Americans entrust their safety and their
lives to the hands of law enforcement officers every day. We trust that they will be honorable and
protect citizens when needed. They also have
the responsibility to hold citizens accountable when they have committed a
crime, whether it be a minor traffic violation or something as serious as a
homicide. While most law enforcement
officers are honorable and take pride in serving their communities, there are
some serious and endemic problems within the law enforcement community. Many of these problems are not new but are
becoming increasingly public due to the advent and commonality of cell phones
with cameras and the ease of distribution through social media sites. There are some unique factors to consider
when dealing with holding a police officer accountable for wrongdoings, up to
and including causing the deaths of civilians.
In a journal article about the cycle of
police misconduct in Chicago, Elizabeth Andonova, J.D., argues that the city of
Chicago has been plagued with a troubled past with police misconduct for years
– back to the very beginning in of the force in the 1800’s. The Chicago Police Department has repeatedly
tried to reform their internal investigations systems, hold police officers
accountable, and clean up the negative reputation of the force. Unfortunately, there are many roadblocks to
accomplishing this task, and Chicago has been relatively unsuccessful on
numerous attempts to clean up the reputation of the Chicago Police Department. The matter is further complicated by
political issues. Mayoral candidates,
state’s attorneys, district attorneys, and other elected officials want to look
good in order to be reelected. This can
affect their decision to prosecute a police officer and/or whether to make the
information available to the public (Andonova 2017:2). Law enforcement officers are rarely charged
with a crime, yet the city of Chicago has paid out millions of dollars in
settlements to the families of citizens who have been killed by Chicago
policemen. Within just a 10-year period,
Chicago paid over $600 million dollars to citizens for incidents
involving police misconduct (Andonova 2017:17).
The Independent Police Review Authority
(IPRA) of the Chicago Police Department was created as an independent agency to
review cases of excessive force and other violent crimes, including shootings,
by Chicago law enforcement officers.
Unfortunately, this department doesn’t seem to be quite so independent,
as it works with the mayor’s office and has been reported by to change the data
reported to make the annual reports look more favorable (Andonova 2017:12). Of 409 police shootings in a roughly ten-year
period, IPRA only found two instances to be unjustified. Only about three percent of nearly 30,000
complaints resulted in any type of discipline for Chicago policemen accused of
wrongdoing (Andonova 2017:13).
There
are many specific examples of system wide abuses of power within police
departments. A law enforcement officer
in Chicago had over 70 complaints before he was disciplined for any of them and
then it was only by federal prosecutors.
The police officer reported that he was previously able to call and
speak to someone in the internal affairs department to stop investigations
surrounding his crimes and misconduct (Andonova 2017:9). Chicago
police officer Daniel Bora admitted he shot a fifteen-year-old after he was “no
longer a threat,” and was “aiming for the driver,” yet the IPRA didn’t find any
wrongdoing. Officer Bora also had over
thirty complaints against him (Andonova 2017:18). Within a two-year period, Chicago police
officer Gildardo Sierra shot three people, killing two of them. Although these cases were referred to the
Illinois State Attorney office, they did not charge the officer with any crimes.
Further crimes committed by Chicago
police officers involving shootings where the police officers were found to be
lying, falsifying testimony, and/or evidence did not result in any form of discipline
(Andonova 2017:19).
Chicago is not the only city with police
officers treating citizens cruelly. Racial
profiling by police officers across the nation damages communities of color and
their respective relationship with police officers. African American and Latino citizens are
stopped while walking, while driving, and arrested at much higher rates. These minority groups also experience violence
at the hands of police officers at higher rates. The racism throughout police departments are
systemic and far reaching (Whitson 2014:211-213).
A Department of Justice report on the New
Orleans Police Department showed that African Americans juveniles were an
astounding “sixteen times more likely” to be ”arrested for a serious crime” and
the New Orleans Police Department was found to be “systematically violating the
Constitution” (Whitson 2014:214-215). The
Mariscopa County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona was found to have a “culture of
bias” against Latinos that started at the very top with the Sheriff himself (Whitson 2014:213-214).
After 18-year-old Michael
Brown, an African American, was shot and killed by a white police officer, the
Justice Department did and independent investigation and found that
institutional racism is rampant in the city of Ferguson. Eric Holder, former Attorney General, accused
the Ferguson Police Department of “implicit and explicit racial bias” and of
consistently violating rights of African Americans (Chaney 2015:313). A majority (90%) of incidents of force
perpetrated by Ferguson Police Department in a 6-month period were against
black citizens. The problems of
institutional racism in Ferguson go beyond the police department, and run
through the legal system, including court personnel, as evidenced by racist
emails circulated (Chaney 2015:313). Racist
policies in Ferguson and other cities across the nation not only affect the
health and safety of citizens in direct contact with police, it also negatively
impacts the emotional and mental health of the group as a whole (Chaney
2015:314).
Special allowances given to police
officers or “super due process” rules give police officers extra protections
that others are not. Police officers
accused are given information ahead of interviews and other extra benefits,
including: information about the accusation and the names of all accusers; they
are allowed to have as many representatives with them during the interrogation;
a copy of the officer’s previous statement; a chance to preview video evidence;
the option to change his or her statement (to better fit with the other
evidence); a 24 hour “cooling off period” after a shooting before making a
statement; as well as the option to take breaks and make phone calls during the
interview – which could be used to tamper with witness testimony (Andonova 2017:23-26).
The requirement for affidavits against
police misconduct to be sworn limit complaints that are investigated. Many people will not want to sign due to fear
of retaliation (Andonova 2017:29). The Fraternal Order of Police negatively
affects the role of investigations of police involved shootings. They consistently represent and protect the
police officer, and often interfere with investigations, regardless of what the
officer is accused of doing (Andonova 2017:22). Chicago police department has a policy of
destroying disciplinary files after five years, which reduces the ability to
make connections about long term abuses by police officers (Andonova 2017:30).
It is illegal in Illinois and
Massachusetts to record a law enforcement officer without their knowledge as it
is considered a violation of privacy (Whitson 2014:198). Because of these laws forbidding recording of
police officers without their knowledge are in effect in Illinois and
Massachusetts, the mechanism in which police officers using violent or racist
language, attacking or even killing citizens without cause, can be held
accountable is effectively nullified (Whitson 2014:199). A citizen recording a violent police arrest
without their knowledge or consent was even arrested himself for doing so (Whitson 2014:204).
Video recordings are often the only
evidence showcasing horrible abusive action of police officers. Such evidence was recorded during the Occupy
Wallstreet movement protests across the country in 2011. Video and photo evidence of abuses such as
multiple pepper spray attacks on peaceful protestors in different cities across
the nation. These crimes were committed
in full view of the public, cameras, and other officials – demonstrating that
the officers felt their actions were acceptable by their peers and/or
supervisors (Whitson 2014:209-210).
However, even when videos are not illegal,
they may not be presented in evidence. In
a 2007 incident in Washington, DC involving seven police cars pulling over a
reporter. The reporter accused the
officers of attacking her, which resulted in severe injuries. Interestingly, the officials claim “all seven
of the dashboard cameras simultaneously malfunctioned” and no video evidence
was ever provided (Whitson 2014:218).
Police officers are reluctant to speak up
about crimes and misconduct of fellow officers.
Law enforcement officers are more likely to stay silent about misconduct
in order to protect their fellow officer.
This is done either from “loyalty or [out] of fear of retaliation” (Lara
2017:567). The result is the same either way; police
officers are not being held accountable for their actions, citizens are
endangered, and the city is responsible for expensive settlements to victims
and/or surviving family members of brutal crimes committed by police officers (Andonova
2017:20). Some police officers do not
report unethical behavior because they fear retribution for reporting, they
don’t feel their superior would take the matter seriously or didn’t feel they
had enough evidence about the issue, they think someone else has probably
already reported the incident, or they don’t want the stress of reporting the
incident (Rajakaruna, Henry, and Scott 2015:432).
A special working relationship exists
between district attorneys and police officers, since they work together to
prosecute cases through the legal system.
This causes a conflict of interest in prosecuting cases against police
officers. Even if it is only a perceived
conflict of interest, the interrelated nature of district attorney’s and police
officer’s work can create doubt in the eyes of the public on holding police
officers accountable (Lara 2017:551). To
avoid this conflict of interest issue would be to assign a district attorney
from a different jurisdiction or for a state attorney general to handle the
case (Lara 2017: 558). Also, district
attorneys who recuse themselves in cases where a local police officer is being
prosecuted would lessen the appearance of a conflict of interest (Lara
2017:574).
It appears that district attorneys that
decide to prosecute police officers (perhaps due to public pressure) take
longer than normal to charge police officers and don’t provide sufficient
evidence for a grand jury to find probable cause against the officer. Since district attorneys have a massive
amount of power regarding the information and testimony allowed to a grand jury
and the normally high rates of indictment by grand juries, it is questionable
if the district attorney presented the best case possible against the law enforcement
officer (Lara 2017:554-555).
Due to the circumstances police officers
are exposed to on a regular basis, they are at a higher risk to commit
unethical and unlawful acts. They must
be held accountable to an outside agency due to the risk of potential unethical
behavior being linked to others within the department (Rajakaruna et al. 2015:431).
Police officers with a long history of
misconduct should be canned. The few bad
apples are responsible for a big percentage of the crimes being committed. They are not the kind of people we need
serving our communities and they are a liability to our citizen’s lives as well
as our tax dollars (Andonova 2017:29). In
order to truly stop misconduct by police officers, supervisors must display and
have high ethical standards to set an example, as well as to have the trust of
employees and the public. (Rajakaruna et al. 2015:441). Police officers should be held to the same
standards or higher as that of any other citizen. Special treatment for police officers allows
misconduct up to the level of murdering citizens without retribution. Allowing this to happen not only endangers
the lives of citizens, but will continue to damage the relationships between
the community and local law enforcement agencies.
References
Andonova, E. J. (2017). Cycle of Misconduct: How Chicago has
Repeatedly Failed to Police its Police. DePaul
Journal for Social Justice, 10(1),
1-31. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. (Accession No.
121696664)
Chaney, C. (2015). Institutional Racism: Perspectives on the
Department of Justice's Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. Western Journal of Black Studies, 39(4), 312-330. Retrieved from Academic
Search Complete database. (Accession No. 117132581)
Lara, I. G. (2017). Shielded from Justice: How State Attorneys
General Can Provide Structural Remedies to the Criminal Prosecutions of Police
Officers. Columbia Journal of Law &
Social Problems, 50(4), 551-582.
Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. (Accession No. 124925392)
Rajakaruna, N., Henry, P. J., & Scott, A. J. (2015). A
Necessary Safety Net: Use of a Confidential Internal Telephone Line to Report
Unethical Behaviour. Police Practice
& Research, 16(5), 431-443.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2014.932695
Whitson, A. M. (2014). The Need for Additional Safeguards Against
Racist Police Practices: A Call for Change to Massachusetts & Illinois
Wiretapping Laws. Boston College Journal
of Law & Social Justice, 34(1),
195-226. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. (Accession No.
128970645)
Comments
Post a Comment