Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Or an incentive not to investigate, which would be the result if any of these assinine theories were put into practice.

The only reduction in incentives is because the actual cost of poor search tactics is not transparent. It's hidden in evidentiary rulings that make conviction of likely guilty defendants more difficult.

So, what you're saying is that as soon as the public realizes what a terrible job the cops are doing--because they're paying damages instead of reducing the chances of conviction--the cops will stop doing their job altogether. If that is in fact the response, then it seems a) the public should see that attitude and b) those cops should be replaced with someone who will do the job, and do it according to the law.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"The only thing he [Rove] could dispense would be low, pitiable moans."

I can't believe how happy this sentence makes me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/15/D8CL34SO7.html

[Arnold terminates junk food]

2. Good stuff, especially if he can figure out how to make kids eat broccoli instead. But he's not superhuman.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The only reduction in incentives is because the actual cost of poor search tactics is not transparent. It's hidden in evidentiary rulings that make conviction of likely guilty defendants more difficult.

So, what you're saying is that as soon as the public realizes what a terrible job the cops are doing--because they're paying damages instead of reducing the chances of conviction--the cops will stop doing their job altogether. If that is in fact the response, then it seems a) the public should see that attitude and b) those cops should be replaced with someone who will do the job, and do it according to the law.

Not exactly. What I'm saying is that if you put potential personal liability on the cops, the result will be a decrease in investigative success (not a perfect phrase, but I think you know what I mean). No one is going to go out on a limb at their job if it is going to effect them personally, especially at the rates we pay cops.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/15/D8CL34SO7.html

[Arnold terminates junk food]

It's just going to drive it underground. Shady characters will hang by the fences bordering school property, muttering to kids who happen to stray too close, "Hey, kid, wanna buy a soda? I got Coke, Pepsi, Diet Dr. Pepper? Oh, you wanna do the Dew? That'll cost ya, kid..."



Mountain Dew - legalize it!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Although it's just relating a story from the LA Times:

• MARCHING BACKWARDS. It's long been understood that there are several different strains of insurgency in Iraq. What one would want to accomplish is to weaken the hand of the hard-core jihadis centered around Abu Musab al-Zarqawi through a combination of killing them and making them toxic in the eyes of public opinion. Then, other insurgent groups with less millenarian agendas could be bargained with and incorporated into the political process. But as this LA Times report details, the reverse is happening.
  
  Zarqawi's followers used to be overwhelmingly outsiders, aligned with popular Sunni Arab resistance movements but fundamentally separate from them. But thanks to the combination of ever-growing Sunni alienation from the American-backed government and Zarqawi's superior logistical capacity, native-born Iraqis are increasingly rallying to his standard. On the one hand, this makes Iraq's problems harder to solve. On the other hand, it makes America's global jihad problem much worse. Even if things take a turn for the better in Iraq at some point (which is optimistic) and the insurgency goes away or quiets down, we're not going to be able to trap and kill all of Zarqawi's followers. Most of them will just leave (after all, Iraq's security forces can't be expected to try that hard to keep lethal killers inside their borders), only to strike elsewhere, complete with extensive practical training from the Iraq War.
  
  This is what they call the Class of 2005 problem in counterterrorism circles. But depending on what America does in Iraq, we may well see Classes of 2006, 2007, and 2008 also graduating in years to come with Zarqawi attracting ever-more followers as our presence in Iraq "wrecks the possibility, however remote, of any form of national reconciliation" there.

Yglesias at TAPPED

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not exactly. What I'm saying is that if you put potential personal liability on the cops, the result will be a decrease in investigative success (not a perfect phrase, but I think you know what I mean). No one is going to go out on a limb at their job if it is going to effect them personally, especially at the rates we pay cops.

Which is why I said put it on the police department, not the individual. Use the same internal punishment mechanisms as currently exist for sloppy police work, whatever they may be. Under either system the incentives should exist for the PD to avoid illegal searches because they have costs (whether monetary or lost convictions).

The example of penalizing the cops directly was merely to illustrate that one surely could come up with a system that would create better incentives than the exclusionary rule for police to do their jobs properly. As it is now, the incentives for police to do their job right are very attenuated and their performance is very opaque. Both would change if it's damages actions instead of the exclusionary rule.

ETA: And, btw, you can always indemnify the cops, which gets the same result as putting it on the PD. Bottom line is that the exclusionary rule hides the true costs of poorly handled investigations, with only criminals benefitting.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The example of penalizing the cops directly was merely to illustrate that one surely could come up with a system that would create better incentives than the exclusionary rule for police to do their jobs properly. As it is now, the incentives for police to do their job right are very attenuated and their performance is very opaque. Both would change if it's damages actions instead of the exclusionary rule.

And I disagree that it's a better incentive.

ETA: And, btw, you can always indemnify the cops, which gets the same result as putting it on the PD. Bottom line is that the exclusionary rule hides the true costs of poorly handled investigations, with only criminals benefitting.

So an already strapped PD looses additional funds? That seems to me to be an inopposite result. And I don't think it's "criminals" that are benefitting. I think all of us benefit by making sure the G doesn't run ruff-shot over our civil rights.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub


So an already strapped PD looses additional funds? That seems to me to be an inopposite result. And I don't think it's "criminals" that are benefitting. I think all of us benefit by making sure the G doesn't run ruff-shot over our civil rights.

If they do their jobs well, then no.

And, as I've said before, either approach can be structured to ensure the incentives are to respect civil rights; it's just that one gives the benefit to the least deserving person.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If they do their jobs well, then no.

My guess, based on nothing other than a guess, is that most of the time that the exclusionary rule has a real effect is at the margins, so it is not a matter of doing a job well, but rather a matter of taking a risk in the grey area.

And, as I've said before, either approach can be structured to ensure the incentives are to respect civil rights; it's just that one gives the benefit to the least deserving person.

I guess I'm focussing more on the down side. Agreed that the criminal that gets off is not deserving, but I think that is better than taking funds away from the PD or de-incentivizing individual cops and thereby hurting us all.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Ty@50
Do you mean your now or my now?

I think what ncs was missing is that once the intelligent design behind the concept of time travel was discovered, it not only allowed the futurists, like Ty@50 and BillGates@70, to travel back in time, but forward as well, in addition to allowing them to have visits from futurists from a future date beyond their present, i.e Ty@50 has probably been visited by Ty@70, who may be lurking here now (bringing new meaning to the phrase "longtime lurker").

No?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
2. Good stuff, especially if he can figure out how to make kids eat broccoli instead.

2. He can cram it down their throats for starters. These kids today need a strong hand lest they grow up to be undisciplined liberal rabble rousers.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Most of them will just leave (after all, Iraq's security forces can't be expected to try that hard to keep lethal killers inside their borders), only to strike elsewhere, complete with extensive practical training from the Iraq War.

Here's a thought, wholesale killing of all the terrorists. Maybe its time to pull out the nukes. Future generations will thank us.......Ty@110 told me so.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Here's a thought, wholesale killing of all the terrorists. Maybe its time to pull out the nukes. Future generations will thank us.......Ty@110 told me so.

That line between Bush conservatism and self-parody is such a thin one.

[Captain]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not exactly. What I'm saying is that if you put potential personal liability on the cops, the result will be a decrease in investigative success (not a perfect phrase, but I think you know what I mean). No one is going to go out on a limb at their job if it is going to effect them personally, especially at the rates we pay cops.

In the old days, the days of the Founders, the local constabulary had any number of opportunities to become relatively wealthy, and they were positions of much higher respect than they are now. It didn't come in the form of salary, but instead in the form of political standing and access to governmental largesse like land purchases (speculating in frontier land was one of the biggest ways to advance economically).

However, this also meant higher standards and higher penalties. There are plenty of stories of sheriffs literally coming to physical violence when they abused their position, and jailing an officer would not have been unheard of.

I think part of why we're reluctant to put our crime-fighters at risk for abusing their position is that their position really isn't worth the risk. But, that means we're left with Miranda as a solution, and it is not the most logical one.

I think the idea of holding the department accountable is interesting, but it does mean that if you get a crummy police department, it is likely to only get worse as they pay claim after claim. You'd likely need a way to taking over those departments entirely.