There have been many reports lately about police misconduct and brutality. While the occasional error in judgement is to be expected – they’re humans after all – it does raise an interesting point. Should police officers be held to a higher standard than the general public?
On the one hand, police officers are human. It can be argued that requiring a higher standard of behaviour from them than from the general population is unreasonable. After all, they are only human. Indeed, it could be successfully argued that such a requirement would be discriminatory.
On the other hand, police officers are in a position of authority. They have the power to make ordinary citizens’ lives miserable by taking actions that are necessarily within their power. They also generally hold a position of trust which makes such actions even easier. That is, they are generally trusted as witnesses in courts, among other things. Thus, it is even harder for the general citizen to fight back against any abuses that do occur.
Finally, it is very common that any complaints against a police force are investigated by the very same police force. Even if it is a different department within the force, it is still the same force. In cases where that isn’t the case, there is often a sort of brotherhood which leads to a bias in favour of the accused.
It seems to me that it is not only reasonable to require a much higher standard of behaviour from our police officers, but it is also desirable. Because they hold a position of trust and authority, they can do a great deal more damage than an ordinary citizen. That necessarily compounds any crimes they commit because it gives them additional power to cover them up or otherwise get away with them. I don’t think anyone who looks at the situation objectively would necessarily disagree, at least in principle.
How we achieve this accountability is another matter, and I don’t have a good answer here.
The best I can come up with is that punishments for people in positions of trust and authority should be much harsher than those for ordinary citizens. Leaving aside what defines such a position, that has a problem in many countries. It would mean the laws would have to have two separate penalties, the correct one of which would have to be chosen at conviction. This codified discrimination would seem to be counter to at least one constitution.
Perhaps the actual crimes should continue to carry the same penalties but have an additional crime (abuse of authority or what have you) that carries a very stiff penalty. Then, consideration of such a charge would need to be mandatory in certain circumstances (not mandatory conviction, but consideration before the court). Such a law would require some careful consideration before being instituted, however. There must also be a severe penalty for abuse of such a statute. (For instance, if persons in authority frame another under the statute, then those guilty of the frame-up should face an even harsher penalty than was originally imposed.)
In my not so humble opinion, the same standards should be applied to judges, elected representatives, and even government appointees.
Of course, this is all my opinion. I reserve the right to change my mind for any reason whatsoever in the future.