Police Brutality: An Analysis

Are you, as a witness of the atrocity, culpable for the brutality, set forth by police? It is so what author, professor, and attorney, Bryan Stevenson, believes. The following is a quote from Bryan Stevenson’s novel, Just Mercy: “We are all implicated when we allow other people to be mistreated. An absence of compassion can corrupt the decency of a community, a state, a nation;” (source book). This is not a matter of racial discrimination, but rather an ethical dilemma covering the iniquity of the nation’s proposed peacekeepers. Police brutality stands declared as a controversial issue, since it perceptible nationwide. I don’t consider this partisanship limited to the judgment of pigment, because statistics prove otherwise. In 2015 alone, the

In actuality, the number of assaulted and injured officers has decreased by ten percent from 1992 to 2013 (source E). Though, also a fact, the number of officer employment is growing. Let alone in 2008, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that 1.13 million full-time workers were employed by law enforcement agencies (source E). An obvious inverse proportionality. But, does the employment growth simply suppress violence against police, or does it make them more formidable? I believe that the power through authority becomes a great liability-- since it can establish a narcissistic perception into one’s mind. The following statement is found in volume 22 of Lawrence Miller’s article, Violence and Behavior:

Police officers are the only nonmilitary professionals who are authorized to use, when necessary, coercive physical force, including lethal force, against citizens as a regular and expectable part of their job, thus representing the ultimate expression of governmental power in civil society.

Given this “ultimate expression of governmental power,” does it contribute to a particular officer’s immoral behavior? For instance, the substandard behavior of the chief deputy who Stevenson spoke with. My Everest concern: is corruption influenced by the imposed sense of

Great men are almost always bad men” (Dalberg-Acton, 1887). Exactly my point; the chief deputy has much control of the administration-- and-- despite his apathy, which by no means defines him as a bad man. Which is nevertheless another social complication; not all officers are bad people. Though as humans, we intuitively judge others inertly based only on what we perceive. We like to affirm that our beliefs and logical opinions are free from error. Therefore, we interpret further information only to benefit our conception. Furthermore, we consider external information—ones which oppose our conception-- as false. This phenomenon is called confirmative bias. It is a constructive and irrational partiality which is also exhibited by various officers, and it is what may induce corruption. Confirmation bias of police is observable, mainly, within court rulings. When legal action is taken against an official the defendant will always overvalue information or evidence that is on their side. Also, the defendant may manipulate neutral facts to support their proposed innocence. All in accordance with the autonomous