My Conversation with Rachel Harmon

Rachel Harmon is a Professor at University of Virginia Law School, and an expert on policing.  Here is the audio and transcript, and here is part of the CWT summary:

She joined Tyler to discuss the best ideas for improving policing, including why good data on policing is so hard to come by, why body cams are not a panacea, the benefits and costs of consolidating police departments, why more female cops won’t necessarily reduce the use of force, how federal programs can sometimes misfire, where changing police selection criteria would and wouldn’t help, whether some policing could be replaced by social workers, the sobering frequency of sexual assaults by police, how a national accreditation system might improve police conduct, what reformers can learn from Camden and elsewhere, and more. They close by discussing the future of law schools, what she learned clerking under Guido Calabresi and Stephen Breyer, why she’s drawn to kickboxing and triathlons, and what two things she looks for in a young legal scholar.

And here is one bit:

COWEN: Should we impose higher educational standards on police forces?

HARMON: There’s mixed evidence on that. Slightly older police officers tend to be better in certain respects, at least, and education is often associated with age. But, again, I don’t think that we can select our way out of problems in policing.

COWEN: But why can’t we? Because different individuals — they behave so differently. They think so differently. Why is it that there’s no change in selection criteria that would get the police to be more the way we want them to be, whatever that might be?

HARMON: I think we could do some things. We could screen out people who have committed misconduct in the past, for example, by decertifying them at the state level and therefore discouraging departments that can’t or don’t care very much about quality of their officers from hiring those officers.

It’s not that we can’t select against problems in policing at all. Sometimes we know that an officer’s problematic, and still he’ll wander around from department to department. I think we should set minimum age standards that are above 18, which many states have as a minimum age standard.

But in terms of education or other more subtle factors, I think the effects can often be subtle, and when we look at what creates problems in policing, departments create officers. The officers don’t preexist a department, really, so what you’re really looking at is the culture of the department, the incentive structures, the supervision, discipline. You can make good officers with imperfect people.

Recommended, interesting throughout, and yes we discuss San Francisco and Singapore too.

Comments

A 19 year old police officer cannot legally pick up a can of beer without being in technical violation of the law concerning possession of alcohol.

There are no 19 year old police officers.

Deputy officers? https://youtu.be/No5cPBnS-wo

I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…... UEd after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier.

Here’s what I do…............ b­i­z­p­r­o­f­i­t­9.c­o­m

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

>so what you’re really looking at is the culture of the department, the incentive structures, the supervision, discipline.

Standard lefty crap. No person is ever responsible for anything... it doesn't matter at all which people we're talking about.... it's that DARN SYSTEM.

(You know, the one that has been operated and overseen by Democrats in major cities for One Hundred Years. )

Presumably, the various systems into which leftists propose redirecting police funding have none of these problems.

Respond

Add Comment

NYC had a string of Republican mayors from Giuliani to Bloomberg and they had policies like Stop and Frisk.

Did they have less crime?

Nope, they just moved who was committing the crimes from private citizens to the police departments. Same amount of crime, but white folks slept soundly knowing it was being committed by white cops on black victims.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The murder rate in New York went from 2,000/year to 200. The recent average number of police killings of New Yorkers has been less than 10/year, and most observers would grant that at least some of those were cases of police self-defense/defense of the community against someone who was actively engaged in violence.

The only reason we can even have a discussion of "police violence" is because of the tremendous success New York had over the 30 years of my adult life in combating societal violence.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, where I live, African American leaders speak actively against the "defund police" idea, because they recognize that the primary impact of police is to reduce violence in their communities.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

No one mentioned the community that needs to be policed. Communities that have higher rates of violent crime, substance induced insanity, or intercommunity conflicts require more hands on, rough and tumble handling of suspects. Political public safety laws such as MADD (Atlanta Wendy's) or the banning of street cigarette selling (NYC) require police to apprehend violators. Some violators don't want to be arrested and fight - leading to someone getting hurt or killed.
We must renember that cops are the essential workers expected to answer the call in this Wuhan coronavirus (Covid 19/SARS2) World and be witness to horrible accidents, fires, murders, suicides, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, and all sorts of depraved or violent behavior. More lives are saved exponentially by the cops than lost in occasional misunderstandings, poor understanding of a suspect's physical condition (under whatever influence), violent encounters, and high adrenalin situations.
Good training always helps, but political interference, and angry mobs generally bring more injustice.

Good points leading to the recommendation of fewer laws that armed law officers should enforce (if anyone should).

Respond

Add Comment

Never have I seen so many shitty racist dogwhistles in one shitty racist post! White supremacist AND bootlicker?? Yr one trashy mf.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Is every economist a "lefty"? Because they talk about incentives ALL THE TIME. Punishment itself is an incentive, and that's integral to crime control.

If you think applying cost benefit analysis to behavior on the margin is "lefty," yes.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Inverting your reasoning, capitalism doesn't matter and shouldn't be promoted, neither does opposing tyranny, or the left for that matter, because the system or structure doesn't effect the results, only the individual effects themselves.

If the system doesn't effect the individual or their actions, then anarchy is the best answer.

Respond

Add Comment

Sentence 1: >> Standard lefty crap. No person is ever responsible for anything... it doesn't matter at all which people we're talking about.... it's that DARN SYSTEM. <> (You know, the one that has been operated and overseen by Democrats in major cities for One Hundred Years. ) <<

In sentence 1, Mr. Pants rails against blaming a group/culture/system instead of individual bad actors. Then in sentence 2, Mr. Pants does exactly what he rails against in sentence 1. Way to go Mr. Pants!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

No mention of unions and their role in shaping police culture, I see. Problematic teachers likewise wander around from school to school, but we're not supposed to notice the common factor.

Yeah, I've been analogizing the two as well. Schools have under-trained and under-educated teachers who cannot be easily fired because of strong unions; and schools should receive more funding. Police have under-trained and under-education officers who cannot be easily fired because of strong unions; and police should be de-funded.

Okay.

Your analogizing is terrible because, for one, police don't have to purchase their own uniforms, batons, tasers, guns, etc. Teachers don’t murder people, generally speaking. Schoolteachers have to purchase items for their students, from utensils to food, because the school can not provide for economically disadvantaged and poor students.
Do you honestly want to talk about police unions as opposed to teachers unions? Because the police budget is literally orders of magnitude larger than the education budget. If you think education receives too much funding but think the police are strapped, then you’ve gotta take the boot out of yr mouth. This is bad, dude.

Who are these bad teachers that travel from school to school? Are they equivalent to cops who commit murder on the job and are moved temporarily to desk work, and wind up back enforcing in the streets within a couple of months or years? Does that sound like an analogy, or does that sound like the pathetic sentiment of a anti-union anti-worker capitalist pig? Idk, just saying.

Also, police unions are not real peoples’ unions. They are a barrier to the betterment and protection of people and workers. They do not protect workers and people, they protect the people who brutalize workers and people.

No true Scots--er, policeman, excuse me...

Respond

Add Comment

Actually, my dad was a county deputy and did have to buy his own firearm. Every time a new Sheriff got elected he had to buy a new one, because they all required different pistols or at least a different caliber. Never checked with him, but I'm pretty sure he paid for the PR-24 and the uniforms as well. Certainly had to pay for the ammo required to qualify with the pistols as well.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Also, finally, teachers unions are only one of the unions involved in education. Educational assistants are often involved with a separate union, and there are also unions of janitors.

But, of course, they're all troublemakers in these strong-arm unions that see fit to rabble-rouse all year long for living wages..., manageable class sizes..., classroom essentials for students..., breakfast programs.... The greedy bastards. How greedy, to propose that some of the billions of dollars allocated to overfunded police systems might be better allocated to severely the underfunded school systems.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

To select out officers lacking the temperament needed, they could Be rated by the people they interacted with just as college students rate their teachers. Just knowing that they are being rated will probably improve their behavior.

I’m torn. Should we let experts select the officers? What could go wrong?

Should we let elected officials select officers? Keep in mind Cuomo was elected. And perhaps will be again.

Or should we let civilians vote on cops as you suggest (at RateMyArrestingOfficer dot com): sample vote: “After I finished beating my children I had some drinks, as one does, and drove to a Wendy’s to have a nap. The cops let me sleep and then I drove around a few school zones. I’ll give the cops a 4.5 / 5 for letting me nap!”

Wow, invoking the murder of Rayshard Brooks by dogwhistles and racist baiting. You fuckin suck you white supremacist pig.

Tyler is small man that calls the police for any perceived threat I know this. I long for the day when people like him have to stand up for themselves. Disgusting academic turd. Great interview Tyler... 67 year old female cops are the answer. Even the Ms. Harmon couldn't take you seriously. Stay in your lane little man.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Repeal qualified immunity and then either require all police officers to carry liability insurance (like many other professions have to) or provide that any liability payments come out of police pensions. Then the insurance companies or police departments themselves will be incentivized to screen out high-risk officers without resorting to one-size-fits-all regulations based on age or credentials.

Whoa...great idea lands!

Respond

Add Comment

Liability insurance usually excludes illegal acts, intentional misconduct and sometimes reckless misconduct. So how this would work probably depends on your theory of the nature of police misconduct. Are these inadvertent mistakes that anybody can make, though some more than others? Or are police deliberately violating the Constitution? Insurance will probably only cover the one end of the spectrum.

Right now, police officers are indemnified by the city regardless (de jure or de facto), and I don't understand why Rachel Harmon thinks that this creates any incentives for police to perform better. I think the basic framework is that without indemnification no civil rights actions will be brought because most police would be judgment proof. So the filing of the lawsuit is a source of transparency, but resolutions will rarely be.

I don't understand the first sentence. Unless you mean that those convicted of illegal acts, intentional misconduct or reckless conduct become uninsurable risks, which is the desired outcome, the independent market-driven oversight which is badly needed.

I mean that insurance policies describe the risks they cover, and exclude those they don't. Typically, a liability policy will have an exclusion in the policy for intentional / criminal misconduct. Similarly, a life insurance policy will exclude suicide, and a property insurance policy will exclude the policy-holder's arson.

For example, if a cop hid evidence that would have exculpated a man that was eventually convicted of murder, that would be the type of conduct an insurance policy would probably not cover. (The SCOTUS in Connick v. Thompson held that the police department could not be sued for failing to adequately train such a cop not to do something so obviously wrong) This would be determined after the facts, with the insurance responding to a request for insurance coverage with a denial letter. The insurance company does not do anything to reduce the risk of the most egregious conduct because it does not have any responsibility for it.

Uninsurable, then? Perfect.

I didn't say anything about being uninsurable, so I don't know where I lost you.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Liability insurance, yes, but paid for from assessments on the force, which will require higher gross pay.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

and an expert on policing.

No, she isn't. She's a lawyer who makes a pest of herself to police officers. She knows nothing of the mechanics of policing from practical experience or observational study, and has published not one article on that subject. We'd all be better off if this awful woman would defect to chess or slave trading.

Well said.

Respond

Add Comment

Um, that's just not true about her not having published an article on policing. In fact she's published several... https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11&q=harmon%2C+rachel&btnG=

I'd say she's a legal expert, not a police expert. Just as a banking lawyer is not actually a banker.

Yes, you’re right. Only ex-military boys and the thin blue line really understand the profession of policing. It’s a very fine art. You can't be an expert if you’ve only published a handful of articles, gained some lived experience, and spent time studying and documenting it. Men are policing experts, not women.

At the very least, you should go to a dojang and find out how hard it is to restrain an adult male who doesn't want to be restrained.

Do you realize how frequently nurses have to restrain uncooperative patients? Very few hospital restraint tactics end in the murder of a patient. Police aggression is brutality, and is the result of the dehumanization of “suspects” by a police force that has been trained to dehumanize “suspects.”

do you know how many hospital restraint deaths occur annually?
its common enough that there is a whole legal&reporting complex
revolving around medical restraints

Respond

Add Comment

Those patients are free of knives and handguns, having all passed through the metal detector when they entered the ER.

Respond

Add Comment

We should give officers syringes filled with sedatives.

I promise you, if an adult male patient starts swinging, the nurses are not the ones involved in wrestling him to the ground.

She sounded like an idiot in some regards. Why has crime dropped so much in NYC the past 20 years ? She couldn't even offer an answer.... Dah... There a fucking cameras on most blocks; every building has cameras; bodegas.... and license plate readers on every bridge and tunnel. What is so hard for people to understand ? I hope there is a blackout over the summer in NYC and the 1 million cameras don't work let's see what happens..

The last few publicly discussed violent crimes in NYC not only did they have video they have multiple fucking angles..That was around in 1990s. All you had to do was kill people in different precincts nobody connected the dots...

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I don't doubt you've used the phrase "this awful woman" about more than one professional or academic woman.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

" She's a lawyer who makes a pest of herself to police officers."
Perhaps we need to listen.

Respond

Add Comment

Who would agree with you, Beria or Washington?

Respond

Add Comment

But notwithstanding these ad hominem "disqualifications," you could find nothing of substance to disagree with.

Respond

Add Comment

COWEN: But do you think police would behave better if they knew they were always being taped? Some people say they’ll just turn off the body cam, or you won’t be able to prosecute them anyway. What’s your empirical view?
HARMON: I’m not a social scientist. I’m a lawyer, but I try to follow the social science in this area, and I can tell you that what we know right now is that the results of studies of body cameras, at least in terms of if you’re studying whether they reduce complaints or whether they reduce uses of force, the studies are, at best, mixed. I would say the evidence that they do good in these respects is pretty weak.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Joe Biden is literally Pol Pot.

We don't teach history anymore. Nobody knows who Pol Pot was.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Replace the word "police/officer(s)/police officer(s)" with the word "teacher(s)," and replace "policing" with "teaching" and you get essentially the same conversation.

Wrt systemic racism, our medical system isn't too far removed from our legal system.

Every year our hospitals do about 48M surgical procedures. Our cops do about the same number of police-initiated stops.

Out of those 48M surgical procedures, about 400,000 die from preventable errors (infections, wrong drugs, etc). And out that number of police stops, about 1000 die. Many are armed. But even out of the pool of unarmed, you have about 50 to 100 die.

While blacks are underpresented in unarmed police shootings, blacks are overrepresented in preventable hospital deaths.

So, on the surface, our hospitals are about 4000 times more lethal than our law enforcement to the general public. What should be a simple procedure for a missed stop sign can lead to being killed. And what should be a simple procedure for a hip surgery can lead to being killed too with a frequency about 4000 times greater.

Our hospitals kill far more black people every year than the cops. And the disparity is even greater in our hospitals.

We can only conclude that our hospitals are systemically racist to the core (much more so than the police) and far more dangerous to our black community than the police. Be very, very suspicious of your doctor. Think of the most racist redneck cop you can imagine, and then multiply that by 4000. That is your doctor.

This can be the only conclusion.

infections don't= preventable errors
may infections are not preventable erros

They are preventable errors if they are due to improper/inadequate sterilization and/or cleaning procedures on the part of the hospital and/or mistakes on the part of doctors/nurses/technicians.

Oddly enough, the medical/nursing professions and hospitals both have a propensity to cover for each other in all except the most egregious cases.

Sort of like police officers...and teachers....and most other groups with a common identify.

Respond

Add Comment

Johns Hopkins said in 2015 it was 250K preventable deaths due to medical errors. Other studies have said more than 400K preventable deaths.

Generally, a medical error is inadequately skilled staff, error in judgement or care, a system defect, or a preventable adverse effect.

If you enter surgery without any external trauma to your body and develop an infection after surgery while still in the hospital, then that seems it'd be a medical error.

If you enter surgery with your intestines hanging out due to a combine accident and later develop an infection, that seems it'd NOT be a medical error.

In the end, if we're going by the current definition of system racism, the hospitals are much, much worse than the cops for all people AND ESPECIALLY black people.

Respond

Add Comment

Wrt “armed” vs. “unarmed,” that is not a thing in Second Amendmentland. American Constitution (not a document I believe much in) provides the allowance of weaponry. It’s just that Black people are seen as a threat while they’re carrying, and white people are seen as the defenders of free land.

As for hospitals, you’re SORT of getting to the right idea, but you’re cherry-picking and I think you’re doing your whole argument in bad faith. I think you’re trying to pivot. American Healthcare is extremely, systemically anti-Black. There is a dearth of high-quality health care in communities that are majority-Black/Indigenous/People of Color (see also: education, and food, and social services, state-funded protective services...).

Might the fact that healthcare operates as a business have something to do with the lack of high-quality care? Isn’t it strange that receiving treatment can throw a poor family (or a ‘middle class’ family) much farther into debt? Doesn’t that just itch of systemic racism/classism?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I think they're mostly hospital acquired infections, rather than botched procedures per se, but yes, it's a serious problem and I don't think it's being addressed enough.

don't disagree with you.
we misspelled/fubared our point was all hospital infections are
not preventable medical errors

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Requiring personal liability insurance (with the basic premium paid for by the state) would resolve these issues by having the insurers looking at the history of bad conduct. Why would level of education matter if the guy with the college degree is pushing his gun into people's faces because he has mental issues? Insurance could resolve the national registry issue too. Insurers would be sure to establish a robust national registry.

Then we need to stop paying taxes and just pay insurance premiums. Then we can eliminate these incompetent middle-men and give the government to insurance consortiums, i.e., people with actual skin in the game.

You think I'm joking.

No, we just think you are a c-u-c-k.

Respond

Add Comment

Proper use of hazard and liability insurance could improve many situations. For example, properly priced fire and flood insurance could lead to fewer high value structures in areas prone to coastal flooding and wildfires. Liability insurance would have forced better maintenance of the Michigan dam that failed.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

You might think of interviewing some insurance company representatives that offer professional liability insurance. They would understand many of the issues, such as how a national registry might work and how a record of bad behavior/incompetence drives premiums.

Respond

Add Comment

On the police suicide topic, the 2019 statistics are staggering. 147 deaths related to line of duty events, 50 of them gunfire (https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2019). 228 suicides ( https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/02/blue-help-228-police-suicides-2019-highest-total/2799876001/ ).

The suicides number comprises active and retired officers, so it's not possible to compare directly one stat to the other. Anyway, the relative magnitude of the risks is very interesting. What if more active police officers commit suicide than being killed in gunfire events? Any rational person would prioritize mental health of cops above armed criminals, right?

Joseph Wambaugh's LAPD novels over the last 50 years have a lot about the high suicide rate among cops.

Hi Steve, never heard about Joseph Wambaugh. As good as James Ellroy?

I was a big James Ellroy fan until I listened to him at a book fair. Now I'm just an average fan.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"when we look at what creates problems in policing, departments create officers."
OK, so everyone is the same inside and a product of their environment: even cops in a department? It's kind of odd how Amy Harmon can ignore the orders of magnitude differences in misconduct between top percentile and bottom percentile officers. If Jack Welch at GE could fire the bottom 5 percent of employees every year, surely the USA can implement something similar for police, nationwide, in a unified database across agencies and states.

"surely the USA can implement something similar for police"

Unions would fight this tooth and nail obviously.

Respond

Add Comment

The US of A cannot even implement an effective "DO NOT CALL Registry", in spite of all the glorious promises from decades past that tech tyrants would deliver any such solution or that the clueless Feds would enforce it.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

>I think we should set minimum age standards that are above 18,

Thereby interfering with their ability to earn a living. "We" impose all of the responsibilities of citizenship on 18 year olds (perhaps even more than most if you include draft eligibility). It's unjust to not give them the same rights as everyone else.

And yes, the same applies to drinking/smoking ages.

Respond

Add Comment

Good podcast.

I felt like she deferred on a lot of questions and didn't give a straight answer to some of the others. It's definitely an interesting topic overall.

I saw it more as matching questions to areas of expertise, but ymmv.

(Probably the most interesting transformation is not the Q&A specifically, but the fact that "the police problem" now has national attention. Or even "BLM was right" even if some stubbornly insist they were right in the wrong way.)

"BLM was right"...? It’s a motte and bailey switch

Here’s some of their actual demands :

An end to the use of past criminal history to determine eligibility for housing, education, licenses, voting, loans, employment, and other services and needs.

An end to all deportations, immigrant detention, and Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids

An end to the use of technologies including IMSI catchers, drones, body cameras, and predictive policing software

An end to all public jails, detention centers, youth facilities and prisons

Free access and open admissions to public community colleges and universities, technical education (technology, trade and agricultural), educational support programs, retroactive forgiveness of student loans, and support for lifetime learning programs.

Reparations in the form of guaranteed income

Reparations in the form of unionized guaranteed government jobs at a high wage

An end to body cams? Huh.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

What's the actual number of 18 year olds being hired as police officers? Meeting just the minimum standards isn't very useful for getting most government jobs, and even lowly police departments turn away a lot of candidates.

Of all the wacky ideas being floated lately (admittedly I'm negative on almost all of them) I think this is my favorite, though I don't think it would work at all.

"We could have a Police for America program like we have a Teach for America program, and kids out of Harvard would then go police in big cities and small towns for three years. I’m open to trying almost anything as an alternative, but I don’t think we know that raising salaries is going to make things better in policing."

There are a lot of people who think policing is super easy and the only reason people get killed is because all cops are murderous racists. I would love to see these kids - who think they're experts on the world without ever having experienced it - spend some time on the streets seeing what kind of situations cops get into every day.

On the other hand, this line of thinking is one of my least favorite.

"There is no police department in America who wouldn’t say what we need is more mental health services, because mental health services would prevent the crises. And if we had more social workers responding to those crises, either with law enforcement or without, depending on the nature of the crisis, we might get more effective policing. Yeah, sure."

Do we have some research on whether this is true? This kind of thing tends to get floated around with an assumption that evil America doesn't spend any money on mental health services so there are obviously massive gains to be had with better MH funding. But what about the reality that we actually do spend lots of money on mental health services?

Washington DC's mental health budget is about $300 million. Police budget is $550 million. Do we really think there are a lot of easy gains to be had if we increased that budget further? Do we think swapping those budgets - like many now want to do - will be anything other than a disaster?

I don't even hate this idea at it's base. Yes, make sure you are treating mental health. That's obvious. But the thinking is so shallow. What about people who don't want help? How do you treat people who have serious MH issues but nonetheless are a serious danger to society? At some point you need a LE response. How do your mental health issues interact with your drug issues? What is the right amount of funding other than "more?" DC has spent a lot of money on this, are they getting significantly less issues with police responding to mental health cases?

We have chosen to make effective mental health treatment exceedingly difficult and expensive in this country. People can refuse treatment well past the point of being a danger to self and others and unfortunately I am routinely forced to let patients leave where I know their end equilibrium will be living in squalor, likely to be committing petty crime, and their final outcome will either be incarceration (and mandatory psychiatric treatment) or nothing.

Making forced medication (e.g. depot shots) easier would dramatically reduce the mental health burden on society. But we have chosen to make it hard to force, coerce, or induce treatment outside of a law enforcement context so many mental health problems simply fester until the cops need to address it.

If you want better mental health, we are going to have go against the cultural touchstone of autonomy above all else. We cannot both say that the only way to force treatment is through force of law and then not let force of law be the ones to deal with untreated mental illness.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The part about reducing arrests for theft wasn’t very good. You can’t really compare it to traffic tickets. First, a much wider swath of the public. Second, while traffic violations carry greater potential harm, theft causes immediate harm to the property owner.

Respond

Add Comment

I will say, Rachel Harmon was always my favorite of the female DAs on Law and Order.

Respond

Add Comment

"The most cost-effective intervention to improve the quality of policing without limiting engagement — I don’t know. I don’t know that I can think of a single intervention. "

Perhaps action on the other side of the equation would be more efficacious.

If Black Lives Matter persuaded people to stop resisting arrest as frequently as they do, perhaps by simply issuing social media statements to the effect that BLM does not condone resisting arrest and discourages everyone from resisting arrest, perhaps we would see a decline in the frequency of suspects dying during arrests.

Funny is it not, but back in the bad old days of 1950 (let alone 1910), crime rates were down as were rates of police homicides. Judging solely by the violent black death rate, the fatal police interaction rate for black males, or the rate of crime in general the civil rights era and the rest have been a decided failure.

By far and away the cheapest options are cultural. Culture, after all, is why Japan has one of the lowest of death-by-cop rates in the world putting even the standard comparisons (like the UK or Germany) to shame.

Almost as though we had a set of social norms that helped the poor interact with life in a reasonably productive manner that we trashed to make it easier for the rich, powerful, and educated to better attain self-fulfillment at the expense of the most vulnerable.

"Culture, after all, why Japan has one of the lowest of death-by-cop rates in the world putting even the standard comparisons (like the UK or Germany) to shame. "

anybody wanna guess how many Japanese ,uk&german police are killed by criminals every year?

a couple years ago an "activist" shot 12 dallas police in one day

Are you implying that Patrisse, Alicia, and Opel are partly responsible for the gullible Black Men who have been executed by White oppressor COPS (for no reason other than they were Black Men) by inciting them to violently (or fake-non-violently) resist or non-comply?
I'm being slightly sarcastic but I suspect there might be this underlying intention to create incidents that incite outrage (it's a historically well-worn and often effective tactic). In that sense, the Black men (as usual) are being set-up as Martyrs (by, possibly coincidentally, a trio of bitter, professionally failed, Lesbian women). The ultimate purpose being (perhaps) self-promotion of the media profiles of Patrisse, Alicia, and Opel.
Of course, I may be mistaken.
Yes, Japanese people generally don't violently resist police or non-comply. They also don't have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms (meaning police aren't too afraid of being shot by citizens; although I taught one officer who was stabbed by a meth addict who didn't feel like going to jail and who illogically thought he could avoid it by stabbing the officer).

that could be the worlds longest non sequitur
but its not a guess about how many Japanese, uk & german police
are killed by criminals every year

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

This interview was unsatisfying. The questions were good but there wasn’t much concrete suggested. I echo the question about SF especially but the answers all seemed very “Oh, I don’t know...”

Respond

Add Comment

+1 good interview
how about policing/patrolling in pairs instead of single police as a reform

Respond

Add Comment

BTW: what is the working definition of "crime" that academic sociologists and social utopians most commonly invoke? (Yes, I am assuming that our deputized thought police HAVE a working definition and that the term continues to crop up from time to time.)

Respond

Add Comment

Exactly how is she an expert in policing, Tyler? Shouldn't an "expert in policing" actually have some experience in being a cop of some kind?

At this point, we really have devolved into the realm of "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express", so listen to me.

She's an expert compared to other law professors.

I see she was actually a prosecutor, but a Fed one, not a real one for this subject, like an assistant DA in the homicide division in someplace like Queens.

Lastly, she's from Brooklyn, and she looks Irish and is of a certain age, so she probably has relatives in law enforcement, as I do. She didn't say that my retired NYPD in law, or my retired assistant DA in the homicide division in Queens in law, among others, would have laughed at. That's pretty good for a law professor, or at least the sort of law professor who gets quoted in the newspaper as an expert.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I like to rag on Slate, bu Jamelle Bouie already explained why diversifying police departments won't change much (and why hiring more women specifically could result in more shootings):
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/10/diversity-wont-solve-police-misconduct-black-cops-dont-reduce-violence-against-black-citizens.html

I'm very glad Tyler pushed back with the example of Singapore, but disappointed that he neglected to point out the LACK of correlation between the business cycle and crime. There are serious problems with "root causes" theories of crime. Overall, there was too little discussion of correlation or numbers at all, which one might expect from a lawyer, but not from a former engineer talking to an economist.

Raising standards for hiring police officers would reduce the number of blacks hired.

Nobody seems to notice that these days.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Just for fun, managing police departments is a never ending problem that always at some level can be talked about, so I guess it's an evergreen thing to have a professor to talk about. I guess it's topical. Should it be?

The police aren't perfect, and if a policeman does something awful and/or illegal they should be prosecuted but are the police out to get black people? Black people are more likely to be shot by the police than whites, but if one norms for encounters with the police, this goes away. Do the police hassle black people more than white people. They do have more encounters with the police, but if one norms for violent crimes committed, this disparity goes away. Young black men murder young black men at a hugely higher rate than any other demographic.

It doesn't seem to me that the police are the problem, and as far as any of all this hand wringing actually making the world a better place, it's a bit difficult to not be cynical about the motives of the people pushing it, in that one might as well sacrifice a bull to Zeus, the whole thing is an exercise in superstition, and will not change a thing, and in fact, has been done many times before.

One never hears that the crime rate among young black men is actually a problem, and who knows, maybe one could do something about it if someone somewhere did actually think it was a problem.

According to a 2011 Obama Administration report, from 1980-2008, blacks were 7.6 times more likely than whites to be homicide offenders:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf

If you norm for homicide rates, whites get killed by the cops far more often than blacks do.

I don't, however, think the reason is because cops are out to gun down whites. Instead, I think suicide-by-cop, like most forms of suicide, is more of a white thing than a black thing.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

As timely as today’s news. Nice 👍

Respond

Add Comment

Excellent interview, I was impressed. I am a UVA law grad, and my brother is a prof there, so biased. Interesting point on VAWA - it is a law that encourages arrests as quick and dirty punishment. "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". Victim will probably refuse to testify, but at least we can cost him his job and make him spend thousands on defense fees. This is inconsistent with the goals of the BLM protest.

Why is it inconsistent?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

What should Rhonda have done to more appropriately prepare in order to avoid her devastating demolition at the hands of Amanda Nunes?
Or, to keep it more real, is there really anything Rhonda could have done? (to avoid defeat I mean--by forcing AMANDA TO GRAPPLE RATHER THAN TRY TO EXCHANGES STRIKING WITH HER.)

Respond

Add Comment

This must be the worst CWT of all time. Rachel Harmon is clearly smart and articulate, but I have no idea why she decided to be so aggressively evasive regarding every question. Maybe it's a lawyer thing? I turned this off after 30 minutes, but all I heard was this:

Cowan: [interesting suggestion 1, 2, ... , n]

Harmon: Your suggestion might or might not work. Old women might or might not be more violent than young men. [continue loop] then:

Cowan: So how do you think we could improve police departments then?

Harmon: Well, many things, you know... Higher standards, better leadership, more community involvement, a better work culture, more willingness to change, broader platitudes...

Cowan: What will make any of that happen?

Harmon: Oh geez, I dunno!

"I have no idea why she decided to be so aggressively evasive regarding every question."
do you think it might be cancel culture,&risk of job loss?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Hello everyone My name is Sarah. I was able to earn $ 55,000 a month by taking a home business course. Here is the course itself https://bit.ly/3djwwGX

Respond

Add Comment

"I think we should set minimum age standards that are above 18"

I think most of us were assuming that is already the case. And indeed it is, in all but four states, according to this website.
https://golawenforcement.com/articles/how-old-can-you-be-to-go-into-law-enforcement/

Louisiana has no age minimum ... maybe they like to press teenagers into service to beef up their riot squads during times of civil unrest? I can't imagine that they're routinely handing 16-year olds a gun and sending them out on patrol

MT, RI, and WA have a minimum wage of 18. All other states have a minimum age of 19 or more.
https://golawenforcement.com/articles/how-old-can-you-be-to-go-into-law-enforcement/

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment