Dienstag, 24. März 2015

U.S. Police Officers Kill Primarily Because They Are Attacked, Not To Disrupt Crime

In spite of the steady decline in violent crimes, law enforcement in the U.S.A. is becoming significantly more violent. Compared to other developed countries, such as Germany or Great Britain, disproportionately more arrest-related deaths occur in the U.S. Additionally, in the treatment of suspects, a racial disparity is evident; disproportionately more black males get killed by white police officers. Political exploitation of “crime” and militarization of law enforcement are factors that contribute to the status-quo and may explain why most arrest-related killings by the police are not a result of attempting to disrupt crime, but in defense of attacks, perceived or real, against them.
Killings By Less Than 5 Percent Of Law Enforcement Agencies Already Exceeds 400 Annually
A surprisingly high number of arrests occur in the U.S.A. annually. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), of the Department of Justice, reports 98 million arrests from 2003 to 2009, equaling approximately 16 million arrests per year. If we were to disregard the fact that most arrests are repeat offenses, this would mean that approximately five percent of the U.S. population is getting arrested annually.
The high number of arrests is complemented by the number of “justifiable homicides” committed by law enforcement. Approximately 753 law enforcement agencies contributing to the FBI’s “Justifiable Homicide Database (which is less than five percent of the 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. A.), report killing over 400 per year: 401 in 2011; 426 in 2012; and 461 in 2013, to be specific. The database does not include the remaining 96 percent of law enforcement agencies in the U.S. The state of Florida, and New York are missing from the database altogether. Even though, for example, 67 “justifiable homicides by police” were recorded in 2012 in Florida; 66 in 2011; and 53 in 2010 and the list goes on. The nationwide numbers, additionally, do not include homicides committed by law enforcement that are outside of the realm of “justifiable homicide” as defined by the FBI.  
The BJS reports that “the number of justifiable homicides has increased by 25.4% from 500 in 1999 to 630 in 2008.” The increase in violence mirrors the weapons that law enforcement uses to kill: increasingly more often, shotguns were used in the killings: 29 times in 2009 versus 46 times in 2013, equaling an increase of approximately 57 percent in four years, or theoretically by 14 percent each year, if the increase is distributed evenly.
In a couple of years, we may have more accurate data on “justified homicides,” as on December 18, 2014, President Obama signed the “Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013,” a bill introduced by Congressman Robert C. Scott. The bill requires state and federal law enforcement agencies report the deaths of individuals in their custody to the Department of Justice. How effectively this law is going to be enforced, and its outcome, remains to be seen. However, either way, the new law is one important step in the right direction.
Police Officers Kill Because They Are Attacked, Not To Disrupt Crime
Crucial to understanding the big picture associated with law enforcement in the U.S. is the following: a high number of the homicides committed by the police are results of “attacks against the police” and not of attempt to “disrupt a crime.” Moreover, the BSJ report confirms a disparity between “justifiable homicides” committed by the police versus citizens: Citizens killed suspects primarily to “disrupt crime” (See Figure 52b) whereas police officers killed to thwart attacks. This accounted for 64 percent of “justifiable homicides” committed by the police in 2008 (See Figure 52a).
The question that we have to ask ourselves is: Why is there such a high incidence of attacks against the police in the U.S.A? The perceived and/or real attacks may be explained by the overall militarization of law enforcement as illustrated by the excess military equipment that the police receive, or the increased deployment of SWAT teams. Militarization is generally accompanied with a combat-culture; a culture that is clearly not suitable for community policing. An entity that is supposed to protect members of its community, instead of waging war on them, will most likely trigger mistrust, and vice versa, which then can lead to offensive behavior. Minor incidents then can lead to bigger problems, such as homicide.
Disproportionate Killing Of African American Males By White Police Officers
Racism is another factor that law enforcement in the U.S.A. is struggling with. The recent “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department revealed chilling accounts of biases and racial prejudice against African Americans that included, but was not limited to, targeting African Americans with tickets and fines to raise revenue. Ferguson is certainly only one of many such examples across the country.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that a disproportionately high number of the killed are African American, 31.8 percent versus 42.1 percent white, even though African Americans represent only approximately 13.2 percent of the U.S. population (2013). White officers reportedly killed the majority of the whites and 68 percent of the people African Americans who suffered arrest-related deaths. In instances where the circumstances of the killings were listed as "undetermined," 77 percent of the killed were black.
Another concerning issue with law enforcement in the U.S.A. is the racial make-up of the police force. In a country where diversity is supposed to be valued and many policies and procedures are theoretically in place to ensure equal opportunity and diversity in hiring, the U.S. police force substantially lacks diversity. For example, approximately 67 percent, or two thirds of Ferguson, Mo., is African American; however, of the 53 commissioned police officers, only three (approximately six percent) are black. Even though, diversity is a key factor that needs to be addressed within the U.S. police force, it alone is not going to solve all of the problems.
Lack of diversity within the police force is also common in other countries, such as Germany, but does not automatically lead to circumstances as in the U.S. On the other hand, the police force in Wisconsin, for example, is representative for its population, but faces similar issues as other localities in the U.S. where diversity is lacking. However, diversity is still a key factor that needs to be addressed in the U.S. for obvious reasons.
Comparison — Arrest Related Deaths In Germany And In Great Britain
The U.S.A. is, however, not only a dangerous place for suspects, but also for police officers. Seventy-six police officers were killed in the line of duty in 2013, 95 in 1212, 72 in 201156 in 2010 and 48 in 2009.
In the last ten years (2003-2013), the number of police officers killed in Germany consistently stayed within 0-3 annually. Between 2001 and 2014, the police annually killed between 3 and 12 (12 is the highest data provided by civil liberties organizations) people. German police officers were so traumatized after they killed, only one third were able to go back to their previous duty. Many switched to desk jobs.  
Hardly anyone was killed by the police in Great Britain. British police fired their weapons three times in 2013, but fatally shot no one. In 2012, only one person was fatally shot the entire year. Foreign Policy reports that “[b]etween 1900 and 2006 [106 years] only 67 British police officers were killed… excluding Northern Ireland.” After adjusting for the population differences, the numbers are considerably higher for the U.S.A.
Tough On Marginalized Communities, Not “Tough On Crime”
Police officers in the U.S.A. are not better or worse than in Germany or Great Britain. What determines the conduct of an average police officer is the political and organizational climate in which they operate.
Law enforcement in the U.S.A. has been extensively utilized to further political agendas through soundbites such as “tough on crime,” even though the United States, in fact, is not “tough on crime,” but rather tough on marginalized communities. “Tough on crime” would mean preventing crime from happening in the first place, from which the society as a whole would certainly benefit. It would require progressive public policies – programs that help diminish poverty, racial disparity, social injustices and such. “Tough on crime” has certainly nothing to do with the demonization of minority communities, or the for-profit Prison Industrial Complex that have been destroying families and communities in the U.S.A.

This article was originally published in Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alev-dudek/us-police-officers-kill-p_b_6909494.html

Dienstag, 10. März 2015

War Against Muslims Post 9/11?


9/11 has changed the life of Muslims substantially. Almost overnight, they become the target of media-hype, various “anti-terror” efforts, religious intolerance and hate crimes.

Increase in Hate Crimes Against Muslims in the U.S.A.

Anti-Muslim hate crimes in the USA increased fivefold, reaching an average of 100-150 recorded cases per year. Muslims make-up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population, however, represent 13.7 percent of the victims of hate crimes based on religious biases in 2013; noteworthy is the increase of approximately two percent from 11.6 the previous year, even though an overall decrease in religiously motivated hate crimes was recorded.

It is important to note that recorded hate crime numbers are subject to under-reporting since the participation in tracking programs is voluntary in the U.S.A. Additionally, applicable cases may not always be accurately identified as hate crimes, and therefore add to an increase in under-representation.  In spite of the potential for under-representation, hate crime data is a useful method to track development patterns over time.  

How Does the U.S.A. Measure up Against Western European Countries in Context of Biases and Crimes Against Muslims?

The backlash against Muslims in major Western European countries after 9/11 was more severe than in the U.S.A., particularly considering that 9/11 happened on U.S. soil. According to The Guardian, “hundreds of anti-Muslim offences were carried out [in the U.K.], in 2013, with Britain's biggest force, the Metropolitan police, recording 500 Islamophobic crimes.” In the U.S.A., in 2001, shortly after 9/11, a spike in hate crimes against Muslims — over 400 cases — were recorded, followed by a drop, and remained constant below 200 since 2002. Adjusted to the difference in population, there is a substantial gap in the number of hate crimes committed in the U.K. versus the U.S.A.

France does not track hate crimes. However, strong anti-Muslim sentiments became evident, among other, in various legislations that went as far as aiming to limit freedom of expression of Muslims; the ban on burqas and the law against denial of Armenian genocide are some of such examples. The latter legislation was overturned as the country’s highest judicial body deemed it unconstitutional. Similarly, Switzerland passed a legislation banning the construction of minarets from Mosques, while claiming that the ban was “not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.” Severity of the anti-Muslim sentiment in Germany was demonstrated, among other, in the outcome of the European Parliamentary election in May 2014, during which right-wing parties recorded substantial gains. Furthermore, recently formed right-wing radical groups such as Pegida (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) emerged and enjoys major support among the general population in Germany.

9/11 Repercussions — Anti-Muslim Policies in the U.S.A.

CNN correspondent Peter Bergen reported last April that “since 9/11, extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists, and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda’s ideology.” The $1.6 trillion that was spent in the U.S.A. since 9/11 on the “War on Terror,” however, does not target all terrorists equally, but clearly singles out the ones associated with the “Middle East,” “Islam,” and other similar stereotypical categories; therefore, most people do not associate the “War on Terror” with angry white males who go on a shooting rampage the way Stephen Hick did when he shot and killed three young people of Muslim faith in Chapel Hill earlier last month.  

This “War on Terror” changed the lives of average Muslims in the USA substantially, as they became suspects and potential terrorists in the aftermath of 9/11. The FBI and NYPD started mapping Muslim communities, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied many Muslims the citizenship and U.S. veterans ended up on a No Fly list without due process. The New York Times reports that the FBI even scrutinizes its own employees with “ties” to the Middle East without a probable cause.

In some states, like Alabama and Oklahoma, Americans apparently have become so paranoid about Islam that they have proactively banned Sharia Law, defying basic human reason since there is no evidence that Sharia is in any way a threat to the U.S. judicial system. This was made possible, in spite of the fact that a ban which singles out one religion violates not only basic American values, but also the First Amendment.

War Against Islamic Extremists, not Against Muslims?

U.S. authorities repeatedly claim that the U.S.A. is not at war with Muslims, but with Islamic or, as President Obama recently put it, violent extremists. The repercussions of anti-terror efforts that single out Muslims, even though more and more extremist recruits have diverse backgrounds and many of them have little to do with Islam, unfortunately paint a different picture. Negative images under which Muslims have to suffer are not only a result of the messages conveyed through the steps taken against them by the authorities, but also a result of the sensationalism and the dissemination of repeat stereotypes and biases by the mainstream media.  No wonder so many Americans are becoming suspicious of their fellow citizens.

“War On Terror,” Increase In Terror Plots

As another recent threat of terrorist attacks on American malls has demonstrated — contrary to claims by experts such as Thomas Kean, former New Jersey governor and chair of the 9/11 commission — in spite of the excessive spending  and erosion of civil liberties, the “War on Terror” did not result in more safety for Americans, at least not according to average Americans. As a recent poll conducted by NBC News/Wall Street Journal  demonstrates: 47 percent of Americans report feeling less safe after 9/11, whereas only 26 percent feel safer and another 26 percent report no change — notion that is supported by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington D.C., which confirmed that terror plots have increased since 9/11. Of the 60 terror plots, 49 were reportedly “homegrown,” indicating that the source of the threat is complex and diverse.

Threat of Military Industrial Complex Identified by President Eisenhower 50 Years Ago

Without a doubt, terrorism is a real threat that the U.S.A. and its allies have to combat. However, there must be a better way than the excessive waste and abuse of tax payer money and fear-mongering to fight this war. If we were to remain consistent in our “War on Terror” strategy, American tax payers would have to spend more money, give up more freedoms, and become less safe in the future.  

The current “War on Terror” is the Military Industrial Complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans against more than 50 years ago. Many beneficiaries of the “War on Terror” understandably don’t want this war to end, no matter how much animosity it has created and how unsuccessful it has been. However, as American tax payers pick up the tab, we should consider questioning what the rest of us have exactly gained from spending the money, a good portion of which we could have spent on improving our schools, investing in research and development, creating sustainable jobs, and establishing preventive programs for many ailments in our society.