How This Time Can Be Different: A Serious Discussion About Police Reform

Article by Joseph Bilas, TPT Staff Writer

It has been more than thirty years since Rodney King, and yet over the last few days we’ve all seen the body camera footage exposing an eerily similar story. Has nothing changed?

After watching the footage of Tyre Nichols fighting for his life, I became horrified by the officers’ lack of regard for his life and well being. I thought about the fact that I’ve grown up in an America where this type of thing continues to happen—the only difference between now and the past is that we know about it. Reflecting on the question, “how can this time be different?” I began thinking of and researching answers—eventually organizing them into what became this article. The first part outlines my thoughts on a specific comment from the video, which I think speaks volumes. The second part goes into civil rights legislation we should advocate for, and the third section outlines actions we must take if we truly want this time to be different.

A quick note before we begin: Throughout this article, the term “state actor” is used to underline the fact that the institutions we often speak of reforming are themselves not physical; rather, they are physically represented by people—or actors—carrying out the duties of each institution. Moreover, the term state actor encompasses people like EMTs, who obviously failed to administer proper medical aid, and correctional officers, all of whom should be part of this discussion.

The importance of this term is uncovered when understanding that people cannot sue an institution; instead, people can sue individuals who work for institutions. Two examples being the ability to sue the Secretary of Education or Attorney General, but not the Department of Education or the Department of Justice—someone has to be named in the lawsuit. With this understanding, we can now engage in a more nuanced and productive discussion surrounding our goal to achieve real reform.

The Dehumanization Effect

No reasonable person would ever do something as violent as what those officers did to Tyre Nichols, which is why comments such as “he’s high as a kite” are important. This single comment offers insight into how the officers detached their emotions from the violence they had; this is how they came to terms with their actions. “He’s high as a kite” associates Tyre with a stereotypical drug user who has no grasp on reality—even though it's these officers who had no grasp on reality. Minimizing Nichols’ identity to a one-dimensional drug user alleviates the conscience from any guilt or second guessing, and partly explains why officers stood around without any regard to Tyre’s well being.

To put this another way, the reason that groups of people—whether militant or political—come up with derogatory terms to use when referring to their enemy in times of conflict is to dehumanize them, so it’s easier for these groups to wage war and carry out atrocities without a second thought.

The fact that Tyre was dehumanized raises an important issue: we do not have laws which explicitly establish an individual’s right to “general well being” while in the custody of the state. Not only do we need to pass legislation explicitly stating this, we need to ensure explicit enforcement mechanisms are included. Having both rights and enforcement mechanisms inscribed into law allows us to more effectively hold state actors accountable, and to use the courts as an avenue in upholding civil rights.

This prompts two major questions we must now answer: What rights should “general well being” include, and what are potential enforcement mechanisms which can ensure these rights are upheld?

The Right to Medical Aid

While the Supreme Court has ruled that the 8th amendment does require a person to be treated with adequate medical care, this right has only been established through case law, meaning it can be overturned at any moment. Furthermore, legislating clear guidelines as to when medical aid must be administered and how far state actors must go in administering it allows for clear accountability.

After watching EMTs stand around with officers, barely taking notice of Tyre as he lay on his side unable to sit up, it’s clear we must advocate for legislation codifying the right to medical care that is both immediate and sufficient. How do we know when it’s sufficient? We don’t. That’s why it's important for legislation to explicitly compel state actors to take every possible step within their skillset in administering sufficient care to individuals who request it, or are in need of it.

If someone dies and state actors could’ve done more, that’s negligence, and they must be held accountable. This doesn’t mean that EMTs who are unable to save someone’s life get charged; it means that police and correctional officers who do not render care are held accountable, as well as EMTs who clearly neglect their duties. People placed in the care of state actors directly suffer or benefit from their actions, and in the end, a society is only as free as its most restrained members.

The Responsibility to Intervene

The police are the physical embodiment of the law, and must be held to a higher standard of law. We know that with great power comes great responsibility, and what must be part of every officer’s responsibility is a legal obligation to intervene in cases of excessive force. As seen in body camera footage from 2021, one officer understood this responsibility and took action to prevent her supervisor from further acts of aggression towards a handcuffed individual. The supervisor strangled her.

This example underscores the need to compel law enforcement to take the type of actions this officer performed. Police who watch these beatings, much less participate, are just as responsible for their coworkers’ actions as they are for their own—especially since they are in a position of power, represent a public institution, and are the very people tasked with stopping all forms of crime, not just the ones citizens commit.

Mandating that officers must intervene in situations of excessive force, and requiring prosecutors to bring charges against officers on scene who fail to do so, is an enforcement mechanism aimed at disincentivizing the brutality of certain officers, and the bystander mentality of many others.

To go after the root of the problem and target brutality, we should train officers to stop themselves from acting with excessive force in the first place. One study on a program known as Procedural Justice—which focuses on conflict resolution—found that officers trained in the program were seen by local community members as “less violent and less harassing” of people. While this type of training needs to be part of the conversation, it can’t be the whole conversation as it ultimately fails to establish any mechanism which can hold state actors accountable.

No matter which policies work best, imposing a responsibility to intervene would allow for greater accountability on those failing to act—reducing the use of excessive force while training programs like Procedural Justice can be implemented throughout the nation.

The Right to Transparency

The public as a whole has a right to transparency in the operations of the police. However, according to the most recent report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of 2021, only seven states mandate the statewide use of body cameras. This should be a universal policy; however, regulating body cameras—or police departments in general—is not an explicit power granted to Congress by the Constitution; thus, it's a state issue. This is federalism at work, and it means change comes from the local levels more than it does the federal level.

The way this policy would most likely be implemented is by Congress passing federal funding that would then be used by states, and that’s assuming citizens in every state petitioned their respective state lawmakers to take advantage of these federal funds. This is one of the reasons we keep asking ourselves if police reform will ever come—we must petition and engage state governments more than the federal government in our pursuit for change.

To provide a quick cost analysis of every sheriff’s deputy, municipal police officer, and state police officer being equipped with a body camera, we can turn to a report from Energetics Technology Center which assessed body camera costs for the entire state of Maryland in 2021. They estimated the annual cost for maintaining high-quality body cameras at $3,778 per officer. While each state has different requirements meaning prices may fluctuate, we can use this number to get a rough estimate for Congress to allocate. With about 663,000 sheriff’s deputies, state police, and municipal police across the United States, Congress would need to allocate approximately $2.5 billion dollars annually if the goal was to fully cover the cost of body cameras each year.

Police reform can sweep across the nation, but only if Americans in every state march, meet, and petition both Congress and their state legislators to achieve it. The fact that every officer in America isn’t required to wear a body camera is a threat to transparent policing, and we have the power to change that.

How and Where to Advocate for These Policies

With an understanding of the costs associated with these reforms, let’s visualize how this time can be different. Below is a graphic outlining the flow of money, and the influence we the people hold over the policy making process. Since training and body cameras are expensive, funding is the critical component to any reform policy, and whether you agree with and advocate for the policies in this article or not, my ultimate goal is to ensure you understand how and where to advocate for police reform policies you believe in.

No matter which policies you support and advocate for, we all must unite in petitioning Congress for a large federal funding package aimed at police reform—and with the looming threats of the debt ceiling, Kevin McCarthy, and the Freedom Caucus, we better start getting creative.

After a funding package is passed, we must then focus our attention on the state level if we truly want this time to be different. I cannot stress the importance of state government enough. It doesn’t matter if the federal government provides funding when the states don’t take it. Each of us must organize and work in our own states to move these policies—or any policies pertaining to police reform—forward.

As citizens who aspire to build a society that is more free in every regard, we must remember that freedom is only an ideal, and that ideals are not self-executing; rather, we the people are obligated to fight for policies that put these principles to action.

The views articulated in this piece are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect the official stances of The Progressive Teen or High School Democrats of America.

AnalysisGuest UserJanuary 31, 2023Comment