First, let’s clarify who “us” is. We (us) are those who: (a) don’t and wouldn’t commit crimes of violence against other people; and, critically, include (b) most people who are, to a greater or lesser extent, in a position to influence what powers (and protections) the police where we live may have. The “protections” are primarily against investigation, publicization, regulation, and discipline for situations in which police officers might abuse people who either committed no crimes, or only committed crimes with the participation or permission of the police.
At the present moment, it’s widely propounded that police throughout America have too much power—and protection—in their dealings with the people they encounter, or are dealing with, on our streets. “The people they are dealing with” are not to be discounted among those they interact with. Incidents of police shooting people (usually racial minorities) running or walking away from them have been numerous. The shooters happen, most-often, to be racial majorities (white), but that is simply a reflection of the constitution of today’s police forces; with the advance of “diversity” throughout American society, more of the (police) shooters will be minorities and, perhaps less-
Against the State: An ...
Best Price: $5.02
Buy New $5.52
(as of 11:35 UTC - Details)
surely, more of the targets will be majorities (white). “Racism” is so far a convenient cover for those caught in such doings.
The criminalization of the street-level trade in drugs (prescription and home-brew alike) is responsible for most of the shootings, and the decriminalization of such voluntary markets would, as it did in the repeal of Prohibition, greatly reduce these, but the War on Drugs isn’t the subject of this essay; police brutality is. Unlike in the days of Prohibition, various video resources have given everyone access to information that is truly difficult to refute as to its basic particulars (who shot whom, when, where and how, but not why).
Imposing on armed “peace officers” body cameras, dash cameras, and strict standards for the full and accurate publication of the information these contain, are currently the main technical methods for reining in the powers of the police over “us” (here, again, everyone). Ready and vigorous prosecution of offenders, including those (police chiefs, mayors, union officials) involved in protecting offenders constitute the rest of the process of reining in the powers and protections of the police.
Strengthening these will have several effects, including the possible reduction of the protection we (here, the original “us”) may enjoy as we circulate in the public sphere. One subtle economic effect, to start with the least, and the one that might least affect “us” as initially defined, is that the police will lose at least some of their ability to “tax” people they extort in their (the people’s) activities in producing and distributing illegal drugs. This, in turn, might over time reduce the prices commanded by the prohibited commodities, but it would not have any effect on supply—only on demand.
Fire Tablet with Alexa...
Best Price: $25.56
(as of 08:20 UTC - Details)
It will also reduce the incidence of police harassment of people who have in fact committed no crimes of any kind. Many, if not most, of these occurrences are mistakes—negligent mistakes, even innocent mistakes—on the part of law-enforcement personnel. Perhaps pretty girls driving through school zones at 5 miles per hour over the limit will experience fewer stops by male police officers who would like to meet them. The matter is trivial for most of us who aren’t pretty girls who frequently drive through school zones, at least.
And it will reduce the readiness of police officers to intervene with (stop and frisk) “suspicious” characters whose racial and gender profiles match those we all (here, “we” really means everyone) associate with a propensity, not to say an ability, to commit crimes of violence. This will expose everyone to a heightened possibility of being the victims of violent crime; it couldn’t be otherwise.
Those who, in some cases in an effort to “defend” the police and their prerogatives, allege that “we” shall experience some sort of crime wave against us and perhaps even our property, cannot simply be simply waved away. They are right, even undeniable, in the direction of the effect they allege, but it would be foolish to overlook two other critical factors: (a) would it benefit anyone (who “deserves” to benefit); and (b) how much would it harm “us” and how much would it benefit “them” (defined as, those who are neither “us” nor are given to violent criminality)?
Amazon.com $50 Gift Ca...
Buy New $50.00
(as of 11:05 UTC - Details)
Point (a) is an obvious “yes”—it would benefit not only drug dealers in thrall to the police for “protection,” but it would also benefit many people, perhaps chiefly minorities, who now for any of various reasons suffer from the unwelcome attentions of the “finest” of our various cities and suburbs. Point (b) entails ultimately unquantifiable values—it is better dealt with in terms of “spirit” than in terms of past or prospective statistics, if only for the reason that, after the fact, probabilities don’t matter either to victims of a policy change or to those who happen to escape any discernible effects of it. After all, the proposed changed policy (“reining in” the police) is itself subject to modulation—“how much” is a real issue, and choice, in its implementation.
The proposition is really, despite the protestations of partisans on either side of the debate, are “we” willing to risk, even temporarily, the mixed effects of increased freedom from police intervention and powers, in order to give “them”—whoever they are and whatever they’re up to—a bit more of what can only be called justice in their existences?
Everyone will have different answers—answers that differ in kind (such as “No”) and answers that differ only in degree (all the “Yes” answers).
It is a test of “our” ingenuity, our judgment, our values, and our spirit. Let us deal with it as such.
