TheAgitator.com
Obama and Crime
Tuesday, October 7th, 2008I have an article up at Slate today explaining why Obama and Biden’s criminal justice proposals are misguided.
In particular, Obama is proposing to resurrect the COPS and Byrne grant programs, which shows an unfortunate, uncritical throw-federal-money-at-the-problem approach to crime.
Regular readers of this site know that Byrne and COPS have created all sorts of problems, including the further militarization of local police departments, statistics-driven drug policing, multi-jurisdictional task forces that lack accountability, and the disproportionate targeting of minorities, particularly blacks.
Obama has expressed some encourage sentiments on many of these issues. It’s too bad that he’s embracing policies that are going to make them worse.
If he truly represents ‘change’, Senator Obama will have to put his money where his mouth is and debate his opponent on the merits of ‘change’ within the ways and means of conducting the DrugWar.
The very same DrugWar which weighs so heavily upon the necks of his fellow African-Americans. The very same DrugWar whose machinery would have chewed him up and shat him out, had he been caught up in it – as so many of his fellow citizens have. The very same DrugWar which would have near-permanently precluded his ever having a decent job, much less achieving elected office, or becoming a Presidential candidate.
‘Change’. Yeah, right. Another ‘free pass for me, but jail for thee’ pol. Haven’t we had enough of those?
Let’s hope this is reactionary support for “anti-crime” measures without close examination, that will either be forgotten or restructured once in office and properly considered.
Federal Criminal Enforcement really seems like an area in which Obama could make the biggest changes just by de-prioritizing victimless crime like marijuana possession.
The Drug War is the most harmful and destructive policy propagated by our government today, and leadership in the direction of even just slowing it down would be huge.
I’d add that Obama has called for stricter antitrust regulation, which means you can say goodbye to due process for anyone engaged in any type of business practice…
We’re going to be sorry if this guy is elected. As bad as McCain seems, Obama is going to be worse.
Effectiveness program is not a factor when candidates decide to support a program. All that matters is how it looks in the media. Appearing to be “tough on crime” always works.
Dave,
I agree, but I wonder if shows like; Raising the Bar might be evidence of the pendulum swinging the other way? Maybe that is just wishful thinking on my part :)
A politician saying one thing and doing another.
I’m shocked.
Shocked.
No really.
I think this is a good example of how politics changes someone’s campaign promises and ideals. If Obama tried to change drug war policies, he would be called “soft on crime.” Not to mention the fact that so many people see drug money as means to finance terrorism and so forth. The Military Industrial Complex supporting the drug war and other forms of law enforcement also has its claws dug in deep. Even if he really wanted to “change” things (which my cynical ass doubts), it’s going to be very hard at the federal level.
I don’t believe that it is hopeless. Local municipalities of like minded people do have the ability to resist this mentality, especially when it comes to the drug war. I think that’s where the efforts to resist the militarization of the police need to be fought.
omg, radley is in the tank for mccain!!!! hahaha.
all kidding aside, and all mockery aside, i think that if believing the crimjus system needs to be completely overhaulder, or never, everyone is going to be pretty disappointed. (this isn’t a comment on radley’s conclusions, i think he’s absolutely right. i’m saying that even some improvement is better than nothing at all.)
My one question is…at what point is there the maximal militarization of a police force? I mean, they can continually become ‘more militarized’, but when does a police force become what amounts to the military? While I don’t think throwing federal money at the PO is a good idea, does this stop the state/county/local governments from doing the same?
The demand for militarization of our police forces does not start and end with federal money. It starts with the mindset that, created by fear of the unknown, attempts to resolve uncertainty by building up reactionary forces to handle such events. Which is to say, its mostly just an illusion.
I’m wondering if there is a good argument out there that says throwing excessive amounts of money at the police force does not produce better results, or alternatively, the gains made by such funding are nominal if not negligible. Perhaps why the ‘militarized police’ theme has not fully entered into public discourse so well is because people really do want thier security to be substantial. But if they’re not getting anything more in return while using taxpayer money, maybe they’d be more inclined to oppose it. Labeling such funding the ‘bridge to nowhere of excessive police spending’ might work.
sorry to get off topic, just riffed with what came to mind.
Maybe Obama has an February suprise in mind for us. Maybe he has to say one thing now, in order to do another thing later. The legal drugs, military police aspects are ,just a bridge to far ,for most.
Someone said Obama would keep the Feds out of the medical MJ issue. If that is true, it is an incremental move away from the drug war that could have a domino effect.
This is why it’s hard to believe that you actually think Obama is going to do any good on the issues that he’s “better than McCain on.” Biden in particular has shown a worse record on civil liberties than McCain, and God help us if some nut job makes him the next President!
What’s ironic about all of the bullshit about the AIP and Palin’s family is that the AIP’s platform is actually very close to the libertarian party’s platform. In fact, their primary “secessionist grievance,” aside from their founder’s, is that Alaska wasn’t given a multiple choice referendum that included secession and other statuses.
Great article Radley.
I think Obama is displaying the non-entrenched mentality of Democrats who feel they have to go all out when it comes to policing (or War) so as not to be labeled as soft, elitist pussies. If the Dems were really the party of social justice and trying to help the have-nots, they wouldn’t keep these law enforcement shackles on them. All programs like COPS are doing is making sure poor people are prohibited from bettering themselves — instead of getting treatment, they get criminal records.
“at what point is there the maximal militarization of a police force?”
Ooooh! I know! I know!
When a U.S. Army brigade is permanently assigned to domestic duty.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/
“The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.”
Cynical, yes I’ve read that. I think Mr. Balko had posted on here too. Very concerning stuff, but I can’t make assumptions about it at this time. The distinction here is that they military will always be military. The police, however, are not…but have become increasingly so. So far, the only difference I can define is that the soldiers in the military obey and operate on direct orders with so little variation…while the police force is considerably more flexible.
You will never have a politician that will not increase the aggressiveness of police.
That is what the people want.
And that is unfortunate.
Cheye Calvo is a politician. Bet he wouldn’t increase police aggressiveness. It’s a shame, because he had to become a victim of police brutality first, but he understands that what happened to him was systemic rather than anomalous.
j.d., true, I was turning the argument on its head, but I find that one ignores the other side of the coin at one’s peril. Us here at this blog are in the know, for sure.
The militarization of the police, the policization of the military.
Tomatoe, tomahto. Potatoe, potahto.
Heads, they win. Tails, we lose.
For people who were ever taken in by the notion, things like this make it hard to keep believing that Obama is substantially better than McCain on matters police power and justice.
The fundamental issue is whether a politician believes that government is the solution to social problems. People who turn to government to solve problems will tend to increase police power. Why? Because they believe that any difficulties with that approach are just implementation glitches and not inherent problems in their approach. They look at a case like the Calvo incident and think, “Yeah, they screwed up because the sheriffs department didn’t talk to the local police. We need to tweak the system.” They won’t see that there is an inherent problem with the criminalizing consensual behavior that ensures that police will make this kind of mistake because government is simply not a good way to deal with drug use.
But, the problem isn’t that government programs need to be tweaked by “reformers” (which is what these government tweakers call themselves when they have delusions of heroism). That’s the government approach: See a problem and try to punch it in the face. Then, when it turns out that the wrong people are getting bloody noses, propose a “reform” that cops should wear padded gloves, or they should aim for the chin, or people should be required to carry first aid kits, or wear ID badges, or any other typical government reform proposal that fails to see that the problem isn’t that there aren’t proper safeguards in the program of punching people in the face; it’s that there is a program of punching people in the face.
Unfortunately, McCain and Obama are both cut from the same cloth, where it really counts: They both look at a problem – almost any problem – and see government as the solution. Police are tools of government problem-solving, as are regulators, planning commissions, the tax code, etc. The candidates don’t question that approach because their whole world view is based on it. People who wonder why Obama won’t ever seriously reconsider even the federal war on drugs, which is such a colossal failure that one might think no politician would want to be associated with. But, it shouldn’t be a surprise. He’s no different than McCain. He just thinks he has cleverer tweaks that will finally fix the system.
“More Carver, less Herc” would make a great slogan for a program to improve a police department. Of course, only 12 people would get the reference.
I am afraid I must agree with FreedomFan; having formerly been a Federal civil servant, I can relate the fact that the question is never “Is this trip necessary?” but “How can we increase the length/cost/effects at the expense of those paying the bills?” It’s never whether we should be doing something at all.
But that choice may be forced upon those in power by the very economic meltdown we’re experiencing; the bottom has dropped out of the well, and no amount of ‘priming’ with increasingly devalued currency can make up the difference. Look for a shift away from fiery rhetoric about being “Tough on crime!” to being “Smart on crime!” as reflecting the new fiscal realities of a rapidly contracting service-based economy…one that can’t afford the DrugWar, anymore.
But, the problem isn’t that government programs need to be tweaked by “reformers”
Probably 99% of Americans support some form of government-run law enforcement, and I think even most libertarians acknowledge it as a legit function of government. So since it’s more or less unavoidable, the details of how it’s implemented actually do matter quite a lot.
Matt D,
Haha. It’s probably higher than 99%. But, I wasn’t criticizing all law enforcement. I was talking about consensual crimes, in the context of this thread, such as those that compose the war on drugs. Policing such things is not an appropriate function of government and leads to police abuses. I agree that implementation details can be important, but problems with policies that shouldn’t exist at all won’t ultimately be fixed by tweaking their implementations.
“Probably 99% of Americans support some form of government-run law enforcement…”
I’m only one in a hundred?
My wife always tells me I’m one in a million!
And I’m still not sure if she meant that in a GOOD way. :(