• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Police & Judicial Corruption

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'd posted this story in a recent thread, but it deserves a thread of its own.

In it, William Ollie Alexander is convicted of raping a woman in his patrol car.
The jury found him guilty, & sentenced him to 10 years in prison.
The judge gave him a suspended sentence.
No prison time at all.
The judge said Alexander should serve in the community.

Cop found guilty of raping woman avoids prison | Metro News
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
From the stories we hear it would seem that that USA's police and legal system is at least dysfunctional.
It is more difficult to say if corruption is endemic or simply widespread.
I do not understand how the American people have allowed this to happen.
Or perhaps it is the logical result of it being so closely linked to politics, with all the leading offices being elected.

The corrupt political system is unlikely to change itself. Nor do I see any serious attempts to do anything about, it by anyone.

It is more likely to deteriorate rather than improve.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I'd posted this story in a recent thread, but it deserves a thread of its own.

In it, William Ollie Alexander is convicted of raping a woman in his patrol car.
The jury found him guilty, & sentenced him to 10 years in prison.
The judge gave him a suspended sentence.
No prison time at all.
The judge said Alexander should serve in the community.

Cop found guilty of raping woman avoids prison | Metro News

From reading the article, it appears the jury was persuaded by the argument that sending a former cop to prison would be tantamount to a death sentence.

The jury of eight men and four women reportedly deliberated more than two hours before announcing their decision. Prosecutors had asked them to sentence Alexander to at least 15 years in prison.

‘(The jurors) recommended that sentence be suspended to 10 years of probation,’ Carmona said.

‘They understand not all sexual assaults, even if there is a guilty verdict, warrant a prison sentence and this was one in which a jury felt that this is a case where Mr Alexander should not go to prison and should serve in the community.’
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I'd posted this story in a recent thread, but it deserves a thread of its own.

In it, William Ollie Alexander is convicted of raping a woman in his patrol car.
The jury found him guilty, & sentenced him to 10 years in prison.
The judge gave him a suspended sentence.
No prison time at all.
The judge said Alexander should serve in the community.

Cop found guilty of raping woman avoids prison | Metro News
Does this mean the jury determines the sentence? That's absurd.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
From reading the article, it appears the jury was persuaded by the argument that sending a former cop to prison would be tantamount to a death sentence.
However, the judge didn't have to go along with that recommendation.

I wonder....should no cop ever go to prison just because it would be dangerous?
But it's OK if prison is dangerous for civilians.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
However, the judge didn't have to go along with that recommendation.

I wonder....should no cop ever go to prison just because it would be dangerous?
But it's OK if prison is dangerous for civilians.

We have special arrangements for people likely to be in danger that way. But they still serve their sentences. Sentences of law enforcement officers is usually more severe than civilians. Because they are in positions of trust.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
We have special arrangements for people likely to be in danger that way. But they still serve their sentences. Sentences of law enforcement officers is usually more severe than civilians. Because they are in positions of trust.
That's how it should be.
Given more power, they should meet a higher standard,
& face stiffer sanctions for misfeasance & malfeasance.

What a state of affairs when cops can rape without even
facing prison time, eh. I can only hope that the victim
sues him, & ruins him financially for life. Government
should pay too.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
From reading the article, it appears the jury was persuaded by the argument that sending a former cop to prison would be tantamount to a death sentence.
Which if true is an another indictment of the US justice system.

The argument that justice can’t happen because you can’t control the prisons is not acceptable.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
However, the judge didn't have to go along with that recommendation.

I wonder....should no cop ever go to prison just because it would be dangerous?
But it's OK if prison is dangerous for civilians.

That's a good question. I've often heard it said that "the punishment must fit the crime," but would the former cop deserve a worse punishment than a civilian would if they committed the same crime?

The fact that prisons are dangerous is another issue related to police and judicial corruption. They ostensibly allow the gangs to take over and run the prisons, thus making prison a punishment only for the minor criminals and petty lawbreakers. In contrast, the more dangerous criminals are given preferential treatment so that prison is more like a resort than any actual "punishment."

 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That's a good question. I've often heard it said that "the punishment must fit the crime," but would the former cop deserve a worse punishment than a civilian would if they committed the same crime?
I believe their punishment should indeed be harsher because
it's necessary to control those who wield such great power.
But I oppose random extra-judicial punishment, eg, getting
"shanked" or raped in prison. Prisons in general should be
safer, ie, not places where assault is rampant.
The fact that prisons are dangerous is another issue related to police and judicial corruption. They ostensibly allow the gangs to take over and run the prisons, thus making prison a punishment only for the minor criminals and petty lawbreakers. In contrast, the more dangerous criminals are given preferential treatment so that prison is more like a resort than any actual "punishment."

 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Gawd, I had heard of him, although I'd forgotten his name.
And the townsfolk's solution to the problem occurred to me too.
But I thoughit it inappropriate to suggest it in RF (illegal in CA,
you know.)
I wasn't suggesting it. I just thought it was an interesting story about a guy who kept escaping justice due to an unreliable system, so the townsfolk did what they had to.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Wanna hear what's more corrupt?
The judge hearing a case will always side with what the police report says. Always.

They know they can get away with it.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe their punishment should indeed be harsher because
it's necessary to control those who wield such great power.

Yes, this makes sense. Some of the problem has to do with certain perceptions about the police, such as those who believe that police deserve special rights above that of the ordinary citizen. I often think of this every time there's a debate over gun rights. Some people believe that ordinary citizens shouldn't have guns, but the cops should. This is a very, very wrong way of thinking in a society which purports to support "equality."

But if we're not going to give civilians the same rights as police officers, then something else should be done to equalize the system and ensure justice. This might mean removing certain protections that an ordinary suspect might have, such as the right be considered innocent until proven guilty. In my view, cops and other government officials give up that right when they enter public service. They want all the privileges and power that come with the job, so they have to be willing to give something up in return.

So, if someone accuses a cop, the burden should be on the cop to prove his innocence. That would be one way of ensuring justice and discouraging corruption.

But I oppose random extra-judicial punishment, eg, getting
"shanked" or raped in prison. Prisons in general should be
safer, ie, not places where assault is rampant.

That's where prisons seem to take some kind of backwards approach. The ones who are the worst criminals, the ones who deserve the harshest punishments - they go to prison and live like kings. While those who are minor criminals get harsher punishments than they deserve - or they might join the gangs in prison and come out an even more hardened and dangerous criminal than when they went in.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
In some countries it seems that if one doesn't resist rape in some specific manner then it isn't rape, even though we tend to know that people vary as to how they react to such assaults.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, this makes sense. Some of the problem has to do with certain perceptions about the police, such as those who believe that police deserve special rights above that of the ordinary citizen. I often think of this every time there's a debate over gun rights. Some people believe that ordinary citizens shouldn't have guns, but the cops should. This is a very, very wrong way of thinking in a society which purports to support "equality."

But if we're not going to give civilians the same rights as police officers, then something else should be done to equalize the system and ensure justice. This might mean removing certain protections that an ordinary suspect might have, such as the right be considered innocent until proven guilty. In my view, cops and other government officials give up that right when they enter public service. They want all the privileges and power that come with the job, so they have to be willing to give something up in return.

So, if someone accuses a cop, the burden should be on the cop to prove his innocence. That would be one way of ensuring justice and discouraging corruption.



That's where prisons seem to take some of backwards approach. The ones who are the worst criminals, the ones who deserve the harshest punishments - they go to prison and live like kings. While those who are minor criminals get harsher punishments than they deserve - or they might join the gangs in prison and come out an even more hardened and dangerous criminal than when they went in.
One right I say public servants should lose is the right against entrapment.
As a means of auditing their honesty & competence, they should be regularly
exposed to tempting & challenging tests...without knowing it's a test.
They should fear that any wrong they do is monitored by an independent authority.
 
Top