Post Floyd Protests and Reforms

Question

Description

Please follow the instructions and complete the task uploaded

Post-Floyd Protests and Reforms, 4-22-21

Ok, so this is your last chance to submit discussion responses. In that connection, I want to

remind you that these questions are not designed to elicit your pre-formed opinions. Rather, I

want you to provide reflections and analyses that are GROUNDED in the readings (specifically

those required for this session, but prior readings are great as well). Answers that do not reflect a

proper understanding of the reading earn no or only partial credit.

The optional reading that I sent will remain optional but I do encourage you to use it to inform

your thoughts on any of the questions below and to bring it up in class.

Please answer only five questions, including at least one from each of the four required readings.

General question:

1. Amidst and after the wave of unrest that followed the police killings of Michael Brown, Eric

Garner, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray and others, police departments around the country

implemented body camera, de-escalation training, and other reforms to promote transparency

and restraint. The policy reform discourse that followed the killing of George Floyd took a very

different form and we instead saw plenty of articles like the one by Karma on policing

alternatives, and we saw more calls and efforts to transform and “de-fund” the police. Why was

the public and policy reaction following George Floyd so different from prior incidents that

triggered national and international outrage?

Karma, https://www.vox.com/2020/6/24/21296881/unbundle-defund-the-police-george-floyd-

rayshard-brooks-violence-european-policing

2. Choose one of the four police alternatives discussed by Karma. How effective would that

approach be with respect to its explicit goals (and broader policing goals if you wish) relative to

conventional police approaches? How realistic or practical would its implementation (or at least

some version of it) be in the United States? What challenges would it face en route to a widely

adopted policy or practice in the US?

Notes: Berkeley California has moved toward creating a new department which would employ

unarmed traffic agents to conduct most traffic stops and respond to traffic accidents

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/berkeley-works-to-reform-police-traffic-enforcement/.

NYC is experimenting with a non-police response to mental health calls

(https://apnews.com/article/new-york-police-new-york-city-police-reform-manhattan-

19983a0ba66a711402d0e6f0657ea929).

3. One of the seemingly radical ideas Karma describes is community self-policing. Sharkey

suggests that a community entity “would receive funding equivalent to whatever the police

department in that jurisdiction would receive. They would be allowed to use the funds however

they choose.” In this course, we have discussed repeatedly why welfarist approaches ceded

prominence to criminal justice approaches. We have also discussed why even local leaders

sometimes prefer making arrests to tackling the causes of crime. Given the obstacles to welfarist

approaches, do you think such groups could be as effective with “equivalent funding?” For

example, would hiring social workers or “violence interrupters” be as effective as hiring police?

Or would structural and systemic reforms (perhaps also at the state and federal level including

more funding) be necessary for such community alternatives to actually make communities

safer?

Aspinwall and Weichselbaum, Marshall Project article

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/12/18/colorado-tries-new-way-to-punish-rogue-cops

4. In summer 2020, Colorado passed the most sweeping police reform bill I’ve ever seen.

Among many other reforms, they made state decertification easier and mandated that police

intervene when their colleagues use excessive force and activate their body cameras. Aspinwall

and Weichselbaum focus on ending qualified immunity. Connecticut, New Mexico, and NYC

have also chipped away at qualified immunity (https://www.cato.org/blog/nyc-council-passes-

qualified-immunity-reform-bill-bolstering-citizens-fourth-amendment-rights). Few states,

however, have passed laws that criminalize or toughen penalties for excessive force. If a

Colorado officer uses a banned chokehold he or she can only be charged with a Class 1

misdemeanor. In light of what you have learned in this class about criminalization and

punishment, why have more reforms seemingly focused on making it easier to sue and fire cops

than on making it easier to charge and punish them?

5. The article notes that the Supreme Court invented the doctrine of “qualified immunity” and

“expanded that doctrine so that now, even police officers who knowingly violate someone’s

rights are protected—unless a court has ruled that their behavior was unconstitutional in a

previous case involving nearly identical circumstances.” That standard, of course, is very

difficult to meet and depends on the unlikely happenstance of particular victims securing good

lawyers and prevailing in court. Why has the Supreme Court chosen to largely immunize police

officers from liability even for egregious misconduct? And why did the Colorado legislature pass

a bill that will result in few officers having to pay anything?

Lowery. GQ https://www.gq.com/story/ithaca-mayor-svante-myrick-police-reform

6. The mayor’s proposed reform envisions specialized assignments whereby some armed

personnel “will fully investigate and solve serious crimes” while other unarmed personnel will

deal with non-criminal matters. Given that currently most police—even in big cities--spend most

of their time dealing with non-criminal matters (enforcement of traffic and municipal ordinances,

false alarms, providing various forms of service including welfare checks and first-aid, and

traffic accidents), this bifurcation of “public safety work” into crime and non-crime

responsibilities would seemingly shift the nature of police work considerably. Do you think most

armed police would welcome such a change in their assigned duties? How about in larger and

poorer cities? How effective would these armed police (and the model more generally) likely be

with respect to public safety outcomes and officer stress, morale, and retention?

7. A major purported goal of the reform is “is to have far fewer encounters between citizens and

armed government agents.” This goal, in my opinion, runs counter to several approaches and

imperatives of policing in the past decades including the war on drugs (and gangs), community

policing, and order maintenance policing (aka broken windows policing). (If you disagree with

me, feel free to explain why). Do you think such a goal is widely shared among the public and

their elected representatives? Or do you think such a perspective—at least for now—is “radical”

and marginal in American society and therefore unlikely to make much of an impact on

policing?

Morton. Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/if-schools-dont-overhaul-discipline-

teachers-will-still-be-calling-the-police-on-our-black-students-2/

8. The article notes that research shows that the presence or addition of SRO’s is associated with

an increase in suspensions, arrests and even declining educational attainment. However,

advocates of SRO’s argue that SRO’s are much more likely than city/town officers called to the

school to de-escalate situations and work, in collaboration with other school staff, constructively

with troubled students (as opposed to arresting and excluding them)—and that it would therefore

be a mistake to remove SRO’s. Given the arguments and claims on both sides of the issue can

you think of a policy solution that would achieve the optimal balance across multiple important

values-- student safety, health, rights and education? (For example, if you wish you can address

whether school social workers could perform the constructive tasks that we rely on SRO’s to

perform).

9. The article notes that “the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature overwhelmingly passed a

state law last year that prohibits school districts from assigning officers the duties of ‘routine

student discipline or school administrative tasks” but then quotes an activist who states that

“There’s no way to really enforce it.” In the course, we have spent a lot of time talking about

laws that were passed and then used to criminalize and punish large numbers of people. On a

few occasions we discussed the routine non-enforcement of criminal laws (e.g. in relation to

alcohol Prohibition and corporate crime). So in light of course readings what sense do you make

of the fact that this law was passed but apparently broken with impunity. What does it suggest

about what is necessary to make laws enforceable?