The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    We Brought Over-Policing On Ourselves

    By Michael Maiello on Mon, 09/28/2015 - 8:40am | Politics

    Interesting piece in The New York Times about the origins of the Rockefeller drug laws and the tough on crime stance of Harlem social activists in the 1960s.  It seems a classic case of a community giving up power for safety and being abused for it.  I only take issue here with the total focus on black communities within the city -- over-policing is now a problem throughout America.  Minorities are disproportionate victims but there are also white people in prisons who shouldn't be there and white people are also victims of police brutality.

    In his op-ed, Michael Fortner (a CUNY professor of urban studies) warns that if our zeal to curb police over-reach goes too far, it could lead to a "tough on crime" within the very communities now supporting movements like Black Lives Matter. I agree that it's a very real risk.

    The problem for people like me, who would generally support a more permissive society, is that law enforcement arguments can be quite persuasive, especially in communities perceived as dangerous.  Mainstream culture is becoming more permissive about things like recreation drug use, but our criminal laws are not laws are generally written to deal with specific regional problems and then imposed on the culture at large.  Once in place, these laws are incredibly difficult to remove. The ridiculously slow pace of marijuana legalization is proof of that.

    That over-policing is not exclusively a problem for minorities tends to be overlooked in the media and even in articles like this one.  That's too bad. Influential white constituencies who should be pushing back against the over-criminalization of American life are oddly complacent as they are told, over and over again, that this is not their problem.

    Stopping police brutality and curbing Draconian law enforcement seems to be the order of the day, but neither really get to the root issue which is that we simply have, between municipal state and federal codes, too many laws on the books.  The best way to reduce police authority is to narrow the scope of their involvement in people's lives.  We need fewer laws.  It should be difficult to run afoul the police.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    More on this.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 09/28/2015 - 3:51pm

    Most urban homicides originate from a small group who tend to have records of violent crime. Many homicides are personal disputes. Police are not trusted so witnesses are hard to come by. People do not talk to police they do not trust. When police abuse occurs, police unions support the abusers and not the community. This breeds more distrust . 

    In Baltimore, police were demoralized because charges wretch against the six officers responsible for transporting Freddie Gray. Gray died in a police van while in custody. Police feel under siege when they are held accountable. The community again sees no reason to trust police and the cycle continues.

    http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21661020-lack-trust-police-f...

    Cities like New York and Baltimore pay out millions in a ages because of police abuse, but there is never a continued crackdown to change police policies. 

    The current hue and cry about black on black crime hardens back to the black silent majority being duped into calling for aggressive policing in their community. The police and their unions have to be the starting point for change. When black people. Who kill black people are charged, they generally go to prison. When police kill black people, they generally go free.

    http://fusion.net/story/143613/a-guide-to-debunking-black-on-black-crime...


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/29/2015 - 8:38am

    The Economist link above cites a study that 2% of the black community was responsible for 85% of the homicides in the black community in Boston. They do not provide a link and I couldn't find the study on a quick Google search but the Economist seems a reliable source.

    Tim Wise takes a look a homicide numbers and comes up with a number near the 2% value for the percent of people causing homicides in the black community. Given the small number of offenders, tainting the entire community as critical is absurd. Stop and Frisk found evidence of criminal activity in 2% of its stops. The 98% of black citizens should not be held accountable for the 2% committing homicides.

    http://www.timwise.org/2013/08/race-crime-and-statistical-malpractice-ho...


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/29/2015 - 12:27pm

    The article Michael linked is not about homicide. Murder may be the scariest and most extreme crime to afflict poor urban areas, but it is also rare. Far more common crimes like burglary, mugging, assault, vandalism, arson, rape, sex trafficking, and drug dealing are not related to personal disputes, and they affect a much larger segment of the community.

    A high crime rate doesn't mean that we should condone police brutality, but it's silly to suggest that crime is not a serious problem for all the residents of the affected neighborhood.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/29/2015 - 7:15pm

    My point is that the majority of black citizens are not committing crimes, yet black on black crime allows every black person to be treated like a thug or whore by the police and the public. Police need to target the criminal element. The police perpetuate the "us" versus "them" meme. Police departments label the people who protest police abuse as savages. The police unions demand the killers authorized to carry guns are placed back on the street to kill again. Criminals go the jail. Abusive police remain on the streets. 

    Only a minority of the black community is criminal, but we use terms that demonize the entire community and desensitize the white community when police abuse occurs. Because any black person is a threat, all black people are at risk of abuse. Tennis star James Blake was minding his own business when he was assaulted by an undercover cop. Blake was docile. If Blake had been more aggressive and fought the plain-clothes officer, Blake could have been shot. The police commissioner would have called the shooting a tragic mistake. The commissioner would state theat Blake and the suspect looked like twins, even though the resemblance between the two men was a figment of the commissioner's imagination.

    A minority of blacks are involved in criminal activity, but every black person is supposed to give up rights for public safety. The myth of black on black crime is a public health threat.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/29/2015 - 11:54pm

    What do you mean by the "myth" of black on black crime? That black people don't commit crimes against black people. The recognition that blacks are victims too is an antidote to the far more mythical and far more unhealthy black on white crime narrative that Republicans like to promulgate.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 09/30/2015 - 10:41am

    Crime is crime. Criminals are criminals. Black criminals prey on black people. White criminals prey on white people. In the aftermath of the Watts riots, the Kerner commission noted that the problems arose from issues of race, poverty, and living conditions. The situation has t changed.

    For blacks in Hyde Park in Chicago and Mount Vernon in Baltimore, crime is mainly a TV event. Black on black crime suggests that all blacks are criminals or crime victims. Dealing with poverty, education, and employment will go a long way in addressing poverty-based crime.

    Edit to add:

    Nothing magical has happened because people say black on black crime. In fact, because black people are not valued, it makes it less likely that any action will occur. In addition, it creates situations where all blacks are threats to police because of all that mythical black on black crime, generally known as crime committed by people representing a fraction of the black community. Black on black crime is mythical and of no value.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/30/2015 - 11:16am

    I think the trouble here is that you're focusing on the first B in black-and-black crime. I'm focusing on the second. BLM is solely focused on the suffering of black people at the hands of police officers. The point of the article is remind us that black people also suffer at the hands of criminals. Indeed, they suffer far more from crime than from police brutality, directly or indirectly.

    Your claim that "crime is mainly a TV event" is an insult to anyone who has ever been a victim of crime, who has been shot, robbed, beaten, or raped, whose children have been corrupted by drug dealers, whose buildings have been vandalized, whose neighborhoods have been burned, who don't feel safe going outside at night.

    Want to know about crime in Hyde Park? Not the sensational shootings on WGN but the everyday crime that matters only to the victims and their loved ones? The stats are right here. These are only the police reports; the actual incidences are much higher. Btw, Hyde Park is a relatively well-off, white, crime-free oasis with crime rates of 0.6 (violent), 2.6 (property), and 0.9 (quality of life). Click over to Grand Crossing a few blocks away with crime rates of 2.5/4.9/3.4. Do you want to live in Grand Crossing? Why not? Because the police there are too racist? Please.

    Of course, white people are victims too. And criminals. Crime is crime, why can't we just leave the race out of it? If this were France, we would. There is no race in France, did you know? And therefore no racism. The fact that unemployment, poverty, and other social problems disproportionately affect dark-skinned French people is not to be discussed.

    But we do things differently in the U.S. We have a proud tradition of recognizing that race matters. That's why the movement is called BLM not ALM. We talk about black unemployment, black poverty, black schools, black neighborhoods, and black victims of police brutality. It's important to talk about these things in order challenge and defeat racism and racial inequality.

    So if we're talking about racial inequality in all these different areas, then why is it verboten to talk about crime inequality? Not the criminals. Who cares about the criminals? I'm worried about the victims. Why don't black crime victims matter? Why should we not acknowledge that a city where black Grand Crossing has a 2.5/4.9/3.4 crime rate and white Lincoln Park has 0.3/2.7/0.7 has some serious racial inequality?


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 10/01/2015 - 9:57am

    I said that if you are black and live in Hyde Park, crime is a TV event for you. The Obamas lived in Hyde Park. Other blacks live in Hyde Park. They enjoy the same low crime rate. Rep. Elijah Cummings lives in Mount Vernon in Baltimore. Cummings walked over to the riots and walked back home after trying to calm things down. Your black on black crime does not impact blacks living in certain areas.

    I said the problem in the urban crime areas is poverty, lack of jobs, and poor education. The Kerner report and every other reputable study of urban crime emphasizes the same issues. If you want to address crime, address those issues. That should be the focus. Black on black crime suggests that we can arrest our way out of the problem. We want the same issues addressed. I think black on black crime is a term that diverts our attention of the cause of the problem. The problem is generations of poverty and a system that does not put any true focus on breaking the poverty cycle. Crime is the end product of generational poverty and poor education. To cure the problem, identify the cause. 

    If you say that ending generational poverty is the issue, we bring a different set of resources than when we say black on black crime. Black on black crime gets you a focus on police and arrests. It criminalizes blacks , even innocent blacks. 

    I cannot understand why you do not see black on black crime as a term that does not address the cause of high crime but focuses on the result of poverty. If you want to address poverty, name it. If you want to continue the cycle of a school to prison pipeline, keep focused on black on black crime. 


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:22am

    Your response seems to make a strong case for Bernie Sanders" original response to BLM which was to say that all lives matter and then tie [much of] the solution to the problems of racism and black crime to an adjustment to the economic system so that a fair share of the nations wealth goes to the bottom 90% and gives everyone within that 90% a fair shot at a fair share of that wealth.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:04pm

    I'm am not saying that race is unimportant. I'm saying that black on black crime leads to focus on solutions from the legal system. Saying that schools are "Separate and Unequal" addresses one of the root cause as of crime.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/13/arne-duncan-school-funding-disp...

    Spend more money on schools and will need to spend less on prisons

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/arne-duncan-prison-school-spending_5...

    AllLivesMatter is not controversial. The reason that Black Lives Matter causes pushback is many people do not believe the black lives actually matter. BLM gets characterized as a terrorist organization by some.

    Responding to BLM by saying all lives matter is like responding to MLK's "I have a dream" with "No Dr. King, all dreams matter. You should focus on black on black crime first."


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/01/2015 - 1:17pm

    Of course poverty is a prime driver of crime. It's also a prime driver of poor health, failing schools, substance abuse, homelessness, child abuse, and social other ills. But that doesn't mean we throw up our hands and say oh well, we can't fix any of the issues until we solve poverty. They're all interrelated, and we have to address all them.

    Ftr, I haven't used the term "black on black crime" except to echo you. I don't use the term because I agree with you focusing on black criminals is not helpful. But the second part, focusing on black victims of crime is essential. And if you dismiss the victims by saying whatever, it's just a few gangsters killing each other and anyway, crime doesn't affect middle class black people like the Obamas, then you are effectively saying that black lives matter but black quality of life doesn't.

    PS The Obama lived in Kenwood


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 10/01/2015 - 4:49pm

    Native Americans are unable to convince the Pope to rescind the 500 year old noxious Papal bulls that make up the Doctrine of Discovery. These Imperialist White Supremacist laws underpin modern  property and Indian law and are still used to deny NA claims to their stolen lands.

    The same White Supremacist ideology is at the root of our policing system and is clearly evident in poor minority areas but regularly shows up in more affluent areas when minorities are are involved.

    The laws used to control minority populations are just the tools of oppression although they seem to be based on infallibility just as Papal bulls are. Even if you could change the laws the oppressor will find other means to enforce White Supremacy even in a more permissive society.

     

     


    by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 09/29/2015 - 12:26pm

    Maybe you should read Fortner's article before submerging us in Peter Prattle on White Supremacy and Native Americans. It has nothing to do with his points.


    by NCD on Tue, 09/29/2015 - 6:29pm

    Fortner makes the simple point that liberals react most to cop abuse in black communities, blacks who live in those communities, a 'silent majority' are often more concerned with their own safety and want law enforcement even if it over does it.

    If you read the NYT article "Guarding the Prison Guards" about prison officer unions protecting and lying about abuse and misconduct by their members, and the weak ass system for punishing sociopathic officers, you might conclude that any organization like prison guards or cop departments where the head honcho of the organization cannot fire or discipline an officer without some over paid candy ass 'arbitrator' deciding the union members fate is set up to fail.

    Cops and prison guards hold life or death authority on their jobs, when an officer commits an alleged offense of abuse of force, or fails to adequately carry out their job on duty, you need rapid and complete accountability through the immediate supervisors. That does not happen due to union contracts, see NYT link above.

    The arbitration provisions in the cop and prison officer union contracts prevent that, they even prevent the supervisor from questioning the officer after an incident. No organization with such lax provision for supervision and control by the department head can be expected to be either accountable or optimally effective, on the streets, or in the prisons.


    by NCD on Tue, 09/29/2015 - 7:53pm

    I have a hard time getting worked up about anybody unionizing, whether public or private employees.  People have the right to associate.  I think part of the problem is that we just don't pay cops, prison guards and the like enough to get high quality people into those professions and nobody wants to pay more for it. Well, you get what you pay for and then the system has all sorts of reasons to protect the arrangement.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 09/29/2015 - 10:34pm

    I think the corrections officer in the NYT article I linked gets paid more than enough. A union that defends a guy like that is, I believe, an organization that should be exposed (as the NYT did in this piece) and condemned. they give a bad name for unions everywhere and function only to prevent psycho officers who commit crimes from being fired.

    Politicians are often too chickenshit and people could give a crap of course, to do anything but kick the can, or in the case related - the inmates balls, down the road.


    by NCD on Tue, 09/29/2015 - 11:22pm