Robert Jordan, the Man Who Connecticut Police Said Was ‘Too Smart to Be a Cop’(melmagazine.com)
melmagazine.com
Robert Jordan, the Man Who Connecticut Police Said Was ‘Too Smart to Be a Cop’
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/robert-jordan-too-smart-to-be-a-cop
129 comments
It is striking how there is literally not a single mention of what the community members think about this officer in your comment, only the satisfaction of other officers, even when talking about something--enforcement of "trivial violations"--that might have a direct negative effect on the community members.
That's because I'm almost uniquely poorly placed to evaluate community opinion of this officer.
Most police departments have a site where you can see complaints raised against officers. Assuming you know his name and the department you could look that up and if the number is low you can be reasonably certain the community didn't hate him.
I agree with you here, that it is striking there isn't a single mention of what members might think. But I also wonder if it's relevant at all. To me, there's no real correlation between intelligence and being a good person. A really smart officer might also know precisely which things he or she can get away with, to the community's detriment.
> But I also wonder if it's relevant at all.
The idea that "Was he a good cop?" can be answered without asking the community being policed is just a dumbfounding notion, and really puts some urgency behind the question of who is the police serving.
The idea that "Was he a good cop?" can be answered without asking the community being policed is just a dumbfounding notion, and really puts some urgency behind the question of who is the police serving.
The article mentions they spend 25K to train an officer. Given that police departments have insane budgets, does 25K matter that much? How many intelligent officers leave solely because of boredom and their high IQ? Maybe a handful? The math doesn’t add up here. It sounds like an excuse to weed out people who wouldn’t fall in line.
This sounds similar to the psychological tests given to candidates in various jobs under the pretext of measuring compatibility with job requirements - but the real reason is to find out if the candidate would be obedient, not join unions, not think independently etc.
This sounds similar to the psychological tests given to candidates in various jobs under the pretext of measuring compatibility with job requirements - but the real reason is to find out if the candidate would be obedient, not join unions, not think independently etc.
> negative effect on the community members.
You misspelled positive.
You misspelled positive.
The primary reason we call them "trivial violations" is that enforcing them causes more harm than it prevents.
A point of view I can imagine on these infractions is this: it is necessary that there be a clear line between what is legal and what is not, and that all the law be enforced. Failing either of those, officers have the opportunity to selectively enforce the law in a way that is biased, brings them profit, or intimidates people for reasons outside the law. For that reason, every infraction, no matter how minor, must be enforced, and if it's unfair, law will have to change to exclude those edge cases. Otherwise you have unjust chaos.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think it's not irrational.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think it's not irrational.
It is irrational in the context of the US legal system, in which almost all infractions go unenforced simply because there are so many infractions. The point of view you espouse here is literally impossible to achieve.
What kind of things do you have in mind?
My first thought was traffic things like prohibited turns. UK is seeing more automated enforcement around this and the purpose is to improve traffic flow, or to increase fine revenue if you're more cynical.
My first thought was traffic things like prohibited turns. UK is seeing more automated enforcement around this and the purpose is to improve traffic flow, or to increase fine revenue if you're more cynical.
Take it a step further where you have cops who are forced to meet a certain quota in ticketing violations (with those quota targets being directly driven by budgets). What happens when a cop can't meet their target for a week? A hint: they don't pat themselves on the back for upholding a safe community.
Isn’t “Jay Walking” the classic trivial ‘crime’?
Most countries are happy to let you cross a road at any convenient place provided at that particular moment it doesn’t cause vehicles to slow down (ie there’s a safe gap in traffic). In the US, and often in a oddly ‘ethno-sensitive’ way, that’s an offence.
Most countries are happy to let you cross a road at any convenient place provided at that particular moment it doesn’t cause vehicles to slow down (ie there’s a safe gap in traffic). In the US, and often in a oddly ‘ethno-sensitive’ way, that’s an offence.
As many people as I have seen run through the street in the middle of the night when they're barely visible, I'm less inclined to think of that as 'harmless' and more inclined to think that some of them are nearly suicidal.
Wearing all black at night and sprinting in front of cars on fast, busy roads is not something people should be doing, yet I see it constantly.
Wearing all black at night and sprinting in front of cars on fast, busy roads is not something people should be doing, yet I see it constantly.
My country can't recruit enough police officers to go after anything. Even rapes lmao.
You can't litter vs beating you up
What about the satisfaction of the public that the police is serving? That should be the main consideration.
If he did a better job, then you should fix the managers to appreciate the good work that he did, or give him responsibility on designing those rules of the job that he had insight on. Kicking out good candidates just doesn't seem like the way to move anything forward.
If he did a better job, then you should fix the managers to appreciate the good work that he did, or give him responsibility on designing those rules of the job that he had insight on. Kicking out good candidates just doesn't seem like the way to move anything forward.
You said he was frustrated with his coworkers and superiors, but that's probably due to not hiring many other intelligent officers. Hire more intelligent officers and you'll have fewer frustrated intelligent officers.
In the UK I understand they now have acccelerated promotion programs for more educated candidates, designed to get them into management more quickly. I suppose it is the parallel of officers vs enlisted in the military. What it takes to be a good leader could be different to what it takes to be a good beat cop. I also understand that this has caused friction with less educated but longer serving staff who see smart kids promoted past them. I suspect if it is handled well then everyone can get over this. It's not like people don't get over promoted in civilian life!
> In the UK I understand they now have acccelerated promotion programs for more educated candidates, designed to get them into management more quickly.
Not every educated person is a good manager.
Not every educated person is a good manager.
Your point is what? "Education is worthless"? "Qualifications are useless"?
It's not unreasonable to expect officers to have spent some time in the trenches so they understand the day-to-day reality of the people they're managing.
> Your point is what? "Education is worthless"? "Qualifications are useless"?
Education typically teaches different skills than management.
Education typically teaches different skills than management.
Even not management there is quite wide range of work in police. From traffic to answering emergencies like drug users around bar closing times, their fights or simple property crime. On other hand then you have the more white collar and more investigative work. Type of person and level of their education is different in these. Not that any of it is less valuable to community.
> Are we really sure that it's unreasonable to reject an applicant because he is too smart, if it creates a dissatisfied officer and dissatisfied superiors?
Yes.
Yes.
> He was non-violent, and conscientious, and principled, and enforced the law with unusual accuracy and precision [...] I'm inclined to imagine that they found his resistance to what he saw as bad, stupid, or unethical policies inconvenient [...] Are we really sure that it's unreasonable to reject an applicant because he is too smart, if it creates a dissatisfied officer and dissatisfied superiors?
You summarized in a short number of lines why I left the United States, and why I think it's unsalvageable. "This man was smart and ethical, and thus was a bad police officer, because this was inconvenient to his superiors, and that all makes sense to me."
What's particularly morally empty about your argument is that the rights and needs of the citizens are completely ignored - not even mentioned. In this world, the only people who need satisfying are his "superiors".
You summarized in a short number of lines why I left the United States, and why I think it's unsalvageable. "This man was smart and ethical, and thus was a bad police officer, because this was inconvenient to his superiors, and that all makes sense to me."
What's particularly morally empty about your argument is that the rights and needs of the citizens are completely ignored - not even mentioned. In this world, the only people who need satisfying are his "superiors".
My local police department has done a pretty good job attracting smart folks.
They compensate based on educational level, and pay tuition for classes.
Many police have multiple graduate degrees, because why not?
Lots of them get law degrees and masters in social work. Or both.
They compensate based on educational level, and pay tuition for classes.
Many police have multiple graduate degrees, because why not?
Lots of them get law degrees and masters in social work. Or both.
>Lots of them get law degrees
Citation needed for this very bold claim.
Citation needed for this very bold claim.
Probably pretty common. When I was in my early 20s I applied for a relatively high paying job delivering beer locally. They had us all take a test...I don't remember a ton about it but it seemed a combination of general knowledge and 'IQ' testish questions.
The guy told me nobody had ever got a perfect score before, but they wouldn't hire me. For the same reason listed in the article - I wouldn't stick around long before finding something better. The guy was nice about it, and said I could find something better than this position. At the time I felt a bit cheated, but thinking back I guess that's correct. I was off programming computers about 3 years later.
That said, this was beer delivery, not tax funded policing. I think we'd all be better served by having smarter police.
The guy told me nobody had ever got a perfect score before, but they wouldn't hire me. For the same reason listed in the article - I wouldn't stick around long before finding something better. The guy was nice about it, and said I could find something better than this position. At the time I felt a bit cheated, but thinking back I guess that's correct. I was off programming computers about 3 years later.
That said, this was beer delivery, not tax funded policing. I think we'd all be better served by having smarter police.
Doing beer delivery for a bit while you work out some other parts of your life sounds like an alright time to me.
Long stretches of automaticity definitely give my brain a chance to simmer whatever ingredients are in it at the moment. One of the luckiest times in my first few years of work was being able to listen to audiobooks and podcasts for almost 40 hours a week, for several years. I think that gave me a little bit of a wide range of the world to begin building a complex systems model of it in my mind.
Too smart to be challenged by the test, but not clever enough to know to not ace it: an irksome fate.
Managers appreciate skills, but want a warm body that won't bail in a couple of months, forcing the manager to cover the shifts themselves.
A good beer example of how to get past that filter was the father of a childhood friend. He worked for a beer distributor all through college (back when drinking age was 18), and was wildly popular among friends for always knowing where the biggest parties were going to be every weekend. They knew he was going to be around for 3-4 years at least, so they could plan ahead (and probably count on him recommending someone for the job when he graduated).
A good beer example of how to get past that filter was the father of a childhood friend. He worked for a beer distributor all through college (back when drinking age was 18), and was wildly popular among friends for always knowing where the biggest parties were going to be every weekend. They knew he was going to be around for 3-4 years at least, so they could plan ahead (and probably count on him recommending someone for the job when he graduated).
[deleted]
This is a particularly absurd example, but more subtle versions of this policy show up in many large police departments. For example, the NYPD requires half of a college degree at a rock-bottom GPA[1], and has been agitating for the current mayor (himself an ex-cop) to drop even that requirement[2].
Edit: I forgot to mention that two years of military service also exempts prospective cops from needing half of a college degree.
[1]: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/police-officers/po-hi...
[2]: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections...
Edit: I forgot to mention that two years of military service also exempts prospective cops from needing half of a college degree.
[1]: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/police-officers/po-hi...
[2]: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections...
It shouldn’t require a college degree. They should have some concrete notion of the requirements and how to test for them.
I’m not aware of any European country that requires police officers to have a degree but they all have much longer training periods than is normal in the US. If I recall correctly in both Germany and Ireland at least take three years before you’re basically tenured and can only be fired for gross misconduct.
Sweden doesn't require a degree, but training is 3 years and a 'degree' from the a police school is considered equivalent to a bachelors degree. All the academic courses (law, sociology, criminology etc.) you take give 'real' academic credits that you can transfer if you for example want to apply to study for a different academic degree later.
Same in Finland. All police officers go to the Police University College, which counts as a University of Applied Sciences, just like engineering schools.
Same in Norway. I suspect the remaining Nordic state is similar.
Lithuania requires two-year academy for beat cops and 4-year bachelor's (specific programme, with law and social studies as basis) for detectives and such. I think (but not certain) special investigation units require master's in law as well.
What’s a “special investigation unit?”
Something like FBI in US, people who investigate government corruption, organized crime, national security threats, etc.
Czech Republic does require a degree since early 2000s. Back then I had a few classmates who were cops and went to college to satisfy the new requirement.
The UK has an apprenticeship scheme where police officers gain a degree whilst learning to do the job.
[deleted]
I support this.
> This is a particularly absurd example,
It _sounds_ like a particularly absurd example, but I do not have an in-depth understanding of the court case, the evidence, the department policies, and the law that lead to this verdict. These days I withhold judgement.
> but more subtle versions of this policy show up in many large police departments. For example, the NYPD requires half of a college degree at a rock-bottom GPA[1], and has been agitating for the current mayor (himself an ex-cop) to drop even that requirement[2].
I don't see the similarity. That looks like a minimum, not a "maximum" requirement.
I also don't see why a college degree should be required of a police officer at all. They should be able to get training on the job. A college degree (or part of one) requirement inflates degrees and excludes people with disadvantaged backgrounds who are likely to have grown up in and connections with communities most impacted by crime, and it probably doesn't select for important qualities, in my opinion. Although that's another story and I don't really have evidence for that belief.
It _sounds_ like a particularly absurd example, but I do not have an in-depth understanding of the court case, the evidence, the department policies, and the law that lead to this verdict. These days I withhold judgement.
> but more subtle versions of this policy show up in many large police departments. For example, the NYPD requires half of a college degree at a rock-bottom GPA[1], and has been agitating for the current mayor (himself an ex-cop) to drop even that requirement[2].
I don't see the similarity. That looks like a minimum, not a "maximum" requirement.
I also don't see why a college degree should be required of a police officer at all. They should be able to get training on the job. A college degree (or part of one) requirement inflates degrees and excludes people with disadvantaged backgrounds who are likely to have grown up in and connections with communities most impacted by crime, and it probably doesn't select for important qualities, in my opinion. Although that's another story and I don't really have evidence for that belief.
I disagree, you highlight a bunch of issues with your university system and then use them to say that police shouldn't need college education. Do you feel the same way about lawyers?
Personally I think the people that actually enforce the law should be some of the most educated on the topic and the justice system, much of which is far too in depth to learn while also being a full time police offer.
The most obvious solution is for police to have degrees in criminal justice or law (as in some non-US countries).
EDIT: reworded for clarity
Personally I think the people that actually enforce the law should be some of the most educated on the topic and the justice system, much of which is far too in depth to learn while also being a full time police offer.
The most obvious solution is for police to have degrees in criminal justice or law (as in some non-US countries).
EDIT: reworded for clarity
> Do you feel the same way about lawyers?
No. Do you feel the same way about plumbers?
> Personally I think the people that actually enforce the law should be some of the most educated on the topic and the justice system, much of which is far too in depth to learn while also being a full time police offer.
I disagree. I think they should be well versed in peoples' rights, and the common types of crimes they encounter as part of their job (which is a tiny slice of the justice system -- contract law or securities fraud is not something a beat cop is going to encounter).
The law part of it is actually the least important (or easiest) part of the job in my opinion, if you're talking what people usually think of as a "cop". Having empathy, good personal and communication skills, learning how to project authority and confidence, also de-escalation techniques, learning about mental illness and how to deal with sufferers, first aid skills, etc etc. (and that's before we even get to physically restraining people and defending themselves) -- are all more important than a rigorous knowledge of the legal system.
No. Do you feel the same way about plumbers?
> Personally I think the people that actually enforce the law should be some of the most educated on the topic and the justice system, much of which is far too in depth to learn while also being a full time police offer.
I disagree. I think they should be well versed in peoples' rights, and the common types of crimes they encounter as part of their job (which is a tiny slice of the justice system -- contract law or securities fraud is not something a beat cop is going to encounter).
The law part of it is actually the least important (or easiest) part of the job in my opinion, if you're talking what people usually think of as a "cop". Having empathy, good personal and communication skills, learning how to project authority and confidence, also de-escalation techniques, learning about mental illness and how to deal with sufferers, first aid skills, etc etc. (and that's before we even get to physically restraining people and defending themselves) -- are all more important than a rigorous knowledge of the legal system.
> Do you feel the same way about plumbers?
Obviously plumbers don't enforce the law, manage evidence, write legal documents or have legal authority over others. If you can't see the difference in power dynamics between a police officer or lawyer and a member of the public I cant help you.
You're making my point for me, of course police need all of the skills you have listed (except maybe 'how to project authority', whatever that means). All of these skills should be taught to them by other police, while they are learning the job.
They also must know the extent to which they are allowed to use their authority, the situations in which they can use lethal force, the appropriate evidentiary and legal processes for taking a case to court. If they learn this on the job then they are risking making process mistakes, or falsely enforcing the law, or breaching rules of evidence, all on real members of the public. They should be educated in all of these things and the limitations of their power BEFORE they have access to that power.
Education in Justice is not going be focused on contract law, and I reject the assertion that a beat cop doesn't need to know anything about securities fraud. You don't jump in at detective, most police are going to start working the streets and then move to different roles.
You're making my point for me, of course police need all of the skills you have listed (except maybe 'how to project authority', whatever that means). All of these skills should be taught to them by other police, while they are learning the job.
They also must know the extent to which they are allowed to use their authority, the situations in which they can use lethal force, the appropriate evidentiary and legal processes for taking a case to court. If they learn this on the job then they are risking making process mistakes, or falsely enforcing the law, or breaching rules of evidence, all on real members of the public. They should be educated in all of these things and the limitations of their power BEFORE they have access to that power.
Education in Justice is not going be focused on contract law, and I reject the assertion that a beat cop doesn't need to know anything about securities fraud. You don't jump in at detective, most police are going to start working the streets and then move to different roles.
In the US, many police do have law degrees. It’s practically required if you want to be an FBI Agent.
Honestly I don’t think police need to be well versed in bankruptcy law, contract law, arbitration law, corporate law, tax law, or all the other types of law lawyers learn.
Honestly I don’t think police need to be well versed in bankruptcy law, contract law, arbitration law, corporate law, tax law, or all the other types of law lawyers learn.
> They should be able to get training on the job.
I'd agree if it completing classes before stepping out on the street with a badge, not learning while doing actual policing
I'd agree if it completing classes before stepping out on the street with a badge, not learning while doing actual policing
That's why you pair them with an experienced mentor instead of just giving them a badge and gun and letting them loose on the streets.
Where I am all you need is a GED or high school diploma and no felonies. They do drug test, but I'm told you're informed in advance.
Yeah I can't see why being a street cop needs a college education. Note I'm not saying there should not be some aptitude and psychological screening. But I think plenty of people who didn't go to college could be good cops.
I don't fundamentally disagree with this position, but I do feel the level and types of training a US LEO should go through (yes, I suggest a Federal standard) should be completely different from the mess now.
The training and discipline of the Met in the UK the JNI of Japan or the German Police all are both less prone to misbehavior and more effective. Frankly, we could learn a lot from elsewhere: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/06/am... (we won't, but we could)
The training and discipline of the Met in the UK the JNI of Japan or the German Police all are both less prone to misbehavior and more effective. Frankly, we could learn a lot from elsewhere: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/06/am... (we won't, but we could)
And speaking of the MET in the UK they are arguably the worse force in the UK if you're talking about scandals and bad policing.
I can't think of a single Police force these days free of scandal, but the Met, for all its issues, still is the father of modern police/detective work, with clearance rates and auditability still near the top of any list.
...and I'm a yank saying this, not a particular fan of the Met/Scotland Yard given they don't handle my neighborhood, which is known for its exceptionally bumbling poltroons for police.
...and I'm a yank saying this, not a particular fan of the Met/Scotland Yard given they don't handle my neighborhood, which is known for its exceptionally bumbling poltroons for police.
In my ideal world, the official Law Enforcement Officer should have a good understanding of their legal system. I'll agree with you that college isn't the only way to get that understanding.
In Sweden you have to go to 'cop college' to become a cop. A 3 year practical and academic program (including at least 6 month on the job training) that teaches you how to be a cop. You cannot just show up with a random college degree and decide to be a cop.
I mean, is it even a useful way? Unless you major in pre-law, you aren't going to know more about the legal system than you got from high school civics.
If you want to be a detective you might value the post highschool education. Out of the ones I've known, they tend to have a criminal justice degree. They drive different vehicles, interact with people in different contexts, and may have different pay grades.
Many (perhaps most) police departments require new cadets to be patrol officers for N years prior to being promoted to Detective. Once promoted to the equivalent rank, you still need an opening on a unit and it can be competitive from what I gather.
That makes sense. I'm not sure that on-the-road experience can be taught in class, same for most things.
You're right, I assumed way too much when I made my comment. Mea Culpa.
You and Chicago (unless you also live in Chicago!)[1].
[1]: https://news.wttw.com/2022/03/10/police-drop-college-credit-...
[1]: https://news.wttw.com/2022/03/10/police-drop-college-credit-...
Similar in some ways, but no, just the south.
Why would a beat cop need any sort of college education?
Because enforcing the law requires some minimum understanding of the law and criminal justice. It's pretty clear the current requirements aren't meeting that minimum.
I doubt a college degree requirement would change that. The vast majority of policing is taught on the job, and experience counts for more that formal education.
Is half of a college degree an Associate’s or one year of college?
Half a college degree is two years of credits. That may or may not be an associates degree.
Generally, if a student in a four year program drops out at two years, they get nothing.
But they could enroll in a two year program, and if their credits transfer graduate in a year.
Few colleges (including two year) will offer a degree with less than a year of study, even with transfer credits.
Generally, if a student in a four year program drops out at two years, they get nothing.
But they could enroll in a two year program, and if their credits transfer graduate in a year.
Few colleges (including two year) will offer a degree with less than a year of study, even with transfer credits.
There must be a better way to screen people who are likely to leave. While maybe being a beat cop walking patrols isn’t too intellectually stimulating (though I wouldn’t take that for granted) surely there’s other positions like detective and management that would benefit from intelligent people, and where are they going to get them if they filter out all the smart people up front?
A few jobs back when I was working for a fairly large telecom company there was a similar kind of thing for the software department. I was in hardware but sometimes I would interview software people if they were hired to participate on my project. The software department asked me to rank the interviewee on various categories and give a score. If the total score from all interviewers were larger than some value, they wouldn't hire them because they didn't want them to get bored and leave. Needless to say, this process frustrated many people. It was not consistent across the company though. For the hardware department there was no such system.
> But there was a silver lining for Jordan: After his testing debacle, he was still able to land a new job at the Department of Corrections, proving that at least he wasn’t too smart to be a prison guard.
I'd suggest that this is because prison guard turnover is high so it won't cost them any more than usual when he gets 'bored' and leaves.
I'd suggest that this is because prison guard turnover is high so it won't cost them any more than usual when he gets 'bored' and leaves.
Yep. DoC hires the people who can’t successfully get a job with the TSA.
DoC might be regional, but in my home city in the US of about a million, it was a real shithole. Buncha young white guys on steroids, who constantly drank and bragged about how they abused inmates in different ways. They constantly seemed to be waiting for someone to mess up even a little, so they could abuse them.
Black people got it worse. Even as far as how much they hurt anuses looking for drugs(seriously). My best friend from highschool went down that path after getting rejected from police, and I had to cut him out completely. I feel sorry for anyone who goes to jail now.
Prospective jurors who are "too smart" (highly educated/credentialed) are often dismissed as well.
I don't think you can assert this unequivocally. Prosecutors often favor highly educated jurors for anti-social crimes, under the theory that members of polite society are more willing to dole out punishment against defendants accused of violating peace and tranquility.
I mean one can at least say that it's treated as a salient factor. And a good education does inform how people think about justice. For example, the jury selection this blogger talks about. https://www.exurbe.com/on-crimes-and-punishments-and-beccari...
Yep, it certainly is! It's an instance where prosecutors (and defenders) will select in either direction, depending on whatever they think is most likely to obtain their outcome. Education is a proxy for all kinds of other things, so it's particularly salient.
I got a chance to chat with the defense attorney of a case I was a juror on like a year later when they sat down next to me at a bar. He said that they generally took IT folks as they tended to be salaried and thus not impacted by a court case. Same for retired folks. Note I am making the assumption that a high % of IT folks went to higher education.
> they generally took IT folks as they tended to be salaried and thus not impacted by a court case.
What part of a "jury of your peers" do these prosecutors not understand?
What part of a "jury of your peers" do these prosecutors not understand?
Heh, if you plead guilty does that mean the jury should be made of convicts?
but to the actual topic, "jury of your peers" is a legal term and not a logical term. It just means the people should live near you [1]. and not that if the town is say 99% black that the jury has any black members.
See also, does a "loaded gun" need to have any bullets in it (NO!) [2] [3].
[1]: https://www.nolo.com/dictionary/jury-of-one's-peers-term.htm... [2]: https://www.gjllp.com/news/new-york-s-definition-of-loaded-f... [3]: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/265.00
but to the actual topic, "jury of your peers" is a legal term and not a logical term. It just means the people should live near you [1]. and not that if the town is say 99% black that the jury has any black members.
See also, does a "loaded gun" need to have any bullets in it (NO!) [2] [3].
[1]: https://www.nolo.com/dictionary/jury-of-one's-peers-term.htm... [2]: https://www.gjllp.com/news/new-york-s-definition-of-loaded-f... [3]: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/265.00
Jury of your peers just means that they're not the judge, prosecuter, or some formal aristocratic class member but instead members of the public.
> He said that they generally took IT folks as they tended to be salaried and thus not impacted by a court case.
Being salaried means you draw a full week's salary if you do any work that week, but if you do no work for a week, you're not entitled to pay based on "salaried" status.
Being salaried means you draw a full week's salary if you do any work that week, but if you do no work for a week, you're not entitled to pay based on "salaried" status.
My favorite part of my week-long jury duty service was that my employer told me that they were only obligated to pay me for the first day of jury duty, and I immediately informed them that they would be paying me for the duration. HR had a snide comment and I replied with the state statute. So not only did work pay me, but so did the state.
Yeah, maybe I should have said "sometimes" rather than "often."
The gist of what I remember about it is that sometimes a "smart" juror can end up trying to outhink the lawyers, rather than just evaluating the evidence presented and whether or not it meets the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
The gist of what I remember about it is that sometimes a "smart" juror can end up trying to outhink the lawyers, rather than just evaluating the evidence presented and whether or not it meets the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
IME it’s more about selecting a group that is the most to be likely receptive to the particular argument/narrative/story you’re trying get the jury to accept
They should do that with being charged for crimes too then, since we're entitled to a jury of our peers.
(I'm not at all joking.)
(I'm not at all joking.)
Each side in a trial gets to dismiss a certain number of potential jurors, for nearly any reason they like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire#United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire#United_States
I know, but thanks for sharing this for those who do not.
Your peers are your fellow citizens, usually from the same municipality as you. The US doesn't recognize a right to be tried by peers of a particular status, since consideration for that is likely to always be a positive or negative bias (e.g. juries of landholders against a tenant, juries of the educated against someone illiterate.)
Yeah, that's why my metro area has negative population growth.
You can EXPLAIN things like you just said, but if you just explain over and over "that's the way it is" to people who are trapped in interactions with you, they tend to act out, it's why Pennsylvania has been having so many issues lately.
You can EXPLAIN things like you just said, but if you just explain over and over "that's the way it is" to people who are trapped in interactions with you, they tend to act out, it's why Pennsylvania has been having so many issues lately.
I can think of a handful of other things in the last 24 months that probably better explain why your metropolitan area has negative population growth.
It's been that way since I first emmigrated then returned under duress due to persistent discrimination.
We have been too welcoming to antisocial people.
We have been too welcoming to antisocial people.
I’ve known a couple of people working on technical phd programs who served on juries so it happens.
That’s weird. Where can I learn more?
The one and only jury I was seated on (civil trial) had both a Ph.D in statistics and a Masters in mathematics. The remainder (12-man jury) was probably evenly split between High School only folks like me, and BA/BS crowd. So from janitor who couldn't afford a car to a Ph.D all on one jury. We discussed matters politely, but at times with some intensity. Overall jury position swung 180-degs over 2 days. Gave me hope that the system can work.
During voir dire usually.
I came to the cynical conclusion that they didn't want as a general rule, a cop smart enough to investigate the dark areas of political corruption.
Smart enough to write tickets and oppress the populace, but not so smart that they will investigate their political masters.
Smart enough to write tickets and oppress the populace, but not so smart that they will investigate their political masters.
The theory that officers who are “too smart” will get bored and leave could be tested empirically. One could look at past hires, and make a graph of test scores vs length of service. This data would help inform the discussion.
This is addressed in the article. The plaintiff provided evidence that intelligence does not impact job satisfaction, however the courts ruled that the factual reality did not matter. What mattered is that the hiring department thought that his intelligence would be a problem.
But not too smart. He got as upset when he sued for his constitutional rights being violated that the court focused only on that issue, and not whether the policy made sense.
It's hard to sue on behalf of the public rather than oneself; courts often punt by creating or invoking balancing tests that are fundamentally arbitrary. I'm not at all sure the policy does make sense; it's not well-supported by data, and it seems to me that the only people who benefit from constraining the average intelligence level of cops are corrupt administrators. After all, it's much easier to govern if you have assistants with a lot of leverage but little initiative.
You can only sue if you have been harmed. His suit wasn't that stupid cops hurt him - it was that he was treated unfairly. But he was treated the same as anyone else and the people reason he was excluded was considered reasonable enough to be a question of public policy (not the courts job)
Yes, that's my point. It's a problem because it creates an accountability gap, same reason we have such insanely long copyright terms.
Given that policing is supposed to offer a path into the middle class https://www.policemag.com/374280/law-enforcement-a-path-into... - as the middle class gets squeezed is the idea that smarter people will leave policing to go on to other jobs less likely to be correct?
Takes all kinds to do all kinds of jobs.
For instance software engineer and software QA are done best by entirely different kinds of people. One wants to get to a solution, skating around issues as they go by to get to a first successful implementation. The other wants to notice every issue that is encountered and carefully investigate it and record it.
Maybe it's good to have a few outliers in every job to keep the others honest.
For instance software engineer and software QA are done best by entirely different kinds of people. One wants to get to a solution, skating around issues as they go by to get to a first successful implementation. The other wants to notice every issue that is encountered and carefully investigate it and record it.
Maybe it's good to have a few outliers in every job to keep the others honest.
I applied to Navy OCS after college, and got a soft rejection - the recruiter wouldn't return my calls.
When I finally got a hold of them, they strongly implied that my abnormally high score on the aptitude test, combined with poor GPA suggested I had cheated on the test.
When I finally got a hold of them, they strongly implied that my abnormally high score on the aptitude test, combined with poor GPA suggested I had cheated on the test.
It's very easy to start generalizing and speculating. But does anyone know how prevalent the low IQ standard is across the country? Presumably its set by each department, so that's like 10k or 20k different policies.
There's no uniform policy, but the person in the article above eventually filed a case that reached the 2nd Circuit. The court determined that the police did not violate any discrimination laws by forbidding smarter applicants, because the test was applied uniformly[1].
Edit: it's left to us to understand why "uniform application" prevents discrimination. The court apparently didn't consider that a discriminatory test, uniformly applied, is still fundamentally discriminatory.
[1]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
Edit: it's left to us to understand why "uniform application" prevents discrimination. The court apparently didn't consider that a discriminatory test, uniformly applied, is still fundamentally discriminatory.
[1]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
Probably because “smart person” isn’t a protected class
> it's left to us to understand why "uniform application" prevents discrimination. The court apparently didn't consider that a discriminatory test, uniformly applied, is still fundamentally discriminatory.
The US legal system considers that all the time. Minimum IQ requirements run into legal problems because they have a disproportionately negative impact on blacks. But a low maximum requirement would have a disproportionately positive impact on blacks, so no problems there.
The US legal system considers that all the time. Minimum IQ requirements run into legal problems because they have a disproportionately negative impact on blacks. But a low maximum requirement would have a disproportionately positive impact on blacks, so no problems there.
Thought I recognized that line
https://youtu.be/ROmdZxS7lqE (first minute or so)
https://youtu.be/ROmdZxS7lqE (first minute or so)
Now they just need to enforce an equivalent rule limiting the intelligence of the criminals they need to catch.
Couldn't it be he was too old and they used the IQ as an excuse?
I also thought that, based on his books
I hate the fact that cops with their sub 2.0 GPA don't understand what is necessary.
Was he a good cop? Depends on what you mean by that. He was non-violent, and conscientious, and principled, and enforced the law with unusual accuracy and precision — but whether his superiors were satisfied with his performance, I can't say. I'm inclined to imagine that they found his resistance to what he saw as bad, stupid, or unethical policies inconvenient, and his enforcement of what they saw as trivial violations tiresome. I'm inclined to doubt that his superiors appreciated his intellect.
Are we really sure that it's unreasonable to reject an applicant because he is too smart, if it creates a dissatisfied officer and dissatisfied superiors?