This is an understandable sentiment but I'd advise against it. It isn't justice and it's that exact mentality that allows so many people to be comfortable with citizens being shot or otherwise brutalized by law enforcement. People who oppose unnecessary use of force generally shouldn't embrace it when the (in this case hypothetical) person on the receiving end is someone they don't like.
I agree completely, and I think it's that dynamic that most explains why a given individual commits a crime of this nature. It's a frustrating answer for a lot of people I think because it implies that there might not be much that can be done to stop it (or at least not much that's consistent with living in a free society). Even if we did allow the state to behave in a much more repressive fashion I think the effectiveness would be limited. The knife attacks on elementary schools in China come to mind.
It doesn't mean that we don't have serious problems with race in this country (or gun violence for that matter) but I'm always wary of using an episode of mass murder as the nexus for reform on broader problems, at least in a modern context. During the Jim Crow era through the civil rights movement rampant murder of black people by white people acting in a private capacity to enforce segregation was a problem. At risk of sounding naive I don't think that's really true anymore. Now the big racial problems are disparate impact and entrenched economic inequality (not that there isn't state sanctioned violence that arises from that but I don't think it's the same as an embittered racist coming out of the woodwork to commit murder).
I agree that it's time for South Carolina to, for example, take down the Confederate flag. It might make people feel good but I'm not sure it changes the forces that give American born black people a disadvantage.
I'm not sure this is entirely true. He's most certainly responsible for his own actions and I haven't seen any indication (yet) that whatever problem he was medicating mitigates his criminal responsibility.
Nevertheless I think in the rush to compartmentalize mass shootings into broader political debates we've often overlooked how blurry a line it seems to be between psychological problems and politically motivated mass killers (what we often now call "terrorists," though that's a term I try to avoid). Read up on the people the FBI occasionally arrests (or in some instances entrap) for what are characterized as Islamist terrorist plots. Many of them are, for lack of a better term, losers, who don't seem quite in touch with reality. They remind me more of Dylan Klebold or John Muhammad than Osama bin Laden.
My suspicion is that, at least in this era, it's people who already have some type of personal dysfunction or psychological problem who latch on to outrageous ideologies, as opposed to the ideologies themselves inspiring the violence. I'm not arguing that broader racism still present in our culture or fetishization of firearms has zero role (something that makes me uncomfortable at times even as a gun owner) but I don't think that's the root. After all, we're all exposed to it and yet most people don't commit brutal murders.
"...first is the sneaking suspicion one has that the public is simply being acclimatized to the fact of trigger-happy cops beating, shooting, and killing the most vulnerable members of the public on the slightest of pretenses, on mistaken suspicions, or even utterly invented pretenses. At some point, we simply accept this state of affairs as a matter of course and fail to ask the larger question: why is it that a society, as it becomes increasingly market-driven, simultaneously becomes more punitive?"
Long time lurker, first time commenting. I like the proposal but I disagree with the above. There have been people sounding the alarm about this issue for years without much fanfare. Radley Balko of course is the most notable (and he has deservedly finally gotten to a wider audience at the Washington Post). The only thing new is that there has finally been enough backlash from the more abused populations to get the attention of major media outlets. In many respects that's a good thing.
The greater danger I think is that media continues down the path it's already on, which is to make the problem of police militarization solely about race. Now race certainly can't be removed from the equation, and the war on crime and war on drugs, the primary policies that got us here, are inextricably intertwined with race and racism. I think the danger is less acclimation, and more that it becomes just another "law and order" issue drawn along familiar culture war and partisan battle lines.
Again, I can't stress enough that I don't want to downplay race, only to say that it's bigger than that. Police militarization has been on the radar here in a way that it may not have been in other places since a notorious botched SWAT raid in 2008.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Charleston Shooting and the Multiple Choice Public Response”
This is an understandable sentiment but I'd advise against it. It isn't justice and it's that exact mentality that allows so many people to be comfortable with citizens being shot or otherwise brutalized by law enforcement. People who oppose unnecessary use of force generally shouldn't embrace it when the (in this case hypothetical) person on the receiving end is someone they don't like.
"
I agree completely, and I think it's that dynamic that most explains why a given individual commits a crime of this nature. It's a frustrating answer for a lot of people I think because it implies that there might not be much that can be done to stop it (or at least not much that's consistent with living in a free society). Even if we did allow the state to behave in a much more repressive fashion I think the effectiveness would be limited. The knife attacks on elementary schools in China come to mind.
It doesn't mean that we don't have serious problems with race in this country (or gun violence for that matter) but I'm always wary of using an episode of mass murder as the nexus for reform on broader problems, at least in a modern context. During the Jim Crow era through the civil rights movement rampant murder of black people by white people acting in a private capacity to enforce segregation was a problem. At risk of sounding naive I don't think that's really true anymore. Now the big racial problems are disparate impact and entrenched economic inequality (not that there isn't state sanctioned violence that arises from that but I don't think it's the same as an embittered racist coming out of the woodwork to commit murder).
I agree that it's time for South Carolina to, for example, take down the Confederate flag. It might make people feel good but I'm not sure it changes the forces that give American born black people a disadvantage.
"
I'm not sure this is entirely true. He's most certainly responsible for his own actions and I haven't seen any indication (yet) that whatever problem he was medicating mitigates his criminal responsibility.
Nevertheless I think in the rush to compartmentalize mass shootings into broader political debates we've often overlooked how blurry a line it seems to be between psychological problems and politically motivated mass killers (what we often now call "terrorists," though that's a term I try to avoid). Read up on the people the FBI occasionally arrests (or in some instances entrap) for what are characterized as Islamist terrorist plots. Many of them are, for lack of a better term, losers, who don't seem quite in touch with reality. They remind me more of Dylan Klebold or John Muhammad than Osama bin Laden.
My suspicion is that, at least in this era, it's people who already have some type of personal dysfunction or psychological problem who latch on to outrageous ideologies, as opposed to the ideologies themselves inspiring the violence. I'm not arguing that broader racism still present in our culture or fetishization of firearms has zero role (something that makes me uncomfortable at times even as a gun owner) but I don't think that's the root. After all, we're all exposed to it and yet most people don't commit brutal murders.
On “A Modest Proposal for the Police”
I appreciate the warm welcome, and will be sure to be less shy about weighing in.
"
"...first is the sneaking suspicion one has that the public is simply being acclimatized to the fact of trigger-happy cops beating, shooting, and killing the most vulnerable members of the public on the slightest of pretenses, on mistaken suspicions, or even utterly invented pretenses. At some point, we simply accept this state of affairs as a matter of course and fail to ask the larger question: why is it that a society, as it becomes increasingly market-driven, simultaneously becomes more punitive?"
Long time lurker, first time commenting. I like the proposal but I disagree with the above. There have been people sounding the alarm about this issue for years without much fanfare. Radley Balko of course is the most notable (and he has deservedly finally gotten to a wider audience at the Washington Post). The only thing new is that there has finally been enough backlash from the more abused populations to get the attention of major media outlets. In many respects that's a good thing.
The greater danger I think is that media continues down the path it's already on, which is to make the problem of police militarization solely about race. Now race certainly can't be removed from the equation, and the war on crime and war on drugs, the primary policies that got us here, are inextricably intertwined with race and racism. I think the danger is less acclimation, and more that it becomes just another "law and order" issue drawn along familiar culture war and partisan battle lines.
Again, I can't stress enough that I don't want to downplay race, only to say that it's bigger than that. Police militarization has been on the radar here in a way that it may not have been in other places since a notorious botched SWAT raid in 2008.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.