Thursday, April 30, 2015
Political Mayhem Thursday: Police Violence and Modern Shock
The job of law enforcement is often just stopping people from doing dangerous things. Sometimes it takes violence to do this, by tackling a man who has stolen property or shooting someone who is about to commit a murder. Even the execution of warrants is inherently violent: It starts (usually) with knocking down a door and continues as armed officers flood the building and put people forcibly down on the floor until the place is secure.
We expect the police to do each of these things, even though they are all violent. No on I have heard from advocates barring the police from these activities.
The problem with police violence isn't that it exists at all, but that it exists when it is not accomplishing a goal worthy of the risks that come with violence. For example, shooting a man who is running away is (unless he is threatening others) not worthy of that violence-- the good (stopping his escape) is outweighed by the bad (a summary execution).
The problem is this: within any population of police officers, there are some people who are violent when it isn't necessary to accomplish a worthwhile goal. Sometimes, too, inherent racial bias is part of the reason this unnecessary violence occurs.
So how do we limit unnecessary police violence? Here are some concrete ideas:
1) Better psychological profiling of police applicants. Because this will limit the pool of potential workers, we will have to (and should) pay them better, as well.
2) Better accountability systems. This can include body cameras, but it also needs to include better independent oversight.
3) Identify cultures of abuse. The Ferguson police department was a mess, and a dangerous one. It had a culture that drove egregious racial disparities in stops and arrests, for example. Such departments need to be identified and cleaned out by state or national authorities.
4) Reduce the number of crimes. Much of the violence in law enforcement relates to narcotics cases, and there are too many of these. As I have written elsewhere, we need to seek out market solutions that target cash flow rather than labor within narcotics businesses.
5) Higher expectations. This seems to be occurring now; the American people are no longer ignoring the stories of violence and death that have long floated just out of the feeble reach of the media and the public imagination.
We expect the police to do each of these things, even though they are all violent. No on I have heard from advocates barring the police from these activities.
The problem with police violence isn't that it exists at all, but that it exists when it is not accomplishing a goal worthy of the risks that come with violence. For example, shooting a man who is running away is (unless he is threatening others) not worthy of that violence-- the good (stopping his escape) is outweighed by the bad (a summary execution).
The problem is this: within any population of police officers, there are some people who are violent when it isn't necessary to accomplish a worthwhile goal. Sometimes, too, inherent racial bias is part of the reason this unnecessary violence occurs.
So how do we limit unnecessary police violence? Here are some concrete ideas:
1) Better psychological profiling of police applicants. Because this will limit the pool of potential workers, we will have to (and should) pay them better, as well.
2) Better accountability systems. This can include body cameras, but it also needs to include better independent oversight.
3) Identify cultures of abuse. The Ferguson police department was a mess, and a dangerous one. It had a culture that drove egregious racial disparities in stops and arrests, for example. Such departments need to be identified and cleaned out by state or national authorities.
4) Reduce the number of crimes. Much of the violence in law enforcement relates to narcotics cases, and there are too many of these. As I have written elsewhere, we need to seek out market solutions that target cash flow rather than labor within narcotics businesses.
5) Higher expectations. This seems to be occurring now; the American people are no longer ignoring the stories of violence and death that have long floated just out of the feeble reach of the media and the public imagination.
Comments:
<< Home
1. Skeptical. Old Story: it really depends on who the psych evaluators are and what political goals they are trying to accomplish. I can certainly support this impulse in the abstract, imagining the ideal balance of fair and wise overseers. On the other hand, an MSNBC-oriented filter will be bad for society.
2. Right On! Right On! Let's do this right now!
3. Skeptical. Reasonable people disagree about the "disparate impact" regarding places like Ferguson. I would like to see every police department in America that services predominantly black clientele to reflect a Baltimore-like racial diversity--with black leadership from top to bottom. As we see in Baltimore, it doesn't really solve many of the problems (because most of them are not actually racial), but it is a good place to start in terms of PR. On the other hand, I am totally against some national commission usurping local control for lots of reasons, among them the concerns I voiced in #1.
4. Somewhat agree. I am all for restructuring our justice system regarding narcotics crimes--but I am adamant in maintaining the laws that target illegal firearms and violent offenders. For reasons I have previously expressed, we should not grow too sanguine about the innocence of our convicted drug offenders. Drugs actually do pose serious problems in these communities under siege.
5. Yes.
2. Right On! Right On! Let's do this right now!
3. Skeptical. Reasonable people disagree about the "disparate impact" regarding places like Ferguson. I would like to see every police department in America that services predominantly black clientele to reflect a Baltimore-like racial diversity--with black leadership from top to bottom. As we see in Baltimore, it doesn't really solve many of the problems (because most of them are not actually racial), but it is a good place to start in terms of PR. On the other hand, I am totally against some national commission usurping local control for lots of reasons, among them the concerns I voiced in #1.
4. Somewhat agree. I am all for restructuring our justice system regarding narcotics crimes--but I am adamant in maintaining the laws that target illegal firearms and violent offenders. For reasons I have previously expressed, we should not grow too sanguine about the innocence of our convicted drug offenders. Drugs actually do pose serious problems in these communities under siege.
5. Yes.
I think you're right about a many-pronged approach to the issue, but there's one aspect that I haven't seen covered at all -- the culture of guns in our country. No doubt, there's an issue with overzealous police. Maybe fear is also an issue. When anyone can be carrying a gun, police never know when they'll encounter someone with a gun. Not excusing bad behavior, but considering an additional cause.
#5. A thousand times #5.
What's interesting to me about this issue is that it should be an one that unites disparate political groups. To over simplify, left-wingers' concern for social justice and right-wingers' concerns about government power and accountability converge profoundly in policing problems. So I wonder why it is that there is no united front--after all, we should all be against police brutality.
I think some of it has to do with the politics of race. I think some of it, too, might be that the issue is so often reduced to a "black problem." And, of course, there is racism.
Also, my two cents on the profiling of police applicant: sure, to the extent that we have enough applicants to invest heavily in screening for potential risks, let's do it. But I think the real problem is not the cadet with an itchy trigger finger, it's the ten-year veteran so thoroughly jaded by the job that he treats every person like a perp. He's the guy young guns look to for guidance. He's the guy setting the tone. And that's a problem of accountability. And accountability is basically a myth in a lot of police departments.
The FBI Director alluded to this in his speech at Georgetown when he talked about cops learning to see everyone through the lens of their last arrest. It's human nature, but we can and should intervene.
What's interesting to me about this issue is that it should be an one that unites disparate political groups. To over simplify, left-wingers' concern for social justice and right-wingers' concerns about government power and accountability converge profoundly in policing problems. So I wonder why it is that there is no united front--after all, we should all be against police brutality.
I think some of it has to do with the politics of race. I think some of it, too, might be that the issue is so often reduced to a "black problem." And, of course, there is racism.
Also, my two cents on the profiling of police applicant: sure, to the extent that we have enough applicants to invest heavily in screening for potential risks, let's do it. But I think the real problem is not the cadet with an itchy trigger finger, it's the ten-year veteran so thoroughly jaded by the job that he treats every person like a perp. He's the guy young guns look to for guidance. He's the guy setting the tone. And that's a problem of accountability. And accountability is basically a myth in a lot of police departments.
The FBI Director alluded to this in his speech at Georgetown when he talked about cops learning to see everyone through the lens of their last arrest. It's human nature, but we can and should intervene.
CTL - well said. The jaded veteran officer is mentoring the newbie. Here in lies part of the problem.
I would also think the number of people carrying concealed weapons is a concern and race isn't necessarily a factor. A police officer never knows if someone has a license to carry (or not) and what he will encounter.
Post a Comment
I would also think the number of people carrying concealed weapons is a concern and race isn't necessarily a factor. A police officer never knows if someone has a license to carry (or not) and what he will encounter.
<< Home
