
How Cars Transformed Policing - bookofjoe
http://bostonreview.net/law-justice/sarah-seo-how-cars-transformed-policing
======
kartan
> How could a democratic society founded on self-governance depend on police
> governance and still be free?

This is something that I see radically different between the USA and Europe.
Europe had more authoritative states and police enforcement moved from
repression force to citizens service. In the USA the path seems the opposite.
From self-policing and freedom towards repression.

> U.S. courts did more to encourage and sustain, rather than to check, the
> growing authority of the police.

I guess that there was a need for more law enforcement. But, the trend never
stopped even when it made no sense anymore.

> The upshot, as time would tell, was not the protection of individuals’
> privacy in their cars but the empowerment of highway patrollers and traffic
> cops who could take advantage of the thicket of procedures to exercise their
> power in discretionary, even discriminatory, ways.

This is the pattern that I have seen. The problem with much of the cases that
I see on the news is that there is no accountability. Police forces are going
to make mistakes, and that mistakes can be lethal. But, I do not see self-
reflection or improvement.

When you make the same mistake a hundred times. It is not a mistake anymore
but part of the system.

~~~
Shivetya
So my question for Europeans is, how much influence in politics do your police
have? In the US both police and sheriff unions have incredible influence at
local, city, and even state levels. Some of the unions have been known to
openly attack with billboards, having squad cars follow, and more, candidates
who seek to reform policing and pension benefits; benefits which are excessive
on any level of sane measurement. People worry about corporate influence
should instead be clamoring to get these entities out of politics.

So the excesses simply are the filtering down effect as judges are appointed
in many areas by the same politicians who are under the thumb of these two
very powerful political forces. After all, you can just imagine the FUD they
can dispense for anyone who dares cross them.

* note, I listed police and sheriff separately because the sheriff side is more commonly associated with prisons; California's sheriffs union is a notorious cause of the growth of that system. they are just that powerful

~~~
garmain
Dutch: None.

~~~
cr1895
That's not 100% true. Last year they almost went on strike by responding only
to emergency calls.

[https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/09/minister-tries-to-
have...](https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/09/minister-tries-to-have-police-
strike-banned-citing-public-safety-fears/)

~~~
moate
That's a public sector labor issue, not a "political" one. This isn't the same
as say, the police union funding a politicians campaign or telling its members
which party to vote for.

------
cwingrav
The Peelian Principles seem relevant here. Basically, the principles on how to
develop an ethical police force.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles)

1\. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by
military force and severity of legal punishment. 2\. To recognise always that
the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on
public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their
ability to secure and maintain public respect. 3\. To recognise always that to
secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the
securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing
observance of laws. 4\. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-
operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the
necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police
objectives. 5\. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public
opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law,
in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or
injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual
service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their
wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good
humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and
preserving life. 6\. To use physical force only when the exercise of
persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public
co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore
order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary
on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. 7\. To maintain
at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic
tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police,
the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time
attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of
community welfare and existence. 8\. To recognise always the need for strict
adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to
usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and
of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. 9\. To recognise
always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and
disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

~~~
sokoloff
HN tip: the site collapses single carriage returns. When you paste a list like
that, doubling the carriage returns makes the list more readable, like this:

1\. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by
military force and severity of legal punishment.

2\. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions
and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and
behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3\. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval
of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the
public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4\. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the
public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of
physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5\. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion,
but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in
complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or
injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual
service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their
wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good
humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and
preserving life.

6\. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and
warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent
necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the
minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion
for achieving a police objective.

7\. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality
to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public
are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to
give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the
interests of community welfare and existence.

8\. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive
functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the
judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively
judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9\. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of
crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing
with them.

------
dsfyu404ed
This article feels like it ends without actually getting into the depths of
the problem. Everything it says is reasonable but it leaves out so much nuance
and context. It's like they're bending over backwards to say "whoops, look at
this authoritarian hole we've dug for ourselves, looks like it was all just an
unintentional consequence of cars." The fact of the matter is that every step
of the way, police, prosecutors, judges and citizens looking to enforce law
and order were complicit in the described erosion of civil rights while out in
public. It's not like this happened accidentally. Sure, the societal changes
that came about as a result of cheap personal transportation aggravated the
problem but every inch we slid down the slippery slope was the result of many
people pushing us in that direction.

~~~
timw4mail
Every decision can have unintended consequences.

While not every erosion of civil rights is justified, there is a very
difficult balance that has to be maintained between privacy, and the ability
to do effective investigation.

