POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY

POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY

Introduction.

Police accountability refers to a system of both external and internal checks and balances which are performed to ensure that the police perform their duties accordingly and take responsibility for their actions should they fail. The police department is bestowed with vast power which entails arresting criminals, searching and seizure as well as protecting citizens. While performing these duties, some officers abuse their power through actions such as discriminating against specific individuals. According to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S constitution, measures such as unreasonable seizures and searches are prohibited. Additionally, the fifth amendment of the U.S constitution forbids one from being robbed of liberty, property, and life without due process (Walker, 2012). Failure of holding people involved in violating these laws where the police can exercise actions such as discrimination openly deprives the public confidence in the law enforcement officers. In the paper, we shall discuss community accountability, political accountability, civil lawsuits on police accountability, and criminal prosecutions of the same.

1. Community-based accountability

Community-based accountability is a way in which policing can be made better locally through assessment by the community it serves. Community-based accountability needs to be examined on a broad perspective by adopting an integrated approach of the police by the public and attempting to tie these efforts to a more extensive range of policing reforms. The reforms should be at police work, professional, educational, and structural levels to enhance accountability. Research shows that in the past, police accountability methods have failed to include the community in a considerable way, where we propose an amendment to the policies.

The policies should view accountability as a continuum consisting of various approaches and options. Besides, the continuum runs a range of possibilities between the complete community control and full police autonomy. Also, besides viewing the public as the complainant, the system should include them as participants in the design and delivery of policing services. To understand community-based accountability better, we can discuss the civilian oversight and transparency within the police department. Additionally, we shall analyze the Police Review Commission in California.

Civilian oversight

Civilian oversight refers to a process via which community members can assess the work and decisions of various officers in the civil service in their implementation of the constitution through service delivery. According to records, the first civilian oversight occurred in the late 19^th and the early 20^th centuries by Progressive Era reformers in the form of police commissions. The commissions were designed with a plan of decreasing the politician’s influence on the local police. However, the politicians infiltrated the commissions, which made their agendas fail. The civilian oversight began again in the 1960s where the agencies were encompassed of the office of citizen complaints and Public Review Commission. The agencies came into the limelight to what is known today in 1991 after the police officers of Los Angeles were videotaped while beating Rodney King.

Civilian oversight is vital in several ways. For instance, it encourages the police to serve the public in a transparent and accountable mode. Also, civilian oversight establishes mechanisms where the cops run the public affairs in a political, economic, and administrative authority exercised legitimately. Additionally, civilian control cements the legitimacy of the police in the general rapport. Methods that the public can use to conduct civilian oversight include social audits, mitigation measures, right to recall-for the officers, and administrative petitions.

For the people in the community to perform civilian oversight, they require several essential components, such as access to information (Musila, 2018). The element speculates that citizens should be allowed to retrieve information on the police officers freely or at a low cost. The result will be accountability, transparency, and meaningful participation of the public. Another component that should be considered is a proper complaint mechanism where the public can identify and report police violations to the pertinent authorities. Also, public participation in making policies by the agencies is a significant component in building trust and accountability in the police department. The public and any interested independent parties should be involved in the department’s decision-making process.

Transparency within the police department

Transparency within the police department entails openness and honesty principles from the code of ethics. The police department should be termed as transparent in decision communications and actions if the officers depict transparency to the agencies and the public at large. For instance, police officers can create trusting relationships with the public through communication, where feedback should be accepted. Also, the officers should respond to criticism through finding methods to improve on the pointed errors rather than finding ways to silent them. Additionally, the officers should ensure that they are truthful, consistent, accurate, and comprehensive while communicating with both the public and the agencies as a lack of these values could erode public confidence. Most importantly, the officers should maintain appropriate confidentiality with both parties.

Other factors that should be put into place to ensure transparency include impartiality. Virtue should be practiced on members of the public, colleagues in the agencies, and partners through being objective, fair, and unbiased. Another factor includes integrity, where the police should always exercise professionalism by upholding ethical standards and values in the department. Also, police should act in the best interest of the citizens through improving the well-being and safety of the public. Through public service to the public, a sense of being valued and engaged is created, which builds public confidence. In the process of satisfying the transparency components and aspects, accountability is enhanced as all the factors contribute to the general rapport.

The Police Review Commission in California

The study analyzed a Police Review Commission (PRC) in California in the city of Berkeley, which was created in 1973. The commission plans to ensure that the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) and its staff serve the public in a way that concurs to the standards set by the community. A more in-depth look into the PRC showed that it advises the BPD and city leaders on the police policies. Additionally, PRC seeks feedback and investigates complaints by the public against the law enforcement officers in BPD. Also, the PRC organizes subcommittee meetings that are open for the public to attend. The PRC is an example of a community-based accountability institution which ensures that pertinent authorities handle the public grievances.

2. Political accountability

Political accountability refers to when politicians decide on behalf of citizens where the citizens have bestowed the power to sanction or reward the politician. There are two major categories in which political accountability may be enhanced, which include political checks on local and international levels. On legislative oversight, we shall also discuss how federal control of the police department can be improved.

Political checks on local and international levels

Political checks on local levels show that police accountability is challenged by the local democracy currently. The implication is that accountability to the law seems central and insufficient instead of the local policies and interests, finding an increased expression in the police practice. The imbalance initiates a debate that has initiated political, public, and academic opinions. A suggestion of the relationship between local state and central state activity suggests a middle ground responsive to local requirements, accountable to the law and national interests.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights designed principles on the fundamental rights of people to be observed by countries. Additionally, laws and treaties encompass provisions that apply to police in terms of prudent options for police to set their activities and forbidden police behaviors, for instance, torture. Some examples of policing accountability include the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (PRENZLER, 2015).

Some treaties establish legally binding obligations, for instance, the most ratified by an absolute majority of the states the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In article 2, paragraph 3 of the states’ covenant establishes a mechanism where an individual can seek redress when their rights are violated through the international legal framework. It’s upon any member state to ensure that an individual whose rights have been violated as recognized goes through the legal framework regardless of whether the violation on him/her was committed on official capacity. Also, the article stipulates that a person following the international legal framework has a right for his/her right to be determined by competent legislative authorities or judges to develop a possible judicial remedy. Furthermore, the police should enforce the international legal framework when granted.

The Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials insists on excellent performance, such as all agencies of law enforcement should be accountable and responsible to the community. Also, effective maintenance of standards that are ethical amongst police officials should rely on the existence of a well stipulated, humane, and popularly accepted system of laws. The code of conduct also states that each law enforcement official is part of the whole system, and thus, his/her behavior has an impact on the entire system whose duty is to prevent and control crime.

Enhancing the federal oversight of the police department

Four significant recommendations should be made to the current police department to improve central control in the police department. The first recommendation is the increase of the national government’s oversight on how the police conduct themselves. Research shows that in the current system, the federal government is not involved in local policing, primarily through providing federal funding of the local agencies in various roles. The roles include equipment purchasing, deterrence initiatives, training, and hiring officers. Another function where the federal government becomes involved is when there is a complaint about officer misconduct made to the Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights. Currently, the DOJ engages in relatively little proactive police practice where we recommend that it should be the other way round in setting expectations for nationwide police conduct.

The second recommendation is that the collection of data involving police shootings should be enhanced. The question of how often the police kill unarmed people has been in people’s minds for quite a while. The answer is still at large since there is quite a wide gap when the data involving police shootings are made (Lister & Rowe, 2015). Additionally, data on these deaths are reported to the UCR program voluntarily by the police. The implication is that the data might be biased; for instance, in 2012, the CDC reported 550 fatalities, which was quite different from the recorded 246 justifiable homicides by the FBI. Although the scope of recording is depicting some disparities, still the margin is quite considerable. The data gap in fatalities is best addressed by legislation, where also the administration should implement regulations stipulating the type of information which is required to be recorded about the deaths.

Thirdly, the special prosecutors should be used in large numbers in cases about police investigations. Currently, the prosecutors are under intense scrutiny. Claims about police shootings and misconduct are handled by prosecutors who are also involved in processing the arrests made by the police in other cases. The implication is that there may be sympathy in these cases where justice may end up not being served. Furthermore, most local prosecutors are permanent and have an interest in justifying the actions of the local law enforcement officers. Thus its recommended that there should exist special prosecutors for the police-related misconduct cases.

Lastly, training for all local police involved in federal task forces and federal law enforcement officers should be implemented implicitly without bias. The issue mostly is about discrimination of people of color. In the recent past, statistics show that blacks are more likely to be arrested compared to whites. Additionally, the analysis shows that black people are 11.9 times sent to prison for drug charges the rate of whites. The recommendation is an increase in diversity among police professionals. The training of police professionals, on the other hand, raises consciousness about discrimination. The result will be a law enforcement agency without prejudice; thus, police accountability will be enhanced in general.

3. Civil lawsuits

Civil rights law victims rely on a statute referred to as section 1983, which about police misconduct. The law was initially passed to reduce oppressive conduct by private and government officials in 1871. It was thereby named section 1983 since the law was published then in title 42 of the U.S code. In this section, we shall focus on lawsuits against the individual police officers violating rights and public campaigns for civil accountability.

Lawsuits against individual police officers who violate rights

Common claims that are made against the police officers include excessive force, false arrest or imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. In an excessive use of force arouses the public concern due to the outrageous results brought by the misconduct. In some cases, the use of excessive force results in physical injuries, and in others, death might occur. The circumstance and surrounding facts determine whether the force used was reasonable or not. In an event where an officer uses excess force, the intentions do not matter as charges should be pressed whatsoever. However, in the fact that the officer does not use excessive power, the aims of the officers do not matter.

False arrest falls under the fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable seizure or detention without a probable cause. It’s a claim that is made by many people after an arrest. However, it’s important to note that law enforcement officers can arrest an individual for a felony without a warrant so long as it’s committed in his/her presence. Also, in some states, arrest for domestic assault arrests do not require a permit. To win a case about the false arrest, one must succeed in proving that the officer lacked a probable cause at the time of the arrest.

Malicious prosecution is another major claim made against the police, which pertains to the fourteenth amendment right to liberty. Four facts must be present to prevail in such a request; firstly, the police should be the ones who began the case as the defendant. Secondly, the final court decision should have ended in favor of the victim. Also, the victim should be able to prove that there was no probable cause (Bowling & Sheptycki, 2015). Finally, it should be evident that the case against the victim was brought with malice. However, the presence of a probable cause discards the claim, and no charges can be pressed against the officer.

Public campaigns for civil accountability

The public attacks for civilian police accountability involve oversight by the independent institutions and the media. Confidence in the police is a prerequisite to effective policing. However, when police misconduct is not investigated intensely, public trust is eroded. The oversight by independent institutions was designed to investigate the police misconduct effectively and independently. There are several such institutions, such as the European Court of Human Rights, which stipulates five critical principles for active investigation. The policies include an allowance of public scrutiny, independence of the investigators should be ensured, and investigators should be able to gather enough evidence, the investigation should be conducted immediately after the incidence and the involvement of the victim in the survey. Various countries have gone ahead to set the independent police complaint bodies which are best suited in conducting studies effectively.

When it comes to the media, it plays the role of informing the public through reporting. Additionally, the media accesses the government and police records and publishes the policies and regulations on law enforcement and statistics about police statistics. The outcome is that transparency is fostered in the department. Also, the media covers court proceedings that involve the police, thus informing the citizens about the mechanisms of accountability. Besides, the press uncovers human rights violations and police misconduct through investigative journalism. An example of media oversight is the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

4. Criminal prosecutions

The criminal justice system thoroughly investigates and, in the presence of evidence, prosecutes charges depicting violation of the constitution by the law enforcement officers. The allegations range from serious offenses such as shootings to harming offenders in custody. The criminal justice system is usually responsible for making the decisions in the cases. In the execution of police misconduct, the criminal justice system follows the federal criminal statute, which implements constitutional limits on conduct but the police in section 18 U.S.C 242 (Fagan, 2006). The article was intended to protect all people in the U.S in them furnish, and civil rights mean of their explanation.

However, research in the past about high-profile cases involving police misconduct has ended with non-indictments, thus probing public scrutiny. The implication is that the local prosecutors are unable to prosecute their counterparts fairly. The suggestion is that the ruling is biased, which could endanger the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. The recommendation is that the local prosecutors should be disqualified from carrying out prosecutions involving police suspects. Such cases should be handled by an independent prosecutor or a civilian review board.

Conclusion.

In the paper, we have seen that there are several ways in which the police violate the constitution, where in some cases, they usually get away with the crimes. Issues of accountability of the police, therefore, arise where we discussed the community-based responsibility. In police accountability, we explained how the community could make the law enforcement department better through civilian oversight. Also, we showed how transparency could be enhancing in the police department and analyzed the police review commission of California. We also explained the political accountability, where we discussed political checks on local and international levels. Besides, we outlined various methods of enhancing federal oversight in the police department. Additionally, we mentioned the lawsuits against individual police officers who violate rights such as false arrest. The implication is that the criminal justice system has some errors which can be corrected through forming independent bodies that will fully implement section 18 U.S.C 242.

References

Bowling, B., & Sheptycki, J. (2015). Reflections on legal and political accountability for global policing. Accountability of Policing, 214-230. doi:10.4324/9781315881898-11

Fagan, P. (2006). Book Review: America’s Unpatriotic Acts: The Federal Government’s Violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights. International Criminal Justice Review, 16(2), 138-139. doi:10.1177/1057567706290530

Lister, S., & Rowe, M. (2015). Accountability of policing. Accountability of Policing, 1-17. doi:10.4324/9781315881898-1

Musila, G. (2018). Enhancing Security Sector Accountability and Professionalism in Africa Through Civilian Oversight: A Review of Legal and Institutional Frameworks. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3159246

PRENZLER, T. (2015). Democratic Policing, Public Opinion, and External Oversight. Civilian Oversight of Police, 51-72. doi:10.1201/b19040-6

Walker, N. (2012). Police Accountability. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, 474-484. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-373932-2.00380-x