- by June Shin
Racial profiling is typically defined as “the police use of race as the sole basis for initiating law enforcement activity.” Meehan and Ponder also state that the practice of racial profiling is “inextricably tied not only to race, but to officers’ conceptions of place, of what should typically occur in an area and who belongs, as well as where they belong.” To determine individuals are suspicious solely on the basis of their race is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, and despite those who are less convinced that racial profiling indeed exists, numerous case studies, such as Choi v. Gaston and Whren vs. United States, and countless personal experiences (as can be seen on ABC News Prime Time Live in 1996 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RhXU-2EJDE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV2tCgkACRQ&feature=related) indicate that racial profiling is embedded in the law and comes in many forms. However, the problem of racial profiling far extends that of its violation of the Fourth Amendment. Once racial profiling becomes justified and therefore legitimized, racial profiling no longer becomes a practice carried out solely by the police, but also by the general public. Meehan and Ponder focus on the racial profiling conducted on African American drivers, but I would like to focus on the introduction of a different example of racial profiling, by both law enforcement agencies and the general public, that was introduced post September 11, 2001.
Prior to September 11, all forms of racial profiling were generally strongly opposed by the public and were deemed “inefficient, ineffective, and unfair” (Volpp 562). However, after the foreign terrorists threatened the safety of this country, the frail construction of national identity that included all races became all so apparent. What once was deemed futile and unjust now became what non-Middle Eastern Americans believed was the essence of keeping this country protected and terrorist-free. The new form of racial profiling permitted by the government includes a more general investigation of people solely based upon “perceptions of their racial, religious, or ethnic identity” (Volpp 564). Post September 11 the constitutionality of racial profiling changed, creating shifts away from U.S. Fourth Amendment protections of individual against abuse of criminal procedure. These shifts are a product of government portrayal of racial profiling as a mechanism in the “war on terrorism,” which led to the recognition of a national identity and solidarity excluding people of “Middle Eastern, Arab, or Muslim” origins or appearance.
Similar to the way the government justifies pulling over and stopping and frisking more African Americans than whites on the road by stating it is a mechanism to fight the “war on drugs,” the government justifies pulling aside people of “Middle Eastern, Arab, or Muslim” people by stating it is a mechanism to fight the “war on terror.” However, we need to see through these justifications of racial profiling and identify the dire effects that come with it.
Sources:
Meehan and Ponder. “Race and Place: The Ecology of Racial Profiling African American Motorists.” Reader.
Volpp, Leti. The Citizen and the Terrorist, 23 Immigration and Nationality Law Review 561 (2002)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RhXU-2EJDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV2tCgkACRQ&feature=related
https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways
Monday, March 31, 2014
Patrol Numbers are Not the Dependent Variable to Crime Suppression
- by Mark Sheppard
Before we jump into this, first some quick statistics that Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa gave the other day, in his presentation, with some other city officials’ statistics, as a metric narrative. Also please note before continuing that a lot of the metrics will be rounded to the nearest ten, hundred, etc. for simplified mathematics, this is meant to give a rough overview, not intended for academic accuracy. My opinion will be provided after the metrics.
‘A million dollars would buy us 5 cops’ later clarify that it would actually get him roughly 4.8 cops. Meaning that one patrol cop is roughly 200k in direct cost and indirect cost.
Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa also noted that the OPD is currently a 615-patrol department. That’s a 123m budget for the department, on street cops.
He advocated for 900 patrol, a roughly 50% increase in both patrol and budget.
In the adopted FY 2013-24 budget of Oakland the outlined “Graduate two police academies each year and increase sworn officers from 633 in FY 2012-13 to 707 by June 2015 (10 of which are funded by the newly received COPS grant after the budget adoption”
Obviously these are slightly different numbers, than what Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa offered, but they’re not significant for our purposes. Still that’s roughly a 1/6 increase to the department, or roughly 20m to their budget.
In the same adopted budget it was said that in the last six years the city has “…[r]educed sworn police staffing by 27% (from 837 to 611 officers) and civilian staff by 34%.”
Keeping all this in mind, remember that Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa also stated that the homicide rate has held constant, over a long 20+yr span. The homicide rate was stuck around 100-110 deaths per year.
Meaning that as patrol numbers have drastically changed, crime has held constant. So from strictly a mathematical perspective this seems indicative that police patrol are not a dependent variable in crime.
I’m not alone in this view, the City Council of Oakland, asserted as a priority that a safe city “…is defined by more than just police.”
So there is this dichotomy between the city’s commitment to public law enforcement, on one hand city council is outlining that the safety of the city does not solely mean a robust patrol force, however there is this budgetary increase and monetary commitment to the department.
Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa stated that the department was in flux with operation ceasefire, as the department’s budget leans, they’re moving towards more data-driven, community style, highly-focused police measure, that is geographically concentration, to the areas of highest violent crime density.
This leaning of the budget is echoed in the adopted budget, which is riddled with mentions of Federal Sequestration (keeping in mind that Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa stated that federal aid supplemented the OPD), the sun-setting of local tax measures, and reduced business revenue.
Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa mentioned that Oakland’s crime problem deterred business ventures in Oakland. But he did not provide any metric as to how this would be illustrated, so this will be explicitly ignored as a normative claim by a party with an inherit interest in the claim.
Now then, moving to the opinion portion of this, when evaluating the Oakland police department, you see a starved department, with compounding budgetary restraints, both federally and locally, that is being forced to evolve to new, cheaper, just-as-effective police measures. Additionally, the department is more-or-less constrained by this continuing legitimacy crisis, as the public remains unwilling to vote in new taxes to pay for the department’s wants, or elect local officials that will support the department either. All the while, the crime rate remains constant.
Just as a running counter-example, San Jose, which is roughly synonymous in size and police force as Oakland, deviating in +200k residents, and currently has the police forced that Oakland had 6 years ago, has remained at a fractional homicide rate. Oakland is at 105, San Jose remaining around 35, a factor of 3. Again, as police budgets have declined the crime rate has remained constant.
All of this in mind it seems indicative, that police patrol numbers are not a driver of lowering crime, and by extension, if police are to be viewed as having an effect on the crime rate at all, it is their police measures that effect it, not their numbers.
Lastly, (the least important and hyper-extended argument I will make) if you accept the conclusion that police are not a crime suppression force, and that patrol numbers are not correlated with criminal deterrence, and that police patrol is a public safety institution that answers to crime. It would seem axiomatic that a city planner should identify and address the drivers of crime, instead of increasing spending on it’s effects.
Sources:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/OPD/o/OfficeofChief/
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/cityadministrator/documents/policy/oak045824.pdf
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=2801
http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12826
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_25387775/san-jose-police-will-lose-another-100-officers
http://www.sjpd.org/crimestats/crimestats.html
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6689
Before we jump into this, first some quick statistics that Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa gave the other day, in his presentation, with some other city officials’ statistics, as a metric narrative. Also please note before continuing that a lot of the metrics will be rounded to the nearest ten, hundred, etc. for simplified mathematics, this is meant to give a rough overview, not intended for academic accuracy. My opinion will be provided after the metrics.
‘A million dollars would buy us 5 cops’ later clarify that it would actually get him roughly 4.8 cops. Meaning that one patrol cop is roughly 200k in direct cost and indirect cost.
Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa also noted that the OPD is currently a 615-patrol department. That’s a 123m budget for the department, on street cops.
He advocated for 900 patrol, a roughly 50% increase in both patrol and budget.
In the adopted FY 2013-24 budget of Oakland the outlined “Graduate two police academies each year and increase sworn officers from 633 in FY 2012-13 to 707 by June 2015 (10 of which are funded by the newly received COPS grant after the budget adoption”
Obviously these are slightly different numbers, than what Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa offered, but they’re not significant for our purposes. Still that’s roughly a 1/6 increase to the department, or roughly 20m to their budget.
In the same adopted budget it was said that in the last six years the city has “…[r]educed sworn police staffing by 27% (from 837 to 611 officers) and civilian staff by 34%.”
Keeping all this in mind, remember that Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa also stated that the homicide rate has held constant, over a long 20+yr span. The homicide rate was stuck around 100-110 deaths per year.
Meaning that as patrol numbers have drastically changed, crime has held constant. So from strictly a mathematical perspective this seems indicative that police patrol are not a dependent variable in crime.
I’m not alone in this view, the City Council of Oakland, asserted as a priority that a safe city “…is defined by more than just police.”
So there is this dichotomy between the city’s commitment to public law enforcement, on one hand city council is outlining that the safety of the city does not solely mean a robust patrol force, however there is this budgetary increase and monetary commitment to the department.
Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa stated that the department was in flux with operation ceasefire, as the department’s budget leans, they’re moving towards more data-driven, community style, highly-focused police measure, that is geographically concentration, to the areas of highest violent crime density.
This leaning of the budget is echoed in the adopted budget, which is riddled with mentions of Federal Sequestration (keeping in mind that Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa stated that federal aid supplemented the OPD), the sun-setting of local tax measures, and reduced business revenue.
Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa mentioned that Oakland’s crime problem deterred business ventures in Oakland. But he did not provide any metric as to how this would be illustrated, so this will be explicitly ignored as a normative claim by a party with an inherit interest in the claim.
Now then, moving to the opinion portion of this, when evaluating the Oakland police department, you see a starved department, with compounding budgetary restraints, both federally and locally, that is being forced to evolve to new, cheaper, just-as-effective police measures. Additionally, the department is more-or-less constrained by this continuing legitimacy crisis, as the public remains unwilling to vote in new taxes to pay for the department’s wants, or elect local officials that will support the department either. All the while, the crime rate remains constant.
Just as a running counter-example, San Jose, which is roughly synonymous in size and police force as Oakland, deviating in +200k residents, and currently has the police forced that Oakland had 6 years ago, has remained at a fractional homicide rate. Oakland is at 105, San Jose remaining around 35, a factor of 3. Again, as police budgets have declined the crime rate has remained constant.
All of this in mind it seems indicative, that police patrol numbers are not a driver of lowering crime, and by extension, if police are to be viewed as having an effect on the crime rate at all, it is their police measures that effect it, not their numbers.
Lastly, (the least important and hyper-extended argument I will make) if you accept the conclusion that police are not a crime suppression force, and that patrol numbers are not correlated with criminal deterrence, and that police patrol is a public safety institution that answers to crime. It would seem axiomatic that a city planner should identify and address the drivers of crime, instead of increasing spending on it’s effects.
Sources:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/OPD/o/OfficeofChief/
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/cityadministrator/documents/policy/oak045824.pdf
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=2801
http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12826
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_25387775/san-jose-police-will-lose-another-100-officers
http://www.sjpd.org/crimestats/crimestats.html
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6689
Discretion as a means for public safety? Not so fast...
- by Kimberly Newton
It seems as though the issue of race is ubiquitous in all aspects of society. In almost any given circumstance, one can feasibly construct a racial argument, whether the racism is "overt" or "reverse." Public law enforcement officers struggle every day to bridge the gap between racial profiling and societal justice. However, the issue is ongoing and it seems as though there can always be arguments for and against their actions on behalf of race.
The SF Chronicle posted an article just a few days ago about racial profiling within the Oakland Police Department. The article presents data illustrating an overwhelming amount of African Americans involved in the Oakland crime scene. Ultimately, the problem all comes down to the issue of discretion and whether or not law enforcement is justified in making the judgements that they make. In our reading, Musheno and Maynard-Moody indicate that this is a complex and difficult question to answer because judgments are often “ambiguous and multi-layered: they reference both rules and morality to defend decisions, reveal internalized as well as interactive conflicts, and document shifting positions over time” (p.25). The ambiguity of law enforcement's discretion causes a lot of finger pointing and confusion. African Americans feel they are being profiled, while law enforcement feels they are simply doing their job to enforce a safe city. How, then, do we know where the truth stands?
To answer this, I would argue that everything falls somewhere in the middle. Law enforcement seems to pay closer attention to African Americans only because statistically, they have developed a certain stereotype for themselves. However, does this mean that a while man is any less capable of the same crime? Of course not.
To refer back to our reading once more, the use of discretion to get the bad guys is deeply ironic in that "street level workers become stringent rule followers, trying to limit services...[R]ather than cutting corners, they follow every procedure. They use the rules to discourage and harass citizen clients...[I]n these cases, workers express more concern for the state’s interests than for those of citizen clients" (p.151). This argument is compelling because it illustrates the true irony that comes with judgements made by discretion alone.
Essentially, these are issues that public law enforcement are faced with every day. Seeing as this article came out just days ago, the issue of racial profiling is ever-present and very real. It is truly difficult to bridge the gap between racism and protective measures for society. Unfortunately, discretion alone is sure to cause conflict.
Sources:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/<wbr />johnson/article/Oakland-crime-<wbr />issue-goes-far-deeper-than-<wbr />racial-5355633.php
http://www.sfgate.com/file/<wbr />762/762-2013%20Victim%20and%<wbr />20Suspect%20Race3.pdf
It seems as though the issue of race is ubiquitous in all aspects of society. In almost any given circumstance, one can feasibly construct a racial argument, whether the racism is "overt" or "reverse." Public law enforcement officers struggle every day to bridge the gap between racial profiling and societal justice. However, the issue is ongoing and it seems as though there can always be arguments for and against their actions on behalf of race.
The SF Chronicle posted an article just a few days ago about racial profiling within the Oakland Police Department. The article presents data illustrating an overwhelming amount of African Americans involved in the Oakland crime scene. Ultimately, the problem all comes down to the issue of discretion and whether or not law enforcement is justified in making the judgements that they make. In our reading, Musheno and Maynard-Moody indicate that this is a complex and difficult question to answer because judgments are often “ambiguous and multi-layered: they reference both rules and morality to defend decisions, reveal internalized as well as interactive conflicts, and document shifting positions over time” (p.25). The ambiguity of law enforcement's discretion causes a lot of finger pointing and confusion. African Americans feel they are being profiled, while law enforcement feels they are simply doing their job to enforce a safe city. How, then, do we know where the truth stands?
To answer this, I would argue that everything falls somewhere in the middle. Law enforcement seems to pay closer attention to African Americans only because statistically, they have developed a certain stereotype for themselves. However, does this mean that a while man is any less capable of the same crime? Of course not.
To refer back to our reading once more, the use of discretion to get the bad guys is deeply ironic in that "street level workers become stringent rule followers, trying to limit services...[R]ather than cutting corners, they follow every procedure. They use the rules to discourage and harass citizen clients...[I]n these cases, workers express more concern for the state’s interests than for those of citizen clients" (p.151). This argument is compelling because it illustrates the true irony that comes with judgements made by discretion alone.
Essentially, these are issues that public law enforcement are faced with every day. Seeing as this article came out just days ago, the issue of racial profiling is ever-present and very real. It is truly difficult to bridge the gap between racism and protective measures for society. Unfortunately, discretion alone is sure to cause conflict.
Sources:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/<wbr />johnson/article/Oakland-crime-<wbr />issue-goes-far-deeper-than-<wbr />racial-5355633.php
http://www.sfgate.com/file/<wbr />762/762-2013%20Victim%20and%<wbr />20Suspect%20Race3.pdf
Police Racial Profiling: Solutions in Action
-By Alex Rose
Near the conclusion in The Stories, the Statistics, and the Law: Why “Driving While Black” Matters David Harris suggests possible solutions to resolving police racial profiling, and two, traffic stop statistics and local action, are being implemented in Oakland and San Diego. Despite attempts to address racial profiling, citizens in both cities feel the issue is not actually being resolved. This unrest suggests that no single procedure for confronting racial profiling is sufficient, and instead multiple should be utilized.
The first method of addressing racial profiling, put into action by Oakland, is gathering data on public law enforcement stops. Data collected by the Oakland Police Department showed that 62% of all stops between April and December of 2013 were Black. It is worth mentioning that this ongoing study is not being conducted under Oakland PD’s free will, but mandated by a court order, because the data can be trusted with federal oversight. Since Blacks only comprising 28% of Oakland’s population, the disparity in the data is alarming, and it is beneficial for the community to realize this from an objective standpoint. However, the SFGate suggests the reason the community is not satisfied solely on this raw presentation of data is that no immediate solutions to fixing this problem accompanied the data.
Harris suggests that simply “gather[ing] solid, comprehensive information” on racial profiling will further the discussion, which may in turn lead to new solutions. A critique on this belief is that while Oakland’s mayor, Jean Quan, has made this data available to the public, she has yet to provide spaces for a community discussion to continue. Regardless of the mayor’s inaction, community leaders and the police department need to help facilitate a dialogue on this sensitive issue. Data has proven that racial profiling is happening, but citizen’s need comfort that police are taking action on these issues.
The second way of addressing racial profiling is through local community action. Recently, San Diego’s Police Chief, Shelley Zimmerman, has achieved this by holding two city meetings. Although Harris states that San Diego was voluntarily collecting data on traffic stops in 1999, KPBS reported that San Diego stopped gathering data. This contributed to a local community activist, Josh Funn; feel that the police were only trying to improve their public perception. Funn claimed that the police were merely attempting to “do a better job communicating why [they] were violating people's civil rights” rather than fixing the actual problem. Zimmerman responded to this accusation by stating that the police are going to resume collecting data on traffic stops and require officers to use video cameras during stops.
In summary, Oakland is collecting and presenting data without offering a place to discuss why this is happening, and San Diego is creating a space for community dialogue, but does not have any tangible data to present. Both SFGate and KPBS proposed that citizens were not fully satisfied in either city. This information suggests a solution requires cities to use multiple ways to address racial profiling. Attempts to resolve racial profiling are just getting started and are small steps on the long path to resolving the community’s concerns.
Sources:
Near the conclusion in The Stories, the Statistics, and the Law: Why “Driving While Black” Matters David Harris suggests possible solutions to resolving police racial profiling, and two, traffic stop statistics and local action, are being implemented in Oakland and San Diego. Despite attempts to address racial profiling, citizens in both cities feel the issue is not actually being resolved. This unrest suggests that no single procedure for confronting racial profiling is sufficient, and instead multiple should be utilized.
The first method of addressing racial profiling, put into action by Oakland, is gathering data on public law enforcement stops. Data collected by the Oakland Police Department showed that 62% of all stops between April and December of 2013 were Black. It is worth mentioning that this ongoing study is not being conducted under Oakland PD’s free will, but mandated by a court order, because the data can be trusted with federal oversight. Since Blacks only comprising 28% of Oakland’s population, the disparity in the data is alarming, and it is beneficial for the community to realize this from an objective standpoint. However, the SFGate suggests the reason the community is not satisfied solely on this raw presentation of data is that no immediate solutions to fixing this problem accompanied the data.
Harris suggests that simply “gather[ing] solid, comprehensive information” on racial profiling will further the discussion, which may in turn lead to new solutions. A critique on this belief is that while Oakland’s mayor, Jean Quan, has made this data available to the public, she has yet to provide spaces for a community discussion to continue. Regardless of the mayor’s inaction, community leaders and the police department need to help facilitate a dialogue on this sensitive issue. Data has proven that racial profiling is happening, but citizen’s need comfort that police are taking action on these issues.
The second way of addressing racial profiling is through local community action. Recently, San Diego’s Police Chief, Shelley Zimmerman, has achieved this by holding two city meetings. Although Harris states that San Diego was voluntarily collecting data on traffic stops in 1999, KPBS reported that San Diego stopped gathering data. This contributed to a local community activist, Josh Funn; feel that the police were only trying to improve their public perception. Funn claimed that the police were merely attempting to “do a better job communicating why [they] were violating people's civil rights” rather than fixing the actual problem. Zimmerman responded to this accusation by stating that the police are going to resume collecting data on traffic stops and require officers to use video cameras during stops.
In summary, Oakland is collecting and presenting data without offering a place to discuss why this is happening, and San Diego is creating a space for community dialogue, but does not have any tangible data to present. Both SFGate and KPBS proposed that citizens were not fully satisfied in either city. This information suggests a solution requires cities to use multiple ways to address racial profiling. Attempts to resolve racial profiling are just getting started and are small steps on the long path to resolving the community’s concerns.
Sources:
Citizen's Arrests: Possible Abuse of Power?
- by Sarah Hickman
As discussed in lecture, we are permitted to make a citizen’s arrest if we find ourselves in the presence/have knowledge of a committed crime. Professor Musheno helped outlined the difference when executing a citizen’s arrest for a misdemeanor situation versus that of a felony crime in his March 6th lecture. He conveyed, that in order to execute a citizen’s arrest for a misdemeanor crime, the crime would need to be committed in your presence. As for a felony crime, you would only need probable cause of that crime in order to make a citizen’s arrest. Further, Professor Musheno discussed how citizen’s arrests extend to the corporate sphere; he used Target as an example. We discussed how a corporation like Target, may find that they have employed an overzealous employee who executes citizen’s arrests too frequently. An example could be: An employee who places a customer under citizen’s arrest for opening a bag of chips while they finish up their shopping list. Even though many people are guilty of this crime, and typically the outcome ends with the purchase of the snack at the end of the shopping excursion, a corporation may experience an employee who seeks out these individuals to simply execute the power of a citizen’s arrest.
This being said, we were able to identify a similar characteristic in both the civilian/citizen sphere and the corporate sphere when discussing citizen’s arrests. This characteristic can be identified as power, or for the concerns of this blog post: the possible abuse of power. For the civilian/citizen sphere, the right to place someone under citizen’s arrest exceeds the power that we typically possess from day to day. Though we all have access to this right, not many will utilize it in their lifetime. However, this right also poses the risk of creating a citizen whom executes this right on their fellow citizens overzealously. Even without the badge that marks a proper law official, they may feel it’s their civic duty to take on the role as a law enforcer. Or further, for some, they mind find this spike in power to be addictive.
I feel that the execution of a citizen’s arrest provides the civilian/citizen sphere as well as the corporate sphere much room for error, with little recourse. In this light, a citizen’s arrest can seem extremely risky when dealing with criminal crimes, especially felonious ones. Both spheres, ultimately allow for an individual to become power-hungry and pose the threat of producing overzealous citizens that mistake themselves for proper law enforcement.
An article that highlights an abuse of the citizen’s arrest in the civilian/citizen sphere was posted to the online Inquisitr on March 27, 2014. It would appear, that during a Law and Literature class at George Mason University in Arlington, an intruder attempted to place Professor Tyler Cowen under citizen’s arrest. The intruder pepper sprayed the Professor in the face, and tried to place him in handcuffs. Fortunately, a student who was also an off duty cop, assisted the Professor in restraining and detaining the intruder until cops could arrive in response to the assault. As of now, details regarding why the intruder tried to place the Professor under citizen’s arrest is still unclear. Some irony can be found in this article, due to the Law and Literature lecture material at the time of the attack. Given that the course was law based, Professor Cowen had recently been lecturing on vigilantism. Supposedly, this fooled many of the students into thinking that the attack may have been a planned hoax/example, which encouraged many to remain seated and calm.
I found that this article highlighted the possible abuse of power when executing a citizen’s arrest. Though the intruder’s motives are still unknown, the actions he took were clearly a violation of proper citizen’s arrest protocol. The intruder not only assaulted the Professor with pepper spray, he also interrupted the class, which indicates that he wasn’t presently witnessing a misdemeanor occur. Ironically, the situation wasn’t perceived as under control until an off duty cop assisted in restraining the intruder.
Source:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1190375/professor-pepper-sprayed-in-university-classroom-during-citizens-arrest/
As discussed in lecture, we are permitted to make a citizen’s arrest if we find ourselves in the presence/have knowledge of a committed crime. Professor Musheno helped outlined the difference when executing a citizen’s arrest for a misdemeanor situation versus that of a felony crime in his March 6th lecture. He conveyed, that in order to execute a citizen’s arrest for a misdemeanor crime, the crime would need to be committed in your presence. As for a felony crime, you would only need probable cause of that crime in order to make a citizen’s arrest. Further, Professor Musheno discussed how citizen’s arrests extend to the corporate sphere; he used Target as an example. We discussed how a corporation like Target, may find that they have employed an overzealous employee who executes citizen’s arrests too frequently. An example could be: An employee who places a customer under citizen’s arrest for opening a bag of chips while they finish up their shopping list. Even though many people are guilty of this crime, and typically the outcome ends with the purchase of the snack at the end of the shopping excursion, a corporation may experience an employee who seeks out these individuals to simply execute the power of a citizen’s arrest.
This being said, we were able to identify a similar characteristic in both the civilian/citizen sphere and the corporate sphere when discussing citizen’s arrests. This characteristic can be identified as power, or for the concerns of this blog post: the possible abuse of power. For the civilian/citizen sphere, the right to place someone under citizen’s arrest exceeds the power that we typically possess from day to day. Though we all have access to this right, not many will utilize it in their lifetime. However, this right also poses the risk of creating a citizen whom executes this right on their fellow citizens overzealously. Even without the badge that marks a proper law official, they may feel it’s their civic duty to take on the role as a law enforcer. Or further, for some, they mind find this spike in power to be addictive.
I feel that the execution of a citizen’s arrest provides the civilian/citizen sphere as well as the corporate sphere much room for error, with little recourse. In this light, a citizen’s arrest can seem extremely risky when dealing with criminal crimes, especially felonious ones. Both spheres, ultimately allow for an individual to become power-hungry and pose the threat of producing overzealous citizens that mistake themselves for proper law enforcement.
An article that highlights an abuse of the citizen’s arrest in the civilian/citizen sphere was posted to the online Inquisitr on March 27, 2014. It would appear, that during a Law and Literature class at George Mason University in Arlington, an intruder attempted to place Professor Tyler Cowen under citizen’s arrest. The intruder pepper sprayed the Professor in the face, and tried to place him in handcuffs. Fortunately, a student who was also an off duty cop, assisted the Professor in restraining and detaining the intruder until cops could arrive in response to the assault. As of now, details regarding why the intruder tried to place the Professor under citizen’s arrest is still unclear. Some irony can be found in this article, due to the Law and Literature lecture material at the time of the attack. Given that the course was law based, Professor Cowen had recently been lecturing on vigilantism. Supposedly, this fooled many of the students into thinking that the attack may have been a planned hoax/example, which encouraged many to remain seated and calm.
I found that this article highlighted the possible abuse of power when executing a citizen’s arrest. Though the intruder’s motives are still unknown, the actions he took were clearly a violation of proper citizen’s arrest protocol. The intruder not only assaulted the Professor with pepper spray, he also interrupted the class, which indicates that he wasn’t presently witnessing a misdemeanor occur. Ironically, the situation wasn’t perceived as under control until an off duty cop assisted in restraining the intruder.
Source:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1190375/professor-pepper-sprayed-in-university-classroom-during-citizens-arrest/
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Should private police forces hold power over non affiliated citizens?
- by BriAnne Lynn
The University of Chicago Police Department (UCPD) is a privately funded police department that has the full powers of a publicly funded force, and is one of the largest private police forces in the country. The UCPD covers an area of 6.5 square miles that house 65,000 people. A large portion of the 65,000 aren’t affiliated with the university, and yet they are still subject to being policed by the UCPD. Students are asking that the force become more transparent, with information available similar to the level that the Freedom of Information Act makes public police records available. This is due to past complaints of racial profiling from the UCPD. There have been cases where black students were specifically targeted over white students and where they were treated with excessive force and suspicion. Students are also asking for the formal police strategies of the UCPD to be made public, to determine what exactly the policing strategy is towards people of color, as well as making it easier to file a formal complaint. It is not legally necessary for this department to makes these changes, as they are a private police force, and therefore are not subject to the same rules as a public police force.
The most interesting thing about the UCPD is that they have the authority and jurisdiction to police members of the community who are not associated with the university. This goes to show the blurring of the lines between what is private space and what is public. If one is off campus, and not affiliated with the university in any way, is it reasonable to still be subject to their private police force? If the answer to that is yes, then to what extent can it be expected that that private police force’s information be made available in the same way public information is available, especially if the individual being policed is not a member of the private institution? In this case, it is a good thing that students are raising this issue, as it is something that should be addressed.
Going beyond this issue of the petition, we should question just what kind of powers the UCPD holds over private citizens. Is this police force regulated by the market much like corporate police forces are, or is it regulated by constitutional standards that the public police forces must hold to? It can be argued that all private police forces must be held accountable to Constitutional standards. I think this is especially important when the private police force is interacting with individuals not associated with their institution, such as a large portion of the population the UCPD polices. Unlike students or employees of the university, residents who just happen to reside in the UCPD jurisdiction can’t easily escape, and are therefore under the scrutiny of this private police force that does not have to take into account their constitutional rights. This is something that is deeply problematic, and needs to be addressed beyond the petition the students have issued.
Source:
http://hpherald.com/2014/03/12/students-seek-to-further-regulate-u-of-c-police/
The University of Chicago Police Department (UCPD) is a privately funded police department that has the full powers of a publicly funded force, and is one of the largest private police forces in the country. The UCPD covers an area of 6.5 square miles that house 65,000 people. A large portion of the 65,000 aren’t affiliated with the university, and yet they are still subject to being policed by the UCPD. Students are asking that the force become more transparent, with information available similar to the level that the Freedom of Information Act makes public police records available. This is due to past complaints of racial profiling from the UCPD. There have been cases where black students were specifically targeted over white students and where they were treated with excessive force and suspicion. Students are also asking for the formal police strategies of the UCPD to be made public, to determine what exactly the policing strategy is towards people of color, as well as making it easier to file a formal complaint. It is not legally necessary for this department to makes these changes, as they are a private police force, and therefore are not subject to the same rules as a public police force.
The most interesting thing about the UCPD is that they have the authority and jurisdiction to police members of the community who are not associated with the university. This goes to show the blurring of the lines between what is private space and what is public. If one is off campus, and not affiliated with the university in any way, is it reasonable to still be subject to their private police force? If the answer to that is yes, then to what extent can it be expected that that private police force’s information be made available in the same way public information is available, especially if the individual being policed is not a member of the private institution? In this case, it is a good thing that students are raising this issue, as it is something that should be addressed.
Going beyond this issue of the petition, we should question just what kind of powers the UCPD holds over private citizens. Is this police force regulated by the market much like corporate police forces are, or is it regulated by constitutional standards that the public police forces must hold to? It can be argued that all private police forces must be held accountable to Constitutional standards. I think this is especially important when the private police force is interacting with individuals not associated with their institution, such as a large portion of the population the UCPD polices. Unlike students or employees of the university, residents who just happen to reside in the UCPD jurisdiction can’t easily escape, and are therefore under the scrutiny of this private police force that does not have to take into account their constitutional rights. This is something that is deeply problematic, and needs to be addressed beyond the petition the students have issued.
Source:
http://hpherald.com/2014/03/12/students-seek-to-further-regulate-u-of-c-police/
Monday, March 17, 2014
Eroding distinction between public and private policing
- by Christine Prior
Historically, there has been little overlap between public and private law enforcement. We have discussed in lecture that private policing usually emerges to fill a gap left by public policing. But a new arrangement between Facebook and the Menlo Park Police Department blurs the line between public and private policing. Earlier this month, the Menlo Park City Council agreed to let Facebook fund a police officer located near Facebook headquarters. Facebook will spend $200,000/year to fund a Menlo Park police officer for three years, with the option of extending the agreement an additional two years. The officer would be stationed in a substation in the low-income neighborhood of Belle Haven. This new form of cooperation between public law enforcement and private corporations offers benefits to the police department and the community, but also raises questions of accountability and autonomy.
Supporters of the plan argue that plan would increase safety in the area. According to the agreement, the officer’s main duties would include focus on school safety, truancy, and corporate security. Facebook insists that it will not have any undue influence over the officer, or how he/she responds to calls. The officer would be a Menlo Park Police officer, not a Facebook employee, which hopefully will guarantee some degree of autonomy from Facebook. The City Council, not Facebook, has control over the hiring of the officer, which will most likely be an already experienced officer. This is a time when many police departments are forced to cut costs and manpower due to budget constraints. Proponent say that allowing Facebook to fund the officer will enable them to maintain a police presence in the area, which has a higher crime rate than the rest of Menlo Park.
Parts of the officer’s proposed duties reflect soft community policing. The officer would be embedded in the area so he/she would get to know local businessmen and the community. He would also work with local schools to coordinate safety plans and reduce truancy. Working with schools shows a more problem-solving orientation where the police discourage potential criminal behavior by ensuring kids stay in school. The officer would also be more readily available to the area than current responses if there were an emergency. If this can be achieved, Facebook should be thanked for funding the police and enabling them to better serve the community.
Despite the potential benefits, blurring the distinction between public police and private money raises significant concerns. The most pressing one is whether the source of the funding will affect the officer’s priorities. The officer may feel pressured, either overtly or subconsciously, to place Facebook’s security/policing concerns above those of the public. This is a major issue because as city employees, the police should be primarily beholden to the public’s interests. Money from a private corporation threatens the objectivity of the police. Even if it means only responding to a call from Facebook before one from a citizen, preferential treatment is a slippery slope. As the agreement is put into action, the police need to demonstrate that they are still accountable to the public first.
The only real way to judge the deal between Facebook and Menlo Park PD is to see it in action. If successful, it would allow the police to continue working with local schools and businesses in a low-income area with very little additional costs to taxpayers. However, there are also possible drawbacks regarding objectivity and accountability.
Source:
Historically, there has been little overlap between public and private law enforcement. We have discussed in lecture that private policing usually emerges to fill a gap left by public policing. But a new arrangement between Facebook and the Menlo Park Police Department blurs the line between public and private policing. Earlier this month, the Menlo Park City Council agreed to let Facebook fund a police officer located near Facebook headquarters. Facebook will spend $200,000/year to fund a Menlo Park police officer for three years, with the option of extending the agreement an additional two years. The officer would be stationed in a substation in the low-income neighborhood of Belle Haven. This new form of cooperation between public law enforcement and private corporations offers benefits to the police department and the community, but also raises questions of accountability and autonomy.
Supporters of the plan argue that plan would increase safety in the area. According to the agreement, the officer’s main duties would include focus on school safety, truancy, and corporate security. Facebook insists that it will not have any undue influence over the officer, or how he/she responds to calls. The officer would be a Menlo Park Police officer, not a Facebook employee, which hopefully will guarantee some degree of autonomy from Facebook. The City Council, not Facebook, has control over the hiring of the officer, which will most likely be an already experienced officer. This is a time when many police departments are forced to cut costs and manpower due to budget constraints. Proponent say that allowing Facebook to fund the officer will enable them to maintain a police presence in the area, which has a higher crime rate than the rest of Menlo Park.
Parts of the officer’s proposed duties reflect soft community policing. The officer would be embedded in the area so he/she would get to know local businessmen and the community. He would also work with local schools to coordinate safety plans and reduce truancy. Working with schools shows a more problem-solving orientation where the police discourage potential criminal behavior by ensuring kids stay in school. The officer would also be more readily available to the area than current responses if there were an emergency. If this can be achieved, Facebook should be thanked for funding the police and enabling them to better serve the community.
Despite the potential benefits, blurring the distinction between public police and private money raises significant concerns. The most pressing one is whether the source of the funding will affect the officer’s priorities. The officer may feel pressured, either overtly or subconsciously, to place Facebook’s security/policing concerns above those of the public. This is a major issue because as city employees, the police should be primarily beholden to the public’s interests. Money from a private corporation threatens the objectivity of the police. Even if it means only responding to a call from Facebook before one from a citizen, preferential treatment is a slippery slope. As the agreement is put into action, the police need to demonstrate that they are still accountable to the public first.
The only real way to judge the deal between Facebook and Menlo Park PD is to see it in action. If successful, it would allow the police to continue working with local schools and businesses in a low-income area with very little additional costs to taxpayers. However, there are also possible drawbacks regarding objectivity and accountability.
Source:
Private Policing in Oakland
- by Nolan Pack
The tension between public and private policing has been theme throughout the course. Last week, we discussed the legal foundations of the practice of private policing; namely, the legal concept of citizen arrests, which has been extended to corporations. While proponents of private policing argue that it’s more efficient (compared to the higher cost of public police officers), there are several critical concerns to consider. First, no Miranda rights are extended in private interrogations, and other hard-fought constitutional rights relating to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments don’t apply to private policing. Essentially, because of a lack of case law/precedent, private police operate in a legal grey area. Further, there is a lack of accountability in hiring and training private security officers, and there may be little recourse for issues of misconduct. Finally, private policing makes protection a commodity, meaning that those with more money are able to receive greater protection.
An excellent example of this subject, which we covered in the March 11 lecture, is the privatization of policing for wealthier neighborhoods right next door in Oakland. The two articles I reference in this post (links below) discuss the growing phenomenon of wealthier neighborhoods pooling resources to hire private security firms to patrol their neighborhoods. Residents of these neighborhoods, who have apparently experienced increased exposure to robberies/burglaries, feel that the response of the Oakland Police Department has been inadequate. Neither article describes any particular effort to engage the issue on a municipal level, so (based on the reporting by NPR and the Christian Science Monitor), it would seem that residents of the more affluent neighborhoods have taken the ineffectiveness of Oakland PD as a foregone conclusion.
Both articles cite dwindling revenue sources for cities as a primary cause of layoffs at local police departments. This may be presumptuous of me, but I’m fascinated by the idea that wealthier residents seem to have completely bypassed the idea of reinvesting in public law enforcement that would (in theory) serve the whole city, and have instead opted to “tax” themselves with voluntary fees to create a security force that’s unaccountable to the broader community and serves only those with enough money to spare.
The Christian Science Monitor also cites Detroit and Atlanta as places that, like Oakland, have wealthy neighborhoods that have turned to private policing. All three cities feature large proportions of people of color in their populations, struggle with poverty, and have more affluent pockets that can afford to hire private police.
The CSM article points out that some Oakland residents from other neighborhoods disagree with this approach, and that even some residents within the more affluent neighborhoods don’t feel represented by this decision. Dissenters agree that private security is “not a substitute for police” (Christian Science Monitor), highlighting skepticism toward the privatization of policing. In any case, the implications for equity are clear: wealthier residents who can afford added protection will have safer homes and neighborhoods, while the rest of the city continues to feel the impact of decreased investment in public services like police.
Christian Science Monitor
As cities lay off police, frustrated neighborhoods turn to private cops
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0405/As-cities-lay-off-police-frustrated-neighborhoods-turn-to-private-cops/(page)/2
NPR
With Robberies Up, Oakland Residents Turn To Private Cops
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/15/245213687/with-robberies-up-oakland-residents-turn-to-private-cops
The tension between public and private policing has been theme throughout the course. Last week, we discussed the legal foundations of the practice of private policing; namely, the legal concept of citizen arrests, which has been extended to corporations. While proponents of private policing argue that it’s more efficient (compared to the higher cost of public police officers), there are several critical concerns to consider. First, no Miranda rights are extended in private interrogations, and other hard-fought constitutional rights relating to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments don’t apply to private policing. Essentially, because of a lack of case law/precedent, private police operate in a legal grey area. Further, there is a lack of accountability in hiring and training private security officers, and there may be little recourse for issues of misconduct. Finally, private policing makes protection a commodity, meaning that those with more money are able to receive greater protection.
An excellent example of this subject, which we covered in the March 11 lecture, is the privatization of policing for wealthier neighborhoods right next door in Oakland. The two articles I reference in this post (links below) discuss the growing phenomenon of wealthier neighborhoods pooling resources to hire private security firms to patrol their neighborhoods. Residents of these neighborhoods, who have apparently experienced increased exposure to robberies/burglaries, feel that the response of the Oakland Police Department has been inadequate. Neither article describes any particular effort to engage the issue on a municipal level, so (based on the reporting by NPR and the Christian Science Monitor), it would seem that residents of the more affluent neighborhoods have taken the ineffectiveness of Oakland PD as a foregone conclusion.
Both articles cite dwindling revenue sources for cities as a primary cause of layoffs at local police departments. This may be presumptuous of me, but I’m fascinated by the idea that wealthier residents seem to have completely bypassed the idea of reinvesting in public law enforcement that would (in theory) serve the whole city, and have instead opted to “tax” themselves with voluntary fees to create a security force that’s unaccountable to the broader community and serves only those with enough money to spare.
The Christian Science Monitor also cites Detroit and Atlanta as places that, like Oakland, have wealthy neighborhoods that have turned to private policing. All three cities feature large proportions of people of color in their populations, struggle with poverty, and have more affluent pockets that can afford to hire private police.
The CSM article points out that some Oakland residents from other neighborhoods disagree with this approach, and that even some residents within the more affluent neighborhoods don’t feel represented by this decision. Dissenters agree that private security is “not a substitute for police” (Christian Science Monitor), highlighting skepticism toward the privatization of policing. In any case, the implications for equity are clear: wealthier residents who can afford added protection will have safer homes and neighborhoods, while the rest of the city continues to feel the impact of decreased investment in public services like police.
Christian Science Monitor
As cities lay off police, frustrated neighborhoods turn to private cops
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0405/As-cities-lay-off-police-frustrated-neighborhoods-turn-to-private-cops/(page)/2
NPR
With Robberies Up, Oakland Residents Turn To Private Cops
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/15/245213687/with-robberies-up-oakland-residents-turn-to-private-cops
Discretion and Discrimination
- by Madeleine McGlade
An important aspect of law enforcement in American society is the discretionary authority of police officers. The issue of racial profiling related to stop and frisk strategies highlights how subjective judgments can facilitate discriminatory legal practices.
The discretionary powers of police is an important theme of the book Cops, Teachers and Counsellors. Maynard-Moody and Musheno indicate that “procedures and laws” can be put into play to enforce judgments about citizens in “face-to-face encounters” (p. 93). These judgments are often derived from hierarchical social relations related to “race and class” (p. 8). The authors point to the “destructive” practice of “racial and ethnic profiling in police officers’ decisions” (p. 4). In contemporary American society, appearance, particularly skin color, “provides workers with quick composites for getting a fix on people encountered on the street” (p. 53). This highlights the problematic nature of discretionary legal authority, and how societal divisions and discriminatory values can seep into law enforcement.
Zimring sheds light on the detrimental repercussions of police discretionary power. He examines how ‘preventative policing’ tactics of the NYPD in the 1990s intended to “take control of potentially threatening situations by street stops of suspicious looking persons” by frisking after weapons/contraband and arresting for minor offenses (p. 118). Zimring asserts, “using a predicate offence as justification for selective enforcement” can become the “moral equivalent of racial profiling” (p. 119). Zimring points to the “punitive impact of the policy on dark-skinned persons on the streets of low income neighborhoods” (p. 119). Stop and frisk for minor offense arrests led to disproportionate involvement of racial minorities in the criminal justice system, with African Americans being arrested 7 times the rate of non-Hispanic whites. This demonstrates how stop and frisk tactics facilitate flexibility in police judgments and are thus open to discriminatory practices.
In the article Growing Up Policed in the Age of Aggressive Policing Strategies, the authors indicate that policing techniques of the 1990s rendered “vast amounts of people vulnerable to the criminal justice system”(p. 1334). Justifications for stops can include “nearly all minimal indications of criminal activity” such as living in high-crime areas and perceived suspicious behavior. The article discusses how the 1968 Terry v. Ohio ruling enabled police to stop and frisk without a warrant or “probable cause” if they have “reasonable suspicion” of criminal behavior (p. 1333). The term ‘reasonable suspicion’ exemplifies the discretionary authority bestowed to police officers. The authors assert, this decision “laid the groundwork for the legalization of racially biased policing” (p. 1335). Although officers may not be intentionally biased, structural discrimination can persist such as “patrolling differently in high-crime neighborhoods” which can “place a disparate burden on minorities” (p. 1147). This elucidates the inequality of surveillance. Some individuals and communities are disproportionately affected by police surveillance, reinforcing embedded societal power dynamics, such as inequalities of class and race. As highlighted by Musheno, it is frequently those on the lower rungs of society who are subjected to the harshest forms of surveillance.
The 2009 shooting of Oscar Grant by BART Police officer in Oakland epitomizes how discriminatory policing persists. Judge Mrgui at the appeals court stated that when "Pirone (the lead officer) encountered a group of black men" at Fruitvale Station, they “posed no threat that would justify his pulling a weapon and holding them” (SF Gate). While highlighting the issue of racial profiling, this case simultaneously points to the question of the legitimacy of public law enforcement. Footage of the shooting captured on bystanders phones went viral and sparked months of protests in and around Oakland. The legitimacy of law enforcement hinges upon the extent of perceived coercive and discriminatory behavior. The police actions in this case underline how aggressive tactics can subvert law enforcement legitimacy and perpetuate racial inequality.
Bibliography
Maynard-Moody, S & Musheno, M 2003, Cops, teachers, counselors: stories from the front lines of public service, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Stoudt, B, Fine, M & Fox, M 2012, ‘Growing up policed in the age of aggressive policing’, New York Law School Law Review, vol. 56, pp. 1331-1370.
Zimring, F 2012, ‘Policing in New York City’, in The city that became safe, Oxford University Press, pp. 100-150.
Bob Egelko, 2013, ‘Blame in Oscar Grant BART Death May Shift’, SF Gate, 7 August,
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Blame-in-Oscar-Grant-BART-death-may-shift-4713100.php
An important aspect of law enforcement in American society is the discretionary authority of police officers. The issue of racial profiling related to stop and frisk strategies highlights how subjective judgments can facilitate discriminatory legal practices.
The discretionary powers of police is an important theme of the book Cops, Teachers and Counsellors. Maynard-Moody and Musheno indicate that “procedures and laws” can be put into play to enforce judgments about citizens in “face-to-face encounters” (p. 93). These judgments are often derived from hierarchical social relations related to “race and class” (p. 8). The authors point to the “destructive” practice of “racial and ethnic profiling in police officers’ decisions” (p. 4). In contemporary American society, appearance, particularly skin color, “provides workers with quick composites for getting a fix on people encountered on the street” (p. 53). This highlights the problematic nature of discretionary legal authority, and how societal divisions and discriminatory values can seep into law enforcement.
Zimring sheds light on the detrimental repercussions of police discretionary power. He examines how ‘preventative policing’ tactics of the NYPD in the 1990s intended to “take control of potentially threatening situations by street stops of suspicious looking persons” by frisking after weapons/contraband and arresting for minor offenses (p. 118). Zimring asserts, “using a predicate offence as justification for selective enforcement” can become the “moral equivalent of racial profiling” (p. 119). Zimring points to the “punitive impact of the policy on dark-skinned persons on the streets of low income neighborhoods” (p. 119). Stop and frisk for minor offense arrests led to disproportionate involvement of racial minorities in the criminal justice system, with African Americans being arrested 7 times the rate of non-Hispanic whites. This demonstrates how stop and frisk tactics facilitate flexibility in police judgments and are thus open to discriminatory practices.
In the article Growing Up Policed in the Age of Aggressive Policing Strategies, the authors indicate that policing techniques of the 1990s rendered “vast amounts of people vulnerable to the criminal justice system”(p. 1334). Justifications for stops can include “nearly all minimal indications of criminal activity” such as living in high-crime areas and perceived suspicious behavior. The article discusses how the 1968 Terry v. Ohio ruling enabled police to stop and frisk without a warrant or “probable cause” if they have “reasonable suspicion” of criminal behavior (p. 1333). The term ‘reasonable suspicion’ exemplifies the discretionary authority bestowed to police officers. The authors assert, this decision “laid the groundwork for the legalization of racially biased policing” (p. 1335). Although officers may not be intentionally biased, structural discrimination can persist such as “patrolling differently in high-crime neighborhoods” which can “place a disparate burden on minorities” (p. 1147). This elucidates the inequality of surveillance. Some individuals and communities are disproportionately affected by police surveillance, reinforcing embedded societal power dynamics, such as inequalities of class and race. As highlighted by Musheno, it is frequently those on the lower rungs of society who are subjected to the harshest forms of surveillance.
The 2009 shooting of Oscar Grant by BART Police officer in Oakland epitomizes how discriminatory policing persists. Judge Mrgui at the appeals court stated that when "Pirone (the lead officer) encountered a group of black men" at Fruitvale Station, they “posed no threat that would justify his pulling a weapon and holding them” (SF Gate). While highlighting the issue of racial profiling, this case simultaneously points to the question of the legitimacy of public law enforcement. Footage of the shooting captured on bystanders phones went viral and sparked months of protests in and around Oakland. The legitimacy of law enforcement hinges upon the extent of perceived coercive and discriminatory behavior. The police actions in this case underline how aggressive tactics can subvert law enforcement legitimacy and perpetuate racial inequality.
Bibliography
Maynard-Moody, S & Musheno, M 2003, Cops, teachers, counselors: stories from the front lines of public service, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Stoudt, B, Fine, M & Fox, M 2012, ‘Growing up policed in the age of aggressive policing’, New York Law School Law Review, vol. 56, pp. 1331-1370.
Zimring, F 2012, ‘Policing in New York City’, in The city that became safe, Oxford University Press, pp. 100-150.
Bob Egelko, 2013, ‘Blame in Oscar Grant BART Death May Shift’, SF Gate, 7 August,
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Blame-in-Oscar-Grant-BART-death-may-shift-4713100.php
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Gang Injunctions: Make The Neighborhood Safe or Unsafe?
- by Vanessa Escorpiso
For these past few days, our lecture has been concentrated with public law enforcement and its efficacy. One of the highlighted topics was focused on gang injunction, which is defined as a restraining order against a group. According to Professor Musheno, injunction’s main purpose is to improve life and make environment a safer place to live. This statement is also supported in the website of The Los Angeles Police Department that “Injunctions can address the neighborhood’s gang problem before it reaches the level of felony crime activity.” Indeed, gang injunction has developed from the broken window theory that allows law enforcement agency to stop an unlawful act from happening and being caught. There were evidences that this injunction has reduced crime and improved the quality of life.
It has been evident that gang injunction has failed to achieve its expected results. Instead of maintaining a peace and legitimate order within the community, I believe that gang injunction has encouraged targeted groups to continue conducting criminal activity. In the article “Gang Member Suspected in Girl Scout Cookie-Cash Heist Arrested,” Susan Shroder reported the identified suspect has already received warrant of arrest for unrelated cases and was booked into jail for violating a court gang injunction. If this person was under injunction order, he should be strictly monitored by the assigned police officer. The article did not mention whether the Girl Scout cookie sale was conducted outside the safety zone. If it in fact happened outside the safety zone, this just proves that gang injunction does not really suppress crimes, but it just relocate the possible settings of the possible gang related criminal activity.
Further, the tactics used to implement this injunction has been poorly exercised which has led to community resistance against discriminatory acts of injunction. This is why Professor Musheno made great emphasis on the reasons why gang injunction should matter. He questioned the credibility of those police officers who submit and declare names of alleged gang members. Professor Musheno made us think whether these law enforcement officers really caught the right individuals. In the article “Gang Injunction Granted in Echo Park,” Hailey Branson-Potts mentions how Los Angeles police gang experts are authorize to submit a proof, that the person is an active gang member, to the city attorney’s office “…before penalizing the person under injunction.” Despite the proof or substantial evidence that police gang experts may provide, I believe that there’s still a room for maneuvering or exaggerating the evidence. Their proofs can be accurate, but what if the evidences were already outdated? That is why some residents are very skeptic about gang injunction due to the fact that once a former gang member is written on the list, it would never be removed, no matter how they change for the better or consistently prevent themselves from being involved in gang troubles. Indeed, gang injunction is in itself a discriminatory way of policing because it only targeted gang or gang members. How about those independent individuals who never been part of the gang, but very passionate of conducting crimes? Furthermore, gang injunction is not exempted from the possibility of monitoring innocent individuals. Gang injunctions are like death penalty where innocents could be executed or life imprisonment where guilt-free people were pronounced guilty and sent to prison. The presence of injustice would truly encourage community resistance, just like the image below which I got from The Eastsider LA website.
Instead of making all corners of neighborhood become accessible, gang injunction has caused communities to become divided. Injunction has categorized neighborhoods into two distinctions: special event safety zone or gang injunction zone. These two categories are expected to impact the price ranges of houses that fall into those two zones. According to Nick Welsh in his article titled “Realtors Oppose Gang Injunction,” Welsh asserted that “…real estate agents would feel compelled to disclose if properties fall within the safety zones…and that could have a deleterious effect on sales.” If the price of house will arise due to gang injunctions, low-income families will no longer afford those houses. They are more likely placed on gang injunction zones where most houses are under the range of their income. Consequently, the change in house market’s price encourages neighborhood to be divided by income and affordability of houses which could result to gentrification. Instead of protecting all the members of the community, only those who can afford to buy house in safety zones are all protected from gang criminal activity. There is the notion of exclusivity and public exclusion as Professor Musheno mentioned during class lectures. Further, separation of neighborhoods may not be an expected result, but I strongly believe that these two proposed zones will definitely caused neighborhoods to be dichotomized and will eventually create tensions and distress.
In conclusion, gang injunction is just an ineffective form of professional and community policing. Indeed, it only produces more dilemmas in most neighborhoods. Despite the good intent and authoritative objectives, I believe that injunctions’ flaws are greater than its positive implications. Who does not want to live in a safer place and crime-free neighborhood? I don’t know if gang injunction is the right path for having a perfect neighborhood.
Bibliography
The Eastsider LA. “Echo Park Gang Injunction Meets With a Sign of Resistance.”Photographed. The Eastsider. http://www.theeastsiderla.com/2014/02/echo-park-gang-injunction-meets-with-a-sign-of-resistance/ (accessed on Mar 2, 2014).
Branson-Potts, Hailey. “Gang Injunction Granted in Echo Park.” Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gang-injunction-granted-in-echo-park-20130926,0,7807855.story#axzz2uyj1hY6F (accessed on Mar 2, 2014).
Los Angeles Police Department. “About Gang Injunction.” Los Angeles Police Foundation. http://www.lapdonline.org/gang_injunctions/content_basic_view/23424 (accessed on Mar 2, 2014).
Musheno, Michael. “Why Law Enforcement Agencies and Personnel Do What They Do.” Lecture notes, Feb 25-27, 2014.
Shroder, Susan. “Gang Member Suspected in Girl Scout Cookie-Cash Heist Arrested.” U-T San Diego. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Feb/28/escondido-girl-scouts-jar-stolen-gang-arrested/ (accessed on Mar 2, 2014).
Welsh, Nick. “Realtors Oppose Gang Injunction.” Santa Barbara Independent. http://www.independent.com/news/2014/feb/27/realtors-oppose-gang-injunction/ (accessed on Mar 2m 2014).
For these past few days, our lecture has been concentrated with public law enforcement and its efficacy. One of the highlighted topics was focused on gang injunction, which is defined as a restraining order against a group. According to Professor Musheno, injunction’s main purpose is to improve life and make environment a safer place to live. This statement is also supported in the website of The Los Angeles Police Department that “Injunctions can address the neighborhood’s gang problem before it reaches the level of felony crime activity.” Indeed, gang injunction has developed from the broken window theory that allows law enforcement agency to stop an unlawful act from happening and being caught. There were evidences that this injunction has reduced crime and improved the quality of life.
It has been evident that gang injunction has failed to achieve its expected results. Instead of maintaining a peace and legitimate order within the community, I believe that gang injunction has encouraged targeted groups to continue conducting criminal activity. In the article “Gang Member Suspected in Girl Scout Cookie-Cash Heist Arrested,” Susan Shroder reported the identified suspect has already received warrant of arrest for unrelated cases and was booked into jail for violating a court gang injunction. If this person was under injunction order, he should be strictly monitored by the assigned police officer. The article did not mention whether the Girl Scout cookie sale was conducted outside the safety zone. If it in fact happened outside the safety zone, this just proves that gang injunction does not really suppress crimes, but it just relocate the possible settings of the possible gang related criminal activity.
Further, the tactics used to implement this injunction has been poorly exercised which has led to community resistance against discriminatory acts of injunction. This is why Professor Musheno made great emphasis on the reasons why gang injunction should matter. He questioned the credibility of those police officers who submit and declare names of alleged gang members. Professor Musheno made us think whether these law enforcement officers really caught the right individuals. In the article “Gang Injunction Granted in Echo Park,” Hailey Branson-Potts mentions how Los Angeles police gang experts are authorize to submit a proof, that the person is an active gang member, to the city attorney’s office “…before penalizing the person under injunction.” Despite the proof or substantial evidence that police gang experts may provide, I believe that there’s still a room for maneuvering or exaggerating the evidence. Their proofs can be accurate, but what if the evidences were already outdated? That is why some residents are very skeptic about gang injunction due to the fact that once a former gang member is written on the list, it would never be removed, no matter how they change for the better or consistently prevent themselves from being involved in gang troubles. Indeed, gang injunction is in itself a discriminatory way of policing because it only targeted gang or gang members. How about those independent individuals who never been part of the gang, but very passionate of conducting crimes? Furthermore, gang injunction is not exempted from the possibility of monitoring innocent individuals. Gang injunctions are like death penalty where innocents could be executed or life imprisonment where guilt-free people were pronounced guilty and sent to prison. The presence of injustice would truly encourage community resistance, just like the image below which I got from The Eastsider LA website.
Instead of making all corners of neighborhood become accessible, gang injunction has caused communities to become divided. Injunction has categorized neighborhoods into two distinctions: special event safety zone or gang injunction zone. These two categories are expected to impact the price ranges of houses that fall into those two zones. According to Nick Welsh in his article titled “Realtors Oppose Gang Injunction,” Welsh asserted that “…real estate agents would feel compelled to disclose if properties fall within the safety zones…and that could have a deleterious effect on sales.” If the price of house will arise due to gang injunctions, low-income families will no longer afford those houses. They are more likely placed on gang injunction zones where most houses are under the range of their income. Consequently, the change in house market’s price encourages neighborhood to be divided by income and affordability of houses which could result to gentrification. Instead of protecting all the members of the community, only those who can afford to buy house in safety zones are all protected from gang criminal activity. There is the notion of exclusivity and public exclusion as Professor Musheno mentioned during class lectures. Further, separation of neighborhoods may not be an expected result, but I strongly believe that these two proposed zones will definitely caused neighborhoods to be dichotomized and will eventually create tensions and distress.
In conclusion, gang injunction is just an ineffective form of professional and community policing. Indeed, it only produces more dilemmas in most neighborhoods. Despite the good intent and authoritative objectives, I believe that injunctions’ flaws are greater than its positive implications. Who does not want to live in a safer place and crime-free neighborhood? I don’t know if gang injunction is the right path for having a perfect neighborhood.
Bibliography
The Eastsider LA. “Echo Park Gang Injunction Meets With a Sign of Resistance.”Photographed. The Eastsider. http://www.theeastsiderla.com/2014/02/echo-park-gang-injunction-meets-with-a-sign-of-resistance/ (accessed on Mar 2, 2014).
Branson-Potts, Hailey. “Gang Injunction Granted in Echo Park.” Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gang-injunction-granted-in-echo-park-20130926,0,7807855.story#axzz2uyj1hY6F (accessed on Mar 2, 2014).
Los Angeles Police Department. “About Gang Injunction.” Los Angeles Police Foundation. http://www.lapdonline.org/gang_injunctions/content_basic_view/23424 (accessed on Mar 2, 2014).
Musheno, Michael. “Why Law Enforcement Agencies and Personnel Do What They Do.” Lecture notes, Feb 25-27, 2014.
Shroder, Susan. “Gang Member Suspected in Girl Scout Cookie-Cash Heist Arrested.” U-T San Diego. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Feb/28/escondido-girl-scouts-jar-stolen-gang-arrested/ (accessed on Mar 2, 2014).
Welsh, Nick. “Realtors Oppose Gang Injunction.” Santa Barbara Independent. http://www.independent.com/news/2014/feb/27/realtors-oppose-gang-injunction/ (accessed on Mar 2m 2014).
Monday, March 3, 2014
Gang Injunction Resistance
- by Christian-Sean Monteclaro
Last week in lecture we discussed the concept of hybrid law enforcement practices. Hybrid practices came about to combine different tactics of styles of policing in order to form its legitimacy with the people. Examples of hybrid law enforcement practices are lever pulling or ceasefire, which is a hybrid of problem solving and professional policing tactics, and gang injunctions, which is a hybrid of hard and soft brands of community policing. Unfortunately, creating legitimacy for these practices within a community is not always the case. For example, there has been resistance for gang injunctions in the city of Santa Barbara, California. An article from The Santa Barbara Independent explains the reluctance of imposing gang injunctions in the city by realtors and city council members. The main argument is that the gang injunctions would create a “stigma” on large portions of the city designated as “safety zones.” It is because of this stigma that would create the prices of homes in the area of the injunction to fall, which is not good business for anyone. The article states that the injunctions would cover about 30% of the entire city’s area. The realtors all support the reduction of gang crime and violence; however, they believe there is a more effective way to do this. They suggest that the police have ‘other tools at their disposal to deal with gang violence.’
Similar issues of legitimacy were raised when we discussed the gang injunctions imposed in the city of Oakland. The gang injunctions had only minimal effectiveness in reducing crime, which is why the realtors of Santa Barbara question its legitimacy and are looking for other ways to decrease gang crimes. In Oakland, the short term effects did show less visible gang activity with its citizens being less intimidated in the streets. However, in the long run what actually was happening was that gang violence just displaced. It really was not significantly reduced, just moved. Gangs just continued their activities somewhere else or were just more careful to not get caught. This ended up in no real qualitative improvements. The conditions of the Oakland neighborhood did not really change. This is a huge concern for the citizens of Santa Barbara. By creating gang injunctions, the police would have more power and ‘with a “special events provision” that would expand the scope of the protected zones to include much of Shoreline Park and the Mesa during such events as Fiesta and the Fourth of July.’ However, the question is whether or not giving the police these powers is legitimate and really worth it if the results are minimal at best. Injunctions could be hurting the community and lowering its value instead of increasing it. This article is a great example of the continued resistance and counter-resistance of post-industrial cities, gentrification, and the production of “community” order.
Source:
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/feb/27/realtors-oppose-gang-injunction/
LAPD: Known for Being Corrupt and Brutal?
- by Brenda Lee
On March 17, 2013 two Korean LAPD officers arrested Kim Nguyen for public intoxication. On the way to jail, Kim allegedly jumped or fell out of the car and suffered horrendous physical injuries with severe bruises on her face, shattered jaws, and broken teeth. Fortunately, Kim survived and filed a lawsuit against the officers for sexual assault, but the LAPD concluded that Kim had attempted to open the door while handcuffed, and the officers were only charged for negligence for not using the special locks when transporting a suspect. Furthermore, it was difficult to determine whether the damages such as bruises on the thighs and broken bra straps were from the fall or from attempted sexual assault, especially since Kim had no memory of the incident. Currently, the two officers part of this incident are not taken off the field and continue to patrol Koreatown. This tragic story of Kim is one of countless incidents where LAPD officers themselves commit crimes, killing or injuring law-abiding citizens, since officers have too much freedom when patrolling the streets. Whether the police departments implement professional policing or predictive policing, police officers tend to not follow through with the given tactics and strategies, but will abuse their authority.
Koreatown is a densely populated neighborhood surrounded by Downtown Los Angeles to the east, Beverly Hills and West LA, and Hollywood to the north. Koreatown is one of LA’s tourist attractions, with thousands of visitors coming to experience shopping, food and culture, and the dynamic nightlife. However, Koreatown experiences about 9.3 violent crimes and 32.3 property crimes per week. To combat such incidents, LAPD has been engaging in harsh policing strategies, arresting anyone that appears suspicious but ‘below’ reasonable doubt, and shooting suspects even when officers do not experience threat. In fact, LAPD, specifically the Koreatown division, is known for having the most corrupt and racist officers who practice police brutality.
Although incidents such as Kim’s accident is rare, there are many episodes where LAPD officers have killed suspects through open fire and are cleared of their wrongdoings. There were also at least three lawsuits of sexual allegations against LAPD officers in 2013. LAPD further engages in predictive policing, using software to find ‘hotspots’ to anticipate where crimes are likely to happen. From my perspective, the use of advanced technology is a valuable tool to fight crime, but police officers should keep in mind citizens’ legal rights and not stop and frisk without reasonable suspicion and not arrest without probable cause. However, having information that a crime is likely to happen at some specific time and location may bias officers to see a non-suspicious activity as suspicious, which has been the case when officers opened fire and killed innocent civilians.
The concern is that although predictive policing strategies and tactics are in place, officers do not follow the law-on-the-books. In reality, officers engage in whatever measures to prevent crime and have a lot of freedom when patrolling the streets, which them to arrest Kim even when she caused no harm. In addition, LAPD officers engage in racial discrimination by targeting Latinos for questioning when found walking around the streets at night. In neighborhoods like Koreatown where most crimes arise from the tension between Asians and Latinos and the division between the working force and business owners, the police should focus their efforts in proactive crime control, and correctly implement the tactics of predictive policing. As in Kim’s case, claim of ‘public intoxication’ is unreasonable, and we wonder whether LAPD officers are correctly fulfilling their duties.
Sources:
http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/neighborhood/koreatown/crime/
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/02/local/la-me-ln-handcuffed-woman-falls-lapd-patrol-car-20130902
http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201309061630/b
On March 17, 2013 two Korean LAPD officers arrested Kim Nguyen for public intoxication. On the way to jail, Kim allegedly jumped or fell out of the car and suffered horrendous physical injuries with severe bruises on her face, shattered jaws, and broken teeth. Fortunately, Kim survived and filed a lawsuit against the officers for sexual assault, but the LAPD concluded that Kim had attempted to open the door while handcuffed, and the officers were only charged for negligence for not using the special locks when transporting a suspect. Furthermore, it was difficult to determine whether the damages such as bruises on the thighs and broken bra straps were from the fall or from attempted sexual assault, especially since Kim had no memory of the incident. Currently, the two officers part of this incident are not taken off the field and continue to patrol Koreatown. This tragic story of Kim is one of countless incidents where LAPD officers themselves commit crimes, killing or injuring law-abiding citizens, since officers have too much freedom when patrolling the streets. Whether the police departments implement professional policing or predictive policing, police officers tend to not follow through with the given tactics and strategies, but will abuse their authority.
Koreatown is a densely populated neighborhood surrounded by Downtown Los Angeles to the east, Beverly Hills and West LA, and Hollywood to the north. Koreatown is one of LA’s tourist attractions, with thousands of visitors coming to experience shopping, food and culture, and the dynamic nightlife. However, Koreatown experiences about 9.3 violent crimes and 32.3 property crimes per week. To combat such incidents, LAPD has been engaging in harsh policing strategies, arresting anyone that appears suspicious but ‘below’ reasonable doubt, and shooting suspects even when officers do not experience threat. In fact, LAPD, specifically the Koreatown division, is known for having the most corrupt and racist officers who practice police brutality.
Although incidents such as Kim’s accident is rare, there are many episodes where LAPD officers have killed suspects through open fire and are cleared of their wrongdoings. There were also at least three lawsuits of sexual allegations against LAPD officers in 2013. LAPD further engages in predictive policing, using software to find ‘hotspots’ to anticipate where crimes are likely to happen. From my perspective, the use of advanced technology is a valuable tool to fight crime, but police officers should keep in mind citizens’ legal rights and not stop and frisk without reasonable suspicion and not arrest without probable cause. However, having information that a crime is likely to happen at some specific time and location may bias officers to see a non-suspicious activity as suspicious, which has been the case when officers opened fire and killed innocent civilians.
The concern is that although predictive policing strategies and tactics are in place, officers do not follow the law-on-the-books. In reality, officers engage in whatever measures to prevent crime and have a lot of freedom when patrolling the streets, which them to arrest Kim even when she caused no harm. In addition, LAPD officers engage in racial discrimination by targeting Latinos for questioning when found walking around the streets at night. In neighborhoods like Koreatown where most crimes arise from the tension between Asians and Latinos and the division between the working force and business owners, the police should focus their efforts in proactive crime control, and correctly implement the tactics of predictive policing. As in Kim’s case, claim of ‘public intoxication’ is unreasonable, and we wonder whether LAPD officers are correctly fulfilling their duties.
Sources:
http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/neighborhood/koreatown/crime/
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/02/local/la-me-ln-handcuffed-woman-falls-lapd-patrol-car-20130902
http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201309061630/b
When Community Policing Becomes Private: Gentrification and Privatization of Safety
- by Sureyma Gonzalez Rios
It is well known that Oakland, California, a historically Black city, has changed throughout the years. What used to be a city made up of a 50% Black population, has now dropped to 28% over the last ten years. I know. Being a native I have witnessed it. Who would have thought that with the influx of new professionals, young families and well off hipsters from the suburbs, would ever step in the streets of the city with the “highest robbery rate in the nation”(Color Lines). It is enticing, chic and edgy to be surrounded by this. But this excitement is soon replaced by fear and the need to bring order and safety to these individuals who come from a place where they were surrounded by order and safety.
Not only is gentrification taking place, but these new residents have now experienced some of Oakland’s notorious crimes. Such crimes include what is called, the “casual car pool” robbery--in which individuals in cars cruise, stop the car, rob an individual and get back on to drive away (Color Lines). These events have pushed the new residents to organize a system of private policing. It is interesting that as a community, members have come together to talk about the issue that they face to come up with a solution that they know which is to hire private policing.
Private policing is an expensive private security that patrols and polices neighborhoods. The only individuals that are able to afford it are the well off new residents flowing in. Many have mentioned that another reason for acquiring private security is due to the, “short[age] of police staffing”.It is true; for the numbers for the numbers of police have gone down from 835 to 611 in the last five years (Color Lines).
The counter argument made from older residents who know the city’s original ethnic demographics and culture, state that private policing actually implements segregation, militarization of the neighborhood and racial profiling on the youth of color. Not only are schools in Oakland segregated by different Socioeconomic statuses and neighborhoods, but the implementation of private policing in neighborhoods will only increase segregation in larger public areas of the city, such as certain neighborhoods, parks, etc. This also militarizes certain neighborhoods: one will be unable to walk freely without being policed, or questioned of their motive of being in a certain place. And lastly, the bigger issue on this is the racial profiling that the private policing induces. Many young people of color who are from low-income neighborhoods travel to better parts of the city to obtain a better education, and they are at a very high risk of being profiled and suspected of wrong doing.(Color Lines)
With a change of the population in Oakland, a culture of fear and discrimination develops. This new culture of fear affects the new residents’ view of Oakland and its former residents. This makes them take actions to take care of the crimes that occur, which stresses them to take action such as hiring private security to police their streets—stimulating their conquering mentality that creates distinction and separation between class, race and color lines.
Source:
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/11/oakland_private_security_patrols.html
It is well known that Oakland, California, a historically Black city, has changed throughout the years. What used to be a city made up of a 50% Black population, has now dropped to 28% over the last ten years. I know. Being a native I have witnessed it. Who would have thought that with the influx of new professionals, young families and well off hipsters from the suburbs, would ever step in the streets of the city with the “highest robbery rate in the nation”(Color Lines). It is enticing, chic and edgy to be surrounded by this. But this excitement is soon replaced by fear and the need to bring order and safety to these individuals who come from a place where they were surrounded by order and safety.
Not only is gentrification taking place, but these new residents have now experienced some of Oakland’s notorious crimes. Such crimes include what is called, the “casual car pool” robbery--in which individuals in cars cruise, stop the car, rob an individual and get back on to drive away (Color Lines). These events have pushed the new residents to organize a system of private policing. It is interesting that as a community, members have come together to talk about the issue that they face to come up with a solution that they know which is to hire private policing.
Private policing is an expensive private security that patrols and polices neighborhoods. The only individuals that are able to afford it are the well off new residents flowing in. Many have mentioned that another reason for acquiring private security is due to the, “short[age] of police staffing”.It is true; for the numbers for the numbers of police have gone down from 835 to 611 in the last five years (Color Lines).
The counter argument made from older residents who know the city’s original ethnic demographics and culture, state that private policing actually implements segregation, militarization of the neighborhood and racial profiling on the youth of color. Not only are schools in Oakland segregated by different Socioeconomic statuses and neighborhoods, but the implementation of private policing in neighborhoods will only increase segregation in larger public areas of the city, such as certain neighborhoods, parks, etc. This also militarizes certain neighborhoods: one will be unable to walk freely without being policed, or questioned of their motive of being in a certain place. And lastly, the bigger issue on this is the racial profiling that the private policing induces. Many young people of color who are from low-income neighborhoods travel to better parts of the city to obtain a better education, and they are at a very high risk of being profiled and suspected of wrong doing.(Color Lines)
With a change of the population in Oakland, a culture of fear and discrimination develops. This new culture of fear affects the new residents’ view of Oakland and its former residents. This makes them take actions to take care of the crimes that occur, which stresses them to take action such as hiring private security to police their streets—stimulating their conquering mentality that creates distinction and separation between class, race and color lines.
Source:
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/11/oakland_private_security_patrols.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)