Police “Reform” — Just More Laws Attempting To Control People?
We continue to “attempt” to “police the police” by enacting more laws, which in effect boil down to laws designed to control people. We’ve had, and continue to have all manner and manifestations of laws to control people’s behavior, and yet our prisons still continue to burgeon and overflow with more people incarcerated than any other country in the world.
In light of this fact, what makes us think that more “reform”, meaning more laws(meaning further creations of thought) is the answer here? Haven’t we tried this before? Or is it different this time?
'It's not about bad apples': how US police reforms have failed to stop brutality and violence
New York banned chokeholds. Seattle required de-escalation training. Los Angeles restricted shooting at moving…
Maybe we just need more laws? The problem is we don’t have enough laws.
Or, maybe we just need the correct laws? We’ve just been creating the wrong kinds of laws.
Or, maybe it’s just that we need more correct laws?
Or, maybe the problem is we have the correct laws, but we can’t properly enforce them? Yes…, perhaps this is it?
Or, perhaps we should take a moment to look at exactly what a law is, and what it’s intended to achieve? What exactly is the purpose of the notion of a “law” or “laws?”
Each law, each reform is ultimately intended to change human behavior. In the case of a police officer, we create a “role” called “police officer” and we then ascribe a set of “laws” to the role itself. A set of “do’s” and “don’ts”.
We then morph and change this set of “role-laws” in response to any behavior that a person in the role may engage in that is deemed “unacceptable” for that role for whatever reason.
So we then expect and hope that the person in the role as police officer is aware of all the rules of their job. All the way’s in which they are supposed to act in any given situation. All the rules of their conduct.
…Let us now pause here for a moment and just let that realization “sink in” so that the implications of this acknowledgement can percolate up into our awareness…
So we are, in effect, expecting this human in the role of police officer to “police themselves”. We’re expecting them to “control themselves”.
What does this mean?
We’re expecting/hoping that the human that is the police officer will take in this “external force” and allow themselves to be governed by it. Laws really amount to one person’s, or group of person’s agreement on how to act/not act in certain situations, being imposed on some other person or group of persons.
This generally works if everyone, both the law makers, and the law takers all agree that it is the right behavior. But when that law meets a human, or human’s that do not agree with that law or set of laws, what would one suppose would happen then?
So let’s say we have a law that says to all police officers “you must not murder people on the basis of your prejudices and biases. You must look at and treat everyone fairly because we say that is the way we’re supposed to behave.” Or whatever the law happens to say.
So we’re talking about “personal” prejudices, biases, hatreds, etc., where by “personal” we’re referring to the part of a human that is the “internal force” which forever govern’s their behavior. Their programming, their thinking, their thought processes.
So we’re then in effect asking them to use their own “internal force” to be governed by someone else’s “external force” to overcome any of their own rouge “internal forces”, or “shortcomings”.
So we’re say, “here…, use your self-control to internalize an external form of control in order to overcome any lack of self-control”. That is they have to use their internal control to take on the external control as their new internal control. They have to allow themselves to be externally re-programmed, or they have to allow themselves to be changed by a force “outside” of themselves. We’re saying to them “here… internally change yourself using this external tool.” Exactly how effective is such an activity at bringing about the intended true, transformative, and permanent change?
We’re endeavoring to solve an “internal problem”, a problem originating from within us, from within our minds, from within our consciousness, with an entirely “external” solution. No wonder nothing ever “works”. It’s because we’re attempting to solve a problem occurring in one dimension, with a solution from a completely and totally different dimension. We’re coming at it from the wrong direction.
Haven’t we all heard over, and over again, from time immemorial that “true change can only come from within?”
Does it at all feel like we’re just going around, and around, and around, and around repeating the same pattern over, and over, and over again in a spiral down to the bottom? Are we really getting at the root of the problem? Or perhaps, might it finally be time for humanity to go in a direction it has never gone in before in all of its time on this planet?
So when we “reform” we’re just changing the external environment to try to change people’s internal environment. That is, change the way people behave which is very largely due to the way they “think” and therefore “feel”, which is an internal problem. A problem internal to the human being. A crises in our collective consciousness.
We’re not going to the root.
Really deeply and truly why not?
Why can we not just examine the situation as a doctor examines a patient to find out the root cause of what their problem is? Or like a scientist studying a deadly virus or disease of some kind in order understand how to neutralize it? Or observing like a surgeion in the middle of surgery who has a patient who’s life lies in their hand’s. The have to be totally present with the moment in order to ensure that patient lives, and so they must be totally and completley in constant contact with where to apply pressure, and where to remove it in any given moment. Accept the only difference here is that, we’re the patient. We’re operating on ourselves, and we’re doing it blindfolded.