Let’s broaden the talk about law enforcement
The recent and highly publicized cases of unarmed black men killed by white policemen incited protests across the country, some of them violent, and to random retaliation against police officers. They have also begun a nationwide discussion about racial prejudice. That discussion, however, is narrow and ignores a greater concern: the United States’ attitude and approach to law enforcement.
There is a reason why our jails are overcrowded and the United States has the world’s highest rate of imprisonment.
Our approach is reactive; we always place emphasis on enforcement of laws and punishment of the offenders. We would not be in this situation if that emphasis were instead on crime prevention.
Too often the attitude seems to be crime will happen, and when it does our police need to be better armed than the criminals, thus the use of surplus armored personnel carriers and other military hardware.
Typical response to a person, either deranged or drunk, holed up in his house and making threats, is to surround the house with armored vehicles and snipers dressed all in black and equipped for war.
Other ways exist to deal with such situations.
We were introduced to alternate and less confrontational methods a few years ago by a policewoman from Norway who was visiting this area. Police there are well paid and highly educated.
Their training lasts years and is heavy on psychology. They are taught to defuse volatile situations, and they do so without carrying guns. Granted, strict laws about gun ownership in Norway mean they are much less likely to be shot in the line of duty, whereas in this country the lack of gun regulation forces police to assume everyone might be armed.
It is true that more and more police officers have college degrees in criminal justice, but in smaller departments the only requirements might be a high school diploma and a passable score on the Civil Service exam. And much too often, police do not reflect the racial or ethnic makeup of the communities they serve.
The accusations of racism will continue as long as this imbalance exists.
Several months ago, a police officer visiting here from Scotland enlightened us about how that country has succeeded in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Handguns are banned there, and laws are structured to prevent the theft of legal rifles, shotguns and ammunition.
Among the many stringent regulations, those weapons must be stored in safes anchored to floors and reinforced interior walls. Gun owners are subject to unannounced inspections, and violations of the regulations can result in heavy fines, loss of driver’s licences or liens on property.
Our Constitution prevents such strict laws, and it is unfortunate the political climate here makes it impossible to enact even the most reasonable restrictions on gun and ammunition sales.
Government regulation is popularly characterized as devilish and authoritarian, but it should be considered that cars are much safer now, and because they are, tens of thousands of deaths are prevented every year. Manufacturers did not make vehicles safer because of demand of the market but rather of government.
Most of the crime here is a direct result of illegal drug use. For the past half century we have answered this by putting drug dealers and users in jail, and that hasn’t worked out too well. This problem will continue for at least another 50 years if we do not do more to prevent drug use, not by just attempting to cut off supply but by negating the need.
We have to do much more to get drug users into treatment, and we must do much more to create opportunities for them once they are clean. Certainly, the issue of race must be discussed, but more than that we must examine the social and economic realities that cause so many of our young people to turn to drugs in the first place and then to crime to support their habits.