What's the statistic for police officers who kill someone, go to prison, and then kill again when they are released?
Key witness in Botham Jean case shot to death.
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
Lexicus
Deity
I don't think the data on police shootings are good enough to let you assert this.
Oh okay, so now we're playing out this part of the script:
Let me just assure you that if this scenario had played out exactly the same way but with roles reversed, and the male immigrant of color got a 25-to-life sentence I would be calling it too harsh. I would be saying, as I am saying now, that it was not a premeditated murder and the person who did it knows they did something wrong, and that an excessive sentence serves no purpose other than satisfying our lizard brains.
Hardly any police officers who kill people go to prison or indeed face any consequences at all.
I am open to data suggesting that harsh punishments for police officers have a deterrent effect, but I doubt that such data exists. I will say that one big exception to the deterrence myth is white-collar crime, where a credible threat of jail time actually does deter criminal actors. But I think police shootings are mostly better thought of as crimes of passion. There are exceptions of course. But I honestly think the real solution here is disarming police officers under most circumstances and changing police training to emphasize deescalation rather than handing out harsh sentences to officers who kill people.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Direct answer: I think he'd be dead.
To the actual question, that's a good argument that the sentence should be stiffer and for what it's worth I agree. But it's not a deterrence argument. 10 years probably gets as much deterrent effect out of the cage as there is to be had. That it's unfair in light of the greater social and human context is part of the latter concerns.
Number of police in USA (google) = 686,665
Number of police shootings in USA (nature) = 1,165
Number of homicides in USA (wikipedia) = 15,498
Population of USA (google) = 327,200,000
Killings per police officer = 0.001696606
Killings per USA person = 4.736553e-05
Ratio = ~36
It does not even seem close to me.
1. Fair enough. I think ten for murder specifically (and maybe one or two other vicious crimes) isn't long enough, and that we have life sentences for a reason (or are meant to). Bearing in mind this is ten years at most - there is plenty evidence of life imprisonments that don't actually last that long. I'm happy to agree to disagree, because I both understand where you're coming from and am aware I could be wrong on how useful these sentences actually are. I'm more interested in exploring the ideal vs. what we currently have anyhow.
2. There are plenty of things that "resemble" other things. Conflating my views with a viewpoint you find easier to argue against when I've taken pains to separate out my views with nuance is not very helpful. The deterrence effect being a myth is something that needs citing. For America. Benefically, for specific areas in America with a comparable cultural makeup and police impact (on general society as well as crime). That's the problem - that's why these things are impossible to legislate with any degree of fairness (even at a state level, I reckon). In that, I can see why you'd want to do away with the whole thing. I want such fine-tuned judgement that the judgement becomes more fair (for specific cases), but naturally, that's somewhat idealistic too.
However, and I think the core issue here is what you believe vs. what I believe. If what you believe is wrong, other peoples' lives are at risk. You can't say the same of my principle in this specific case. That's why I have such trouble getting on board with "oh I think she might have a long road ahead of her and she'll be fine eventually" because of the potential stakes involved. And it's not just her, right? It's the environment she goes back to if let out early (or at all). She could go back with the best of intentions and still return to a corrupt institution.
I do not support mass incarceration, I do not think it is fine. But I think choosing to make the case of a white police officer jailed for shooting a minority your poster case for the unfairness of the prison system in America is an incredibly poor choice. There are many other examples to fight that battle with that don't go near racial power dynamics and cop-civilian power dynamics (at the same time). There will always be exceptions - you cannot claim there won't be. This is not me justifying the norm by citing the exception, this is me pointing out that this is an exception and should be treated as such.
Don't make an exceptional case (which a police officer actually doing jail time definitely qualifies for) relate to the cultural norm - it's not fair on people unfairly imprisoned. It's not fair on the racial aspect to law and order in the US in general. It will not help you reach the aim of prison abolition, because advocating on this specific case will only help people in that specific privileged demographic. Like I said in an earlier post - the fairness won't extend both ways.
Last edited:
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Principles that adjust generally rather than grudgingly to who we apply them to aren't very good principles. Which is why this is a conversation in the first place. 10 years is too light, the most trivially important reason of which is it's unusually light. Manslaughter is out of place for the action that happened, and 2nd degree murder runs 20 to heavier, generally. And yes, that's assuming we didn't have enough to prove it was 1st, and it could have been. But again, that's always relevant.(The context here being the application of Texas law being interpreted across a wide variety of other places. The conviction in Texas was for "murder" but not "capital murder(Death or life without parole (Parole eligible after 40 years if under 18))" carrying a sentence of (5 to 99 years or life (possibility of parole after at least 30 years. If sentencing is less than 30 years, person will serve half the sentence before parole.)).
(per wiki)
(per wiki)
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
Police officers carry guns around while on duty and are exposed to far more violent situations than the average member of the general population. I think you still need more work to show that police officers are more likely to kill people than the general population given similar circumstances.
Okay, I'll put it more strongly: you are just making the exact same debunked arguments that were made successfully to get us to the status quo of mass incarceration.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
In particular numbers 2 and 4
And I'm sorry, but in light of arguments you're making here, I can't find this credible. You are evidently unwilling to actually do anything to change mass incarceration because
The risk is too great. We can't let these criminals out, they might hurt more people. Willie Horton, all the way.
Okay, who is doing that? Am I doing that? How does "the sentence she got is appropriate" make her into "my poster case for the unfairness of the prison system in America"? You realize how silly that sounds right?
That is not the claim I made, though I will admit it would be the most appropriate metric. Are you arguing that the amount of people american police kill is not a problem?
Yikes.
@Lexicus, I cannot have any straight discussion when you repeatedly switch from discussing a singular case to generalising something about someone's beliefs. You literally just took my opinion on a single murder case (perhaps related at best to officers belonging to a majority demographic murdering minorities, which is more than a single case, admittedly) and generalised it to make it sound like something I believe is applicable to all criminals and all sentences.
PM me if you want to continue, I don't want to be a part of this mischaracterisation anymore.
@Lexicus, I cannot have any straight discussion when you repeatedly switch from discussing a singular case to generalising something about someone's beliefs. You literally just took my opinion on a single murder case (perhaps related at best to officers belonging to a majority demographic murdering minorities, which is more than a single case, admittedly) and generalised it to make it sound like something I believe is applicable to all criminals and all sentences.
PM me if you want to continue, I don't want to be a part of this mischaracterisation anymore.
Lexicus
Deity
Good lord, no. I already said I think the police should be mostly disarmed. My view is that would be more effective at reducing police killings than handing out long jail sentences would be. And I believe that view is borne out by the data showing that severity of punishment does not increase the deterrence effect of punishment. In fact, if we go by item number 1 in the link there:
Merely bringing officers who commit murder to justice reliably, not necessarily handing them long sentences, will provide a deterrent effect.
My argument is that this distinction you're trying to draw is irrelevant and we cannot view this case in isolation from the larger context. Mass incarceration is made of millions of individual cases like this one, and our current sentencing regime which results in a ridiculously high prison population is based on arguments exactly like those you're making in this case.
If it is genuinely true that you would not apply the kinds of arguments you're making here to other criminal cases, then I respectfully submit that you are allowing the specific circumstances of this case to cloud your judgment.
(edit: and I hasten to add I find the circumstances of this case sickening, just as I assume you do)
Last edited:
I agree with what you say here. I just also think that giving them sentences equivalent to what the rest of the population get would also help.
Lexicus
Deity
Well, yeah, I agree with that but am not sure it is particularly relevant to this case. I like to think an ordinary citizen would have gotten a similar or equal sentence had they accidentally shot someone after going to the wrong apartment. Maybe that is wrong but as I said if the roles here were reversed I would be calling a 25-to-life sentence for Botham Jean unjust and counterproductive.
Yeah, I think we really agree with each other. I will point out that even if you believe her narrative, she did not accidentally shoot someone. She intentionally shot someone who she erroneously believed she was legally allowed to shoot. In most of the world what she thought she was doing would have got her more than a 10 years sentence (I think, not really sure about sentences for this sort of thing).
Lexicus
Deity
Yes, fair correction, I actually re-read my post there and was like "accidentally? why did I put that word there?" All I meant was that the murder was not planned ahead of time. It was not accidental, but it was also not premeditated.
Okay, there are a couple of things in here to discuss:
1. The distinction is never irrelevant. You cannot hope to change the law without precedent. Individual cases matter, for better and for worse. You cannot abolish the prison structure in its current form without either legislation or violent revolution. And even violent revolution will still need a way to handle dissidents, murderers, etc, et al (something I find lacking when I normally talk with anarchist types only). I'm assuming your ideas don't trend that way (not judging if they do, just assuming for the sake of not typing forever that they don't).
2. I'm specifically saying that judgement should be contextual with regards to power dynamics. It often isn't! In terms of punitive justice, that is. There are plenty of people that avoid jail time due to preferential treatment wrt. the power structures they operate in. The whole take on why this is a relatively unique situation is because cops rarely get punished in any comparable manner. My objection to you is you're using this as "but mass incarceration is bad" (it is), when people are still incarcerated for much less, and keeping Guyger's sentence at ten years, or whatever, isn't going to help them or help you reach the state of abolition you desire.
It is deeply unfair that a minority can be shot by a white police officer and the white police officer do less time than a minority accused of possessing drugs (I don't have a link to hand, but that's not a hard one to search for). Defending the current sentence as being "enough" isn't going to help fix that. You haven't demonstrated why it could, or it would. All you've done is pass negative associations on anyone who thinks this woman isn't doing enough time. This is the divide between the larger context and this individual case that you're handwaving away as irrelevant. Nevermind getting into the tangent about police structures in the US, what they reinforce, and how they themselves contribute to prison culture. Maybe if police officers actually suffered consequences for their actions more often, they'd be less likely to arrest people at the drop of a hat! I can't say that for sure, just like you can't say for sure that Guyger won't re-offend.
But don't do me the disservice and assume that that correlation could never occur. Your refutation of any long-term incarceration regardless of the power and race dynamics at play is a failing, and will not help you reach your goal of prison abolition. This is also meant with respect, as you put your words to me. I am genuinely of the belief that this will not help you, because you need to understand the pain and corruption in the demographics and power structures at play in order to undo them. This cannot always be done in a purely logical manner.
zxcvbob
Emperor
That's a trick question; if he's an illegal alien he might not get any prison time at all. (the guy who shot Kate Steinle) Of course she wan't a police officer, so that's probably not a fair example. Cory Maye is a better example but still not perfect because the cop he shot wasn't a female. He barely escaped off of death row even though the shooting was justified.
Lexicus
Deity
Okay, and what you are arguing here imo violates a fundamental principle of justice, which is that a defendant's sentence should be based on the facts of their case, not "power dynamics" or their racial or gender identity or anything else. You are basically just arguing for
And I am just not going to agree with that position and you are not going to convince me to agree. My opinion on the sentence in this case is based on the facts of this case. You're right that I "refut[e] long-term incarceration regardless of the power and race dynamics at play" because tailoring jail sentences to the race of the defendant is transparently unjust. Giving white people, even white cops, long jail sentences because black people are treated unfairly by the justice system does not accomplish the objective of justice, and you will find that in fact it worsens mass incarceration. If this had been a premeditated murder I would support a longer sentence. I would support life sentences in some other cases. Hell, I'm fine with literally executing almost everyone who's currently in ICE, not because of "racial or power dynamics" but because the crimes they're committing are actually very serious and I believe we need to send a message that if you serve as a concentration-camp guard in the US you will be hanged, no excuses about lawful orders or any of that crap.
Reasonable individuals can disagree about the sentence in this case, but if you want to argue for a longer sentence don't give me a line about "racial and power dynamics," make your argument based on the facts of the case.
Except the facts of a case are, in fact, contextual. The fact of a cop shooting a minority is different from the fact of a cop shooting a cop. The need for nuance in judgement (and justice as a whole) is precisely why these kinds of cases are presented in court! If it was "kill someone, get ten years" for anyone who killed anyone ever, you could attempt to dismiss power dynamics in the way that you're doing, but these dynamics are relevant to the case. The fact that cops are trained to protect is relevant to the case. A cop failing to protect a marginalised minority should absolutely carry a greater weight than failing to protect a less marginalised demographic. They're both still failures, factually, but the irresponsible nature of the failing is weighted differently.
It's not "tailoring jail sentences to the race of the defendant". It's examining the severity of the crime with respect to how a police officer is supposed to conduct themselves. You even say you agree with such in the case of ICE, which means this isn't actually an argument about whatever facts you consider to relate to the case. It's coming from your own personal judgement of what contextual factors matter, and you've already admitted that you see Guyver getting better with time. Yet you don't see that redemption for ICE agents (when it's technically possible, however abhorrent their current actions). This is your bias, and I'm honestly amazed you can't see it.
It's not "tailoring jail sentences to the race of the defendant". It's examining the severity of the crime with respect to how a police officer is supposed to conduct themselves. You even say you agree with such in the case of ICE, which means this isn't actually an argument about whatever facts you consider to relate to the case. It's coming from your own personal judgement of what contextual factors matter, and you've already admitted that you see Guyver getting better with time. Yet you don't see that redemption for ICE agents (when it's technically possible, however abhorrent their current actions). This is your bias, and I'm honestly amazed you can't see it.
Lexicus
Deity
First of all: I have never claimed that ten years is Objectively the Correct Sentence. If you look back through the thread you will see I have framed my opinion that it is an appropriate sentence as an opinion throughout.
The cases of ICE officers are different than this one because those officers are committing crimes in the scope of their duties. In this case the cop was off-duty; the murder was not committed by her in her capacity as a police officer (contrast with the high-profile case of Laquan McDonald's murder which also involved a department-wide cover-up of the crime).
Okay, but these aren't the arguments you've been making until now. Like I said it's possible for reasonable people to disagree about the sentence on this case, based on the facts of this case. I've made my point here and I don't see anything to add; if you disagree that is fine, and we can agree to disagree as far as I'm concerned. I obviously think you've failed to demonstrate that any social purpose would be served by a longer sentence here.
I didn't say you did say it was objectively the correct sentence. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. My concern was you've already drawn up conclusions as to which group of people in various incidents are more forgivable than others, and you reason backwards from there.
Personally, I don't see much difference between being on-duty and off-duty. She's still a trained police officer, just like I'm a trained software developer. I don't forget all my knowledge and rulesets the moment I walk out the office, and they most definitely colour my general hobbies and day to day interests. The amount of press police (and the army, in the UK as well) get for being vocational, for being a calling, means it's very hard to make this kind of separation in my opinion. It's endemic to the system (for good and for bad - to take a more innocent example, teaching, it's beneficial that people want to teach. The danger is exploiting that want to get maximum value for minimal wage. Capitalism, etc).
I don't know if ten years is enough. I don't know what enough is, is the problem. And the fact that there's any jail time at all is good (though I also agree that the first high profile prosecution happens to be against a woman is probably worth exploring too - I think someone, maybe Mary, pointed that out previously). I'm not incapable of seeing the good that something has actually happened relating to justice. But this all came out of your value judgement for people wanting more, which lead you to make some assumptions of the general position and anyone whose arguments went near it. I'm trying to not lose sight of that - not to hang onto it, but so I don't let this become an argument it shouldn't be (from either of us)
My mistake is that I assumed I wouldn't need to. I'm not putting you down, I genuinely didn't expect to have to say anything more than "power dynamics" for you to know what I mean. Anyhow:
1. More faith that police officers are held to the same standards as others who commit similar crimes.
2. More faith that white offenders are held to the same standards are non-white offenders.
The context here isn't an eye for an eye, it's ensuring that the justice system still continues to work. Public faith in any justice system - however idealistic - only works if people trust in it. If people get watered-down sentences and the only difference between that and another case is the colour of their skin, or their status in society, then that needs examining! As does the comparable abuse of the power involved. An easy example would be Brock Turner (and he's not alone in getting reduced sentences due to being young / popular / athletic / whatever). You mentioned prison violence, and the treatment of rapists earlier. While a lot of it is crappy prison conditions and how culture there has evolved and been weaponised, a lot of it is because of these unjust sentences that don't accurately reflect any crime committed. Meanwhile you have black kids being shot for holding toy guns, black women being shot in an open carry state by officers that didn't identify themselves, and goodness knows what else. It's not holding someone to an unnecessarily harsh standard - it's holding them to the right standard, and trying to figure what that is on a case by case basis.
Notably, trust is a key component to any solution that strives to abolish the prison system in any major Western country. There's precious little of that going around at the moment, which is why I'm inherently distrustful of arguments that revolve around the dangers of white police officers being in jail for too long. It's why I've consistently and carefully not tried to apply this to any other kind of case. This case is more of an exception than any I've seen in recent years, in my opinion. I understand your long-term worries, and how it can be abused to support mass incarceration, I do get that. But my worries are more short term, and applicable to any kind of justice that the black community might see in Dallas in the months or even years to come (in terms of prison abolition, I honestly consider that short term. It's not an easy road to walk).
Similar threads
