Iyfjky

Question

In the dystopian state of the UFS, or Union of Fascist States, the leaders of government reign supreme. President Jeffrey Stevenson, the highest of all oligarchs in the UFS, keeps tabs on all the citizens that look like they have suspicion tendencies from a young age. Secret police patrol the streets and make sure no one causes trouble. And when suspected rebels and dissenters, they are usually in for a world of trouble.

Police Force

The UFSÃ¢Â€Â™s police force often let their power over the citizens of the country get to their heads. When dissenters are caught, they often get tortured for information, which is legal in the UFS, but the police often torture dissenters after information is acquired, which is against the UFS rules. They also often have their way with arrested females, sundry other such things.

My question is, why might the UFS government not discipline its police force?

The phrase " sans other such things" means "without other such things." You probably mean "sundry other such things" or something similar. I will edit accordingly when possible. — 4 hours ago
May I remind you that in the US it is not that uncommon that if a police officier screws up royally (e.g. shooting an innocent person) most of the time all he gets is a paid suspension? (If anything at all.) — 3 hours ago

Palarran 4,1791827 · Answer 1 · 2018-09-20 03:55:15Z

I'd suggest looking at historical examples, and two in particular.

First, the decay of the Ottoman Empire. Essentially, the Janissaries were originally conscripts taken from outlying provinces (usually Greek), forcibly converted to Islam, and used as elite soldiers. Over time, though, they managed to gather political power, and eventually reached the point where they were the power behind the throne. Even the Sultans had to step carefully around the Janissaries in the 18th century, and at least one was murdered when he attempted to push through reforms.

Second, and probably more widely known, would be the Praetorian Guard of Roman (in)famy. This force was created during the early days of the Empire to serve as the bodyguard of the Emperor. It wasn't long though, before Caligula took power and did all sorts of mad and insane things, and eventually a few of his own guards killed him off. Several factions tried to claim the throne after that, but it ultimately went to Claudius when he offered the Praetorians an award equal to several years' pay if they would serve him. The results were an object lesson for Roman politicians; the Guard served whoever had the most money.

I hope the theme here is becoming tolerably clear. If rulers try to enforce laws that limit the freedoms (or pay, or special benefits, etc.) of an elite faction, especially royal military groups (although this works in the more general case) with a disproportionate amount of influence, why, such rulers can be, ah, replaced with other candidates deemed, er, more suitable and more generous towards said faction.

Really, the Praetorian Guard is a perfect fit for what you're looking for: they essentially served as the guards of Rome, and even doubled as a sort of secret police. The Emperors could not afford to limit their privileges, else they might find themselves with the sword of one of their guards somehow finding their guts. So your plausible reason is simple: your ruler does not crack down on their police force because they fear being deposed by said police force if they try to materially restrict its power.

score 3 · Answer 2 · 2018-09-20 09:11:08Z

It appears that you have a post WWII viewpoint, you think people actually have rights and that governments can't do what they like.

Human rights was a concept invented during the WWII war crimes tribunals, until that point a government could do what it liked to its population and nobody would say anything. The sanctity of the international borders, national sovereignty, rates far higher than any abuses you might commit against your own population, hence the continued incidence of genocide even after the "never again". The population of a country is effectively the property of the government, and anything the government does to it's own population within it's own borders is legal. What you're not allowed to do is invade the next country over and start wiping out their population. There may also be consequences for actions against citizens of other nations within your borders.

Paying mere lip service to the rules, and doing what you like as an arm of government, is a tried and tested method of repressing populations.

*In fact there were some problems introducing the concept of universal human rights. Russia wanted to continue to abuse it's population, the USA wanted to keep repressing the blacks and the British wanted to keep repressing the Irish.

Why the British. British and Irish people are basically the same? And they live less than 50 miles apart, wouldnÃ¢Â€Â™t it just make more sense to except each otherÃ¢Â€Â™s differences and move on? — 27 mins ago

score 2 · Answer 3 · 2018-09-20 07:06:37Z

Acceptable Targets

Historically, the Nazis in Germany decided to free the Gestapo from judicial oversight that would have applied to normal administrative actions. They argued that "[as] long as the police carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally."

So as long as the cops do what the President wants them to do, minor indiscretions are forgiven. It would be a really bad idea if they treat a party official the way you describe, unless the orders to do so come from high places, but abusing the "designated" acceptable targets does not get them into trouble.

Things to keep in mind:

The designated target groups may be formally or informally banned from filing complaints. Either they know that their testimony will be disregarded, or they know that is will be inadmissable to start with.

The internal affairs department may be empowered to take cases when they see it in the best interest of the service. (For example, if a suspect gets leniency in exchange for sexual acts. It is the leniency part of the transaction that brings internal affairs attention.)

Many fascist societies place a high value on the "purity" of the race. That might make the sexual abuse problematic even from their viewpoint if it results in children.

And a big thing:

Formal and Informal Rules

Certain regulations may be passed so that the elites can point to the regulations on the books if they are ever challenged on their human rights record. Everybody understands that those regulations are not supposed to be actually applied to actual or suspected resistance members.

In fact, abuse after the investigative part of detention might be seen as punishment at the discretion of the police, fitting on the scale between a stern admonishment, a fine, and actual court charges. (Court charges would go into more official records than a mere detention, interrogation, and release "without charge". With a court record, the dissenter can forget about ever getting a job.)

Collecting Dirt on the Cops

As long as such abuses are part of the police culture, and as long as internal affairs keeps records and does nothing, they can later come down on the cop whenever they or their superiors want to. Collect Kompromat on everybody before they are promoted to high places.

Amon GÃƒÂ¶th, a concentration camp commander, was charged among other things with failure to feed the inmates. That's a bit strange, considering the official German policy set forth in the Wannsee protocols. Of course those charges were just the icing on the cake. The more serious charges against him from the Nazi viewpoint were embezzlement of Jewish money and letting trustees into personnel records.

Mr.J 1,049528 · Answer 4 · 2018-09-20 07:29:38Z

Simpliest Answer

CHOICE

A government can chose what they "deem" right or wrong, based on their standards.

Take Philippines for example:

The government AND law forbids murder. But the police CAN kill WHOEVER, WHENEVER they wish (from politicians, to kids). They'll just have to present that the victim OR the culprit possesses drugs, or is/was connected to drugs. With the governments push to "End drug trade" on the country, they'll be defending the men that upholds the justice that they "deem" right, even though there are other people who are either "cross fire victims", "looks like an addict" or plain "legal murder"

Don't get me wrong though, I know justice when I see one.

Tim B II 21.1k44690 · Answer 5 · 2018-09-20 02:51:32Z

There are two plausible reasons that I can think of to this conundrum...

They are members of the Inner Party

To go Orwellian, these police get the job by virtue of their fervour for the UFS, and their absolute devotion & willingness to serve the state. Sure, they can go overboard from time to time in that pursuit but those incidents are isolated and excusable given that for the most part, these officers live in the service of the state and as a consequence often don't properly understand the balance between the rights of the state and the rights of the individual. They are not trained in such understanding, and would actually struggle with the torture pre-information if they were more cognisant of the individual's rights. Ultimately it's a fine line between legal and illegal torture in your world; why risk making your officers less effective by pointing out that there's a line in the first place?

We who are about to die...

The fact that you have a police force that is sanctioned to commit torture for information tells me that there is by extension a resistance. People living in peace and happiness don't see the need for such an invasive force, with such sweeping powers, and the only reason that you would invest your money in such a force (dictator or not) over more useful endeavours is if there is an actual threat to contain.

If that's the case, your police have probably signed up for a death sentence and know it. They're already expected to die within a decade of signing up. Why would you (especially publicly) make the life of a policeman less attractive to potential candidates? The last thing you need in a disciplined force living in a constantly quasi-combat environment is a morale problem. So long as it isn't too large scale or seditious, you let it go. The policeman only has a few years left in all likelihood, especially if the public knows what that particular officer has been getting up to; more likely he or she will be targeted by the resistance.

Of course, the answers above assume that sanctions are the only method of behaviour control available to you. If you have a rating system for your officers (like ebay sellers) then perhaps the police can only access certain benefits (like better weapons) once they reach a certain star rating. Do things right, you get more stars. Do things wrong, you don't lose stars but you don't get them, either.

Perhaps the simplest possible answer is that you don't have to sanction your officers because that's the one group in your society you manage with carrots instead of sticks.

JBH 33.7k580161 · Answer 6 · 2018-09-20 03:02:23Z

Success is easily forgiven

The wonderful thing about success is that it gives you oodles of material for positive promotion campaigns. Who's going to complain against people who are actually making the world a better place? What's a few indiscretions when the country is running so smoothly?

Â

They have photos of you golfing with Satan

And the problem with a really successfull ~~intelligence~~ police force is that they have archives with information locked in vaults behind sliding doors and beneath telephone booths. Information, not to put too fine a point on it... about you. They like to call it an insurance policy. I mean, they learned from a master, right? You probably think a better name is "an inconvenience."

Â

The oversight committee is on the take

Rumors about alleged excesses are rife in any organized society... but are there any, really? I mean, where's the paperwork? Where's the video? Where's Nixon on tape when you need him? The reality is that there's no actual proof of excess because the police have the oversight committee on their payroll â€” and what's the value of one citizen's complaint when the investigations regularly turn up no evidence of wrong doing?

Â

All the candidates are from Manchuria...

And who's complaining, really? You'd be amazed how effective the new drug-and-psychology behavioral processing program is. With the exception of one old geezer who's so jaded about life that nothing seems to work, all our "guests" actually leave ~~interrogation~~ counseling thanking the police for their courtesy and a fine time!

Â

And this all assumes that our Glorious Dictator actually cares

And when push comes to shove, it is a facist government. All the paperwork in the world will not upset their evening plans!

Cort Ammon 99.8k15177355 · Answer 7 · 2018-09-20 06:31:38Z

Simply put, they don't need to. They seek loyalty rather than rule following.

If the high power wants people to do dirty work for them, often they need to turn a blind eye. This lets less savory individuals into positions of power, such as the power of a police uniform, and you reap the results.

The trick is to make sure every policeman knows they can be jettisoned if they ever become a liability for the UFS. A policeman who abuses their power can rely upon the UFS to come to their aid. However, a policeman whose abuse has become a liability can find themselves hung out to dry. A known torturer who does something to put UFS in a bad position may suddenly find themselves without backup at the most inconvenient of times.

This encourages loyalty among the police force. The police know that their survival is dependent on the UFS finding their presence acceptable. A policeman who is known to be ready to die for the UFS will find that they can get away with just about anything. A policeman who merely bribed the right people to make things go away will find they can only get away with so much before acknowledging their connection to the UFS is more trouble than it's worth.

Palarran 4,1791827 · Answer 8 · 2018-09-20 03:55:15Z

I'd suggest looking at historical examples, and two in particular.

First, the decay of the Ottoman Empire. Essentially, the Janissaries were originally conscripts taken from outlying provinces (usually Greek), forcibly converted to Islam, and used as elite soldiers. Over time, though, they managed to gather political power, and eventually reached the point where they were the power behind the throne. Even the Sultans had to step carefully around the Janissaries in the 18th century, and at least one was murdered when he attempted to push through reforms.

Second, and probably more widely known, would be the Praetorian Guard of Roman (in)famy. This force was created during the early days of the Empire to serve as the bodyguard of the Emperor. It wasn't long though, before Caligula took power and did all sorts of mad and insane things, and eventually a few of his own guards killed him off. Several factions tried to claim the throne after that, but it ultimately went to Claudius when he offered the Praetorians an award equal to several years' pay if they would serve him. The results were an object lesson for Roman politicians; the Guard served whoever had the most money.

I hope the theme here is becoming tolerably clear. If rulers try to enforce laws that limit the freedoms (or pay, or special benefits, etc.) of an elite faction, especially royal military groups (although this works in the more general case) with a disproportionate amount of influence, why, such rulers can be, ah, replaced with other candidates deemed, er, more suitable and more generous towards said faction.

Really, the Praetorian Guard is a perfect fit for what you're looking for: they essentially served as the guards of Rome, and even doubled as a sort of secret police. The Emperors could not afford to limit their privileges, else they might find themselves with the sword of one of their guards somehow finding their guts. So your plausible reason is simple: your ruler does not crack down on their police force because they fear being deposed by said police force if they try to materially restrict its power.

score 3 · Answer 9 · 2018-09-20 09:11:08Z

It appears that you have a post WWII viewpoint, you think people actually have rights and that governments can't do what they like.

Human rights was a concept invented during the WWII war crimes tribunals, until that point a government could do what it liked to its population and nobody would say anything. The sanctity of the international borders, national sovereignty, rates far higher than any abuses you might commit against your own population, hence the continued incidence of genocide even after the "never again". The population of a country is effectively the property of the government, and anything the government does to it's own population within it's own borders is legal. What you're not allowed to do is invade the next country over and start wiping out their population. There may also be consequences for actions against citizens of other nations within your borders.

Paying mere lip service to the rules, and doing what you like as an arm of government, is a tried and tested method of repressing populations.

*In fact there were some problems introducing the concept of universal human rights. Russia wanted to continue to abuse it's population, the USA wanted to keep repressing the blacks and the British wanted to keep repressing the Irish.

Why the British. British and Irish people are basically the same? And they live less than 50 miles apart, wouldnÃ¢Â€Â™t it just make more sense to except each otherÃ¢Â€Â™s differences and move on? — 27 mins ago

score 2 · Answer 10 · 2018-09-20 07:06:37Z

Acceptable Targets

Historically, the Nazis in Germany decided to free the Gestapo from judicial oversight that would have applied to normal administrative actions. They argued that "[as] long as the police carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally."

So as long as the cops do what the President wants them to do, minor indiscretions are forgiven. It would be a really bad idea if they treat a party official the way you describe, unless the orders to do so come from high places, but abusing the "designated" acceptable targets does not get them into trouble.

Things to keep in mind:

The designated target groups may be formally or informally banned from filing complaints. Either they know that their testimony will be disregarded, or they know that is will be inadmissable to start with.

The internal affairs department may be empowered to take cases when they see it in the best interest of the service. (For example, if a suspect gets leniency in exchange for sexual acts. It is the leniency part of the transaction that brings internal affairs attention.)

Many fascist societies place a high value on the "purity" of the race. That might make the sexual abuse problematic even from their viewpoint if it results in children.

And a big thing:

Formal and Informal Rules

Certain regulations may be passed so that the elites can point to the regulations on the books if they are ever challenged on their human rights record. Everybody understands that those regulations are not supposed to be actually applied to actual or suspected resistance members.

In fact, abuse after the investigative part of detention might be seen as punishment at the discretion of the police, fitting on the scale between a stern admonishment, a fine, and actual court charges. (Court charges would go into more official records than a mere detention, interrogation, and release "without charge". With a court record, the dissenter can forget about ever getting a job.)

Collecting Dirt on the Cops

As long as such abuses are part of the police culture, and as long as internal affairs keeps records and does nothing, they can later come down on the cop whenever they or their superiors want to. Collect Kompromat on everybody before they are promoted to high places.

Amon GÃƒÂ¶th, a concentration camp commander, was charged among other things with failure to feed the inmates. That's a bit strange, considering the official German policy set forth in the Wannsee protocols. Of course those charges were just the icing on the cake. The more serious charges against him from the Nazi viewpoint were embezzlement of Jewish money and letting trustees into personnel records.

Mr.J 1,049528 · Answer 11 · 2018-09-20 07:29:38Z

Simpliest Answer

CHOICE

A government can chose what they "deem" right or wrong, based on their standards.

Take Philippines for example:

The government AND law forbids murder. But the police CAN kill WHOEVER, WHENEVER they wish (from politicians, to kids). They'll just have to present that the victim OR the culprit possesses drugs, or is/was connected to drugs. With the governments push to "End drug trade" on the country, they'll be defending the men that upholds the justice that they "deem" right, even though there are other people who are either "cross fire victims", "looks like an addict" or plain "legal murder"

Don't get me wrong though, I know justice when I see one.

Tim B II 21.1k44690 · Answer 12 · 2018-09-20 02:51:32Z

There are two plausible reasons that I can think of to this conundrum...

They are members of the Inner Party

To go Orwellian, these police get the job by virtue of their fervour for the UFS, and their absolute devotion & willingness to serve the state. Sure, they can go overboard from time to time in that pursuit but those incidents are isolated and excusable given that for the most part, these officers live in the service of the state and as a consequence often don't properly understand the balance between the rights of the state and the rights of the individual. They are not trained in such understanding, and would actually struggle with the torture pre-information if they were more cognisant of the individual's rights. Ultimately it's a fine line between legal and illegal torture in your world; why risk making your officers less effective by pointing out that there's a line in the first place?

We who are about to die...

The fact that you have a police force that is sanctioned to commit torture for information tells me that there is by extension a resistance. People living in peace and happiness don't see the need for such an invasive force, with such sweeping powers, and the only reason that you would invest your money in such a force (dictator or not) over more useful endeavours is if there is an actual threat to contain.

If that's the case, your police have probably signed up for a death sentence and know it. They're already expected to die within a decade of signing up. Why would you (especially publicly) make the life of a policeman less attractive to potential candidates? The last thing you need in a disciplined force living in a constantly quasi-combat environment is a morale problem. So long as it isn't too large scale or seditious, you let it go. The policeman only has a few years left in all likelihood, especially if the public knows what that particular officer has been getting up to; more likely he or she will be targeted by the resistance.

Of course, the answers above assume that sanctions are the only method of behaviour control available to you. If you have a rating system for your officers (like ebay sellers) then perhaps the police can only access certain benefits (like better weapons) once they reach a certain star rating. Do things right, you get more stars. Do things wrong, you don't lose stars but you don't get them, either.

Perhaps the simplest possible answer is that you don't have to sanction your officers because that's the one group in your society you manage with carrots instead of sticks.

JBH 33.7k580161 · Answer 13 · 2018-09-20 03:02:23Z

Success is easily forgiven

The wonderful thing about success is that it gives you oodles of material for positive promotion campaigns. Who's going to complain against people who are actually making the world a better place? What's a few indiscretions when the country is running so smoothly?

Â

They have photos of you golfing with Satan

And the problem with a really successfull ~~intelligence~~ police force is that they have archives with information locked in vaults behind sliding doors and beneath telephone booths. Information, not to put too fine a point on it... about you. They like to call it an insurance policy. I mean, they learned from a master, right? You probably think a better name is "an inconvenience."

Â

The oversight committee is on the take

Rumors about alleged excesses are rife in any organized society... but are there any, really? I mean, where's the paperwork? Where's the video? Where's Nixon on tape when you need him? The reality is that there's no actual proof of excess because the police have the oversight committee on their payroll â€” and what's the value of one citizen's complaint when the investigations regularly turn up no evidence of wrong doing?

Â

All the candidates are from Manchuria...

And who's complaining, really? You'd be amazed how effective the new drug-and-psychology behavioral processing program is. With the exception of one old geezer who's so jaded about life that nothing seems to work, all our "guests" actually leave ~~interrogation~~ counseling thanking the police for their courtesy and a fine time!

Â

And this all assumes that our Glorious Dictator actually cares

And when push comes to shove, it is a facist government. All the paperwork in the world will not upset their evening plans!

Cort Ammon 99.8k15177355 · Answer 14 · 2018-09-20 06:31:38Z

Simply put, they don't need to. They seek loyalty rather than rule following.

If the high power wants people to do dirty work for them, often they need to turn a blind eye. This lets less savory individuals into positions of power, such as the power of a police uniform, and you reap the results.

The trick is to make sure every policeman knows they can be jettisoned if they ever become a liability for the UFS. A policeman who abuses their power can rely upon the UFS to come to their aid. However, a policeman whose abuse has become a liability can find themselves hung out to dry. A known torturer who does something to put UFS in a bad position may suddenly find themselves without backup at the most inconvenient of times.

This encourages loyalty among the police force. The police know that their survival is dependent on the UFS finding their presence acceptable. A policeman who is known to be ready to die for the UFS will find that they can get away with just about anything. A policeman who merely bribed the right people to make things go away will find they can only get away with so much before acknowledging their connection to the UFS is more trouble than it's worth.

Search This Blog

Iyfjky

Plausible reason why the government would not discipline its policemen?

7 Answers
7

Acceptable Targets

Formal and Informal Rules

Collecting Dirt on the Cops

Your Answer

Post as a guest

7 Answers
7

7 Answers
7

Acceptable Targets

Formal and Informal Rules

Collecting Dirt on the Cops

Acceptable Targets

Formal and Informal Rules

Collecting Dirt on the Cops

Acceptable Targets

Formal and Informal Rules

Collecting Dirt on the Cops

Acceptable Targets

Formal and Informal Rules

Collecting Dirt on the Cops

Post as a guest

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

List of Gilmore Girls characters

One-line joke

Category

Random preview

Plausible reason why the government would not discipline its policemen?

7 Answers 7

Acceptable Targets

Formal and Informal Rules

Collecting Dirt on the Cops

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

7 Answers 7

7 Answers 7

Acceptable Targets

Formal and Informal Rules

Collecting Dirt on the Cops

Acceptable Targets

Formal and Informal Rules

Collecting Dirt on the Cops

Acceptable Targets

Formal and Informal Rules

Collecting Dirt on the Cops

Acceptable Targets

Formal and Informal Rules

Collecting Dirt on the Cops

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

List of Gilmore Girls characters

One-line joke

7 Answers
7

7 Answers
7

7 Answers
7