WaPo | Police serve the community — any concerns about their integrity must
be transparently, expeditiously and judiciously resolved. Relying on
cops to police cops is neither efficient nor confidence-inspiring.
The solution? Abolish internal affairs units and outsource their work to external civilian agencies.
Police
have slowly started to incorporate civilian oversight in their
misconduct investigations. For example, the LAPD’s office of inspector
general has oversight over the department’s internal discipline. Yet,
while the inspector general’s staff receives copies of every personnel
complaint filed and tracks and audits selected cases, it does not have
the authority to impose discipline. Nor do most civilian review boards,
which are not empowered to conduct independent investigations. This
leads detractors to say that such boards are ineffectual.
Police
have long resisted external oversight. Some of us say that those who
aren’t in uniform do not understand the intricacies of law enforcement.
Won’t civilian investigators be harsher toward officers — unsympathetic
to the challenges faced by beat cops battling armed bad guys?
These
self-serving arguments perpetuate archaic policies. Outsourcing
misconduct investigations to civilians would directly address community
concerns about the “blue wall of silence.” Officers who fear retaliation
for reporting misconduct would feel more comfortable working with an
external agency. In this system, complaints such as Dorner’s about the
vindictiveness of superiors would all but disappear.
Using
sergeants and detectives as internal affairs investigators costs police
departments a lot. These supervisors are paid more and have more
seniority. Assigning seasoned officers to internal affairs also depletes
the number of field personnel who could prevent mistakes and misconduct
by patrol officers in the first place. Outsourcing misconduct
investigations would be far less expensive and would let veteran
supervisors do the jobs they should be doing.
And why shouldn’t
every police contact with the community — every traffic stop, every
interrogation — be recorded on video? If Dorner and his partner had had a
cop-cam, his claim that his partner used excessive force might have
been resolved the same day. There’s just no excuse for not recording
police contacts with the public. Technology has made cameras effective
and affordable. Some officers already record their arrests to protect
themselves against false allegations of misconduct. This should be
standard operating procedure.
If even one citizen thinks that
Dorner may have had a point, that’s too many. The only answer to those
worried about police conspiracies is transparency. Only by opening our
doors can we build trust, and truly serve and protect. Fist tap Arnach.
1 comments:
At the risk of repeating myself, it is my opinion that sousveillance in a full open government scenario it what is going to be required. Unfortunately, I must agree with CNu's tag that it will never happen, when those who have the ability (responsibility?) to pass such a law are the ones most likely to be personally disadvantaged by it, in spite of any potential benefit to society and country. OTOH, it could be a worthwhile experiment in some state that allows citizen initiative...
Post a Comment