This approach risks having prosecutors pursue cases involving officers with credibility problems without being aware of the officers’ history - let alone disclosing that information to the defense. In addition, some prosecutors’ offices do not gather disciplinary information from their local police departments. Instead, line prosecutors primarily share information with each other about police officers by word-of-mouth and anecdotally, if they share it at all. Unfortunately, many prosecutors don’t track police misconduct in an organized, systematic way.
This can be an important tool in accountability when other avenues of discipline can’t or won’t be pursued. That’s the only way to keep them from tainting the pursuit of justice in prosecutions while, just as important, sending a message to police departments that they will suffer consequences if problematic officers are allowed to stay on the job. Prosecutors need to be better informed about which police officers have engaged in misconduct to prevent those officers from being involved in their cases. Without a process to track police misconduct, prosecutors often don’t know when they are relying on testimony from compromised officers, undermining their trials and the trustworthiness of their cases.
But we are also aware that officers with histories of misconduct are often allowed to stay on the force - and continue to participate in arrests. We know from firsthand experience that the vast majority of police officers work hard and serve their communities honorably.
Opinion We watched dozens of videos of the NYPD abusing protesters.
0 kommentar(er)
