I think it is less to with "overcriminalization" in the sense of legislation, and more to do with the enforcement process. In some sense I think we need more criminalization, in that the types of malfeasance described in the article (e.g., keeping people imprisoned beyond their sentence, failing to provide an attorney, etc.) should result in long jail sentences for the officials who perpetrated them. The problem is that in the US we have become accustomed to an enormous gap between the law and its implementation.

You can’t add more criminal laws to deal with systematic refusal by law enforcement to obey and hold other law enforcement officials accountable for obeying existing law, because that relies on the same people whose behavior you are trying to correct to auddenly behave differently to have any effect.

The US, in fact, has a comprehensive federal and civil and criminal prohibition applicable to such behavior (the prohibition on deprivation of rights under color of law and conspiracy against rights), but the criminal prohibition is consistently inadequately enforced, and the civil prohibiition has been neutered by applying qualified immunity against it, which arguably is inconsistent with the letter of the statute.

There's some truth to that, but I think that changes in such laws have resulted in slight improvements over time. Also, passing such laws at a higher jurisdictional level can allow comparatively "good" people at that level to disrupt local bad behavior like the stuff in the article. There are also other kinds of legal changes that can help, like transparency requirements and bans on certain kinds of police union contract provisions. More controversially I think there should be laws that shift the burden of proof (something along the lines of "every police officer is assumed to be unfit for their job unless they affirmatively demonstrate otherwise").

I think one thing that is needed is a "viral" kind of law that criminalizes essentially all attempts to perpetuate, conceal, aid or abet the underlying malfeasance. So that if you can get some people wedged in who do want to do the right thing, they can bring the whole house crashing down by convicting the whole network of corrupt officials.

Ultimately you're right though that there does need to be some cooperation from "inside the system". The question is just what can we do do lower that threshold.

I don't think there is just one problem, although that is a big part of it. Prosecutors and judges are often picked by how profitable they are to the local courts, neither cops nor prosecutors lose anything if they make up and push bullshit charges even when caught red handed, states and locales continuously tack on all sorts of random court charges to increase revenues, and there is no verification that any "programs" they tack on and receive kickbacks for actually improve anyone's situation. Not to mention all the inter-family connections and "ill scratch your back if you scratch mine" backroom dealings between cops, courts, prosecutors, and jails.

The only checks on any part of the justice system are from within the justice system itself, and its pretty hard to get those people to voluntarily cut their own pay, staff, benefits, and control in the name of justice, especially when it would most likely just get them fired and blacklisted. There are very little checks against what they do, and the people who have been involved with the courts and know how it works either benefit personally from it, or are considered a no-good criminal who's word is given zero heed. In most places if you get a felony you even lose your right to vote.

> Prosecutors and judges are often picked by how profitable they are to the local courts

Source? This is certainly untrue for elected judges and DAs, so we’d expect to see a difference if that were the reason. Instead we see elected judges and DAs running on tough on crime pitches due to voter preferences. Not funding concerns.

It would solve a lot of problems, including taxes spent on all the process, facilities, etc., and to provide services to people who become indigent and sometimes unemployable, and to their dependants.

Through someone in jail unnecessarily for a felony, and now you've taken a productive person and made them negatively productive (in jail) and destroyed most of their productivity when they return (nobody will hire or train them for anything valuable). Now their dependants, such as kids, also lack resources. Family lose not only their futures, but homes, health care, education, ....

Obviously prison is necessary in some cases, but other countries have low crime rates with far less incarceration.