Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
The Gaffer's Philosophy:
Part 151: Summary Nine:
April 25, 2005:
I made the point that we need to look for more effective law enforcement. In essay 98 and 99 I outlined some of my own experiences concerning failures in law enforcement. These are numerous incidents that happened in the life of just one person. I cannot think my own experience could have been that unique. On the contrary, I believe everyone has had similar experience. In addition, we see examples almost daily on our TV news of failures in the police establishment. These range from cops getting themselves killed through careless procedure to cops assaulting citizens and criminals being allowed to escape from custody. We should not need more evidence than that of some serious failures in law enforcement.
This failure of law enforcement is not just a local thing. It is nationwide. This enforcement problem is compounded by what can only be called a hodgepodge of laws. The variation in law from community to community is ridiculous. There is really no sense it discussing equal enforcement within such a patchwork of contradiction in law. One thing we must do is work to achieve uniform laws throughout the land. This is simply a matter of getting agreement between the communities. Of course, that means having rational reasonable people in government. So here we are again at the need for ethical people in government.
This is really a matter of personal ethics. Ethics and respect for law are at the heart of it. But, that has to start at the top with good examples. Our leaders should be unrelenting in their ethics. They are not. They are systematically unethical. So, the population is not encouraged to behave ethically or to act with courage by that example. As I said, real reform must begin with our leadership. Again, to do that we must replace the flotsam we have with ethical people.
Once the feds are reformed we should look carefully at the state and local problems. Now for that, everyone says we need more money for more cops. I respectfully disagree. I'm not convinced we need more money. We may need more money, but not for more cops. I don't think we need more cops at all. I think we have way too many cops now. We need fewer, but better cops. We also need better organization. We need to raise the standards for people to make the force. Standards were lowered in many jurisdictions previously and that turned out to be a mistake.
Our police also need proper support and equipment. They should have the best tools available for law enforcement and investigative work. Too many of them do not get it. Some of the cost of that shortsightedness turns up in the unsolved homicide statistics I revealed in essay 99. Along with the support and equipment the cops should receive better pay for what they do. When properly done, police work is a high risk, high responsibility occupation. It should be paid accordingly. A good cop should make as much as a good line manager if not more.
We also need to properly train cops so they can be good. For training I would favor a national academy with a very tough four year program. In this the recruits would be trained in all phases of police work, the physical as well as the ethical and mental. Weaklings, dummies, and con men would not make the cut. For sure the school would have tough, nondiscriminatory entrance requirements. Graduates of the school would be tough, disciplined, and proud.
I would make a degree from this academy a requirement for employment in police work of any kind anywhere in the United States. I would even favor subsidizing a school like that. I would consider it to be as important as our military academies. I will contend that if all of our police came from a school like this we would not need half of the cops we have. We could have half the cops at twice the pay and get better enforcement.
Another thing we might consider in education is a graduate program for cops. The way it's done now a cop can get promoted just for longevity. If you hang around long enough you can become a sergeant or even a detective. Never mind the qualifications. In most cases the tests are a farce. It may be worth considering this. Make it a requirement for a cop to complete a certain amount of graduate work in addition to having a certain amount of line experience to be promoted. This would tend to ensure the leadership qualifications.
These kind of things have worked well for our army. When I was in the army they had what they called a noncommissioned officers school. Anyone could apply and some made the cut. The ones who graduated were promoted and became leaders. The only other way to get promoted was a bit riskier. It was called a field promotion and could only happen in a combat area. You can guess the rest. I am one of the few who did that and lived to tell about it.
Finally, in law enforcement we must deal with how prisons are managed or not managed. In some cases I contend we treat prisoners much to easily. For example I see no reason to have minimum security prisons or rest farms for white collar or political crooks. In most cases these people have betrayed a trust and should be treated at least as harshly as any other felon.
In other cases we treat some prisoners to harshly. I think now of those prisoners at Guantanamo. All prisons should be the same and all prisoners should be treated equally. All time should be hard time, but not cruel and unusual. It should be a strict disciplinary military type system for all inmates. Exercise should be army style. There should be no entertainment, but there should be plenty of good educational opportunity. There should be very little free time. Prisoners should have a right to regular mail service. The food should be simple but nutritionally adequate. There should be no luxuries. There should be work projects for prisoners. If they are not in bed, exercising, or studying they should be working.
Now, beyond police work, there are other less dangerous areas of civil service. We can cite postal workers, social security workers, and other bureaucrats. In essays 100 and 101 I pointed up some of the problems in these areas. Civil service is what I consider to be the last great stronghold of featherbedding in America. Even the railroads managed to finally weed it out. It remains only in government. Only in civil service may a person refuse to work and remain employed and even get promoted.
Now, lest I give the impression that I think all civil servants are culpable, I do not. I am sure there are a great many who do their best everyday. Unfortunately, the ones who are good, become defensive and they tend to cover for the bad ones. They try to defend the whole system against outside criticism. It is just a manifestation of the siege mentality that we are all prone to when we feel threatened. It is a very difficult problem to overcome.
This is about more than civil service. It's about the degeneration of America. It's about lowering standards. It's about allowing unqualified people to get into the system. Instead of holding to our standards and helping people to qualify, we have lowered the standards to let unqualified people in. It's not just the postoffice. It's the police, army, FBI, CIA, and all of civil service. Even universities have gotten into the act.
I think we need to get back to some honest standard setting.
Behaviorism can apply here. We may not need to punish bad behavior,
but we sure should not be rewarding it. If we reward at all, it
should be for exceptionally good behavior. Don't send me e-mail
to blow smoke at me about defining good and bad behavior. We have
already done that many times. Good behavior is that which enhances
the community and our value to the community. Bad behavior is
that which diminishes our neighbors, our community, and our value
to the community. It really is that simple. In that model, shirking
our responsibility is bad behavior. End of story!
Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
|
|
|
|