides retribution. It's not about rehabilitation.

elliekelly• 7 years ago

I agree that it isn't about rehabilitation. And to a certain degree it definitely seems our system is geared towards retribution. But study after study[1] has shown that an individual's perception of the likely punishment (e.g., prison time) doesn't deter crime. Rather, an individual's perception of the likelihood they'll get _caught_ seems to be the main deterrent.

This is a really interesting & related read.[2]

[1]https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398

[2]https://undark.org/article/deterrence-punishments-dont-reduc...

badfrog3• 7 years ago

Indeed a lot of the changes in the past few decades seem to be based entirely on appeasing the public's fear.

One-strike eviction from public housing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_strike,_you%27re_out

Expanded federal death penalty, removal of Pell Grant eligibility for convicts, mandatory drug testing for parolees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_...

My understanding was that Bill Clinton and congressional democrats in the 90s felt they had to look tough on crime to appease the public and avoid losing elections to Republicans who favored similar policies.

magduf8• 7 years ago

Wait, you were prosecuted for defending yourself from a violent attacker?

r_smart• 7 years ago

You can end up being the one punished in all kinds of scenarios where you're the wronged party initially.

If you are too vigorous in defending your property, you can be charged with assault, which I'm guessing is what happened.

jjoonathan• 7 years ago

Unfortunately, based on the vocal political opinions of my relatives, I suspect that many, perhaps even most, voters do see the "correctional" system as primarily about retribution. Local and regional politicians continue to run and win on the "tough on crime" platform even in places where it makes very little sense. Before there can be reform, people have to want there to be reform.

People want to believe that crime has an easy answer -- namely, being "tough on crime" -- and until they realize that their efforts to impede reintegration increase recidivism far more than they discourage crime, the criminal justice system will be about "corrections" in name only.

zamalek4• 7 years ago

see the "correctional" system as primarily about retribution

I generally refer to American prisons as "penitentiary" for this reason. Of course there are scenarios that require 3 life sentences (e.g. serial/psychopathic killers), but they really are rare.

I agree with you regarding the zeitgeist, but I strongly disagree with the content of it. IMO a person understanding their actions (thanks to reform) and regretting them, for life, seems like a more vicious form of revenge or retribution. I'm not sure how I'd feel if I were a victim, but I'd like to think I could maintain that thought process.

munk-a6• 7 years ago

There is a school of thought that the thing we should strive to minimize are first time offenders, this goal leads pretty naturally into a correct assessment that extreme punishment is a valid approach.

I take issue with that goal though, I think we should reduce the chance of future crimes from both criminals and people with no prior history in an effort to minimize the harm done to everyone - this is where I see a reason to fully forgive people. If someone could assure you (and be genuine in it, without strange conditions) that they would never commit another crime, then the only reason left to punish them is to demonstrate to society that the crime they committed is unacceptable - and that means you aren't punishing someone to teach them a lesson but to teach everyone else a lesson, if you could make it seem like they were punished but let them live a normal life that would work just as well (assuming they were actually hidden from view)

paulddraper• 7 years ago

voters do see the "correctional" system as primarily about retribution

I think suspect many people see it as neither primarily vindication nor primarily correction.

Rather, they see it as prevention.

The worse the punishment, the less proclivity the population will have toward criminal acts.

Or so the reasoning goes.

Chardok2• 7 years ago

If you keep a secret list of people you know have been convicted of a felony, you're tacitly admitting you either dont believe in prisons as an effective tool for correction

This is 100% the case. Our for-profit prisons provide a huge incentive to completely ignore things helpful for rehabilitation including education, job training, anti discrimination, and treating prisoners like humans. They are absolutely aware of how damaging that list would be to those persons.

wmeredith• 7 years ago

For-profit prisons are indeed problematic for a variety of reasons, but they only comprise about 8% of the US prison system[1]. I’m just throwing this out there because the for profit prison bogeyman, while real, often takes an outsize share of the attention when discussing problems with the US justice system. There are problems that extend far beyond that small segment of the larger apparatus.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison

SOLAR_FIELDS• 7 years ago

Someone in the article makes the same argument as you are making here:

‘To the extent the public wants that to be public record, I can understand that,” said Rains, who is leading a legal fight to block the release of officer disciplinary records under the new law.

“Why don’t we make that known for everybody?” Rains said of convictions, pointing out there’s no broad disclosure for lawyers, doctors, teachers and other trusted professionals.’

The key difference is that none of the other ‘trusted professionals’ have arbitrary leeway to detain you under suspicion on the street. The dynamic between police and the populace is not even remotely equivalent to any of these other types of professions and to equate them is an outright false equivalency.

mirimir3• 7 years ago

Well, I believe that all criminal arrests, trials,convictions and sentences are public records in the US. So in theory, given lists of police officers -- and lawyers, judges, doctors, teachers, or whatever -- you could create such databases.

In practice, it'd be a pain. Because you'd probably need to request records from, and perhaps visit, individual courts.

What's different here is that these are personnel files. Do we want all personnel files to be public records? For lawyers, doctors, teachers, or whatever? For lawyers and judges, that'll never happen. Would you want your personnel files, from everywhere you ever worked, to be public?

ip26• 7 years ago

... you're tacitly admitting you either dont believe in prisons as an effective tool for correction ...

Can one not believe they are effective while also hedging that, for example, perhaps the rate of recidivism remains slightly higher than the crime rate of everyone else? It doesn't seem like it has to be a binary, correction can be effective without being perfect.

Going from there, it's not hard to imagine a world in which ex-felons (is that the right term?) are considered perfectly hirable, but worth just a little extra oversight in exceptional circumstances.

danso• 7 years ago

If I'm reading this article correctly, this isn't just about past convictions, but cops who were convicted of crimes on the job, as well as former cops and those "who at one time had tried to become a cop".

Furthermore, the Attorney General is trying to argue that simply being in possession of this list is a crime. But given that the article says some of the convicts are still working as cops, I think that it is important to the public interest that this list be seen and reported on. Not necessarily to be printed out in its entirety just to shame every name on the list, but to find out which departments have failed to vet their police officers. Just because the government keeps a list doesn't mean that they do a good job of checking against it, especially when it might be up to each individual agency to do the checks themselves.

jakelazaroff2• 7 years ago

If this list were only comprised of felons who later became cops, that would be one thing. But it seems like a lot of it is crimes committed while being police, some even in the course of their duties as officers:

The list includes cops who trafficked drugs, cops who stole money from their departments and even one who robbed a bank wearing a fake beard. Some sexually assaulted suspects. Others took bribes, filed false reports and committed perjury.

You can say that should be a separate list, and sure — I can get behind that. I certainly don't like the idea of the justice system being retributive! But it seems clear that there is data on this list that should be released in the interest of public safety.

Tsubasachan3• 7 years ago

"You have paid of your debt to society" is a meme like "Lady Justice is blind".

Hell you can be acquitted and still have society set against you, see the Central Park five.

presscast5• 7 years ago

you're tacitly admitting you either dont believe in prisons as an effective tool for correction

There's a third option, namely: correctional facilities work better than nothing, but aren't 100% effective.

goatlover• 7 years ago

Indeed, not everyone wants to be rehabilitated or can be, and correctional facilities are not always that great at rehabilitation.

mindslight3• 7 years ago

You're really describing the other half of the same issue. The larger picture is that while the private sector is treating any conviction as a permanent black mark, the good old boys club is doing the exact opposite.

I do agree that a serving your sentence should mean that your sentence has been served, as opposed to continuing lists and restrictions after you're supposedly "free". But if we're going to allow that mark to continue in some form indefinitely, then it should have more effects on people in true positions of trust (eg police) rather than fewer!

This pattern of double standard rights erosion is happening across the board. Police enjoy "Garrity rights" whereby they can actually exercise their 5th amendment rights, whereas a private employee can be compelled to testify against themselves under threat of being fired. Someone who works for the government retains their freedom of speech protections, whereas a job in the private sector can be easily lost due to doxxing by an online lynch mob.

Ultimately, this two class system came about because rights were codified only as protections from the government, as there is no simple way to draw a line between freedom of association and negative consequences. But given that we've gotten to the point where the vast majority of the population must hold down a job, this needs to change with respect to the general labor market.

biztos2• 7 years ago

Someone who works for the government retains their freedom of speech protections, whereas a job in the private sector can be easily lost due to doxxing by an online lynch mob.

Doesn't this have more to do with the prevalence of unions in the public sector?

bogomipz3• 7 years ago

"Ultimately, this two class system came about because rights were codified only as protections from the government, as there is no simple way to draw a line between freedom of association and negative consequences."

Can you explain what you mean here by the dichotomy of "freedom of association" vs "negative consequences"?

tareqak• 7 years ago

I was looked it up:

In United States law, the Garrity warning is an advisement of rights usually administered by federal, state, or local investigators to their employees who may be the subject of an internal investigation. The Garrity warning advises subjects of their criminal and administrative liability for any statements they may make, but also advises subjects of their right to remain silent on any issues that tend to implicate them in a crime. (See Kalkines warning concerning federal employees.) [0].

The Kalkines warning is an advisement of rights usually administered by United States federal government agents to federal employees and contractors in internal investigations. The Kalkines warning compels subjects to make statements or face disciplinary action up to and including dismissal, but also provides suspects with criminal immunity for their statements [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrity_warning

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalkines_warning

pluma• 7 years ago

Another problem that plays into this is that the US prison system isn't built with "correction" in mind but punishment. So while an ex-con may have been punished, there is no assumption that they've actually changed as a person. Punishment is seen as a deterrent, not a correctional measure.

bogomipz3• 7 years ago

"Disclosure: I am a former felon, convicted and sentenced for assaulting a carjacker."

I don't mean to pry but I'm genuinely curious how you received a felony for assaulting someone that was threatening you. How would that not have been considered self-defense?

peopleeater• 7 years ago

I'm confused when you say 'former' felon. I thought a felon is someone who committed a felony. Unless your conviction was overturned, aren't you forevermore a felon, even after you serve your sentence?

perl4ever• 7 years ago

"If you keep a secret list of people you know have been convicted of a felony, you're tacitly admitting you either dont believe in prisons as an effective tool for correction, or you're looking for something more sinister...biblical retribution"

Well, this would make perfect sense if we didn't have sex offender lists. Or if we didn't do things like taking the ability to own guns away from the mentally ill, even those who have committed no crime whatsoever. Or if we didn't in many places remove the right to vote or serve on a jury from felons.

I don't mean to say that all of these things are unquestionable and perfect, but it seems like there are many ways in which people generally agree that some rights can be lost and should be lost even after incarceration is over. And it's not necessarily about retribution. I think everybody knows prisons are not effective at rehabilitation.

garmaine2• 7 years ago

Those aren't the same thing. Someone isn't accidentally a pedophile, or becomes a pedophile because of some mistake they made once, etc. There really isn't a way for a prison to change what their sexual preferences are, so the list makes sense. But felony convictions for crimes of necessity, passion, or lack of opportunity? Those are categorically different things.

(Of course, before someone jumps in, there are a bunch of people who end up on the list that don't deserve to be there because of backwards laws on the books or excessively aggressive prosecutors. But I'm speaking to the idea behind the law here.)

dynjo• 7 years ago

"I am a former felon, convicted and sentenced for assaulting a carjacker."

And right there is everything wrong with the law. Hopefully at the very least you got a nice sense of satisfaction!

rebuilder• 7 years ago

I'd guess law enforcement in California would prefer there to be no list, but since there is one, want to keep it secret.

duado• 7 years ago

Damn, I hope you at least killed the carjacker.

microcolonel• 7 years ago

an abundance of caution in the face of an indeterminate outcome from mental rehabilitation or incarceration

It's not about abundant caution, or the uncertain effectiveness of correctional facilities. Regardless of what programs you avail some people of, the numbers show that (knowing nothing else) choosing to trust any random convicted felon is a worse idea than choosing to trust any random person who is not a convicted felon.

I don't really know what this article is trying to imply, somehow that the list should be public (or I guess, in a more limited sense, that the AG should not be threatening the public to prevent them from having it); as far as I can tell, the records it would contain are public to begin with.

tomcam• 7 years ago

Wonderful comment. Would love if you could contact me (see profile). I have an interest in some of these issues.

confiscate• 7 years ago

what was your experience with public defenders? Just curious because you said it was a pro-tip to never take one

Fnoord• 7 years ago

The point is pretty simple: damage control, and a refusal for change.

Society wants to discredit everyone who is a former felon (which itself is a sentence for life), and it wants to keep people who are cops from becoming a felon (those 'criminal cops' surely did worse things than 'convicted and sentenced for assaulting a carjacker'?). Supposedly because being a cop earned them credits or bonus points of some kind (I'd put my bet on that it costs society a lot of money to train cops and keep them from being dirty).

In that way, the list (of former felons) retains its value. If the State would prosecute and convict dirty cops, society may get the idea that cops (who are supposed to be a reflection of society) are less sincere than they may seem to be.

The problem can be solved pretty easily:

1) Prosecute dirty cops.

2) Stop with this 'former felon' sentence for life. Be pragmatic about people instead.

3) You'll find 'former felons' everywhere in society, including in government positions. However, felons stay in prison to serve their fair share.

4) The chance of becoming a felon will eventually decrease (it is ridiculous right now, with e.g. crimes involving something innocent as a little bit of cannabis).

Problem is, there's a lack of willpower society has to go for these steps. How can we stimulate society in the right way? I suppose one thing would be that those who are former felons like yourself open up about themselves. Put it out of the pandora's box where the light doesn't shine.

__jal• 7 years ago

Police may be one of the few professions below who have real privacy protections in US, although most decent humans would never want to take advantage of particular ones in effect.

The special rights the police have are amazing, and that's before you get to the ones about use of force. My personal favorite is that the maxim 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is flipped on its head if you're a cop - qualified immunity combined with judges willing to make absurd distinctions make it a great excuse.

I absolutely want a list of the ones that still got caught, even with all those advantages. In terms of evaluating the risks of local community members, that's far more useful than a list of "sex offenders" who may have peed in public or something.

FireBeyond• 7 years ago

my personal favorite is that the maxim 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is flipped on its head if you're a cop

So true. When it's you being arrested, sorry, too bad.

When a cop is trying to arrest you for taking photos in a public place, "We can't expect cops to be constitutional lawyers".

erikpukinskis2• 7 years ago

People wring their hands about how we’re losing privacy in the modern age. But this is an example of the good that we get from that loss.

Not saying we shouldn’t worry about privacy, just highlighting this is the silver lining to that cloud and it’s not an unsubstantial public good.

godelski• 7 years ago

These are two completely different topics. One is about privacy the other is about holding people in positions of power accountable for their actions(and that we have evidence about them not being).

erikpukinskis2• 7 years ago

You can’t hold anyone accountable unless you can see into their private life.

archarios• 7 years ago

All cops are crooks anyway so who gives a fuck?

drdeca• 7 years ago

Do you mean to say that that is necessarily the case, or merely that it, in the actual world, is the case?

I don’t believe that to be a necessary truth, true in all possible worlds.

i.e. I believe that it is possible for there to be a cop who is not a “crook”.

Which, I suppose follows from the fact that I am not an anarchist.

As such, I believe it to be desirable that there be a cop who is not a “crook”.

I think that an important part of discouraging misbehavior among law enforcement is not only to threaten punishment against anyone who, while acting as an instrument by which the state enforces the law, abuses the power they have been lent for that purpose, but in addition, the state must be seen to actually dole out this punishment to its agents when they abuse the power lent to them.

It should be seen that it will not tolerate abuse done in its name.

Of course, in order for this to be seen, it must first be done.

But, another requirement is that, if any agent (of law enforcement) of the state does about the power, that this certainly should not be kept secret!

That, I think, is enough reason for me to care.

acomjean• 7 years ago

I don't like all the secrecy.

Massachusetts has a "secret court system" that lets connected people avoid court and problems. I've lived here for a while and had no idea these shenanigans were going on. Well to be fair, we're a pretty jaded bunch so it wasn't overly surprising.

"Every year, tens of thousands of cases wind up in secret court sessions — formally known as “show cause hearings” — that are presided over by court clerks and usually held for suspects who haven’t been arrested and don’t pose a flight risk or danger to others. People are generally entitled to these hearings for misdemeanors, but police can request them for felonies as well. .... Show cause hearings were originally created to weed out baseless allegations, but, in practice, there are so few checks on the clerks’ power that they regularly go far beyond that, brokering deals and, in nearly half of the cases, rejecting requests for charges.

Clerk magistrates, who are appointed by the governor, routinely refuse to issue charges even when there is significant evidence — as in the case of a judge caught on camera taking someone else’s $4,000 watch off a security belt at Logan International Airport. Over the last two years, clerks have set aside nearly 62,000 cases, including more than 18,000 after a clerk concluded there was probable cause to believe that the accused committed a crime, according to court data.

The Spotlight Team uncovered cases where clerks tossed charges involving serious injuries or deaths, including one brought against a Quincy taxi driver who ran over and allegedly dragged an elderly man, killing him."

Good reporting in a strange web first format..

https://apps.bostonglobe.com/spotlight/secret-courts/

More info here. https://apps.bostonglobe.com/metro/investigations/spotlight/...

sbenitoj• 7 years ago

It’s almost like members of the government are above the law...

Tsubasachan3• 7 years ago

"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" the pig said.

turc16562• 7 years ago

What I would really like to know is what is the rate of criminality within the CA police force vs the public. Because 12,000 in a 10 year period is a LOT of felons that have worn or still wear a badge.

From what I can find, the US average for all adult residents is about 8.6% (about 1 in 12). For officers in CA, I found estimates of 90,000 to 100,000 on several sites. However, a survey of specific cities seems to indicate roughly 15 officers per 10,000 residents (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/law-enforce...). CA has about 40 million residents, which would be about 60,000 officers.

Going with the 60,000 number, that's 20%! If we go with the higher estimate of 100,000 officers, that's still 12%! And don't forget - the 8.6% US average number is for anyone who has a felony record - meaning it covers their entire adult life, not just the past 10 years. That makes the officer numbers even worse! From what I can gather, the rate of criminality for officers (at least in CA) as far, far above the average for everyone else.

shereadsthenews• 7 years ago

This isn't just felonies. It includes things like misdemeanor drunk driving.

turc16562• 7 years ago

Good point. They mention felonies and list some very serious specific ones so it primed me to think the list was all felonies, even though it did say "felonies and other crimes that would disqualify them".

I'd still be very interested in knowing what the rate comparison is.

natch• 7 years ago

Well drunk driving is a pretty serious matter no matter how the legal system categorizes it. I realize it was an example. Just not a great example.

kodablah• 7 years ago

I think the ~12k convictions includes police officers no longer active or that may just have been applicants. TFA says less than a third match police personnel records and that it is unclear which may just be for applicants. I don't think we should speculate with these ballpark numbers if we can count on the results coming out later.

Balgair• 7 years ago

Remember, the average American commits ~3 felonies per day: https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...

If anything, this list indicates that the legal system in the US is in need of an overhaul. That officers would be swept up in the same net we all are, should not be unexpected. Given their daily proximity to law enforcement, having a higher number than the average population should not necessarily come as a surprise.

The way to tell if they really are more 'criminal' than the rest of the population would be to look at the felony rates of judges, para-legals, lawyers, court-recorders, bailiffs, wardens, people who live/work close to precincts, etc. If your physical proximity to an officer is related to the felony rate, then this should come fall out of the data.

In essence, based on your napkin-math, further research is very much required for the sake of public safety.

anigbrowl• 7 years ago

No they don't and Harvey Silverglate is not a reliable reporter. He habitually misrepresents the cases of his current-and-former clients and frankly I think he's only one step away from being a con artist who separates legal losers from their money while telling them it's not their fault that they keep losing in court.

This shouldn't be extrapolated into being a comment on the rest of the thread. There are all sorts of things wrong with society and the legal system but I wouldn't trust Harvey Silverglate to advise me on any of them.

SiempreViernes• 7 years ago

Why both ”secret” and ”you can’t have it” in the title? Surely this is a news item worth a title somoeone actually put effort into?

abtinf• 7 years ago

The two major public safety unions in CA, the California Peace Officers Association and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, collect a combined total of about $100M per year in dues. They are incredibly active and influential in CA politics. The probability of the overturning a policy they support that directly concerns their members, as in the article, is zero.

HillaryBriss• 7 years ago

How can AG Becerra seriously contend that it's a crime for the newspaper to have this info, which was inadvertently leaked to them through legal channels?

Didn't the "NY Times vs the United States" SCOTUS case resolve that sort of question?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...

ccnafr• 7 years ago

Than why is it keeping it in the first place?

California keeps a secret list of criminal cops, but says you can’t have it

Related Stories