Actually, I agree with this standard procedure. It allows immediate removal of a potentially bad officer while retaining his right to due process. Much better than either leaving a criminal officer on duty until all the investigation and such is finished, or in taking the pay of innocent officers vindictively accused of wrongdoing.
Lets be a bit more fair--A trucker accused of patronizing a prostitute, or a network engineer with a DUI--would their jobs be in danger? A cop convicted of either of these, or most other crimes *should* lose their job in most cases, but should not be unduly punished based on the mere accusation.
Sticking someone who is likely to have a bad attitude and little motivation in a temporary make-work job is very likely to cost productivity rather than improve it. If a cop is exonerated, should he then be punished for being a lousy clerk?
Put the cop on leave, determine his guilt or innocence with minimal delay, and either fire him or put him back to work ASAP.
Let's make your examples ones that directly impact their ability to conduct their jobs and also bring public disrepute on their employers.
I did not say anything about a temporary make-work job. If satisfactory performance standards for needed functions are not met, treat him like the private sector would--particularly if he lets a bad attitude affect the performance of something he is being paid to do.
First of all, i want to know who this cop pissed off... I know A LOT of COPS, and even they'd tell ya, one of the "benefits" is never having to say "I'm sorry" or "Oh, I was drunk". So, if this guy got busted, and not "hustled out of town, quietly and quickly" --- What did he do wrong. Funny, a friend on mine, who left the force in '99; I ask him "why" and he said "i got tired of driving drunk cops home...." haha LOL.
BUT OF COURSE, I'm sure "THIS" is just an ISOLATED INCIDENT (that is the correct term, right?)
Decent cops exist. They should be protected from false accusations even if it means the bad ones get to go on paid leave for a while before they get fired.
The problem isn't putting them on leave before they get fired, it is not firing the ones that need to be fired.
Well, there's the flaw in your entire argument: They should be and ARE protected and get the same due process the rest of us would in this instance: The right to a trial.
Yes or no--is he getting his legal due process?
You're arguing for the right to a public service employee union job, that is, you're confirming my assessment that this is another "Only Ones" example. And with continuances and appeals, that "minimal delay" you recommend can stretch on for quite some time.
Yes or no--are you saying cops deserve paid leave as a due process requirement, while the rest of us in the private sector can be terminated at will?
I see you identify yourself as a moderate libertarian, and am curious which recognized libertarian philosopher(s) espouse this.
And sure, not firing bad ones is a problem, but you state with certainty that giving special privileges is not a problem. There can be more than one problem, you know, and police chiefs use their "need" for more funding to justify everything from stumping for sales tax increases to letting prisoners go.
I call myself libertarian not because I blindly follow the Libertarian party line, but because I disagree with them considerably less than conservative or liberals. Not sure what that has to do with this--it isn't a political issue so much as a human resources one. If you throw cops under the bus too easily,the best are likely to find some other job, or not become cops at all.
Putting a suspect cop on paid leave while the details are sorted is a good way of both protecting the falsely accused and making sure that the guilty are eventually eliminated. If you have to take their pay away immediately, there's a greater chance that bad cops will remain on duty in questionable circumstances, and a lesser chance that they will be investigated thoroughly. With an incomplete investigation, benefit of the doubt will go to the bad cop. I'm far more interested in increasing the proportions of good cops to bad cops than I am in making sure the bad ones don't milk the system a few more weeks.
So in other words, your position of giving public service employees preferential treatment over private sector employees is not found in any established libertarian philosophy.
And you ducked both my direct yes or no questions.
Yes he appears to be getting his legal due process. That isn't the same question as "should he be immediately fired or suspended without pay over an accusation".
No, he doesn't 'deserve' either paid leave or to lose his livelihood over a mere accusation. That doesn't mean it isn't good policy to give paid leave until issues are decided.
This isn't about what an individual officer deserves, it is about policies that will result in a better police force. There are bigots who will make unfounded accusations of wrongdoing, which not only hurts honest police, but makes genuine problems harder to prosecute.
Well, Mike I will tell you what a former brother-in-law of me who was a Mn. state trooper told me.
He said their supervision advised them to throw a good drunk every now and then to release all the pent-up tension and stress of their jobs. However, he didn't say anything about driving in that condition. To my knowledge that particular individual does not drink, but what he told me certainly doesn't do anything to dispel yours or David's charge of Only Ones receiving special privileges.
Especially not when a drunk cop can beat the living Hell out of a Chicago 110 lb barmaid and pay no price.
The day is coming when there will be a bounty on them.
Oh, and I worked heavy industrial construction and drove a truck. I can tell you that in neither of those occupations would I be paid when sent home for being drunk or tested drunk or drugged.
Anybody remember how drug testing became common in the workplace? Really, an engineer for Amtrak, high on marijuana ran through his stops and killed a bunch of people. He was union, but he didn't get paid while he was awaiting trial. I have wished the sonofabitch dead many times, for he was the excuse that was used to rescind everybody else's 4th amendment rights.
Actually, I agree with this standard procedure. It allows immediate removal of a potentially bad officer while retaining his right to due process. Much better than either leaving a criminal officer on duty until all the investigation and such is finished, or in taking the pay of innocent officers vindictively accused of wrongdoing.
ReplyDeleteEven Only Ones deserve due process.
Let's compare this to the private sector without a public employee union.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a truck driver for a private carrier and got a DUI, I would not be extended this privilege.
He can get his due process and still work for a paycheck by doing non-enforcement duties such as office work in the interim.
If your argument is that we, the tax cows, must pay this guy to do nothing, you have failed to persuade me.
Lets be a bit more fair--A trucker accused of patronizing a prostitute, or a network engineer with a DUI--would their jobs be in danger? A cop convicted of either of these, or most other crimes *should* lose their job in most cases, but should not be unduly punished based on the mere accusation.
ReplyDeleteSticking someone who is likely to have a bad attitude and little motivation in a temporary make-work job is very likely to cost productivity rather than improve it. If a cop is exonerated, should he then be punished for being a lousy clerk?
Put the cop on leave, determine his guilt or innocence with minimal delay, and either fire him or put him back to work ASAP.
OK, let's be a bit more fair.
ReplyDeleteLet's make your examples ones that directly impact their ability to conduct their jobs and also bring public disrepute on their employers.
I did not say anything about a temporary make-work job. If satisfactory performance standards for needed functions are not met, treat him like the private sector would--particularly if he lets a bad attitude affect the performance of something he is being paid to do.
First of all, i want to know who this cop pissed off... I know A LOT of COPS, and even they'd tell ya, one of the "benefits" is never having to say "I'm sorry" or "Oh, I was drunk". So, if this guy got busted, and not "hustled out of town, quietly and quickly" --- What did he do wrong. Funny, a friend on mine, who left the force in '99; I ask him "why" and he said "i got tired of driving drunk cops home...." haha LOL.
ReplyDeleteBUT OF COURSE, I'm sure "THIS" is just an ISOLATED INCIDENT (that is the correct term, right?)
Decent cops exist. They should be protected from false accusations even if it means the bad ones get to go on paid leave for a while before they get fired.
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't putting them on leave before they get fired, it is not firing the ones that need to be fired.
Well, there's the flaw in your entire argument: They should be and ARE protected and get the same due process the rest of us would in this instance: The right to a trial.
ReplyDeleteYes or no--is he getting his legal due process?
You're arguing for the right to a public service employee union job, that is, you're confirming my assessment that this is another "Only Ones" example. And with continuances and appeals, that "minimal delay" you recommend can stretch on for quite some time.
Yes or no--are you saying cops deserve paid leave as a due process requirement, while the rest of us in the private sector can be terminated at will?
I see you identify yourself as a moderate libertarian, and am curious which recognized libertarian philosopher(s) espouse this.
And sure, not firing bad ones is a problem, but you state with certainty that giving special privileges is not a problem. There can be more than one problem, you know, and police chiefs use their "need" for more funding to justify everything from stumping for sales tax increases to letting prisoners go.
I call myself libertarian not because I blindly follow the Libertarian party line, but because I disagree with them considerably less than conservative or liberals. Not sure what that has to do with this--it isn't a political issue so much as a human resources one. If you throw cops under the bus too easily,the best are likely to find some other job, or not become cops at all.
ReplyDeletePutting a suspect cop on paid leave while the details are sorted is a good way of both protecting the falsely accused and making sure that the guilty are eventually eliminated. If you have to take their pay away immediately, there's a greater chance that bad cops will remain on duty in questionable circumstances, and a lesser chance that they will be investigated thoroughly. With an incomplete investigation, benefit of the doubt will go to the bad cop. I'm far more interested in increasing the proportions of good cops to bad cops than I am in making sure the bad ones don't milk the system a few more weeks.
So in other words, your position of giving public service employees preferential treatment over private sector employees is not found in any established libertarian philosophy.
ReplyDeleteAnd you ducked both my direct yes or no questions.
Yes he appears to be getting his legal due process. That isn't the same question as "should he be immediately fired or suspended without pay over an accusation".
ReplyDeleteNo, he doesn't 'deserve' either paid leave or to lose his livelihood over a mere accusation. That doesn't mean it isn't good policy to give paid leave until issues are decided.
This isn't about what an individual officer deserves, it is about policies that will result in a better police force. There are bigots who will make unfounded accusations of wrongdoing, which not only hurts honest police, but makes genuine problems harder to prosecute.
"And you ducked both my direct yes or no questions."
ReplyDeleteThis issue for me is the intersection of "Due Process" with "Equal Protection".
So, I understand you clearly. Amazing that not all can do so. Or are willing.
Well, Mike I will tell you what a former brother-in-law of me who was a Mn. state trooper told me.
ReplyDeleteHe said their supervision advised them to throw a good drunk every now and then to release all the pent-up tension and stress of their jobs. However, he didn't say anything about driving in that condition. To my knowledge that particular individual does not drink, but what he told me certainly doesn't do anything to dispel yours or David's charge of Only Ones receiving special privileges.
Especially not when a drunk cop can beat the living Hell out of a Chicago 110 lb barmaid and pay no price.
The day is coming when there will be a bounty on them.
Oh, and I worked heavy industrial construction and drove a truck. I can tell you that in neither of those occupations would I be paid when sent home for being drunk or tested drunk or drugged.
Anybody remember how drug testing became common in the workplace? Really, an engineer for Amtrak, high on marijuana ran through his stops and killed a bunch of people. He was union, but he didn't get paid while he was awaiting trial. I have wished the sonofabitch dead many times, for he was the excuse that was used to rescind everybody else's 4th amendment rights.