All content tagged with: Law Enforcement
Filter
Post List
The Case Against Police Militarization
We usually think there is a difference between the police and the military. Recently, however, the police have become increasingly militarized – a process which is likely to intensify in coming years. Unsurprisingly, many find this process alarming and call for its reversal. However, while most of the objections to police militarization are framed as instrumental arguments, these arguments are unable to capture the core problem with militarization. This Article remedies this shortcoming by developing a novel and principled argument against police militarization. Contrary to arguments that are preoccupied with the consequences of militarization, the real problem with police militarization is not that it brings about more violence or abuse of authority – though that may very well happen – but that it is based on a presumption of the citizen as a threat, while the liberal order is based on precisely the opposite presumption. A presumption of threat, we argue, assumes that citizens, usually from marginalized communities, pose a threat of such caliber that might require the use of extreme violence. This presumption, communicated symbolically through the deployment of militarized police, marks the policed community as an enemy, and thereby excludes it from the body politic. Crucially, the pervasiveness of police militarization has led to its normalization, thus exacerbating its exclusionary effect. Indeed, whereas the domestic deployment of militaries has always been reserved for exceptional times, the process of police militarization has normalized what was once exceptional.
Without My Consent: The Eradication of Protective Consent Decrees
By Rasheed Stewart Associate Editor, Volume 23 The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, passed following the publicly videotaped 1991 beating of African American motorist Rodney King by four LAPD officers and the catastrophic Los Angeles Riots a year later, gave the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice an extraordinary mandate.[1] One of the law's provisions empowered the government to sue police agencies anywhere in the country if they exhibited a “pattern and practice” of using excessive force and/or violating people's civil rights, and to compel them, under a court enforced agreement known as a “consent decree,” to change those practices.[2] Communities in favor of consent decrees, like the city of New Orleans, have found that federal oversight of police practices result in a significant decrease in use of force incidents, due to a more thorough review process.[3] However, not all are in favor of these court-enforced agreements; for example, conservative public officials have routinely criticized consent decrees as being ineffective.[4] Conversely, studies have shown that fewer civil rights lawsuits are brought against state actors within jurisdictions enjoined under a consent decree, compared to the time period when the same jurisdiction was not under a court ordered decree.[5] Despite supporting empirical evidence that consent decrees serve as constructive judicial tools,[6] U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, presumably under the direction of President Trump, has sought to review (or eradicate) all existing consent decrees.[7] Sessions, in a press release announcing significant changes to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, stated that control needed to be “returned to the public safety personnel sworn to protect the communities they police.”[8] In absolute contrast is the community of Baltimore, and more specifically the parents of Freddy Grey,[9] who would not want to end federal oversight of a police department riddled with instances of systemic racial practices that severely, and fatally, harm people of color.[10] Further, the people of Ferguson and parents of Michael Brown would not care to be subjected to unwarranted fines and sicced dogs, among other blatantly discriminatory practices in lieu of ‘watchdog’ federal overseers.[11]The September PCAST Report: The State of DNA in Criminal Courtrooms and the Need for a Well-Informed, Disciplined Judiciary
By Madeleine Jennings Associate Editor, Vol. 22 On September 20, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report on the state of the forensic sciences in criminal courts. In recent years, PCAST has issued similar reports on many issues in science…Tightening the OODA Loop: Police Militarization, Race, and Algorithmic Surveillance
This Article examines how military automated surveillance and intelligence systems and techniques, when used by civilian police departments to enhance predictive policing programs, have reinforced racial bias in policing. I will focus on two facets of this problem. First, I investigate the role played by advanced military technologies and methods within civilian police departments. These approaches have enabled a new focus on deterrence and crime prevention by creating a system of structural surveillance where decision support relies increasingly upon algorithms and automated data analysis tools and automates de facto penalization and containment based on race. Second, I will explore these militarized systems, and their effects, from an outside-in perspective, paying particular attention to the racial, societal, economic, and geographic factors that play into the public perception of these new policing regimes. I will conclude by proposing potential solutions to this problem that incorporate tests for racial bias to create an alternative system that follows a true community policing model.Pushing an End to Sanctuary Cities: Will it Happen?
Sanctuary jurisdictions refer to city, town, and state governments (collectively, localities or local governments) that have passed provisions to limit their enforcement of federal immigration laws. Such local governments execute limiting provisions in order to bolster community cooperation, prevent racial discrimination, focus on local priorities for enforcement, or even to a show a local policy that differs from federal policy. The provisions are in the forms of executive orders, municipal ordinances, and state resolutions. Additionally, the scope of the provisions vary by locality: some prohibit law enforcement from asking about immigration status, while others prohibit the use of state resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Despite these variations, such local provisions intend to stifle cooperation with the federal government to adopt a more inclusionary local enforcement policy. Immigration policy is unanimously understood as a federal power, suggesting that federal immigration laws preempt the local governments’ provisions. Such preemption challenges have been brought to court, yet sanctuary cities remain largely untouched. The July 2015 murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco, CA, renewed political discourse on the topic. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant who had been previously deported five times, was charged for the murder. Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s long history of crime and immigration violations fueled critiques of city policies and put the federal spotlight back onto sanctuary cities. The House of Representatives has since passed H.R. 3009, which would deny some federal assistance to localities that enact provisions prohibiting officers from taking certain actions with respect to immigration. President-elect Donald Trump recently announced his bold plan to cancel all federal funding to such localities. Other immigration-focused measures continue to be introduced and discussed in Congress. If passed, what practical impact would H.R. 3009, or similar legislation, have on local immigration enforcement? The bill still has considerable obstacles to overcome. However, enactment of such legislation has the potential to push local enforcement towards cooperation with federal policy.Good cops, bad cops, and the so-called YouTube effect
By Jason Raylesberg Associate Editor, Vol. 21 In my last post, I described how some states have allocated funds toward initiatives seeking to theoretically establish what is already known in practice about profiling by police. I argued that such money would be better spent implementing more immediately impactful…
Fear of United States police officers causes one Black man to seek asylum in Canada
By Breanna Caldwell Associate Editor, Vol. 21 Kyle Lydell Canty is a 30-year-old Black male from the United States who has become so fearful that he will be killed by U.S. police officers because he is Black that he has applied for asylum in Canada on the basis of…Should targeted crimes against police bring “hate crime” enhancements? Red Wing reconsiders
By Javed Basu-Kesselman Associate Editor, Vol. 21 The city council of Red Wing, Minnesota voted on Monday, October 12 to revisit a previous hate crime resolution. The original resolution, passed September 28, called for federal hate crime protection for police. Noting that police offers have recently become the…New California law aims to combat racial profiling by police: it sounds good, but will it create any change?
By Jason Raylesberg Associate Editor, Vol. 21 California and Missouri recently instituted separate measures to curb racial profiling within the legal system. In response to widespread police brutality nationally, California passed the “Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015,” requiring police officers to record identity characteristics, i.e. race,…Stop the frisks: why stop-and-frisk receipts are not the answer
By Breanna Caldwell Associated Editor, Vol. 21 Background: Unconstitutional Stop-and-Frisks In 1964, New York introduced its first stop-and-frisk law.[1] Under the statute, a police officer was authorized to stop a person in a public place if she “reasonably suspect[ed]” that that…