> Whatever you do now doesn't work retroactively.

The point of such a thing is to deter similar conduct in the future.

The fact that this isn't a crime, and that qualified immunity typically means they can't even be held responsible civily, is part of what encourages police to commit misconduct like this.

The only folks punished here were the local taxpayers footing the bill.

▲

ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If you're going to change the system, which you need to do to make it possible to bring charges in a case like this, the other changes I suggested would be more effective and harder to weaponize.

The core problem here is that the system allowed an innocent person to stay in jail. That needs to be fixed on a system level, not by trying to punish people after the fact for bad outcomes.

	▲	ceejayoz 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> The core problem here is that the system allowed an innocent person to stay in jail. No; the system got the innocent person out of jail and a hefty settlement for their trouble. The system is now, unfortunately, allowing the guilty parties to stay employed as cops after performing a kidnapping. > That needs to be fixed on a system level, not by trying to punish people after the fact for bad outcomes. An accidental positive on a drug test is a bad outcome. Locking someone up for more than a month because they posted a photo of the President and a quote he actually said is a crime.
	▲	SpicyLemonZest 28 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What could a systemic solution to this possibly look like? He didn't stay in jail for 37 days because the system left no room for any other possible outcome. There were a number of points at which he could have been released had the system worked correctly. But Sheriff Nick Weems, an official in a key position of authority administrating the local justice system, decided that he'd like to subvert the system and steal this man's freedom. So he used his authority and expertise to ensure the system did not work correctly.