16 October—Connecticut Democrats have made it easy and want to keep it that way for juvenile delinquents, among others, to get away with crimes, while making police more accountable for their misbehavior. Connecticut Republicans, on the other hand, want to make it harder for juvenile delinquents, among others, to get away with crimes, while making police less accountable for their misbehavior.

The Democrats appear to have more sympathy for criminals than for victims and are quick to point out that criminal offenders—youthful and otherwise—are disproportionately of non-White, minority ethnicity. And that matters because non-White minorities tend to vote Democrat. It must be pointed out that it should be insulting to minorities to be singled out for special treatment of any sort—preferences and affirmative action come to mind. Yeah, right.

Police, on the other hand, tend to vote Republican, so the Democrats generally don’t give a damn about them, even when the police are of non-White ethnicity. But the Democrats are right on the mark when they want police to be held accountable for their misbehavior. It’s only fair, after all. So hit ‘em in the pocket book.

Most cops are perfectly decent people who often put their lives on the line and sometimes have to make split-second decisions. And until 1 July, police in Connecticut could get away with virtually anything that would cost civilians a mint simply by copping qualified immunity.

But, thanks to the police accountability bill that was enacted last year, errant cops will be held personally liable for financial damages when they’ve knowingly violated a person’s rights. And the State Police Administration & Operations Manual even states, however legalistically and obtusely, “Whenever the A&O Manual or any general order is in conflict with the lawful mandate of any federal, state or local law, regulation, ordinance, by-law, or any court ruling which is controlling by law, custom or common practice, such a mandate shall take precedence and shall be controlling, but only to the extent to which it is in conflict with established department policy.”

That simply means cops are supposed to follow the law like everybody else. But don’t they deserve at least a degree of qualified immunity? That’s the Republican view, anyway. Republicans tend to fantasize that police can do no wrong—or very, very little wrong, at any rate; and even if they do violate a right, commit what would be a crime if you or I did it, or take a life, that’s okay if it’s in the line of duty. And even if it’s not in the line of duty, in far too many cases, as we see all too often. Qualified immunity is not and never has been a defense for criminal behavior, anyway.

But police are still protected from purely vexatious litigation, as everyone should be. And there remains a pretty big loophole that clever lawyers for bad cops are bound to use and abuse. It’s that the cops must “knowingly” have violated a person’s rights. We’ve seen time after time that courts tend to let cops get away with all manner of misdeeds because they claimed they didn’t know they were breaking the law. Of course, that’s a crock, because ignorance of the law is no defense for civilians. And aren’t police expected to know the laws they’re supposed to enforce?

Dream on.

Republicans are right on the mark, of course, when they insist that criminals be treated like criminals; and that youthful offenders, as juvenile delinquents are called by the bleeding-heart crowd, be treated like the miserable juvies they are, rather than poor, misunderstood little darlings who must have their asses kissed lest they grow up to be recidivistic adult delinquents.

Just because juvies may come from disadvantaged circumstances doesn’t justify their committing crimes. Look at all the disadvantaged kids, regardless of ethnicity, who have never committed crimes—or at least have never been caught—and have grown up to be successful, law-abiding adults—or at least have never been caught . . .