Point understood. Thanks for the civility, it's getting rare these days(nm)

Posted by Fedora from ppp-106.col.cableone.net on October 31, 2000 at 17:09:09:

In Reply to: ok posted by lobo on October 31, 2000 at 01:40:33:

: Fedora, I agree with your characterization of the corrupting influence of personal power over individuals. I offer the other side of the coin, from discussions with cops. Many with whom I've spoken admit an overwhelming desire to "protect and serve" (as cornball as that may sound); ie, they entered law enforcement in order to protect the rights of people to do their thing within social context, without fear from those who would be aggressors. To quote the spirit, if not the exact letter, of a friend, "there are bad people out there, who want to take what they can from anyone they can; society is mandated to prevent them from doing this and to constrain those who cannot stop doing it".
: Admittedly, one may easily read into such reasoning the possibility that the officer feels as though the power of society is embodied within her/himself; this might feed a personality prone towards authoritarian attitudes... But, in a sense, we (society) ARE charging these people to embody the spirit and weight of the legal system, just as we charge folks in white coats to cure our ills, and just as we entrust the folks at Indygear to ensure the quality of jacket accuracy (or whatever) (to bring up an Indy example so Micah doesn't boot me). It comes to the same thing, in abstract - individuals delegate the tasks of daily business to special corporate groups, who conform to the rules of their particular occupation. To simplify, we may look at cops as our "tribal warriors", docs as "tribal healers", you know. And for these groups to retain integrity, they often tread at the edge, or outside of the edge of what is acceptable behavior for the rest of us. Sometimes this is forgiven by society-at-large, due to the group's particular status or society's understanding of the requirements (stress/ whatever) of their role (eg, the debauchs of warriors)... sometimes society-at-large asserts some normative behavior (eg, Tailhook).
: The point refers to your notion of enlisting folks as cops for a four-year hitch. The difference between that and the armed forces, like it or not, is that most people enlisting in the army don't do it with the expectation or hope that they'll see combat. Most people enlisting as cops probably do. Whether this is a distinction that would ensure the survival of a citizen-cop society you suggest is problematic. A certain degree of personal choice, I suggest, is almost mandatory when considering who will enter that line of work. In times of war, as in the 1940s, there can be a very different view of such service. But fortunately, we aren't at war all the time (contra the statements from the DEA and drug czars).
: Again, my point is that personal choice is a necessity here, and that, yes, it would be nice if most people became cops for the right reasons, and no, probably some don't. And maybe certain aspects of cop culture (but not all, certainly) can encourage a degree of defensiveness. But, again, one would hope that the majority are provided with continually improved training to refine their notions of civil justice and professional decision-making.
: Again, it comes down to choice; and regardless of what some might argue, the role of the legal system in this country is to ensure the rights of citizens to choose, to make their own decisions.
: FBI BSU people I've talke with argue the same thing with regard to criminals: ideally, people are informed of social norms, and thus are better prepared to make decisions regarding their behavior in relation to these norms. If their choices pit them against the welfare of society, then society is obligated to react accordingly, in order to protect a greater good. For cops like my friend, above, this boils down to going to work every day to protect the weaker and just from the depredations of the stronger and unjust. In the course of a day, he's faced with many decisions. But, believe me, he for one makes these professional choices with full understanding of the weighty responsibility with which society has entrusted him. And in moments of stress, he may fall back on the training, again, the trust, that society has provided him.
: As I said, before, society's law enforcement folks (and armed forces) are only as good or as emotionally balanced as the society supporting them. (And let me remind of the book on wartime Germany, "Hitler's Willing Executioners"). If we as citizens find fault with the cops, then we're obligated to investigate and hold individual/group behavior accountable to our norms. With that, I think we have to accept a certain statistical portion of individuals to fail our expectations. To engender an us/them stance,even implicitly, by forcing this yoke upon all, most of whom wouldn't want it, is, I think, counter to the ideal of social justice we've supposedly got cops for in the first place.
: Just my two cents.
: Now, back to Indiana whats-his-name.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : Fedora, I agree with your characterization of the corrupting influence of personal power over individuals.  I offer the other side of the coin, from discussions with cops.  Many with whom I've spoken admit an overwhelming desire to "protect and serve" (as cornball as that may sound); ie, they entered law enforcement in order to protect the rights of people to do their thing within social context, without fear from those who would be aggressors.  To quote the spirit, if not the exact letter, of a friend, "there are bad people out there, who want to take what they can from anyone they can; society is mandated to prevent them from doing this and to constrain those who cannot stop doing it".
: : Admittedly, one may easily read into such reasoning the possibility that the officer feels as though the power of society is embodied within her/himself; this might feed a personality prone towards authoritarian attitudes...  But, in a sense, we (society) ARE charging these people to embody the spirit and weight of the legal system, just as we charge folks in white coats to cure our ills, and just as we entrust the folks at Indygear to ensure the quality of jacket accuracy (or whatever) (to bring up an Indy example so Micah doesn't boot me).  It comes to the same thing, in abstract - individuals delegate the tasks of daily business to special corporate groups, who conform to the rules of their particular occupation.  To simplify, we may look at cops as our "tribal warriors", docs as "tribal healers", you know.  And for these groups to retain integrity, they often tread at the edge, or outside of the edge of what is acceptable behavior for the rest of us.  Sometimes this is forgiven by society-at-large, due to the group's particular status or society's understanding of the requirements (stress/ whatever) of their role (eg, the debauchs of warriors)... sometimes society-at-large asserts some normative behavior (eg, Tailhook).  
: : The point refers to your notion of enlisting folks as cops for a four-year hitch.  The difference between that and the armed forces, like it or not, is that most people enlisting in the army don't do it with the expectation or hope that they'll see combat.  Most people enlisting as cops probably do.  Whether this is a distinction that would ensure the survival of a citizen-cop society you suggest is problematic.  A certain degree of personal choice, I suggest, is almost mandatory when considering who will enter that line of work.  In times of war, as in the 1940s, there can be a very different view of such service.  But fortunately, we aren't at war all the time (contra the statements from the DEA and drug czars).
: : Again, my point is that personal choice is a necessity here, and that, yes, it would be nice if most people became cops for the right reasons, and no, probably some don't.  And maybe certain aspects of cop culture (but not all, certainly) can encourage a degree of defensiveness.  But, again, one would hope that the majority are provided with continually improved training to refine their notions of civil justice and professional decision-making.
: : Again, it comes down to choice; and regardless of what some might argue, the role of the legal system in this country is to ensure the rights of citizens to choose, to make their own decisions.
: : FBI BSU people I've talke with argue the same thing with regard to criminals:  ideally, people are informed of social norms, and thus are better prepared to make decisions regarding their behavior in relation to these norms.  If their choices pit them against the welfare of society, then society is obligated to react accordingly, in order to protect a greater good.  For cops like my friend, above, this boils down to going to work every day to protect the weaker and just from the depredations of the stronger and unjust.  In the course of a day, he's faced with many decisions.  But, believe me, he for one makes these professional choices with full understanding of the weighty responsibility with which society has entrusted him.  And in moments of stress, he may fall back on the training, again, the trust, that society has provided him.
: : As I said, before, society's law enforcement folks (and armed forces) are only as good or as emotionally balanced as the society supporting them.  (And let me remind of the book on wartime Germany, "Hitler's Willing Executioners").  If we as citizens find fault with the cops, then we're obligated to investigate and hold individual/group behavior accountable to our norms.  With that, I think we have to accept a certain statistical portion of individuals to fail our expectations.  To engender an us/them stance,even implicitly, by forcing this yoke upon all, most of whom wouldn't want it, is, I think, counter to the ideal of social justice we've supposedly got cops for in the first place.
: : Just my two cents.
: : Now, back to Indiana whats-his-name.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]