Introduction
Any expression of violence is negative for the functioning of society. Ordinarily, the task of preventing violence and punishing those who commit it is put on law enforcement. However, classic assumptions of justice and order are severely compromised in cases when police themselves are the source of violence. Such circumstances create moral ambiguity and public distrust of law enforcement. A more worrying implication of police brutality is the growing number of innocent people who are harmed and killed. Understanding what propels officers to engage in excessive violence is essential in ascertaining the most effective solutions to the police dilemma.
Police Dilemma
Excessive use of force by the police is a complicated scenario. On the one hand, officers have the authority and the means to counteract criminals. Any society that has a criminal justice system has at some point surrendered some part of its sovereignty to its law enforcement bodies in exchange for protection. Legally, police are obligated to ensure public order and stop criminals who break the law. Naturally, perpetrators are likely to be adversarial towards law enforcement. While trying to evade justice, they may attack the police, which will inevitably lead to retaliatory use of force. Therefore, it is expected that officers will use weapons to fight off individuals presenting an immediate threat to them and citizens.
On the other hand, the use of force should not be excessive. Society expects officers to use weapons only when there is a direct necessity. If the criminal is armed and firing at the police, the use of force is acceptable. However, when the actions of the police are disproportionate to the committed crimes, the necessity of such measures is compromised. Furthermore, shoot-outs in populated areas are likely to affect innocent people. The public of any country is extremely sensitive, when it knows that citizens who are not involved in a criminal activity are harmed. Finally, the use of force by the police against unarmed people is the most disconcerting event that attracts negative publicity.
As a result, numerous countries have a clear dilemma that has no immediate answer. If police have the authority to use violence, the means, and are not accountable for abuse, there is no proper law enforcement. If the government defunds the police, there will be no bodies to control criminal elements that do threaten the stability of society. Both extremes are undesirable, yet the debate what should be done to reduce police brutality continues, while the number of innocent people dying grows because of police misconduct grows (Goff and Hilary 67). In order to change the status quo it is imperative to analyze the origins of police brutality.
Causes
One of the commonly stated reasons for police brutality is racism. All officers are individuals with their own set of emotions, unconscious prejudices, and attitudes that invariably influence how they approach their duties. In their systematic review, McLeod et al. argue that “black men and women comprise approximately 13% of the US population, yet they account for 23% of people fatally shot by police” (12). Although this statistics does not necessarily imply the presence of systemic discrimination, it does highlight the possibility of racial prejudices being relevant.
However, the most important prejudice police officers have is born out of the constant exposure to criminals. Goff and Hilary write that patrol officers are in frequent contact with perpetrating individuals, which forces them to adopt a negative attitude toward this population (70). While most of the news are focused on the deaths caused by police, Peeples references data that shows the increased death rate of police officers themselves – at least 50 officers were shot in 2018. This knowledge further drives law enforcement people to use force, especially when they are being shot at. If the suspect is of different ethnicity, the officer’s bias strengthens their negativity, which may cause them to use excessive force.
Underreporting
Another reason for the prevalence of police misconduct is insufficient rate of reporting abuse. Not every officer feels content with the current situation, as there are also service members who are against such actions. However, many of them do not report the misconduct of their superiors. In some cases, silence is the result of the fear of losing one’s job or having a reputation of a whistelblower. Regardless of the reasons, the lack of negative feedback from police subordinates is the reason behind the current surge of misconduct.
Availability of Firearms
Naturally, police officers are expected to carry weapons to repel armed criminals. However, research indicates the gradual militarization of police departments over the last decades (Lawson 178). This phenomenon is expressed through the growing influence of military traditions in law enforcement agencies. For example, police has special units similar to special forces, such as SRTs, PPUs, and SWAT teams. Police officers receive training, which is heavily influenced by military practices (Lawson 179). Yet, the most notable expression of militarization is the proliferation of weapons among law enforcement people. Lawson specifically refers to the demonstration, during which “police officers met protesters dressed in tactical riot gear, wielding automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and tear gas, and confronting them with military-style armored vehicles” (177). This event was the result of decades-long process of militarization of police.
The subsequent question is whether the drastic militarization of police leads to a higher occurrence of police brutality. Lawson is convinced that it does while referencing his study of databases of lethal killings by police within the context of law enforcement agencies receiving military weapons, technology, and training. His main conclusion is that “increasing militarization corresponds to more suspect deaths” (Lawson 186). Combined with possible racial prejudices, the availability of firearms propels officers to use violence against ethnic suspects.
Solutions
Combatting racism is a complicated task, since choosing an inappropriate strategy will not yield positive results. For instance, replacing white service members with people of color is likely to encourage more hatred and aggression. This does not imply that law enforcement agencies should not hire non-white candidates. To the contrary, according to the study done by Hollis and Wesley, “racial minorities reported higher rates of use of force”, then did representatives of the mainstream social groups (14). Therefore, the greater inclusion of such people will make the system more transparent, as more misconduct will be reported.
Furthermore, physical presence of minorities in any organization is a positive step towards achieving social acceptance. Relationships between people and groups are shaped by the number of interactions among them. For example, raising African Americans in primarily black communities with minimal interaction with white Americans will likely lead to deeper animosity between them. If the only information about the mainstream social groups that they receive is news of police misconduct and criticisms of white supremacy, they will view white law enforcement people negatively. The same is true for any other social, ethnic or racial group.
Breaking this cycle of mutual distrust is possible trough exposure. This is why hiring black service members is important – they will connect with white officers and convey their viewpoint to them. The more positive interactions between various ethnic groups is accumulated, the less likely service members are to use excessive violence against people of other ethnicities. The most efficient way of accomplishing it is through nurturing empathy.
Transparency and Accountability
If the fear of disclosing one’s identity is the reason why many service members are silent about the misconduct of their colleagues and superiors, then the solution is to create opportunities for anonymous reporting. Currently, there is no official data regarding the incidence of police shooting. The awareness of these events is spread via witness reports and independent journalism (McLeod et al. 12). Instead, a public service that highlights the facts of police misconducts should be established. First, it would allow service members to take action without fearing the consequences of identity disclosure. Second, such a reporting system would also enable ordinary citizens to influence police staffing. Once a database is functioning and well-known, policy makers will have to acknowledge the problem.
These actions empower people to report misbehaving police officers, but they do not influence their motivation to conduct misconduct. Service members should realize themselves that excessive use of weapons is not feasible. Another popular option to increase police accountability is to obligate them to wear body-worn cameras (Sousa et al. 100). It can also contribute to greater police transparency because all interactions between officers and suspects will be recorded. Although it is expensive, combining it with the regulation that obligate service members to intervene in case of another person’s misconduct will be an effective step at preventing violence.
Demilitarization
There is a certain social consensus that police is overly militarized. Not only does it precipitated shootings, but it also allows critics to frame the government as a police state. Removing military practices from law enforcement agencies is a way to regain public trust and lower mortality rate among both police officers and suspects. Some policymakers have already expressed the desire to reduce transfer of military technology and equipment to police departments (Edmondson). The more support demilitarization campaign gains, the more successful the initiatives to stop arming police will be.
Conclusion
Altogether, it should be evident that the ideal solution to police dilemma is to continue funding, while imposing regulations that increase police accountability and transparency. It is important to realize that service members are also under the increased threat of being shot at. Therefore, it is imperative to build rapport by increasing the number of racial minorities in service. Second, greater transparency should be ensured through the installation of body worn cameras. Regulations should be imposed that obligate officers to report misconduct. Greater accountability can be achieved via the implementation of an independent and anonymous reporting system. Finally, demilitarizing police will reduce the number of weapons that are sued to harm innocent people and improve the public image of law enforcement agencies. Combined together, these steps present a complex and multifaceted approach to managing police brutality.
Works Cited
Edmondson, Catie. ” Lawmakers Begin Bipartisan Push to Cut Off Police Access to Military-Style Gear.”The New York Times, 2020.
Goff, Phillip Atiba, and Hilary Rau. “Predicting Bad Policing: Theorizing Burdensome and Racially Disparate Policing through the Lenses of Social Psychology and Routine Activities.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 687, no. 1, 2020, pp. 67-88.
Hollis, Meghan E., and Wesley G. Jennings. “Racial Disparities in Police Use-Of-Force: A State-Of-The-Art Review.” Policing: An International Journal, 2018, pp. 1-37.
Lawson Jr, Edward. “TRENDS: Police Militarization and the Use of Lethal Force.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 72, no. 1, 2019, pp. 177-189.
McLeod, Melissa N., et al. “Police Interactions and the Mental Health of Black Americans: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, vol. 7, no. 1, 2020, pp. 10-27.
Peeples, Lynne “What the Data Say about Police Shootings.”Nature, 2022.
Sousa, William H., Terance D. Miethe, and Mari Sakiyama. “Inconsistencies in Public Opinion of Body-Worn Cameras on Police: Transparency, Trust, and Improved Police–Citizen Relationships.” Policing: A Journal of policy and Practice, vol. 12, no. 1, 2018, pp. 100-108.