Keep in mind that the origins of American police are in this:
And this:
Suppressing the Blacks and the Reds was always a core mission.
2 Likes
The most unbelievable part: One of them admitted being wrong about it.
Film at eleven.
1 Like
Kinda redundant.
The racist authoritarians bit I mean.
Sure, right. On the other hand… jackboots… Mmmm…
Dogmatism. The very opposite of pragmatism.
2 Likes
I see what you pred there.
I’m a fan of the Law of Intended Consequences. Not “unintended,” “intended:” If a rational and informed party takes an action that could be expected to have a consequence, then you’re justified in concluding that that consequence was intended.
So that leaves us with three possibilities:
- American Law Enforcement is not rational,
- American Law enforcement is not informed, or
- American Law Enforcement intends to promote crime, at least as an acceptable consequence of pursuing its higher priorities.
Of course, the three are not mutually exclusive.
3 Likes
Well, fucking duh!
These apologists for human rights abuses bought into the “broken windows” theory of policing…
My understanding of the “broken windows” theory is that an environment that looks and feels chaotic, uncivil, and lawless, it inspires fear and encourages people to act on their worst impulses. Such environments give people a sort of internal permission to do things they wouldn’t do in a tidier, more orderly environment.
Therefore, putting effort into environmental factors (cleaning up graffiti, picking up litter, keeping the hedges trimmed, etc.) can reduce crime as a bonus.
That all sounds reasonable enough, as far as it goes. What I don’t get is: How could anyone imagine “stop and frisk” policies could contribute to environmental improvement through a reduction in chaos and fear? If it’s policy to treat an entire class of people like criminals or terrorists all the time, how do you suppose that effects their experience, their environment, their perception of chaos and fear?
Because that’s what’s important. Even if you take a very naive and simplistic view of things, and divide the populace up into “potential criminals” and “potential victims,” one must understand that “broken windows” policy means improving the environment for the potential criminals.
Even if “stop and frisk” were implemented in a non-racist way, it would be the opposite of environmental improvement and fear reduction. Isn’t this obvious? How could anyone imagine these things complement each other?
1 Like
Well, obviously, if you lock up every person who breaks a window in a brutal prison for several years, it will stop people from breaking windows. /s
Clearly the alternative of simply fixing the window is crazy and will just lead to a never-ending stream of money being poured into a metaphorical hole. /s (Oh, wait, how much does it cost to keep someone in jail these days? Never mind.)
Window repair firms don’t make as much money as private prisons and politicians don’t think they’ll get as many votes for spending tax-payers’ money on repairs to the neighbourhood as they will for “MOAR POLICE NOW!”.
1 Like
I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am nevertheless bothered by the implication that all of this would be fine if they could prove that it was effective. The idea that there is nothing so odious to do so long as it works. If only there were a shorthand way of describing that idea…
Yeah, that’s quite the example of something that was primarily - and overtly - about the racism, although I suppose we could simplify things by just saying the entire history of US policing, really.
I’m trying to figure out how dogma interacts with the dynamic where there’s a stated purpose, that they know is a lie, which is really just cover for the unstated but actually primary purpose, racist abuse. I suppose it helps them to cover their true intentions - if you can sell the dogma, no one thinks about it too closely about the issues because evidence and analysis plays no role. That appeals to people’s laziness, too; it doesn’t require them to expend any mental effort. So dogmatism reigns in US policing.
It’s a pretty perverse application of the idea - almost as if it’s an excuse for doing something rather than the motivating reason.
1 Like
One should take care of not leaving out some ends when trying to justify the means?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
