Skip to main content

Transparency needed in investigations of police

I have not sat on a grand jury any time in my life. I am disinclined, having not pored through records, nor listened to dozens of witnesses, to second-guess the difficult decisions these jurors have had to make.

HOWEVER. There is a clear problem of trust going on, and it stems from a couple different sources.

1) Grand Juries are usually secret. There are good reasons for this. Simply investigating whether a crime might have occurred, which is what Grand Juries do, collects a lot of evidence which could put people's lives at risk, or could be embarrassing. You want folks to feel free to talk. And you don't want the person being investigated to get unduly smeared.

However, the flip side of secrecy is that the lack of transparency can lead to a loss of trust. Clearly, in the two incidents discussed recently, many people who have no idea what went on in the GJ's or what evidence was presented, know, they just KNOW, an injustice was committed! And, because they have no opportunity to see the evidence, well, they are prevented from seeing anything that might change their mind.

The purpose of a Grand Jury is not to rubber-stamp a prosecutor's decision. If Grand Juries virtually always return an indictment, there are several possible explanations. a) Prosecutors don't submit to a GJ unless they think they can get an indictment. b) GJs actually do just rubber-stamp indictments. In the two recent cases of police under scrutiny by a GJ, it was political pressure that got the cases even that far - these cases were pro-forma the other way, almost stunts, to try to placate the public, but were done knowing there probably was not enough evidence to get an indictment. The final possibility is that everyone who sits on a GJ loves loves loves cops. This seems unlikely. It might also be that incidents involving officers are much more thoroughly investigated, and that officers generally act with restraint - it's hard to get indictments because they did not act wrongly.

But again, the general public has no idea what's going on. With basically all GJ proceedings secret, all the public has to judge on is the statistics: few police are indicted, almost everyone else is.

Since no information is available, the general public has no basis on which to decide whether to agree or disagree with the GJ results.

And in the case of police officers, this is a serious problem for public trust of the government.

2) Investigations of police killings are done internally

The police investigate crimes, so I suppose from a certain sense they are the group who you would call to investigate a potential murder by a police officer.

Also, police unions are extremely protective of officers. There is a tendency to "circle the wagons" whenever an incident like this occurs.

So police officers are investigated by police officers. Sometimes it's done by an "Internal Affairs" division, which is supposed to give the appearance of independence, but which are staffed by other cops, probably ones the accused has known and worked with for years.

I humbly submit that this is all horribly, horribly wrong.

Forget perception. The potential for actual conflict of interest is so high with the current system, I cannot blame anyone for not trusting the results of internal police investigations.

3) Media hype

It is impossible for the public to fairly evaluate a case through the media. News reporters search out the absolute most incendiary tidbit of information - even if it's been manufactured whole cloth - and put it on a 24/7 news cycle, apparently without much regard for whether it's true or not. This means the public is probably already going to be hopelessly biased on a case before any kind of investigation has been done, certainly long before a trial.

So after months of incomplete, inaccurate information being presented on CNN or Fox, when a Grand Jury makes a decision that seems to fly in the face of the conclusion people drew based on only the media, this makes everyone actually involved in the case look bad.


What would I do?

First off, I think police-involved killings should be investigated by a completely independent level of government. If a city cop is being investigated, the State level should do it. If a state cop, the Feds. If Federal, prosecute from the State in which the incident occurred.

Everything possible must be done to ensure no potential for actual or perceived conflict of interest. The investigators should not know the accused, or have worked for the accused's department.

We could go even further, and create a new, independent Constitutional body whose sole purpose is to hold public officials accountable to the law, which would investigate and prosecute solely public sector actors.

Second, all such investigations should be completely transparent. While I often loathe the media, you cannot have freedom without a free press, as bad as it often is. All materials related to the investigation should, by default, be publicly available from the get-go, during and after the investigation, and should be made secret only on approval by a judge for some specific, important purpose. We all have an interest and a right in being able to see for ourselves that the government is acting within the law.

This is, after all, an investigation not of a private citizen who has rights to privacy, but of a government agent acting in performance of their official duty. The value of transparency and trust in this process outweighs the usual concerns, because these actions involve the official use of force. We absolutely have to scrutinize this as honestly and regularly as possible.

It would be nice if the press would, you know, exhibit some responsibility and act as if someone's life is on the line. Which it is. I'm not going to list the things press should do to assure accuracy. They already know what they're supposed to do, they already know the rules of good journalism. They just ignore them. So, to the press I say - start taking your responsibility seriously.

We have to be careful, in all of this, not to make it impossible for officers to do their job. Being a police officer is really difficult. You have to be able to make snap decisions that cause others to live or die. Police are a critical, fundamental requirement of a free society. We don't want them to be second-guessing themselves when someone's life is on the line.

But they have legal sanction to use force - we the people have delegated retribution to the police. This is a terrible responsibility, and a dangerous one. It deserves the absolute highest level of oversight, independent investigation, and we need to do everything possible so that the public trusts that police forces are held accountable to the law.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…

Millennials don't understand free speech

A response to this article by a (presumably) Millennial telling "other generations" how we've got it all wrong. I guess, how we all need to be nice and considerate and stuff..


Well-done. You've managed to publicly pat yourself on the back for your great moral wisdom - stuff the rest of human race has been aware of and done for hundreds if not thousands of years.

This article exhibits typical Millennial fallacies:
a) complete ignorance of history and human nature
b) feeling superior for believing the right things - things you read on the internet - and which you believe you invented.
c) condescending arrogance

PC is NOT as you described. PC is in fact about restricting free speech. The whole point of free speech, the reason it is protected? If people only ever said unoffensive things, well, there would be no need to protect that, would there? Nobody would object to unoffensive speech.

It is precisely those words and ideas that cause discomfort - often to entrenc…