• gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Well there is a law that they were in theory breaking.

    A shitty authoritarian law, but still a law.

    And the whole point of the criminal justice system is to interpret cases like these and interpret the law and decide if someone is culpable. This is what happens when you have a properly separated system where cops are not judge joury and executioner, so while cops need to have some understanding of the law, its not their job to make those finer interpretations when cases could or could not be illegal. It might seem dumb in this case, but if cops have that power it would allow them to selectively enforce the law and you would have them saying “oh I didn’t arrest the rapist because of this [nonexistent] technicality that makes it not a crime”

    • Primarily0617@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      your argument is that the police need to be allowed to act with as much malice or incompetence as they like because if there was more oversight in the system they could choose to not arrest rapists?

      you’re saying that more oversight would lead to the police having more freedom to enforce the law as they see fit?

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        No. And I would rather you didn’t purposefully misinterpret what am saying for the sake of trying to “win” a pointless internet argument like a redditor would.

        • Primarily0617@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          you’re the one attempting to reframe “there should be more oversight on the police’s actions” as “the police should be granted more power to interpret the law as they see fit”