The issue of policing is not a simple matter where a single solution would solve all the issues confronting America and other societies. All societies have rules and enforcement agents, whether it is a secular or sectarian dictatorship or some form of representative government (parliament, legislature, executive committee). Indeed, law enforcement, by its definition, compels police to enforce the laws and rules promulgated by societal leaders. Unfortunately, given human nature, these rules are often biases that favor the majority or the group in control. Consequently, discrimination needs to be addressed at the leadership level (U.S. Supreme Court, federal and state legislative levels) first before we can adequately train and better regulate enforcement agencies such as the police. These issues are more complex within multiethnic, multisectarian societies, including contemporary, developed societies such as the United States.
Good, viable solutions were offered by the numerous presidential blue ribbon commissions/committees that followed the riots of the 1960s and 1970s. They included such concepts as hiring police officers with a minimum of a four-year liberal arts college degree. Instead, police academies morphed into military-style boot camps (cop shops) providing the mindset of an occupation force ready to face the perceived “enemies” of society. This was the antithesis of the concept of “community policing,” whereby law enforcement is an integral component of the community within its jurisdiction (its patch or beat). Ideally, the police would be trained to be available to all members of the community regardless of race, ethnic origin, gender, or religion. And for this to be effective, the police would have to be attired for easy recognition without looking like a military occupational force.
Another recommendation at the time of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act was for civilian oversight in the form of “police commissions.” Unfortunately, in many instances these positions became politicized with civilian commissions, like the prosecution, often automatically siding with law enforcement when issues of excessive force or blatant discrimination surfaced. Toward this end, the states and federal government need to provide professionally trained omnibus personnel that are independent of any political or ideological influence. Excessive force issues or pervasive corruption and discriminatory practices need to be reviewed by independent special prosecutors with officials in jurisdictions that target minorities or outsiders (e.g., Georgia speed traps) for financial gain (e.g., Ferguson, Missouri) to see if they have violated federal law under RICO or the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. These are often premeditated acts and should not be dismissed as some civil infraction resulting in “cease-and-desist orders.” If special aggravating circumstances are to apply to offenses against judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and correctional personnel, then these same standards for aggressive prosecution need to be applied to judicial and police misconduct cases, resulting in independent prosecution and harsh sentences—not the “slap-on-the-wrist” sanctions currently in place. Using the Attorney General Ayotte case, uniformed police should be barred from petit jury trial audiences, especially if the case involves a law enforcement victim. Law enforcement’s presence at jury trials, other than as witnesses, should be proportionate to their actual representation in the community at large, and then they should be compelled to wear civilian clothing like other members of society. Otherwise, this blatant abuse of intimidation should automatically signal a procedural cause for a mistrial, especially in capital cases like that of Michael Addison.
As stated earlier, law enforcement personnel, especially chiefs, sheriffs, and the like, need to lose the military attire that attempts to present the personnel as admirals and generals. Law enforcement personnel also need to align with their community and not with the Blue Brotherhood (aka Bubbahood). Clearly, this is a profession where unions should be exempt, if only because they instill a sense of “us versus them” within society, yet another factor is the polarization of police and segments of the public. Since the genesis of American law enforcement has its roots in the British system, we could follow their model. First and foremost, law enforcement needs to be identified by their attire, one that is markedly different from that that identifies the military. This is important so that communities do not feel that they are under siege or military occupation.
Unfortunately, with the advent of military equipment so readily available to police at all level of jurisdiction, a recent trend has been for law enforcement to wear “SWAT black” uniforms instead of the historically recognized blue. In order to end this trend and the confusion it causes, especially during this time of mutual aid and coordination across jurisdictions, a uniform code for police attire and shields needs to be adopted. For U.S. Marshals and county sheriffs, brown or tan uniforms along with a star signifying their status (U.S. Marshal, marshal deputy, high sheriff, sheriff deputy, and so on) should be worn. At the state level, the attorney general—the top law enforcement officer—should be the only “general” with that structure. The state police force could use gray or green uniforms and have their status indicated on their badge. Military-type rank could also adorn their uniform, with the head of the state police holding the rank of colonel. A similar standard should be used for municipal law enforcement agencies, including the largest—New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. They follow the British model to some extent in that there are patrol personnel (constables in England), followed by sergeant (same in England), lieutenant (inspector in England), captain (chief inspector in England), major (superintendent in England), and lieutenant colonel (chief superintendent), with the colonel (chief constable in England) at the head of the unit. Large municipal forces follow this model up to the rank of captain. From there, they usually jump to general rank, with a single star for commanders, two stars for assistant chiefs, and three stars for the deputy chief, with the chief of police holding the rank of a four-star general. Unfortunately, many local jurisdictions, including sheriffs, now wear general insignia on their uniforms, many adorning four and even five stars. Even small-town chiefs, those in command of only a few full-time officers, have the audacity to wear general stars on their uniform. This is wrong for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that it gives the impression of a military presence in the community. Secondly, it most likely violates the provisions of the “stolen valor” act. Lastly, black uniforms need to be restricted to special SWAT teams, and only worn when they are actively engaged in a crisis situation. Whenever interviewing “chiefs,” or other law enforcement officers who present as having held high-ranks, for potential positions, educational credentials need to be reality tested, especially if they claim a graduate degree. Was it from a legitimate program or from a “cop shop” like the programs perpetrated under the Quinn Act in Massachusetts? Any claim to a graduate degree as justification for an enhanced salary should require looking at both the transcript and the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) score or its equivalent. Any GRE score on verbal reasoning and quantitative reasoning needs to be within at least one standard deviation from the norm (mean score). If there are questions, then have the candidates retake the GRE prior to their hire. On this note, there should be a standardized national exam that is taken by all law enforcement candidates, much like there is for entry into law school, medical school, or graduate psychology. Correspondingly, there should be pertinent ethical standards that are also tested, with acceptable scores being clustered around the national mean.
Military-type equipment needs to be restricted to those few engagements that warrant their use and not used as a form of intimidation like at the Native American protest over the Keystone pipeline. Instead of giving more lethal weapons to law enforcement, the federal government should provide nonlethal equipment, along with training for these devices. Instead of every patrol car having a riot-shotgun and M-16s or M4s, they need beanbag and rubber bullet rounds. Pistols should have a sear check that automatically pauses the firing sequence after the first three rounds so that the officer can reassess his or her situation before emptying the thirteen- to fifteen-round magazine during an adrenaline high. Officers need to quickly designate an initial shooter when more than one of them is at a scene with a potentially armed offender. They need to be trained to only fire when there is an active shooter, using other nonlethal methods for situations where the person may be armed, or thought to be armed, but has not yet engaged in a firefight. Virtual reality scenarios can be used to test the likely reaction of officers to potential crisis situations. Their response can be recorded. Officers who cannot disengage from an autonomic adrenaline response need further training and/or psychological assessment. Moreover, body cams need to be used by all law enforcement at all times. Failure to do so should trigger a serious investigation with charges pending. If a pattern of such abuse is evident, then a special prosecutor needs to assess the department’s policies and potential coverups of abuses.
Another critical factor is the screening process. Psychological scales can determine, to a fair accuracy, not only mental suitability (mad cop) but also problematic characterlogic flaws, including serious personality disorders (bad cop). The machismo/macho image also needs to be addressed, especially if steroids are involved. At minimum, psychological reassessments need to be administered if a clique of officers falls into this group. This can be seen as a form of intimidation (bullying) among members of society, notably minority members of the community. As previously stated, training needs to focus on the use of nonlethal approaches to crisis situations where the subject does not have a viable weapon (firearm, machete, or the like). Psychological protocols can train officers to control their level of adrenal response to crisis situations, such as those situations where officers empty their clip of fifteen to seventeen rounds in their response to a perceived threat, including reactions to the provocations by unstable individuals seeking death through a phenomenon known as “suicide by cop.” These options have been available for over forty years, yet seldom employed. Law enforcement is an integral part of any viable society. How it is used is often a political factor, and as long as divisions are allowed and fostered within a society, police abuses will continue.
Prejudice is often associated with a rigid personality type. If someone appears to show indications of prejudices against a perceived out-group based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or age, then additional psychological assessments need to be administered. Personal crisis can also trigger bias outbursts or behaviors. Psychological reassessments are warranted during any severe adjustment period, during or following a significant change in the law enforcement officer’s life circumstances, such as divorce or separation, death of someone close to them, or other unanticipated major changes in their life. I added the Authoritarian Personality (F) scale, forms 45 and 40 in my assessment of police candidates who came from seemingly rigid family and/or social orientations.1
Studies also show that by increasing the number of minorities within the criminal justice system does not, in itself, necessarily reduce the incidence of abuse. There is a strong incidence of intragroup prejudices, whereby minority officials, judges, prosecutors, and police treat defendants of color as harshly or even more harshly than white offenders. This may be in order to gain more respect from their white counterparts within the criminal justice system or because they place excessive blame on minority offenders for fueling the negative stereotypes associated with minorities in general. A recent (2017) book on this phenomenon was written by James Forman Jr., entitled: Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America.2 The abused within Indian Country are also well documented, extending back over a century. Time and again, Indian police were selected to assassinate problematic Indians, often ordered to do so by their white supervisors. A more recent example was the police abuses at the Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation by tribal leaders against traditional Indians and AIM followers at Wounded Knee II. While there are few studies that quantify the level of intraracial or interracial abuses by law enforcement, a recent study used the Police and Law Enforcement (PLE) Scale in order to assess black men’s police-based discrimination. Here, the authors found the PLE is a reliable and valid measure of black men’s experiences of discrimination with law enforcement. This could be a model for other studies involving police abuses within minority communities.3 Law enforcement agencies have a powerful mandate—one that allows them to use deadly force on members of society. The police’s ability to radically change one’s life circumstances (arrest, conviction, incarceration, even death) gives them license only equaled by the medical professions. The major difference is that the latter (American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association) have promulgated strict “Principles of Ethical Standards” in an attempt to regulate practitioner’s behaviors. The law enforcement profession needs similar standards, as well as impartial boards to implement these standards.