but financially hampering the always underfunded city police forces is not a way to improve the situation
Yeah, I somewhat agree. The question then is, what could you do that's better? The woman's rights were clearly violated, and the officers involved as well as the state are the appropriate liable entities. Punishing them will help avoid further issues in the future (and deter others from trying the same thing), but that's not the same as restitution for the victim.
financial punishments to the city means little to people who only have a chief of police/sheriff job for 5 years before they move to a cushy suburb job for more pay and less stress. putting a blemish directly on their record for their failure to maintain a competent police force would do more to force those with the power to avoid incidents do so than paying off the victim of the week.
financial punishments to the city means little to people who only have a chief of police/sheriff job for 5 years before they move to a cushy suburb job for more pay and less stress. putting a blemish directly on their record for their failure to maintain a competent police force would do more to force those with the power to avoid incidents do so than paying off the victim of the week.
I think I pretty much agree, but in this instance, there's two different sides to it. It might be easier to point out with an analogy.
So let's imagine that one day, I break into your home and destroy some of your stuff, say $200 worth. You come home, catching me in the act, and call the police, and get me arrested for breaking and entering and destruction of property. I plead out (or go to trial and are convicted, either way), and serve the appropriate punishment. This is the criminal aspect, and is akin to what you're talking about here.
But there's another aspect - you're still out $200 of stuff, and you don't get it back just because I went to jail. So you have grounds for a civil case against me as well, for the sum of ~$200, so you can replace, or repair the stuff you lost from my crime. This is how you get restitution, so that you're not just in a worse place after the crime; you can get back to where you were before the crime.
You probably know and understand all this stuff already, but I wanted to spell it out because it's the main thrust I'm making here. Ms. Wubbels (the nurse) was denied her civil liberties and harmed, to some extent, by the actions of the officer. Because of the way the system works with cops in particular, they either can't or won't bring charges against the specific officer, their boss, etc. So there's no criminal charges going on.
But she was still harmed, and deserves compensation for that harm done to her. The officers being fired/demoted and the city enforcing new policies doesn't bring her back to her pre-victimization levels, in the same way you weren't back at your pre-victimization levels until you brought the $200 civil suit against me.
Granted, her stuff wasn't broken, she suffered emotional distress. But we don't really have a good way of doing restitution except through money. And since the state is (likely) the primary entity at fault here, (since the officer would never arrest her except as an agent of the state), it makes sense that the state is the one to pay.
Of course, "the state" can't pay for anything, only the citizens of Utah can pay for that. But I'm not sure what's available to us that's better. It's been decided before, in court, that emotional distress and false arrests and the like are grounds for some form of restitution. So what do you use for it, if not money?
i agree that the state bears significant responsibility for having an ill-trained agent but a decade of pay is just egregious profit from local coffers in my eyes. in my opinion, more than a firing and supervisor demotion should occur but financially hampering the always underfunded city police forces is not a way to improve the situation.