Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

Los Angeles, CA — Domestic violence, bribery, theft, excessive force, brutality — these are just a few of the crimes committed by active duty sheriff’s deputies with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

In total, there are 300 deputies with a history of misconduct whom Sheriff Jim McDonnell thinks the public should know about.

However, thanks to a protectionist court system and a powerful police union, the crimes of these cops may remain secret.

Having taken over one of the most corrupt sheriff’s departments in the country, McDonnell appears to be taking steps to increase transparency and foster public trust. But these steps are being met with heavy resistance along the way.

In 2014, McDonnell inherited a department in chaos.

In April of last year, former Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Undersheriff Paul Tanaka was convicted in connection with a sweeping, federal civil rights investigation of corruption and deputy-on-inmate abuse inside the jail system.

Tanaka, along with former Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca and dozens of other deputies, were exposed in a horrific abuse scandal that shocked LA County. In fact, Baca’s crimes were proven so grave in a civil suit, that he was found personally liable for $100,000, which he is to pay the victim directly out of his own pocket.

After seeing the breeding ground for corruption that McDonnell took over, it is no surprise his move to increase transparency is being met with such resistance. The years of corruption that festered under Baca did not happen in a vacuum. It was allowed to grow out of control by a union and a system that helped cover it up.

To promote a more transparent and fair system of justice, McDonnell wanted to turn over the names and crimes of hundreds of problem cops to prosecutors, who can then add them to a database that tracks problem cops. This information can then be disclosed to defendants who may have been unjustly targeted by these cops.

After all, if a cop has been caught stealing from the department, beating an innocent person, or accepting bribes, then their honesty on the stand should certainly come under question — especially considering the fact that their tainted testimony could decide whether or not an innocent person gets thrown in a cage.

–> Continue to full article.