How Mandatory Minimums Enable Police Misconduct

A place to start. The criminal justice system needs a complete overhaul-from bail practices, to release protocols, to youthful offenders and juveniles, as well as torture: solitary confinement. We criminalize far too much in this country. And not to forget PRIVATIZED prisons. Thank you for publishing this fine piece.

I was a police officer who worked for a major metropolitan police department for 32 years. Every word of this article is painfully and tragically true. Simple solution: Stop the war on drugs and start repairing all of the damage done in the name of such lunacy.

I agree with Mr Hechinger. I was arrested with an obviously bogus charge. I didn't plead and the judge threw out the case when it became clear that it was groundless. Others arrested with the same charge took the pleas, served sentences, and got besmirched with a criminal past.

A failure to signal could have half the cops in the country pulled over numerous times a day! It's small and seemingly insignificant, until one understands that one rule for you and not for them is actually quite significant; it escalates. Example: my wife was abused inside a police station where she worked by a detective. Every cop inside that station would have beaten half to death anyone who'd done the same to their wives. Everyone in that station did nothing, said absolutely nothing. What happens to me when I question their integrity? I get pulled over repeatedly for not signaling - even when my passengers explain that I did. Does not matter to them. Harassment does - for daring to question. Once the fight begins, all civic mindedness, all basic law and ethics, all honor and honesty gets defenestrated amidst the circle of institutional wagons. Happens everywhere; not just with cops or politicians or judges. It's the human ugliness within the cowardly act of never admitting you were wrong.

Police Departments hire bad eggs. An instructor at the NYPD academy told me that at the first convocation of his academy class he was told 10% of the class will excel at policing, they'll models of the service and advance quickly. For 80% it's just a job, nothing wrong with that, they'll get a good day's pay for a good day's work. The last 10%, for a variety of reasons, should not have gotten this far and it's the academy's job to find them and get rid of them. But some still get through and it's up you to work with the department to find them. Except that doesn't happen. They stay employed and ruin things for the others. The cop culture takes over and so many get hurt. In the 80's I asked two NYC public defenders what percentage of their cases were not guilty. They had both handled thousands(!) of cases. Between them they think maybe one was innocent. How can that be I asked, "Well when you get that far in the system, police know what they're doing, they have the evidence ... they're guilty." They're both dead now but I wonder how they'd feel today, but wow! Bad eggs? Maybe. Law enforcement and adjudication is an overwhelmed system with very little oversight and little to no cooperation. That's you problem.

Thank you for this insightful article Scott and many salutations to you for the sincere work that you do, your compassion, your insight in looking at deeper systemic issues and your integrity in upholding justice. I agree with the points made here and it's important that we spread more awareness about these issues and encourage national conversation on this important topic. At one end of the spectrum, we have a situation where 95% of convictions are coming out of a guilty plea instead of jury verdicts and at another, there is an increasing specter of public distrust in police officers. That is unfair to the large number of folks who are unfairly charged and also to those police officers, who are decent folks working in an increasingly complex environment who also get labeled just because of some unscrupulous fellow officers. Abolish mandatory minimum sentences, end the practice of "hearing penalty", create a mechanism that identifies habitual false testifiers in the force, hold them accountable and install mandatory audio and video recording for all police stops and searches. It is vitally important to address systemic issues, as setting those right is what will help in preventing hundreds of 'Jacobs' to get persecuted in the future and in restoring the glory and trust in our police force.

In the cases with the most serious implications--sometimes life or death--cops have two get out of jail cards: "I feared for my life," and "I thought he had a gun." All too often, the gun is a cell phone or a wallet, and the fear, absurdly, arises when the victim moving away from the cop.

Isn't it interesting that if a student has a disciplinary issue in school they can be suspended or expelled from school. This sets in motion consequences which affect the rest of the life of the student. There is no due process in these proceedings against the youth. A life is changed. Now onto the issue. What happens to a police officer who lies, uses excessive force, comes up positive on a drug test and the like? What happens when they beat their wives? Nothing. Oh, they can keep their gun while on duty but can't have one in the house because that would affect their livelihood. They are counselled, a report is put in their record. They are defended by the police union. This defense is fair because it is part of due process. If they resign to save the department the cost of the investigation they can get a job in another jurisdiction. Their record is sealed as part of the deal. Sometimes if they are convicted, they get another job in another jurisdiction. As for the student? No defense fund, no investigation, no due process or presumption of innocence. The cost of expunging the arrest falls to the victim of police impunity. If it is you, it is out of YOUR POCKET. The disciplinary and misconduct records of police officers should be a public record. Vietnam Vet

I’m a 65 year old white woman, a retired teacher. I’ve been driving for 40 years and never had a moving violation - until last year. I was driving through a neighboring town that is notorious for issuing traffic tickets for the slightest violation. I guess it’s one of the ways the town makes money. Anyway, whenever I drive through this town, I am always very careful to come to a full stop at every stop sign and traffic light, drive at exactly the speed limit, etc. So I was surprised when one day an officer pulled me over and gave me a ticket for running a stop sign. I remembered stopping at that particular stop sign, but I didn’t argue with the officer. I know that sometimes, in this country, arguing with a police officer is punishable by death. So I kept the ticket and went to traffic court to contest it. At traffic court, I met with an “arbitrator” - another police officer. He checked my flawless driving record and shook his head. “This guy must have wanted you to stop at the sign for five minutes,” he said. He then advised me that if I plead guilty, they would change the ticket to a lesser charge, I would only have to pay a small fine, and I wouldn’t get any points on my license. So this is how things work here, I thought. (I had never been in traffic court before.) I paid the reduced fine and was home for dinner. So, if anyone asks me whether I think the police are corrupt in this country, I will say, You Betcha.

This article is a keeper, many people of color really do not know how the criminal justice system really works on them. So thanks for the information.

Many assertions here, with fact. 1. Are mandatory minimum sentences steep? Prove it. Having a loaded gun in a car is a serious criminal offense--many shootings and killings result from this crime. 2. "Everyday across the country, police officers willfully violate people's rights....." Prove it. 'the only evidence given is Daniel Pantaleo.....which constitutes an anecdote not data. I would like Mr. Hechinger to be a police officer and show us how to do it correctly. He's a defense attorney...his job is to twist facts to favor his client. It's an important part of things, but does anybody really trust lawyers to give us "truth?" Of course not--their job is to create a story that favors their client. That is what this article did. My wife was one of the first four women police officers in Seattle, which probably means in the state. She worked in law enforcement her entire career. We are both flaming liberals---me starting my liberal life as a conscientious objector in Vietnam willing to go to prison for my beliefs. My only regret was that I didn't get to--I might have met her sooner!!! But my point is that she has a very valid and nuanced view of the matters raised in this article. Yet the NYT seems to love victim stories, and they are always how we, the public, are victims of police officers who are, after all, simply drawn from the human race, and who are constantly having to be aware of protecting their own lives, other peoples' lives, the law, and us.

Thank you very much Scott for highlighting yet another example of how the criminal justice system in this country is stacked against poor and minority defendants.

Interesting ideas. An alternative approach would be to impose on our overcrowded courts the language the Constitution requires of them in Article III, Section 2: "Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;" Suppose we deprive prosecutors of the weapon called the plea bargain. If the acts were criminal, there must be a jury trial with right of counsel. Suddenly the way to expedite the trail process would Not be through forcing a plea bargain. Instead it would be to prosecute only the cases where proper procedures had been followed and where conviction was likely. Isn't that what Article III and Amendments IV, V, VI, and VII are all about?

God bless criminal defense attorneys. The last line of defense against government tyranny!

If more defendants challenged police conduct, we would need the resources to conduct more trials until police conduct changed. But we are much more willing to spend money on keeping people in jail than on providing hearings and trials and legal counsel for those who cannot afford lawyers. The police are given the formidable task of keeping the lid on poor and minority people who are being victimized by the prevailing economic and political structures. This victimization includes using fines and fees as a significant source of municipal revenue, and differentiating law enforcement by race or ethnicity to preserve the advantages of favored races and ethnicities. Giving criminal records disproportionately to blacks puts them and their communities at a disadvantage against whites in competing for jobs, but this very real effect cannot be used as explicit justification for these policies except in certain parts of the South.

District attorneys like Larry Krasner in Philadelphia and Kim Gardner in St. Louis have developed “do not call” lists of officers whom they refuse to rely upon based on previous findings of incredibility or misconduct. So the DA refuses to call on those cops to testify but they're still making arrests on the street? What's wrong with this picture?

And then cops wonder how they have a negative reputation among disadvantaged populations, complain when someone says something negative about the police. I remain a supporter of law enforcement, but the "Wall of Blue" needs to end and bad cops, whom I still believe are the exception, are taken off the streets. To law enforcement, its getting harder and harder to have your back in public discourse. Clean up your house! The racists, those who habitually use excessive force, these cops have to go....

We have entrusted the administration of justice, a task that should rightly belong to our peers and to educated scholars of the law, to testosterone-addled police officers who enjoy their career primarily as a legally-sanctioned outlet for their aggression and racism.

I'm amazed that anyone still thinks police are "very fine people." How many lives have police ruined with their lies about "strong marijuana odors?"

Perhaps there are so few hearings about possible police misconduct because it is unusual? In a country with more than half a million police officers, there are going to be some who should not have been sworn in. Don't tar the entire criminal justice system with them. Good advice: Don't hang out with the kind of people who travel with a loaded handgun in the trunk.

a very thoughtful and absolutely correct assessment of police practices that are condoned by prosecutors and destroy lives. When I was growing up, one would say ' he lies like a rug.' But here in Phoenix, that has changed to 'he lies like a cop under oath.' Everyone knows it but nothing is done. The people affected by these practices are throwaways to the criminal justice system so no one really cares that the conviction will harm them for the rest of their lives. What's happened to us?

My late defense lawyer brother told me a sure fire way to tell when police on the witness stand were lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying. If this sounds awful, it’s only because it is awful.

They won’t be held accountable because The System will protect them.

While pointing out the abuse of mandatory minimums, we should be reminded of why they were first implemented: to stop the same inequality of justice that is being noted here. If I recollect correctly, prior to mandatory minimums, judges had more discretion and gave even less credence to the poor, black, and disempowered defendant. Sounds about the same as today right? Police abuse is systemic at this point. Everyone knows what is happening and those who can make a difference don't. Although the strides the author and others are making in the criminal justice system are laudable, would going back to more judicial discretion change police abuses? I'm doubtful. But maybe the problem has more to do with the structural inequities in our society per se, and less to do with one facet of it that may be cause for consternation.

Ditching mandatory minimums would be a great place to start unraveling the criminalization of citizens far in excess of need or wisdom. Here's another one that is somewhat related, but an even older unjust presumption, so-called "possession with intent to deliver" laws. These laws mark any possession of more than a single container of a very small quantity of contraband as basically drug trafficking interrupted. Two rocks of coke in your pocket? You must be some sort of major threat to public safety! The fact of the matter is that many drugs are sold in "single-serving" form. And most people don't buy just one package, they buy what they can afford. If they get caught with those items, it just needs an officer to count to blow up a relatively small amount of drugs intended for personal consumption into a major case, even though a person is much more likely to be a customer than a dealer. Such laws are obviously intended to get a defendant to roll over on their dealer in order to be offered a plea deal to simple possession, despite the facts in the case being otherwise clearly insufficient to establish the allegation of dealing against the person charged - except for the, ahem, trumped up charges. While there are probably still those who think this is a clever legal trap, no one paying attention could credibly call this an effective tactic to reduce the flow of drugs. It is an easy way to meet one's quota as a cop and it certainly fills prisons. It isn't in any way just.

Yes. Time to demand that the politicians fix our unjust and very expensive to administer (partially privatized) so-called justice system. And there need to be high school or better junior high school classes on dealing with law enforcement -- and what actual laws are and when age entitles one to a lesser penalty for what may be an innocuous "crime" (e.g. trespassing by walking thru an open garage or carport.) IMO it's also time to get rid of automatic weapons, make lapel cameras mandatory, and train police to retreat.

Your efforts to protect the public from abusive police officers are well taken. We all want to believe that the judicial system in a democracy is fair, that we must be considered innocent until and unless we are proven guilty. But when a police officer abuses his/her condition and is able to 'fabricate' evidence at will, without the fear of retribution, then we lose the necessary trust that justice is on offer, prejudice and malice instead. Of note, this issue has been studied at nauseum, as 'voluntary high schoolers and college students were divided, by chance. into either 'jailers or prisoners'; if there was no supervision nor regulation, the jailers routinely abused their power. Case in point. Incidentally, no active cameras and audio systems on police jackets? How come?

Police persons are just people like everyone else? Perhaps not. People who go into police work are probably more authoritarian than normal, more inclined to think that force is the best way to challenge misbehavior of all sort. They are people either very familiar with guns or at least happy to become familiar with them. I am not singling these people out as especially violent but I do think it would be more normal and healthy to choose a different career.

Keep up the good work Scott. It is truly an admirable job and role in society to represent those who cannot afford quality representation in our rigged legal system.