We don't need better police training. "Training" for the job, especially while on the job

[Rustynaerduwell]

Last edited Mon Jan 30, 2023, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

will never work. What we need is police education, requiring a degree. For one thing, four years of College changes one's mind. It makes one think and consider, or reconsider your future. The change is inevitable and it is permanent.

And it gives four years for professionals to watch over their students. Four years to grow out or weed out the chaff.

And that word- "student"- such a better word to start with than "recruit". It brings an immediate humility to the plebe rather than the warlike call of recruit.

Make Policing a profession the way Nursing has become one, through the university rather than the job site.

[CrispyQ]

1. But college often opens people's minds.

We can't have that! Open minds are progressive & democratic minds!

On a serious note, I cannot believe that a college degree isn't required for a job with so much responsibility & authority. We need a serious vetting & culling of all police who already serve, & newer, better process for eligibility.

Interesting observation between the words student & recruit. Language has so much power.

[WhiteTara]

2. that is really astute

thanks for the thoughtful solution to the real problem. Student means learning and that's important.

[Freethinker65]

3. Yep. We need smarter educated cops...

But the police legally were given the right to deny employment to smarter educated applicants.
Smarter educated employees tend not to stay long in the police force so ended up "costing more" to train if they were not going to stick around. Better to go with non-critical thinking, undereducated, workforce that would more likely make careers out of the job.

I am NOT saying this is true of all police, nor departments. But, can you imagine working in a department full of abusive cops like those seen in recent videos?

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. Derek Chauvin had a bachelor's degree. The problem with policing is policing. If you require people

to have bachelor's degrees before they become cops, they'll be cops with bachelor's degrees, nothing more. The institution cannot be reformed.

[Bayard]

6. A lot of cops are ex-military

First, I think they go to the head of the line because they have, "experience." It allows some of the skills learned to continue to be deployed, including violence. Some of the bad apples enjoy that.

I found this out the hard way when I lived in Calif.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. And people who go to college are just as capable of abuse and oppression as anyone in the general

population. The whole argument is classist.

[Ocelot II]

15. Is it classist to require doctors, lawyers and teachers to have college degrees?

Like doctors, cops hold the power of life and death in their hands. They can ruin or take away a person's life. Shouldn't that power also have some professional backing? If policing were regarded as a profession maybe the quality would improve.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

17. No, because the work and purpose of those professions is more complicated.

The purpose of cops is to contain and control in the service of protecting capital, the work of which is fairly simple to do. The problem is the institution itself.

[Ocelot II]

18. What would you suggest to make it better?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

19. Abolishing it.

[Ocelot II]

22. What would you do about actual crime? Rapes, murders,

burglaries, carjackings, all the regular shit that entire populations have to deal with. There are real criminals, after all. There was intense opposition to the whole "defund the police" nonsense from the Black community in Minneapolis; they want more cops, just better ones. So what do you think a workable substitute for a conventional police force would be that would effectively prevent crime and catch criminals?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

26. What do we do about them now?

A workable substitute is something that invests in the things we know prevent crime. We simply don't do that now. If we did, what we might need to "catch criminals" would look very different.

[Ocelot II]

27. So what would that be? I don't disagree that we need something better

but what? Do you think that with some method or some kind of non-coercive social engineering all crime can be prevented such that there will be no need at all for any sort of law enforcement agency? If so, what is it and how can it be implemented?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

28. In the vast majority of cases, crime happens because people's needs aren't being met.

This goes for both violent and property crimes. The resources that go into policing -- in Memphis, the cop budget is 38% of the total municipal budget -- would be better spent on things we know prevent crime. An abolitionist model doesn't mean that we live in the same world we do now, only without cops. It means the resources that went towards police are redirected. We know what causes most crime, and we know what prevents most crime, which means we can fund the things that prevent most crime, including murder.

It doesn't mean murder wouldn't happen, of course. What an abolitionist model does mean is that we can reimagine what kind of response to violence we want to build. The police model we have now is based on controlling people: finding people escaping slavery, keeping rebellious workers in line, intimidating immigrants and marginalized people, which is why it's so oppressive and hurts even victims of crime. What if we built it around helping people -- helping people who have been hurt in a way that supports them and doesn't retraumatize them, helping people whose needs are so poorly met they hurt other people, and holding people accountable for their actions without dehumanizing them?

[Ocelot II]

29. And what would your kinder, gentler and significantly reduced un-police force

have done about something like the siege on the Capitol? I'm not trying to be a naysayer, just wondering how all criminal possibilities could be covered. I had a law professor who was the biggest bleeding-heart liberal you ever met, who did a lot of work for the rights of incarcerated people. He said almost all the people in prisons were aimless, poorly-educated young guys with substance problems who probably wouldn't re-offend if they had the right kind of help when released. But he also said there were some who were truly dangerous, who never should see the light of day again, and if released would commit the same crimes - usually murder, assault, sex crimes - they were in prison for. What would the kindler, gentler un-police do about dangerous psychopaths and right-wing terrorists (or any terrorists)? I think it's naive to think we can prevent all crime just by helping marginalized people, though of course we should do that - it wasn't marginalized people who stormed the capitol. Sam Bankman-Fried isn't marginalized; neither was Bernie Madoff or the Enron executives or the Tsarnaev brothers or most of the white, middle-class mass shooters. In fact, seems to me the assumption that if we would just help the poor, marginalized and minorities crime will become minimal, amounts to blaming them for most of the crime that occurs. Clearly there's a lot of crime happening in a lot of circumstances.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

30. .

And what would your kinder, gentler and significantly reduced un-police force have done about something like the siege on the Capitol?

Since it's a federal agency appointed by legislation that falls outside what I focus on when talking about abolition. Interestingly, before Jan. 6, it spent most of its non-congressional time under the radar busting petty criminals for drugs.

I had a law professor who was the biggest bleeding-heart liberal you ever met, who did a lot of work for the rights of incarcerated people. He said almost all the people in prisons were aimless, poorly-educated young guys with substance problems who probably wouldn't re-offend if they had the right kind of help when released. But he also said there were some who were truly dangerous, who never should see the light of day again, and if released would commit the same crimes - usually murder, assault, sex crimes - they were in prison for.

It's an extremely rare "dangerous" criminal whose actions can't be traced back to needs that weren't met. Personal conflicts are the biggest cause of murders. Interpersonal relationships and anger management can be taught and learned. Childhood trauma and lack of empathy are two of the largest pathways that lead to sexual assault. Both of those can be off-ramped in childhood through better parenting and schooling. Armed robbery is a crime of desperation, usually stemming from addiction or debt. All of these issues have interventions that we can provide. If we choose to.

There are definitely people who do crime because they like it. But when it comes to people who weren't traumatized into doing so, who hurt others because they are hurting, I believe that number is smaller than we think it is at first glance. It's a rare serial killer, for example, who didn't have an ugly childhood or traumatic untreated injury -- things that could be better mitigated if communities had the resources that cops do.

I think it's naive to think we can prevent all crime just by helping marginalized people, though of course we should do that - it wasn't marginalized people who stormed the capitol. Sam Bankman-Fried isn't marginalized; neither was Bernie Madoff or the Enron executives or the Tsarnaev brothers or most of the white, middle-class mass shooters. In fact, seems to me the assumption that if we would just help the poor, marginalized and minorities crime will become minimal, amounts to blaming them for most of the crime that occurs. Clearly there's a lot of crime happening in a lot of circumstances.

Which is why I didn't say the resources should "help marginalized people." I said the resources should go to meet people's needs, things we know prevent crime.

[inwiththenew]

8. Police hiring standards have been decreasing because they can't get enough qualified applicants

You think policing is bad now, just wait because it is going to worse before it gets better. Departments are going to increasingly hire people who have no business being a police officer just to plug the gap.

[EYESORE 9001]

9. I once knew someone who was deeply involved with civil service jobs in a mid-size city

She told me that PD candidates are chosen for their ‘average’ intelligence. They don’t want anyone with an IQ much over 100. Can’t have independent thinkers out there, yunno.

[Ocelot II]

10. Most other countries require a much longer training program - years, not months -

to become a police officer. In my state you have to have an Associate degree (in any subject) or military equivalent, then 16 weeks of police academy training; some states require only a high school diploma before training. In Finland and Norway, in contrast, recruits study policing in national colleges, spending part of the time in an internship with local police, and earn degrees in criminal justice or related fields. In England and Wales a college degree is required. The US has the lowest educational requirement of all Western democracies.

But that's not the whole problem. The US, unlike most other countries, is awash with guns. That could be a big reason for the military mentality US cops seem to have adopted - because the citizens are armed to the teeth, the citizens are regarded as the enemy. So the cops assume a defensive, hostile attitude with interactions with the public, especially in minority communities. The cop culture has become hostile, angry and authoritarian, and it tends to attract hostile, angry and authoritarian people (even if the psych tests try to screen them out). Racism is a huge issue, of course, but we just saw Black cops beat a Black citizen to death - with cops, the operative color is blue. Years ago a cop I knew told me there are only two kinds of people: cops and assholes. As long as that attitude exists within the culture of any police department, pre-employment training won't be enough to fix the problem.

[ThoughtCriminal]

11. Police work attracts authoritarian personalities

We need to filter that out of recruiting.

[Bettie]

12. This exactly

make them professionals, with responsibility for their actions and a required degree.

[Prairie_Seagull]

13. The idea of a degree for a cop is a good one. IMO

Everyone is just a person but i think, in general, they would all at least have a better baseline of knowledge from which some for sure would stray. That said I also believe that the net gain in quality policing could unspoil many if not most of the rotten apples. The better does not have to be enemy of the perfect. We all know that old saying. Aim for the stars...

Need to try something that would be palatablish to all.

PS I've got 3 cops in AZ in the family.

[Ocelot II]

14. An excellent discussion of college for cops, here.

Basically, policing should be treated as a profession, like medicine or law, especially in light of the consequences of bad policing.

I’m all for expanding opportunity for American workers who didn’t go to college. But policing seems like a special case, because it’s about much more than wages and work — it’s about public safety and the legitimacy of U.S. institutions. Being able to sit through some lectures on Plato and do a bit of algebra homework shouldn’t be a requirement to get a decent, good-paying job in the U.S., but it seems like a pretty low bar for the people who are responsible for deciding when to deal out violent death to citizens on the street. We make teachers get a college degree, so why not cops? In fact, many teachers get a Master’s in Education after college; we should think about expanding the use of Master’s degrees in law enforcement as well.

Requiring higher education works through at least two separate channels. First, it creates positive selection effects — it means that the police of the future would come from a more educated, intellectual subset of the populace. (The military already does this with the AFQT and ASVAB.) But it also changes people’s lifestyles in generally positive ways. A number of studies have established a causal link between higher education and healthier lifestyles, leading to reduced mortality and better overall health. It seems likely that more education would also give cops a healthier mental and emotional outlook as well, which would result not just in less confrontational interactions with civilians, but in better overall policing and crime reduction as well.

Again, requiring cops to get more education would raise the costs of policing in the United States, because educated workers command higher salaries. This would not sit well with some activists, but it seems to me like something worth spending money on.

So I think that when we talk about professionalizing the police, it should mean exactly that: Making policing a profession rather than just a job. Doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc. all serve specialized and critical functions in our society, for which we require not just extensive training but also formalized and specialized education. I fail to see any good reason why we shouldn’t treat law enforcement as a similarly critical function, deserving of similar investments of time, money, and care.

https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/professionalize-the-police?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[haele]

16. In many other countries, police have to graduate from national Police academies

That cover not only the basics, but community interactions, legal ramifications of their actions or inactions, approved group and individual tactical activities according to their rank and tasking, and most include de-escalation strategies for any type of confrontations they may experiance when out on their own.
The big difference is the US approaches policing as confrontational warfare instead of community safety. There's way too much "us vs. them" in our police training. Plus, we "outsource" and don't really regulate our police academies. Each academy pretty much has their own curriculum and time to graduate -some as quickly as six weeks (less that a military boot camp) and will teach to a minimum level of standards as set by a state, or sometimes just a county. And any one of those graduates can go anywhere in the country after their "probationary period", no matter if the state they end up at required a two year state accredited program or a six week county-mounty program.

Also - the first thing we in the US teach our police recruits is to be scared of criminals and the dangers of their job. Not how to do their job with confidence, and then what to do when things might start going wrong.

Honestly, there needs to be a national or at least a responsible state minimum accreditation requirement and database/record on police. Like there is for medical practitioners and lawyers.

Haele

[Elessar Zappa]

20. I like that idea.

If not a 4 year degree, then at least an associates.

[Ocelot II]

24. Derek Chauvin has a bachelor's degree. Education is a good thing

but it isn't the only thing.

[Elessar Zappa]

25. Yes.

Really, the whole system needs to be torn down and built anew.

[Kennah]

21. There are places in America today that someone can take a 2 week class and start policing

They have to also be enrolled in a longer, usually 6-9 month, more involved and in depth class, but badge and gun and off to work.

[snowybirdie]

23. The great society under Johnson

Did that. Paid for a family member through college and law school. He gave back and taught recruits constitutional law for another 20 or so years. Recruits left training with two years of credit accrued. That's not done any more