
The United States needs to overhaul its law-enforcement system - frrp
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21636033-united-states-needs-overhaul-its-law-enforcement-system-americas-police-trial
======
moskie
Small complaint (about an otherwise very good article):

> Eric Garner ... guilty only of selling single cigarettes

The cops involved _suspected_ this, but I don't believe it's known that he is
guilty of this. Especially in a legal sense: he did not live to see a trial.

~~~
hellbanner
Why exactly is selling single cigarettes illegal?

~~~
cushychicken
Legal constraints of selling tobacco require a licensed vendor to sell them in
licensed packages/quantities. Eric Garner wasn't licensed, and single
cigarettes aren't allowed to be sold in the US.

Fairly petty crimes, but crimes.

~~~
jonah
You can buy single cigarettes in many bars. (Don't know if it's legal though.)

~~~
cushychicken
Interesting. I've never seen that. The packaging thing may be a state to state
restriction, because I've never been to a bar that sold cigarettes in
quantities less than a pack.

------
joesmo
How about also ending grand juries altogether (or at least in cases of
potential homicide)? It's obvious that the people on the grand juries are not
qualified to asses anything and it's an archaic system not employed by any
other country
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury)).

In addition, the prosecutors' powers need to be curtailed. Such crimes should
always be charged, regardless of what the prosecutor wants. If there is doubt,
bring in an outside prosecutor like the article suggests.

~~~
tptacek
How exactly does eliminating grand juries _help_ with out-of-control law
enforcement? Grand juries are a safeguard _for the accused_. Do they work in
practice? No. But eliminating them concedes the problem to the prosecution
entirely.

You're not the first person I've seen suggest this, and I'm baffled by the
logic.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>Grand juries are a safeguard for the accused. Do they work in practice? No.

Grand Juries have an especially hard time finding anything wrong with police
conduct and are routinely used to "legitimize" questionable police activity.

I'm not ready to agree to eliminating them but it isn't hard to understand why
someone might throw it out there as an idea.

~~~
tptacek
Why? So we can do away with the pretense?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
I suppose. "If it isn't helping, it's hurting..." something like that.

------
toddsiegel
This one sentence towards in the bottom of the article needs to happen. As we
saw in the Eric Garner case, video footage means little.

> To improve accountability, complaints should be heard by independent
> arbiters, brought in from outside.

The prosecutors and police are on the same team.

> If an officer is accused of a crime, the decision as to whether to indict
> him may rest with a local prosecutor who works closely with the local
> police, attends barbecues with them and depends on the support of the police
> union if he or she wants to be re-elected. Or it may rest with a local
> “grand jury” of civilians, who hear only what the prosecutor wants them to
> hear.

------
callmeed
I'm getting to the point where I can't stand local law enforcement. Combined
with local governments, courts, and other entities, it just seems like a big
racket to keep money flowing.

Yesterday, I was pulled over for not buckling my seatbelt until 2 blocks after
pulling out of a parking spot. Turns out I had an unresolved fix-it ticket
from 2013 which caused my license to be suspended (had no idea). CHP officer
accused me of lying to him (I wasn't) and immediately impounded my car.
Getting my car back took visits from 4 places (court, dmv, CHP office, tow
yard) with fees at every turn.

I can't imagine how bad it is for people living in larger cities.

~~~
meowface
Can't say I blame the cop for any of that. 2 blocks is plenty long enough to
get into an accident. And he has no other choice if you're driving on a
suspended license.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>And he has no other choice if you're driving on a suspended license.

He has a choice.

------
Sir_Substance
I would like to remind everyone that the US gun ownership rate is not the
cause of US gun crime.

A key assertion of this article is that guncrime is high because guns are
common, and thus police have a somewhat justified reason to shoot first to
defend themselves.

I would like to remind everyone that ownership of a military assault rifle is
mandatory for 2/3rds of all men between 20 and 34 in Switzerland, and the
rifle must be kept at home, by law. Once their service is complete, they may
elect to keep their weapon.

This results in one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. Despite
this, gun crime in Switzerland is almost the lowest in the world.

US gun crime and police aggression is the result of unhealthy gun culture and
an unhealthy attitude towards mental health, not ownership rates.

One of the unhealthy aspects is that the population fears the police will
shoot them, so they prepare to defend against the police. The police respond
by preparing to preemptively defend themselves, and the cycle escalates until
someone thinks it is reasonable to give US police forces mine-proof trucks.

~~~
mc32
The Swiss may have one of the highest rates of firearms at home but almost no
ammunition is held at home. Previously the militia stored ammo at home, but it
was strictly audited and missing ammo would get the person in potentially
serious trouble.

So, while they have arms, the arms are in effect, disarmed.

~~~
dllthomas
Do you have a source for this?

~~~
Veratyr
[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912)

> "And we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give
> ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was
> introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007.

~~~
dllthomas
Wikipedia agrees, citing [1]. However, both only seems to speak to ammunition
issued by the army, not to how much of it is purchased privately. If it is in
fact uncommon for Swiss gun owners to own ammunition, then that still seems to
make the "gun ownership rate" misleading as pertains to the discussion here.

[1] [http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/soldiers-can-keep-guns-at-
home-b...](http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/soldiers-can-keep-guns-at-home-but-not-
ammo/970614)

------
lifeisstillgood
Several parts strike me

1\. Killings by the police in the US are daily events but. "nobody knows the
exact number as not all deaths are reported" WTF! The police don't report
upwards if they _shoot_ someone!

2\. 37% of US blacks have confidence in the police (pretty high considering)
but just 59% of whites. Good grief how do you police a city or a block if 40%
of the nice white middle class people think you are going to cock it up ?!

It's the last that counts the most. Guns and force cannot replace trust -
community policing is not some nice to have, Chuck Culson was wrong, Hearts
and Minds matter, at home and abroad.

~~~
mc808
I'm guessing they mean a shooting may not show up in the statistics as "shot
dead" if someone dies from complications 6 months later, even if the shooting
was responsible for the death.

~~~
Anechoic
No, the police do not report _any_ shooting statistics. The numbers we have
are based on press reports, but police are not required to report to any
central authority (DOJ or FBI) about how or when their officers shoot someone.

~~~
jonah
There is _some_ reporting, but it's very incomplete.

Google link to WSJ article:
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newss...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fhundreds-
of-police-killings-are-uncounted-in-federal-statistics-1417577504&ei=mU-
KVNDTB4fXoATjkIDgBQ&usg=AFQjCNEK7jbzcFKBbEsTqz9jPmeYSmlUmg&bvm=bv.81456516,d.cGU)

------
thrownaway2424
If you need proof that police in America are out-of-control thugs you only
need to look at this shocking photo from Oakland last night:
[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Undercover-cops-
outed-...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Undercover-cops-outed-
attacked-at-Oakland-5951011.php)

In which an out-of-uniform CHP officer is brandishing a gun in the face of a
photographer while another plain-dressed CHP officers wearing a bandana over
his face tackles a protester. These cops had no reason to be in this
situation, no reason to draw their weapons, certainly no reason to threaten
members of the press with lethal force. No reason to hold their weapon
sideways like an ignorant thug. These are the kinds of people who would
certainly be removed from duty, probably prosecuted in more civilized
countries.

~~~
mynameishere
[http://imgur.com/gallery/QSyWdcy](http://imgur.com/gallery/QSyWdcy)

Sorry for laughing. I'm really amazed that every single Simpsons reference has
an imgur link already made. But you're right--that guy needs canned.

------
rayiner
The article makes some excellent points, but the comparison to Europe rang a
little hollow to me.

The U.S. is an order of magnitude more violent than the U.K., and always has
been:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade).
In 1960 there was no drug war, there was no prohibition, the country was
prosperous, but more than eight times as many people were murdered per capita
than in the U.K.

> Sentences are harsh. Some American states impose life without parole for
> persistent but non-violent offenders; no other rich nation does.

In 1993-94, years where the per-capita murder rate in the U.S. was 9x higher
than in the U.K., California and Washington voters approved the three strikes
laws that lead to these harsh sentences by 3-1 margins.

It's easy to talk about the things that are wrong with the justice system in
the U.S., but it's a pretty cursory analysis until you tackle the real
question: when exercising their democratic will, whether in the small on grand
juries or in the large through referendums, why do voters keep supporting the
system?

~~~
refurb
_In 1993-94, years where the per-capita murder rate in the U.S. was 9x higher
than in the U.K.,_

It's important to keep in mind that murder rates are pretty low in general
(save for a handful of countries). It's only when you compare countries to
each other that the differences seem large.

In 1993-1994 Canada's murder rate was _double_ that of the UKs. I wouldn't, by
an stretch of the imagination say that Canada had a murder problem then.

~~~
rayiner
They're low in the sense that any given person is unlikely to be personally
murdered. They're not low in the sense that the impact of the crime on the
community can't be felt.

I used to live in Wilmington, DE, where 0.038% of people in the city get
murdered each year. Vanishingly small odds, to be sure, but high enough where
in the year I lived there several scary incidents "hit close to home." There
was someone gunned down a block away from my wife's office (in the business
district of downtown). There was another person killed on a street corner a
few blocks from our house, which we used to pass regularly on the way to our
favorite Indian restaurant. That sort of thing weighs on a community's psyche.
I have to admit, the hair on the back of my neck would stand up when I was
walking around Wilmington at night.

Also, it's reasonable to believe that murder rates are a proxy for violent
crime in general. The former is a more reliable statistic, because different
jurisdictions' definitions of violent crime differ dramatically.

~~~
refurb
I agree. When looking at stats like these, they hide the fact that homicides
are not distributed equally across a country.

The US has a high murder rate, but it is very localized not only in certain
cities, but certain parts of cities. Outside of those areas the homicide rate
is vanishingly low.

~~~
rayiner
I wouldn't say "vanishingly low." In the wealthy suburban county where I grew
up, the homicide rate was roughly comparable to London. Four U.S. states have
a murder rate lower than the U.K.: [http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-
murder-rate-higher-t...](http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-murder-rate-
higher-than-some-us-states). Aside from Hawaii, those states have almost no
major urban centers to speak of, in comparison to the U.K. which is dense and
urban.

Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Carolina are heavily rural with
few major urban centers to speak of, yet have 3-5x the murder rate of the
U.K.:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10320691/US-
crime-murders-and-manslaughters-by-state.html).

~~~
refurb
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

------
jqm
I see part of the problem being an extreme lack of civility in our society.

At one point I suppose the police felt they were members of the community. So
they treated people with some measure of respect and dignity while carrying
out their duties. They would see these same people at church, at the store, at
baseball games, at funerals etc. So it was different.

Now, the police are often unreasonably rude and hostile immediately and
without provocation. For example, the case of M. Brown... sure, it's
understood Brown probably did attack the officer and was shot. But, the
officer pulls up squealing tires and shouts for Brown to get the F __* out of
the street. So he gets Brown angry and is physically attacked. Then he _has_
to shoot the kid. Certainly Brown shouldn 't have been walking in the middle
of the road. But what if the officer had pulled up and said "Fellows, how are
you doing today? Can I get you to get off the street? I wouldn't want to see
you get run over." Then, if they didn't comply, ramp it up a little bit at a
time as needed. Chances are there never would have been a shooting. But as it
is, the officers hostile speech and generally dickish attitude led to a
situation in which deadly force eventually was used. That officer is morally
in the wrong, he did help create this situation, he should be fired, he should
be punished.

We should demand our officers act with politeness and basic respect even as
they enforce the law. If they can't do the job without behaving like psychotic
bullies, we should find some people who can.

On the other hand, looking at the people they deal with day in and day out,
it's easy to understand how they could get this attitude. Many citizens
officers deal with have no basic respect nor manners themselves. Still...
officers should be held the a higher standard (and appropriately compensated
if it comes to that). They are still nominally public servants and should be
acting in the best interests of the community. A community which includes the
people they may be arresting btw.

~~~
A_COMPUTER
This is a red herring. I lived around the KS City area for a year and people
walking in the middle of the street intentionally obstructing traffic was a
thing that happened on a regular basis. They walk in the street while you're
driving and glare at you, basically trying to prove they can make you do their
will by having to drive around them just walking there. Civility is already
gone at that point, it is willful, aggressive disruption. Maybe the cop was
dickish, but for the same reason you can't blame Brown's behavior for his
homicide, you can't blame Wilson for escalation that would make brown figure
he could win a confrontation against a law officer. If Wilson shouldn't have
acted like an asshole because it escalated the situation, the it more applies
to Brown that he shouldn't have been walking in the street.

~~~
jqm
Indeed. Both parties are guilty of basic lack of civility (a point which I
note).

But one party is (in theory), a professional state agent, paid at least in
part by the other. (Sounds like you didn't quite make it to the bottom of my
post.....).

I'm not quite catching your point... it seems to be that Brown was acting up
so it was acceptable for Wilson to act as he did. And if that is your point I
don't agree. At all. And no, this isn't a "red herring". It is an often
overlooked point that is entirely relevant to the issue. The behavior and
general attitude of police officers sometimes helps cause these types of
situations.

Also you say I can't blame Brown for being partially responsible for his own
death? I can't blame Wilson for inflaming the situation? Oh yes I can. On both
points. And I would be right. Not sure why you would say this......

My point is... we would all be better served if officers behaved in a more
respectful manner. So ultimately would they. That people walked around cocky
in the street and annoyed you is irrelevant to this simple fact. Two wrongs
don't make a right. And one party, in particular, should definitely be
expected to be above this behavior. We should demand it.

~~~
A_COMPUTER
I didn't say you could "blame" either one of them. I said that you are being
inconsistent by only attributing total responsibility for escalating a
situation that resulted in the confrontation to one party. The fact that
Wilson was a professional and Brown wasn't doesn't change that fact, in fact
not a single thing said I thought he shouldn't be punished. You are saying
"Wilson didn't act within his responsibility." Well, what about Brown breaking
the law by walking in the middle of the road? He had a responsibility to not
do that, even if he is not a "professional." "Wilson should be held to a
higher standard as an officer of the law." Indeed he should, but none of that
excuses Brown for escalating it further. Again, there is a very simple
calculus that goes into this: if you enter into a confrontation with a police
officer, you are not going to win--and this is not underhanded justification
for Brown's execution, but the basic fact that the law officer holds all the
power. They both can provoke each other, but the costs are much higher for one
party than the other. If you think a cop is being a dick to you, recognize
that right or wrong, he has the power to kill you and get away with it. I
understand your point. I reject it.

~~~
jqm
This article isn't about people walking in the street or the behavior of
suspects. It's about the behavior of police officers. So are my comments.

"Total" responsibility? Where do I attribute that? Did you actually read my
post? You reject my point that society would be better served if police
officers behaved in a more civil manner?

I don't think this worth continuing.... Have a good evening.

------
TillE
One problem among many is that US police are both allowed and trained to use
deadly force very quickly, when under any kind of threat. German police will
often (successfully!) shoot to disable, not to kill, even when confronted by
someone armed with a knife.

It's a common American meme that when police fire a gun, the only rational
decision is to shoot to kill, but it's just not true.

~~~
higherpurpose
In other countries the police is even obligated to fire a "warning shot" (in
the air) before _shooting to disable_ (and only later can shoot to kill).

~~~
pzxc
1\. Firing a shot in the air is reckless -- the bullet/round comes down with
the same speed and momentum as when it was first fired, and it's gotta land
somewhere -- and I'd be surprised if that was the standard operating procedure
of any law enforcement agency in the world (however my surprise doesn't mean
it isn't true). Perhaps you meant they fire a warning shot in the ground, but
there is a big difference and that you missed the distinction suggests to me
you may not have accurate information about what law enforcement agencies are
or are not required to do.

2\. As for the GP, you should neither shoot to kill nor shoot to maim. You
should shot to _stop the threat_. Whether they live or die is not as important
as stopping a lethal threat (and if there is no lethal threat, you should not
be shooting). And if your intent is to _stop_ the threat rather than kill or
injure, the best chance of stopping the threat is to shoot center of mass
until the target goes down. (Which will, in most cases, kill the target,
incidentally)

~~~
zik
> ...the bullet/round comes down with the same speed and momentum as when it
> was first fired...

This would only be true if air resistance wasn't a thing. Physics is against
you on this one.

~~~
pzxc
You're right, my explanation was technically inaccurate. However, the terminal
velocity of a bullet due to gravity is still easily enough to kill someone
(and does kill every year from people "celebrating" this way), so my point
still stands.

------
superbaconman
These people are trained to take on murders, yet we expect them to nab every
bit of weed they can find in a culture where it's weird if you don't own a
gun. What do you expect them to do?

If you want a better society pass better laws. That means funding rational
candidates for office.

------
pyrocat
If only. All of the actions recommended in this article are moderate, common
sense changes that benefit the populous as a whole and will never happen. The
police have no interest in changing practices that benefit them, and any
politician that tries to oppose their will is going to get called "soft on
crime", a nonsense attack that somehow still persists in our political dialog.

------
poulsbohemian
I've been reading the Economist for 20+ years now and it never ceases to amaze
me that while there is some excellent journalism, they really don't _get_ the
United States. Statements like "If America did not have 300m guns in
circulation, much of this would change." show their bias, rather than having
anything to do with the way the US turns everything - drugs, immigration,
poverty - into a policing issue infused with violence. Does the Economist
really believe that American gun ownership is a good excuse for why (in my
case) rural police departments feel it necessary to be buying mine resistant
vehicles? The whole situation is out of control, but like so many issues in
American life, the Economist really misses the cultural and social picture.

~~~
res0nat0r
The actual title of this article is "America's Police on Trial" so I don't
think this editorial is trying to apply itself to every area of US law.

They qualify the above statement in the prior paragraph: "One reason why so
many American police shoot first is that so many American civilians are
armed."

~~~
Crito
Even with that qualification that is still crap logic. There are _lots_ of
guns in America, but the number of Americans who own guns are at all-time
lows. The _" number of guns in America"_ figure is deceptive because of all of
the people who own dozens to hundreds of guns.

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-o...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-
unclear/)

Arresting somebody who owns one or two guns is really not inherently safer
than arresting somebody who owns a few crates of guns, so the number of guns
in the country is irrelevant. The number of gun _owners_ is relevant.

The apparent upward trend in police militarization and the number of Americans
that own guns simply do not correlate. The Economist's unfamiliarity with
American culture (particularly American gun culture) explains how they could
make this mistake.

~~~
res0nat0r
It isn't because gun ownership is up, it is stating that police shootings
occur because of the mere fact that there are already more guns in the USA
than any other first world country, thus police are more likely to encounter
criminals with guns. We also have the highest gun homicide rate of any first
world country. The two are directly related.

~~~
Crito
> _" it is stating that police shootings occur because of the mere fact that
> there are already more guns in the USA than any other first world country,
> thus police are more likely to encounter criminals with guns"_

Police in America are _less_ likely today to encounter guns than they were 40
years ago, but police shootings are apparently at all time highs. If their
theory held water, that would not be the case.

~~~
res0nat0r
The USA still has 300 million guns. This is far and beyond any other first
world country, so yes this is in fact related to police in the USA more likely
shooting first than they would in other countries which do not have such an
insane saturation of guns like the USA.

~~~
Crito
When you have a hypothesis, you have to try making predictions with it and see
if it fits real-world data. If it doesn't, then it is _wrong_. It doesn't
matter how elegant or beautiful your hypothesis is, if it does not fit the
data then it is _wrong_.

Your hypothesis does not fit the data.

------
mc32
I think this issue has many aspects, some of which are very political and
polarizing, as well as your mundane issues.

First, police often act with worst case scenarios in mind. That is err on the
side of the suspect inflicting immediate harm. Why? Because oftentimes proven
offenders actually had arms. Now, the UK, Japan, the police may not be any
nicer but they have the privilege of correctly presuming suspects are unarmed.

As Americans i don't think we'll get to a place where arms are well regulated,
so I think other options will be necessary. Training in defusing
confrontations, perhaps sending in officers in exoskeletons and armor.
Something which allows for the suspect to actually intend harm but unable to
execute on the officer. That way police don't feel they have to err on the
side of safety given the propensity of arms in The US.

The police are trained to neutralize a suspect rather than "wing" them. I
think it has to do with how "baddies" can have actual firearms whereas in many
other countries firearms are heavily regulated for the general pop.

In any event, the police and the general pop need to be able to feel more at
ease with each other otherwise we'll be on our way to judge dredd and that's
not a good path.

------
chappi42
> 300m guns in circulation...

what wonder that people get shot.

[Edit: what wonder I get downvoted, kind of expected this]

~~~
angersock
...have you _seen_ how well armed the State is? You'd be a fool _not_ to own a
cannon or two.

~~~
chappi42
I have only read about it and seen pictures. If there are that many guns, it
escalades much faster and probably a policeman is more afraid also. In Germany
/ Switzerland policeman still often feel kind of normal people and are rather
relaxed. Not sure if you also get this feel in the US.

------
brg
Every metropolitan region in the US needs to elect a modern tribune.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_of_the_Plebs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_of_the_Plebs)

A modern tribune should play both the role of sheriff and prosecutor. The
powers of a tribune should be constrained to act for the people against
government agencies. To that end, they would have power to arrest and detain
government officials, convene grand juries, and prosecute trials.

To do their job, a modern tribune and their family would require lifetime
immunity from local law enforcement. To enforce this immunity, any interaction
by local law enforcement would need to be punishable by suspension and jail
time and the burden is strict liability.

But the tribune could not be a position of total local authority. Their powers
would need to be constrained to local government officials. And they would
need to be under the jurisdiction of country Sheriff's or State police.

This would break the incestuous relationships between the DA office, the
police, and the judiciary.

------
sybhn
some interesting numbers...

> This year 46 policemen were shot dead and

> the police shot and killed at least 458 people last year

10% or so of death involving police is a policemen. Not that it justify the
police force level, but an interesting statistic.

~~~
thrownaway2424
That figure does not even place law enforcement in the top ten most dangerous
professions.

~~~
hiou
Automobile accidents, are by far the most lethal part of US life outside of
disease. This is no different for police officers.

~~~
thrownaway2424
I'm always saying that the best thing the police can do is get out of their
cars. If it makes them safer, even better.

------
gavanwoolery
As someone else pointed out to me, its not just the US, but the world. There
are abuses to the system everywhere - in some places it is better than the US
but in many places it is far worse.

Law enforcement is actually pretty good here in my opinion (when you look at
the big picture). But our legal system (as in, the court system) benefits
mostly lawyers, wealthy people, etc.

