For bad crimes.
Worse than civilians?

Should they get the same penil ties?

Or

Less harsh for bad crimes?


Weather they are on the job or not, at the time.

I’d settle for being charged, convicted, and the same penalties actually being applied.

Same as everyone else, for the same transgressions, IMO.

Same. Btw, they are civilians.

Same, same. We're all citizens under the same laws.

As a retired LEO, I think officers who made the wrong decision in a snap decision should be considered, but not listed as an actual defense to prosecution. The situation should be considered during deliberations.

As for an officer committing criminal acts under color of law when there is time for more reflection, I’d say go for it.

What is the likelihood that a LEO would be involved in a physical altercation vs non-LEO?
What is the likelihood that a LEO would be involved in a shooting vs. a non-LEO?

Pretty much anyone is going to answer that a LEO is exponentially more likely to experience either type of incident than a non-LEO especially over the totality of a 20-30 year career. So if you're going to give them "worse penalties," why would a LEO engage in activities that might effect his career, his ability to have a home, raise a family or engage in the pursuit of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?" Well... it's pretty much what they're paid for i.e. to engage people acting in violent or non-lawful behavior and apply reasonable and appropriate force based on their instant observation and within agency policies and applicable statutes.

Nobody bars the IT dood, the over-the-road truck driver or the airline pilot from activities that might represent dishonorable character or moral turpitude although virtually all LE agencies have something in their regs that you loose your career for those behaviors. Nobody maintains a state registry of bakers, butchers, or forklift drivers who have "engaged in misconduct" or whose "veracity is suspect." So you might say LEO's already are held to a higher standard.

As far as harsher treatment for intentional misconduct under color of law or violent acts outside of the reasonable performance of duty? Yes! It very could be reasonable to give them worse penalties for intentionally using their position to pursue criminal aims. It's the violation of the public trust that causes the enhanced penalty.

The LE college program that I attended in the late 1970's was formed as a direct response to attempt to professionalize law enforcement after the the Denver Police burglary scandals in the 1960's that sent about 50 cops to prison. They were doing business burglaries and acting as lookouts while on-duty. LINK for anyone interested

Justice is blind…

And if ignorance of the law is no excuse, then neither is knowledge of the law.

Same-o-same-o in my book.

quote:

And if ignorance of the law is no excuse, then neither is knowledge of the law.

I agree with this statement 100%.


As far as worse penalties, I think there's a case for yes. Cops that are lying (on reports or in court) to convict others of crimes, or are running drugs/guns themselves (rare but happens). Cops that are doing burglaries or robberies while on duty. Yes, those cops/LEO's should face higher penalties.

I'm of the opinion that it should be the same. But the penalties for everyone need to be harsher, especially for crimes that are demonstrably willful and intentional. Just about everything is at least partially "suspended on probation" anymore, and that's a joke.

quote:

Originally posted by sigarms229:

As far as worse penalties, I think there's a case for yes. Cops that are lying (on reports or in court) to convict others of crimes, or are running drugs/guns themselves (rare but happens). Cops that are doing burglaries or robberies while on duty. Yes, those cops/LEO's should face higher penalties.

I do agree with that, and there's already a system in place to deal with it. In our state, every level of crime has a recommended sentence. At sentencing the judge is supposed to start there and then weigh any aggravating or mitigating factors of the case to add or subtract time for an appropriate sentence. A cop doing something like that on duty would definitely be an aggravator.

quote:

As far as harsher treatment for intentional misconduct under color of law or violent acts outside of the reasonable performance of duty? Yes! It very could be reasonable to give them worse penalties for intentionally using their position to pursue criminal aims. It's the violation of the public trust that causes the enhanced penalty.

This.

If you are abusing your position of trust...

BUT, it's not just cops: Lawyers, doctors, judges are all in a position of trust and should be held to a higher standard when abusing it.

My take is pretty simple: Cops have the legal power to take away your freedom and to use force, even deadly force, with significantly greater latitude than the average member of society. That kind of authority should come with a solemn obligation to act with integrity and fairness, not just sometimes, but always. So when an officer breaks the law, it’s not just another crime; it’s a breach of public trust that affects all of us. That’s why I think they should be held to a higher standard. When they screw up, the fallout isn’t just personal — it compromises the entire system.

If they use their position/badge as part of the crime yes, and I think there are already laws reflect that.

I agree with the above two posts. In addition, to qualify for extra punishment, the crime must have been committed with malicious intent (ex. California Highway Patrol officers who committed murder while on duty) , not a mistake like, for example, serving a legitimate warrant but at the wrong address, mistaken identity, hitting a bystander with gunfire, misreading of the situation, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Same. Btw, they are civilians.

Technically, yes, functionally, no, otherwise it wouldn't be a crime to disobey their lawful orders. When they are given such authority, backed up with weapons, that takes them out of the purely civilian category.

They already have worse penalties. They usually lose their job and most likely their careers

Try being a cop in prison. My guess is most already feel like their punishments are worse.

quote:

Originally posted by DetonicsMk6:

Nobody bars the IT dood, the over-the-road truck driver or the airline pilot from activities that might represent dishonorable character or moral turpitude although virtually all LE agencies have something in their regs that you loose your career for those behaviors. Nobody maintains a state registry of bakers, butchers, or forklift drivers who have "engaged in misconduct" or whose "veracity is suspect." So you might say LEO's already are held to a higher standard.

Actually, in the state of California, the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit for most drivers is .08, but the BAC limit for holders of a Class A (big trucks, up to 80,000 pound combined single limit) is .02, whether they are driving a big rig or their own personal car, even something tiny like a Ford Fiesta. Pilots flying for a scheduled airline must have an Airline Transport Pilot’s license (often abbreviated and understood in the industry as an ATP. One of the requirements of getting an ATP is that an applicant be “of good moral character”.

Getting back to the OP, if a citizen commits a crime, they should be subject to the same judicial treatment and punishment regardless of their gender, the color of their skin, their sexual preference, or their occupation. Period.

Now, if a police officer, in the course of their duties, makes a split second judgment call that turns out wrong, he or she should be entitled to some grace, along the lines of, “knowing what the officer knew at the time, was there action reasonable? Was it within policy? I *think* that this is where qualified immunity comes in, and that only seems fair.

On the other hand, if some (who happens to be a cop) does something that is just a flat out a crime whether on duty or not, they should be treated the same as anyone else who commits that crime, no better, no worse.

I might be more disappointed to learn that a cop is buying drugs, banging hookers, or driving drunk than to learn that some dirtbag gangbanger committed the same offense because I expect dirtbags to be dirtbags and I would hope that our LEOs would hold themselves to a higher standard. However, whatever disappointment I might feel aside, I believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law.

YMMV

It’s a complex question.

Should gun owners be held to a higher standard? Should Conservatives? I want to see shitbags go to jail. No matter where they work.

But, two tiered Justice systems never work. How often do regular citizens get punished for political means? J6 comes to mind and I wasn’t a fan. Daniel Penny comes to mind. And countless other cops that were prosecuted to get votes. Until that bias gets removed, I’m a hard no.

As of today, we have a Justice system that doesn’t punish. Until that changes, I wouldn’t expect to see much other than conversation on the topic.