• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How long should an investigation of a police officer take?

radcen said:
How long should an investigation of a police officer take?

Roughly. In general. Not every scenario is cookie-cutter. When they do something questionable and possibly illegal.

The current case of Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke has taken roughly 13 months to come to a determination, in this case charges. There has been a lot of criticism that 13 months is too long, and personally I agree that it is too long. Hence, that begs the question... How long should an investigation of a police officer take before charges are filed (or officially not)?

Two weeks? A month? Three months?

For *most* scenarios, I think a month is more than sufficient... though I wouldn't scream at the top of my lungs if it stretched out to two months. Anything beyiond that and they're stalling, IMO.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't take more than two weeks to determine whether or not an officer acted within the scope of dept rules of engagement. And that's more or less the time it would take to get a solid report together. A criminal investigation is, of course, a different animal. But to determine if he keeps his job? Two weeks.
 
Goshin said:
Depends.

By comparison, felony crime investigations can take anywhere from days to months, and sometimes stretch out into years. It often takes 2-3 years for a felony prosecution to go to trial. It depends on the details and whatnot.

It often seems excessive, but a lot of it is case load and availability of resources. Given that investigations into officers are not nearly so common as "regular felonies" it would seem unreasonable for it to take more than a few months in most cases.
Click to expand...
But that's not the same as was question in the original post, is it? If I remember correctly, a full investigation can take a couple years, sure, but a decision to indict and hold someone while the prosecution is being put together has to happen much sooner... unless they're willing to let the person free while the investigation proceeds.

And in a case like this the system needs to be a more accountable regarding its own because the suspect/defendant is one of their own. It's not your average run-of-the-mill case.
 
radcen said:
But that's not the same as was question in the original post, is it? If I remember correctly, a full investigation can take a couple years, sure, but a decision to indict and hold someone while the prosecution is being put together has to happen much sooner... unless they're willing to let the person free while the investigation proceeds.

And in a case like this the system needs to be a more accountable regarding its own because the suspect/defendant is one of their own. It's not your average run-of-the-mill case.
Click to expand...


If you cannot establish probable cause, you can't indict a person. That is how the system works.

Since it is a police officer, establishing probable cause also handles the legal challenge of showing the officer went beyond his authority under state law to use deadly force.
 
radcen said:
How long should an investigation of a police officer take?

Roughly. In general. Not every scenario is cookie-cutter. When they do something questionable and possibly illegal.

The current case of Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke has taken roughly 13 months to come to a determination, in this case charges. There has been a lot of criticism that 13 months is too long, and personally I agree that it is too long. Hence, that begs the question... How long should an investigation of a police officer take before charges are filed (or officially not)?

Two weeks? A month? Three months?

For *most* scenarios, I think a month is more than sufficient... though I wouldn't scream at the top of my lungs if it stretched out to two months. Anything beyiond that and they're stalling, IMO.
Click to expand...

It depends on the evidence. In the case of the Chicago cop. I don't know everything that happened prior to the video, however what was on the video was damning. He shot a man armed with a knife who was at the moment walking away from him. Then once he was down, he reloaded and kept shooting. A year seems a bit long. However I don't know the legalities involved in bringing an indictment or how long the investigation took to complete....or how crowded the court dockets were.
 
Caine said:
If you cannot establish probable cause, you can't indict a person. That is how the system works.

Since it is a police officer, establishing probable cause also handles the legal challenge of showing the officer went beyond his authority under state law to use deadly force.
Click to expand...
The original questions regards making the decision to indict, or not, not the process after indictment. The decision may indeed be 'no'. *In most* circumstances I think 13 months is absurd. But to be fair, I think the "hang 'em now" mentality of some within a couple days after an incident is generally equally absurd, too.
 
radcen said:
The original questions regards making the decision to indict, or not, not the process after indictment. The decision may indeed be 'no'. *In most* circumstances I think 13 months is absurd. But to be fair, I think the "hang 'em now" mentality of some within a couple days after an incident is generally equally absurd, too.
Click to expand...

Then you would have found Chief Rodney Monroe's decision to charge Officer Kerrick in 2013 in less than 16 hours after the shooting incident extremely absurd.

Two years later, two grand juries and a month long trial later, It turns out they were wrong.
 
Caine said:
Then you would have found Chief Rodney Monroe's decision to charge Officer Kerrick in 2013 in less than 16 hours after the shooting incident extremely absurd.

Two years later, two grand juries and a month long trial later, It turns out they were wrong.
Click to expand...
I am not familiar with the example you cite (or, forget the name), but barring something blindingly obvious I would feel that 16 hours is jumping the gun (no pun intended). I believe that a big part of the reason we have a wrongful conviction problem is an overzealousness to "solve" the crime, over actually solving the crime.

Unfortunately, and especially in high-profile emotional crimes, there is great pressure to do something 'right now', and for some 16 hours would be foot dragging.
 
radcen said:
How long should an investigation of a police officer take?
Click to expand...

Close to what it would take to investigate similar crimes for anyone else. The only entanglement may be if there were coverups by other cops to try to hide the illegal activity, then it may take longer to complete given the larger group of suspects.
 
Caine said:
Crime lab evidence is expected in nearly ALL capital crime cases in modern times.

Crime labs are also overburdened with a backlog of evidence that is due for processing.

A month is not more than sufficient when the latent and DNA crime lab is 5-6 months behind.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we should be working on upgrading our laboratory facilities and capacity.
 
Thrilla said:
the same way they handle bathroom breaks for those they have in custody... with utter contempt for their privacy.
Click to expand...

You realize that those are NOT equivalents right? Not to mention stupid to give privacy to people in a jail. The privacy thing is a safety thing. Of course you would probably complain when an inmate kills themselves in the bathroom then.
 
stonewall50 said:
You realize that those are NOT equivalents right? Not to mention stupid to give privacy to people in a jail. The privacy thing is a safety thing. Of course you would probably complain when an inmate kills themselves in the bathroom then.
Click to expand...

i didn't say they were equivalents... i just said treat them similarly.

I don't find it stupid to give privacy in jail for bathrooms at all... and I think the "safety" thing is a cop-out to justify stripping every ounce of dignity a person has once they're in custody.
in any event, i'm quite sure we can quickly justify having cameras turned on while on duty citing "safety"... when the cameras are off, they're more likely to act badly, which is a public safety issue. ( see.. it's that easy)


and no, i probably wouldn't complain about an inmate offing themselves in the bathroom... why would I?
 
Thrilla said:
i didn't say they were equivalents... i just said treat them similarly.
Click to expand...

Which makes 0 sense. The aren't similar.

I don't find it stupid to give privacy in jail for bathrooms at all... and I think the "safety" thing is a cop-out to justify stripping every ounce of dignity a person has once they're in custody.
Click to expand...

Until they use that privacy as a way to get around standard security in a jail. Can you try to even remotely look at this from the perspective of the guards who have to deal with this day in and out? My friend just had his hands burned severely because an inmate lit himself on fire in a prison. Why? The inmate wanted to go to the infirmary to get out of gen pop.

Safety in a secure area isn't stupid. It is why it is a SECURE area.

in any event, i'm quite sure we can quickly justify having cameras turned on while on duty citing "safety"... when the cameras are off, they're more likely to act badly, which is a public safety issue. ( see.. it's that easy)
Click to expand...

Do you want to see an officers wiener? Or maybe vagina? "Public safety" doesn't apply to an officer who isn't under arrest. He is a citizen just like you. And he isn't in a secure area. Hence why this is a stupid analogy.


and no, i probably wouldn't complain about an inmate offing themselves in the bathroom... why would I?
Click to expand...

Because you could use it to ad hom all law enforcement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom