
But he deserved it! Why all these forms?
This week’s issue of PLOS Medicine has an excellent, simple article about the problem of police killings in America. It hinges around the simple fact that the Guardian’s website The Counted appears to have more accurate and up to date information on police killings than the American government, even though the US government has a real-time update of deaths in the largest 122 cities, and an ongoing FBI database of police killings that seems to significantly undercount the true numbers. The article makes the reasonable point that governments should be able to keep track of how many people their police kill, and that killings of police are tracked in great detail.
The article argues for the public health relevance of counting police killings on two grounds. First of all, based on just the data from the website, it compares the toll from police killings to other diseases, and the results are kind of shocking:
As of September 19, 2015, the cumulative 2015 total of 842 US persons killed by the police notably exceeded the corresponding totals reported for the 122 cities’ 442 deaths under age 25 (all causes) and also 585 deaths (all ages) due to pneumonia and influenza, and likewise exceeded the national totals for several diseases of considerable concern: measles (188 cases), malaria (786 cases), and mumps (436 cases), and was on par with the national number of cases of Hepatitis A (890 cases)
Putting aside the rather alarmingly large number of mumps and measles deaths, it’s quite shocking that police have killed more people in America this year than the total number of people aged under 25 who died in the 122 largest cities. The authors don’t spend much time on the fact, but a remarkably large number are black: at the time I am writing this post the website counts 1061 deaths and gives a population rate of 6.34 per million for blacks and 2.67 for whites. The death rate is highest in Oklahoma, at nearly 9.3 per million. The total death rate for violence in the USA in 2010 was 56.6 per million, which suggests that police killings are approximately 10% of all deaths due to interpersonal violence in the USA.
By way of comparison, the death rate due to interpersonal violence in Japan was 7.4 per million in 2010; in the UK it was 5.6 per million. The police in the USA have a higher death rate than everyone in the UK.
The article also makes a strong argument for the public health importance of police killings. The authors say that
Police are one of the most visible “faces” of government, whose work daily puts them in view of the public they are sworn to protect. Combine excess police violence with inadequate prosecution of such violence, and the ties that bind citizens and their democratically elected governments become deeply frayed, with vicious cycles of distrust and violence fueling dysfunctional policing and dysfunctional governance more generally. The direct effects and spill-over effects matter for public health and medicine alike, as reflected in the impact on emergency medical services, trauma units, mental health, and the trust required to deliver and implement any government-sponsored program, public health or otherwise.
They also mention in the previous paragraph the challenge of police deaths, which appear to be quite high in the USA and, I suspect, as a rate are quite horrifyingly high (I don’t know how many police there are in the USA). Police in the USA have to contend with an environment of uncontrolled gun use, and I’ve no doubt that some portion of the killings listed in the Guardian website would almost certainly have been averted if the police could have some confidence that the men and women they are dealing with are unlikely to be armed. Nonetheless, police are functionaries of the government, the primary means by which the state exerts its monopoly of force, and a huge amount of our social behavior is dependent on how restrained they are in the exercise of that monopoly. I think the authors of this article are right to observe that the behavior of the police is relevant to public health, and certainly when I worked in clinics for people who inject drugs in Australia, good relations with the police were a hugely important part of our public health work – senior medical staff in the clinics I worked at spent a lot of time negotiating with police and making sure that they understood their public health role, and having the police onside paid huge dividends in our public health work.
The article finishes by recommending that deaths involving police – either of police or by police – be publicly notifiable, like AIDS mortality or measles. This would enable the state to track the behavior of police, and to give real-time information about how police are behaving to public health authorities. I think this is a good idea, though I don’t think it’s necessary in every country. In Australia police deaths and deaths in custody are already notifiable [that link is from Queensland but I think every state is the same], and I think it’s safe to say that Australian police activities are not hampered by this requirement. Australia went through this discussion in the 1980s and 1990s, when there was a major government inquiry into Aboriginal deaths in custody that turned up some remarkable and counter-intuitive findings[1], and made important reforms to the way police behave. It’s really not difficult to enact these reforms if a government wants to, and although reforming police forces can be tough and requires political leadership, and police forces are often very racist, they are also bound together by a calling to civic duty that can be used to force powerful changes. Requiring that police deaths be counted is the first step to holding police accountable for those they kill. It’s always worth remembering this simple principle: if you aren’t counted, you don’t count.
Police violence in America seems to be something that happens in Republican and Democrat jurisdictions (Chicago seems to have developed its very own police torture centre, and yet Chicago is a Democrat stronghold). I suspect that problem is not one of simply political will, but also requires gun control and other anti-corruption measures at the political level that would seem natural in the rest of the world but seem to be anathema in the USA. It might also require removing appointment of police commissioners and deputies from public vote to political appointment. I don’t know what the correct changes would be. But actually forcing the police to register the people they kill – to count the dead – would be a big first step towards the changes that need to be made.
Let’s hope President Trump agrees with me …
—
fn1: In brief, Aboriginal people were no more likely to die in custody than white people, but were much, much more likely to be charged and taken into custody than white people, which produced a perception in Aboriginal communities of slaughter in prison. The reason for the charges was identified, primarily as the “trifecta”: a police officer approaches an Aboriginal person over the charge of offensive language, which rapidly escalates to abuse of an officer, and then becomes resisting arrest. The first of these three charges was almost exclusively applied only to Aborigines, and no one even really understood that this thing was happening until the government inquiry uncovered it and introduced a range of recommendations to reduce the rate at which Aboriginal people entered custody. Result: less black deaths in custody. It occasionally still enters the news, but mostly has become an irrelevant part of Australian history. My guess is that the same straightforward approach to discrimination won’t happen in America …
December 11, 2015 at 6:27 am
Regarding the state monopoly on force, I’d chime in to reinforce a related point you touched on.
The US government doesn’t have a contract with its populace giving it that monopoly. The second amendment (as currently interpreted) explicitly grants the right to deadly force to the entire populace (including suspected terrorists) under a wide range of circumstances. Even a reasonable reading of the second amendment shows it reserves the citizenry the right to overthrow the government via force.
December 11, 2015 at 7:55 am
“it reserves the citizenry the right to overthrow the government via force.”. Well, no. That would be rebellion, which is not approved by the Constitution. And the question of state resistance to federal jurisdiction was, I believe, settled 150 years ago.
When I was in law enforcement, the figure of 30,000 US police forces was bandied around (an exaggeration, I’m sure). There are federal, state, city, county, and municipal forces – many 2 and 3 person affairs. There are at least thousands, widely varying in competence, probity and powers. All armed and many prejudiced. Negotiating standard reporting takes years, and then is patchy at best.
December 11, 2015 at 9:51 am
I think I agree with Peter that the constitution doesn’t and was never intended to support treason or insurrection. It is interpreted that way by many people though, and there is also a vocal minority who see treason in defense of slavery as honorable rather than scurrilous. Regardless of whether they’re right or wrong – and even if we accept your interpretation of the constitution as correct – these views are obviously at odds with the structure and intentions of the modern US state, which assumes it has a monopoly on force regardless of the views of the citizenry. Being a police officer is obviously going to be a hairy proposition in that environment …
Peter, Wikipedia tells me 1,200,000 police, which seems more plausible than 30,000. If so, then police mortality rates are about 25 per million, I would guess (30 deaths in a year). That’s excess mortality, obviously, since it’s occupational; given that the background mortality rate from violence in the US is 56 million, that means that police are suffering a 50% higher rate of violent mortality than the general population. That’s a pretty horrific level of occupational risk and no doubt would be lower if the population were not armed. I suspect that such a high level of occupational mortality from violence is part of the reason that US cops are a little more trigger happy than their European or Australasian counterparts! Yet another argument for a set of policies that will never be enacted …
December 11, 2015 at 11:28 am
”“it reserves the citizenry the right to overthrow the government via force.”. Well, no. That would be rebellion, which is not approved by the Constitution. And the question of state resistance to federal jurisdiction was, I believe, settled 150 years ago.”
I’m not claiming it’s logical or good, but the most coherent arguments made in favour of the 2nd amendment relate to using force to restrain the government.
The fact that’s a nonsense idea in this age of fighter jets and total surveillance makes it clearly nonsense, but it’s still frequently cited as the logic and things like a brutal fratricidal war 15 decades ago are going to keep it settled until it there is some reason for it to become unsettled.
”these views are obviously at odds with the structure and intentions of the modern US state, which assumes it has a monopoly on force regardless of the views of the citizenry.”
Then why does the Supreme Court of the USA support wide ranging gun ownership? It’s incoherent to argue they support people having guns but not using them, and cases like Trayvon Martin show that the bar for the individuals legally exercising violence is incredibly low [1].
My suggestion is that we shouldn’t look at the letter of the law or fine speeches given by leaders. We should examine the actual outcomes and assume that, absent efforts to change things, the country has achieved its goal. And the US outcomes suggest their goal is something like “A gun in every class and a cap in every ass.” [2]
[1] i.e. “I stalked him. He came towards me and was angry I was stalking him. I killed him. Black people shouldn’t get ideas about walking around.” <- This seems to be regarded as a valid reason to shoot someone! You don’t get to have a country that lets stuff like that happen and then talk about how your country seeks to reserve the exercise of violence to the state.
[2] I think that’s the quote from Family Guy
December 11, 2015 at 1:30 pm
Paul, in saying these views are at odds with the structure and intentions of the modern state I think I’m agreeing with you. I mean that there are large elements of the function of the modern US state that depend on its monopoly on force, policing being one of them, but large popular currents and opinion in and outside of politics which want to retain those elements of the state (e.g. all politicians respect the police and think we should all uphold the rule of law) while simultaneously believing that it isn’t constitutionally entitled to the monopoly on force that underpins them. This, as you say, isn’t going to end well. I think in practice it means that those people – like the authors of the linked article – who want to reduce the harms associated with out of control gun ownership need to find alternatives to the kind of gun control that works so well in other countries, because in the USA gun control is not simply a legislative debate about how to balance rights and safeties. The linked article proposes one creative option, which is to properly monitor violence by the police; in criticizing the NY Times editorial the other day I was also trying to point to other ways to reduce gun violence than simply banning guns, and I think the NY Times needs to try harder to move beyond the banning or not-banning debate.
I know “monitor the deaths” doesn’t sound as effective as banning guns and getting the police to stop shooting people, but the former is impossible and the latter won’t happen until we know how many people are being shot. So although it’s an incremental change, I think the linked article makes a strong public health and public order case for properly monitoring police killings. Maybe once Americans realize just how much violence is being done, and see it presented in an informative and accessible way, they will start to think more firmly about what to do about it…
December 11, 2015 at 6:47 pm
That’s 30,00 police forces, not 30,000 police persons. I can’t find a single source, but one lists just under 300 for Alabama alone. Which, if typical, would make around 15,000 local and state forces, plus a few dozen federal ones.
How many deaths are blue on blue?
December 11, 2015 at 6:51 pm
That’s a very complex policing situation! My understanding of Australia is that we just have “number of states+1”. Same in Japan … I guess it’s hard to coordinate any kind of sensible policy with 30,000 forces!
December 12, 2015 at 6:20 pm
Australia has about 10 – each state, plus two commonwealth (AFP and Australian Crime Commission), plus forces with some police powers (eg NSW Crime Commission). England and Wales have 43 – but they all come under the Home Office for policy and reporting. Governance in the US is hard.
December 13, 2015 at 1:28 pm
Given the particular importance of good governance in policing, that’s a bad sign…