Hacker News Reader

Comment by ElfinTrousers | Hacker News Reader

Which is exactly the opposite of how it should be. I've thought for a long time that, if a cop is convicted as a crime, the simple fact that they are a cop should be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing, and even more harshly if the offense had any hint of abuse of their legal authority.

View on HN

This makes sense in principle, but in practice police cannot both carefully adhere to the law and serve their intended function.

Police are expected to be the security force of the powerful and influential against society's undesirables. If cops were required to strictly obey the law, they would be much less effective at this job. Most officers would understandably opt simply not to get involved in situations which might lead to someone's rights being violated.

If the powerful want a force which is willing to knock heads for them, they need to assure that force it will not be held responsible for the mess it makes along the way.

Ergo the difference between official and actual purpose

In civilized countries the police should have rules for how to act under certain conditions. For example how to de-escalate and then it’s allowed to drive through a red stoplight. In those countries if a police officer would drive through a red light without reason the should get a fine, suspension or other consequences. And I agree with an earlier commenter, since they should be extremely aware if the rules and boundaries, violations should be punished stricter.

You say "but in practice..." but then proceed to handwave generalities. For instance, are you arguing we can preemptively say they don't have to follow any law on the off chance one of them might come up in the performance of their duties? It sounds an awful lot like you are, and there's essentially no "in practice" evidence to motivate that.

> are you arguing we can preemptively say they don't have to follow any law on the off chance one of them might come up in the performance of their duties?

You're describing the principle of qualified immunity, which is already in effect in US courts. I was suggesting an explanation for why this is the law of the land, despite it being in such obvious contrast with the principles of a free and democratic society.

If you don't agree with my explanation, I'd be interested in yours: why do you think cops are exempted from having to follow the law the same as other civilians?

I can't say I disagree, though I wish I could.

Qualified immunity doesn't do anything about criminal liability.

You are correct, I'm not presenting the two as diametrical opposites though. What are diametric opposites, though, are the cultural attitudes behind the respective ideas. "We implicitly trust the police, and if they break the law they probably had a good reason" vs. "We hold the police to a higher standard of behavior, because in allowing them to use violence in their work, we have granted them much power."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com