Violence in Police Culture

VagabondSpectre

Several years ago I started a thread on the subject of disproportionate police violence against Blacks in America. The thread was focused specifically on the degree to which police brutality against minorities, and in general, is explained purely by racism among police, and how much of it may be explained by other factors (namely, the ramifications of disproportionate black poverty, the address of which I still believe is the best way to drastically improve outcomes for black communities in general). The thread had a narrow focus that did not include a full address of police culture itself, and the role that it plays in bringing about violence and death upon civilians. Like my previous thread, this one also aims to have a narrow focus: What are the values and norms within police culture that contribute to the emergence of brutality in general, where do they come from, and how can we change them?

As I will argue, racism is an operant factor that catalyzes and exacerbates the emergence of violence from police, but there is also an entire organizational culture and set of formal institutions which support and condone their very capacity for brutal enforcement in the first place (from values, to ideology, to physical assets). I am not posting this in the Systemic Racism mega-thread because I would ultimately like to discuss our options for broad police reform going forward. I don't wish to downplay racism as a factor contributing to police violence, rather I want to attack inherently violent police culture as a whole, and to hopefully focus on what we can do to fix it.

Police "Safety"

Perhaps the most glaringly problematic organizational value that is held (by nearly every police department) is the belief that "the safety of our men and women in blue is of paramount importance"... This may seem benign or prudent on the surface, but the practical effect of this value is that the safety of civilians gets sacrificed for the safety of police...

It's pretty easy to understand where this comes from: police are tightly knit teams who do perform sometimes dangerous work, and when one of their own is attacked or killed, it is taken as a direct attack against all of them. The need for police to feel safe, and the need for police to be respected (read: feared) establishes itself over-time in given departments as they accumulate experience. Incidents where police are killed in the line of duty (especially senselessly) are widely shared, and the fear of falling victim to one of these rare incidents causes them to create standard operating procedures that always assume the worst.

For example, when police conduct traffic stops, many of them have in the back of their mind that the person they have pulled over may suddenly shoot at them and try to flee (they've all seen the videos and heard the stories). This is precisely what is used to justify the operating procedures that lead to so many deaths. In the event that someone reaches into their pocket or glove-box, police seem to think they have the right and onus to shoot and kill that person, just in case they were reaching for a gun.

Is pulling someone over for a small traffic violation, or doing a stop-and-frisk, worth the risk that the interaction will lead to civilian death? From a broad ethical standpoint, considering utility alone, if the purpose of police is to protect and serve, aren't they therefore defeating their own purpose?

Why is the safety of the police more important than the safety of the people they're paid to uphold?

Granted, this cultural norm is not dominant in each and every police department or officer, but in some departments it is clearly a wide-spread and central value...

A word on racism:

I believe that when and where racism exists among police, the fear and hate it entails acts like a catalyst for violence in these situations. Police generally are in control of how situations escalate (they often choose to escalate or de-escalate depending on their mood), and it is undeniable that merely having brown skin causes police to escalate to violence more often. One comprehensive multi-variate study comparing police-civilian interactions did not find that police shoot unarmed black men more often than unarmed white men (when comparing controlling for contextual factors of the interaction), but it did find that police are much more likely to escalate to physical violence in general due to blackness alone. Police are trained to "dominate" the people they deal with, and so when racism is present, and emotion gets involved, things tend to go very bad very quickly.

In the recent wave of anti-brutality protests, countless videos have emerged of police in riot gear taking every available opportunity to inflict harm on press and peaceful protestors. There are several videos of riot police standing in formation, with a few of the riot officers literally rocking back and forth, frothing at the mouth, eagerly waiting for the signal to charge and start hurting people (in addition to the videos of them actually hurting and killing people). These are the kind of emotions that we tend to see in full contact team-based sports (on battlefields), and in tribalism. Sides have been picked (at least in the eyes of many individual police), they feel attacked and threatened, and at this point they look willing to do just about anything to protect their sub-union.

I cannot adequately express just how harmful the police-machine has actually become in this respect. Rather than deriving their ethical governance and mission from the service of justice and the people, they now derive it largely from their will to secure their own supremacy, cause law, cause safety, cause Trump says so....

And how can any of this be changed? It seems like police culture is so well and thoroughly entrenched that there's no viable path to reform...

How does culture change in the first place?

At least in management theory, change needs to be instigated. Existing members of an organization need to be dislodged from their current attachment to the status quo (usually by inspirational leadership or external pressure), and they need to believe that incoming change will be positive. If these two factors are not addressed, fear of change will consistently generate resistance to it.

Bringing this about won't be easy, and that might be the exact reason why riotous protests are necessary or useful. My own proposed solution basically amounts to radical reform:

From an economic perspective, the profession of law-enforcement does not pay comparatively well. Not only is not paying fair wages a general source of corruption, it tends to fail to attract the most competent candidates to the field. So rather than leaving law-enforcement to a band of idiots who couldn't find better pay elsewhere, why not generate real competition by paying police a wage that fairly compensates for the stress and dangers of the job? Assuming we can actually incentivize the best among us to pursue a job in law-enforcement, then we can expect and hold them to high and equitable standards. For instance, police who interact with civilians should accept the same risks of interaction as the rest of us; when I put my hands in my pockets, that doesn't give you the right to assume I'm armed and dangerous. If you're afraid for your physical safety because I'm too big for you to easily beat up, that doesn't give you the right to jump me when I try to assert my rights; this is a problem with police emotion, not civil society.. We're not criminals waiting to be caught, and we're not threats waiting to be neutralized. If civilians behaved this way, it would be called "terrorism".

I'm not quite sure how drastic of a restructuring would be required to initiate change in police culture. It might actually require the creation of an entirely new branch of law-enforcement, along the lines described above (higher pay, higher standards, without the baggage of current police culture, and with the central and stated purpose of doing better). In Canada we have the "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" (the red-coats with the wide pantaloons), and we also have local police departments. While the RCMP doesn't exactly have a stellar record, they do seem to maintain somewhat higher standards of honorable law enforcement than the local departments. The U.S has what? County/city police, state police, and federal police in the form of FBI? (it's a real cluster-fuck of jurisdiction). What are the legitimate options or steps that the U.S could take to initiate wide-spread police reform? The political and economic implications of reform at this scale are certainly complex, but ultimately they must be confronted.

Streetlight

Will respond a bit more later but for now - the job of the police is to put themselves out of a job. Their violence sure as hell doesn't do that.

Pinprick

Why is the safety of the police more important than the safety of the people they're paid to uphold? — VagabondSpectre

Some possible responses:

1. Because if police officers were not well protected, then their job would be more risky. This would have the effect of more cops being wounded or killed in action, which would lead to there being fewer cops. Fewer cops means fewer people to protect the citizens, which results in more crime.

2. Labor laws require employers to provide the safest environment possible for their employees or risk being sued for unsafe work conditions.

3. If cops were being harmed or killed on a regular basis, no one would even want to be a cop. Which leads to the same issues in 1.

4. Because their responsibility to the public they serve is greater than the responsibility of the average citizen. Therefore they are more important to society.

What are the legitimate options or steps that the U.S could take to initiate wide-spread police reform? — VagabondSpectre

I think your suggestion makes sense. I would add to the list more psychological testing, counseling, etc. Not just when a specific incident occurs, like when an officer shoots someone, but as part of their normal training. Of course some actual mental health requirements would be needed as well. Also fair prosecution for those officers that are corrupt, racist, etc. Victims deserve to feel that justice has been served. If not, it undermines their respect and trust for authority, and they may very well feel forced to seek justice on their own terms, vigilante style. Which would only increase crime, and reinforce negative stereotypes.

TheMadFool

Police function, as has always been and is, involves deterrence and capture: deterring potential, and capturing actual, criminals. In such a capacity the police are given the authority and sanction to use force if and when necessary. The nature of the work as a member of the police entails that a cop be given the right to use as much force as is required to carry out his/her duty. If a cop were to pull his/her punches when confronting potential and actual criminals, they would invariably fail in their duty. The fact of the matter is cops have the right to use deadly force and that makes everything else permissible when making arrests or when patrolling.

If that's the case and cops have use of deadly force as an option granted to them, the question that arises is whether or not such power comes with guidelines/protocols that help cops decide, in a given confrontation, if force is required and if required what level of force to use? I get the impression that no such guidelines/protocols exist and the decision to use force or not and the decision how much force to use is left to the individual cop's discretion. Such a state of affairs inevitably leads to police-related events people will view as excessive use of force or police brutality. Can we blame a person who's authorized to use force but not given the specifics on when and how much force to use if that person does something we feel is wrong?

I guess what I'm getting at is that the blame for police brutality doesn't fall only on individual cops who get involved in so-called police brutality but also on the system that makes cops work without clear-cut guidelines that would help them make good decisions.

VagabondSpectre

the job of the police is to put themselves out of a job. Their violence sure as hell doesn't do that. — StreetlightX

This is absolutely right. High police performance should reduce crime, and reduced crime should result in fewer needed police.

I don't know how representative this is, but much has been said in my province on the subject of police "quotas". Apparently, given crime forecasts, police essentially had "quotas" to perform a certain number of traffic stops or street checks (or to file a certain number of criminal reports), lest the budget be affected. Even without "quotas", which police in my province have been explicitly ordered to abandon as recently as last year, the amount of crime that a given police department confronts may play a significant role in determining future funding. This is clearly a bad way to fund police.

The conflict of interest between the duty of police to protect and serve VS their desire to protect their own job security shouldn't be underestimated. And behind the job-concerned police, with out-stretched palms, is the judicial branch and prison systems (which also suffer from the same conflicts of interest). In America, the for-profit prison system appears to amount to one of the greatest on-going crimes in the history of the country. Together they all create some kind of sadistic justice pipeline and industry; built destructively over and through our communities, treating human life like fuel...

That protests against police-brutality are used by police as excuse for more police-brutality makes America look like some pre-revolutionary repressive dictatorship. Trust and respect between civilians and police is so far gone at this point that I can scarcely imagine existing departments bridging the gap through reform (which is why I'm quite interested in the idea of phasing out old school police departments while erecting something other).

The entire justice industry (euphemism of the century) in America clearly needs radical reform. I'm not entirely sure what we should do about bad judges and shitty court circuits, but at the very least there should be no "for-profit" prisons. The fact that these prisons can spend millions on lobby groups who advocate for more incarceration for the sake of more incarceration is flabbergasting.

What's more bewildering is that vague republican and conservative sentiments pretend to embrace principles like "freedom" and "small government", but then they go and fall for stupid ideas like "the war on drugs".

VagabondSpectre

1. Because if police officers were not well protected, then their job would be more risky. This would have the effect of more cops being wounded or killed in action, which would lead to there being fewer cops. Fewer cops means fewer people to protect the citizens, which results in more crime — Pinprick

Police safety for utility is the traditional argument used, but it defeats the main purpose of police in the first place, which is to protect civilians from criminals. We're just trading one thug for another.

2. Labor laws require employers to provide the safest environment possible for their employees or risk being sued for unsafe work conditions. — Pinprick

There are limits to how much safety is reasonable to expect in a given occupation. Undertaking certain actions or professions can, legally speaking, amount to an automatic liability waver (unless negligence of the employer can be shown). That said, this is why some jobs pay more than others.

3. If cops were being harmed or killed on a regular basis, no one would even want to be a cop. Which leads to the same issues in 1. — Pinprick

Now we're entering catch-22 levels of positive-feedback-loop territory:

>Police become more violent in order to protect their own safety
>Police violence against civilians inspires attacks on the safety of police
>Police become more violent in order to protect their own safety

4. Because their responsibility to the public they serve is greater than the responsibility of the average citizen. Therefore they are more important to society. — Pinprick

This is one of those rare informal fallacies called an "Ouroboros", which is my favorite kind of fallacy! (my avatar is an ouroboros, a snake devouring its own tail).

In fallacy terms, it's an argument or action whose conclusion negates one or more of its own premises or purposes. In this case, because their responsibility to the public is controverted by the actions they take to protect their safety (brutality), they negate it as a possible justification for said violence. It's not even means justifying ends; it's means justifying means, ends be damned.

I think your suggestion makes sense. I would add to the list more psychological testing, counseling, etc. Not just when a specific incident occurs, like when an officer shoots someone, but as part of their normal training. Of course some actual mental health requirements would be needed as well. Also fair prosecution for those officers that are corrupt, racist, etc. Victims deserve to feel that justice has been served. If not, it undermines their respect and trust for authority, and they may very well feel forced to seek justice on their own terms, vigilante style. Which would only increase crime, and reinforce negative stereotypes. — Pinprick

If a police officer shoots and kills someone in the line of duty, for whatever reason (even with the best of reasons), they should be rotated out of active beat-work for mental health reasons alone.

One of the barriers to tight regulation of police is the existence of police unions...

I'm not an expert on unions, but so far as I know they're sometimes necessary bargaining tools that collectives of employees use to negotiate fair compensation (they're not inherently bad). They don't exist across all industries though, not just because unionizing is too hard in some professions, or because some companies are too aggressively anti-union (walmart...), but also because in some industries the workers are compensated and treated fairly by their employers (the employees have no need for a union). What does it say about the career of "police" if extant police believe so strongly in their workers union? In the worst case, unions become bloated and complacent bureaucracies that also eventually begin to merely service their own existence (much like the major political parties of America).

America needs answers to many of these questions and issues. And we need persuasive rebukes to the possible reasons you have cited. The legal, social, and economic complexities of the reform work that has been cut out are enormous, and I'm quite worried about what's going to happen if we don't soon figure something out.

VagabondSpectre

I get the impression that no such guidelines/protocols exist and the decision to use force or not and the decision how much force to use is left to the individual cop's discretion. Such a state of affairs inevitably leads to police-related events people will view as excessive use of force or police brutality. Can we blame a person who's authorized to use force but not given the specifics on when and how much force to use if that person does something we feel is wrong?

I guess what I'm getting at is that the blame for police brutality doesn't fall only on individual cops who get involved in so-called police brutality but also on the system that makes cops work without clear-cut guidelines that would help them make good decisions. — TheMadFool

I agree, it's a broad failure of many parts within the system. Police are supposedly trained on how to escalate and de-escalate, but we're seeing the quality of that training in the news of late. Patience and compassion seem to be entirely lacking; whether they're not paid well enough for patience, or are just too jaded to have compassion, I can't say...

Pinprick

Police safety for utility is the traditional argument used, but it defeats the main purpose of police in the first place, which is to protect civilians from criminals. — VagabondSpectre

I disagree that that is their purpose, strictly speaking. Their purpose is to enforce the law, regardless of whether or not those laws are just. A wild example would be if it was the law that police had to beat up civilians.

There are limits to how much safety is reasonable to expect in a given occupation. Undertaking certain actions or professions can, legally speaking, amount to an automatic liability waver (unless negligence of the employer can be shown). That said, this is why some jobs pay more than others. — VagabondSpectre

Sure, there’s risk involved in every profession. But what you seem to be proposing is for the safety requirements to be scaled back, so that the job is less safe. I’ve never seen this done, and I’m not sure how that type of action could be justified. Especially if the employer has previously shown that the previous safety requirements were effective.

Now we're entering catch-22 levels of positive-feedback-loop territory:

>Police become more violent in order to protect their own safety
>Police violence against civilians inspires attacks on the safety of police
>Police become more violent in order to protect their own safety — VagabondSpectre

I think you’re generalizing or misunderstanding what I mean. I’m not saying police should be more violent, just that they shouldn’t be less safe, or have less safety.

In this case, because their responsibility to the public is controverted by the actions they take to protect their safety (brutality), they negate it as a possible justification for said violence. — VagabondSpectre

Again, I’m not justifying brutality, I’m justifying safety. I would argue that police brutality doesn’t make police officers more safe, it makes them less safe.

Pinprick

I agree, it's a broad failure of many parts within the system. Police are supposedly trained on how to escalate and de-escalate, but we're seeing the quality of that training in the news of late. Patience and compassion seem to be entirely lacking; whether they're not paid well enough for patience, or are just too jaded to have compassion, I can't say... — VagabondSpectre

I agree as well, but wanted to add that often police officers are ex-military. I’m guessing military training is light on compassion and patience, so even if police training incorporated this into its training the act of unlearning the military training is difficult. Also, I think both military and law enforcement professions attract a certain type of personality; those who want authority and/or control. This type of personality seems incompatible with compassion and patience in general.

TheMadFool

↪VagabondSpectre

Just to add to whatever I said, police encounters with bad guys or suspects are adrenaline-charged incidents, requiring split-second decisions in a highly volatile environment. This greatly increases the odds of officers making errors in judgement with predictable results - excessive force, which in the eyes of the public becomes police brutality. When we routinely forgive and make our peace with other people for doing/saying things in the heat of the moment on the grounds that extreme agitation/excitement clouds people's judgement, it is quite odd, don't you think, that police officers aren't given the same leeway in conduct? Of course when the police make mistakes, the consequences are more catastrophic but our judgement and assessment of how the police handle an incident must be tempered by acknowledgin cops are humans too and we all know to err is human...

Brett

↪VagabondSpectre

This is absolutely right. High police performance should reduce crime, and reduced crime should result in fewer needed police. — VagabondSpectre

That just makes no sense. Police arrest people who are suspected of committing crimes. The courts determine the sentence. It’s the consequence of breaking the law that’s the deterrent. Though it obviously is not the most successful theory.

What exactly do you mean by “ higher police performance” and how would it reduce crime?

Brett

↪StreetlightX

the job of the police is to put themselves out of a job. — StreetlightX

This is nonsense too. The police are responders. How many police respond to domestic issues every day across America or any other country? How could they create an environment where there is no domestic violence. Your posts are beginning to look like ideology pitted against common sense in an effort to achieve some other agenda. I’m happy to be corrected but I sense real Marxist undertones to your posts. Which is fine, but it helps in understanding where you’re coming from to know.

VagabondSpectre

Sorry for not attending the thread more quickly, but I have been busy of late (and I also wanted to leave time for more input).

I disagree that that is their purpose, strictly speaking. Their purpose is to enforce the law, regardless of whether or not those laws are just. A wild example would be if it was the law that police had to beat up civilians — Pinprick

Enforcing the law is the instrument by which they fulfill their purpose, which is the protection and service of the nation and its people, (visa The Constitution). Police swear oaths to the constitution when they enter into service. You're right that in practice police are enforcing laws, but ideally (ideologically, constitutionally) the laws they enforce service the constitution, which services the people. The best example would be police protecting someone's right to protest (the gravity of failure in this is may precipitate a constitutional crisis).

Sure, there’s risk involved in every profession. But what you seem to be proposing is for the safety requirements to be scaled back, so that the job is less safe. I’ve never seen this done, and I’m not sure how that type of action could be justified. Especially if the employer has previously shown that the previous safety requirements were effective. — Pinprick

I'm not advocating for more danger for police in a vacuum; the issue is complicated. There is no fathomable limit to the amount of measures police could take to increase their safety, and at some point, it can only come at the expense of civilian safety. There are also diminishing safety returns (and sometimes negative returns) when police use extraordinary and violent measures to jealously protect their own safety. The protests we're seeing right now are happening almost precisely because police jealously place their own safety above all else (and they are predictably making it worse by doubling down on brutality).

If the nature of current laws and police institutions lead to an outcome where thug-like enforcers freely instigate potentially life threatening altercations with innocent civilians. If broad cultural, legal, and institutional reform is required for us to have a situation where police don't need to wear jackboots, then that's what we must do. The American punitive (in)Justice system is a stupendous waste of life to begin with. De-funding those police departments which fuel the entire industry with fresh meat and blood seems like an excellent starting place to prepare for change. Dissolution and reconstruction if necessary says I.

I think you’re generalizing or misunderstanding what I mean. I’m not saying police should be more violent, just that they shouldn’t be less safe, or have less safety. — Pinprick

(I intended to leave a footnote clarifying that I was not meaning to conflate your own position with my rebukes of the list of reasons you provided, just looking to flesh out my own position against the full spectrum of possible arguments).

I agree with you that police shouldn't be less safe, but if we live in a world where we can only have very safe police at the expense of risk to civilians, then we should be limiting police-work to only the most essential functions. The point at which increased police safety disproportionately reduces safety for civilians seems well passed, and that's something we must change. The fact that police and civilian safety are pitted so at odds from the get-go is a symptom or effect of more deeply seeded problems in the culture and institution itself (the laws and regulations which guide and bind police, the culture that galvanizes them and upon which they operate, and the culture of mutual fear and resentment between police and civilians in general). I would say it's a classic freedom Vs security dilemma, but it's not even that, it's security vs security, and in some cases life vs life.

Again, I’m not justifying brutality, I’m justifying safety. I would argue that police brutality doesn’t make police officers more safe, it makes them less safe. — Pinprick

100% agree.

The aforementioned and well entrenched problems that I have mentioned (those that give rise to brutality, and those that brutality itself incites) are what give me the most pause regarding the subject of "change". Short of systemic reform, I don't see us reaching escape velocity from the black-hole that vast swaths of American police culture has become.

I agree as well, but wanted to add that often police officers are ex-military. I’m guessing military training is light on compassion and patience, so even if police training incorporated this into its training the act of unlearning the military training is difficult. Also, I think both military and law enforcement professions attract a certain type of personality; those who want authority and/or control. This type of personality seems incompatible with compassion and patience in general. — Pinprick

I agree. For relatively low pay for the amount of stress being dealt with, I would imagine that the people who thrive the most as police officers are those who get a kick out of it (what kind of kick is the rub; do they want to be heroes or do they just want to have power?) Those police bringing in large numbers of bad-guys are probably well favored in their internal hierarchy as well. This is a pretty big problem if we want to have a police force we can be proud of.

And the racism... It's almost as if power-tripping police know that black people are less likely to have a real lawyer (not the 5 minute McAttorney™ their constitutional right pays for), or that because black people have genuine cause for alarm when approached by police, they may be more likely to make any kind of force-justifying action or statement. It's also as if many of them seem to think that there will be no consequences for their behavior; that broader society just won't care enough to hold them accountable (the outwardly racist America of yesterday is still too close for comfort in too many precincts, but evidently the times are a changin'). Some police and politicians worry about criminals slipping through the cracks in their machine, but what about the innocent lives that fall into it? In some geographies, these cracks have become chasms.

Inaction seems to now be a non-option. There's no camera-free rug left under which America's (and beyond) remaining bull-shit can be swept. I think that police brutality and crime in general are symptoms of wider economic and social realities that unaddressed will generate unrest to the point of revolution. We either start here or eventually we're in for a bit of a fall.

VagabondSpectre

it is quite odd, don't you think, that police officers aren't given the same leeway in conduct? — TheMadFool

Are police given less leeway?

Most of the anti-brutality protests which have happened in the last decade began with a reaction to police getting away with murder. The cop who killed George Floyd (through negligence, brutality, or worse) seemed to be given too much leeway.

Regarding "heat of the moment" conduct, this is what is called a "mitigating circumstance" (a factor that judges consider when deciding appropriate sentencing), but it's not always a useful or valid defence. For example, if you initiate or escalate a confrontation prior to accidentally killing someone during its course, you could still be culpable for the death on those grounds (if only as criminal negligence leading to death). Negligently heating up the situation can be just as bad as the split second accident that directly caused death or injury.

We do understand that police-work isn't easy, and that accidents do happen, but we still expect basic competence. When genuine (read: reasonable) accidents happen, I don't think we should be necessarily criminalizing them, but we certainly need to establish accountability and to act accordingly. Error-prone police must be fired (something that is easier said than done). If a doctor makes an egregious mistake, we don't necessarily assumes they had criminal or malicious intent, but there is still a good chance the doctor loses their license due to incompetence or negligence. The nature and context of the mistake does also matter: mistakes that cannot be prevented by showing reasonable diligence can be more easily forgiven (mistakes that are less reasonably foreseeable or avoidable).

Some mistakes are harder to forgive, and which cross the line into felonious neglect of duty. When doctors make mistakes, it's called "malpractice", and when those mistakes meet some standard of negligence (and when harm occurred as a result) malpractice can also be a criminal offence (typically "manslaughter" is the term used for criminal accidental killing). Average people might not know the basic protocols for conducting safe surgery or safely prescribing new medicines, but these are things we expect doctors to know, and we hold doctors to that relevant standard. Being able to restrain someone without slaughtering them is one of the basic competencies that we ought to hold as a reasonable standard for police conduct. The ability to remain calm and de-escalate non-violent situations in the first place seems like an even more pertinent competency that should be expected of police.

As it stands, police are free to escalate when and where they see fit, and unless it's filmed and protested, they seem to do it with a high degree of impunity. One way of phrasing the very purpose of these recent protests is "police are currently given too much leeway".

When we routinely forgive and make our peace with other people for doing/saying things in the heat of the moment on the grounds that extreme agitation/excitement clouds people's judgement — TheMadFool

We don't always forgive them. It often depends on the crime and the circumstances. Whether or not the transgressing behaviour stems mainly from the nature of the person, or from the circumstantial forces they were placed in, is one of the chief considerations that we make when deciding how to administer rebuke or punishment.

VagabondSpectre

That just makes no sense. Police arrest people who are suspected of committing crimes. The courts determine the sentence. It’s the consequence of breaking the law that’s the deterrent. Though it obviously is not the most successful theory.

What exactly do you mean by “ higher police performance” and how would it reduce crime? — Brett

To be specific, it's the fear of getting caught. We don't need to analyze how police reduce crime so long as we agree that's one of their intended functions (especially if you're willing to say that without police crime would rise). If we agree on that, then we also agree that the more effective police become, the less crime there will be, and the fewer police we will require to maintain some acceptable low amount of crime.

It's not a formal argument (more like an interesting comment), but it does get at the idea that "more police" is of questionable benefit.

What exactly do you mean by “ higher police performance” and how would it reduce crime? — Brett

If police didn't have a reputation as unfeeling thugs in the so-called "high-crime communities" that they so-love to patrol, they might have a reasonable chance of helping to lead change rather than just leading the inter-generational destruction of poor communities.

Here's a gif of some cops interacting with children in a particular community:

This is the ideal pastime of police. He clearly feels safe enough to let his guard down; crime must be low. He could force the kids to sled elsewhere (it's a public street after-all), but instead he lets it and them slide because the letter of the law is not the intent of the law, and he's human. The children here are given a chance to interact with police in a way that is completely non-oppressive. These kids must view this cop as a good person; to be respected or even loved; not to be feared and loathed: not the enemy. The mere presence of this officer fulfills his patrol duty in a constructive way (as opposed to the destructive methods too many PD's have standardized).

Positive police presence and community interaction/partnership is the world I want to live in, but it's evidently not a feasible goal unless we live in the heart of upper-middle Suberbia. By "performance", I mean the holistic effect that police behaviour has on the communities they are meant to serve and protect.

The benefits of trust-building shouldn't be underestimated (especially when it comes to the ability of police to actually catch the real bad guys when working in communities that have such severe distrust of them.

Brett

↪VagabondSpectre

It's not a formal argument (more like an interesting comment), but it does get at the idea that "more police" is of questionable benefit. — VagabondSpectre

I agree with what you say, it’s been my position that it’s the quality of police officer that counts and the management of the force. I’ve seen many examples of police working with the community in poor and crime ridden areas. Naturally it’s the parents who want the best for their children that take part in it, those who don’t want their kids involved in drugs, crime and gangs. I don’t think these programs are that rare, it’s just that they don’t get much attention or, most likely, funds. More police of the same poor quality we’ve seen is not the answer, which means the use of force is not the answer either.

Edit: I should add that I feel the police are the meat in the sandwich.

TheMadFool

Most of the anti-brutality protests which have happened in the last decade began with a reaction to police getting away with murder. The cop who killed George Floyd (through negligence, brutality, or worse) seemed to be given too much leeway. — VagabondSpectre

I'm not even dreaming of downplaying George Floyd's death or the the death of others which have occured because of patent brutality on the part of the police. Although I'm no saint myself, I still have some idea about how painful death can be and how it feels to lose a loved one. Yet, we must, to get to the bottom of this issue, set aside our emotions and approach this with a cool head. If not, George Floyd's brutal demise will be in vain.

Regarding "heat of the moment" conduct, this is what is called a "mitigating circumstance" (a factor that judges consider when deciding appropriate sentencing), but it's not always a useful or valid defence — VagabondSpectre

It's comforting to know that the powers that be aren't blind to this problem.

We do understand that police-work isn't easy, and that accidents do happen, but we still expect basic competence. — VagabondSpectre

When doctors make mistakes, it's called "malpractice", and when those mistakes meet some standard of negligence (and when harm occurred as a result) malpractice can also be a criminal offence (typically "manslaughter" is the term used for criminal accidental killing). — VagabondSpectre

Average people might not know the basic protocols for conducting safe surgery or safely prescribing new medicines, but these are things we expect doctors to know, and we hold doctors to that relevant standard — VagabondSpectre

A doctor's life is quite different to a cop's. I agree that in acute medical emergencies, the stress levels of doctors are comparable to a police officers' encounter with a potential or actual law-offender. However, as you mentioned, a doctor has the benefit of "basic protocols" - a medical practitioner is never faced with a situation where s/he doesn't know what to do. The "basic protocols" of medicine ensures that. This is exactly what police officers lack. Without protocols, police officers are essentially being given the obviously dangerous and vague order to do whatever you think is right to uphold the law.

One way of phrasing the very purpose of these recent protests is "police are currently given too much leeway". — VagabondSpectre

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. — Blackstone

I don't know why Blackstone's ratio principle hasn't rubbed off on the police? Could it be that people, despite their current outrage against the police, have a different opinion when it comes to criminals? Methinks most people feel that a criminal must be brought to justice at all cost - an inverted Blackstone's ratio naturally follows from this.

Pinprick

You're right that in practice police are enforcing laws, but ideally (ideologically, constitutionally) the laws they enforce service the constitution, which services the people. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, so the issue then is that we are very far removed from ideal at this point?

The protests we're seeing right now are happening almost precisely because police jealously place their own safety above all else (and they are predictably making it worse by doubling down on brutality). — VagabondSpectre

The only problem I have is considering someone valuing their own safety over others jealousy. I think it’s necessary to do that in order to be able to assist in any way. You don’t want to foolishly approach someone pointing a loaded gun at you. You need to ensure your safety first, and then assess how you can resolve the situation in the safest way possible for all involved parties.

If the nature of current laws and police institutions lead to an outcome where thug-like enforcers freely instigate potentially life threatening altercations with innocent civilians. If broad cultural, legal, and institutional reform is required for us to have a situation where police don't need to wear jackboots, then that's what we must do — VagabondSpectre

Yep. I’m just not completely sold on the “if.” Is that truly the case now? Of course it happens, but we are dealing with humans. There should be an expected level of errors, mistakes, etc. So the question for me is how often does this occur? I saw a statistic that showed roughly 1000 people are killed by police each year. How many of those are justifiable is unknown. But if you don’t consider this number to be acceptable, what number would be? Also, the unknown statistic of how many times police were able to successfully de-escalate a potentially life threatening situation needs to be considered in any evaluation of their effectiveness. Just to speculate, let’s say that 80% of the time the shootings were clearly justified self-defense sort of situations. Then, 10% are gray area cases, where there is some disagreement on whether or not they were justified. That leaves 10% that are clearly unjustified. Would this number be acceptable? Personally, I’m ok with this sort of breakdown, but nothing higher. And this comes with the expectation that all of the unjustifiable cases are prosecuted appropriately. Obviously, if the unjustifiable cases are predominantly black victims, there is a problem, probably systemically.

De-funding those police departments which fuel the entire industry with fresh meat and blood seems like an excellent starting place to prepare for change. — VagabondSpectre

I’m simply not ready to agree with this yet. I would first like to see change in the prosecuting system. Although, I’m not entirely clear on what defunding the police departments would mean or result in. Fewer cops? Less gear? Some sort of alternative to police? Different funding source?

I agree with you that police shouldn't be less safe, but if we live in a world where we can only have very safe police at the expense of risk to civilians, then we should be limiting police-work to only the most essential functions. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, that seems reasonable.

The point at which increased police safety disproportionately reduces safety for civilians seems well passed, and that's something we must change. — VagabondSpectre

But, like I said, I’m not certain that this is accurate. I would need statistics, which admittedly I haven’t bothered to look up, to convince me, not just the occasional highly publicized incident. And actually, I’m inclined to think that since I only hear about these incidents occasionally, that they only occur occasionally. These cases are always publicized, so if they were occurring more frequently, there would be more reports of this occurring. There’s definitely cases that aren’t publicized, and I obviously can’t know how many, but would be surprised if it was a large number.

I agree. For relatively low pay for the amount of stress being dealt with, I would imagine that the people who thrive the most as police officers are those who get a kick out of it (what kind of kick is the rub; do they want to be heroes or do they just want to have power?) Those police bringing in large numbers of bad-guys are probably well favored in their internal hierarchy as well. This is a pretty big problem if we want to have a police force we can be proud of.

And the racism... It's almost as if power-tripping police know that black people are less likely to have a real lawyer (not the 5 minute McAttorney™ their constitutional right pays for), or that because black people have genuine cause for alarm when approached by police, they may be more likely to make any kind of force-justifying action or statement. It's also as if many of them seem to think that there will be no consequences for their behavior; that broader society just won't care enough to hold them accountable (the outwardly racist America of yesterday is still too close for comfort in too many precincts, but evidently the times are a changin'). Some police and politicians worry about criminals slipping through the cracks in their machine, but what about the innocent lives that fall into it? In some geographies, these cracks have become chasms.

Inaction seems to now be a non-option. There's no camera-free rug left under which America's (and beyond) remaining bull-shit can be swept. I think that police brutality and crime in general are symptoms of wider economic and social realities that unaddressed will generate unrest to the point of revolution. We either start here or eventually we're in for a bit of a fall. — VagabondSpectre

I feel like I need to add some context to my response to this. I live in a very rural area of an already rural state (WV). The area I live in is also very white. So, I have no first hand experience of predominantly black neighborhoods and the specific issues that arise there. However, my mom has worked for our local police department my entire life, and my stepdad is a retired police officer of 40+ years. So I grew up around police officers, and became comfortable with them, and knew some personally. I’ve also had bad encounters with police. Nothing physical, but just them having condescending attitudes and being smart mouthed. Anyway, I say this because I think there is an enormous difference between these rural police departments and those in metropolitan areas. For example, I wouldn’t really characterize being a rural police officer as extremely stressful. I’m sure it has it’s moments, but it’s much closer to The Andy Griffith Show than CSI/NCIS. The local department has issues with cops sleeping on the job, not use of excessive force.

As for racism, it’s quite prevalent here, depending on how you define it. But, aside from a fight or two in high school, I can’t say that it’s ever resulted in violence. It’s much more passive, and only evident in speech, as opposed to action.

Anaxagoras

↪VagabondSpectre

I am late but great read very well written

Violence in Police Culture

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions