> but on the other hand they are just people -- as fallible as anyone.
Responsibilities, privileges, and risks should be clearly presented to anyone applying for the position.
Imagine, for example, we applied the same argument to ATC controllers. "Oh they are just human, so they let the planes collide once in a while. No biggie. Maybe 10 days paid vacation" -- No way, right? There would be talks of manslaughter charges, putting better processes in place. Shorter shifts.
I can see "they are just people" excuse being used for those who are involuntarily stuck in the situation. Police works is still voluntary employment.
Also don't buy the "just a few bad cases" excuse. It is not just those few cops that are corrupt that are bad, everyone who sees, but doesn't say anything, is also part of the "spoiled bunch". I would guess most cops by now have seen their colleagues do questionable things and didn't say anything. So by this definition there are very few "good cops"
>Imagine, for example, we applied the same argument to ATC controllers.
One can't honestly compare the rigor and checks for a order of magnitudes larger workforce. It's like saying the same rigor applied to space vehicles should be taken to build cars or appliances. I mean, it's possible, but not economically viable. Also, it's not the same kind of adrenalin inducing scenario (i.e you're not thinking, "is this the plane that's coming for me"? i.e. is this the guy who's going to take me down?)
>Also don't buy the "just a few bad cases" excuse.
Ok, but I never made any point about this.
I'm only saying that a system which relies on humans but does not account for their fallibility will have a weakness which needs to be acknowledged and addresed in order to be effective.
>So by this definition there are very few "good cops"
By that definition, there would be very few good people. People tend to give people they know or work with "the benefit of doubt" or even "turn a blind eye".
They might be good people but still be horrible cops. But being horrible cops means they must not be cops.
Would you have such an accepting stance on teachers refusing to turn in a rapist teacher? Betraying a trust must mean you lose your position immediately, but it must also cost enough to make it honestly unattractive.
By not having strong and effective punishments for this we create perverse incentives to betray others.
Simple solution - like with legal practice, if you're thrown out (disbarred) you can't mention the job without also mentioning the having been thrown out. Then let people choose to pretend they hadn't been police at all or admit what happened, as they prefer.
Responsibilities, privileges, and risks should be clearly presented to anyone applying for the position.
Imagine, for example, we applied the same argument to ATC controllers. "Oh they are just human, so they let the planes collide once in a while. No biggie. Maybe 10 days paid vacation" -- No way, right? There would be talks of manslaughter charges, putting better processes in place. Shorter shifts.
I can see "they are just people" excuse being used for those who are involuntarily stuck in the situation. Police works is still voluntary employment.
Also don't buy the "just a few bad cases" excuse. It is not just those few cops that are corrupt that are bad, everyone who sees, but doesn't say anything, is also part of the "spoiled bunch". I would guess most cops by now have seen their colleagues do questionable things and didn't say anything. So by this definition there are very few "good cops"