I think you've hit the mark that the source of polarization in issues with policing communities of color revolves around trust. These communities that are out protesting in the streets have lost trust in their local police departments to the point that the presence of police officers actually destabilizes the community's sense of security rather than allaying their fears. On the flip side, I think that conservatives tend to put a lot of faith in the police as the guardians of order and safety in their communities and are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when they clash with citizens. Part of why right-leaning folk chafe at being dismissed at racists for opposing these protests is that most believe they would still back law enforcement if the races of the officers and the deceased were reversed, because they fundamentally support the institution of law enforcement.
 |
| Reuters-Lucas Jackson |
But to respond to the questions you posed at the end of your post, here they are again:
1) What is the appropriate response for outraged communities?
2) How do we seek an appropriate solution for these situations?
First, as a white-male who grew up in predominately suburban area and has not had anything but banal encounters with police officers, I neither have the liberty or arrogance to propose an "appropriate response" for these outraged communities. For the most part, I think the protesters have responded with more dignity and grace given their circumstances than the national media is willing to give them credit for. However, it shouldn't be controversial that the leeway for appropriate responses ends when protesters stoop to retributive violence. To lash back violently at law enforcement is not only unethical (justice is never satiated by more violence) but it also lacks pragmatism. If protesters yield the moral high ground back to the government, then their "movement" will be remembered just as unfortunately as the LA riots in the early 90's. The heartbreaking assassinations of officers Ramos and Liu in Brooklyn in response to the Eric Garner case derailed the good-will afforded those protesting in New York in what seemed like a clear case of police brutality. Actions in Baltimore are threatening to do the same.
As for solutions that these communities can seek, that's where we can be a little more concrete. My first suggestion is to advocate that their sons and daughters become police officers. Unfortunately, because of the rough relations these communities have had with local law enforcement, the profession of law enforcement has substantially lower prestige than similar service professions like firefighting and the military. The line "be the change you want to see in the world" could not be more poignant than now.
My second suggestion is: Get Political. If you want things to change, these communities need to lobby their local officials with concrete demands, vote out any bums, and have people run for office that they trust. The only problem with public policy solutions is that for every good idea posed, a counter-example seems to quickly arise to squash the hopes. If you'll let me be a little wonky, I'll spend the rest of my post detailing some of the proposed solutions that people should fight for, even if there are still problems.
Ready? Here we go...
PUBLIC POLICY SOLUTION #1: Body Cameras
What problem would it solve? Many of these incidents suffer from vastly different and often incoherent narratives which make it difficult for the judicial branch to navigate truth from fiction. The idea being that if there was video evidence of every encounter, then judges and juries could be more confident that they are making the right decisions.
Upside: If police were forced to wear body cameras, then it ought to be the most concrete way for us to tell exactly what happened. Initial studies have been promising, showing that body cameras reduce the frequency of force by officers and by the people that officers stop. In short, everyone is on their best behavior if they know a camera is rolling. Furthermore, there is a strong argument that body-cams benefit the officers, too. Initial studies suggest that use of this tech actually tends to more frequently exonerate officers when accused of improper force when body-cam evidence is available.
Downside: Body cameras are expensive. Most of these departments that are in trouble are there because they are underfunded and understaffed. But worst, even events caught on film must be interpreted. The horrific deaths of John Crawford, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner were all caught on tape and as of this post, none of the officers involved have been indicted of any wrong-doing.
PUBLIC POLICY SOLUTION #2: Proportional Racial Make-Up
What problem would it solve? A common complaint in these communities is that it is often white-male police officers that are cracking down too hard on young black men. Distressed neighborhoods are rarely policed by local residents and too often lack diversity on staff.
Upside: People that live in the communities they police will have more opportunities to be empathetic to their neighbors. And citizens will have greater peace of mind knowing that racism is not a contributing factor in overly punitive circumstances if the officers enforcing the law look like suspects.
Downside: Improper police conduct is not limited to white men. Diversity on Baltimore's police force did nothing to prevent the beating and subsequent death of Freddie Gray as evidenced by the photograph of the six officers charged for his killing.
PUBLIC POLICY SOLUTION #3: Independent Prosecutors for Officer-Involved Deaths
What problem would it solve? Often public prosecutors and police have a close working relationship and they rely on each other's cooperation to get things done. Since police and prosecutors are essentially co-workers and an erosion of trust could ruin the career of a prosecutor, lawyers are frequently unwilling to push hard for indictments/convictions when officers are caught up in this incidents.
Upside: Independent prosecutors would relieve the conflict of interest of prosecutors to have to push hard for their friends and co-workers to be punished. Also, the initiative to get independent prosecutors for these types of cases is widely supported by both sides of the aisle.
Downside: This is also an expensive solution and one that could be easily tampered with depending on how "independent" the appointed prosecutors are.
PUBLIC POLICY SOLUTION #4: De-Militarization of Police Forces
What problem would it solve? Many well-respected critics have argued that police forces are increasingly more likely to use improper force because they see their communities as war-zones. The "minority communities are a war-zone" mentality has led to more frequent use of SWAT teams, riot gear, and loose trigger-fingers. The use of these military-esque tactics make police more likely to use unnecessary force and to escalate confrontations with citizens rather than diffuse them. I'll let John Oliver take it from here...
Upside: Re-training and de-equipping police stations with military-grade gear might lead them to use less fatal tactics on citizens. A re-emphasis on "protect and serve" and the value of building positive relations within the community could lead to more cooperation and less violent clashes.
Downside: There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that this would actually prevent officer-involved killings. Unless you think our police should be more like the Brits...
 |
| Looking good, chaps... |
Alright, John, if you've survived to the end of the post... let me know which of these solutions (or ones that I've missed) are worth advocating for.
No comments:
Post a Comment