It’s no secret. Since medieval times, our society’s go-to technique for behavioural modification has been punishment. For example, in Victorian days children were seen as little adults, with all the sinful desire that comes with maturity. The solution was to beat it out of them. If a boy stuttered, he was considered to be doing it willfully to defy authority, so he was beaten. I kid you not. You can imagine how well that worked.
And we haven’t lost it yet. This week on Facebook one of my long-time personal friends posted the usual “I was spanked and look how well I turned out” meme. He is a good, kind person and a loving grandfather, but he still believes in violent punishment. Those who post that meme ought to take out the word “well” and see what it says.
The Problem with Punishment
While it may have some preventative effect, often in the heat of the moment the person doling out the punishment cannot make the distinction between prevention and revenge. Likewise, the cries to “defund the police” have little to do with improving police performance and a lot to do with taking revenge for past ills.
The Police and Punishment
You would think that our court system would keep punishment from being a problem for the police, because the court will prove guilt and set punishment, removing both those jobs from the purvey of the officer on the street. In theory, it works. In practice? Not so much, for two reasons.
- Dumped Responsibility
There are certain circumstances where the system has designated the police officer as judge, jury, and executioner. These are usually times when judgement at the scene is necessary, or where conviction after the fact is difficult. In the absence of chemical testing, both alcohol and marijuana driving offences are very difficult to prove in court, and the “uninvolved” testimony of the police officer was the only way to get a conviction. More recently, the “distracted driving” epidemic hit us so suddenly that no one knew what was going on until the death rates began to rise. Not having any evidence, data, or experience, each jurisdiction has made up an ad hoc set of rules and dumped them on the traffic police, requiring the officer to make all the decisions on the spur of the moment, based on impractical and questionable regulations.
Quite rightfully in this case, the police have refused to cooperate. They give out tickets willy-nilly, based on whatever the rules say. When questioned, the officer explains the process and encourages the citizen to appeal. Sometimes they even say, “Go ahead. You’ll probably get off.”
I have no easy solution because one is tempted to say, “write better legislation.” I tend to go on the assumption that if legislators could write better legislation they would have, although political considerations sometimes belie that hope.
- Assumed Responsibility
Unfortunately, the punitive attitude already prevalent in our society naturally pools in certain aspects of life, and law enforcement is one of those areas. Not only that, but the conservative attitude of many “law and order” people channels them into that line of work. And when you put an attitude like that and people like that in the place where authority meets crime, sparks are bound to fly.
The solution is to give officers clear alternate objectives, so they aren’t so focused on punishing offenders.
The Takedown
And now we come to the point where most of the problems arise. The police receive word of a crime being committed. They arrive and find a probable perpetrator. They stop this person and make a decision whether to arrest or not.
And somehow, that’s where it all goes wrong. Why? For several reasons, one of which we deal with today.
Getting a Conviction
In many cases, it is very difficult for an officer to gather enough evidence for a conviction . Hostile witnesses. No witnesses. The perception that “they all get off.” The perception that the punishment wasn’t enough.
However, police have developed a solution to this problem. If you can’t get the perpetrator for what he did when nobody was there, it’s much easier to get him for something else he did when you were right there, observing. In fact, resisting arrest is the greatest tool an officer has to get a conviction. It’s easy to instigate, it carries the best excuse; “I was in personal danger,” and an officer experienced in the gathering of evidence can make the case stick quite easily.
The problem, of course, is that it presupposes that the person is guilty. Unfortunately, what a lot of people are guilty of is a bad attitude towards the police. Granted, the largest number of these have a bad attitude because they are criminals, and the police are their natural enemies. But not all of them. And remember our example from last week’s post. If there’s one innocent person in the group, you have to treat them all like you would treat that person.
The solution to this one sounds easy, but it means changing the basic attitudes of a lot of people. We have to persuade the police is that their second priority is the protection of the people. All the people, including the suspect.
This is not impossible. A couple of decades ago the police realized that there were too many innocent bystanders being injured due to high-speed car chases. Nowadays if a car is getting away, dispatch makes a decision whether patrol cars should chase it. The safety of the public takes precedence over catching the suspect. As it should.
Remember the Priorities:
One: Officers must protect their own safety and well-being.
Two: Officers must protect the general public unless this interferes with Rule #1.
Three: Officers must protect the rights of all members of the general public unless this interferes with Rules #1 and #2.
Getting a conviction is way down the list of priorities, and officers should be made aware of this. It will make their jobs more manageable and reduce conflict with people that don’t need to be punished. It might also help draw the line between corrective punishment and revenge.
Next week – Part 3: Responsibility
Too many people end up dead when their original offence was minor: DUI, intoxication in a public place, psychotic episode, having the wrong skin colour… the list goes on. Next week we will discuss assigning responsibility for these situations.