I've also no idea in advance how well their IA as is works.Son of Mathonwy wrote:True, there's no guarantee that it would work, and of course it would cost money. Some advantages are:Digby wrote:That too would need funding. And it mayn't deliver what we'd like, and we might like different thingsSon of Mathonwy wrote: True, cameras are no panacea, that's why I said internal affairs officers should be embedded into police departments. If the police can't be trusted and it's too expensive to reboot their entire organisation, then they need to be chaperoned.
And we'd still want to revisit the entire delivery of services and how law enforcement joins up with other agencies. Just there's no way of doing that in 1 day, nor really in 1 year. And in truth I doubt you ever get the police service you want, it should always be in review. The problem now though seems stalled with many points of decision making in denial they even need to consider a review
1) it could be added to the existing system without major adjustments,
2) it could be trialled easily before being scaled up,
3) if it worked in the short term, it should begin to drive the 'bad' cops out of the force, voluntarily or otherwise, and so become less necessary (hopefully completely unnecessary) over time.
And I also wonder whether it's how you start to split out function in delivery of service, i.e. would the extra person always need to be IA, could they be an ADA, a social worker with a specialism in drugs or prostitution, other options are possibly better bets still
Whether it'd work I don't know, whether the money would just be better spent on more training or higher wages to attract higher standard applicants I don't know. But they need to be discussing these options are getting some trials and respond to what works, 'cause the status quo sure as shit isn't working