White House Disagrees With F.B.I. Chief On Scrutiny as a Cause of Crime
According to the FBI director, James B. Comey, the rise in violent crime in some cities is not because police officers have been shirking their responsibilities, but because recent criticism of police has caused police officers to be more passive. Many law enforcement leaders and officers have said that they fear that their direct interactions with people would be caught on camera. Officers described a crowd of young people with mobile phones jeering at them when they stepped out of their cars, which made them feel as if they were under siege. This has become known as the Ferguson effect. However, many White House officials disagree with Comey's statements, and some were even offended that Comey had suggested that criticizing the police had caused the increase in violent crime. The end of the article also briefly mentioned that the government's more lenient prison sentences and that federal prison population had declined. The people that are video taping and taunting the police have their actions protected by the 1st Amendment, but their actions are creating public disorder. Should these rowdy people have their actions protected if they are disrupting law enforcement's ability to do its job? Also, should the U.S. consider making its sentences for criminals more lenient or more harsh in order to curb crime?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Assuming that all (or most) policemen act in good faith that their actions are just, it is sad to think that they might be afraid to do their jobs because of the crowds with video cameras. I think that we as a nation need to have more respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line for our safety every day; sure there are some who abuse their powers, but aren't there some in every business? The police force is receiving a large amount of publicity for the actions of individuals, but before that, the issues within the Catholic Church brought out scandals committed by priests. By no means does this mean that all Catholic priests are abusive. I do not think that it is likely or even constitutionally possible to prevent people from posting photos and videos, but I think we need to seriously think before we condemn the police with a harassment video. Also, I'm not sure that changing the sentences for convicted criminals will change the crime rate. I think we should consider stricter laws concerning guns and other controversial materials, but unless we make such a drastic change that it is unconstituational (for example, using cruel and unusual punishment), I am not certain that changing the sentences is the answer.
ReplyDeleteIt's intriguing how people who claim police are too brutal and that they abuse their powers are the ones who are ,as per Comey, making our streets more dangerous. I do agree that being on film would have a negative impact on an officer, but there is no set statistic that you can make about an emotion.
ReplyDeleteThis issue could also be a counter accusation against the body cams that have been recently implemented in the Philadelphia Police Department. Although they have caught great action like the actions of officer Robert Wilson III (RIP,) they also may interfere with a police officer doing his job to the best of his ability.
Police officers should be able to be confident enough with the actions they're taking so as not to be all too disturbed when they are on film. While there should be zero tolerance for harassment of officers, simply recording how they carry out the will of the law should not be a big deal to anyone, unless of course the officer is doing something wrong. Cameras aren't too much of a hindrance to an officer's ability to carry out his job either. Many police departments across the country implement them as a means of conducting simple matters like traffic stops. Overall, videotaping officers is not really a huge deal unless someone makes it out to be. In saying that however, blatant harassment of the police should not be tolerated. Officers should give warnings to those who they feel are taunting them, and if those people still do not stop with their actions, then the officer should have grounds to either cite them or arrest them if the situation gets out of hand.
ReplyDeletePolice officers should be able to do their job correctly without fear of public outrage. If law enforcement is doing their job correctly, no one should get upset about the police. However, if there is a group that is protesting the police or something of that nature, the police should still be able to carry out their duties. That is their job. We rely on them for that. I think that the people who disrupt the police should be protected as long as they do not physically interfere or harm the police - as it is their right (free speech) to express their thoughts.
ReplyDeleteAs to changing the severity of laws, making laws more lenient or more strict would not necessarily have a direct impact. I think making laws about gun control, for example, stricter would help, but it would not eliminate crime.
As mentioned by others in the article, I think we need to see actual data and statistics to back up this assertion. Logically speaking I think there might be a correlation between the two, but data could only support or deny the claim. I think these rowdy people are having a backwards effect. They're wrongly mad at ALL police for brutality charges brought on a few out of a large base of police officers. Blaming them for others actions is completely wrong. These rowdy people might affect the police officers actions insofar that the police hold off more action than just brutality. This could potentially make the streets more unsafe. I'd like to see how the rowdy people feel now. I feel like they're just being influenced by technology and the media instead of actually thinking for themselves...
ReplyDeleteI think the court needs to look at the matter in a case-by-case basis. You can't make a broad, sweeping generalization about the cases since they're so diverse. You need to inspect and dissect each case separately. If someone is a harm to our nation and the citizens in some way, then I believe they should stay locked up. If not, then let them go.
There's certainly multiple sides of the "increased police oversight" argument. On one hand, police brutality is an issue that is only too real to too many. For the sake of those who have been unjustly abused by police in the past, I welcome with open arms any measures that might possibly deter police officers from using unnecessary and unwarranted force. Whether this be in the form of body cameras on the police or just videos from bystanders, so be it.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I can see how an argument can be made that increased surveillance of police might cause police officers to second-guess the actions they take before they take them, in a profession where there sometimes just isn't enough time to second guess anything. However, if that means that even just one person is saved from extreme police actions, then maybe it's worth the risk.
While I believe that civilian oversight of the polic is hugely important, this oversight cannot impede the police officers from performing their jobs. However, just feeling like they're going to get caught on camera doing something wrong is not a valid excuse for police officers to not perform their jobs. I belive that we need to make laws more lenient in the sphere of possession of marijuana (as the punishments for possessing marijuana are far to severe and lead to mass incarceration) while tightening gun control laws. This I believe will help to curb crime.
ReplyDeleteComey's statement has no evidence to back it up. He is just saying this to try and curb the blame of the problems of the police force. Media is a nice town. We are lucky for that. Many people in the U.S. can not say that about their town. Especially if it is a poor or non-white majority town. Most people in towns like Media are fine with the police because the police here never abuse people. It is much different in poorer and non-white majority towns. Police are often more like an occupying army than a force that's supposed to protect the public. This is not justifiable in any way. The police should not be given so much power, and they should not be as assertive and sometimes brutal in their methods. Even though the group was taunting the police, they have the freedom to do so. This just comes down to Liberty vs. Security, and I choose Liberty.
ReplyDeleteI agree that our police should be allowed to due their duty to protect the citizens of our country without major interference. They have to be able to do they're job. The police doing their job efficiently is just as important as them doing it correctly. Although we can't really get in the way of people wanting to document the police, especially seeing the frequent and highly publicized cases of police brutality. As long as the people documenting police work aren't committing or instigating more crimes they really can't get in any kind of trouble. I do believe that we have to make some sentences more lenient. Sending people to jail that really haven't done anything to damaging only damages our communities even more. And we have
ReplyDeleteSimply said, police should not have their ability to provide for and protect their citizens and their communities obstructed by anyone or anything. Regardless of how their abilities are being obstructed whether it is from fear of camera footage or fear of legitimate danger, they both still hold the same relevance in that they are disrupting the police officers ability to serve their community. However, the police officer's fear of being on camera does raise the question that if they are following normal protocol for crimes then why are they anxious to be on camera? If they are anxious that they are going to be caught doing the wrong thing then I think that the cameras are doing their job. On the other hand, I also understand the cops frustration with constantly being documented because their actions can be seen in a good way in some peoples eyes and in a bad way in other eyes. I believe that those who obstruct the police officer's ability to serve should be punished, however, the significance of their disruption should be considered as well.
ReplyDeleteThere is a very complex situation created here, with the pitting of the right to free speech against the possibility of lowering public safety. Historically, I think that the Supreme Court would choose to back the people's right to free speech, but with the rise of social networking it is now easier to take a video that is misleading or unfair, and spread it around to many people through the use of the Internet. Therefore, this raises the question as to whether the first amendment protects people's right to post something publicly humiliating of another person without their consent or even knowledge of doing so. Naturally, that does seem to sound extremely one sided, and it tends to ignore cases of police brutality which were captured on tape and therefore were acted upon because they were videotaped. Due to the positive good which comes out of those videos which actually show true brutality against innocent citizens, I'm extremely conflicted as to what is the best course of action here. However, if I was to make the choice, the way I think I would choose to go is to follow alongside history and side with the right to free speech, however I would work also to pass legislation which protected police officers from misleading or dishonest videos posted of them. Of course that is generic, but that is what I would choose to do if given power over the situation, which thankfully I'm not.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether or not more lenient sentences to criminals is a good thing, I think that a lenient sentence points much more directly to a want for reform of the criminal as opposed to simply punishing them, and that reformation is, in my opinion, something that our criminal system is looking for and should therefore support. However, punishments should still get stricter if a criminal receives multiple offenses.
If a police officer is afraid to do his job because of cameras catching them doing something wrong or scrutiny, the problem isn't the increased scrutiny or the cameras. It is with the police officer. An officer who knows what they are doing shouldn’t be afraid of a camera capturing their job. Cameras capture the jobs of celebrities, sports stars and quite honestly anything nowadays. If every single person were doing his or her job poorly for fear of scrutiny, then no one would be able to function. If anything, this article heavily strengthens the reason why reform in police departments is necessary. In addition to all of this, the article mentions that there was no data to back up his statements. In the data-driven age we live in today, that doesn’t help Comey’s case.
ReplyDeleteLet me throw some numbers down. Per every 100,000 people in the USA, 698 of them were incarcerated in 2013. We make up 4% of the world’s population and we have 22% of its prisoners. There is so much more too this issue than just “are our laws too strict?” Our laws and penalties are heavily convoluted and logistical. Yes, a lot of our penalties are harsh but it goes much deeper than that. If you are rich and have a good background, legal issues will be much easier for you to deal with. Most people incarcerated come from urban areas where, surprisingly, crime is the highest. Crime is the highest because most people aren’t given the opportunities that the rich well-off people are. They resort to illegal activities to get by. That statement is backed up by data, Mr. Comey. If anything we need to reform our management of the poor and needy. But, most importantly, we need to deal with how our police officers do their job because right now, it is disgusting.
If a police officer is afraid to do his job because of cameras catching them doing something wrong or scrutiny, the problem isn't the increased scrutiny or the cameras. It is with the police officer. An officer who knows what they are doing shouldn’t be afraid of a camera capturing their job. Cameras capture the jobs of celebrities, sports stars and quite honestly anything nowadays. If every single person were doing his or her job poorly for fear of scrutiny, then no one would be able to function. If anything, this article heavily strengthens the reason why reform in police departments is necessary. In addition to all of this, the article mentions that there was no data to back up his statements. In the data-driven age we live in today, that doesn’t help Comey’s case.
ReplyDeleteLet me throw some numbers down. Per every 100,000 people in the USA, 698 of them were incarcerated in 2013. We make up 4% of the world’s population and we have 22% of its prisoners. There is so much more too this issue than just “are our laws too strict?” Our laws and penalties are heavily convoluted and logistical. Yes, a lot of our penalties are harsh but it goes much deeper than that. If you are rich and have a good background, legal issues will be much easier for you to deal with. Most people incarcerated come from urban areas where, surprisingly, crime is the highest. Crime is the highest because most people aren’t given the opportunities that the rich well-off people are. They resort to illegal activities to get by. That statement is backed up by data, Mr. Comey. If anything we need to reform our management of the poor and needy. But, most importantly, we need to deal with how our police officers do their job because right now, it is disgusting.
In my opinion, police officers shouldn’t feel like they can’t do their jobs if people are filming them.
ReplyDeleteIf they know what they’re doing and are good at their jobs, they should be able to do their jobs well even if they are being filmed. If a kid on the street with a camera can make a police officer afraid of doing his job, there is something wrong with the way police officers are trained. I understand why they might be uncomfortable with people filming them, but if the police are doing their jobs right, it shouldn't matter what people get on camera.
I agree with Andrew that making laws that deal with marijuana would help to curb crime.
ReplyDeleteComey’s statement that scrutiny of law enforcement has made police officers less aggressive, causing an increase in crime, is absurd, especially since he has no statistics to back it up. Yes, there probably has been more scrutiny, but that is due to the recent mishandling of some situations by some officers.
Police officers should not be afraid of people capturing their actions on cameras. If they are afraid, that means they are not acting in the right way. No one should be afraid of doing his job if he is doing it by just means. However, people should not do this to officers as a means of trying to harass them; people should not harass officers at all. With that being said, officers should not harass any person, as well.
These so-called “rowdy” people should have their rights protected. If they are simply capturing a police officer do his job, I do not believe they are being rowdy. With cases of police brutality being prevalent, some people may want to record an officer’s actions, if the officer is not doing something justly.
The United States has a ridiculously high rate of imprisonment. To improve this, some laws should be more strict and some should be more lenient. People can be arrested for possession of marijuana, delay in paying a parking ticket, and neglect of paying a fine; these things should not land people in prison, and these laws should be more lenient. Gun control needs to be much more strict. Stricter gun laws would most likely lower the incarceration rate and would prevent much less crime.
Police officers absolutely should not be afraid of being videotaped if they are doing their job correctly, however I do think that this recent surge of negative views of police officers did have something to do with an increase in crime. While there are many police officers who treat people unfairly and do their jobs incorrectly, there are just as many who put their lives on the line to make our country a better place. People think that the few police who have been expelled from their positions are a reason to destroy towns and kill others... It's a controversial topic and I'm not sure where I stand.
ReplyDeleteThe current public opinion on police officers which many times are doing their jobs (which are of value to the community when done right) is a result of a very real group of officers who use their positions as a pulpit of ill-will. Police do not always partake in police brutality, but the fact that some do is a reality. In the situation of these cameras and videos, it is the first amendment that indicates that we can't do much about that. And all police, whether diong their jobs correctly or incorrectly, have to beat the consequence of these public opinions, but this should not interfere with them fulfilling their jobs.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the changing of sentences is probably not the answer we are looking for. We should be tighter on gun-control, and a few other laws that prevent such things from happening which we see every day.