Many of us have realized that sending troops into some areas can be counter-productive. No matter how many the Israelis kill, more Palestinians prepare to fight them. Our boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan led many to take up arms against us. To them, we were the invaders.
Let me pose an analogy and see if it fits. We don’t have survey data from everywhere but what we have is telling. The Rutherford Institute, which has billed itself as “A non-profit conservative legal organization dedicated to the defense of civil, especially religious, liberties and human rights,” told the U.S. Supreme Court recently, that “the most common justification cited by New York City police for stopping individuals was presence in a ‘high crime area’” and “an additional 32% of stops were based on the time of day, and 23% of police stops were for an unspecified reason.”[i]
The Rutherford Institute pointed out that these stops yield very little: “only 4% of more than a half million individuals stopped, questioned, and searched in New York City in 2006 were actually arrested. … [A]nother field study indicates that only 3% of unconstitutional searches revealed evidence….” The result has been that, when they are trolling for criminals without specific reason to suspect someone, well over 95% of police stops do not result in an arrest or seizure of evidence. And when they focus on minorities, their success rate actually goes down.
This information is well-known. As a member of the New York Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, I helped put on similar testimony both from scholars and from the office of the New York Attorney General.[ii] I’m using the Rutherford Institute’s presentation because I want to make it clear that this is not a liberal rant. It is understood in conservative as well as liberal circles.
There are two problems. The Institute was concerned because those stops are “a significant deprivation of liberty and privacy, they undermine the right to travel unimpeded.” The Institute pointed out that these stops are mostly directed at minorities. African-Americans bitterly describe the experience as the “crime” of walking or driving while black. The Institute added: “each encounter that an 'innocent' or non-offending [racial minority] has with the police increases their sense of alienation, resentment, and disregard for the police and for the criminal justice system.”[iii]
And there’s the problem for all of us. Instead of fighting crime, it often looks like we’re fanning it. Add to the daily humiliations of encounters with police and other officials the instances when unarmed and innocent people are shot and killed by police, and I hope you begin to understand that a lot of this is the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong enemy, with the wrong consequences.
People talk about supporting the police in a war, but whom do we want to support them against? Criminals? Or communities? This is serious stuff. It’s not a ball game with a home team. Anger can have huge costs. Those of us not in the poor community pay in our taxes and we pay with our safety. Those of us who are in the poor community, just trying to make the best of the hand dealt us, pay in the chance to have a happy life, support a happy family and accomplish something in this world. When we think about supporting the police, it’s a very important question how far and how much and with what restraints so that they get it right. Harassing or killing innocent people is not acceptable.
______________________________
[i] Brief of the Rutherford Institute, Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petitioner, Heien v. State of North Carolina, No. 13-604, Supreme Court of the United States, 2013 U.S. Briefs 604; 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2276, June 16, 2014
[ii] New York Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Report, Civil Rights Implications of Post-September 11 Law Enforcement Practices in New York (Washington, DC., March 2004) available at http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr122004024309.pdf (last visited October 13, 2014.
[iii] Quoting Oscar H. Gandy, Jr., Journalists and Academics and the Delivery of Race Statistics: Being a Statistician Means Never Having to Say You're Certain, 4 RACE & SOC'Y 149, 157 (2001).
Steve Gottlieb is Jay and Ruth Caplan Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School and author of Morality Imposed: The Rehnquist Court and Liberty in America. He has served on the Board of the New York Civil Liberties Union, and in the US Peace Corps in Iran.
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.
