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?
to me, emotional distress is worth whatever time off you may need and any counselling you may need, perhaps even doubling the amount for the inconvenience. if she is never able to work again, $500k is a reasonable sum but i view accountability as a significantly better punishment.
to me, emotional distress is worth whatever time off you may need and any counselling you may need, perhaps even doubling the amount for the inconvenience. if she is never able to work again, $500k is a reasonable sum...
Like I said before, you can argue about the amount. Should it be more, should it be less? All I know for sure is -
- 500K sounds like an awful lot
- I have no idea what a good amount actually is
One thing to note is what you said about if she could work again - in that case, damages would likely be X for emotional distress and the like, as well as expected lifetime earnings from her career, which are likely way more than 500K. Civil cases are actually pretty good about this, in general - you get the ridiculously high amounts from civil cases because of punitive damages. Without that, judges in small claims court, for instance, are very meticulous about how much you get from settlements.
i view accountability as a significantly better punishment.
It's much better for deterrence for future and current agents of the state to not abuse their powers. But again, it does nothing for restitution, which was the point I've been trying to make.
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.