Derek Chauvin defined the market value of a Black man’s life when he killed George Floyd in response to a storekeeper’s complaint that he had used a counterfeit bill to buy cigarettes. Thanks to Chauvin, we know that, without slavery and auctions to establish a market value for Blacks and their labor, the value of a Black man’s life in Minneapolis is worth no more than $20, the face value of the bill claimed to be counterfeit. That claim is unconfirmed, and it is too late to ask whether, if the bill was counterfeit, Floyd knew it to be so. But the police rule of engagement is: escalate the encounter and kill the Black man first, skip the questions later—unless the murder gets videoed and goes viral.
What Chauvin did, police elsewhere do every day. They demonstrate the low value which they place on the lives of people, any of us—white, yellow, red, brown, black—, whom they are supposed to protect and serve by killing us for misdemeanors, allegations of misdemeanors, or no misdemeanors at all, merely harmless behavior. They kill people for having an outstanding warrant for a misdemeanor, selling “loosey” cigarettes, driving with an expired license or a broken taillight, sitting in a parked car, playing with a toy gun, and, perversely, even obeying a police order. In these cases, public safety was not at risk; private lives were at risk.
The police know that the offenses are trivial. To get to killing, they initiate, escalate, then execute. The critical step is escalation. The police are abusive and aggressive; they provoke resistance, often just their victim’s avoidance or self-defense responses as a pretext for more violent exertions to subdue and apprehend their victim, and charges of resisting arrest. Many episodes like Chauvin’s murder of Floyd reflect “street justice” by which police punish people before they get access to the judicial system.
Police street justice mocks the legal system which boasts two basic principles: the proportionality of punishment and crime, and equality under the law. The disparity between legal principle and police practice is too great to take the boast seriously. These many episodes show us police street justice mismatching death and misdemeanors and, under color of law, inequality reflecting biases based on skin pigmentation or other deviation from a white, male, Christian norm.
Police street justice is Orwellian, as in Animal Farm, in which ruling pigs declare that all pigs are equal but some more equal than others. Police are more equal by virtue of “blue privilege.” When accused of misconduct, they benefit from special investigative procedures and prosecutorial inhibitions. The rarity of legal accountability enables street justice by shielding police who dispense it on the job.
If we are not blinded by quasi-patriotic appeals to the heroism of those wearing the blue, we see that the “overkill” of street justice is a moral and legal regression to early barbaric practices, when disproportionate vengeance was the usual response to a crime. For example, if a man raped a woman from another village, her family or village would retaliate by killing everyone in the man’s family or village. Likewise, police street justice whether or not a misdemeanor has been committed is disproportionate vengeance.
The civilized principle of justice which replaced disproportionate vengeance is the principle of proportionate compensation, the Jewish principle underlying most legal systems throughout the world today. Christians often mistakenly interpret the phrase “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” as a law of revenge, like the Roman lex talionis, also used by other early societies. No Jewish court in Holy Scriptures or Jewish communities ever applied it but, instead, awarded material compensation deemed proportionate to the damage inflicted. In cases of murder, judges were duty-bound to find a legal reason to save the life of the accused—in effect, no death penalty. One court caused a scandal when its failure to find such an excuse led to an execution; it was known thereafter as the “Bloody Sanhedrin.”
Reforms to end police street justice should address rules of engagement. One, police should not use force or weapons in the enforcement of non-violent offenses, whether felonies or misdemeanors. Two, police should not use a weapon until the suspect uses or attacks with a weapon (brandishing a weapon does not count).
Other reforms should address investigative procedures and prosecutorial decisions. One should eliminate special investigative provisions for police. They should not be allowed a multi-day delay between episode and interview, and they should be required to establish a reasonable basis, not a mere perception, that a suspect posed an immediate threat to his own, another’s, or the officer’s life. Another should require an independent review of a prosecutor’s proposed decision about charging police.
Reforming recruitment qualifications might minimize police misconduct. Shortages should not justify recruiting those less likely to exercise self-restraint or good judgment. The LCPD seeks recruits at least 19 years old with at least a high school degree (23 July Bulletin). Lower standards for recruits are possible, but these are as close to bottom as it gets without hitting bottom. In contrast, insurance companies charge their highest rates to drivers under 25 for good reason; they pose high risks to themselves and others, even without the police swagger. Guns in the hands of inexperienced, immature teenagers wearing badges and uniforms should scare everyone. Why the Police Chief seeks such recruits for the LCPD is a question for the City Manager and City Councilors. It should recruit only those at least 26 years old and with at least an associate degree in a relevant discipline. Better higher salaries to attract suitable recruits and retain proven veterans than expensive settlements for the dead and continuing fear and distrust of the police by the still living.
No comments:
Post a Comment