A major policing issue is officers’ abuse of power in their use of unnecessary brutality, especially in prisons. There have been countless accounts of prisoners being beaten and punished inhumanely by guards. One particularly horrifying instance was the punishment of Darren Rainey, a mentally ill prisoner serving a 2-year sentence for the possession of cocaine. The Floridian Department of Corrections officers are known for devising cruel punishments for their prisoners, such as starvation or in-site fights to place bets on the victor. Prison guards blasted Rainey with scalding water until his skin separated from his body, quickly leading to his death. These officers can get away with such deeds because they are neither checked upon nor will they receive retribution for their actions. The facility covered up the incident and claimed that Rainey died of a heart attack; no one was charged with his death. Another instance includes the killing of Oscar Grant, the events of which were recounted in the film Fruitvale Station.

Another concerning problem is the inefficiency of the court systems, especially those located in poor districts. The legal system of the Bronx criminal courts is overwhelmed by cases because of the lack of court staff. As a result, there is a backup of trial cases and many inmates end up pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit. The story of Kalief Browder illustrates the struggle many poor offenders must face. He was wrongly accused of stealing and his family could not afford bail. Consequently, he spent three years in jail without a chance for trial. Not only is there a problem with the court system impediment, there are also unfair and sometimes unlawful punishments issued by judges. Instead of using their objectivity and discretion, many judges do the opposite. One such judge is Herman C. Dawson, the main juvenile court judge in Prince George’s County, Maryland. He, like many other judges, believes in tough love and will usually opt for incarceration, despite law standards.

There has always been an underlying distrust of the police by the public, an issue that has become much more prevalent in recent years. The Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, has created an even greater divide between the public and the police force. This fuels the anti-police sentiment that has been growing in response to recent police brutality incidents. My friend, a recent graduate of the police academy, observed that many police officers and audience members booed the mayor during his graduation speech. Many blame de Blasio’s “anti-police” policies for the recent hostility towards officers. Such apparent disagreement between city officials and the police department breaks the united front that they should maintain for civilians. There cannot be such a disconnection between the government officials and the police institution, because it leads to mass panic and distrust, which has already been observed. There was even a group of marchers shouting, “What do we want? Dead cops!”

References:

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/darren-rainey/

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/law-3

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/us/judge-in-maryland-locks-up-youths-and-rules-their-lives.html?_r=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/us/jails-have-become-warehouses-for-the-poor-ill-and-addicted-a-report-says.html

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/12/31/nypd-v-bill-de-blasio-why-new-yorks-mayor-police-are-at-odds/

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.

After the controversial cases regarding Eric Garner, Michael Brown, there seems to be an overwhelming public opinion for reformation in policing. Although such arguments could become highly politicized and radical on both ends of the spectrum, there are problems with policing that need to be addressed. There are three main, worrying issues that have the most capacity to improve: a disappointing lack of training/over reliance on firearms, a concerning disparity in Judge sentencing, and a lack of an objective point of view in legal cases, which could easily be acquired through body cameras. An improvement in any one of these fields would not only be beneficial to community and police relations, but also no doubt rectify the “malpractices” that the police employ, effectively cleaning up the system.
The first issue seems to be one of the most prevalent, yet is offered the least solutions. An over dependence on firearms not only breeds distrust within the community, but makes it easier for lives to be unnecessarily lost. Drawing guns heightens the intensity of the situation, and makes it easier deaths to occur. Al Baker cites in his New York Times article, “For New York City Officers, Drawing Guns Is Based on Discretion Not Rules,” he explains that there is no official guideline to enforce, or prohibit, drawing a gun. This allows police officers in New York City to draw guns based on their own judgment, which is not necessarily a bad thing. However, then an immense responsibility falls on the shoulders of that police officer. Baker points out drawing guns is very prevalent: “To some of them, drawing their guns, even with no present threat, is routine, a practice borne of habit or some internal gauge of an encounter that might go bad” (Baker 1). It seems police officers need more rigorous and constant training to weed off this dependence on firearms and to create more responsible alternatives to restraining a suspected perpetrator than chokeholds.
The second issue is more a problem throughout the criminal justice system than policing, but it seems that punishment sentences vary and depend mostly on the discretion of the judge. This turns the criminal justice system into a haven of political agendas, making judges worry about appearing too soft or too hard. Of course, there are several reasons a convict could get a lower sentence: plea bargains, government cooperation, and prosecutorial decisions. This however, opens up an interesting debate: should judges have that much discretionary power? From a logical point of view, the law should be the law, and those who break the law should face the standardized penalty. But human life and interaction is messy, and rarely does anything follow the book.
The third and final issue is the idea of an objective witness, or clear evidence in policing. It seems odd that body cameras are not already active in policing, as they will offer a clear account of the events that transpired. However, Yee and Johnson give a different view in their article, “Body Cameras Worn by Police Officers Are No ‘Safeguard of Truth,’ Experts Say.” The article quotes people who question the effectiveness of body cameras, stating it doesn’t necessarily prevent violent encounters and that: “just as often turn into a Rorschach test” (Yee and Johnson 1). This article explains that body cameras can be misconstrued and interpreted through different angles depending on the lawyers, and ultimately comes down to the discretion of the jury. However, though they may not bring about clear and expected results, as shown with the video evidence in the Eric Garner case, better and clearer evidence is more useful in any trial. The more available and direct evidence the better. New York City is already experimenting with body cameras, instigating a test run. Hopefully, there will be clear results in proving the effectiveness of body cameras.

Works Cited:
Baker, Al. “For New York City Officers, Drawing Guns Is Based on Discretion, Not Rules.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/nyregion/for-new-york-city-officers-drawing-guns-is-based-on-discretion-not-rules.html
Secret, Mosi. “Wide Sentencing Disparity Found Among U.S. Judges.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Mar. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/nyregion/wide-sentencing-disparity-found-among-us-judges.html?pagewanted=all
Yee, Vivian, and Kirk Johnson. “Body Cameras Worn by Police Officers Are No ‘Safeguard of Truth,’ Experts Say.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Dec. 2014. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/nyregion/body-cameras-worn-by-police-officers-are-no-safeguard-of-truth-experts-say.html

Policing is an expansive topic that requires an explicit definition since it can be preformed by various groups, individuals, and organizations to different extents. Therefore, when discussing problems associated with policing, it is necessary to identify the source(s) of the problems and the degree to which the source contributes to the problem. It is evident to me that the community, policing institutions (NYPD), and the government have equal parts of responsibility in the problem by either committing policing errors or allowing errors to go without punishment.

The most recent and public abuse of power via excessive force was the case concerning the death of Eric Garner. Mr. Garner’s death was caught on camera by nearby witness who taped the arresting officer using an illegal chokehold to take down the victim. Mr. Garner’s death sparked a debate about if body cameras should be worn by police officers as reflected in The Atlantic article we read for class. What I found particularly infuriating was the section discussing the (excessive) costs of the cameras and the process to equip the police. Personally, I find these cost discussions to be absurd and frankly selective considering our government’s track record for wasteful spending. For example, many small towns in middle America are now equipped with armored tanks that will most likely never be used, unlike the body cameras that will be used 24/7[1]. These discussions of cost reveal how much the government truly cares for the basic rights and securities of its own citizens versus protecting itself incase of a riot. It is truly laughable.

This blatant refusal to take all necessary measures to protect “the people” is particularly felt by minorities and lower income communities creating severe mistrust between these communities and the police. Selective enforcement and police presence (ex. Broken Windows Policy [2]) additionally encourages more tension and sometimes violence against those policing. The NYPD must publically recognize its persisting history of discriminatory practices if it truly desires to work with communities to serve and protect. Without this admission and commitment to change, there is unfortunately almost no chance of collaboration and peace.

The previous two discussions concern errors related to policy and budgeting, but what about errors on the ground –the officers actually using excessive force and discriminatory practices? How can we feasibly change mindsets and values? I think this is the most difficult question when it comes to policing and discrimination. Most solutions involve retraining, but in reality, what can a couple of hours or day of workshops due to fix fundamentally abusive or racist thoughts? The horrors many inmates face at the hands of corrections officers in prisons like Riker’s Island is frightening[3]. Is worth retraining officers who will beat other humans? My answer is no. These officers should be stripped of their titles and punished. We need to police the police. Here lies our biggest problem. What systems of accountability do we have for those who are supposed to be enforcing the law?

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/04/29/reader-submissions-from-small-towns-that-are-militarizing-their-police-forces/

[2] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2014/12/edward_banfield_the_racist_classist_origins_of_broken_windows_policing.html

[3] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/law-3

Law enforcement is a necessary evil. Police officers afford Americans the privilege to prosper without the burden of violence. However, over the course of our history, the people we once hired to protect us have became the people we fear. Much of this problem has to do with a negative reputation in the media, such as the recent Eric Garner and Michael Brown stories, but this deep rooted mistrust spurs beyond that. Innately racist laws, like stop-and-frisk, cause people to loose faith in law enforcement. These feelings of mistrust, which plague the police department, have developed into an issue that divides our nation. We have turned into a society that treats law enforcement as the enemy. In doing so we are hindering the police from completing the job we need them to — maintaining the laws and morals of our community.

Stop-and-Frisk, as previously mentioned, has raised concern about privacy and racial profiling. Originally created with good intention, the law looked to stop individuals deemed suspicious in an attempt to reduce crime. In actuality, the subjective nature of the law has lead to racial profiling. Among the people stopped, a vast majority (almost ninety percent) were Latino and African American. What’s more, 88 percent of all stops were innocent. Research has shown that crime rates have not dropped as a result of Stop-and Frisk. The laws shortcomings are evident when one considers the small number of arrests, summonses, and guns recovered. Many in support of stop-and-frisk believed gun recovery would reduce crime and murders; however, guns are found in less than .2 percent of stops. Despite these statistics, stop-and-frisk was increased 600 percent under Mayor Bloomberg. Stop-and-Frisk has only managed to drive a deeper wedge between citizens and law enforcement, adding to the over arching issue of mistrust.

Police quotas are “productivity goals” required of law enforcement with regards to speeding tickets, summonses, and arrests. While the police department denies the existence of such quotas, some have stepped forward and admitted that low productivity equals low performance ratings. Quotas put pressure on police to write tickets and search individuals with little suspicion. Law enforcement, ideally, is around to ensure all citizens abide by the law, only punishing those who break the rules; however, the existence of quotas has created a nation of suspects. In the eye of the public, ticket quotas are counterproductive since they open doors for potential racism. In 2014 of the high volume of misdemeanors, 86 percent were charged to people of color. Many of the charges are dismissed in court since they pose no real risk to the community. Examples include: sitting on a park bench, begging, walking between subway cars, or jaywalking.

Sources:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/how-did-we-get-here-look-police-distrust-america

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/13/nypd-stop-and-frisks-15-shocking-facts_n_1513362.

html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/nyregion/20police.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/nyregion/10quotas.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/11/more_fines_more_respect_says_p

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/nypd-quotas_n_5916596.html

Policing is a vital service which helps communities function efficiently and safely. However it is not without flaws. One current issue that plagues the U.S. is that past offenders are not properly re-integrated into their communities. A second issue is that racial bias exist in policing. A third issue is the use of excessive force by the police.

Ex-convicts often have a difficult time being reintroduced to a community. Not only are convicts looked down upon socially; they are also not eligible for welfare, student loans, public housing, and food stamps. There are abandoned not only by their peers but by their government. It is also difficult for past criminals to find employment. A Bureau of Justice study found a small 12.5% of employers say they would consider an applicant with a criminal record. Housing is also difficult to come by for an ex-offender. In Tarrant County of Texas a 2011 homeless survey found 76 of the 410 people surveyed were unemployed because of their criminal record. Such deterring truths encourages ex-offender to return to crime. Some even turn to suicide. The purpose of policing is not only to punish offenders but to correct him/her. This cannot be accomplished if they are denied basic needs such as shelter and employment.

There is a disproportionate amount of minorities in jails and prisons. 1 in 17 Anglo men is expected to serve time in prison during his lifetime, compared with 1 in 6 Hispanic men and 1 in 3 African-American men. It is evident that there is a racial bias in policing. Recently the death of Eric Garner has brought the issue of racial profiling to the public eye. Across the U.S. black people are stopped, searched, arrested and imprisoned at rates higher than people of other races. For example in the city of Dearborn over half of the people arrested in 2011 and 2012 were black. However, only 4% of the city’s population is black. This is an issue which cannot be ignored. We do not completely understand the cause of this pattern. However, we do see the consequences. Racial profiling lessens the public’s trust of the police.

Another issue in policing that has arisen into the public eye from the Eric Garner case is police brutality or use of excessive force. This may be attributed to a lack of adequate police training. The  U.S. Department of Justice has found that several police agencies, including Seattle, New Orleans, Portland, Newark and Albuquerque practice excessive force in policing. The department of justice has recommended “…revising and clarifying local policies regarding appropriate uses of force, improving officer training and supervision, and implementing rigorous internal accountability systems…” Use of excessive force also lessens the public’s trust. It is necessary for the police to have a good relationship with the public in order to serve their community in the best way possible.

Sources

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “to police” means “to control and keep order in an area by the use of police or military forces.“ In modern-day America, as evidenced by Merriam-Webster’s definition, police departments and the act of policing is often associated with violence and brutality. Additionally, issues of poor community-police relations and stop-and-frisk racial profiling have come front and center in recent times.

Police brutality and the injustices associated with it have been a newsworthy topic over the past few months with the Daniel Pantaleo (Eric Garner) and Darren Wilson (Michael Brown) verdicts both going in favor of the Caucasian officers despite civilian deaths seen in both cases. I have opted to steer clear of these instances as I’m sure that media worldwide has kept us well-informed of the gory details recorded on both dreadful days. Instead, I would like to turn my attention to the Peter Liang case. Peter Liang, a 27-year old Asian probation officer, was on the job going through the stairwell of a Brooklyn housing complex when he shot and killed Akai Gurley, an unarmed 28-year old black male. While he pleads that it was an accident, he has nonetheless taken the life of a man who posed no threat to the officer or the community. Rightfully so, he has been indicted on charges of second-degree manslaughter. Mistakes are going to occur over the course of time and lives will sometimes be lost. While the inevitability of this is certain, the way the justice system deals with similar cases to those stated above should be consistent. When the public eye senses inconsistency and possible injustice, it loses trust in authority and as a result, community-police relations can suffer.

For instance, after it was discovered that Daniel Pantaleo would not be indicted on charges in the death of Eric Garner, there was a “Millions March NYC” that took place in response to the decision. For more than ten days, protesters marched four miles a day before rallying outside the NYPD headquarters. A banner revealing the saying, “Black Lives Matter” led the march and chants such as, “’How do you spell murderer?’ ‘NYPD’” were muttered time and time again. From this sequence of events alone, it is clear that the public is having a difficult time placing its utmost trust in the men and women in blue. In order for a city to function successfully, the community and its police force must be a cohesive unit, not a divided pair. It is an area of concern that must be dealt with in the immediate future.

Another contributing factor to this weakened relationship between the police force and the public can be attributed to stop-and-frisk racial profiling. According to data published by the New York Civil Liberties Union, in 2013, the last full-year set of data available, 88% of people stopped and frisked in NYC were innocent. Of the 191,588 stops, 160,149 of these stop-and-frisks were on blacks or Latinos. In other words, 85% of stop-and-frisks were performed on minorities. While these minority groups make up 54.1% of New York City’s population, 85% of stop-and-frisks are being performed on them. Why is there such a disparity between population and stop-and-frisk percentages? Race and ethnicity should be a non-factor when determining whether or not to engage in enforcement. Racial profiling is a prevalent problem that needs to be addressed. Only through improvements in the areas of stop-and-frisk racial profiling and police brutality will the community-police relationship better itself and the people of this great city.

References

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/police

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/nyregion/officers-indictment-in-akai-gurleys-death-brings-little-solace-to-brooklyn-residents.html?_r=0

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/millions-march-nyc-protesting-grand-jury-decision-in-eric-garner-death-begins-in-manhattan-1.9711149

http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108570.html

Policing is undeniably a necessary practice meant to maintain order, enforce law, and uphold social norms and customs. When we talk about policing, we generally speak about the process of crimilization leading up to the time of arrest. In fact, many of the most recent and widely publicized issues with policing occur within this pre-incarceration stage. But what happens behind the closed doors of prisons, such as Riker’s Island, creates a whole class of social issues in post-incarceration policing.

I have seen prison violence and corruption as portrayed by Hollywood, but until I read “Before the Law”, an article by the New Yorker about the pre-trial incarceration of Kalief Browder, I did not realize the severity and reality of corruption within prisons, especially New York’s own Riker’s Island. What struck me the most was the excessive use of solitary confinement as a punishment for even the smallest scuffles. A pamphlet by the American Civil Liberties Union refutes the stigma that solitary cells contain only the “worst of the worst”, stating that if that were the case they would be much less crowded. A 2007 publication by the Red Cross compared the use of solitary confinement to physical torture, naming it “one of the most difficult torment of all to withstand” [1]. It is obvious that Browder was a victim of the abuse and misuse of solitary confinement in prison, and his story revealed the psychological impacts that it can have .

Currently, many teenage inmates are placed in solitary , completely isolated for 22-23 hours per day. During this time of prime maturation, lack of human contact causes severe psychological damage. In a new legislation announced by Mayor DeBlasio’s administration [2], isolation will be banned for inmates under 21 on Riker’s Island. While this is a much needed social reform in the prison system, it does not stop misuse of solitary in inmates over this age. And if the use of solitary confinement was so underregulated prior to this legislation, how can we be sure that it will now be justly enforced?

This brings me to my next two issues; violence and abuse of power by corrections officers. While the threat of danger is inament in the daily work of a corrections officer, there have been far too many reports of unnecessary and excessive use of force against prisoners. According to a Manhattan U.S. attorney [3] verbal attacks by prisoners are often physically responded to by guards. In 2013 alone, there were 565 reports of staff use of force against adolescent males on Riker’s Island, resulting in 1,057 injuries.

As far as abuse of power, a report by the New York Times [4] exposes the recent arrests of officers smuggling drugs, weapons and other contraband onto Riker’s Island. If the prisoners still have access to the illegal items that orginally landed them there, the “deterrent effect” of prison is invalid, and the same crimes can still be committed behind bars. While there are also many issues with policing on the street, true, holistic reform cannot take place in the criminal justice system without looking to prison reforms as well.

References:

[1]https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/stop_solitary_briefing_paper_updated_august_2014.pdf

[2]  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/nyregion/new-york-city-to-end-solitary-confinement-for-inmates-21-and-under-at-rikers.html?_r=0

[3] http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/August14/RikersReportPR.php

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/nyregion/2-officers-and-20-inmates-are-arrested-in-corruption-sweep-at-rikers-island.html