← Back to context

Comment by caconym_

3 hours ago

You could make this argument about anything. We should have no laws, because they might be abused by a malicious prosecutor. Utter nonsense.

We should indeed get rid of many laws because the benefit is outweighed by the abuse.

America has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world (used to be #1) but suggest that maybe we're overcriminalized and you must be talking nonsense.

  • You are not suggesting that "maybe we're overcriminalized". You are suggesting that we should not hold law enforcement accountable for egregious abuses of power that do real harm to real people. You think it should not be considered criminal for a police officer to put somebody in prison (under threat of bodily harm or death, by default) just because they feel like it, or whatever. You think police officers should be able to rape innocent travelers on the side of the road and face no consequences for it. You think police officers should be able to scream conflicting orders at somebody and then shoot them in the head because "they were reaching for a weapon".

    Or do you not? All these things happen in America, and the officers involved almost never face meaningful consequences. Where do you draw the line, if at all?

    • I haven't said those things.

      Rape and murder are existing crimes, and they should be applied equally to police officers.

      I think that the core problem with the system is not individual bad actors, but overcriminalization and the acceptance of that by judges and juries. To solve that you need actual reform, and adding a new crime that would inevitably be weaponized is not the way.

      The whole concept of holding people "accountable" is the wrong frame. It's precisely that mindset that created this highly flawed system. I want to reduce bad things, not to feel good because people who did bad things are punished.

      And when you think about how to prevent bad cases from being brought, you need to systematically reduce the power of those who can make such decisions.

      Added: I do want strong civil liability for these cases, which we do have, which is why OP was able to get a good settlement. We should expand that to federal cases and lower the threshold.

      11 replies →