I'm not anti-cop, but I think what Wojtek says about abuse of authority being minimal and the work of a few bad apples is bogus. It's analogous to what the catholic church says about priest pedophiles. Abuse of authority is a systemic problem and, like someone said here earlier today, it undermines the trust communities want to have in the police.
[WS:] When I still lived in CA, I saw a PBS documentary on police brutality in SF. One of the claims made by that documentary was that virtually all reported cases of police brutality named a handful of officers, representing a tiny faction of the entire police force. These were repeated offenders who were nonetheless kept on the force for political reasons.
I believe that this is indicative of most police departments, but if you can produce evidence to the contrary, I will listen. Of course, there is a broader question whether keeping this small number of thugs on the police force constitutes a "systemic" problem. The answer, I suppose, depends on how we define 'systemic.' If we define it as 'intelligent design' i.e. a master plan executed with ultimate accuracy and efficiency - I would say no. But if define it in the way that neo-institutionalists view organizations - as 'garbage cans' i.e. a collection of multiple and incoherent agendas that coexist by the force of inertia and incompetence, - then it is 'systemic.'
I agree with your argument that cops are often asked to do the job social service agencies - but only to a point. In fact, Baltimore followed that strategy in the 1990s under Mayor Schmoke, whose famous saying was policemen are social workers with guns. Today, we are the murder capital of the United States, albeit it is impossible to tell what was the impact, if any, of the cop as a social worker with a gun on that development.
I personally think it was close to nil - and that is true of any policing style. It is so because the root cause of most criminal behavior is the existence of deviant subculture or perhaps counterculture that defines criminal and violent behavior as "normal" rules of behavior. In that subculture, a kid that sells drugs and picks up a gun to eliminate a rival acts perfectly "normal" - while the kid that does not do that is a "deviant." In that context, policing of any style is either irrelevant or reinforces those deviant norms and expectations.
Of course, we can have a long discussion what caused the crystallization of that deviant subculture in the US - and the usual suspects have most likely at least a kernel of truth as there were many contributing causes. But the causes are largely irrelevant outside the context of academic discussions. What matters is that there is not much than can be done to change this situation - whether democratically or not.
The sad truth is that we as society really have no effective means of reducing the cycle of crime and violence, but nobody dares to openly admit it. So we have a debate of social work vs police work to create an illusion that something can be done - and if it is not, we can always blame the other side for screwing thing sup.
My position in this context is that I am neither pro-or anti- criminal justice system - I think it is largely irrelevant, and sometimes even harmful inasmuch as it reinforces criminal social networks. The same pertains to social work - it is largely irrelevant and sometimes even harmful inasmuch as it implicitly treats deviant subcultures as 'alternative' lifestyles. This whole thing is pretty much like the climate change - we contributed to it, to be sure, but at this point there is not much we can do about, and it will come back and bite us in the ass one way or the other.
Now your, and others', request to name the liberals who are soft on crime. It is like conservatives and racism. Few of them are openly racist, and you can be hardly pressed to find them saying racist comments. On the contrary, publicly - they condemn it. Their racism is far much subtle, in their innuendos, winks, nods, what they tacitly accept, what they avoid. Ditto for the condoning of delinquent behavior by liberals. Few openly do so, save few loony radicals. Most speak against it in the public. Most of it is again in winks, nods, things unsaid, things avoided, explanations bordering on excuses and the like. So the answer to your question is - softness on crime, like racism, it is very difficult to pinpoint it, let alone prove it, yet that does not mean it does not exist.
PS. I appreciate your engaging in this discussion in a constructive manner, despite what you called the "cheap shots" that precipitated it. As I already said, I generally value your postings, even though I disagree with some of them.
Wojtek