It’s insane that “Brady lists” are considered the better remedy than just removing the offending officers from police work entirely (as well as charging them with some kind of perversion of duty).
Police officers who have been dishonest are sometimes referred to as “Brady cops”. Because of the Brady ruling, prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement official involved in their case has a confirmed record of knowingly lying in an official capacity. This requirement has been understood by lawyers and jurists as requiring prosecutors to maintain lists, known as Brady lists, of police officers who are not credible witnesses and whose involvement in a case undermines a prosecution’s integrity.
We don’t just make lists of doctors that intentionally harm their patients, arsonist firefighters, chefs that poison etc. – they are barred from the profession once discovered. But cops (and priests) get to keep doing their thing and at most just get moved around.
It’s insane that “Brady lists” are considered the better remedy than just removing the offending officers from police work entirely (as well as charging them with some kind of perversion of duty).
We don’t just make lists of doctors that intentionally harm their patients, arsonist firefighters, chefs that poison etc. – they are barred from the profession once discovered. But cops (and priests) get to keep doing their thing and at most just get moved around.
That list should be public because it is within the public interest to know who these dangerous cops are.
Is there any law stopping private citizens from maintaining such a list I wonder?
It would make you a target for law enforcement because you know, you shouldn’t stand out when it comes to them.
Of course, there’s no requirement to notify the people previously convicted using testimony from the crooked cop.