Why it’s so hard to fire an Ontario cop — even when they’re convicted

[BeaverFever]

Why it’s so hard to fire an Ontario cop — even when they’re convicted

By Wendy Gillis Staff Reporter

Mon., April 10, 2023
 

Convicted of drug trafficking, guilty of raping an unconscious woman, and recently fired, an OPP officer has been suspended with pay for nearly eight years. He’s still on the payroll.

 

https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/gta/2023/04/10/700000-in-paid-suspension-why-its-so-hard-to-fire-an-ontario-cop-even-when-theyre-convicted.html

[BeaverFever]

Pretty ridiculous that the law requires us to pay convicted criminal cops their six-figure salary for almost a decade after they’ve been kicked off the job and even after they’ve been criminally convicted.

 

It’s not “woke” or “anti-police” to put an end to this disgraceful practice. Some of these guys have received over a million dollars in taxpayer-funded salary during the years they were sitting at home or working other jobs. 

[BeaverFever]

19 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Private Police or AI Police as solutions are allowed?!

Although is some satire in there -> need to play this: 

Accountability: Private police forces may be more accountable to their clients than public law enforcement agencies are to the general public. This accountability can take many forms, including contractual obligations and regular reporting requirements, and can help to ensure that private police forces are held to high standards of conduct and performance.

Cost-effectiveness: Private police forces may be more cost-effective than public law enforcement agencies, as they are not subject to the same administrative and bureaucratic overheads.

I don’t think people getting arrested or shot by a private for profit corporation would go over very well. Privatization also adds a level of secrecy as well.  You would still have dirty cops they would just be private sector employees. 

People getting arrested by AI sounds like it could be the prequel to the Terminator movie franchise. 

[BeaverFever]

37 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

I think we should play this scenario.

While concerns about abuse of power by private police are valid, it's important to note that privatisation can also lead to increased efficiency and better performance. Private police companies might have a strong incentive to provide high-quality services to their clients in order to maintain their business, and they are often subject to strict regulations and oversight to ensure accountability. 

That’s just boilerplate talking points what corporations always say, especially when they want to take over a service that is both essential and where they hold a monopoly. 
 

In practice claims of “increased efficiency and better performance” are often hard to prove. Efficiency almost always comes at the expense of accountability and in a service where you have monopoly rights to kill and assault people the fact that you “might” be more efficient much less actually be more efficient is not an ideal tradeoff. 
 

We’ve all seen sweetheart privatization deals where the “regulation and oversight” is a toothless joke where hacks and cronies on oversight committees provide nothing more than a fig leaf.  If government regulation and oversight is already poor when government literally owns the police it will only be worse when ownership is outsourced to a private company Even when there are the best of intentions, privatization inevitably means added secrecy from the public in the form of Non-disclosure agreements, claims of “proprietary” information, SLAPP lawsuit threats etc. 

 

Also when it comes to public services there are few if any incentives to “provide high quality services to maintain business”.   These are monopoly services where there are little or no market forces at work. There are no realistic competitors to provide the private business with any incentive to perform and even if there were It’s not like we would fire the entire police force and re-outsource to a competitor when metrics aren’t let. 
 

Lastyly it would be utterly offensive to Canadian sensibilities for these taxpayer-funded services with power over citizens life and death to be provided on a for-profit basis by anyone. 

[BeaverFever]

58 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

They can create competition, which drives innovation and encourages the development of better policing practices.Competition forces private firms to perform better, as they must satisfy the public perception in order for results. This ensures that the best firms rise to the top, providing better services than their competitors. 

Important -> They will be subject to civil liability, which creates additional incentives to maintain high standards of conduct.

There is no competition because the police contract is only going to be awarded to one company, and once that company has the contract the city is not going to replace them with another company because that would mean firing your entire police force and hiring a new one. Quality police officers don’t just grow on trees it takes a lot of time and money to train them so where would you find these people?

 

All corporations are subject to civil liability, it  doesn’t prevent them from misconduct. Civil cases are risky and expensive and corporations’ pockets are deeper than most, including the municipal governments that would be charged with holding them responsible. Tjey just file motions and appeals to drag things out for years, running up your legal bill until you cry uncle and give up entirely or take a shitty settlement with NDA gag provisions attached to keep everything covered up. Civil liability is a joke deterrent 

Edited April 10, 2023 by BeaverFever