- This topic has 3 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
After the events in the wake of the Boston Marathon last spring I started thinking about the role of police in society. I then ran across this book – Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces. After reading it I really started thinking about whether or not there is some kind of backdoor unplanned effort to turn Americas police departments into simulacrums of the Gestapo. It is clear not only from tis book but from reading the news on a regular basis that police see constitutional rights as more of a hindrance than a protection of the legitimate rights of citizens.What say you?
I think there are two sides to this. First, the police are naturally going to try to expand the scope of their power so they can protect society. I'm sure if we looked at any slice of history, we'd find law enforcement arguing that its authority be wider than what the public at large might think. In general, this has led to safer communities, especially in areas where crime is higher. Of course, this lead to the second side – police power comes at the expense of the rights of citizens, especially innocent citizens who are caught up in investigations through overreach or through abuse of power. I view state vs. citizen rights in regard to crime something like a pendulum; in times of greater need, it shifts toward the needs of the state, but in times of greater peace and prosperity it shifts toward the citizens.I don't think it's new that the police see constitutional rights as a hindrance rather than legitimate protections. What might be new, however, is the exponential leap in technology which creates the potential for greater police reach than ever before. Also, there's the ongoing attempt by the state to justify its reach due to terrorism post-9/11 which has reduced citizen rights compared to pre-9/11.
I don't think you can really make the argument that greater police power leads to greater safety. If that is so explain why the crime rate continued to rise throughout the 80s despite massive amounts of money and increases in police forces nationwide. Furthermore, do we really want to live in a police state for the false illusion of safety? Or in other words, are freedoms of so little value that we should be content to see our liberties trampled on in the name of security? I think not.
I honestly do not know why the crime rate increased in the 1980s despite greater police money. But, possible reasons may be:1) Higher Constitutional protections (e.g. Miranda Rights) for criminals as granted by court cases of the '60s and '70s2) Higher unemployment during part of the decade3) Increase in cocaine/crack use and the resulting trafficking thereofThe real question would be this: had police protection not increased in the 1980s, how would crime have affected the United States? I think it's reasonable to conclude that more police protection equals greater safety. If we consider two extremes - zero police protection on one end, and 100% police state on the other - this is clear to see, IMO. However, there may very well be a point at which the investment in police protection brings diminishing returns. For example, if the police state were at 48% and the crime rate at 52%, raising the police state to 58% won't necessarily mean that crime goes down to 42%. It might only drop to 48%. I think the trick for any society is to find the proper amount of police protection without wasting money/resources by going overboard. There's also the question of civil liberties. Security is a trade off; we give up liberties in exchange for safety. In times of greater danger, we are willing to give up more, but in times of peace, we are willing to give up less. The line between security and individual liberties shifts based on time and circumstance.
After the events in the wake of the Boston Marathon last spring I started thinking about the role of police in society. I then ran across this book - Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces. After reading it I really started thinking about whether or not there is some kind of backdoor unplanned effort to turn Americas police departments into simulacrums of the Gestapo. It is clear not only from tis book but from reading the news on a regular basis that police see constitutional rights as more of a hindrance than a protection of the legitimate rights of citizens.What say you?
Now who is starting to sound like a conspiracy wacko? LOL
I don't think it is a conspiracy. I think it is simply a fortuitous confluence of police who see an opportunity to increase their power and authority at the expense of Constitutional guarantees and courts that let them get away with it.
I am far from a Liberal but Mother Jones has a pretty good story that brings up many of the same concerns I have about militarizing the police. How Every Part of American Life Became a Police Matter I just think it is a crying shame that we are all made to feel as if we are under suspicion most, if not all, the time. Especially when we travel.
I don't think you are liberal to have a view like this, but it does raise an interesting issue about politics and people's attitudes toward police/government. Both conservatives and liberals oppose strong police activity when they infringe on personal liberty rights, through the nature of this opposition differs a bit.
