There are a couple things that I've found particularly irksome in the discussion around police reform. Well, there are many, but there are two main ideas I'd like to talk about.
The first is one that has existed since long before this George Floyd business, and even predates Black Lives Matter. I believe I first noticed it--or at least I remember first being irritated by it--in a book by Malcolm Gladwell called Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. Prior to that, I had developed a very favorable opinion of Gladwell when I read Outliers: The Story of Success. I thought him to be a wise and insightful man, able to probe past our usual, lazy assumptions and find answers in previously unexamined connections.
(Outline) point 1: Gladwell seemed to think cops should have superhuman powers of perception, judgement, and speed. I find it to be a common belief that police officers, because of the training they go through, possess abilities and traits not found among mere mortals. Paradoxically, this belief is often made by the same people who decry police training as being inadequate, and the officers themselves as dullards and bullies who couldn't qualify for any other job. [Schoedinger's cop: simultaneously superhuman and an incompetent loser]
2. Perhaps because liberals (because--let's face it--that's who's leveling these criticisms) look at police officers as being intellectually and socially inferior to them, there's a tendency for those demanding reforms to engage in a bit of Dunning-Kruger miscalculation of their own ability to make useful recommendations.
An example of this is the widespread suggestion that there be a civilian review board to investigate alleged police misconduct, and that the members of this board be chosen by popular election. As far as I've heard, that's the only qualification required--simply to be voted in.
Suppose we used the same approach in investigating alleged bad practices in the work of surgeons, civil engineers, and airline pilots. Kevin the cashier and Tasha the daycare provider will determine whether Dr. Osaka made the most appropriate choice in deciding which surgical technique to use for a given patient's condition, just because they got the most votes.
I'm not saying that Dr. Osaka shouldn't have any oversight. I'm saying that the overseers should be qualified. At a bare minimum, they should know as much about the situation as Osaka does. Preferably, they should know much more. They should be experts among experts.
Presently, in cases of alleged police brutality, that's how it's done. Initially, it's looked into by the officer's own supervisors. If that's not sufficient, it goes to an Internal Affairs investigation, or perhaps investigation by an outside agency. Evidence is examined--video, witness statements, injuries to the victim, the officer's testimony, etc. State and federal law are consulted, as well as department policies and procedures. Lawyers--people who know a hell of a lot more about the law than a cop does--will be involved. If it goes to trial, a judge--or a jury guided by a judge--will make the decision after hearing expert testimony from the people who train the police, so that there can be no question whether the officer did what he was supposed to do or whether he went outside his prescribed procedures.
The problem is that after a thorough examination of all the evidence, it's usually discovered that the officer acted correctly. That doesn't sit well with Kevin and Tasha, who, based on a media story and a gut reaction, decided that the officer was guilty. They wanted to see him lynched. They wanted blood, and when they don't get it, they declare that the whole legal system is corrupt and covering up for the police.
The situation we have now is that some public officials are more worried about re-election than justice, so they want to appease Kevin and Tasha by offering up the accused officer as a sacrificial lamb.
No comments:
Post a Comment