For three years since the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, angry demonstrations have broken out at regular intervals in different parts of the US following shootings of unarmed black men by policemen, private security guards, or members of neighbourhood watch groups. The latest protests are taking place in Wisconsin as this column is written. One of the most heated and prolonged confrontations between citizens and police occurred in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014 after a teenager named Michael Brown was shot dead by a white police officer called Darren Wilson.
Indians, like citizens of many other nations, find such shootings bizarre. This is mainly the result of our unfamiliarity with a gun-culture rather than any refined moral sense: we are, after all, largely unmoved by the routine and well-documented torture that occurs in our lock-ups and prisons. While any criminal justice system that incarcerates as large a percentage of its population as does the US is deeply flawed, the nation does have a will to self-examination and self-improvement. After the Ferguson incident, the Department of Justice launched an investigation which, while clearing the police officer in the Brown shooting, found a number of profound drawbacks in the way Ferguson’s police and court system worked. The main conclusion of the report, which can be read in full here, and important extracts from which are summarised here, is that market forces bear the primary responsibility for warping the priorities of Ferguson’s administration, and that these forces exacerbate the racial prejudice that is already strong among officers and judges.
In the wake of the Michael Brown killing, journalists such as Sarah Stillman and Mark Ames established a link between Ferguson’s police system and Libertarianism, an ideology whose advocates believe that the free market is a silver bullet response to all economic and social problems. Libertarian groups, funded substantially by the billionaire Koch brothers, have for decades pushed police departments to adopt market-based rather than taxpayer-based financing. The shift away from taxpayer funding seems rational: why should law-abiding citizens bear the financial burden of problems created by criminals? Let the criminals themselves pay for the difficulties they generate. What happens when this system is put in practice, though, is that policemen begin creating criminals where none exist, particularly within groups they are biased against.
The problem with incentives
The Department of Justice report shows how incentives provided by the market can warp practices just as easily as those provided by taxpayer funding.
Here’s a typical instance of over-policing exposed in the report, which caused the victim to lose a job he had held for years:
Each of the violations of the municipal code brought with it a substantial fine, which went into the city’s coffers, helping ensure police officers retained their jobs and salaries.
Lessons for India
The case of the Ferguson police department isn’t without lessons for India. Disgusted by the many failures of the Indian state, it is easy to be seduced,as many Indians clearly are, by the idea of the market as a cure-all. Courts and government agencies increasingly view resources primarily through the prism of how much money they will earn, should they be auctioned to the highest bidder. Instead of municipal schools and hospitals, public housing, parks, and museums, administrations focus on theme parks, office towers, and retail outlets. It needn’t be an either/or situation, but the cult of the highest bidder ensures only profitable ventures get the green signal.
It is worthwhile, in these circumstances, to probe the philosophical roots of the influential philosophy known as Libertarianism and show its fundamental flaws, which is what I will attempt in next week’s column. (Read it here.)
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Indians, like citizens of many other nations, find such shootings bizarre. This is mainly the result of our unfamiliarity with a gun-culture rather than any refined moral sense: we are, after all, largely unmoved by the routine and well-documented torture that occurs in our lock-ups and prisons. While any criminal justice system that incarcerates as large a percentage of its population as does the US is deeply flawed, the nation does have a will to self-examination and self-improvement. After the Ferguson incident, the Department of Justice launched an investigation which, while clearing the police officer in the Brown shooting, found a number of profound drawbacks in the way Ferguson’s police and court system worked. The main conclusion of the report, which can be read in full here, and important extracts from which are summarised here, is that market forces bear the primary responsibility for warping the priorities of Ferguson’s administration, and that these forces exacerbate the racial prejudice that is already strong among officers and judges.
In the wake of the Michael Brown killing, journalists such as Sarah Stillman and Mark Ames established a link between Ferguson’s police system and Libertarianism, an ideology whose advocates believe that the free market is a silver bullet response to all economic and social problems. Libertarian groups, funded substantially by the billionaire Koch brothers, have for decades pushed police departments to adopt market-based rather than taxpayer-based financing. The shift away from taxpayer funding seems rational: why should law-abiding citizens bear the financial burden of problems created by criminals? Let the criminals themselves pay for the difficulties they generate. What happens when this system is put in practice, though, is that policemen begin creating criminals where none exist, particularly within groups they are biased against.
The problem with incentives
The Department of Justice report shows how incentives provided by the market can warp practices just as easily as those provided by taxpayer funding.
Here’s a typical instance of over-policing exposed in the report, which caused the victim to lose a job he had held for years:
“In the summer of 2012, a 32-year-old African-American man sat in his car cooling off after playing basketball in a Ferguson public park. An officer pulled up behind the man’s car... and demanded the man’s Social Security number and identification. Without any cause, the officer accused the man of being a pedophile, referring to the presence of children in the park, and ordered the man out of his car for a pat-down, although the officer had no reason to believe the man was armed. The officer also asked to search the man’s car.
The man objected, citing his constitutional rights. In response, the officer arrested the man, reportedly at gunpoint, charging him with eight violations of Ferguson’s municipal code. One charge, Making a False Declaration, was for initially providing the short form of his first name (e.g., 'Mike' instead of 'Michael'), and an address which, although legitimate, was different from the one on his driver’s license. Another charge was for not wearing a seat belt, even though he was seated in a parked car."
Each of the violations of the municipal code brought with it a substantial fine, which went into the city’s coffers, helping ensure police officers retained their jobs and salaries.
Lessons for India
The case of the Ferguson police department isn’t without lessons for India. Disgusted by the many failures of the Indian state, it is easy to be seduced,as many Indians clearly are, by the idea of the market as a cure-all. Courts and government agencies increasingly view resources primarily through the prism of how much money they will earn, should they be auctioned to the highest bidder. Instead of municipal schools and hospitals, public housing, parks, and museums, administrations focus on theme parks, office towers, and retail outlets. It needn’t be an either/or situation, but the cult of the highest bidder ensures only profitable ventures get the green signal.
It is worthwhile, in these circumstances, to probe the philosophical roots of the influential philosophy known as Libertarianism and show its fundamental flaws, which is what I will attempt in next week’s column. (Read it here.)
