On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> Incidentally we have a cop in our chambers who is a first year law student
> at U of I, 10 years on the force and a detective, a great guy, very smart
> and able. He probably agrees with every concrete thing we have to say about
> how upgefuckt everything is. I imagine he's rather untypical. A traitor to
> his class? I don't think so. In a way it's too bad he's leaving the force.
> We need more cops like him. If they were mostly like that, there wouldn't be
> any police brutality lawsuits, forced confessions, frameups, testilying, and
> other police misconduct.
>
> jks
So police misconduct is simply the result of moral weakness? I think it's much more useful to see police activities--both proper and improper-- as a product of social arrangements. Just as racism is woven into the fabric of our social institutions, so that discrimination often occurs with no personal intent on the part of the actors (e.g., discrepancies in school funding, medical treatment, police interactions), police brutality is possible due to the institutional arrangements in our society (authority to use force, public/jury support for police who "protect the public", social cohesion among police officers). Given existing political and legal institutions, police misconduct will continue.
Yes, psychology matters: there will be even more police misconduct if immoral people becomes cops. But police misconduct will not be eliminated by hiring the right people. (That's like saying the problems of capitalism can be eliminated by making sure upstanding and moral people control the means of production!)
Miles