The Corrupt American Policing System

The Youth Activist Club
May 24, 2020
6 min read

Updated: Jul 14, 2020

By Chikamso Chijioke

Trayvon Martin, Sam Dubose, Philando Castile, Terence Crutcher, Alton Sterling, Eric Harris, Tamir Rice, Micheal Brown, Eric Garner, Stephon Clark, Rumain Brisbane, Jamarion Robinson, and Breonna Taylor. What do all of these people have in common you may ask? Well, they were all victims of police brutality and excessive force that proved fatal. In many of these cases the victims did not get justice, as the perpetrators did not face charges or jail time. A majority of them were also unarmed and innocent African Americans. It begs the question: how does this keep happening? How do police officers commit such horrendous crimes, yet seldom face consequences? The answer is simple: a corrupt law enforcement system that makes it nearly impossible for cops to be held accountable for their terrible actions.

Police unions: One aspect of the broken law enforcement system is police unions. Their main objective is to protect its members. That can range from getting better working conditions and pay for cops, or stopping them from being held accountable for misconduct. When officers commit crimes, unions go to the moon and back to defend them, which almost always hinders said officers from facing repercussions. As Thomas Nolan, a criminologist at Merrimack College of Massachusetts, and former union official said, “I think police unions are always going to default to the position that the officers are blameless in instances where they use deadly force... Even though internally unions and union officials might express reservations among themselves, at least publicly, the position is always going to be that the officer feared for his life or feared for the life of another person and that his use of deadly force was entirely warranted. That’s textbook.” Moreover, police union contracts are infamous for preventing disciplinary actions against officers who do bad things. In one study, Stephen Rushin, a criminal law professor and researcher at Loyola University Chicago, examined 178 police union contracts from around the U.S. and found several similar attributes in them:

Contracts made it so that officers could not be interviewed or interrogated immediately following an incident of misconduct, along with other restrictions on the process of their interrogation.
Gave cops access to evidence concerning their case of wrongdoing before being interrogated.
Prevented history of previous misconduct investigations and disciplinary actions from being included in an officer's personnel file.
Forbade the investigation or punishment of an officer's offenses if too much time had passed since the occurrence of the event or start of the investigation.
Prohibited the investigation or disciplining of officers based on anonymous civilian accusations.
Limited the power of civilian groups to investigate, discipline, or terminate officers for misconduct.
Required cities to pay costs associated with misconduct case proceedings such as giving perpetrating officers paid leave, legal fees, and settlement costs.
Demanded arbitrators (third party negotiation) decide what- if any- disciplinary actions should be taken against officers offenses. Oftentimes, unions choose the arbitrators themselves.

Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights also works in a nearly identical way. These restrictions (and lack thereof) have been shown to increase officer’s use of violence. A study conducted by Dhammika Dharmapala, Richard H. McAdams, and John Rappaport (who are all University of Chicago’s Law School Professors and researchers) found that when Florida sheriff's deputies were able to collectively bargain (negotiate their contracts), it led to a 45% increase in violent incidents. Furthermore, police unions often lobby local politicians to stop criminal justice reform from progressing. The unchecked power of police unions is a devastating barrier to correcting the corrupt law enforcement system.

Special laws for cops: Another way officers are protected from being held accountable is through qualified immunity. The doctrine states that a law enforcement officer cannot be sued for an event of misconduct or brutality if the officer’s use of force was reasonable (from the perspective of an officer in that situation) or if the victim cannot prove that the rights that were violated were “clearly established.” A right cannot be clearly established unless the incident has happened previously in court, with the same circumstances. If these standards are not met, the case against the officer will be dismissed. The reasoning is essential: if an officer’s actions were not done before by someone else in an extremely similar context, then how could they possibly have known it was wrong?

Police- District attorney relationship: One other barrier to police accountability is the relationship between cops and prosecutors. Prosecutors are the people who decide if an officer gets charged for acts of violence or misconduct. However, this proves to be a conflicting task seeing as officers and prosecutors' work goes hand in hand. Prosecutors need cops to provide them with witnesses, evidence, and information for cases. It’s not unsurprising that prosecutors only indicted officers who killed civilians 6-8% of the time. It's quite simple really- since prosecutors work with, and rely on cops, they are less likely to send them to jail. This relationship only serves as counterproductive in a victim’s fight for justice.

Fear-based and violent training: Now I know what you’re probably thinking at this point: “well it’s not a cop’s fault that police unions protect them, or that prosecutors don’t want to charge them. They react to situations the way they are trained to.” I understand that; I do. But that in itself is part of the problem. Officers are taught to be vigilant and react quickly to ensure their safety from the get-go. Those ideals are not inherently bad, but they can manifest into causing dire and deadly outcomes. When faced with dangerous situations, shooting first and asking questions later is usually the preferred style for law enforcement. A 2015 study of 280 law enforcement agencies discovered that on average, new recruits got 58 hours of firearms training, yet only received 8 hours of de-escalation training. With more experienced officers and their yearly active service training, just 65% of them were taught de-escalation tactics. Even those who did practice de-escalation did not do nearly as much of it as other types of training. Out of the 65%, 18% of the time was devoted to firearm training, but merely 5% of the time was spent on de-escalation. What’s even more disheartening is that as of 2017, 34 states do not have requirements on de-escalation training. There are similar trends seen with the lack of hate crime training. Only 12 states even require education on hate crimes. Hate crime and de-escalation training make a big difference in the way officers act. An example of this can be seen in the Dallas Police Department. An 18% decline in the use of force was reported the year after de-escalation training was introduced. On top of that, excessive force complaints there have been dropping by 83% since 2010.

Blue code of silence: If we were to disregard all the ways unions, prosecutors, and even the law fails to hold cops to account for their actions, cops themselves don’t hold each other accountable. Called the blue code (or blue wall) of silence, it is the idea that cops should not report the misconduct of their fellow officers. The National Institute of Ethics did a study of hundreds of cops in 21 states and found that close to 80% of cops acknowledged that a code of silence exists. However, over half of them said the code did not trouble them. What’s also unsettling is that almost half of the officers surveyed said that the code was strongest in an incident of excessive force. Half also admitted to witnessing misconduct done by another officer but chose not to report it due to pressure from other officers and even superiors. They also felt that if they did report, the complaint would not be heeded. Unfortunately, this principle also applies to ex-cops.

With all these factors, it’s plain to see why difficulty arises when a victim or their family seeks justice against an officer. The principles instilled in cops, and the reinforcement of protection for them and only them causes devastating outcomes. If police are ever to be held accountable for committing appalling crimes, there needs to be a reframing of values in this country. Law enforcement is supposed to protect and serve the public, not just themselves. I can understand the dangers cops face while on the job, but no matter what was going through an officer's head when they pulled the trigger and took an innocent life, they should not be shielded from the consequences of their actions. Police officers cannot continue to be above the law.