The trial of Derek Chauvin, accused murderer of George Floyd is over, and justice has been served. One observer had noted that the crime scene was egregious and that the evidence against the accused was overwhelming. Had the jury voted to acquit, the response by the African-American community, not only in Minneapolis, but in every city in the Nation, would have made the Watts riot in East Los Angeles in 1965 seem like a Sunday School picnic in comparison.
A little bit of justice was served, however, only a small crack in the monolith of police brutality appeared. Much more work must be done before we can say that justice in these United States includes all Americans regardless of race, national origin, gender/gender identity, age, disability, and religious belief/non-belief.
Some individuals and organizations have called for the defunding and/or the abolition of police departments. The Chas is not one of them. The police have a role to play in civil society, based upon their motto, “to protect and to serve.” At most, police departments should spend more on community relations and less on weapons and equipment.
At the heart of the problem of police brutality is the misuse of the 9-1-1 emergency phone number. If you want to report a fire, the 9-1-1 dispatcher will send a fireman to your door. If, however, you want to report anything else which upsets you, e.g. the neighbor’s barking dog, the dispatcher will send a police officer. It is not the proper use of the police, but most Americans have become so accustomed to dialing 9-1-1 for anything they think is an emergency that the misuse of the number has become second-nature. The proper role of the police is, or ought to be, to respond to serious criminal activity, not to act as a referee when someone’s nose gets out of joint.
The solution, therefore, is the creation of an Emergency Intervention and Rescue Team (EIRT, for those of you who are enamored of acronyms) to handle minor disputes/crises. Give it a separate number to be called – 8-1-1 or 9-1-0 (?). At minimum, an EIRT would consist of a paramedic, a social worker, a psychologist, and a paralegal person; other professionals would be recruited as circumstances warranted. The Team would be alerted by the 8-1-1/9-1-0 dispatcher, arrive at the site of the crisis, engage the person(s) involved, provide advice moving toward a solution, and, if necessary, transport distressed individuals to an appropriate facility. Follow-up should take place within 48 hours. Only as a last resort should a police officer be called in.
As for the future of police departments, the following observations should be made.
As I have stated in a previous essay, all applicants for employment in law enforcement should undergo a complete psychological examination in order to weed out those individuals who are likely to use a badge as a license to kill.
Initial training should require six months at minimum to include the legal aspects of law enforcement and the proper avenues of community relations. And it wouldn’t hurt if police officers were encouraged to get out of their squads once in a while, walk around a neighborhood, and engage with the residents thereof, and they with the officer.
SWAT teams should never be allowed to serve search/arrest warrants. They have not been trained to perform those tasks and, when they do perform those tasks, they muck it up royally. A two-man team of detectives ought to perform those tasks.
In the event of a protest/demonstration staged by outraged citizens, the police should not appear in riot gear looking for trouble. Doing so ensures that trouble soon will follow. The police should appear only in standard uniforms and act only as monitors.
The concept of qualified immunity should be put to rest permanently. It is the legal equivalent of a Get Out of Jail Free card and therefore puts police officers above the law. If they knew they would be subject to prosecution and/or law suits for their wrongful actions, they just might tend to think before they act and then act judiciously.
To oversee police behavior, a civilian review board (CRB) is in order. A CRB would consist of one member from each of the wards/neighborhoods in a community – selected by the residents thereof – to serve for a designated period of time. In cases brought before it, the Board would interview the police officers involved and any witnesses to the alleged misbehavior; it would view any videos made by body cameras and witnesses’ cell phones (if any). The Board would weigh the evidence and make recommendations to the local state’s attorney. The accused would be allowed to have legal counsel present, but such counsel would not be allowed to cross-examine any witnesses.
As the new paradigm outlined above becomes the standard for police conduct, we may see less brutality and more respect by police and the citizenry for each other. And perhaps we wouldn’t need CRB’s anymore.
Just a thought.