Police Reform?

[lightning]

So it's not possible to take police unions away from them? Who's been trying hard to do it and needs more support? That's what people of principle would be doing. What I see academics doing is mostly writing more books about white supremacy in our culture and licking their chops over who's going to get to teach the new anti-racism courses.
ETA: These are not going to put significant pressure on police, but they make money for the stars of the CRT movement (e.g. Kendi, Hannah-Jones and DiAngelo, who are lightweight academics, although hardly anyone admits it) and the academics riding their coattails.

The reason it's so hard to break unions like police unions and teachers unions is because organized labor in those professions ultimately have the upper hand in any scenario--they have the real power of the strike and more importantly the fear of the strike--it is what keeps them intact. This is very different from your experience with higher ed faculty unions. Higher ed unions, on the whole, are too afraid to go on strike, because the members themselves are too afraid to go on strike. That's why your college's faculty union is impotent.

As for what higher ed writers write about, we've been over this before, and I gave you the start of a reading list of left-wing academics who trash police unions. Obviously, you did not read it. But I did not expect you to, and that's why we are here having the same tired conversation again.

[mahagonny]

Of course, that combination of having struck already and the looming fear of it happening again is potent. There are some colleges where this has happened.
Here's an interesting piece. Maybe this was on your list. I don't remember. https://www.baystatebanner.com/2020/06/23/58823/
There's no question police unions will try to fuck you up if you don't play their game. Remember the Dukakis/Bush race? The Boston police went with Bush.

The reasons our union isn't stronger are, true, not only the reluctance to strike, but the abject lack of support from the tenure track faculty union, which made a pact with administration many years ago to refrain from advocating for or including us. Also the presence of administrators who, while having background in democratic local politics, hire the best union busting attorneys available, meddled in organizing efforts, and retaliated against union organizers using complicit tenured faculty. The worst of these administrators took a scornful view toward adjunct faculty as has been vividly expressed by Polly_Mer, a popular CHE forumite.
Some faculty unions are likely to get weaker as they promote far left political ideology, and in particular as it relates to the current racist movement called 'antiracism' which some members don't want. I suspect they will fear it makes them vulnerable to accusation in the normal performing of their duties. Or maybe they just don't buy the eternal victimology for Black Americans approach.

[Caracal]

I'm not sure there's really a contradiction-unless you're committed to thinking only in terms of rigid dichotomies.

Unions are just a way for workers to organize and bargain collectively with employers. They can, and often have been, vehicles for workers to gain better working conditions and higher pay. Of course, they can be used to do other things too, historically they were sometimes committed to keeping racial minorities out of workplaces, for example.

I think stronger unions would be a good thing, in general. That doesn't mean I'm required to think all unions, everywhere, are making everything better, all the time. In the case of Police Unions, I don't have a problem with them negotiating pay and benefits-or some issues touching on the pay and discipline of police officers-but the police are an armed group charged with enforcing laws-so it seems troubling when you have unions routinely denying the right of elected leaders to regulate their conduct.

[marshwiggle]

I think stronger unions would be a good thing, in general. That doesn't mean I'm required to think all unions, everywhere, are making everything better, all the time. In the case of Police Unions, I don't have a problem with them negotiating pay and benefits-or some issues touching on the pay and discipline of police officers-but the police are an armed group charged with enforcing laws-so it seems troubling when you have unions routinely denying the right of elected leaders to regulate their conduct.

Police unions are just doing what is normal for other unions. They use their influence to promote whatever they think will give them the most power in the long run. Other unions promote certain political candidates or parties, go on strike in support of other unions, even when they have no inherent reason to strike, and so on.

And public sector unions, like teachers, have much more power than private sector unions in strikes because they provide essential services that can't be easily and immediately purchased elsewhere. (There are not nearly enough private school spaces that could accommodate all students, even if parents could afford it.) In contrast, if workers at GM go on strike, people can buy from any other automaker. It's the competition that makes private sector strikes basically self-correcting.

[mahagonny]

Police unions are just doing what is normal for other unions. They use their influence to promote whatever they think will give them the most power in the long run. Other unions promote certain political candidates or parties, go on strike in support of other unions, even when they have no inherent reason to strike, and so on.

And public sector unions, like teachers, have much more power than private sector unions in strikes because they provide essential services that can't be easily and immediately purchased elsewhere. (There are not nearly enough private school spaces that could accommodate all students, even if parents could afford it.) In contrast, if workers at GM go on strike, people can buy from any other automaker. It's the competition that makes private sector strikes basically self-correcting.

I'd agree generally with the one exception that public college adjunct faculty unions are not noticeably more successful than private college ones. 'Part-time' hiring being the brilliant anti-labor ruse of our era which labor advocates have not really figure out how to counterattack. Adjunct advocacy has everything going against it structurally.
The problem with your broad brush approach to unions, Marshy, is that it accuses all unions from the mightily lion police union to the limping along mousey adjunct union of the same greed.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think stronger unions would be a good thing, in general. That doesn't mean I'm required to think all unions, everywhere, are making everything better, all the time. In the case of Police Unions, I don't have a problem with them negotiating pay and benefits-or some issues touching on the pay and discipline of police officers-but the police are an armed group charged with enforcing laws-so it seems troubling when you have unions routinely denying the right of elected leaders to regulate their conduct.

Police unions are just doing what is normal for other unions. They use their influence to promote whatever they think will give them the most power in the long run. Other unions promote certain political candidates or parties, go on strike in support of other unions, even when they have no inherent reason to strike, and so on.

Except that other unions don't typically go out of their way to cover up crimes and misconduct, to the point where the membership is almost entirely immune from consequences. If I beat up a student or fail them in retribution for writing their essay on a topic I disagree with them about, my union rep will be there to make sure the correct procedures are followed at the disciplinary hearing, but I'm gonna be toast. I wouldn't stand a chance, and rightly so.

[marshwiggle]

I think stronger unions would be a good thing, in general. That doesn't mean I'm required to think all unions, everywhere, are making everything better, all the time. In the case of Police Unions, I don't have a problem with them negotiating pay and benefits-or some issues touching on the pay and discipline of police officers-but the police are an armed group charged with enforcing laws-so it seems troubling when you have unions routinely denying the right of elected leaders to regulate their conduct.

Police unions are just doing what is normal for other unions. They use their influence to promote whatever they think will give them the most power in the long run. Other unions promote certain political candidates or parties, go on strike in support of other unions, even when they have no inherent reason to strike, and so on.

Except that other unions don't typically go out of their way to cover up crimes and misconduct, to the point where the membership is almost entirely immune from consequences. If I beat up a student or fail them in retribution for writing their essay on a topic I disagree with them about, my union rep will be there to make sure the correct procedures are followed at the disciplinary hearing, but I'm gonna be toast. I wouldn't stand a chance, and rightly so.

In that case, the problem is about the disciplinary process, rather than the union involvement.

(And the fact that the culture among police, religious orders, etc. may encourage cover-ups, that's not really going to depend on the presence or absence of a union, and the union certainly can't explicitly promote that.)

[mahagonny]

I'm a member of two unions, and I am a staunch supporter of unions in general. I and many members of other unions draw the line when unions defend systemic racism and murder. So, no, just because unions are protected by liberals does not mean liberals will not speak out and vote against the police union's aims to maintain systemic racism and protect murderers. I'll be the first in line to dismantle police unions, if it were actually possible.

See, honestly, this is where I, and tens of millions (not all ofays either) think liberal media and academics have been a problem contributing to counterproductive dialogue, needless escalation of tension. Speaking out against someone's excessive use of force is (do we dare mention him again?) applicable in the George Floyd case. But speaking out as though there was conclusive evidence of racial animus is not. This hasn't stopped the left from doing exactly that.
Our faculty union has its own 'anti-racism committee.' So every time they can say they've found more racism it's a win for them, justifying their importance.

Andy why the hell would I think and do otherwise? Where the hell would you get such an assumption that liberals and union members would defend police unions just because they are organized labor? Just because it would cost the left some political power and poke holes in the consistency of policy, doesn't mean the left has to abandon important principles that transcend unions and political power. Abandoning principles just to protect political power would be thinking and acting like a Republican . . . . .

...or a human being with a career and ambition.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think stronger unions would be a good thing, in general. That doesn't mean I'm required to think all unions, everywhere, are making everything better, all the time. In the case of Police Unions, I don't have a problem with them negotiating pay and benefits-or some issues touching on the pay and discipline of police officers-but the police are an armed group charged with enforcing laws-so it seems troubling when you have unions routinely denying the right of elected leaders to regulate their conduct.

Police unions are just doing what is normal for other unions. They use their influence to promote whatever they think will give them the most power in the long run. Other unions promote certain political candidates or parties, go on strike in support of other unions, even when they have no inherent reason to strike, and so on.

Except that other unions don't typically go out of their way to cover up crimes and misconduct, to the point where the membership is almost entirely immune from consequences. If I beat up a student or fail them in retribution for writing their essay on a topic I disagree with them about, my union rep will be there to make sure the correct procedures are followed at the disciplinary hearing, but I'm gonna be toast. I wouldn't stand a chance, and rightly so.

In that case, the problem is about the disciplinary process, rather than the union involvement.

(And the fact that the culture among police, religious orders, etc. may encourage cover-ups, that's not really going to depend on the presence or absence of a union, and the union certainly can't explicitly promote that.)

Sure, except to the extent that the union has helped to determine the nature of the disciplinary process (e.g. regulations stipulating that investigators must wait at least 48 hours before questioning a union member--a practice which we know is a serious problem when applied to the civilian population).

But in any event, you'll recall that my first post said:

Frankly, I'm not sure that focusing on police unions is the right thing to do--or, I'm not sure it's the right first step. While these unions do seem to need some kind of reform, the real underlying issue is gross negligence and criminality on the part of police officers, who are empowered to use violence against the rest of us. (That said, there is evidence that cops get more violent after they unionize, perhaps because they appreciate their increased immunity.) Police unions present obstacles that need to be removed--e.g. many unions have secured the right to wait at least 48 hours before interrogating officers for misconduct, which is an obvious worst practice--but the list of what's wrong with the cops is just a lot longer than the list of their union protections.

[mahagonny]

Here's your situation, though, Parasail:

The nation is never going to get a consensus to do what you want, abolishing all the police and starting over with something else. You've been reading the news. You can see where we are headed if that is advocated for strongly: civil war, and more hatred for academia (which some of us even within academia think would be deserved). However, there is something that could happen and that is legislation that would curtail the options and power of unions. You could pursue this, but only with the help of republicans. Chris Christie would be inviting you out to dinner in a heartbeat. But you'd have to be prepared for collateral damage to teacher's unions who want teachers to stay home with masks on instead of going back to work. Then again, some academics are enjoying making a good living studying problems and writing about them without having much interest in resolution. You could be one of those.

[Parasaurolophus]

Like I said, I don't think the union is the root cause of the problems. Its power merely exacerbates them. There are a lot of simpler, less draconian things you can do which would make an immediate difference, like abolishing upper IQ bounds, establishing independent investigations of complaints (and crimes and violent encounters), forbidding cops to lie about the evidence against you to your lawyer, eliminating waiting periods for interrogation of officers involved in violence or wrongdoing, making complaint and disciplinary records public, ensuring that officers fired for misconduct are unemployable as police officers in other jurisdictions, establishing stricter penalties for cops found guilty of crime, actually charging officers with crimes, charging those who abet them with obstruction, etc. Similarly, you could pretty easily legislate about standards of evidence and evidence training. No more bite mark evidence or lie detector tests, blood spatter, GSR, etc., dispel myths about "shedders" of DNA, and on and on.

I mean, for fuck's sake, I know of detectives who were found guilty of planting evidence who kept working for another 20 years afterwards (and, predictably, were responsible for several further wrongful convictions).

And on the prosecutorial side, we need to disempower prosecutors, who've arrogated the roles of judge and jury for themselves as well. When a prosecutor violates Brady, their career should be in jeopardy and their convictions subject to external review. Currently, there's basically no consequence to violating Brady, and prosecutors do it all the time. Worse, it's incredibly difficult to find out about it, and we typically don't for 10+ years after the conviction was secured. You also need to eliminate plea bargaining, and get rid of confessions entirely (the German model is instructive in both of these respects).

[mahagonny]

And on the prosecutorial side, we need to disempower prosecutors, who've arrogated the roles of judge and jury for themselves as well. When a prosecutor violates Brady, their career should be in jeopardy and their convictions subject to external review. Currently, there's basically no consequence to violating Brady, and prosecutors do it all the time. Worse, it's incredibly difficult to find out about it, and we typically don't for 10+ years after the conviction was secured. You also need to eliminate plea bargaining, and get rid of confessions entirely (the German model is instructive in both of these respects).

George Floyd accepted a plea bargain deal around 2009. As a result, he only got a five year sentence for aggravated robbery and left on parole. In Texas the sentence could have been up to 99 years. Did the system fail him?

[Parasaurolophus]

And on the prosecutorial side, we need to disempower prosecutors, who've arrogated the roles of judge and jury for themselves as well. When a prosecutor violates Brady, their career should be in jeopardy and their convictions subject to external review. Currently, there's basically no consequence to violating Brady, and prosecutors do it all the time. Worse, it's incredibly difficult to find out about it, and we typically don't for 10+ years after the conviction was secured. You also need to eliminate plea bargaining, and get rid of confessions entirely (the German model is instructive in both of these respects).

George Floyd accepted a plea bargain deal around 2009. As a result, he only got a five year sentence for aggravated robbery and left on parole. In Texas the sentence could have been up to 99 years. Did the system fail him?

Plea bargaining is a scourge, yes. It's coercion, pure and simple, and its whole purpose is to avoid using state resources to prove a case (and I should remind you that it's your constitutional right to be judged by a jury of your peers, to face your accusers and the evidence, etc.). It encourages people--including the innocent, especially those who've been coerced into confessing--to take prison time in exchange for less disruption to their lives. It concentrates power in the prosecutor's hands, it lowers standards of evidence, it encourages cops to lie about evidence (including to defence attorneys) and over-charge (IIRC they call this 'laddering' in the UK, and it's not allowed), it encourages false confessions, it means that the overwhelming majority of people in US prisons were never actually convicted of a crime, etc. They also don't make any sense, because you have to go in front of a judge and say that you're pleading guilty of your own free will and free from coercion--but every time there's a plea deal, you've been coerced.

It completely undermines due process and existing checks on the reliability and durability of evidence, as well as the idea that evidence is what puts you behind bars. IIRC, the latest figures indicate that at the federal level, ~97% of cases result in plea bargains, and ~94+% do at the state level.

If you're guilty and there's enough evidence against you to be confident about securing a conviction, they can be a good deal. The problem is that, by and large, they aren't offered in such cases; they're offered when there's a dearth of evidence for the charges being brought. It's a way for the cops and the DA to avoid actually investigating the case. And most public defenders will encourage you to take a plea deal, because the outcome is certain and eats up less of your and their time and resources. Plea bargaining bears significant responsibility for mass incarceration.

[mahagonny]

And on the prosecutorial side, we need to disempower prosecutors, who've arrogated the roles of judge and jury for themselves as well. When a prosecutor violates Brady, their career should be in jeopardy and their convictions subject to external review. Currently, there's basically no consequence to violating Brady, and prosecutors do it all the time. Worse, it's incredibly difficult to find out about it, and we typically don't for 10+ years after the conviction was secured. You also need to eliminate plea bargaining, and get rid of confessions entirely (the German model is instructive in both of these respects).

George Floyd accepted a plea bargain deal around 2009. As a result, he only got a five year sentence for aggravated robbery and left on parole. In Texas the sentence could have been up to 99 years. Did the system fail him?

Plea bargaining is a scourge, yes. It's coercion, pure and simple, and its whole purpose is to avoid using state resources to prove a case (and I should remind you that it's your constitutional right to be judged by a jury of your peers, to face your accusers and the evidence, etc.). It encourages people--including the innocent, especially those who've been coerced into confessing--to take prison time in exchange for less disruption to their lives. It concentrates power in the prosecutor's hands, it lowers standards of evidence, it encourages cops to lie about evidence (including to defence attorneys) and over-charge (IIRC they call this 'laddering' in the UK, and it's not allowed), it encourages false confessions, it means that the overwhelming majority of people in US prisons were never actually convicted of a crime, etc. They also don't make any sense, because you have to go in front of a judge and say that you're pleading guilty of your own free will and free from coercion--but every time there's a plea deal, you've been coerced.

It completely undermines due process and existing checks on the reliability and durability of evidence, as well as the idea that evidence is what puts you behind bars. IIRC, the latest figures indicate that at the federal level, ~97% of cases result in plea bargains, and ~94+% do at the state level.

If you're guilty and there's enough evidence against you to be confident about securing a conviction, they can be a good deal. The problem is that, by and large, they aren't offered in such cases; they're offered when there's a dearth of evidence for the charges being brought. It's a way for the cops and the DA to avoid actually investigating the case. And most public defenders will encourage you to take a plea deal, because the outcome is certain and eats up less of your and their time and resources. Plea bargaining bears significant responsibility for mass incarceration.

Not only all that, but Floyd only served a few years for the offense, which if he was guilty, was less than he deserved.

ETA:   and less justice and deterrence than victims of violent, armed home invasion & robbery need and deserve, because, in case it needs to be reiterated, all lives matter.

[permanent imposter]

Thank you for the info about plea bargains, Parasaurolophus. I see them used all the time in TV shows and I never thought about them in this way. I don't know anything about Floyd's prior crimes but if he was indeed coerced into a plea, that was time he spent in incarceration that he could've used to get help in a more humane environment.