In order to tackle this issue sensibly, it is necessary to clarify what, exactly, it means to find problems with “policing.” Must problems in the administration of justice be identified? That is to say, are we to explore issues within the realms prosecution, punishment and incarceration? Or, are we to investigate the very core of what policing aims to achieve; to encourage lawful conduct in society.
To shed some light on the difference between the two perspectives, I present an anecdote: In Sudhir Venkatesh’s book “Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets”, Venkatesh describes the trials of living with and studying the Black Kings, a hardened yet organized, crack-dealing gang from the north side of Chicago. In one passage he describes a police raid of a gang party:
As J.T. and I stood talking in a corner, a group of five men suddenly busted into the room, all dressed in black. One of them held up a gun for everyone to see. The other four ran to the corners of the room, one of them shouting for everyone to get up against the wall. Four of the men were black, one white. J.T. whispered to me, “Cops.”
He and I took our places against the wall. One of them pulled out black trash bags. “Cash and jewels, I want everything in the bag!” one shouted. “Now!”
“F*cking cops do this all the time,” J.T. told me. “As soon as they find out we’re having a party, they raid it.” “Why? And why don’t they arrest you?” I asked. “And how do you know they were cops?” “It’s a game!” shouted one of the other [Black King] leaders. “We make all this fucking money, and they want some.”
Venkatesh was clearly shocked by the behavior, he wondered whether it could actually be the case that police, acting out of uniform, were using civil forfeiture law to rob gang members outright. He pressed the question on to his police contact in the local precinct:
“Yes, some of the people I work with raid the parties. And you know, sometimes I feel like I should do it, too! I mean, guys like J.T. are making a killing off people. And for what? Peddling [drugs] that kill. But it’s not for me. I don’t participate—I just don’t see the point.”
It seems this behavior isn’t some spurious case of police corruption, but instead a common practice among the police. So common, in fact, that in the case of this particular precinct, there was a weekly sign up sheet for it. Not only that, but the police who don’t participate had no qualms against it. Now, this is not an attempt to elicit sympathy for hardened criminals, however, it brings the discussion back to my point: does this behavior encourage lawful conduct in society–does this contribute to the core of what successful policing aims to achieve?
Certainly not is the obvious answer, but could better policing solve this sort of abuse of power? Even any sort of community-based or legislative policing, as is suggested by the C.O.P.S. (Community Oriented Policing Services) initiative, seems like a naive hand-wavy solution. Realistically, where can a gang member go to to complain about stolen goods? Of course, the issue is not the goods themselves, but the fact that police officers take advantage of a situation to steal thousands of dollars worth of goods, instead of appropriately and fairly administering justice. Who is going to speak out against this sort of conduct–which politician, which officer, which community director? Really, who would dare to risk being branded as a gang sympathizer ? Can such abuse of power really be prevented?
Perhaps it can’t be; at the end of the book, The Black Kings disbanded and organized crime in Chicago plummeted. Down with it went prostitution, drug sales, extortion and murder rates. What was the miraculous solution? It wasn’t a new $800 chest camera for officers, or some new and improved community engagement policy from the Department of Justice. No, the solution was much more simple than that; the legislation that provided funds for James Taylor Houses, the housing projects where the Black Kings (and a number of other gangs) were situated, was up for renewal. The governor elected not to renew the legislation and instead provided funds for the demolition of James Taylor Houses, so large luxury condominiums could be built in its place. The residents of James Taylor were then given vouchers to seek housing throughout the larger Chicago area. What this accomplished was the decentralization of gang activity. Those looking for drugs, prostitution and the like could no longer go to one area with relatively little police density to get their fix. So, any one single gang could no longer make the money it once had. Without the money to pay their foot soldiers, the lower ranks of the gangs disbanded. Soon after, the leadership separated as well.
So, once again, this brings me to my point; perhaps the problem isn’t that the police are administering their force in the wrong way, but that the police are not the correct organization to promote lawful conduct in the first place. The role of the police should be more custodial; they clean up the societal mess crime creates with investigation and pursuit of criminals. What they cannot do, by the nature of the occupation, is put into place the conditions that favor a major and long-term reduction of crime, which is what ultimately lessens incarceration rates and remedies a slew of other issues our legal system faces. So really, the problem with policing is that we are policing instead of legislating to craft conditions that would uplift formerly crime infested neighborhoods.
Some Additional Resources:
John Oliver, an HBO political satirist, on civil forfeiture.
Sudhir Venkatesh’s Other Works
Contact Info for Venkatesh (he currently teaches at the Columbia dept. of sociology)
Table of necessary proof for civil forfeiture by state.
Based on what you are saying, it seems that you think that the crafting of appropriate legislation is what will ultimately decrease crime rates and incarceration rates. You seem to be asserting that society as a whole has made the incorrect assumption that the quality of the police force is what decreases the crime and incarceration rates. What you are saying is very interesting and probably true. Also, I don’t think that society as a whole would care all that much if the police robbed gangs, who themselves are thieves anyways. Certainly, society would frown upon it as such funds could be put to use in more productive uses than for mere personal gain. I think, though, that you’re still arguing the same thing that the class has been discussing because if the police become the criminals who are oppressing innocent members of the community, I think that you would probably argue again that society would need to craft legislation to either oversee and regulate their activities or that will lead to a change of circumstances that permit undesirable behavior. Your piece is very eloquently written and I liked that you were very passionate about your topic.
The problems in policing that stem from misjudgement, and abuse of power was apparent in your description of the abuse of civil forfeiture, and I thought you wrote very eloquently on the topic. However, I disagree that the role of police is misplaced. In your conclusion, you wrote that “the police are not the correct organization to promote lawful conduct”, but I believe that is exactly what they are meant to do. As law enforcement officials, society relies on them to maintain law and order, which is in itself the promotion of lawful conduct. While I do agree with you that the police are not responsible for creating long term solutions to crime, it is their duty to enforce the existing ones. You mentioned that “the problem with policing is that we are policing instead of legislating”, but the criminal justice system requires the cooperation of many entities – police, government and citizens included – to function properly. Removing police from the equation makes governement legislation pointless, and, similarly, without legislation there are no laws for police to enforce. I think rather than changing the structure of the system, a closer look needs to be taken at the roots of the issue, which are as we discussed; discretion and abuse of power.
I agree that it is the police department’s job to enforce the law, and that the task of innovating crime prevention strategies should mostly be dealt with by legislators. Law enforcement officials can only go as far as patching crime-related problems. Crime can most effectively be reduced through the legislative process. For example, the introduction of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in 1970 significantly weakened organized crime in the United States. According to the FBI, the provisions of the RICO Act have been especially effective because “they attack the entire corrupt entity instead of imprisoning individuals, who can easily be replaced with other organized crime members or associates” (FBI). The police department alone lacked the strategies to attack the problem of organized crime at its root, since it could only go as far as arresting individuals.
Although legislation plays a key strategic role in enacting change, the police department is also essential because it enforces the strategies and laws created by legislators. Laws are meaningless without any means of enforcing them. The issue of police corruption is significant because when laws are not enforced, civilians are left without any safe channels to go through when dealing with crime, rendering them helpless against their oppressors. Criminals are emboldened by the lack of consequences for their actions, making crime even more widespread.
I forgot to include the source in my previous comment:
FBI. FBI, 27 Aug. 2010. Web. 18 Feb. 2015. .
@Skye Wright:
It seems that I hadn’t put myself across clearly enough. I do not mean that police should be “taken out of the equation.” What kind of world could that create? Laws without an impetus for the public to follow them are barely laws at all. No, criminals need to face the consequences of their actions, that goes without saying.
What I did mean to say is that our class discussion is centered around Law Enforcement (policing) and the Judiciary Process and I think that that is the wrong approach to talking about crime altogether. In chemistry, we have something called the rate determining step; there are many factors that go into a reaction, but the rate determining step is the factor that matters the most by far. I think that Policing and the Judiciary process are not the rate determining step here. Poverty is.
No amount of policing could make a dent in the James Taylor Housing Projects in the anecdote I wrote about (in my opinion policing made the problem worse, since police were integrating themselves into the gangs profit flow.) What really made the difference was economics; it was no longer profitable for drug dealers to sell drugs, so the gangs could no longer make any money. No money means less gang activity and that means less gang violence. Its that simple.
So, if you make the economic conditions in poorer neighborhoods rise–that is to say, if you make it so that people can make more money and have a better status than they would if they were selling drugs and engaging in elicit activities, then crime drastically decreases.
@Aychen Halim
Yes, but this is not what I meant by legislation. That type of legislation is good, yes, but it only deals with the apprehension of criminals–the end of the line for the criminal. I say make legislation that deals with the problem at its source; what conditions and circumstances breed a criminal behavior in the first place?