|
|
|
| NEWS > 11 June 2007 |
Other related articles:
Police punishments backed by f
The family of a man killed after police failed to investigate a campaign of violence against him backed the decision to order two officers to resign.
Peter Woodhams was shot dead on his east London doorstep last August after suffering seven months of violence and bullying. Two detectives, a Pc and a sergeant, were required to resign on Friday for failing to properly investigate a vicious knife attack on the 22-year-old that left him terribly scarred.
Mr Woodhams' fiancee, Jane Bowden, said: "I wanted them to be fired and I am pleased they have been. This is something for ... Read more
|
 Article sourced from
|
|
Hattiesburg American - Hatties
11 June 2007
This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.
|
|
Ethics commission protects the
How many people would become informants if they knew the police would give the suspected criminal their name, address and telephone number? Our guess is none.
Yet - by law - the Mississippi Ethics Commission "must send a copy" of any complaint filed against a public official or public employee to that official or employee. And the complaint must be signed by a judge or notary and contain the name, address and telephone number of the person making the complaint.
To ensure that no one misses this intimidating aspect of the complaint process, the form that must be filled out - and signed under oath - declares in bold type on the first page: "By law the Ethics Commission must send a copy of this complaint to the person against whom the complaint is made."
Under these conditions, we are amazed that complaints of unethical behaviour are ever filed against elected or appointed officials in Mississippi.
But while there is no anonymity for the person filing a complaint, the rest of the process is shrouded in confidentiality.
As it states on the complaint form itself:
"This complaint ... is confidential."
"It is a crime ... to reveal the existence of this confidential complaint to anyone other than representatives of the Ethics Commission."
This procedure begins with the reckless endangerment of those who file complaints by making them easy targets for retribution.
It then proceeds to empower the people against whom the complaints are filed with ample time to tamper with evidence against them.
Such an arrangement ought to be criminal.
Instead, the Legislature has made it the law.
|
| |
 EiP Comments:
|
|---|
|
| |
* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
 |
Ethics in Policing, based in the UK, provide information and advice about the following:
Policing Research | Police News articles | Police Corruption | International Policing | Police Web Sites | Police Forum | Policing Ethics | Police Journals | Police Publications |
|
| |
|
