Pinthouse Pizza
Lady Justice's Scale Is Broken
RECEIVED Fri., Aug. 23, 2024
Dear Editor,
Thank you Austin Chronicle for digging out that the Office of Police Oversight is now staffed primarily by former police ["Most of Austin’s Police Oversight Investigators Are Former Law Enforcement. Advocates Fear They Can’t Be Impartial." News, Aug. 23]. But the OPO should not be “impartial.” The OPO should be the voice of the complainant in a process that is already saturated in advocacy by the police union reps against discipline. If not the OPO, then who?
The officer has a police union rep. The decider is the police chief, who is of course also police. Now we learn that all the “independent” investigators are also police. This tilt in favor of the police perspective is profound, and complainants have no advocate.
An officer can only be disciplined if the allegations are true AND policy was violated. Let’s say body-cam footage does not confirm an allegation that a person was punched in the face, because all the camera saw was the victim’s chest at close range. The complainant says there is a witness. Does the investigation proceed or is it deemed “unverified” and closed (a common outcome)? Maybe the witness appears and the allegations are verified. Now the union rep advocates that the officer had discretion to do this under policy. Who advocates for the equally appropriate application of policy that would lead to officer discipline? Apparently no one, because the OPO is trying to be “impartial.” Lady Justice’s scale is broken.
The justice system is founded on the idea that the fairest decisions emerge when both sides in a dispute are well represented and all the evidence is interrogated from both perspectives. The police union reps understand their advocacy role, and are apparently succeeding. No suspensions in 17 months, not even a three-day slap on the wrist? It is past time Austin implemented the OPO as intended because this is becoming an emergency.
Thank you Austin Chronicle for digging out that the Office of Police Oversight is now staffed primarily by former police ["Most of Austin’s Police Oversight Investigators Are Former Law Enforcement. Advocates Fear They Can’t Be Impartial." News, Aug. 23]. But the OPO should not be “impartial.” The OPO should be the voice of the complainant in a process that is already saturated in advocacy by the police union reps against discipline. If not the OPO, then who?
The officer has a police union rep. The decider is the police chief, who is of course also police. Now we learn that all the “independent” investigators are also police. This tilt in favor of the police perspective is profound, and complainants have no advocate.
An officer can only be disciplined if the allegations are true AND policy was violated. Let’s say body-cam footage does not confirm an allegation that a person was punched in the face, because all the camera saw was the victim’s chest at close range. The complainant says there is a witness. Does the investigation proceed or is it deemed “unverified” and closed (a common outcome)? Maybe the witness appears and the allegations are verified. Now the union rep advocates that the officer had discretion to do this under policy. Who advocates for the equally appropriate application of policy that would lead to officer discipline? Apparently no one, because the OPO is trying to be “impartial.” Lady Justice’s scale is broken.
The justice system is founded on the idea that the fairest decisions emerge when both sides in a dispute are well represented and all the evidence is interrogated from both perspectives. The police union reps understand their advocacy role, and are apparently succeeding. No suspensions in 17 months, not even a three-day slap on the wrist? It is past time Austin implemented the OPO as intended because this is becoming an emergency.
Kathy Mitchell