Should active police officers be required a mandantory psychological exam. every 12 months?

Yes. Absolutely. We have a cop who recently resigned in my area who was responsible for a lot of unnecessary injuries, and wrongful arrests. It may help prevent such behavior if they had to take yearly psych exams.

Anyone can pretend to be sane…and what’s the motivation for being honest?

Bear in mind not all Jellies here are from the US so either formulate your question in a neutral fashion, or specify you only want answers pertaining to the US. Automatically assuming that the internet “is yours”, writing “we” but actually meaning, “we in the States”, is one of the reasons people tend to get so annoyed with you Yanks, no offense.

To answer your question, it would be a good idea imho to make this mandatory, though I do not think it would be enough, besides, there is always the problem of honesty, like cheebdragon said. Why do you ask btw?

Just out of curiosity, what are these “qualities not found in ordinary citizens”???

I second cheebdragon. Being a cop isn’t what it was twenty years ago. Today, many would ask what kind of person wants to wear a uniform and join the ranks of those who incarcerate more citizens than any other country, the good ol’ U.S.A. I’ve read recently that since cops were given tasers, an average of one American citizen a week has died at the hands of overzealous cops with tasers. So I think your idea is an excellent one, but that serious psychological evaluations should be done at the time of hiring. We should be cautiously wise about who gets badges and guns and power over us.

I think this is an excellent idea. Since cops have a huge amount of pressure put on them and we depend on them for our protection in many ways, they need to be at the top of their mental game, as well as their physical game.

@cheebdragon: I should think that psychologists assigned to police stations would have special training to deal with cops. Also, Psychologists are not idiots. Most can probably tell if someone is lying.

That seems pretty often, I wonder if every two or three years would do?

Maybe not something so confrontational as a mandatory psychological exam (which might encourage unhelpful behavior), but definitely something similar. Exam-therapy?

@fremen_warrior Civilized nations all have cops who have to face the same things; people aren’t that different from culture to culture.

@Nullo : I was talking about the ”Federal Mandantory Law” part.

I would like to amend my answer: I don’t think that this should be a federal mandate, as it is technically none of the federal government’s business and violates the separation of state and State, and since they do enough of that already, we ought not to be encouraging them.

@fremen_warrior That is largely irrelevant. The question is, “should active police officers be required a mandatory psychological exam?” You’re quibbling. Especially since most governments have multiple levels to them; the top one might not be called federal, but that’s something that you, as an intelligent human bean, can work around.

Cheerdragon, here are some of the qualities: I was a background investigator for three years. Here are some of the qualities: prospective police officers are expected to be above the average citizen for not having speeding citations, criminal arrests, physically fit, psychologically fit, some departments require a 2 year Associate Degree, drug-free and contain the ability to be brave. You would be surprised at how many citizens apply for the police position, but fail the agility course in the beginning. Qualities.

Nullo, most departments do not have to accept federal mandates, unless their department is accepting federal assistance for their department, school or any part of their government. This would only apply to those police departments accepting federal assistance.

@KatawaGrey Tons of psychologists are idiots. A diploma is not in any way proof of insight (and in fact, many go into psychology to make up for a specific lack of insight).

Ok, so then say we do. What things aren’t acceptable?

This is not the answer you will expect from me, but I say no.

If it is mandatory, I can imagine a lot of cops would simply not take it that seriously. They may even see it as a burden. On top of that, I don’t think a once a year test would be enough to screen out the ones who are going to “abuse the power” so to speak.

I can’t imagine what a cop could say to a psychiatrist in just one yearly session that would cause them to stamp the “you cant be a cop anymore” paper.

Also, I can’t really imagine the psychiatrist taking it too seriously either. Not if he/she has 1000’s and 1000’s of cops to screen.

@poisonedantidote Well, you could get more than 1 psychologist to do it.

How many cops are out there like this jackwagon? I think it is something we all would like to know. http://www.infowars.com/psychopathic-cop-threatens-to-kill-man-for-legal-concealed-carry/

@Aethelflaed True

I just think the cops that go over the top probably cant be identified 99% of the time until it’s too late. He wakes up, has an argument with his wife, goes about his day pissed off, comes across some kid in a park with a skate board who has a big mouth and just snaps.

So would it include everyone in the department @john65pennington? Who would decide the standards for staying on with the department? Would the police department pay for mental health treatment for the officer if it were determined they weren’t mentally fit to serve? I just keep imagining this scenerio where an entire police department is put on leave for not receiving an acceptable report on their psychological exams.

[mod says] Let’s stick to the topic, please, and calm down. Thanks!

I don’t have a problem with the idea of testing cops, but I think that if it’s a law, it should be at the local level, or at most, the state. Or, that various law enforcement departments at any level could adopt it as a policy voluntarily, if they think it would be a good idea for their officers.

That way, the people most affected by such a law could have more say over how (or if) it is implemented, and the budgeting for such testing as deemed necessary could be applied with more precision. Aren’t most police organizations at the local (city, county) or state level? Federal laws are for things that affect the country.

I agree @laureth. Keep it simple. Use logic when making new rules. Have a reason for it first and foremost. Secondly, make it logical. Don’t just randomly test people because you can. That just doesn’t make sense to me. If you have the resources available and there is a big enough need, by all means offer it to employees.

Law enforecement states in the home first. Then moves out into the city or town police. Then the county sheriff’s dept. and then the state police. That is it except for the National Guard and the US Military, which don’t police state or local affairs such as this scenerio that our friend John is discussing.

Absolutely. My mother is one. Their jobs are unbelievable. Now I’m not saying they should automatically get fired if they prove unfit, they need to be offered help.