Literally not a day goes by now where one cannot find some published record of a new incidence of excessive police violence. Law enforcement response has been disproportionate to the threat, so much so an argument can be made that the police response poses a far greater civic risk than does the issue which precipitates police (or other government agency) engagement.
Making matters worse, it seems many young cops today are pumped up, literally, with steroids. The scholarly records is rife with studies linking steroid use to aggression and violence. A quick Google Scholar search yields pages of studies, such as:
Anabolic-androgenic steroids and aggression in castrated male rats
AS Clark, DM Barber - Physiology & behavior, 1994 - Elsevier
Anabolic androgenic steroids and aggression: studies using animal models
MY McGINNIS - Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2004 - Wiley Online Library
Further, as xxdr zombiexx pointed out in a comment in another diary of mine, even the FBI called steroid abuse a "serious problem" way back in 1991. That was 10 years pre 9/11 and we all know how much militarized local law enforcement has become. The twisted mesh of militarization and steroid use seems a recipe for disaster and a threat to the civilian population. If the FBI recognizes that, shouldn't we?
It is time for a federal bill banning steroid use by law enforcement and I think there are angles that could even lead to support by Republicans and Democrats alike: The Clean Cops Act of 2013.
As it turns out, just last month Police Chief Magazine published an important article you should read discussing the problem: Anabolic Steroid Use and Abuse by Police Officers: Policy & Prevention
In addition to the normal health concerns, there is one further issue when discussing abuse of steroids by those in the law enforcement profession. Officers carry weapons, are authorized to use lethal force, and are often involved in physically controlling or restraining people. If the stories of ’roid rage are true, how often are the officers who use anabolic steroids involved in unnecessary use-offorce incidents that could become a major liability for their agencies? Considering the legal issues, health effects, and commensurate costs associated with inappropriate use, agencies should proactively address this issue. Rather than look back on what could be an embarrassing “steroid era” of law enforcement—one in which the profession might be riddled with lawsuits, corruption, and claims of heavy-handedness—it is critical to address the current and future impact of this issue head-on.
So we have one of the law enforcement trade's most important publications highlighting the issue and we have the FBI sounding the alarm. Isn't it time we, the public, demand action?
Follow along and see if it makes sense.
The bill could be fairly simple and should not be controversial. A simple stab at a draft:
The Clean Cops Act of 2013
Where as armed civil servants are entrusted with extraordinary responsibility and beholden to the public for whom they serve and by whom they are paid, the following bill is offered:
Anabolic steroid use among any officer (defined as an employee of or contractor for any government or military branch, at any level, who uses or has access to a firearm as part of his/her official duties) within the borders of the United States, including its territories shall be illegal.
- Such employee or contractor shall be randomly tested for steroid use, but not less than once per year and always upon first issuance of a service weapon.
- Any officer who is the subject of a public complaint for brutality or excessive force shall also be tested immediately upon the filing of the complaint. Complaints for sexual harassment are included, as sexual harassment shall be considered an aggressive act.
- Any officer discharging a firearm in the line of duty shall be required to submit to testing.
- Officers and/or service member testing positive for steroid use shall be considered in breach of contract and must have their firearms permitted revoked and issued weapons confiscated. Offenders may be transferred to desk duty or suspended for a first offense. Rehab or other appropriate treatment shall be mandatory.
- Positive tests are entered into their personnel records permanently.
- Positive tests also trigger a review of any previous complaints against the officer or service member, including complaints by members of the public or the officers peers. Complaints for sexual harassment are included.
- Officers with more than one positive test shall be terminated, without earned benefits and may not ever be re-employed by any public or private entity for a position which requires carrying (on his/her person or conveyance) any weapon, to include but not limited to firearms. (Other weapons e.g. include truncheons, clubs.)
- Service members with more than one positive test shall be discharged dishonorably, without benefits.
- Positive tests resulting from medical prescriptions or treatment do not result in disciplinary action, but does require the officer to relinquish their weapons until treatment is concluded and the drugs are out of their systems as proved by testing.
How could this bill be controversial? Police unions would probably oppose it, but I do not support every union view reflexively and neither should any of us.
Further, police brutality is a drain on civic budgets as shown in a graphic detailing police brutality data from 2009 from www.injusticeeverywhere.com. Government spent over $128 million in civic litigation that year because of police brutality. Civil penalties related to Occupy protest brutality alone are still coming in and are costing millions (such as City of Atlanta; Oakland, CA both recently agreed to $1M fines). U.C. Berkeley us facing a $15M lawsuit. Sure even Republicans can use these taxpayer hits as partial cover to support such a law.
For a wider view of the public costs, let's use
Chicago as an example:
Over the last decade, police misconduct lawsuits against the city and out-of-court settlements “have cost taxpayers several hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when all levels of government have to cut services and raise taxes,” according to the University of Illinois report. Defending cops against litigation has cost Chicago more than $82.5 million since 2003, and “Jon Burge cases have cost local taxpayers more than $53 million since 1998.”
That's
hundreds of millions. In one city.
How about New York?
According to a 2012 report from NYC's Comptroller's office, the city paid out $185.6 million in claims for fiscal year 2011. That's a 35% increase over the previous year, which came in at $137.3 million in settled claims. Fiscal year 2011 saw “an historical high of 8,882 claims filed” against the NYPD, with a 55% rise in claims against the NYPD over the past five years.
That's almost
$200 million in 2011 alone!
This should be a no brainer for a fiscal conservative.
How about for Libertarians, like so many of the most recalcitrant new Republicans? Well, the cover there is all about civil liberties. The story is so obvious for this as a civil liberties enhancer I'm not even going to spell it out.
Even Neocons should be able to get on board because this is a public safety issue of the first order.
How about for us? For liberals, progressives, Democrats? We should be firing on all cylinders, but the case is great for protection of human rights, especially minority rights. It is a simple case of human decency and good governance.
Do you think this could have legs?