By: Donald Chan
In recent
years, it seems as though public police have garnered a decidedly negative
reputation in the public eye and—while, of course, this is not a universal
view—there is an arguably strong sense of distrust within modern American
culture in regards to police. One doesn't have to look far to see hints of this
distrust and disapproval, considering the public outcry against the way campus
police handled student protests at universities throughout California in the
last couple years. Now, I'm not trying to say that all police are corrupt and
use excessive force, but it is indicative of an underlying problem that should
not be ignored. That problem is that police do not have proper accountability
for their actions, with far too many incidents occurring without adequate
repercussion.
Most
recently—and revealing—are some of the events surrounding the recent manhunt
for Christopher Dorner. One of which was the Torrance police opening fire on
innocent civilians in what LAPD Chief Charlie Beck described in a local CBSarticle as “a case of mistaken identity by the officers”. In this same article,
Attorney Glen T. Jonas responded, “The vehicle is a different color. The
license plate doesn't match. There's nothing there for you to start shooting
people... And even if they had the person in question... Mr. Dorner... you
still have to give them an opportunity to get out. You can't just start
administering street justice.” In this event, police were not following proper
protocol and subsequently opened fire on a vehicle that didn't match the
description of the suspect's vehicle nor did the occupants—two Hispanic
women—match Dorner's description.
In the wake of
these events, Sunil Dutta (an LAPD officer) published an article in the Washington Post, saying, “Police
serve the community — any concerns about their integrity must be transparently,
expeditiously and judiciously resolved. Relying on cops to police cops is
neither efficient nor confidence-inspiring... The solution? Abolish internal
affairs units and outsource their work to external civilian agencies.” While
the idea of utilizing civilian agencies to essentially police the police may
have its merits, the subtext is that police do not always have adequate
accountability.
In regards to how all of this
relates to class, David Alan Sklansky's article, The Persistent Pull of
Police Professionalism, discusses the balance between what he calls “police
professionalism” and “community policing”. He states that professional
policing, as it has existed historically was “blamed for making police
departments insular, arrogant, resistant to outside criticism and feckless in
responding to social ferment” (Sklansky 44). Arguably, this problem is still
very pervasive in some modern police forces. He goes on to talk about the idea
how technology detracts from “other critical parts of the contemporary policing
agenda: building trust and legitimacy, ensuring democratic accountability, and
addressing the enduringly corrosive connections between criminal justice and
racial inequality” (Sklansky 49). So while the Dorner case saw the use of
drones to hunt a man within our own borders, it also saw a lack of
accountability on the part of police forces involved and a loss of
legitimacy.
Additional links for further
reading/information on the matter:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-0216-mailbag-dorner-police-20130216,0,5596863.story
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/protesters-show-support-for-christopher-dorner.html
Your point about the imperfections of police accountability is well taken. Some cities, like SF, have moved to a citizen review platform, with mixed results. You will get to ask a question about internal affairs when the Oakland captain visits class as he has overseen internal affairs in that department. For a critical look at police accountability, consult the work of Samuel Walker, who has assessed all forms of police accountabilit.
ReplyDeleteI think you have some very interesting points regarding legitimacy and police accountability, and did well tying these concepts to class readings and lectures. I also agree and believe that society would be better off if all police departments and officers were held accountable to a similar standard for their misconduct. However, allow me to ask as a devil's advocate: are there erroneous perceptions in society regarding levels of police accountability?
ReplyDeleteI would opine that the average person has very little understanding of the intricacies of law-enforcement work, the capability of the criminal element, dynamics of use-of-force, and the various stressors and factors involved in a split-second and possibly life-or-death situation. Consequently, there is great potential for people viewing a particular incident, especially without proper context, to view it as unjustified or excessive, when it may not be so or as extreme as one may think. Additionally, the average person may also have a skewed and very skeptical view of police accountability. This might be, in part, part because they are only exposed to incidents in which an officer evades criminal charges or other egregious instances, but are never exposed to the internal punishments imposed on officers, because those decisions are rarely publicized due to privacy issues (and perhaps even legal reasons).
Sunil Dutta, in addition to suggesting that police departments may not have always have adequate accountability, also seemingly alludes that there is a misperception to levels of accountability: "I was disappointed to learn that, despite my reassurances and best efforts to conduct impartial inquiries, many complainants believed that a fair investigation was simply not possible. Nor do misconduct investigations satisfy a skeptical public. If an officer is exonerated, the community often believes that malfeasance is being covered up". To me, it appears that the article is more about the perception of accountability and legitimacy, rather than accountability itself (at least regarding LAPD).
Touching back on perceptions and an understanding of incidents, I disagree with your belief that the Torrance incident displayed a lack of accountability (so far, at least). First off, there were actually two incidents in Torrance, only blocks apart from each other. The first involved LAPD officers, while the second involved Torrance officers moments later. The first incident involving LAPD resulted in two innocent victims being shot, while the second incident involving Torrance PD resulted in the victim sustaining minor injuries. However, the investigation is ongoing. How do we know that there isn't proper accountability yet? The process, as outlined by Chief Beck involves this: a thorough investigation by the LAPD's Force Investigation Division, which then goes to a Force Review Board, whose findings then go to the Chief, who then submits his recommendations to the civilian Police Board. This all occurs while the DA's office and Police Board do their own independent investigations, and the Police Board has the ultimate say in whether an incident was justified or not (http://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/content_basic_view/47211).
CONTINUED
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete---
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the average person who doesn't have an understanding of fluid, possibly dangerous situations would be quick to uncontestedly accept the victims' attorney's statement. They wouldn't be able to think of or understand circumstances such as the possibility that a license plate can be easily switched and is done often by criminals (Dorner had actually done this earlier), that it was dark and could have easily obscured the actual color and make of the truck, or even, that the officers were extremely tense and fearful, and didn't take the extra few seconds to determine if it was Dorner or not, because doing so could have meant death for them. These possibilities do not excuse the shooting at all, but would provide mitigating circumstances for reason to shoot. (Here's an interesting journal-like post of an LAPD officer involved with a Dorner protection detail: http://pjmedia.com/blog/waiting-for-dorner/)
Let us assume that a perfectly thorough and impartial investigation is conducted. Let us also assume that it finds mitigating circumstances are present and leads to the imposition of a punishment that is below the level that the average person, with their limited understanding of the dynamics involved, wants to see. They would perceive the punishment as being a result of a lack of accountability, or a manifestation of corruption, and would serve to perpetuate the longstanding negative perception.
Regarding legitimacy, it doesn't matter if there was sufficient accountability and a proper punishment was imposed in this hypothetical outcome. All that matters is what perception the public has on what transpired, where in this case, it would lead to a loss of legitimacy for the LAPD. When thought of like this, the efforts taken by the LAPD to be accountable and subsequently gain legitimacy, appears to be an intractable problem.
This is why, at least partly, that I believe Sunil Dutta advocates for the disbanding of internal affairs groups, and to fully expropriate misconduct investigation to external agencies. However, I can understand the opposition presented by some officers about this possibility, for the same reason a lack of understanding of the involved intricacies and dynamics would lead to erroneous perceptions: they wouldn't understand. Is there a possible way of reconciling the opposition with this outsourcing? Perhaps a professional, regional agency that employs experts that are intimate with the various dynamics of these situations can be created. Are there any other possibilities?
The aspect of police taking part in disorderly behavior and not taking accountability for the acts that they commit is highly on the rise. This brings into picture the fact that the police are not being held publicly accountable for the wrong actions that they commit. This thus, gives them some sense of immunity over the law and they can conduct themselves in a disorderly manner without the fear of being subject to scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteSehun Lee
I think abolishing Internal Affairs divisions and transferring their duties over to a civilian board is an bad idea. Similar to what Pedram has said, most civilians have no idea what really goes into being a police officer, and the potential for life and death situations to occur often. I'm not naive enough to think these civilian boards would be composed of random people pulled off the street, but even so called experts can't always grasp the reality of situations where the actors (police officers) have to react extremely quickly and can't always think everything through.
ReplyDeleteHaving cops police cops allows for departments to evaluate what has happened from the perspective of people who have been in similar situations. The level of experience cops have make them much better at doing internal affairs work.
I think this topic is fascinating especially since we are learning about the fundamentals of policing. I question whether the problems of police conduct we see today stem from an integration of the two styles of policing: professional and patronage. What I mean exactly is that if the mission of patronage policing was to restore order, police the streets, and do so aggressively. Then it seems that the Dorner situation would warrant at least some just cause in their aggressive style tactics. Please do not misconstrue what I am saying to read that I am at all supportive of innocent people being caught in the crossfire due to an insufficient evidence. Instead what I am saying is that aggressive style policing is a part of the patronage model. But then again, part of your argument also demonstrates a key feature of professional policing--crime-fighting. The police in this case were responsible for stopping the Mr. Dorner from harming anyone else. In this way, their vigilante justice fit the ideals of being tough on crime and acting within any means necessary to prevent more crime from happening.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the idea to abolish internal affairs and create a civilian agency to act as a watchdog of the police force seems more like what we learned about yesterday: community style policing. Oakland already has a civilian board that currently does this. I would be curious to sit in on one meeting and study if it is efficient and effective in the accountability of the police to our communities. I learned last semester in Zimring’s class that if you want to change the police you have to change it from the top on down—police management. It may just be time to restructure the way we police our communities all together…
" The solution? Abolish internal affairs units and outsource their work to external civilian agencies." Although one might think this solution would improve negative attitudes possessed by civilians towards police officers and establish more legitimacy, it may do the opposite. If people lose the trust in police to follow protocol and police themselves, then even more of the legitimacy possessed by the police department may be lost, creating more opposition and resistance towards them.
ReplyDelete~Adriana Regalado
Police accountability and potential abuse of power is certainly a fascinating topic, particularly regarding interaction with and potential regulation by civilians. I recently heard a report on the radio discussing the issue of crime investigation labs and how most of them are run by the state but not accredited, so there is a high bias towards supporting the prosecution team with little oversight. This report emphasized the number of convictions that have been based on faulty examination of evidence or suppression of evidence in order to support the detectives who are investigating the case. Those interviewed in the report strongly emphasized the need for civilians to be in charge of crime labs in order to eliminate the conflict of interest. Perhaps this interaction between police and non-state sponsored scientists would help forge a higher level of trust in police actions and reduce the issue of police accountability.
ReplyDelete-Molly Ruiz
it is hard not to blame a whole law enforcement agency for the mistakes of few bad apples. My home town is in Marin County where the cops are over staffed with very little crime. I have had experiences as well as heard of experiences where the cops misuse their power by violating rights and rules. Some of these cops should be transferred to Oakland where they need to fight more crime!
ReplyDeleteJessica Crume
Abolishing internal affairs would likely not be a good idea. The officers that police a certain area know the overall environment much better than someone else could. Police departments largely vary in the way they run, so it would be difficult to employ a regional review board as well because of the decentralization and varying policies.
ReplyDeleteAddressing problems of accountability revolves around vigilance and leadership . Officers need discretion to be able to perform their jobs effectively and I do not think that having citizens review them and put limits on their actions is going to accomplish the goal of making officers more accountable for their actions. Instead, this might reduce the legitimacy and therefore the effectiveness of police. Accountability goes back all the way to selection and training mechanisms, as well as guidelines for officers to follow which still allow room for discretion.
Leadership factors into this because it should be the role of the senior staff to evaluate decisions and be responsible in educating the officers, or if necessary, disciplining them. Here the CompStat management system can be applied to accountability monitoring as it was applied to crime statistics monitoring, meaning that an issue will be resolved or move its way up the chain of command until a solution is reached. This will reduce the workload and make actions easy to take. As someone else mentioned, this method and any current methods would not expose the public to disciplinary actions taken against police officers for reasons of safety and legality. Just because it is not visible, does not mean it doesn't happen.
Vigilance on part of the officers is another crucial component. It is important to analyze actions critically and quickly, taking into account the repercussions. This goes back to training and candidate selection as well as support from senior personnel.
Dmitriy
Very interesting entry and set of comments, revealing a productive exchange of grounded perspectives reaching different positions. Clearly, it is worth looking at the strengths and weaknesses of civilian review boards as well as internal affairs. I see potential in hybrids of the two. This issue is most relevant given our guest speakers tomorrow. Professor Musheno
ReplyDelete