Not a cop, but it doesnt seem to be much of a stretch to investigate.

Neighbor knows he didn’t do it, but cops don’t. Their job is to collect information and be suspicious (at least to some degree). Detectives are probably rewarded in some way, their job is to deliver a case to a prosecutor.

DA/Prosecutors are rewarded by conviction rates, particularly those who are elected. Has nothing to do with justice or the truth. And ultimately most of them probably feel any injustice isn’t because of the way they did their job, but the Jury making the wrong choice.

I don't think the police took the wrong approach. It was just fueled by what the suspect said. If he would have went in and said "sorry, I just don't feel comfortable talking to you without a lawyer." There would have been no harm. The detective likely would have checked the alibi (ensuring he was at the hotel), relied on the fire investigator's report, and closed the case. But, giving the police more information is only giving them more to explore. Now they may want to look at his financials, did he recently update his insurance, what other debts does he have, are there any weird calls/communications to others, did he purchase anything suspicious, did he conduct any research about arson, etc - and that takes time.

From the one comment, it doesn't sound like the police were doing anything malicious per se. It sounds like the owner of the burned out house gave an investigator a reason to investigate. Imagine being a bored investigator looking for something to do, and then a set of suspicious circumstances falls into your lap. Of course there's going to be an investigation. And that's why you don't talk to the police casually without representation when you could be implicated in something bad.

two reasons IME. one is that it's easy to adopt a just world hypothesis and our biases as humans play it up. imagine doing this on the reg:

- detain someone for something e.g. traffic stop for speeding

- find probable cause e.g. alcohol on breath

- find other bad stuff e.g. a gun or meth

- arrest and mutter under breath "got the bad guy, he deserved it, saved innocent lives" or w/e else

- go back to first step with an additional data point that speeders may also handle drugs and be driving drunk

two, incentives are what they are. police generally aren't rewarded for doing high quality year long investigations that uncover every particular fact in a meticulous and honorable way - there isn't $$ or staff. incentives suggest that closing them gets you farther than "doing a good job, for certain values of good widely held by the public". for the district attorney, they largely have the same incentives (throughput) and so prefer open and shut type setups or plea deals so as to get things moving quickly. so they aren't helping the situation either.

I agree closing cases faster would be seen as favorable.

Good comment & question.

Reading it, it comes to mind that one difference between the medical profession and others is the Hippocratic Oath, starting with the promise to “first, do no harm”.

I don't know of any similar ethos in policing (and there's plenty of popular-culture/film glorification of extralegal means to get the bad guys).

Perhaps policing could benefit from such an approach?

Most departments have a motto. LAPD "To project and serve", NYPD "Fidelis Ad Mortem" (Faithful unto death). I worked in a large metro area and I generally got the impression that you do what is right and follow the rules. I still work in law enforcement, just not on the street anymore (computer crimes) and I still have the same impression with the officers I deal with.

I also have good friends who work in policing (and don't have a problem with most policing as some do).

I certainly would say that police have a solid ethos, which is indeed voiced in mottos like the ones you mention.

The distinction I'm making is that the "do no harm" goal at the top of the medical ethos is different, and wondering if that could help in the policing world.