What's your take on this article? http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/04/11/thousands-dead-few-prosecuted/
It appears that the juries themselves are reluctant to convict police officers and prosecutors often plea bargain because winning a case would be so uncertain, given the attitude of the people that police officers are the good guys who keep them safe.
Kinda flies in the face of this concept that nobody trusts the police anymore.
Well, prosecutors don't want to bring cops up on charges because they have to work with the cops. Prosecutors are less likely to exclude prospective jurors who automatically trust cops as they are invested in having those people on other juries. Defense attorneys who have a cop as a client are also invested in that as well. The people who end up on juries tend older and so still give cops the benefit of the doubt, in some cases taking their word over video. This isn't even including those cases that don't get past a grand jury or those cases that never get sent to a grand jury in the first place. Additionally, it's amazing how many internal investigations of cops show no wrongdoing. Almost like self policing is inherently flawed.
How do you know about internal investigations? That's not typically public knowledge. My point was that you can't blame the system if people are unwilling to convict police officers, even when the system does try to prosecute them.
Also, I don't understand your point about excluding prospective jurors. Why would that affect whether or not someone could be on another case? Typically, grand jury participation is for a period of several weeks of availability, but others only require participation in one case and then you are excused.
How do you know about IA investigations? That info is not generally public knowledge. It's, um, internal.
Also, I don't understand your statement about excluding prospective jurors who trust cops. A grand jury serves for several weeks, but others only require participation in one case and then you are dismissed. So how could they have the same people on other juries?
4 comments:
What's your take on this article? http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/04/11/thousands-dead-few-prosecuted/
It appears that the juries themselves are reluctant to convict police officers and prosecutors often plea bargain because winning a case would be so uncertain, given the attitude of the people that police officers are the good guys who keep them safe.
Kinda flies in the face of this concept that nobody trusts the police anymore.
Well, prosecutors don't want to bring cops up on charges because they have to work with the cops.
Prosecutors are less likely to exclude prospective jurors who automatically trust cops as they are invested in having those people on other juries.
Defense attorneys who have a cop as a client are also invested in that as well.
The people who end up on juries tend older and so still give cops the benefit of the doubt, in some cases taking their word over video.
This isn't even including those cases that don't get past a grand jury or those cases that never get sent to a grand jury in the first place.
Additionally, it's amazing how many internal investigations of cops show no wrongdoing. Almost like self policing is inherently flawed.
How do you know about internal investigations? That's not typically public knowledge. My point was that you can't blame the system if people are unwilling to convict police officers, even when the system does try to prosecute them.
Also, I don't understand your point about excluding prospective jurors. Why would that affect whether or not someone could be on another case? Typically, grand jury participation is for a period of several weeks of availability, but others only require participation in one case and then you are excused.
How do you know about IA investigations? That info is not generally public knowledge. It's, um, internal.
Also, I don't understand your statement about excluding prospective jurors who trust cops. A grand jury serves for several weeks, but others only require participation in one case and then you are dismissed. So how could they have the same people on other juries?
Post a Comment