The Authority of Law Enforcement: A

Post-Deliberation Report About the

Problems That Exist Within Our
System of Law Enforcement
Overview:
Law enforcement is a principal establishment in almost any society, and it is a position of
great respect because of the service officials provide to their communities. Police in the United
States provide safety and order so that citizens can live healthy and happy lives. But any position
of power is accompanied by the expectation for great responsibility. Recently there has been a lot
of attention in the United States on how law enforcement officials, such as police, carry out their
duties. Incidents such as the riots in Baltimore and Ferguson were sparked by the fatalities of
civilians who were either shot or injured by the hands of the police. In one particular shooting in
Ferguson, an eighteen year old black boy named Michael Brown was shot multiple times by
police. After investigation, authorities determined that Brown was unarmed, which caused a
firestorm of criticisms against not only the shooter but law enforcement as a whole. Many
believed that this incident among others was a red flag for a growing racial bias and have blamed
a predominantly white police force for exhibiting this racial bias in the line of duty.
Racial tension is not alone in stirring controversy around law enforcement in this country.
For decades the U.S. has waged a war on drugs to combat the widespread use of what
government deemed to be dangerous drugs to society. Over the years, more and more evidence
has seemed to suggest there is something wrong with the way the war is being waged, and some
would even argue the war itself is the problem. Disproportionate amounts of people from
different demographics, be it racial or socioeconomic, are being imprisoned, massive amounts of
money are being spent on incarceration that does not seem to stem the problem, and countless
officers have faced danger and even died attempting to weed out the highly organized crime
networks behind the underground drug market.
Both of these issues bring to the American consciousness the idea of accountability in the
police force. Questions have emerged about how a society can make sure its enforcement is just
and professional. The mere suggestion of widespread body camera usage has sparked heated
debate and varying reactions across the country, some police forces even experimenting with it.
What seems most clear and important is that some members of the public do not feel good about
how law enforcement does its job.
Whether looking at the racial disputes, the approaches to drugs, or the discussions about
accountability they generate, one thing must be clear. If there is a problem, it is institutional. It
must be bigger than any individual police officer or victim; the issues at hand deal with the

system itself, and so the problem is not being presented as one with the individual police officers,
but with the law enforcement establishment as a whole.
Political leaders from across the spectrum have voiced their opinions on this issue. They
have created many different sides to this argument which have sparked much debate throughout
the country. Some have called for major reform in the way police carry out their jobs. They have
identified police practices that they believe can do more harm than good. They are calling for
new policies to be put in place that would hold law authority in check by making them more
accountable for their actions. They believe reform would aid in undermining the much larger
issue of discrimination towards minorities. However there also is a message from stakeholders
that law enforcements faction needs to be fairly represented. Some issues that occur may not
directly be the fault of the law official, and some of the decisions being discussed are beyond the
hands of any local law enforcement, let alone single officers.
The logical next step in these circumstances is bringing all stakeholders together, and
clearly defining the problem from both sides. This can be difficult since the gravity of the issue
generates passion from both sides, but it is evident that a conversation between common citizens
and law enforcement needs to take place in order to make progress for both parties. This was the
goal of the deliberation. Through the deliberation participants were given the opportunity to call
attention to all angles of the argument by presenting possible solutions that would attempt to be
beneficial for all stakeholders. In order to properly resolve any dilemma, all the information was
in an unbiased fashion. Doing this gave the discussion the best chance to reach consensus.
Consensus on the questions may not have been reached, but the deliberation was
productive in the ways that matter. The goal was to have people interact and share opinions about
a complex subject, and to leave the discussion with more insight than when they came in, and
from participating in the deliberation, it is clear that those who attended left with slightly more
open minds about the subject at hand. This is the catalyst for change in society, because once
someone has given a thought a chance in their mind, the ability for that openness to spread
becomes possible.

Approach 1: The War on Drugs

Judging from the fact that the majority of our participants were young, properly educated,
millennials, our group knew going into this deliberation that approach one would be a popular
topic among them. We began our discussion by educating our participants on how, why, and
when the supposed drug war began. Then we progressed to talk about the effects that this war
has today, emphasizing law enforcements role. We pointed out key factors that may spurr arrests
including race, socioeconomic status, and occupation. We proposed the solution of a change in
policy. This would potentially include treating drug use as a mental problem instead of a criminal
and moral problem. In addition, we proposed the idea of legalizing marijuana or possibly all
drugs and opening treatment centers instead of putting addicts in prison. Before the speakers
were allowed to talk, we made sure to point out that this was a deliberation concerning the issue
of police policy, instead of a discussion on the legalization of marijuana.

There were two concrete sides that arose when the proposed solution of a change in
policy was brought up. The first was that the police are only in place to enforce the laws, not to
make and/or change them. The moderators attempted to remind participants that this discussion
was meant to be focused on policy and that we arent necessarily focused on the police, but
perhaps we could write a letter to our legislature proposing changes in laws.
When the discussion initially started some participants wanted to get their opinions on
drug use out there. Many stated that they thought that responsible drug use was okay and
supported the legalization of non-hard drugs. Some visibly withheld their opinions, it can
probably be fairly assumed that they had dissenting opinions. However this seemed to be the
minority of the crowd.
After this the discussion went towards the direction that in 2010 over 51% of of arrests in
America involved marijuana. This means that if marijuana were decriminalized then there would
be much less interaction between the public and police for reasons that could cause contention.
Because decriminalizing marijuana would get rid of 51% of arrests in America we could take a
guess that this would rid of 51% of police brutality incidents. On top of this some participants
began to come to the conclusion that if the individuals who are participating in these victimless
crimes were no longer getting arrested for something in their opinion doesnt affect anybody
else then they would be much more receptive to police when dealing with them in other
scenarios such as when being pulled over or just in general interactions simply on the street. This
was generally agreed upon but there were some that argued that in these scenarios police are
simply enforcing the laws so we cant blame them. This was a fair argument, but from that some
questioned whether the benefits of the drop in police brutality out weight legalizing this crime.
Many argued that they thought it did, however these values will clearly vary on a different
spectrum depending on the individual.
At this point the discussion began to tangent off to a different direction focusing on the
different benefits of legalizing marijuana. The moderators interjected to bring the discussion
back to the main focus of thinking of different ways of dealing with the relationship between and
police brutality. One asked if people could think of any ways of still preventing use for states that
choose to not legalize marijuana. Some proposed that states could try to treat drug use as an
addiction and not put users in prison but instead send them to mandatory clinics or even
rehabilitation centers depending on the level of offense. Statistics were provided such as the fact
that if the US were to take this approach it is estimated that it would save the government over a
billion dollars per year. In general there was wide support from the deliberation group. They said
that if it will be illegal this could still help with police relationships between individuals. Perhaps
if the first offense only meant taking a class and then more treatment after that people would be
less likely to be frustrated or anxious around the police.
The final big idea that was brought up was to remove bonuses for police who target drug
users. And to take it one step further towards reprioritizing the interests of police departments.
For example in New York City police departments choose to go after possession and similar
charges because they are easy to enforce and catch. While catching violent criminals such as
murderers and rapists takes a significantly higher amount of man hours and training. If police

began to do this they would at a minimum lighten the relationship between police because people
wouldnt feel as if the police were out to get them for no good reason.

Approach 2: Profiling
The role of law enforcement and their lawful legitimacy have spurred much controversy
throughout the United States. Multiple debates and arguments on whether or not the training of
the officers needs to be changed have burst forth. There are many moral, time, and money issues
that come into play when deciding whether or not to create new training programs for the
officers.
The members participating in the deliberation had unique opinions and all approached
the question of police training through different angles. There were two clear sides during the
deliberation and each side has very strong opinions with not only background information but
personal experiences.
The idea that the police are just doing their job and are not meaning to hurt anyone was
one of the popular opinions in the room. We discussed the idea of using verbal techniques in
order to de- escalate situations instead of using physical force. While everyone agreed that
violence is often used unnecessarily, they also made the point that sometimes there is just no
time to talk and physical force is necessary to stop a situation. Many people like to belittle
police when they hear stories like the Michael Brown case, using physical means instead of
talking through a situation. It was refreshing to hear how many people believed that the police
are just doing their jobs. While there definitely are some officers that abuse their power, it is
wrong to categorize an entire group as dangerous and corrupt.
Another popular opinion amongst the participants was that there needs to be programs
that teach the officer's verbal communication and de-escalation skills rather than focusing on
firearm training so that officers will not feel the need to get physical during situations. Some
mentioned how officers will use their power to attack certain religious or racial groups. Others
mentioned how they often officers use more force than needed. For example, a police officer
will fatally shoot someone when the situation could have been handled with a taser gun. While
there was one person that believed police officers are all at fault and need to be put down for
their recent actions, many believed they need to be trained without emphasis on violence and the
use of guns.
A big issue of criticizing how police officers overreact and use guns in situations that
they are not necessarily needed was actually brought up by a former police officer who attended
the deliberation. He stated that in the moment, with all of the different circumstances, and issues
going on around at the time the officer is responding to the issue, it is hard to think 100% clearly
because hesitating for half a second could risk your life..
While the two popular sides present in the discussion contrasted drastically, they did
agree on something. There needs to be alterations in the way law enforcement is trained. While
everyone agreed firearm training is important and should be kept at the capacity it is currently,

the participants felt it would be worth it to spend extra money working to build communication
and other de-escalation techniques that wont lead to death, from either party.
However, even if people do all agree that changes need to be made, there are so many
issues with implementing these policies to change the way police are trained. For example, the
cost is probably the largest. If there were new training for all police forces, each precinct must
come up with a new budget to cover these costs. This topic was debated in the deliberation by
those who held arguments on either side of the playing field. Each person who gave their opinion
agreed that a budget would need to be either created, or the current budget altered to address
these new styles in training. On top of deliberating about the costs, the group deliberated on how
the training would be weaved into the system. Would it be gradually put in, or at a certain time,
all police forces require the specific form of training. How would the country go about this? The
group members of the deliberation all discussed how and why we should go about either way
with each other during the deliberation.
The second approach of the deliberation flowed smoothly and, although was very full of
opposing opinions, was kept moderated and calm. The points were discussed thoroughly and
calmly, and it was obvious that the members of the audience felt well informed on the
information they needed to partake in the deliberation and get involved in the conversation.

Approach 3: Police Accountability

While this particular deliberation had varying opinions within the participant pool,
including two distinct sides, the Police Accountability Approach had a solution that interested all
and really seemed to satisfy the opposing schools of thought that were previously established.
The group acceptance of body cameras revealed this holistic agreement among the participants.
Specific attributes of body cameras that were key to this collectiveness include their use to
support both police and members of society, their harmless nature in regard to police
performance and job routine, and the results of the study conducted by The University of
Cambridges Institute of Criminology (Ziv).
It was clear throughout the deliberation some participants felt the police were being
targeted as issues and solutions were proposed. When the implementation of body cameras was
introduced as a way to track evidence that could be used against the police for malpractice OR to
protect the police from false accusations, the idea was well digested.
Another way in which the body camera solution seemed to be better accepted is the fact
that the devices themselves would not intentionally alter the current day-to-day practices of
police. Yet, this did bring up some interesting points. The former policeman participant
admitted that if he were recorded on body cameras it could have stalled the times in which he
made impulsive decisions. This is understandable, as anyone knowing they are being recorded
would be much more conscientious of their actions regardless of what they are doing. This
reality was agreed to be a good and bad thing in regard to law enforcement as sometimes police
can save lives through quick impulsiveness, but also can make huge mistakes.

The study results that were presented with the solution of body cameras influenced the
their acceptance as the impact body cameras had were dramatic, favoring both sides. The 59
percent decrease in officers use of force made the participants that viewed police brutality as a
serious problem very fond of the devices. And the 88 percent decrease of officer misconduct
complaints pleased those that felt defensive of the law enforcement.
Overall, there was no strong opposition toward the use of body cameras. Yet, the
struggles that were originally presented with the solution like the heavy costs were still viewed
as substantial roadblocks. This was further considered as some participants felt that body
cameras were just not enough. In other words, their effectiveness would not outweigh the heavy
costs associated with them. It is evident there are many benefits of the use of body cameras, and
as this solution appeared to incur the most agreement, maybe it is the solution to focus on.
Without recognition as the main course of action to help alleviate issues with law enforcement, it
is understand that it would be hard to integrate these devices into the field of duty due to
finances.

Conclusion
Although a consensus specific in terms of potential solutions/approaches was not
reached, the group did, for the most part, agree on more broad topics of concern. For instance, all
of the participants agreed on the idea that law enforcement is an integral institution in our society
and should be regarded as such despite concerns that have come up over its legitimacy. This
point was not only heavily emphasized by all of the moderators throughout the discussion for
clarification purposes, but also by a significant amount of the deliberators in conversation. The
majority of the group also agreed that there is a recurring problem within the law enforcement
system that needs to be addressed, although the specifics of how such an approach should
proceed were certainly contentious.
After the groups overall position on law enforcement as an institution was established,
points of agreement were less frequent, but by the end of the discussion, the group did seem to
agree on a few recurring themes. The first and perhaps most prominent of these was the idea that
communication between law enforcement and the community is essential. This concept was
initially discussed during the first approach (War on Drugs) and was in reference to funding
drug-related arrests/investigations. Some deliberators labeled the police as the communitys
direct connection to the justice system, giving them a significant role in how our country
responds to drug-related offenses as a whole. Participants suggested that a stronger, more
communicative relationship be encouraged between the police and their constituents so as to
identify community needs more effectively. One proposed solution to remedy the concern
regarding drug-related offenses was complete decriminalization of marijuana, which would
reduce drug-related arrests significantly and provide extra funding for the police and
subsequently for the community. This approach, however, was not entirely supported based on
participants personal beliefs regarding drug usage. Another, perhaps more widely accepted
approach was to encourage rehabilitation as an alternative to incarceration for drug-related

offenses. This solution seemed to be more in line with the groups position regarding the
importance of communication, as offering rehabilitation services for drug-related arrests would
be more effective not only for the individual, but also for the community.
The theme of communication also played a large role in the discussion regarding
Approach Two, Racial Profiling. In this case, the participants largely agreed that communication
was necessary in a broad sense and during specific situations. Many of the cases referenced
during the discussion implied that there was a significant lack of communication between the
police officer and the community member during a hostile situation, which often resulted in a
fatal outcome. While no specific agreement was reached on how the police should handle a
situation given the stressful and unknown aspects that may be present, a majority of the
participants contended that psychological training should be more highly emphasized, although it
should not be mutually exclusive in reference to firearm training. The group agreed that both of
these types of training would be necessary to correct potentially detrimental situations in the
future.
The importance of communication was also discussed during the coverage of Approach
Three, Police Accountability. When referencing this approach during the end of the deliberation,
one concept that was repeatedly referenced was that the police have a specific job to do and
should not be penalized for their attempt to do it. Additionally, it was stated that members of the
communities also have a responsibility to abide by the law and to cooperate with officers. While
this perspective was not agreed upon entirely by the group on the grounds of situational
complications incurred by implicit bias, this point did emphasize the importance of
communication between police and community members.
Another major point of agreement was that implementation of the outlined solutions
would be financially difficult. This idea is most highlighted in the discussion of body cameras.
For the most part, all of the participants agreed that body cameras would be a beneficial addition
to the law enforcement program. Despite this general agreement, another point of contention was
raised regarding the true effectiveness of body cameras; although body cameras can be useful
because they capture evidence, they are not always effective for their supposed purpose. For
example, with the case of Eric Garner, the incident was recorded on camera (not with a body
camera, but from a clear angle), but the video had no effect on the ruling. The discussion of this
case suggested to the participants that even with clear evidence of police brutality, the court may
not find said evidence incriminating. In reference to the financial aspect of body cameras, the
deliberators agreed that obtaining body cameras would be incredibly expensive and therefore
needs to be more thoroughly investigated in terms of effectiveness before any action is taken.
An interesting suggestion to this issue combined two of the presented solutions. With
aspects from both the Police Training solution and the Body Cameras solution, the participants
idea was to incorporate body cameras into police training. This could encourage awareness of
proper communication through utilization as an instructive method. Also, it could be a method
of gradually introducing body cameras to law enforcement, which would lessen the immediate
financial burden of implementation.

Based on the collective points of consensus made by the deliberators, an effective policy
for the regulation of law enforcement would emphasize communication between police officers
and their constituents, financial consideration of potential solutions, and protection of both
parties (law enforcement and the community) to the highest possible extent. Despite avid
disagreement on specific issues, the participants ultimately were united in their desire for an
improved law enforcement system across America.

Works Cited
Ziv, Stav. "Study Shows Body Cameras Decrease Police's Use of Force." newsweek.com. N.p.,
28 Dec. 2014. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
Approach 1 (The War on Drugs) Solution: Policy
Balko, Radley. "Driven By Drug War Incentives, Cops Target Pot Smokers, Brush Off Victims Of Violent
Crime." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 Sept. 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
Collett, Merril. The War on Drugs: Is It a War Worth Fighting? Stanford.edu. Stanford, n.d. Web. 28 Feb.
2016. <https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/paradox/htele.html>.
Daly, Max. "Why Did the British Police Ease Off on Drug Offenses in 2015? | VICE | Canada." VICE.
Vice Media LLC, 28 Dec. 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
Ghosh, Palash. "The Pros and Cons of Drug Legalization in the U.S." Ibt.com. International Business
Times, 19 Oct. 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2016. <http://www.ibtimes.com/pros-cons-drug-legalization-us246712>.
Levine, Harry, Loren Siegel, and Gabrial Sayegh. One Million Police Hours: Making 440,000
Marijuana Possession Arrests in New York City (2013): 1-16. Drugpolicy.org. Drug Policy
Alliance, 01 Mar. 2013. Web. 2 Feb. 2016.
Newman, Tony. "10 Ways the Drug War Is Causing Massive Collateral Damage to Our Society." Alternet.
Alternet, 03 Jan. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
Rector, Kevin. "Battle Lines Being Redrawn in Baltimore's War on Drugs." Baltimoresun.com. Baltimore
Sun, 20 Feb. 2016. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
Tims, Dana. "Have Colorado Highway Fatalities Decreased since Marijuana Use Was Legalized?"
@politifact. PolitiFact Oregon, 22 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
Approach 2 (Profiling) Solution: Training
Ferner, Matt. "Black Teen Fatally Shot By Austin Police Was Naked And Unarmed." Huffington Post.
N.p., n.d. Web.
"How Police Training Contributes to Avoidable Deaths." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, n.d.
Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
Press, Katrease Stafford Detroit Free. "After Kalamazoo Shootings, the Big Question: Why?" USA
Today. Gannett, 22 Feb. 2016. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.

Story Kimbriell Kelly, Sarah Childress, Steven Rich. "What the Justice Department's Decades-long
Pursuit of Abusive Police Departments Has Actually Achieved." Washington Post. The
Washington Post, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
"Why Police Training Must Be Reformed - Harvard Political Review." Harvard Political Review Why
Police Training Must Be Reformed Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.

Approach 3 (Police Accountability) Solutions: Body Cameras

Banker, Andy. "Who was Michael Brown?" Fox2now. Wordpress.com, 12 Aug. 2014. Web. 9
Feb. 2016.
Dann, Carrie, and Andrew Rafferty. "Obama Requests $263 Million for Police Body Cameras,
Training. nbcnews.com. N.p., 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Fieldstadt, Elisha. "Should Every Police Officer be Outfitted with a Body Camera?
nbcnews.com. N.p., 26 Nov. 2014. Web. 9 Feb. 2016.
Stanley, Jay. "Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win for All."
aclu.org. N.p., Mar. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.
Shoichet, Catherine E. "Missouri Teen shot by Police was 2 Days Away from starting College."
cnn.com. N.p., 13 Aug. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.
Ziv, Stav. "Study Shows Body Cameras Decrease Police's Use of Force." newsweek.com. N.p.
28 Dec. 2014. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.