On the other hand, someone who is charged with a crime is not necessarily guilty of that crime.

If they happen to be innocent, what then?

I assume since they have been suspended that innocence is no longer a question. Is that correct Jasdip?

If that's the case, they can then pay them their salary. To be charged with child pornography, sharing confidential information, insubordination, these are all serious charges.

They drag the cases out, just so that they can continue to be paid. Here is the article about the one who collected his pay long enough to retire.

A good read

I have NEVER been able to understand the suspended with pay thing. Don't pay them.... !!! for a crime they committed!

Paid Under Suspension Ruling

From the article:

. “We asked the government to provide chiefs with the authority to suspend without pay in circumstances where officers are charged with criminal offences, are held in custody, or in serious Police Services Act matters where we would look for the dismissal of the officer.”

They are looking to be able to suspend without pay for charges, not for convictions. A HUGE political weapon that ability to suspend would be, if officers did not do as they were told by perhaps politically motivated bosses the officers could simply be charged, and they and their families would be without funds.

"I have NEVER been able to understand the suspended with pay thing. Don't pay them.... !!! for a crime they committed!"

If they have not been convicted, how do you know they committed a crime? Politics is rife, who would you have judge whether a charge is valid? Don't we already have a legal system in place for adjudicating guilt/innocence? Would YOU accept a few years off without pay if you were charged with a crime and innocent?

"On the other hand, someone who is charged with a crime is not necessarily guilty of that crime.

If they happen to be innocent, what then?"

As I said before, IF they are exonerated, then they can be paid back-pay.

Jasdip- if they are truly innocent, how are they supposed to pay their bills and support their family while they prove their innocence? Back pay won't help, especially in these cases where it is drug out for years (a serious problem IMHO)

If we were talking a matter of weeks, then I would agree with suspension without pay.

"while they prove their innocence"

Here, anyway, a person is presumed innocent of a crime. They do not have to prove their innocence, the state is burdened with proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the state is taking inordinate amounts of time to do this, the presumed innocent person should not be without pay, they are innocent until proven guilty.

When citizens are charged with some sort of crime, they are in jail, awaiting trial. Sometimes this can months, or a year. If a police officer is charged with a crime, he too can sit in a jail cell awaiting trial. Innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law.

Why should they be treated any different than any other citizen. They break the rules, they pay. Sex on the job, child pornography??? (Is Jared the Subway guy going to get paid while he awaits his trial).

If they law doesn't want to put these law-breakers behind bars, give them some kind of harmless desk job, where they can still earn their 6-figure salary. At least put in the work. Not sit at home and have a very well-paid lengthy vacation.

If an officer is convicted of a crime but doesn't have to serve time behind bars, they remain suspended with pay until they can be fired through the police disciplinary procedure. The same process applies to officers internally charged with misconduct.

If the officer appeals their termination, it can be delayed for months, even years. All the while being paid full salary and benefits and putting said salary and time towards their retirement package.