Originally posted by finnegan
So you don't consider ethics / professional ethics an issue there? For example, you don't think the police need to discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate / even illegal instruction, directions or orders?

Even the military in combat are expected to know some military law and refuse to follow illegal orders.

It helps too if public servants actually understand what is going on around them.

The phrase you used was 'to question the political status quo'. I do not think that means the same thing as 'to be able to differentiate between legal and illegal instructions given to them by their superiors'.

You also seem to be equating ethics with intelligence. Is it your view that people of lower intelligence are likely to be less ethical than people of higher intelligence?

Originally posted by sonhouse
But with a supreme court ruling, it can effect countless other applicants. THAT is the real issue.

The Supreme Court rules that it didn't violate equal protection, not that it's a good idea or that it should be done more often.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
The phrase you used was 'to question the political status quo'. I do not think that means the same thing as 'to be able to differentiate between legal and illegal instructions given to them by their superiors'.

You also seem to be equating ethics with intelligence. Is it your view that people of lower intelligence are likely to be less ethical than people of higher intelligence?

It is helpful to understand the law and its implications. It is helpful to understand society and to be able to think critically about social issues. It is helpful to have the confidence to decline to be intimidated by spurious claims of authority. There are countless opportunities to be more intelligent in the way people are policed. If you cannot see this then I do not think it can be explained more clearly for your benefit.

Originally posted by finnegan
It is helpful to understand the law and its implications. It is helpful to understand society and to be able to think critically about social issues. It is helpful to have the confidence to decline to be intimidated by spurious claims of authority. There are countless opportunities to be more intelligent in the way people are policed. If you cannot see this then I do not think it can be explained more clearly for your benefit.

Rather than dodge the question, just confirm whether you believe that recruiting more intelligent police officers will lead to higher ethical standards in the police force.

Are you saying that police officers act unethically because they are not intelligent enough to understand what is ethically right?

Originally posted by finnegan
It is helpful to understand the law and its implications. It is helpful to understand society and to be able to think critically about social issues. It is helpful to have the confidence to decline to be intimidated by spurious claims of authority. There are countless opportunities to be more intelligent in the way people are policed. If you cannot see this then I do not think it can be explained more clearly for your benefit.

On a day-to-day basis, for a regular beat officer, why is it helpful to be able to think critically about social issues?

Can you give me an example of how this should affect them in the performance of their day-to-day duties?

Let's say the social issue is abortion. The police officer is assigned to stand guard at an abortion clinic as it is believed that it may be attacked by Pro Life protesters. The police officer has thought critically about abortion and believes it is socially unacceptable.

How exactly should that critical analysis of the issue of abortion be reflected in the police officer's performance of his/her duties?