Bad officer, go to your vacation!

November 20, 2011 1:48 PM

The police officers who recently used pepper spray on UC Davis students were put on paid leave. The very nature of paid leave is an interesting subject. Is it a punishment, or a reward? Paid leave is usually a valuable benefit of employment. I can see the value in removing officers out of public view. In the wake of the Rodney King incident, it would have been dangerous to have those officers walking a beat. But there are desk jobs and plenty of paperwork to do, which is considered a far worse punishment. Thus, is paid leave anything more than a political move to appease the public without angering the officers? Sort of a justice-less pretend punishment?
posted by parallax7d to Law & Government (10 answers total)

As I understand it, paid leave is a way to get innocent officers out of the police force while they're being investigated. That's innocent as in "innocent until proven guilty". The punishment comes later after the investigation is complete.
posted by mmoncur at 1:57 PM on November 20, 2011

paid leave isn't meant as punishment, it is putting them on ice until the incident is investigated (and potentially avoiding additional liabilities or problems). they are innocent until proven guilty.
posted by jimw at 1:58 PM on November 20, 2011

I think the idea is that it's neither punishment nor reward, but a way to get the officers out of situations where they'll be interacting with the public while a determination is made as to whether their conduct was inappropriate.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 1:58 PM on November 20, 2011

Hey, preview. Hey, jimw.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 1:58 PM on November 20, 2011

I don't think it's even pretend punishment. It's what they do when there is suspicion of improper conduct, but whatever due process procedures afforded that employee by virtue of company policy, union contract, etc.
posted by skewed at 1:59 PM on November 20, 2011

Administrative leave.
posted by caek at 2:03 PM on November 20, 2011

You have to ask, though, why should these people "be punished" just because of an accusation? Yes, in some of these cases, like the pepper spraying incident, the guilt of the accused seems pretty clear, so hearing about paid leave can be frustrating. But there are lots of incidents that involve hearsay, false accusations, exaggeration, etc, and in those cases, where the accused may very well be innocent, it is important that they are treated fairly and not like they are automatically guilty of the crime. So essentially yes, there are other means than paid leave that are far worse “punishments,” but in our society we try to not punish individuals until their guilt has been proven, even in cases that seem very cut and dry.
posted by Nightman at 2:05 PM on November 20, 2011

Police paperwork is important. Having someone doing it who has a motive to screw it up -- or who could, by a defense lawyer, be construed as having a motive to screw it up -- is going to cause a lot more problems than simply sending somebody home.

Plus that whole innocent until proven guilty thing -- you're not supposed to be punishing them during the investigation. Just keeping them out of trouble until it's complete.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:06 PM on November 20, 2011

Also, as to why they do this, there are probably both contractual reasons (police unions are powerful) and background legal reasons. Since public employees work for the government, they may be entitled to due process under the state or federal constitution. Punishing or firing the officers without following the appropriate procedures might expose the university to legal liability.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 2:08 PM on November 20, 2011

I'm pretty sure the "paid" part is mandated by the due process protections afforded to public employees.

You never see private companies putting people on paid leave because, generally, private employers do not have to give due process of law to their employees. But public entities do.
posted by jayder at 2:08 PM on November 20, 2011