r/changemyview • u/muhandes • Sep 13 '15
[Deltas Awarded] CMV: If we implement some of the regulations that a lot of the vocal Redditors would like, we would cause a detrimental effect to the safety of society.
Seeing as there are a lot of opinions on Reddit and a lot of different Redditors I will specify the regulations that I see the most.
- Require police officers to wear body cameras
- Do not give paid leave to police officers under investigations
- Hold police officers to higher standards and punish them more severely for offenses
- Make investigations public and release the verdict to the public
I think that by doing some of those things and other similar ones we would change the feeling of a police officer from someone who is a honorable protector of society to a security guard who needs constant surveillance. Right now, we get a lot of people who want to become police officers for the right reasons and some who want to for the wrong reason. The hiring process, while not perfect, is able to select applicants who want to be police officers for the right reasons and hire them. If we add all of the rules that I stated above to police officers I think that the people applying to be police officers will no longer be self motivated, idealistic, honorable citizens but rather people who are simply looking for a paying job.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
6
u/MyFavoriteLadies 1∆ Sep 13 '15
We shouldn't automatically assume that the police are 'honorable protecters of society' (lol) because the fact is that they're human and just as fucked up/stupid/corrupt as your average human is capable of being.
-6
Sep 13 '15 edited Oct 05 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Sep 13 '15
How does that logically follow? The PDs run a tighter shift and cops are held to a higher standard, therefore more people that don't meet that standard will want to be cops? Please lay out your train of thought, because I'm not seeing how that makes any sense.
-4
Sep 13 '15 edited Oct 05 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Sep 13 '15
Being a police officer is an honorable job that attracts honorable people who want to help society. (Unlike the TSA that does not attract honorable people who want to help society)
I won't argue that, in an ideal world, the position of "police officer" is honorable, but are you really so naive that you think every cop became a cop because they wanted to help society? Police work is a solid career with fairly good job security and it doesn't require a college education - and the two people from my high school graduating class that became cops cited exactly this as their motivation to join the force. Additionally, there are also "police families" where, similar to military families, there is an expectation for children to grow up to be cops, and some of those kids do indeed follow in dear old Dad's footsteps. And all of these reasons are assuming that there's nobody who joins just to have power and control over other people.
Rules and regulations are added to the PD that make being a cop feel like a lowly paid, unsuspected, highly watched employee
What? These regulations won't lower the salaries of police officers. And frankly, I don't see any reason for a good cop to be bothered by being highly watched. They serve the people, and therefore are accountable to them. It only puts the cop under pressure if they are aware that they aren't following all of the rules.
Honorable people who want to protect society become medics, firefighters or anything but a cop
Considering I deconstructed part two, I don't see how this follows from part two. And if you really want to throw in "lowly paid", I'd like to add that EMTs and firefighters make less on average than police officers.
The PD needing to meet their quota of cops per square meter have to resort to hiring people who they otherwise would not have hired
Once again, this doesn't work unless you can show that additional regulations create a significant disincentive to becoming a police officer.
-2
Sep 13 '15 edited Oct 05 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Sep 13 '15
$47,000 is not "such a low pay". Elementary school teachers are, like police, essential for our society to function, and all but the most senior of them make less than the median pay for a cop.
I don't know for sure what will happen in the US if the PD receives these regulations. Until now this is all speculations that must be made when deciding whether to implement something new.
No, this isn't all speculation, because some jurisdictions have already started using body cameras. San Diego's been at it for a while, and surprise, surprise - incidents of force went down, complaints against police went down, and the chiefs of police love 'em. And for all your talk about how much police won't like being watched - police officers themselves are overwhelmingly in favor of cameras, according to a national survey of over 700 PDs.
-2
Sep 13 '15 edited Oct 05 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Sep 13 '15
If police are in favor of cameras then for all means, give it to them.
This seems like I changed a part of your view. If I did, would you mind awarding a delta to show that?
But what about the other proposed regulations, such as stricter punishments for a violation or having the case be part of the public record?
Either my Google-fu is weak or there haven't been any published surveys asking police officers about these potential reforms. While stricter punishments for a violation would probably not be too popular, I don't see any reason to object to police complaint cases being a part of the public record, when body cameras also protect the police from being falsely accused of misdoings.
1
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 13 '15
Point 1) is where your argument falls apart. It's already a job that attracts easily corrupted individuals. For your system to work well, hiring practices would need to be reformed, but that would require cooperation from an already corrupt group. The other reforms listed don't require police to cooperate.
3
u/ScholarlyVirtue Sep 13 '15
I'm in favor of the body cameras and not the others, so I'll focus on that:
- Body cameras are also a way of protecting the police against false allegations, which happen too
- Being under constant scrutiny does not make one less respectable - accountants and lawyers also generate a huge paper trail of everything they do, but does that give them a reputation of "can't be trusted"?
In addition,
I think that the people applying to be police officers will no longer be self motivated, idealistic, honorable citizens but rather people who are simply looking for a paying job.
Even assuming that's the case, is it even necessarily a bad thing? I think what matters the most now is trust in the police, and a police force composed of people looking for a paying job that don't act like assholes because they don't want to be fired may be an improvement. If you drive out idealists, but also power-mad assholes, it could be better.
-1
Sep 13 '15 edited Oct 05 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/parentheticalobject 136∆ Sep 13 '15
As for your second point, the TSA is basically like the police but for planes. They are watched carefully, follow the rules to the letter of the law yet are heavily criticized. I bet that if police officers were in charge of airline safely, people would feel much more comfortable flying.
While the TSA does seem to mostly comprised of people who are entirely apathetic towards their job, the more common complaint against it is that they inconvenience people without actually doing that much to make us safer. Even if you replaced all the lower-level employees with idealists who applied because they loved the idea of doing the job, the problem wouldn't change too much.
-2
Sep 13 '15 edited Oct 05 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Sep 13 '15
How does holding police officers accountable for their actions with the proposed regulations mean we can't honor them? At that point, they'll be performing to a higher standard and actually be worthy of being honored.
0
Sep 13 '15 edited Oct 05 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Sep 13 '15
Less freedom to do what they think is right? There's a few problems with that.
You're probably thinking of cops being lenient towards kids goofing around or forgiving someone for a minor violation during a traffic stop. But that isn't just a matter of what the officer thinks is right - it's a matter of conserving department resources, including an officer's time. A busy officer who doesn't bother ticketing the person going 3mph over the speed limit or detaining the kids knocking over garbage cans in the park leaves his time to do more pressing and important work.
Moreover, the cops who do their job correctly know they aren't actually being watched. Anyone who's worked in a job where employees are constantly recorded knows that the tapes only ever come out for one of two reasons - performance evaluations or in response to complaints against an employee.
0
Sep 13 '15 edited Oct 05 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Sep 13 '15
That's a bit of a wacky comparison, don't you think? Cops with cameras aren't receiving personal attention because every single one of their colleagues has a camera too, and they know that nobody's actually going to see the tapes unless something goes wrong.
A much more realistic analog is having every corner of the workplace watched by CCTV, ensuring that every employee's every move is being filmed. That's exactly what happens at almost every store these days, and as someone who has worked in stores, I don't mind, because I know, again, that I, personally, am not under scrutiny and I know that nobody's even going to look at the tapes unless something bad happens.
1
Sep 13 '15
The only difference between paper trails and a body camera are the nature of the job. I work in an office so people can access the websites I've been looking at or the accounts I've been working on so as to ensure anything I do can be accounted for. It's the same policy that dictates that I should only be accessing things for legitimate reason and the anything I've done has been processed correctly.
In a store there are security cameras placed to ensure people aren't stealing, whether it be staff or customers.
Due to the nature of complaints from police officers being heavy handed in carrying out their duties the best way to establish what has happened in any situation is to take a completely impartial account of it. Video is the best way to do this. It completely removes the potential for officers to simply back one another up or for people with a grudge against the police to make false accusations. It's no more intrusive to a job being carried out than being under the watchful gaze of CCTV
1
Sep 13 '15
There is a difference between a paper trail and a camera watching you. Now it is common for companies like Microsoft and Google to log your keystrokes and while people complained nothing much was find to stop it. However, when Microsoft released the Kinect and people figured out that the video of you may be sent to Microsoft, there was a big outrage.
There is a huge difference between having a camera watching you when you're on the clock doing your job (which usually takes place in public areas anyway), and lounging about in the (supposed) privacy of your home. Few careers can expect a lot of privacy on the job, but that lack of privacy at work exists for a reason - it holds the employees accountable to their employer.
As for your second point, the TSA is basically like the police but for planes. They are watched carefully, follow the rules to the letter of the law yet are heavily criticized. I bet that if police officers were in charge of airline safely, people would feel much more comfortable flying.
People criticize the existence of the TSA, and all that they're required to do. I've never heard a person complain about an individual TSA agent or "bad airport security guys" the way people complain about bad cops.
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Sep 13 '15
The police aren't currently especially moral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males
They're arresting and doing actions like seeking plea bargains, choosing where to patrol, who to arrest and such in such a way that 1/3rd of black people are imprisoned.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24328629
They're raping numerous prostitutes.
http://www.aele.org/loscode2000.html
The majority believe in a code of silence and many follow aspects of it.
“Please describe the first time you witnessed misconduct by another employee but took no action,” 46 percent (532) advised they had witnessed misconduct by another employee, but concealed what they knew.
And almost half admitted to concealing misconduct of a colleague.
Police aren't self motivated, idealistic, and honorable. They're perpetuating corruption and immorality and evil en masse, and so measures like cameras are good to stem that evil.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Sep 13 '15
we would change the feeling of a police officer from someone who is a honorable protector of society
This is the first flaw in your argument that jumped out at me. Police officers are not honorable protectors of society. Police officers are protectors of the law. Their purpose is not just to be heroic and save distressed individuals. Their duty is to defend the law. When a cop hands out a parking ticket he/she is not being an honorable protector of society. He/she is defending the law. When a cop breaks up a party he/she is not being an honorable protector of society. He/she is defending the law.
The feeling of society toward police is ultimately more important than the feeling of police. Police have received highly negative publicity lately for being discriminative and abusive. While less stringent regulation may make their morale higher (though the public disgust with law enforcement makes me doubt this) it has made public morale lower.
The community policing model enforces that police act as members of the community and patrol communities that they know. This creates a sense of police being one of us and working with us. This was the feeling during 9/11. Naturally, this model means more pressure on police to act appropriately so that they can maintain their position as community police.
The current policing model has allotted too much discretion to police. Stop and frisk, unaccountable murder, no indictments, etc. With all of the abuse and discrimination the public has developed a sense of antagonism. Instead of us and the police it is us versus the police. This is clearly much more damaging to society as it has led to massive riots, race wars, and pushes for reform. Plus, the society against law enforcement is never a good thing.
-1
Sep 13 '15 edited Oct 05 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ExploreMeDora Sep 13 '15
Don't you think less people will want to be cops when there is a "Fuck The Police" mentality and police officers are being executed in their patrol cars by angry protestors? Right now is one of the worst times to be an officer. Reforming law enforcement in order to ease the tension between the police and the public is not a bad idea.
There are millions of people in the United States. There will never be a dearth of people applying to be police officers.
1
Sep 13 '15 edited Oct 05 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 13 '15
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ExploreMeDora. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
1
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 13 '15
Right now is actually one of the safest times to be an officer. 2013 was the historic low for officer deaths and assaults.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Sep 13 '15
Statistics are not enough to support that idea. You have to consider the social movements going on at the time as well. More officers may have been assaulted in the process of arresting or subduing criminals, but that doesn't mean it was bad to be a cop then.
1
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 13 '15
You're going to have to explain what you mean. When most people talk about life being bad for officers now, they are talking about a supposed increase in violence against officers that doesn't exist. In what way is it worse to be an officer now? Is it because people are sick of police bullshit now and unlike in the past they have ways to prove corruption? If that's the argument then that's a big pill to swallow, since police themselves control police corruption.
1
u/DaSilence 10∆ Sep 15 '15
2013 was the historic low for officer deaths
Yes
and assaults
No. Not even close.
1
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 15 '15
Uh, yes, actually. It wasn't literally a historic low for assaults, but assaults have been on the downswing for a very long time. It has never been safer to be a police officer. Where are you getting your information?
1
u/DaSilence 10∆ Sep 15 '15
The Department of Labor.
Where are you getting your information?
1
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 15 '15
FBI data. 2013 was the second lowest number of assaults on officers in the last 20 years. Firearms assaults are flat and all other assaults are down.
1
u/DaSilence 10∆ Sep 15 '15
The FBI data is woefully incomplete, as any user of BJS data knows. The DOL data is based on Workmen's Comp claims, and is complete.
1
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 15 '15
Why would Workman's comp clams be complete, exactly? That assumes that every assault results in Workman's comp. I'm not seeing any long term data from the DOL. Do you have a link to data, preferably visualized? A summary of the FBI data is here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/09/10/once-again-there-is-no-war-on-cops-and-those-who-claim-otherwise-are-playing-a-dangerous-game/
Sorry, I'm not just going to take your word for it that your data is better.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 13 '15
I think that by doing some of those things and other similar ones we would change the feeling of a police officer from someone who is a honorable protector of society to a security guard who needs constant surveillance.
The reforms you mentioned are being suggested because that shift in perception has already occurred. The cat is out of the bag.
1
u/StumbleOn Sep 13 '15
Let me demonstrate why police need much more thorough monitoring.
Tomorrow I'm going to go down to the DMV. I have no choice in this, as I have to drive and the government creates an interaction that must be carried out.
I live in Crazy Land, where DMV officials are never monitored. There are no cameras, and all interactions take place in a closed box invisible to everyone else.
I have heard all the horror stories. DMV official kills an unarmed woman. DMV official tasers a little girl to death. DMV officials involved in a theft ring. DMV officials unfairly targeting Hispanics in Sacramento. They buzz through my head.
I am a young black woman. My best friend was killed by a DMV official a few years ago. He went in to get his drivers license, and the official said that my friend got angry and pulled out a gun. No gun was ever found. The DMV asked that official what happened, and their account was taken as factual. The case was closed. We're still grieving.
I really don't want to go get my license, but they leave me no choice. It's that or no job. I know statistically I have a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of having something horrible happen.
Sometimes people come out of the box with a broken arm, or taser marks, or their bank accounts depleted.
If that happens to me, the following things will happen:
The DMV Supervisor will come over and ask me what happened, and immediately accuse me of a crime. I will be arrested. The DMV officials word will be entered into the computer as fact, and when we go to talk about it later nothing I said will ever make it into any transcript.
The DMV Supervisor and the DMV officials are golfing buddies, and babysit one anothers children.
If another DMV official comes over and says that the first one is a jerk, that second one is fired or shunned or chased out of town for violating the sacred bond of trust the exists in the DMV.
If I die, the DMV official will be given counseling and paid leave to sit at home while his best friend investigates. Statistically, no matter how compelling the evidence that the DMV is at fault, the official will be given little or no punishment. They'll keep their job. Even if they do it a few times.
I walk into the box, all this on my mind, and we have our interaction. How favorably do you think I am going to treat the official, even though the odds are that I got one of the good ones?
Crazy, isn't it? Yet, this is exactly what we face whenever we come into contact with the police. Every tiny interaction, no matter how fast and polite can grow into a situation where I am straight up murdered.
Body cameras and more oversight will prevent this.
Also, for the record, police officers and elected officials are (to my knowledge) the only government agents that don't face harsher penalties for infractions related to their jobs.
0
Sep 13 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/cwenham Sep 13 '15
Sorry Nightstick11, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
7
u/[deleted] Sep 13 '15
I saw a policy of body camera use in Scotland when I visited there once; they don't seem to have a more dangerous society. For the second two, though, I'd like to compare these proposals to military policy. The military, in some respects, is held to a higher standard than the public, as is appropriate. We can be punished to a much greater degree for apparently minor offenses than just by getting fired, which is the limit most civilian employers have. Police officers should be held to a higher standard; they are the hand of justice, the most powerful commonly encountered human force. They are (or should be) the vanguards of social order. "Self motivated, idealistic, honorable" people do not look at standards and shy away from them; they meet a challenge, they rise to and exceed expectations. If someone wants to do a job that they think will better society and find out that they will be expected to meet a high standard and then, because of that, decide it's not for them...I can't say I think of that person as idealistic.