Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A major problem that our society faces today is the conflict of police brutality. This
issue arises when police officers follows their departments use of force continuum,
in which use of force is determined by showing what level of control is needed to be
used by the officers to properly meet with the amount of resistance of the
perpetrator. In severe situations in which deadly force is used, society views this as
police brutality. If death or great bodily harm is a result of an officers use of force,
this matter becomes quite serious to society. However, more minor cases, such as
an officer aggressively putting handcuffs on someone, is not viewed as a more
serious case of police brutality. This issue is serious on a domestic level, but this is
not a serious issue on an international level. The responsibility for this issue rests on
the various law enforcement agencies across our nation, particularly the local and
state police departments. Ultimately, The United States Department of Justice is
held accountable for the actions of these police officers involved in police brutality
in our nation. However, if the victim or the state decides to hold an individual or a
group accountable for the brutality inflicted upon the victim of the officers actions,
the individual police officer, or his whole department or supervisor, may be held
accountable. The victim may also choose to sue the city over what happened as a
result of the police officers brutality. There are many indications of disagreements
about the issue. Many people view the police officers actions as unjustified or
unnecessary. However, there are others, primarily those involved in the criminal
justice society, who view the police officers actions as reasonable and justified.
They can put themselves in the officers shoes and understand that decisions, such
as how much force should be used against the perpetrator, need to be made in an
instant to protect their life as well as the lives of others around them. The policy
that exists to deal with the problem of police brutality is the requirement for police
departments to have a use of force continuum in effect for their officers. According
to the National Institute of Justice, use of force continuums describe an escalating
series of actions an officer may take to resolve a situation. This continuum generally
has many levels, and officers are instructed to respond with a level of force
appropriate to the situation at hand, acknowledging that the officer may move from
one part of the continuum to another in a matter of seconds. They are typically in
the form of a staircase, showing the relationship between the perpetrators
resistance and the officers control. Although this may appear to be adequate, it is
difficult for an officer to go over the continuum in his or her head when faced with a
violent offender. However, these continuums serve as an adequate guideline for
officers in the field who are not faced with a life or death situation.
Supporting Documentation:
"Addressing Police Misconduct Laws Enforced By The Department Of Justice." The
United States Department of Justice. N.p., 6 Aug. 2015. Web. 07 Dec. 2015.
"The Use of Force Continuum." National Institute of Justice. N.p., 04 Aug. 2009. Web.
07 Dec. 2015.
Part Two: Examining Alternative Policies
The current policy that exists to deal with the problem of police brutality is the use
of use of force continuums in effect in police departments across the country. As
previously mentioned, these continuums show the relationship between the
offenders resistance and the amount of control to be used by the police officer. The
strength of this policy is that is sets in black and white the amount of force an
officer can use against a perpetrator. These continuums can also be used in court to
help show and explain to the jury what the use of force policy for that particular
department is as well. In addition, use of force continuums set a basic guideline for
police officers to follow when faced with a resisting offender. However, this policy
also has its weaknesses. In a life or death situation, such as the resisting offender
attempting to attack the officer with a lethal weapon, the officer may not have time
to think and process the use of force continuum in their head. In this moment, he or
she is required to make a quick decision, which may not fit the criteria of their
departments use of force continuum. These continuums do not take into
considerations situations such as this when laying out the escalation of force. Other
policies have been proposed to deal with the issue of police brutality. The first is to
require police officers to wear body cameras and other surveillance devices to
record their actions while they are serving the community. This policy is strongly
supported by the American Civil Liberties Union. A strength of this policy is that it
would capture the exact details of the interaction between the offender and the
officer. There would be no debate about the specific details of the incident and the
viewers of the tape would be able to watch the interaction unfold step by step. A
weakness of this policy, however, would be that the video would not be able to
capture what was going on in the officers head. When an offender is using an
excessive amount of resistance and even threatens the life of the officer, it is a snap
decision the officer has to make and it is essentially a judgement call. No video
camera can capture that, which can be a weakness of this policy. In a poll held by
ISideWith.com, seventy percent of the people who participated in the poll said that
they would like police officers to be required to wear a video camera. Out of this
seventy percent, eleven percent said that by doing so, it would protect the rights of
both police officers and the citizens. Of the thirty percent that voted no, six percent
said that it should be up to the police department or the individual officer to decide
to wear one. They do not feel it should be mandatory for all officers to wear a video
camera while they are on duty. A second policy that has been proposed to address
the issue of police brutality is to require oversight on police policy. This policy was
also proposed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Supporters of this proposed
policy believe that police policies should be subject to public review and debate
instead of being viewed as the sole province of police insiders (aclu.com). This
means that instead of just the police chief or sheriff giving their opinion on a police
policy, the citizens of the affected area should be permitted to give their input as
well. A strength of this proposed policy is that it would allow the police department
to gain some input from their community. These are the individuals they are
protecting, so their opinion greatly matters. Another strength is that it would allow
the police officers to explain to the public why certain things they do are necessary,
such as the use of force. A weakness, however, would be that the public is not well
trained in police politics. They have never been out in the field and come face to
face with situations the police officers face every day. Therefore, they may not be
able to understand the police officers point of view and where they are coming
from. Although there are no apparent polls on this proposed policy, the large
number of organizations who support this proposition suggest that a vast majority
of people are in favor of enacting this policy.
Supporting Documentation:
"FIGHTING POLICE ABUSE: A COMMUNITY ACTION MANUAL." ACLU. American Civil
Liberties Union, n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.
Krayewski, Ed. "Four Police Brutality Reforms to Focus On: A Libertarian Take."
Reason. Reason Foundation, 02 Sept. 2014. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.
Stanley, Jay. "POLICE BODY-MOUNTED CAMERAS: WITH RIGHT POLICIES IN PLACE, A
WIN FOR ALL." ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union, Oct. 2013. Web. 08 Dec.
2015.
Poll Link: https://www.isidewith.com/poll/625747374
Part 3: Proposing a Public Policy to Deal with the Problem
Shortly after the Ferguson shooting in 2014, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU
School of Law came up with a policy to help reform police behavior. Soon after the
shooting, President Barak Obama called for a review of the funding and supplies the
federal government sent to police departments across the nation. In the Brennan
Centers policy proposal, the creators said that the president should recall all federal
grants given to law enforcement departments and distribute them based on the
departments achievement of goals. According to the Brennan Center for Justice,
Washington should not be in the business of giving out funds without knowing or
condoning their ultimate use. When these dollars flow on autopilot, they have
contributed to an explosion in arrests and imprisonments, often without
accompanying public safety benefits. They argue that the police departments
should not have access to these federal funds without any source of supervision,
and that without this supervision, the behavior of the police may not have clear
goals and may encourage harmful law enforcement practices. An advantage of
distributing federal grants to police departments with clear goals in mind is that the
federal funding will be going to police departments who have clear goals to improve
police behavior. This will help decrease the amount of incidents between police
officers and the public that decreases the publics opinion on the police as a whole,
such as the Ferguson shooting. This would also give better funding to police
departments who have the desire to achieve their goals before, but they will now
have the resources to do so. However, a disadvantage of enforcing this policy would
be the taking away of federal funding from police departments who need it. A
smaller police department may not have as clear of goals as a police department of
a major city, and this policy may take away the resources needed in these smaller
communities. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, this policy would have to
be implemented by the president of the United States. Their proposal states, The
President has clear authority to reform these grants. Federal agencies have
discretion to implement this model into the grants they administer. The President
can change the actual grants and how they should be administered, but federal
agencies, such as The United States Department of Justice, are in charge of
implementing the standards the President creates and distribute the grants
accordingly. The second section of the second article of the Constitution lays out the
powers of the President. According to this section, the President is in commander in
chief of the militias of the states. In modern terms, he is in charge of the states
police force. This gives him the power to reform the grants provided to the police
departments. Since this funding comes from the federal government and not the
states, it does not interfere with the states constitutions.
Supporting Documentation:
"Article II-US Constitution." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School, n.d.
Web. 12 Dec. 2015
Daniel, Naren. "New Policy Proposal: Reform Federal Grants to Modernize Law
Enforcement." Common Dreams. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
Fortier, Nicole, and Inimai M. Chettiar. "Success-Oriented Funding: Reforming
Federal Criminal Justice Grants." Brennan Center for Justice. New York
University School of Law, 28 Aug. 2014. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
US Const. art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2. Print.
Part 4: Developing an Action Plan
Every proposed policy requires support and recognition from the necessary officials
who help implement the proposal. One way an individual could go about doing this
is to create a petition on the webpage of the White House. If enough signatures are
obtained, it could reach the President, who would be in charge of reviewing and
altering the federal grants given to police departments across the nation. This
method would allow the public to also feel like they were involved in the
implantation of the new policy, which could have a more positive acceptance from
the population. The proposed policy could also be given to an active member of
Congress, who has a strong influence on gaining support of a new policy. These
individuals are there to help as a bridge between the citizens and the national
government to get their voices heard. A political interest group that would be likely
to support this policy would be the National Association of Police Organizations. The
purpose of this group is aimed towards, advancing the interests of Americas law
enforcement officers through legislative advocacy, political action, and education
(votesmart.org). This group works to improve police departments through politics
and legislative decisions, which is exactly what this proposed policy would be. While
this interest group aims to protect the interests of the police departments, but a
public interest group that would protect the publics rights for the policy is the
American Civil Liberties Union. This group has a strong opinion on matters related to
police behavior and could influential to being the voice for the public with this
proposed policy. In order to gain support from these two groups, a representative of
the proposed policy can obtain the contact information of these public interests
groups online from websites such as votesmart.org. The representative can email or
call these groups and give them the information of the proposed policy with the
hopes of gaining their support. After taking this first step to implement the action
plan, with the public interest groups assistance, the proposed policy can make its
way to the federal government. Interest groups typically have experience with
working with members of the legislative or executive branch to propose policies. A
cost that could possibly be associated with this is the interest group offering
financial support or help with reelection the congress man or women they discuss
the proposal with. This can be a lengthy and costly process depending on the time it
takes to create the policy and gain awareness and support from the necessary
individuals or organizations/groups.
Supporting Documentation:
"American Civil Liberties Union." Project Vote Smart. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.
"National Association of Police Organizations." Project Vote Smart. N.p., n.d. Web. 13
Dec. 2015.