Police Brutality

In recent years, police actions, particularly police brutality, has come into view of a wide, public and critical eye. While citizens worry about protecting themselves from criminals, it has now been shown that they must also keep a watchful eye on those who are supposed to protect and serve. This paper will discuss the types of police brutality prevalent today, including the use of firearms and receipt of private information. I will also discuss what and how citizens' rights are taken advantage of by police. For these problems, solutions will be discussed, focusing on political reform and education. These measures are necessary to protect ourselves from police taking advantage of their positions as law enforcement officers with greater permissive rights than private citizens. Because of this significant differential, all citizens must take affirmative action from physical brutality, rights violations, and information abuse.

Problems arise, however, when one side is told what to do by another, as there is bound to be conflicting viewpoints. In regard to police abuse, there will be many officers who feel that their job of fighting escalating street crime, gangs, narcotics violations, and other violent crimes is difficult already, and that worrying about excessive policy for abusive behavior will only further decrease their ability to fight crime effectively, efficiently, and safely. Citizens, however, have been caught up in this gung-ho attitude and police are more and more often crossing the line of investigation and interrogation with abusive behavior. This abuse must be monitored so that police do not forget who they are serving--not themselves, but the public. This means that even the criminals, who are a part of the public, have certain rights, particularly, civil rights. All citizens must be aware of these rights to protect themselves against over-aggressive officers who take advantage of their position as badge and gun holders to intimidate and abuse civilians for personal or departmental goals. Such conflicts have significant implications on departmental and administrative policy procedures.

One of the main police abuse problems is physical brutality. The main goal here should be to get the police departments to adopt and enforce a written policy governing the use of physical force. The policy should restrict physical force to the narrowest possible range of specific situations. For example, their should be limitations on the use of hand-to-hand combat, batons, mace, stun guns, and firearms. However, limiting polices' actions will bring much debate, especially from police officers and administrators themselves. Many feel that their firepower is already too weak to battle the weapons criminals have on the streets, and limiting their authority of gun use will not only jeopardize them, but the innocent bystanders who must endure the hierarchy gun power creates in the benefit of criminals. For instance, not only should officers use brutality in very limited situations, to help reduce unwarranted use, but policies should require officers to file a written report after any use of physical force, regardless of how seemingly insignificant. That report should then be automatically reviewed by superior officers. It is necessary to involve superior officers so that a tolerance of brutality is not established, and an atmosphere conducive to police abuse is not created. Police may feel that such action would be troublesome. This is so because police often already feel burdened and restrained by policy and paperwork which takes a large amount of their on-duty time. When will police be required to do paperwork on how long and what was done during each coffee break to ensure tax payers are getting their every second worth? There must be a reasonable balance between civilian intervention and administration. Although, each incidence of police abuse was requested to be reported, how many actually would be? Maybe only those serious enough, as depicted in new guidelines, would make it, leaving some space for officers to exert pressure without crossing serious and abusive policy.

Another tactic to control police brutality is to establish a system to identify officers who have been involved in an excessive number of incidents that include the inappropriate use of physical force. The incidents should then be investigated. For those officers who are frequently involved in unnecessary police brutality, they should be charged, disciplined, re-trained and offered counseling. If such treatment proves ineffective, officers who violate abuse standards should be brought up on review before an administrative board comprised of citizens and police officials. A third violation should be met with termination and loss of pension. Some may claim that this is paranoia and will simply cost too much. A single officer can tie up numerous other non-problem officers during the discipline and re-training stages, only adding to the cost of rehabilitating this problem officer. When does an officer need intervention? When is the officer worth keeping or discharging? Is identifying abusive officers a form of prejudice? The police officer is there to serve and protect the public who pays his or her salary. The officer should then be subject to any investigations into his or her abusive actions on the job. However, assuming police adopt some common form of action through job association, it becomes not so difficult to see how police abuse tactics can spread.

When it comes to police taking advantage of citizens' rights, there are numerous circumstances of which a private citizen must be aware. To ensure citizens' know what rights they have, they must be educated. First, all people should know their constitutional rights. For example, if you are stopped in you car, do you have to let an officer search your car? What should you do? First, you should show your driver's license and registration upon request. If the officer wants to look in you car, in most cases, such as if he pulled you over simply for not wearing your seat-belt, there is no reason for him or her to search your car and you do not have to oblige. However, the officer can claim he or she had probable cause if, for example, you had alcohol on your breath or there was drug paraphernalia present. If the officer insists on searching the vehicle, to protect yourself later, you should make it clear that you do not consent to a search. You do not have to consent! However, if you are suspected of drunken driving and refuse a blood, urine or breathalyzer, your driving license can be suspended.

Still, many people are intimidated by police officers and the power they have, and this is where officers take advantage of those who do not know their rights or do not know how to stand up for them. The ethics of police as people is often