Eight Minutes and Forty-Six Seconds

Police militarization enables racial oppression

Paul Edwards

Paul Edwards is a Criminology PhD Researcher based at Liverpool John Moores Universities Faculty of Arts Professional and Social Studies & School of Justice Studies. Research interests include: Popular and cultural criminology, illicit markets, organised crime and critical criminological theory.

 

“These streets will speak for themselves”

(Dave Chappelle – 8:46 Netflix)

The murder of George Floyd shocked the world and again put the reality of living in the United States, especially as a BAME citizen on the global stage. During a global pandemic, millions around the country bravely marched, protested for justice and declared their message ‘Black Lives Matter’. In response the US government deployed its heavily militarised police to face them and later, National Guard units lined city streets: rifles, batons and shields in hand.

This also inspired protests globally: in the UK, France and Belgium people came out in support of the BLM movement. Nations woke to populations whose anger was clear to see and statues of former slave traders (representing the historical roots of black oppression) were ripped down. So, in light of recent events this blog will focus on the current state of policing in the United States and seek to address the questions: Where has policing gone wrong? How policing relates to concerns about racial tensions? and How might policing change?

To answer the first question, it is not hard to see that the trust in the police and the wider justice system is seriously eroded in large sections of the US. Thus, this section will focus on the loss faith in policing in the US and how it adds racial inequality and oppression.

This subject is ‘Militarisation’, which Kraska (2007) notes as the traditional distinctions between military/police, war/law enforcement and when internal/external security becomes blurred. Additionally, Kraska states that Militarism in its most basic sense, is an ideology focused on the best means to solve problems. It is a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that stress the use of force and threat of violence. This direction towards militarisation has been tracked down to its beginnings most impactfully with the terrorist event of 9/11 (Dunlap, 2001). However they have also been documented as early as the US involvement, both abroad and domestically, in drug control efforts in the mid-to-late 1980s (Kraska, 1993) .

The consequences of militarisation are vast, including hyper-violent, no-knock raids. Debates have been raised to question if these are unconstitutional and breach local police powers. In the US, these types of raids go head to head with the second amendment, as cases have come to light where officers and citizens have been shot as a result, see example here: Breonna-Taylor-shooting. These usually result in expensive litigation judgments but they still exist as a result of militarisation, with questions being raised on the targeting of innocent individuals (like the case above) because of their race (Balko, 2006).

Opinions voiced in online platforms, suggest the policing community see their job as an ‘us vs. them’ scenario. This is best described by youtuber Wraglerstar who shares his opinions about the change in the policing, specifically from the 80’s to the present day. In this he describes the beginnings of the militarisation of police and the change (notably in the city) where police officers seem to become more ‘special forces operator looking’ as well as describing this changed mentality. For Wraglerstar, this changed mentality in policing was experienced after being pulled over aggressively by heavily armed officers, assaulted and even being harassed by the same officers after the incident. Going further he points out that ‘no one is inviting these guys to the local barbeque’ because their aggressive nature is not welcome. This is unlike  the past, where police and other services would be invited to ‘birthdays’ and ‘thanksgiving’ get togethers to tighten community bonds, morals and trust. Therefore, this demonstrates that community policing is, as stated above, seriously eroded.

In short this change in mentality can be said to be due to militarisation as Kraska (2007) noted that it causes a cultural shift to martial language, appearance, beliefs, and values. An example of the culture can be seen in the Punisher Skull used by police in the US specifically, even though the use of this in the Marvel comics represents the failure of the police and justice system. What this has caused, is a complete failure of the purpose of the policing model in the US with the community aspect of policing being totally thrown out of the window. Regardless of how many community outreach teams departments police have, the community they serve is fearful and disconnected.

Turning to the second question, it is obvious that the militarisation of the police only serves to widen the racial tensions in communities and enables those officers who have a racist mindset to exercise their views in a more hyper-violent way. Policing as a whole depends on communities trusting those who are there to protect and serve. However, if the police themselves are not part of the community, they have no vested interest in that community. This is not helped by officers who are drafted in from other parts of the country and do not understand the cultures and traditions of the neighborhood.

Thirdly, the militarisation of the police needs to be rethought and stripped back. The communities they serve are not the enemy, they are citizens who expect to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. They are people who want to welcome in officers to their shop, chat to them on the street and invite them to cookouts. But they will not invite people they see as a threat, who are violent to them and kill people on the street through excessive force. Extensive training is needed and when an officer is seen to be using excessive force, officers around need be equipped to challenge without fear of backlash.

Perhaps the time has come to question more deeply how to police a predominantly armed nation? It is necessary to question why patrol officers need to be seen in neighborhoods patrolling in camouflage pants and why at a peaceful protest is there armored SWAT trucks and officers with rifles at the ready. This only harbors a culture that looks at everything like a battle to be fought.

To conclude, it is obvious how the militarization enables an overuse of power and potentially allows those with a racist mindset to fulfil their prejudice and this needs to change. Policing needs to change, whether this is stripping departments back to people who come from the communities, or other solutions, it is critical-community style policing restored to maintain civilian oversight. Other solutions like defunding the police may be a slippery and dangerous slope however and may lead to private security solutions (as seen in the UK and some US states) and this needs to be avoided, as this may lead to the loss of trust and vulnerability as demonstrated in South Africa. With this it is critical solutions are looked for, debated and critical thought is needed from all sides. This blog ends on one thought, that the police (and the incredibly difficult job they do) are needed but the senseless deaths need to end.

 

Below are links to recommended viewing:

The Future of Policing in America – Understanding & Changing Police Training: Gracie-Breakdown

Racial oppression and community by Kimberly Jones

Netflix 8:46 – Police brutality and lived experience by Dave Chappelle

Netflix Collection – ‘Black Storytelling’ Including Ava DuVernays ‘When They See Us’

 

Contact

Paul Edwards,  Liverpool John Moores University

Email: P.Edwards@2020.ljmu.ac.uk

Twitter: @P_Edwards8

Images: courtesy of the author

News of Police Racism May Shock, But Should It Surprise?

Racism is often seen as an anomaly which has no place in policing. Yet, a closer look at its historical mission reintroduces policing and racism as partners in crime.

image of author

Dr. Lambros Fatsis is a Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Brighton and the winner of the British Society of Criminology’s ‘Blogger of the Year Award 2018’.

 

 

The news of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor’s killing by US police and the protests it inspired worldwide, continue to attract widespread media coverage and light the fuse for much public commentary and private discussions on police racism and what can be done to root it out. Such fatal incidents of police racism naturally shock us on a human level, but we must move beyond surprise to fully grasp the ‘mutually constitutive’ relationship between policing and racism. This blog post is written to remind us what policing and police racism are and do, followed by some suggestions on what to do to undo the problem as citizens and Criminologists alike.

What is Policing?

Policing is (stereo)typically understood as what the police do to fight crime and keep the public safe from harm. Such a definition of — or orientation towards —  policing as the maintenance of law and order by the civil force of the state (=the police), implies that policing is what the police do as a neutral public institution that exists to ensure public safety and defend a harmonious social order where rules and laws that regulate human behaviour are respected and upheld. Seductive though such a view of policing might be, it is deeply flawed. Not only does it tell us little about how such rules and laws come to be — or whether it was “us” who asked for them in the first place — but it also paints a wholly inaccurate picture of what the police actually do.

The reality is bleaker than we care to admit. We don’t quite have our say in what becomes law, we never really asked for a police force, and crime-fighting is marginal to policing. Legislators make laws and while parliamentarians pass them, and we most certainly do not consent to everything they vote for on our behalf. When we vote for our elected representatives, we essentially give them a blanket agreement to act in our own interest by making judgements for us.  However, some legislation — like the current Coronavirus regulations — is not even discussed in parliament and can be unlawful too.

Police forces did not emerge by public demand. On the contrary, they were perceived as intrusive by the public they were created to police; earning themselves abusive — yet colourful nicknames — such as “blue locusts”, “blue devils,” “blue plagues,” “blue idlers,” “hired mercenaries,” and “unconstitutional bravoes” by those who were policed against. As for the “crime-fighting” mission of the police, it belongs to the sphere of mythology rather than the world of empirical evidence (see here, and here). As David H. Bayley pithily put it: ‘The police do not prevent crime. This is one of the best kept secrets of modern life. Experts know it, the police know it, but the public does not know it. Yet the police pretend that they are society’s best defense against crime and continually argue that if they are given more resources, especially personnel, they will be able to protect communities against crime. This is a myth. […] Governments should either resolve the doubts about the usefulness of the police or face up to the conclusion that preventing crime requires a great deal more than pouring money into law enforcement’. What policing actually does is ‘fabricate’, ‘enforce’ and protect an unequal social order through social control. There is, therefore, nothing neutral, depoliticised or democratic about it other than in disguise or in denial about its essential function and mission as an order maintenance institution.

What is Police Racism?

Not unlike policing, police racism is also held hostage to misunderstandings and denials of its very existence. Frequently mistaken for personal prejudice, police racism —like racism itself — is rarely discussed as the form of structural inequality that it actually is. (Police) racism is not simply what somebody thinks about or does to someone who is perceived, defined, classified and understood —primarily if not exclusively — as a member of a particular (minority) racial or ethnic group. It is a socio-cultural, political, institutional mentality, worldview and ideology which assigns a negative value to biological and cultural differences that are perceived as alien, incomprehensible, and inadmissible to a (majority) white society. (Police) racism, therefore, is not just what happens as a result of discrimination against those who are racially or ethnically “different”, but the socio-cultural and political context in which such difference is created and policed against. As such it is absorbed and embedded into, as well as normalised and legitimised within mainstream social, cultural and political institutions. In fact, police racism doesn’t even require police officers to be racist for policing to be racist. It is a systemic feature of a criminal justice institution that is shaped by an exclusionary worldview, which draws boundaries and establishes hierarchies on the basis of physiological or cultural traits. Police racism can therefore be understood as racism in uniform — armed with a truncheon— but it is also a tautology given that racism and policing share the same history and function as ideologies (racism) and tools (policing) of social control.

Contrary to conventional wisdom and mainstream criminological historiography, policing as a modern institution — in the US and the UK — was not immaculately conceived in 19th century New York and London but founded during colonialism and slavery. Both in the US and the UK, the models and styles of policing that emerged in the metropole derive from pre-professional, informal militias that were formed to patrol, capture and control fugitive slaves and colonial subjects in the American South and Britain’s overseas “possessions” (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). The antecedents of the London Metropolitan Police in 1829, therefore, exist not just in the Royal Irish Constabulary in the former British colony of Ireland — both founded by the Conservative party’s founder Sir Robert Peel — but in the plantations of the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent too. As such, police forces start their life as instruments of suppression —wielded by slaveholders and colonisers to maintain a form of discrimination and dehumanisation —before evolving into professional institutions that serve and protect the state from those who are seen as undeserving of its protection. Originally designed as they were to brutalise and terrorise slaves and colonial subjects, police forces seamlessly transitioned into policing — and sometimes killing — Black and Brown people today.

What to Do?

Having offered only the sketchiest overview of what policing and police racism are and do, setting out a plan of action nevertheless seems inevitable given the palpable urgency of the current moment. None of what follows is therefore intended as a paternalistic finger-wagging exercise but as an invitation to undo policing and its racism intellectually, culturally and politically by killing that cop inside our heads. In the interest of brevity, these suggestions will be presented as a bullet point list, or notes to self, in the hope that firing them off in this manner with not compromise their critical content but open up a frank discussion about the issue.

  • Read extensively about policing and police racism to gain a deeper, and more critical, insight into both. These recommendations are a good place to start.
  • Don’t vote for political parties that promise more powers or more money to the police. Or at least challenge them about it.
  • Learn about, join, and support campaigns against police violence (I, II, III IV)
  • Think beyond policing when thinking about how to design public safety. Think about what can we do to be safe without the police (e.g. I, II)
  • Don’t call the police, if possible. Think about alternative sources of help and support that can actually keep us safe
  • Teach policing and the history of policing differently to illustrate how the legacy of colonialism and slavery is still alive as an ideology and practice of racial discrimination
  • Do research on, not for the police

 

The list could go on, yet the message is simple: defunding, disarming, disbanding and disempowering the police  should become a priority. Such calls are becoming mainstream, yet the Criminological mainstream retreats to feel-good bromides about reforming, working (together) with, or being “critical friends” to the police. Objective, sensible, cool-headed, reasoned and respectably “professional” though such stuttering timidity may sound, it simply creates the illusion of problem-solving without addressing what “the problem” is, where it comes from and how to address it; beyond cosmetic changes that repair the reputational damage of policing without reducing its impact on those who are harmed by its discriminatory nature and lethal outcomes. Criminologists may not have the monopoly over such knowledge or be singlehandedly responsible for producing and disseminating it, but it is still our duty to ensure that our thinking, our writing, our teaching and our actions move beyond ‘dangerous myths and comfortable untruths’ that empower law enforcement at the expense of social justice.

This article gives the views of the author, not the position of the institution he works for.

Contact

Dr. Lambros Fatsis, Lecturer in Criminology, University of Brighton

Twitter: @lfatsis

 

Images: courtesy of the author and Pexels

Inside the COVID-19 State: Protecting Public Health Through Law Enforcement

Covid19 is a public health threat yet it is treated as a law enforcement priority. This blogpost criticises this approach and rethinks public safety beyond policing.

image of author

Dr. Lambros Fatsis is Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Brighton and the winner of the British Society of Criminology’s ‘Blogger of the Year Award 2018’.

 

 

 

After three weeks in a state of isolation following the Coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak, we could be excused for mistaking ourselves for the virus we stay away from. The UK government’s  slogan: ‘Stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives’ has become the mantra we live our lives by, while also setting the tone for a new social contract through which we come together socially by staying apart physically. Accompanying such governmental instructions, new public health regulations were also introduced to ensure compliance through law enforcement. Such emergency measures would be sensible, defensible and desirable even, if being quarantined and policed were to merely supplement rather than nearly substitute the provision of adequate healthcare. Yet, law enforcement has taken precedence over an adequate public health response forcing the government to apologise ‘if people feel there have been failings’.

This is an opportune moment to reflect on why the government chose policing against the public over protecting people from the virus by adopting a law enforcement approach to a public health emergency. The remainder of this blog post will grapple with that question by critically assessing the new “Coronavirus regulations”, and arguing against criminological analyses that disguise the medical nature of the Covid-19 pandemic as a criminal justice matter.

Policing the public as a virus

In the wake of the Covid-19 crisis, the UK government set up a coronavirus action plan to limit the spread of this infectious disease through emergency legislation which created new offences and widened police powers.  These new regulations came in the form of a Coronavirus Bill which passed through Parliament on March 25, 2020 accompanied by a statutory instrument which gave legal force to the new social distancing rules. These rules prohibit people from ‘leav[ing] the place where they are living without reasonable excuse’, during the lockdown, and empower the police to ‘direct’ or ‘remove’  individuals ‘to the place where they are living’ allowing the use of ‘reasonable force, if necessary’. Breaching the prohibition amounts to ‘commit[ting] an offence’ which is ‘punishable on summary conviction by a fine’. Put simply, failure to comply with these instructions means breaking the law and, therefore, committing a criminal offence.

As these laws became daily practice allowing the police to impose fines, disperse gatherings and remove people to their homes, police forces around the country have also issued court summonses, resorted to online shaming, deployed vehicle checkpoints and used aerial drones and roadblocks to enforce the lockdown, targeting ‘bored’ drivers, dog walkers, people sitting on park benches and even shops selling Easter eggs. Such stories may be dismissed as unfortunate, and perhaps inevitable, mishaps, or isolated cases that are harmless if not altogether amusing. Yet other incidents, such as the violent arrest of a man who was moving a tree for his mother, alert us to the danger of extending police powers without due regard for the consequences: especially when their vague nature, broad scope and worrying dependence on discretion render them illiberal, discriminatory and illegitimate too.

Policing as the virus

None of the above is meant as a suggestion that emergency laws should not be observed. However, it must also be stressed that conformity depends on democratic legitimacy, not repressive authority. As they currently stand the new police powers are arbitrary in their design and unrestrained in their force, raising questions about who is more likely to be targeted under such legislation, on what grounds and based on whose interpretation of such laws. For example, whatever may count as ‘reasonable excuse’ or ‘reasonable force’, in The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, largely relies on police officers’ individual judgement, despite additional guidelines that change nothing in the actual legislation. Since there is no explicit prohibition on leaving one’s home only once a day, no time limit by which one has to return home, and no requirement that one may leave one’s home only for exceptional reasons, enforcing such vague regulations ultimately results to their arbitrary application by officers who are given wider powers of discretion to decide what restrictions are breached and what charges are to be made. This is made worse by the realisation that these regulations convert almost all “normal” social behaviour into anti-social behaviour, thereby turning fundamental rights and civil liberties such as freedom of movement and assembly into criminal offences.

Some might dismiss such concerns as little more than liberal hand-wringing, yet policing requires ‘the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state’. This means that without public support, policing becomes a fraudulent imitation of its legally-defined remit, and the law morphs into a counterfeit image of itself. In the light of the two-year time span of the Coronavirus Bill and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny or approval of the Coronavirus regulations, references to a “police state” may sound flippant, but they are not unfounded. Such warnings may cultivate alarmism, but they also nurture attentiveness to what happens when citizens’ activities are supervised by diktats from government instead of democratic consent.

Protecting the public from the virus

As critics and supporters of policing as a tool for managing public health emergencies clash, the question of whether policing has any role to play in the Covid-19 crisis asserts itself and demands credible answers. Although the government introduced the Coronavirus Bill ‘for the purposes of preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination’,  it is not clear why the onlyrelevant persons’ for enforcing these regulations must be ‘constables, police community support officers (PCSOs)’ or ‘those designated by local authorities and by the Secretary of State’. Given that Covid-19 is a public health threat, it might be sensible to suggest that it requires a medical rather than a criminal justice response.

Accustomed though we have become to consider ourselves a public health risk, as potential hosts cells in which Coronavirus multiplies, it does not follow that the only, the best, or most urgent response has to be the policing of our movement or the restriction of our civil liberties. At least not without testing on a mass scale, and ensuring that the NHS is adequately equipped with enough Protective Personal Equipment (PPE), ventilators, healthcare staff and hospital beds. The decision to prioritise policing over healthcare, therefore, is based more on politics and expedient crisis management than on the prevention, detection, containment, and eradication of Covid-19. As public health experts, Prof. David McCoy among them, note: a ‘greatly expanded testing regime combined with aggressive case detection and contact tracing, coupled with continued physical distancing and improved hygiene’ would have helped us ‘avoid the harms of draconian, population-wide lockdown’.

This is not to suggest that we should disregard the current rules and regulations, but to abide by them in the full knowledge that we are being policed as the virus instead of being tested for the virus. Staying at home to protect the NHS is eminently sensible and truly commendable, but it is done in order to protect the NHS from the initial and ongoing failures of the state to take action. It is a collective effort we willingly make as a result of state failure. Not only did the UK government procrastinate, missing important deadlines to bulk-buy PPE and ventilators, despite shortages in the NHS, but testing also lags behind, ignoring the World Health Organisation’s message to ‘test, test, test’ when Covid-19 was still treated as an epidemic rather than a full-blown pandemic.

Rethinking policing in times of crisis

In the absence of adequate support for the NHS, the government’s public health agenda has ultimately resulted in policing instead of protecting the public, thereby attempting to police itself out of a public health threat. Policing Covid-19 away, however, does not just reek of state negligence by breaching its duty of care to the public. It also invites police- friendly criminologists and dyed-in-the-wool crime scientists to rethink their approach to policing by situating it into its political context, instead of pretending that it is a neutral civil institution. In the context of the Covid-19 crisis this involves asking not what the police should do to respond to a public health crisis, but whether the police should (ever) have a(ny) role in managing such crises.

Designing public safety, be it from violence or infectious diseases, is not and should not be the exclusive property of the police. It can also be practiced in non-coercive means through investment in healthcare, welfare and upheld through social solidarity and mutual aid, not tainted by suspicion, surveillance, punitiveness, or shaming. This involves thinking about who and what the police is, what it does, who does it do it to, and who does it do it for, therefore heeding Raymond Chandler’s oft-quoted yet otherwise largely ignored observation that ‘cops are like a doctor that gives you aspirin for a brain tumor, except that the cop would rather cure it with a blackjack’.

 

Contact

Dr. Lambros Fatsis, Lecturer in Criminology, University of Brighton

Twitter: @lfatsis

 

Images: courtesy of the author and Pexels