I called the police on the police for reckless driving in Canada and they were pulled over promptly. RCMP really doesn't like it when their reputation is soiled by 'the locals'. Best police force I've interacted with across all countries where I've visited and lived combined. It only happened once but it really made me feel that 'the system works' when those that uphold the law are not above the law.

To be clear, qualified immunity is entirely a judicial branch legal principle, and not a law that was passed by the legislative branch.

"while the courts judge if they are followed or not."

Or in the case of qualified immunity, create it out of thin air.

I’m not sure that works. I’m tact, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.

The situation you have to avoid is when higher ups ALSO want to sweep something under the rug to make their own numbers look better.

There has to be some sort of teeth for those who hire, train, and manage bad cops.

With qualified immunity the only people allowed to enforce that are prosecutors, but they often can't afford to jeopardize their relationship with police. Federal prosecutors are further removed from local cops and have better incentives on that front, but they often run into issues around jurisdiction.

The point of repealing qualified immunity is to let the victims sue as a means of enforcing checks on police.

A few ideas I like:

- Make police get individual insurance, similarly to doctors. Malpractice should have a monetary impact that doesn't hurt the taxpayer.

- A mirror to the DA, exclusively for prosecuting crimes committed by police. Remove the conflict of interest with the current DA system.

- Make police have some form of practitioners license, and have a board that can revoke it, similarly to the BAR association.

- Mandatory N years of desk duty after being involved in a fatal shooting (regardless of justification)

In today's political climate (including the current Supreme Court which is pretty strongly political), the most likely answer is local jurisdictions who have been paying out millions in civil penalties for this behavior. They won't be able to enforce criminal liability, but they could start making changes to training, use of force policies, hiring, etc. If the jurisdictions start taking out insurance to pay these claims, then the insurance companies will probably start mandating changes as well.

DA's office. Its separate from the police for a reason

Why couldn't the judge?'

Just do things the normal way...and the sentence is announced... oh, you're a cop, and were on duty. Multiply any sentence/fine/community service by 1.5.

The key, as I see it, is less about what the number is, or the details, but that's something very black and white. I'm normally really not a fan of "zero tolerance" type rules but I think this is a case where it makes sense.

> who is going to enforce that?

That's exactly why the penalties should be greater. The deterrence factor is a function of both the size of the penalty and the chance of being caught & prosecuted. If the chance of being caught and prosecuted is lower, then the penalty has to be higher for it to have a similar deterrence effect.

Prosecutors, if they'd do their jobs.

Since we ( hopefully ) do not have an army of cops to arrest set up independent specialized task force just for that.

Isn't this what Internal Affairs are for?

Classic "Who watches the watchmen?"

More importantly it’s not a law at all. It’s as you say a doctrine established by the courts. If congress wanted to improve civil protections from the police, they would clarify the law and end qualified immunity as a doctrine. It’s absurd this stems from the courts.

Your analogy is flawed. If someone is a board/director in a company they have additional scrutiny. Why would they ever take that job?

The question should be, would otherwise great people NOT join the force if such a control isn't in place?

Also, without controls - you attract exactly the wrong people (power-hungry bullies).

To avoid increased penalties, they just need to not commit crimes. That shouldn't present a problem at all. They have a great deal of expertise in the practical applications of the law and thus should be really well-equipped to follow it.

It should incentivize them to act with a high degree of professionalism and regard for the law. What’s the point of granting them extraordinary powers over life and liberty if they’re not held to a higher, not lower, standard?

People who work for a broker or market making bank are heavily scrutinized and they, their family, and to some degree associates (room mates, etc) are restricted in their basic conduct - political activity, investing, etc, and face increased penalties for financial crimes vs the average person. It’s telling we hold our money handlers to a higher standard than the armed representatives of the government with extraordinary rights to deprive people of their liberty and life. Money is more important than our freedom and safety?

On recruiting officers by making the job come with the perks of immunity for criminal behavior, seems like we should find another strategy. If you can’t identify yourself as the police before you beat someone half to death, maybe you’re not qualified to be a law enforcement officer? Maybe we should be glad they wouldn’t take the job if it came with reasonable protections for the people they’re supposed to be protecting?

> How does that incentivize people to be Police?

Why should we incentivize people to be "Police" where "police" implies a free license to abuse civilians? In fact, people who are deterred by an abuse license repeal are probably the right people to deter from service jobs like policing.

The question as phrased assumes that the primary incentive for joining the police is impunity for casual lawlessness. That's dystopian.

You could also ask the same question of skilled martial artists and armed forces veterans. Both classes can face higher penalties, but that doesn't deter people from becoming Army Rangers or karate black belts.