The Amadou Diallo shooting and police violence in New York

The killing of the two black American young men Amadou Diallo and Louima were separated by about two years but Amadou's killing happened just before the trial of Louima's case. Amadou's killing drew a lot of public interest that was focused on the conduct of the New York Police. It was the only such heated debate since the Knapp commission of the 70s which disclosed corruption in the police department. Amadou was from a middle class family that migrated from Guinea. They were engaged in simple trade activities including selling items on the streets. Amadou was shot 41 times in his apartment house in Bronx. His life was brought to an end by a special crimes unit of a group of four policemen operating under cover. It is a New York born strategy for combating aggressive crime (Harring & Ray, 1999). There is no doubt that a crime was indeed committed.

The Theory of Criminal Behavior Related to the Selected Case

Crime, its practice and existence is perceived through the social construction of criminality and the factors that make it happen. According to the traditional theories in sociology, crime was caused by lack of norms. This was immersed in a feeling of lacking the desired social connectedness. The term anomie was commonly used to refer to this scenario. It was further popularized by Emile Durkhein (1897). He also used the term to describe suicide. Sociologists refined the definition of the term to refer to a state of lacking social conscience because one is disconnected. They also described it as criminality that possibly emanates from lack of hope to achieve one's aspirations. It is, therefore, safe and logical to say that criminality thrives on the premise that we have failed to socialize our children. It is also predominant because of lack of social opportunities for certain groups or sheer differences in the same. According to Durkheim, crime was a necessary evil in society. He advocated that crime should only be kept within reasonable boundaries (Seiken, 2016).

One outstanding feature of sociological theories is that crime is constructed by society. Society also holds some behavior as criminal in nature but they do not cause harm to anyone. Thus such behaviors are made criminal without sufficient supporting reasons. These crimes are commonly referred to as victimless crimes. Examples of such crimes include drug abuse, prostitution and the like. Therefore, according to this view, the entire society is engaged in the act of breaking the law at one point or another. One possible policy from sociological grounding would be to decriminalize the victimless crimes, if not drastically reducing their penalties (Schur, 1965).

The Biases and Assumptions that Influenced Participants in the Case Process

Investigators

There was a federal organized investigation launched to probe the tactics of the aggressive tactics applied by the street crimes unit. Proponents of the unit claimed that the unit had helped New York to get rid of thousands of guns from the streets. They pointed to the statistics that showed that the strategy had helped reduce violent crime in the Bronx and Northern Manhattan. The U.S. attorney's office ignored these claims. Following the legislation, in 1992, that was passed following the beating of Rodney King in los Angeles, the staff of the attorney's office sought to establish whether the police deprived African-Americans and Hispanics of their rights in the stop and frisk procedures. All the data including that of complaints and arrest incidents was turned over by the state. However, more recent data following police changes in procedures since Diallo's killing was withheld.

Prosecutors

Dialo's case was marred by, arguably, the most bizarre evidence and conduct of the prosecution. The prosecution even declined to cross examine the final defense witness. The prosecution made no effort to rebut any evidence presented by the defense witness who claimed that the police did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

It was not hard to understand the behavior of the prosecution in light of the possible cover-up tactics that they used before. Incidents such as the sodomizing of Abner Louima in the bathroom of the station house in Brooklyn, the choking of Antony Baez after he hit a police cruiser with his football in the Bronx all pointed to the reasons why the prosecution could afford to behave the way they did in Diallo's case.

The four cops were guilty because of their activities within the Street Crimes Unit. It was possible to co-accuse the whole administration of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as conspirators towards the killing of Diallo. The huff in the so called fight against crime including criminalizing the poor and racial profiling of Hispanic and black youths and workers has become a norm, and is the root of Dialo's murder. Of course the role of the District attorney was not cut out to expose its systemic errors because it represents it. The victim of the case was dead. His killers had a field day in court because they faced no opposition.

Defense Attorney

The accused officers acknowledged having shot Mr. Diallo by mistake. The lawyers for the defense exploited the opportunity to make the testimony of the officers the central focus of the case by explaining that the officers had good reason to believe that Diallo was reaching for a gun. One of the Officers, Carrol in particular, reported having wept after he realized his mistake and moved to hold Diallo as he died from the gunshots. The defense lawyers laid blame on the victim, claiming that he had shown suspicious behavior and had refused to obey the commands of the officers to stop (Fritsck, 2000).

Jurors and Judges

The jury declared that there had not been any crime committed by the police. There wasn't even the slightest of blame finger pointing at the police for the killing of this unarmed innocent black man.

Despite his innocence, Diallo was pumped with 41 bullets. It is clear that the sheer presence of Diallo on the streets in a poor neighborhood was reason for police suspicion and subsequent murder. Most policemen were left in tears as the woman at the fore of the jury's findings pronounced a 'not guilty verdict' for over 24 counts labeled against the accused (Goldman, 2000).

The verdict was, of course, stage-managed to make sure that the jury decided as they did. An appeals court recently ruled that the trial of the officers should be moved to Albany; a significant distance from New York City. The judges pronounced that the four police officers could not be tried fairly in New York City. The judges claimed that the Bronx was more of a totalitarian society as a result of the widespread anger against police brutality. Thus, they claimed that trying the four in the Bronx would amount to a trial to please the populace. The observation equated public outrage at government misconduct and excesses to government suppression of democratic privileges and rights.

The case in Albany was presided over by Judge Joseph Teresi, an appointed judge. The actions of judge Teresi in the course of the trial were designed to influence the jury to an acquittal verdict. Once he ensured that the jury was constituted in such a way that the verdict would not possibly be based on grounds of racial discrimination, he handed down several rulings that gave impetus to the defense case in the course of the trial. He topped it up in a four hour charge to the jury in which he highlighted three distinct legal justifications for the police to act the way they did. He went on to ventilate on the possible verdict by the jury by stating that they could find the police officers not guilty if they had thought that they were trying to prevent a robbery; even though there was no cause to justify such a stance. The argument of the judge as directed at the jury made it clear that it was immaterial whether Diallo had posed a threat to the police or not. The end picture he wanted them to portray was that the police acted out of justifiable suspicion that Diallo was armed and dangerous. It was to be perceived that any reasonable person would react in the same way as the police did on that occasion. He went on to invite the jury to put themselves in the officer's shoes. The intention of the legal theory was to obliterate any possibility of considering manslaughter or homicide. The cops claimed that Diallo's act of trying to reach for his wallet made them fear that he was reaching for a gun. Such claims were found sufficient for acquitting the suspects. Albany is reported to have visited the acquitted police officers in a bed and breakfast setting and thanked them for their cooperation, and even went on to invite them to his court in Albany again any time. He never extended such kindness to Diallo's family. The District attorney's office in Bronx also actively participated in the scheme to deliver a not guilty verdict. By their decision to allow the defense lawyers to use the testimonies of the police officers unchallenged and refusing to probe any evidence they presented, they showed lack of interest in their own case. The jury was clearly led to deliver a not guilty verdict.

The role the psychological profile of the offender played in how the investigation was conducted and in any subsequent court proceedings.

The defendants in Diallo's case are more typical of the police force that the psychopathic Justin Volpe who was convicted for assaulting Abner Louima. The officers in Diallo's case never set out to kill Diallo, they were shocked at the results of their actions. However, they were indifferent to Diallo's fate. The reaction of the police officers, when viewed from a neutral vintage point were deliberate acts meant to mitigate the possible punishment that their action attracted. Diallo's killing is clearly a result of the heighted racial tensions in New York. The myriad of social maladies including deprivation of essential social services, increased incarceration, arrest quotas and the law and order crusades played a role in this murder. The police training imparts attitudes of fear towards the working class community and little regard for poor neighborhoods as easy targets where they can play fair game (Mazelis, 2000).