Police Self-Interest and Stop-and-Frisk

A judge in New York Wednesday found there was “significant evidence that the NYPD acted with deliberate indifference… to constitutional deprivations caused by” police officers, citing violations of the 4^th and 14^th amendment.  This is a big win for the Constitution and freedom of New Yorkers to walk around their city without being illegally searched by police.  A central framing of the debate has been security (NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly: “7,383 lives saved… largely the lives of young men of color.”) vs. liberty (NY Mayoral Candidate Bill Thompson: “Institutionalized the focus on just stopping black and Latino men in the city of New York.”), with liberty winning out in this case.  However, I would argue that police strongly desire the new powers provided by stop-and-frisk independent of any public safety gains, and that “security” and “public safety” are trotted out as a way of making these controversial powers more palatable to the public.  Opponents of unjust policies like stop-and-frisk need to do a better job of rejecting arguments about the “greater good” and highlighting the self-interest driving police and other authorities covet expanded powers.

How do police see the world?  What is the goal of the NYPD as an institution?  I’d say there are a few goals for many officers: to get the bad guys, protect the community and maintain public order.  These goals involve incarcerating people who have committed crimes, suppressing those who (in the eyes of police) will commit crimes and controlling rabble-rousers.  From this perspective, stop-and-frisk is a fantastic tool!  Police can pull aside any New Yorker who looks like a criminal, young thug, Occupy vandal or loudmouth and throw them up against a wall, put them in their place and as a bonus, potentially nail them for drug/weapon possession (they’re going to commit a real crime soon anyway so why not prevent it?)  The policy thus expands police ability to act (agency), so police support it.

You can use the same logic to explain the support of authorities for a number of objectionable policies.  When teachers are given the right to use corporal punishment, they use these physical means to discipline children they believe impede their ability to effectively teach.  If prison guards are given wider leeway to beat or psychologically abuse prisoners, they’re more like to do so because it fulfills their self-defined role of controlling and subordinating prisoners.  When managers are allowed to arbitrarily fire employees, they’ll get rid of independent-minded workers to exert greater control over company decisions.

How do these different groups justify their new found powers?  If they have a lick of communications ability, they’ll tell a story about improving the public good rather than expanding their own powers.  Teachers will say corporal punishment maintains discipline in the classroom so that students can learn.  Prison guards will say their controversial actions maintain order in the prison and protect prisoners from violence.   Managers will argue that they need these new found powers to get rid of deadwood and improve efficiency.  But in every instance, the real reason people support these policies is largely because the policies expand their agency.

Should we expect the teacher, prison guard, manager or police officer to self-regulate?  I’d argue no.  If it’s in that person’s interest to employ these tactics, then they’ll have a very weak incentive to check themselves.  Only through a robust, democratic counterweight can institutions and individuals be restrained from acting in their self-interest at the expense of society.  That means laws that ban corporal punishment in schools; require immediate termination or even arrest for prisoner abuse; affirm robust workers’ rights; and ban police from violating the 4^th or 14^th amendments.  There’s an argument to be made that institutions can reform from within, but I think that’s a rare process that typically coincides with outside pressure.  In the end, the public must break through the “greater good” fog to locate the self-interest driving authorities to expand their power, publicize these underlying incentives, and establish strong legal and oversight mechanisms to stop unjust programs like stop-and-frisk.