Disclaimer: this discussion is not intended to kowtow to any interest group, or offend any group. It is not intended to defend the status quo, nor to demean any group or individual. The intention of this post is to set up some criteria, based on standard organizational precepts, that would allow an orderly, cooperative, and workable revamping of all police forces. It is only a start, and I invite comment from anyone who is seriously intent on improving our lives. I mediate both my blog and my Facebook page. Rants from either end of the political spectrum will be removed. Thoughtful opinion of any sort may be contributed without fear of reprisal.
Asimov’s Laws of Robotics:
In the 1960s a wise man created a set of prioritized objectives for a fictional group of individuals who were more powerful than the humans they served: robots. In order for robots to interact with humans in a useful way, they had to obey three rules shown above.
Now, prioritizing this list was a simple procedure, because robots were seen as disposable, while humans weren’t. Still, it’s a good model upon which to base our discussion of the police, another group of individuals with more power than the members of the public they serve. Just what objectives and priorities do we assign to our police forces? Since most of the demands I see for reform of police forces do not first take into account an agreement on the goals we want to achieve, most of those ideas will be ill conceived, contradictory, and doomed to failure.
Society’s Objectives
This is an old depiction of the difference between our democracy and the autocracy of the USSR.
Consider a group of ten individuals accused of a crime. The authoritarian regime knows that nine are innocent and one is guilty, but they can’t figure out which one. The authoritarians will punish all ten to make sure they get the guilty one. If a democracy knows nine are guilty and one is innocent, but they don’t know which one, they will let them all go free rather than punish one guilty person.
This is a simplified, artificial situation, but it does make a good start for our deliberations. The rights of the innocent take precedence over society’s need to punish the guilty. This plays out on a daily basis, and I’m sure it drives the police nuts. They’re standing outside a door, waiting for a warrant, and they hear the toilet flushing the drugs away, but they aren’t allowed to bust in. Putting officers in impossible situations is a surefire way to create rule benders and rule breakers. Giving officers objectives they cannot possibly achieve with the resources and training they are given is the recipe for disaster. Which is what we have now.
Setting Police Objectives.
My observation of the recent incidents of police violence against their clients shows me a basic structural flaw: The police officers are trying to achieve objectives that are out of date, often harmful and in the long run impossible to achieve. This allows rogue officers the latitude to be bullies, puts regular officers in the position where they need to use violence whether they want to or not, and allows observing officers to rationalize the actions of their more violent peers.
Too many times I have seen video produced by the authorities to rationalize an act of violence, only to see officers punching and kicking a struggling person. The last one in Canada, the explanation was, “The officer only struck her with her open hand a few times to get her into handcuffs.” To my mind, I see an officer beating a citizen (who has not been convicted of anything) into submission, and hear the authorities condoning it. This is completely unacceptable.
Asimov’s Laws Adapted to the Police
One: Officers must protect their own safety and well-being.
Humans are not expendable. I hear that the security guards for the President of the United States are hired to throw themselves in front of a bullet, but we can’t expect that of the average officer. Of course, different officers will interpret this rule differently depending on the circumstances, but it must remain number one.
Two: Officers must protect the general public unless this interferes with Rule #1. After all, that’s what the police are for, isn’t it? Many police officials and officers seem to have forgotten this. Note that this rule also applies to the person the officers are arresting. Strange thought, yes?
Three: Officers must protect the rights of all members of the general public unless this interferes with Rules #1 and #2. Yes, including the person being arrested. I think everyone basically agrees on this, but in the heat of the moment, officers tend to allow Law #1 to be an excuse to disobey #3.
Seven: Officers must provide deterrent against repeats of any offence by the perpetrator and others.
Yes, that’s right. Somewhere down near the bottom police officers are there to stop this danger to the public from happening again. That includes collecting evidence to achieve a conviction. But too often this objective seems to rise to the top, coming above #3 and even #2. “Stop or I’ll shoot,” is completely unacceptable. Firing a taser or bullet at a person running away from you is unacceptable.
Next week: Part 2
We will continue with discussion of how these changes could result in an improved police force and an improved attitude towards law enforcement in the public. We will deal with two main points: the punitive nature of our society, and that key point of interaction where most of the problems show up: the Police Takedown.