Sean Gormley claims that cops who break the law should be treated just like everybody else ("Police officers who break the law do face consequences," Oct. 6). He's right. They should.
In support of this statement, he says, "In America, people accused of crimes have a right to due process. Police officers are no exception." Right again. But he left some stuff out.
The first thing he neglects to mention is that when cops commit crimes, they're entitled to a second level of due process, involving their employment, that most of the rest of us don't enjoy.
Due process involves being given notice of what you've done wrong, an opportunity to defend yourself, and a guarantee that whatever is decided about you will be based on law and justice. If I'm charged with the crime of domestic assault, for instance, I'm entitled to a jury trial and all of the due-process rights that go along with having one. So is the cop. But there's more to it than that.
Let's say that the cop and I have identical cases. We both go to trial, and we both lose.
Now, let's say I'm an at-will employee of a business. Unlike the cop, I've never sworn an oath to uphold the law and then turned around and violated it. But after I'm convicted, or maybe before, my boss fires me. I have no due-process right to a hearing to contest being fired. I can, if I choose, try to sue my employer at my own expense. But I won't, because having been found guilty I have no chance of winning and I most likely can't afford it.
The cop, on the other hand, calls Gormley at the police union, or Lt. Bob Kroll if he's a Minneapolis cop, and an elaborate disciplinary process, which costs the cop nothing except his union dues, begins.
All too often, this process has led to bad cops being reinstated or retained on their jobs, thanks to labor concessions negotiated by police unions that the rest of us could only dream of having.
