Exploring Law Policy Pathways Ending Police Brutality

EXPLORING LAW/POLICY PATHWAYS

Ending Police Brutality: Exploring Law/Policy Pathways

Introduction

In the past, confrontations between law enforcement officers and citizens have been largely reported from the perspective of police officers. However, thanks to the growing availability of portable smartphone devices with cameras, Americans have been presented with yet another perspective to the said confrontations. As a consequence, there are many who now believe there is need for deliberate measures to be taken to oversight the utilization of lethal force by our law enforcement officers. The death of George Floyd, which was captured on camera, clearly demonstrated inherent gaps in as far as police oversight is concerned. It demonstrated the need for sweeping reforms to ensure or guarantee police oversight. This is more so the case when it comes to bringing an end to racial profiling and promoting the accountability of our police officers. It would be prudent to note that although there is a clear need to undertake deliberate measures to ensure that police officers serve the people that they swore to protect in a better manner, there is no clear cut way on how to go about it. From a policy and legal perspective, there are a number of pathways that could be followed in an attempt to curb police brutality and promote greater accountability within the police force. The said pathways are; legislative, judge-made, civil jury, as well as ballot issue. This text presents an argument in favor of the legislative pathway.

Discussion

Before highlighting the most ideal pathway that ought to be embraced in efforts to guarantee effective police reform, it would be prudent to first take into consideration what such reform would ideally entail – with special focus in this case being on the George Floyd case. In essence, the killing of Floyd brings two issues to the fore, i.e. the issue of police misconduct and the issue of discrimination. These are the two concerns that any attempt at correcting the problem should address. It therefore follows that in selecting the most viable or ideal law/policy pathway, there would be need to be cognizant of the fact that this happens to be an issue of great public interests and could potentially be emotive (as a consequence of the race factor). As it has been pointed out in the introductory section, the ideal pathway on this front would be the legislative process. It would be prudent to note that to a large extent, bills emanate from the need to fix an existing problem (Sweet and Mathews, 2019). There is no doubt whatsoever that the country is in need of police reform. In this case, legislation is seen as the best avenue to advance this agenda.

To begin with, it should be noted that at present, there are a number of laws already in place that seek to limit police misconduct and ensure that law enforcement officers do not overstep their mandate. A good example would in this case be Title 18 of the US Code which, according to Roberson (2017), makes it mandatory for police officers to adhere to the relevant legal standards as well as provisions of the Constitution – specifically with regard to ensuring that the citizens of this great nation are not deprived of their protected rights. In relation to the George Floyd case, Title 6 of the Civil Rights act could also come into play. This is more so the case owing to the fact that it touches on issues relating to discrimination. However, there are numerous other aspects of the law that ought to be adapted to produce effective police reform. Examples on this front could be inclusive of, but they are not limited to, provisions relating to qualified immunity which ought to adapted or done away with. Qualified immunity, to a large extent, seeks to shield law enforcement officers from civil litigations. A legislative process would be the most ideal pathway in efforts to adapt or do away with such provisions owing to the fact that it provides opportunities for a single Act to reform entire sections of the law. In the case of judge-made pathway, for instance, there are limitations as to the extent of changes to the law that can be made at any one time. The judge-made approach could, thus, be deemed a piecemeal approach. Also, unlike other pathways, such as judge-made and civil jury, the legislative process is a largely proactive process. It is not merely reactive.

Next, the legislative pathway offers multiple opportunities for the further refinement of ideas brought forward on how to reign in police brutality and advance the police accountability agenda. This is more so the case given that the legislative process makes it possible for amendments to be introduced along the way. This, in my opinion, would be the best way to ensure that only the best suggestions said through. Further, in providing multiple avenues for amendment, the legislative process brings rationality and reason to an otherwise emotive concern. In essence, even after the bill is passed at the committee level and put on the floor’s legislative calendar, amendments can still be made, i.e. during floor action. There are not as many opportunities for refinement of proposals in the other three pathways.

I am of the opinion that the legislative process would be the most ideal pathway owing to the fact that it happens to be one of the most democratic processes available. A policy or framework of this nature, i.e. seeking to limit police brutality, would eventually have an impact on the society as a whole, and not just a single section of the society. For this reason, there is need to ensure maximum participation of the citizenry or their elected officials. This is not an option available in the case of judge-made. It therefore follows that the legislative process edges towards maximum participation by enabling a vote by full chamber and consideration before the House of Representatives as well as the Senate.

Next, any move or attempt to promote greater accountability within the law enforcement system would have a wide scope. Thus, it would be best to subject such an idea or proposal to reasoned analysis or evaluation. The best way to go about this would, in my opinion, be to ensure that the proposal is assigned to a specialized committee (or several committees for that matter) in the form of a bill. The other law/policy pathways do not have this ‘luxury.’ To a large extent, proposals made on how to eliminate police brutality would be issues of great public interest. Other than the ballot pathway, the legislative approach would be the best option owing to the fact that following a bill’s assignment to committees, it could be subjected to a public hearing in which case the benefits and downsides of proposals are taken into consideration. The said public hearing could involve the relevant government agencies and members of the public alike. The judge-made pathway, for instance, does not allow this level of participation by key stakeholders. Similarly, both the ballot issue as well as civil jury pathways do not have in place mechanisms that are thorough enough to avail multiple opportunities for scrutiny and debate. Towards this end, the merits as well as demerits of certain proposals may not be properly highlighted.

Lastly, it should also be noted that proposals on greater police oversight are likely to be contested at every stage. This is more so the case given the sheer number of stakeholders involved and interests represented. For instance, there are those who may feel that proposals made could limit the powers of law enforcement officers to effectively fight crime. It therefore follows that an issue that is likely to invite significant scrutiny and attention ought to be subjected to a framework that makes it possible to work through differences in opinion or perspectives. To a large extent, unlike the other three policy/law pathways, the legislative process has special inbuilt mechanisms designed to unlock any standoff – if need be. For instance, the Senate could see the need to make some amendments to bill after it is passed by the House of Representatives. In such a case, a Committee Conference would come in handy. The said conference brings together both Chamber’s members so as to iron through any differences (Hay, 2017). This consultative framework seeks to ensure that agreement is reached regarding any contentious clauses.