Hacker News Reader

Comment by Shivetya | Hacker News Reader

There are two things that must happen before any movement will occur on this front. Bringing the abuses to even more exposure can help both occur.

1) Reign in qualified immunity for both law enforcement, prosecutors, and politicians.

2) End the influence of the Police and Sheriff public employee unions over politicians. People carp constantly about corporate influence don't understand the level the public sector employee unions have; go look at California's prison and even education problems for a refresher.

View on HN

> End the influence of the Police and Sheriff public employee unions over politicians. People carp constantly about corporate influence don't understand the level the public sector employee unions have

¿Por que no los dos?

There's no conflict between wanting to see corporate influence diminished and disgust for the Fraternal Order of Police and their appalling role in keeping officers from being held accountable.

> go look at California's prison and even education problems for a refresher.

The abuses of for-profit prisons in California and elsewhere are a perfect example of the consequences of excessive corporate influence in our political system.

Scope creep - (1) doesn't need to include "prosecutors and policians", those can come later. In fact, keeping immunity up for those two for the first decade or two means they're in a much safer position to call out the police force without having to fear legal reprisal over having (inadvertantly, or intentionally) collaborated with them.

Dismantle it in stages, because trying to do it all on one go is a recipe for failure.

That's a very interesting take. I feel like they're all very urgent to tackle.

People are losing faith in the political system and I fear they are also losing faith in the judicial system.

Do you think the people would be OK with more oversight on the lower level of the executive branch, but none on the legislative or the judicial branches nor on the top level of the executive branch (the president, in the US of A and in at least a few other countries) ?

Also, it's worth noting that laws are usually not retroactive, AFAIK, meaning that if you commit what would be a crime under a new law before that law was passed, you can't be prosecuted.

When "everything is urgent", you're setting yourself up for failure, because you won't have the resources to address all issues at the same time. Pick one battle, and win it. Then reprioritize.

People have already lost faith in both, quite a long time ago in fact. So start fixing things by solving the problem one step at a time, big enough for people to notice and gain hope for future development, and small enough that you can fail without drastically affecting the overall change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com