Problems with authority (repost)

(Originally from 9/2017.)

Let me tell you about one of the problems with authority structures.

First, a digression. Students often complain to professors about their grades. Very occasionally, a student will actually try complaining to the department chair about a professor's grading. The dept chair then gets a second professor to come in and read the paper or exam. Again, this is extremely rare (it might never happen in a whole career). But let's say it's just happened: say I've been asked to read a paper from another professor's student. The chair tells me the paper received a C, and then asks me what grade I think it deserves. Unless this paper is a work of f---ing genius, I'm probably going to say C or lower.

Why? I don't know this kid from Adam. I've never interacted with him before, and I'll never deal with him again in my life. The other professor, on the other hand, I've probably known for years, perhaps gone out to dinner with, and I'll be interacting with for perhaps another 20 years. Plus, I am fully sensitive to the challenges faced by a professor trying to deal with demanding but less-than-diligent students, and I can fully empathize with the professor’s plight. So if you think I'm going to side with the random student over the professor, you're dreaming. Everyone except the student would know this from the start.

Now, that is why authority figures get away with almost anything. Because the only people to punish them are usually other authority figures from the same organization. Their friends that they've been working with for the last decade. People who can fully and vividly empathize with their plight. People who can expect a favor returned if they themselves are in a similar spot in the future.

Thus: if a police officer is suspected of using excessive force against a suspect, he's going to be investigated by other police. The investigators might know the cop in question personally. They can probably fully empathize with the plight of a cop. Unless this cop just murdered a baby to feast on its tender flesh, they're probably going to be a lot more sympathetic to the cop than to some 'scumbag' crime suspect.

There is a similar case when, e.g., university administrators are investigated for misconduct, as in this case: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/12/cu-punishments-after-handling-joe-tumpkin-case/

They're then punished by . . . other administrators. People whom they've known personally for years, they may have gone to each other's houses for dinner, and they're expecting to interact with each other for many years to come. You don't hurt your friends. Or, if you're forced to do so, you give them the lightest slap on the wrist that you can possibly get away with.

(Added:)

This is also one of the reasons for jury trials. You don't have a jury trial because random people off the street are better at figuring out what happened than experts who have been looking at crime cases for years. We need jury trials because the state is biased in favor of the state. Judges, prosecutors, and police are all government workers, they identify with the state, and they will tend to support each other. If judges decided all cases, there would be (even) more convictions, because judges would rather side with other government employees than with random "criminals" off the street.