← Back to context

Comment by Arubis

3 hours ago

In a sane, fair, and (crucially) long-term stable system, persons given privilege and authority over others are subject to a higher standard for their own behavior. The long-running US trend of the inverse (additional legal protections for positions of authority) is incredibly destructive. This is a moral and values judgment, yes, but it's not just that -- it communicates to the population at large that they should find their own solutions rather than using the established system.

More succinctly, down this path lie guillotines.

34 comments

Arubis

Reply
TimTheTinker  2 hours ago

One of the worst examples in the US is the consequence asymmetry for speech. Law enforcement and federal agents can lie as much as they like with impunity when dealing with citizens, but (a) it's a federal crime to lie to a federal officer (18 US Code § 1001, up to 8 years imprisonment), and (b) truly, anything you say to law enforcement when under any suspicion can and will be used against you in a court of law, even the act of pleading the 5th, regardless of (or perhaps especially because of) your innocence. "I want a lawyer", repeated ad-nauseam, is always the least harmful response, regardless of context[0].

Also, the body of federal law and regulations is so vast that smart people estimate the average person unknowingly breaks roughly 3 federal criminal laws per day[1], giving the federal government the legal ability to arbitrarily arrest anyone they want.

[0] James Duane, You have the right to remain innocent, 2016

[1] Harvey Silverglate, Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, 2011.

  • hirvi74  44 minutes ago

    > legal ability to arbitrarily arrest anyone they want.

    As the famous Russian saying goes, "Был бы человек, а статья найдется" (Show me the man, and I will show you the crime.)

  • sidewndr46  2 hours ago

    This distinction doesn't make sense. A police officer's job is to lie to you. Are we expecting jailtime for doing their job?

    • MSFT_Edging  1 hour ago

      Then it shouldn't be a crime to lie to the officer.

      I genuinely don't think certain charges relating to preserving one's freedom should even be a crime in of it self.

      Unless you endanger others in an extreme manner, things like "resisting arrest", running from police, or attempting to escape prison shouldn't be charges within themselves.

      People love the phrase "you can beat the rap, not the ride", but that essentially gives broad power to harass and damage one's life without recourse sans extremely expensive legal routes. In this example, a man lost his freedom for 37 days over a bogus charge and was paid by the taxpayers to essentially shut up.

    • TimTheTinker  1 hour ago

      > A police officer's job is to lie to you

      Federal statute should categorize that as a fireable offense and an intentional tort incurring punitive damages at minimum, and any subsequent proceedings (after the lie) as inadmissible evidence.

      If that makes investigation more difficult, then so be it. For too long, law enforcement and federal investigators have relied on inappropriate and immoral techniques to obtain conviction. Mass surveillance, warrantless wiretapping, manipulating suspects -- what happened to old-school investigation that was after truth via smart observation and deduction? There's a reason people love watching Poirot: it's a (admittedly stylized) snapshot of real justice in progress.

      Their expected standard of behavior should be higher than that of citizens.

lokar  3 hours ago

The death penalty should be reserved for people who violate a position of public trust and authority.

  • helterskelter  2 hours ago

    Yeah that would never be weaponized with trumped-up charges against political opponents.

    • Teever  1 hour ago

      But the same thing could happen right now with the existing death penalty -- has that been a trend in American politics?

  • cgriswald  2 hours ago

    You want to give the government the legal ability to threaten the life of the entire civil service, judiciary, and all elected representatives.

    I’m sure that would never be abused.

  • kube-system  1 hour ago

    Because it is irreversible, the death penalty should be reserved for cases in which there is no possibility of mistake. Which, given the fallibility of humans, is never.

  • embedding-shape  2 hours ago

    Hot take, but I feel like no humans should be killed as a punishment... But I'm also probably too European to understand the true value of death penalty.

echelon  2 hours ago

> In a sane, fair, and (crucially) long-term stable system, persons given privilege and authority over others are subject to a higher standard for their own behavior.

The US military is subject to a higher standard, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Penalties for US service members breaking the law or codes of conduct are much higher and much more severe than civilians. The US military makes routine example of law breakers and misconduct.

The US police force, by contrast, is civilian. They are not licensed, commissioned, or subject to additional standards. Certainly not nationwide standards that would bar police removed from their post from finding similar work elsewhere.

We should pay our police officers more, make them undergo nationally standardized training and licensing, and then hold them to a higher standard if and when they break the law.

Police court-martial.

  • AngryData  16 minutes ago

    I agree with most of that, but are cops around you paid low enough to get anything in exchange for giving higher wages? Ive lived in many poor places across the US and the cops are often among the highest paid workers in the area already despite currently needing a jokes worth of training and knowledge. The wages ive seen cops around me getting seemed to already be in the top 50% of skilled proffessionals with college degrees.