Police brutality is a subject often scrutinized and many times politicized. It is a subject for debate that has perhaps not yet caused a nuclear incursion, but has overwhelmingly outraged communities and caused civil wars among the country’s strong and defiant.

Police brutality not only affects the offenders and victims, it also affects children, the elderly and future social standards. Before deciding on whether police brutality exists, or whether it is an undulation as compared to a rarity, one must take an philosophical look at what defines the phrase, investigate the educational background required of beginning cadets, profoundly analyze the discoveries of what occurred at Stanford University in 1971, and unhurriedly observe examples of brutality that have occurred, but normally are flashed quickly across the evening news.

Defining police brutality takes more than just a dictionary, it requires an in depth look into the actions of law enforcement. “Police brutality is a term used to describe the excessive use of physical force, assault, verbal attacks, and threats by police officers and other law enforcement officers”. This is a good start into defining police brutality, but what about when “Calvin admitted he had sex with a woman in a station break room after she was picked up on a drunk-driving allegation”?

Anyone familiar with this local case can tell you it was an act that occurred while Mr. Calvin was on-duty. This is where police brutality is not defined by the previous statement. This part of police brutality involves a sexual occurrence in which an officer used the power he possessed while on-duty in order to seduce and/or force a victim into committing a sexual act. Police brutality is
When police use excessive or otherwise unwarranted force against an often innocent person…Often times the police department will investigate (oftentimes part of a cover-up) just enough to say they did with no real effort to punish the officers involved, letting them off with a reprimand or a months suspension for what would be a felony for the rest of us.

This is somewhat of a more detailed look into defining police brutality, but offers a biased opinion by suggesting a police department investigation is a ‘cover-up.’ One’s purpose in defining police brutality cannot be to express his/her own opinion, but rather to inform and then allow others to develop their own definition. “This [police brutality] is when police hurt an innocent person for no reason at all”. This is a broad definition, but might actually be the most appropriate. Let us first examine the constant noun of the subject. The word ‘brutality’ means “the state or quality of being ruthless, cruel, harsh, or unrelenting”.

So, looking at ‘police’ as being an adjective that precedes the noun and defining it as ‘law enforcement,’ one could define ‘police brutality’ as being the state or quality of law enforcement being ruthless, cruel, harsh, or unrelenting. Classifying Calvin’s actions as ‘unrelenting,’ this definition is most applicable. Now that we have a clearer understanding or perhaps simply a notation on which to base our opinion upon, we can further examine all aspects involved in police brutality.

One issue to be addressed when determining one’s stance on police brutality is an officer’s required education. Lawyers normally go to school for a Bachelors degree then attend law school for approximately 2-4 years with required internships. However, police officers are generally not required to have more than a high school education. The California Highway Patrol is currently seeking a cadet, the educational requirement is, “High School graduate or equivalent … Equivalent to completion of the 12th grade”. The Seattle Police Department is looking for an entry level officer with, “Proof of high school diploma or certified GED”.

In Phoenix, a cadet must “have fewer than 8 driving violation points, no more than two chargeable accidents, no convictions for DUI and no loss of license within the previous 36 months”. So essentially, around the nation, officers are generally required to have only a high school diploma or its equivalent. However, New York is an exception. The NYPD Cadet Corp is looking for an intern that must “Have at least 45 credits by December 2007 but less than 95 credits”.

So, there is a state in our country that believes education is important to potential recruits into the justice system. Now, where is the comparison between a lawyer’s education and a police officer’s education coming from? Simple, they are both players in the criminal justice system. Judges, like lawyers, are required as to have an extended education. Police officers arrest criminals, lawyers either prosecute or defend them, and judges decide upon punishment. Judges and lawyers have a comprehensive education, yet law enforcement, who are the initial responders and first point of entry into the legal justice system are required to have none. Does this create a problem with the way society views an officer, and if so, does it play a role in actions of law enforcement? Why does the police officer seem to have the lowest educational standard in the criminal justice system?

Let’s look at some educational requirements of cadets local to Arkansas. Jacksonville is currently looking for a police officer that must “Possess a high school diploma” (www.cityofjacksonville.net, 2007). The City of Bryant is looking for an officer that must “meet all requirements on law enforcement standards and training” (www.bentoncourier.com, 2007). Okay, so there is a standard requirement, but still no educational requirement. However the ad continues to read, “Certified officer is $10.80-$11.35 pr hr…uncertified officer $10.54 pr hr” (www.bentoncourier.com, 2007). So putting aside the standard certification requirement could cost a potential recruit a difference of 26 cents an hour. Is that the value placed on a certification? One wonders what value would be placed on a potential recruit with a bachelors’ in criminal justice. Perhaps he would be able to make 50 cents more than an uncertified officer. The importance of examining educational requirements of police officers before developing an opinion of police brutality is this. An officer enforces the laws. Many times, the officer has a number for a citation, and can identify a criminal act and issue a citation for such. However, the officer is never required to have a formal education as to what is contained in the law that he is enforcing. This is a complete oversight of a flawed criminal justice system.

Lawyers and judges spend a great amount of time studying the law and understanding its concepts and repercussions. It is a shortcoming of the system that an officer is placed in the field yet has no idea what the repercussions are for the criminal he is issuing a citation, nor does the officer know how the law he is enforcing reads under the state and federal code. Essentially, the officer knows that the person he is issuing a citation to has done something that he classifies as illegal and the violator must be punished accordingly. Therefore, the badge our communities pledge to the officer empowers him to enforce. However, average social citizens, some with more education than others, under most circumstances, are not entitled to this power regardless of if we see someone committing a criminal act. This flaw leaves much room for an officer to error. Not knowing the law, and being empowered to enforce it can lead one to take advantage of his power; he may accuse and cite a person for performing an illegal act simply based on the supposed violator’s refusal to accept authority, social status, personal conflict, race, mentality, age, etc.

Regardless of if a violator is guilty, innocent, or completely unaware, it always boils down to the fact that the police officer is entitled to power over another whom he believes is a criminal even though his belief may be skewed by several other extenuating circumstances. The power of a badge and gun prevails over any citizen; such power can come with the unrelenting inability to adapt under civilian circumstances. Without knowledge of the law, state code, nor a requirement of social science and ethics, it is virtually impossible to say that entry level cadets have a fair, accurate and intelligent view of the field to which they are entering. Thus, police officers are left to acquire ethic, skill, and knowledge of the law while they are on the streets performing their duties.

An observation into the Stanford experiment of 1971 shows us the evils that having power might entail. The Stanford experiment took place in California and was overseen by Dr. Phil Zimbardo, a renowned author and psychologist. To set up the experiment, Zimbardo’s team placed an ad in the newspaper seeking male college students to volunteer for a project in which they would be compensated. After conducting diagnostic tests and interviews with more than 70 applicants, Zimbardo’s team found 24 students that qualified to participate in the experiment.

The participants began the study as normal, average, middle-class, healthy students. Zimbardo’s team first randomly divided the participants into two groups. One group was to play the role of the prison guards and the other group was to play the role of the prisoners. Then, Zimbardo set up his experimental prison to appear just as a real prison, including such places as, “the Yard,” and “the Hole.” Steel bars were put in placed on lab rooms to simulate an actual jail cell.

It then came time for the prisoners to be brought in. The volunteers, unsuspecting of what they had signed up for, were picked up by an officer at their home, made to spread eagle for a search, and handcuffed. All of this took place in front of their friends, family, and neighborhood. Once the prisoners were arrested and brought back to the experimental jail, they were deloused to assure no germs were being brought into the prison, and strip searched to assure no weapons or drugs were being brought into the prison.

The prisoners were then given actual uniforms with their ID numbers and made to wear a chain around their ankles. The time then came for the prisons guards to enter the experiment and maintain order in the prison. The guards were given no specific training and asked only to maintain law and order in the prison. They were given khaki guard uniforms, a whistle, and a billy club (night stick) for in order to perform their duties. The guards rotated shifts and wore sunglasses to cover their eyes so that the prisoners not see any emotion being expressed.

By day two of the experiment, the prison guards, with their newfound power, broke into the prisoners cells with a cold blast of carbon dioxide from a nearby fire extinguisher in response to a rebellion played out by the prisoners. To further punish the prisoners, the guards proceeded to strip them all naked and force the leader into “the Hole.” The guards forced the prisoners to urinate and defecate in buckets if they needed to do so after “lock-up” time.

Within thirty-six hours of the experiment, one prisoner began suffering from emotional distress and was let out of the experiment for his obvious inability to tolerate such conditions. Soon after, the guards punished the prisoners again for a benign rumor of a prison break. This time, the guards made their prisoners repeatedly clean their toilet with their bare hands, and perform push-ups and jumping jacks for extended periods of time. When one prisoner refused to eat, the guards put him in solitary confinement for an excess of three hours, and when that did not work, they left him in there all night. The guards had initially decided that prisoners would only serve one hour at a time in solitude, but soon, their power over the prisoners prevailed and they believed they were above the rules. They commanded the prisoner to stay in solitude all night long.

Dr. Zimbardo was forced to intervene at this point and take the prisoner out of solitude and return him to his cell. In the following days, the guards dramatically increased their abuse towards the prisoners out of mere boredom. For entertainment purposes, the guards subjected the prisoners to both pornographic and degrading abuse. The prisoners were marching, with hands on each other’s shoulders and bags over their heads, performing a toilet run. The guards, even though allowed by Zimbardo to work in shifts, worked overtime in order to accomplish ‘peace’ in their prison. However, the guards were causing anything but peace in the mock prison. Zimbardo’s experiment was out-of-hand and outsiders were demanding he discontinue the torture of these students. By the fifth night, Dr. Zimbardo was forced to end his experiment entirely. The two-week experiment ended on day six.

The Stanford experiment set out to examine life inside of a prison with a focus of what goes on the in the mind of a prisoner. It ended in a complete annihilation of innocent college students. Moreover, the experiment showed what can happen when normal, healthy, ordinary students are given power.

The Stanford experiment closely relates to what occurs in police brutality. The guards in the experiment began as healthy young college students, as are many new recruits into law enforcement. Then, they were given power, just as cadets are given the power to enforce the law. Soon, the power overwhelmed the guards into believing they were above the rules. This is much like police officers whom see themselves over the very law that they enforce.

The experiment even went so far as to show the power figures engaging in abuse merely for entertainment purposes. How many times have you seen an officer speed by you on the interstate just to get where he was going faster? If it was in the line of duty, he would have his lights on. Lastly, like the guards who were given their billy clubs, police officers are given a gun, mace, and a night stick. A gun possesses an unquestionable amount of power. An individual who has a gun is likely the individual who succeeds, not necessarily because he is right, but because he possesses the most power. Now think about carrying a gun around with the power to enforce laws over another for eight hours a day. This, essentially, is what police officers do day in and day out, not just for six days of a supervised experiment. The Stanford experiment proved that possessing power of another alters one’s attitude and personality and defies personal morals.

At the heart of police brutality are the actual incidents. Incidents can be seen daily flashed over television screens and portrayed in all aspects of media.

Let us first look at the Calvin incident referenced above. “Calvin admitted he had sex with a woman in a station break room after she was picked up on a drunk-driving allegation” (www.katv.com , 2005). While this may not be considered physical police brutality, it still consists of police abuse in that it is an abuse of power. Mr. Calvin, while on-duty, and receiving pay and benefits coming from the American citizen’s tax dollars, unable to control his sexual urges, felt compelled to act them out with a female who was obviously in an obscured disposition, being intoxicated and in trouble. Many argued this case as being consensual and not judiciable. Many blamed the victim of the assault as being responsible just as much as Mr. Calvin.

This is simply not the entirety of the case. Not only was Mr. Calvin having sex while on the taxpayer’s dollars, but he was setting precedence for the officers also in the police station on the night the act was committed. This opens the door for the community to wonder what else these officers have time to do while on their shift. It leads one to wonder what crimes in the city were being committed while this incident occurred. Does this police department deserve and increase in city taxes to raise funds for more policeman, better cars, and larger jails? This act questions the officer’s moral fiber. How would you feel if you received a speeding ticket from this officer thirty minutes before he went to his break room and had sex? Was his judgment in giving you a speeding ticket impaired by his urge to have sex? He was a 17-year police veteran.

How many other judgments were skewed by his sexual desires? The entire act committed by a respected veteran leaves room for any offender he has ever convicted to turn the table on his judgment. Then, the victim, obviously intoxicated, probably scared of what a drinking conviction might do to her, probably naïve, perhaps young, was violated by someone who, at the time, was superior to her. He was the authority to which she was to obey and respect. Perhaps she thought she could get out of her conviction. Perhaps she honestly thought his command was one she had to obey at the moment. Perhaps she was in a state of mind where she felt the time and place were right. Any excuse given by the victim, in no way, makes Officer Calvin’s actions right. The entire incident goes to show the community, who respected the officer, what goes on in the mind of a police officer who is given power over another; Calvin believed he also had power over the law.

Moving on to a national look at police brutality, let us examine a more recognizable incident involving police brutality.

Americans are so intimidated by police that on February 19 of this year, male customers in a Chicago bar stood aside while a drunk cop weighing 251 pounds beat a 115 pound barmaid, knocking her to the floor with his fists and repeatedly kicking her, for obeying the bar rules and not serving him more drinks

This is yet another example of not just police brutality, but police abusing power. The officer was drunk, and presumably off-duty. However, carrying his badge and gun on a daily basis and holding authority to command others obviously played a role in his decision to beat a barmaid. When he sat down in the bar and decided to drink, he refused to acknowledge that the establishment, who at the time was represented by the barmaid, had authority over him. Instead, he abused the power given to him while on-duty, and used it in order act out his frustrations on a barmaid that refused his off-duty command to serve him more alcohol. Let us think about this.

The power of an on-duty cop is to use force when force is needed. This officer, off-duty, used excessive force when force was absolutely not needed. Again, this action opens the door to this officer’s credibility when it comes to using force at all. If he is unable to let go of the power of being a police officer after his shift is over, what other violations might he be committing outside of work? Now let us look at the victim in this case. A 115 pound barmaid, perhaps young, perhaps financially burdened, was brutally beat for obeying the rules of her employer. Any man that places physical force on a woman is viewed in society as a coward, even if the woman is the same height and weight as her attacker. In this instance, the officer more than doubled the weight of the victim. To make matters worse, he was an officer sworn to protect and serve.

Coward is a mild word to use for this officer’s actions. Now on to the bystanders in this incident who sat around and watched while this woman was beaten. It is well-known that victims of domestic abuse are often blamed for their own abuse. It is also common that bystanders to domestic abuse do not act in accordance to protect the victim. However, in this instance, bystanders did not act to protect this victim because she was being victimized by a police officer. This failure to act can only come from one conclusion. Police have abused power to the extent that communities are scared to act in defense of one of their own private citizens. Why is this? Is it for fear of reprisal?

Let us look at a list of complaints in 2004-2005 upheld by the Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority and compare them with the action taken by the police chief in response to such complaints.

Out of twenty-six incidents, twenty-four were discharged with no discipline and/or counseling or coaching. One complaint was discharged with an oral reprimand and the other a letter of reprimand. Out of the twenty-six complaints the community agency upheld as valid, and judicable, the police chief found fifteen of them disagreeable. Minneapolis obviously felt compelled to initiate an agency to review citizen complaints placed upon law enforcement in its area. However, it was ultimately the police chief’s decision of whether or not to take action against the officers. Instead, it appears the chief found it upon his self to simply disregard most of the complaints, and extend no discipline on rest. This is yet another example of abuse of power by the police.

Nature provides us all to protect our own, especially when it comes to children and family. In this instance, as well as many others voiced around the country, the police chief protected his own by way of letting his staff go unpunished for community complaints. It is well known in casual conversation with off-duty officers that many of them and their wives are often released from speeding tickets, and/or driving misdemeanors simply because they work close to one another and do not want the repercussions of a partner holding hostility against another officer during the line of duty. At best that trait can be considered a widely-stretched version of camaraderie. However, if our local police departments face no consequences for their unlawful actions, whether on the road, or on the job, then what is it that holds them back from having sex in the break room or beating a barmaid?

Physical police brutality pollutes media airwaves on a continuing basis.
In NYC, Sean Bell, a 23-year old unarmed man, was killed by NYPD with 50 shots on the morning of his wedding day. Since then, at least ten more people have been killed by NYPD. Kathryn Johnston, a 92-year old grandmother, was shot and killed by undercover Atlanta police in her own home. A Pittsburgh police officer pulled a gun on 7-year old Joshalyn Lawton when he approached the window of the passenger side of her mother’s car during a routine traffic stop for an outdated inspection sticker.

Not only are these examples stunning, but they involve victims considered feeble and innocent, such as the young child and grandmother. The first two instances involve the New York police department which has shown to require more education than other police departments around the country. “In Baltimore, police arrested 7-year-old Gerard Mungo, Jr., handcuffed him, and interrogated him on charges of riding a motorized dirt bike on a sidewalk”. How would you feel if this was your child? Obviously, outrage is not enough.

Cohen and Police Chief Manuel Cachopa were indicted earlier this month on charges stemming from three-year-old allegations involving a business debt. Timothy A. Hillis, a Canton man, alleged Cohen tried to pressure him into paying the money and then falsely arrested him, claims Cohen denied.

One question, why did the Chief of Police have three-year-old allegations? Why was he allowed to be in a position of authority when he had a pending criminal suit?

“An affidavit says Bishop (a Union officer) brandished a handgun in front of his wife and the couple’s children on August 22nd and also threatened to kill her”. You have to wonder and can probably assume the handgun the officer brandished in front of his family was probably one furnished by the state at the cost of taxpayers.

According to the PBDP report, Jones had picked up a woman at her work place on an outstanding warrant and took her to Pine Bluff District Court. After her hearing, the woman asked Jones to take her back to work. Instead, according to the arrest warrant, he took her to a remote area near a railroad yard, restrained her and had “deviant” sex with her.

This is another officer sex case in Arkansas. What is left for this community to believe in where their tax dollars are going? Is this case strong enough to scare a prospective offender from pulling to the side when blue lights are behind her?
“A Clute police officer suspected of stealing cocaine from the department’s evidence locker was arrested at the station while on duty…the patrol officer … has been a law enforcement officer for 11 years”. Wow! Eleven years of thievery can accumulate quite a bit for his bond.
“A former Hughes County deputy who was fired after being accused of molesting four teenage boys…”. This is yet another example of an officer using his power over the young and feeble minds of teenagers. Children are taught to rely on the police when they are lost, in trouble and/or afraid. This officer abused not only his power, but skewed social morals that parents have depended on for decades.

Reporting incidents of police brutality can go on and on. Essentially, one must look inward in order to develop his/her own opinion and perspective of this cursed action. There are many personal instances that can affect one’s vision of officers going overboard. Then, there are instances in which one might be a part of the masquerade and never subjected to the nightmare of corruption. As a citizen, it is important to recognize all factors of law enforcement and to take a deep, unbiased view of the community and its victims.

There is a strong need for victims’ advocate groups as well as community law enforcement monitoring programs. We are all monitored at work in one way or another, by a boss, by a client, or perhaps even by a family member. There is absolutely no harm in law enforcement agencies being monitored by someone other than themselves. By personally defining police brutality, examining the educational requirements of various entry-level cadets around the country, understanding the in-depth lessons learned through the experiment conducted at Stanford University in 1971, and focusing on the brief media flashes of incidents occurring time and time again, one can better understand and develop strategies to not only prevent its brutal occurrence, but also stand up, act, and reform the conditions in which allow it to exist.