One thing reflects well on the Columbia Police Department as part of the scandal where four former officers were caught having sex with an inmate: It took action when the malfeasance was discovered rather than covering up for its own.
The last of the officers was sentenced last week, and Police Chief Mike Cooper, when reached for comment, pointed out that his department initiated the investigation, which began in 2014 .
“We brought it to light. We brought it to the DA and the Mississippi Bureau of Investigations and asked that they investigate with all of their resources,” Cooper said as quoted in our story.
There are always going to be bad apples in any organization, but as long as the leadership makes it clear that it won’t tolerate such behavior when it is discovered, there is not a widespread concern about corruption.
The problem becomes when police cover for their fellow officers who do things that are wrong. That breeds a culture of lawlessness within an organization that is supposed to enforce the law. It drives away good cops and attracts bad ones.
But the response by the Columbia Police Department leadership sent a message that officers are not above the law. It did all it could by getting rid of the officers involved (three resigned and one was fired) and having the appropriate entities investigate.
However, where things fell short was in the punishment. The officers faced up to five years in prison, yet only two of them got any jail time, Justin Herrington two years and Richard Pack six months. The other two, Jose Oatis and Shawn Williams, escaped with suspended sentences and probation.
Of course, they are now felons and cannot wear the badge again, but public servants should be held to a higher standard than the general populace. When they do wrong, there needs to be a reckoning to make it clear to the public that such behavior won’t be tolerated.
In this case, at least some jail time for each of the officers would have conveyed that message effectively.
Perhaps some think that because the relations were consensual that officers don’t bear as much guilt, yet the legislature deemed it necessary to pass this specific law banning such relationships even when both sides are willing. Why is that?
I think it’s because officers are in positions of authority where they are expected to treat the prisoners under them equally. If you’re sleeping with an inmate, it’s logical to assume that inmate is getting some preferential treatment. That violates one of the most basic and sacred principles of our nation: Equal justice under law.
It also violates the idea that incarceration is to help reform people and get their lives back together. Having relationships with officers doesn’t help a female inmate get back on the straight and narrow, but rather it reinforces the sorts of negative behaviors that got her there in the first place.
And in our world where morality seems to matter less and less, I would hope that we would be willing to stand up and say some things are just simply wrong.
Charlie Smith is editor and publisher of The Columbian-Progress. Reach him at csmith@columbianprogress.com.
