BPD Suspension Policy

I'm not commenting on any specific case here, but I want to mention Boston Police Commissioner Davis's new personnel policy: after three suspensions, you're fired.  My first thought was to hope the new policy draws a distinction between serious misbehavior and mere administrative lapses.  My next thought was that three strikes is two too many for serious wrongdoing (such as lying on a police report or falsifying a detail slip).  But then I figured it out.

With the power of the union, I imagine no one gets suspended for mere administrative errors.  Suspensions are probably reserved only for serious wrongdoing.  You want to have a safety valve for the good cop who has made a bad mistake, but you want to get rid of bad cops - the ones who keep making bad choices.  Three strikes may be the best place to set the balance after all.

Or maybe it's all the union will allow.

UPDATE: The Boston Globe, has more information (obviously) and it looks like my assumptions were right.

Comments

[Luke]

I am not sure that one can really evaluate the policy without seeing the range of infractions for which suspension is the typical punishment. Certainly the behavior of the officer mentioned in the Globe merits suspension and dismissal, but his is probably the most extreme case. What about an officer who misses three court appearances over the course of a career? In New York, I have never met an officer who has been suspended more than once; and reinstatement frequently comes with "dismissal probation," meaning only one more infraction is grounds for dismissal, but one has to mess up pretty badly to get suspended. The whole thing brings to mind a much better solution -- raise hiring standards.

[Ted]

If they raise the hireing standards then they have problems meeting the quotas ... oh, sorry I meant diversity standards.

[Erik]

Is there a basic spelling quota?