Ending Police Brutality: Legislative Pathway as Best Reform
This paper examines four law/policy pathways — legislative, judge-made, civil jury, and ballot issue — as potential avenues for addressing police brutality and misconduct in the United States. Using the death of George Floyd as a focal point, the paper argues that the legislative pathway is the most effective and appropriate approach for achieving meaningful police reform. Key reasons include its democratic character, its capacity for multi-stage refinement through amendments, its provisions for public hearings and committee review, and its built-in mechanisms for resolving disagreements between chambers. The paper also acknowledges existing laws such as Title 18 of the U.S. Code and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act while noting their limitations, including the doctrine of qualified immunity.
- Introduction: Context, George Floyd, and four reform pathways
- The Case for Police Reform: Framing the Problem: Floyd case raises misconduct and discrimination concerns
- Why the Legislative Pathway Is Most Effective: Existing laws, qualified immunity, and legislative scope
- Opportunities for Refinement and Democratic Participation: Amendments, floor action, and democratic inclusion
- Scrutiny, Debate, and Conflict Resolution: Public hearings, committees, and conference mechanisms
- Conclusion: Legislative pathway best ensures reasoned, consensus-based reform
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly frames the central question — which law/policy pathway best addresses police brutality — and consistently returns to that framework throughout, keeping the argument focused.
- It uses systematic comparison, evaluating the legislative pathway against the judge-made, civil jury, and ballot alternatives, which strengthens the advocacy position through contrast rather than assertion alone.
- The inclusion of existing legal provisions (Title 18, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, qualified immunity) grounds abstract policy arguments in concrete legal context.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates policy argument by elimination: rather than only listing virtues of the preferred option, it repeatedly identifies specific deficiencies of the competing pathways (e.g., the judge-made approach as "piecemeal," the civil jury and ballot issue as lacking multi-stage scrutiny mechanisms). This comparative structure makes the argument more persuasive and academically rigorous than a simple advocacy essay.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a clear five-part structure: an introduction that identifies the problem and previews the four pathways; a discussion section that first contextualizes the George Floyd case, then builds a multi-pronged case for the legislative pathway across four distinct arguments (legal scope, refinement opportunities, democratic participation, and conflict resolution); and a conclusion that summarizes and concedes one limitation while rebutting it. Each argument paragraph in the discussion follows a consistent claim–explanation–contrast pattern.
Introduction
In the past, confrontations between law enforcement officers and citizens were largely reported from the perspective of police officers. However, thanks to the growing availability of smartphones with cameras, Americans have been presented with another perspective on such confrontations. As a consequence, many now believe there is a need for deliberate measures to oversee the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers. The death of George Floyd, captured on camera, clearly demonstrated inherent gaps in police oversight and the urgent need for sweeping reforms to guarantee police accountability — particularly when it comes to ending racial profiling.
It would be prudent to note that although there is a clear need for deliberate measures to ensure that police officers serve the people they swore to protect, there is no straightforward path for how to accomplish this. From a policy and legal perspective, there are several pathways that could be pursued in an attempt to curb police brutality and promote greater accountability: legislative, judge-made, civil jury, and ballot issue. This paper presents an argument in favor of the legislative pathway.
The Case for Police Reform: Framing the Problem
Before highlighting the most ideal pathway for achieving effective police reform, it is important to first consider what such reform would ideally entail — with particular focus on the George Floyd case. In essence, Floyd's killing brings two issues to the fore: police misconduct and discrimination. These are the two concerns that any corrective effort must address. It therefore follows that in selecting the most viable law/policy pathway, one must be cognizant of the fact that this is an issue of great public interest and is potentially emotive, given the racial dimension involved.
As noted in the introduction, the ideal pathway on this front is the legislative process. To a large extent, bills emanate from the need to fix an existing problem (Sweet and Mathews, 2019). There is no doubt that the country is in need of police reform, and legislation is widely seen as the best avenue for advancing this agenda.
Why the Legislative Pathway Is Most Effective
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 notable example is Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which, according to Roberson (2017), makes it mandatory for police officers to adhere to relevant legal standards and constitutional provisions — specifically regarding protection of citizens' rights. In relation to the George Floyd case, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act could also come into play, given its provisions concerning discrimination. However, numerous other aspects of the law also require reform. Among them are provisions relating to qualified immunity, which broadly shields law enforcement officers from civil litigation and ought to be adapted or eliminated.
A legislative process is the most ideal pathway for adapting or eliminating such provisions because it allows a single Act to reform entire sections of the law at once. In contrast, the judge-made pathway is limited in the extent of changes it can produce at any one time — making it, in effect, a piecemeal approach. Additionally, unlike the judge-made and civil jury pathways, the legislative process is largely proactive rather than merely reactive.
Conclusion
It is clear from the discussion above that success in reining in police misconduct will largely be determined by the law/policy pathways embraced going forward. A compelling case has been made for the legislative process. This approach appears to be the most capable of ensuring reasoned analysis and evaluation, enabling the emergence of the best solutions through greater opportunities for refinement, and promoting consensus-building. The legislative process is admittedly slow, given that Congress must attend to numerous other bills at any given time. However, there are substantial opportunities for a bill of this nature to be fast-tracked, given its direct relevance to the safety and wellbeing of citizens.
References
Hay, P. (2017). The Law of the United States: An Introduction. Routledge.
Roberson, C. (2017). Police Misconduct: A Global Perspective. Taylor & Francis.
Sweet, A. S. & Mathews, J. (2019). Proportionality Balancing and Constitutional Governance: A Comparative and Global Approach. Oxford University Press.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.