Ken White makes a pretty fair case that we should be dealing with occurrences of police violence much less tolerantly than we have turning the same strategy that has produced a sharp rise in the encounters between the police and the general public in on itself:
If tolerating broken windows leads to more broken windows and escalating crime, what impact does tolerating police misconduct have?
Under the Broken Windows Theory, what impact could it have but to signal to all police that scorn for rights, unjustified violence, and discrimination are acceptable norms? Under Broken Windows Theory, what could be the result but more scorn, more violence, and more discrimination?
I have been advocating arresting and trying law enforcement officers who cannot tell the difference between a weapon and ordinary objects. Once a few go to prison, I predict their ability will increase substantially.
The Federal law is Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242, “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”.
I’m not sure the analogy is quite right.
Broken windows are to serious crime,
as minor disciplinary infractions are to _______________?
I think White wants to put all of the recent police killings in the blank, but these are ostensibly not criminal. He wants these non-crimes to be criminalized, I suppose. But getting tough on the precise think you want to deter isn’t the premise behind broken windows policies.
I think the better frame of reference is that officers need to be more strongly punished for minor infractions, particularly those showing lack of judgment and discipline. If this encourages better policing, we might avoid these sorts of bad encounters that escalate into justified homicide.
I agree with you, PD. He has the kernel of a good idea there but he doesn’t quite hit the mark.
BTW I’ve read similar assertions about youth crime to the effect that our present system tends to excuse youthful offenders until they do something really serious and then we put them into adult prison.
Going back to the case of police violence, it seems to me that more consideration should be given to penalties other than criminal prosecution even in the case of self defense, for example termination. Do you really want an officer who allowed a situation to get so out of control he or she had to kill someone to remain on the force? That’s not a rhetorical question but an actual one.
Dave, my own suspicion is that any time a police officer kills a civilian, it should be expected to be troubling enough to the officer that the presumption should be that they are no longer fit for similar work.
I had a drinking buddy once that prosecuted police misconduct cases in administrative hearings, and the stories she told were pretty demoralizing. All petty stuff to be sure, but conduct that was so sophomoric and irresponsible you would feel aghast at the “everybody makes mistakes” free-passes for at least the first offense, meaning the punishment was paid leave. I’m not sure where to draw the line, but I think the civil service / union protections at that level are measured too leniently.
If there is no accountability, some people will not behave responsibly. I agree with you that this need not all be criminal prosecution. Do we really want someone working as a police officer if they shot out of panic, even if it is called justified?
Steve