Considering Freddie Gray & Baltimore, Michael Brown & Ferguson, Eric Garner & NYC, Walter Scott & South Carolina, and on and on . . . anyone wondering what legacy items remain for President Obama has to consider the notion of "broken windows" policing, what has become of that theory, and how the federal government needs to take the lead in reforming this problem.
Notably, each of the above questionable police actions (to be charitable) have been defended by the notion of "broken windows" policing. See here, here, here and here.
So, what is the "broken windows" theory of policing? It is a theory of policing originally proposed in a 1982 article by social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling that argued that "maintaining and monitoring urban environments to prevent small crimes such as vandalism, public drinking and toll-jumping helps to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness, thereby preventing more serious crimes from happening." In its popular name explanation, it asserts:
Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.
Or consider a pavement. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of refuse from take-out restaurants there or even break into cars.
The "broken windows" theory has faced
serious criticism and
objections to its application. Nonetheless, in the 1990's, the "broken windows" theory became
famously embraced/associated with Rudy Giuliani during his mayorship of NYC. And with that public example, the "broken windows" rhetoric (
not necessarily substance) began to spread
to police departments across the country.
With that background in mind, "broken windows" policing did not become what its name suggests - an innovative argument in favor of investment, repair, infrastructure spending and restoring community dignity. Instead it became a code word defense for "zero tolerance" policies aimed at further harassing and oppressing the very minority communities that the theory was purportedly supposed to aid. Anyone wanting to understand this transformation should read the sobering post by jodem: "Shocking Revelations about what "Broken Windows" and "Reserve Policing" really means." Quoting a Salon article, the police strategy of "broken windows" in Michigan has led to:
the use of generalized “No Trespass Letters” to justify arrests for criminal trespassing on commercial property. But more to the point, the policy gives police in Michigan’s second-largest city an excuse to stop and search people immediately based on nothing more than a gut reaction to the way someone looks or acts—without bothering to determine whether the person is actually trespassing.
According to Grand Rapids police officials, the signed letter allows officers to stop and arrest people for trespassing at the business in question—even while the business is open—whenever the officer thinks the person is on the property without a “legitimate business purpose.” In other words, cops are given unrestricted discretion to decide who does and does not belong on the property of an open business, without ever talking to the business owner or any employee to find out why the person is on the property, how long they’ve been there, and whether the person is welcome on the premises
That narrative, tragically, is not an outlier. Consider how the
U.S Justice Department report into Ferguson described how a purported "broken windows" approach devolved into a culture of abusive fines, penalties and crippling police actions for minor offenses:
Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans.
Recent reporting shows that such "culture of fines" is not just parochial,
but supports Fortune 500 companies in Ferguson specifically. In addition, the "broken windows"-"zero tolerance" mania, combined with budget cuts and privatization, leads to the improbably stupid story of a 73 year old "sheriff's deputy"(!) who mistakenly shot to death a suspect - raising another
broader, disturbing question:
So how did the 73-year-old insurance company CEO end up joining a sting operation this month that ended when he pulled out his handgun and killed suspect Eric Harris instead of stunning him with a Taser?
A lawyer representing the Harris family says the answer is simple.
Bates paid big money to play a cop in his spare time, attorney Daniel Smolen says, but he didn't have the training to handle the job. . . .
"It's absolutely mind-boggling that you have a wealthy businessman who's been essentially deputized to go play like he's some outlaw, like he's just cleaning up the streets," Smolen said.
Scott Wood, an attorney who represents Bates, said his client -- who had donated cars and video equipment to the Sheriff's Office -- had undergone all the required training and had participated in more than 100 operations with the office's violent crimes task force. . . .
The Oklahoma case raises a troubling question, CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said.
"Do we want really what are ordinary citizens, with enough money to play to be police officers, policing our streets? This is a very, very dangerous precedent," she said. "And I think it's now time for either the Justice Department, perhaps, or every single police department to review this, the deputy status, because we're going to see more and more of this kind of thing, if it isn't happening more than we even know."
In short, what cell phone videos and social media are revealing (to a white audience) is a broken state of policing that has used, and hid behind, tag phrases like "broken windows" and "zero tolerance" to regress back to (or maintain) the second oldest profession: abusing minority communities through police violence.
So, what is Obama to do? {more after the jump}
Initially, despite the above context, I strongly disagree that Obama should engage in a direct semantic battle against "broken windows" or "zero tolerance" policing. That inevitably, and idiotically, would lead to an argument that Obama "wants broken windows" or "tolerates" some level of crime. My point here is precisely not to cede substance to rhetoric.
Yesterday, Obama described what he wants to do:
Now, the challenge for us as the federal government is, is that we don't run these police forces. I can't federalize every police force in the country and force them to retrain. But what I can do is to start working with them collaboratively so that they can begin this process of change themselves.
And coming out of the task force that we put together, we're now working with local communities. The Department of Justice has just announced a grant program for those jurisdictions that want to purchase body cameras. We are going to be issuing grants for those jurisdictions that are prepared to start trying to implement some of the new training and data collection and other things that can make a difference. And we're going to keep on working with those local jurisdictions so that they can begin to make the changes that are necessary.
I think it’s going to be important for organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police and other police unions and organization to acknowledge that this is not good for police. We have to own up to the fact that occasionally there are going to be problems here, just as there are in every other occupation. There are some bad politicians who are corrupt. There are folks in the business community or on Wall Street who don't do the right thing. Well, there’s some police who aren’t doing the right thing. And rather than close ranks, what we’ve seen is a number of thoughtful police chiefs and commissioners and others recognize they got to get their arms around this thing and work together with the community to solve the problem. And we're committed to facilitating that process.
If you look closely above, Obama is proposing a voluntary program, albeit with federal money for those who volunteer. Fine, but I doubt a voluntary program and carrots will do much to deeply reform racist police practices.
Nonetheless, I recognize Obama's dilemma: "I can't federalize every police force in the country and force them to retrain."
No, he can't. But there may be a creative idea lurking. I'm sure everyone has noticed the sudden and dramatic militiarazation of local police forces - with tanks, armored personnel carriers, drones, body armor and the like (see photo above). However, all of that heavy war equipment comes from the federal government. And, from what I have read, these local police forces are addicted to this military crack.
So . . . why not a federal trade-off? You want your military toys? You have to allow intrusive federal inspection into your police practices. I bet a lot more police forces would feel an incentive not to lose their military toys than to avoid some sort of federal oversight. (Of course, that is my guess, and it depends on the scope of federal oversight required.)
Bottom line: a problem this large demand large solutions. If anyone else, including particularly civil rights lawyers, have better ideas, please suggest them in the comments. Because I see a lack of commitment and creative thinking regarding this vital problem.