First, there was the Miami Model at the G20.
Then there's Stockwell Day wanting to build more prisons even though crime is going down.
Both of these seem politically motivated. But what's the motivation?
Arresting/imprisoning more people systematically increases the chances of arresting/imprisoning more innocent people, which is detrimental to the establishment's credibility. It also damages the general public's trust in authority figures, which doesn't seem like something governments would want to do. (Since the G20, if I see a cop car while innocently walking down my own street on the way to my good sensible job, my shields go up and I'm automatically looking for escape routes. How is this more beneficial than my previous reaction of not caring one way or the other?) I'd also imagine that governments and authority figures would want people to report any crimes they might encounter (it certainly seems Stockwell Day does), but not being able to trust the police makes this less likely. (In the aftermath of the G20, there were people who kept saying that if you don't like the police, you shouldn't go calling them next time you have an emergency. The truth of the matter is now I wouldn't even consider calling them unless the threat I faced was worse than being detained for 36 hours with insufficient water, no toilet paper, and people trying to stick their fingers into you.)
They must think they're achieving something by arresting/imprisoning more people. What do they think they're achieving?
This also got me thinking about the impact on workers and the economy. More prisons probably means more jobs as prison guards, which sounds good at first glance but seems like the sort of thing that would be rather soul-destroying as a job. But then I got to thinking that the very thing that makes it soul-destroying might make it not as good for the economy as other types of jobs. I don't know enough economics to say this for certain, but here's my thinking:
Most jobs create something and/or facilitate the movement of money (which, as I understand it, is what constitutes economic activity). In my job, I create English documents. When I'm done my work, there are English documents where there were no English documents before. The salespeople at the store don't create much, but they do get money from my wallet into the store's coffers, to then be used to pay suppliers and employees and ultimately make the economy flow.
But a prison guard doesn't create anything and doesn't help money move. They just guard the prisoners. So suppose they repurposed a bunch of laid-off auto workers as prison guards. Now, instead of creating something (making cars where there were no cars before) that will become a part of the economy (being sold, requiring gas and insurance and parking, etc.), they're doing something economically dead-end.) Would that be detrimental to the economy as a whole?
26 comments:
Oh boy. There's political motivation, ideological motivation, and greed motivation.
The political motivation is to appeal to people who think "tough on crime" policies will bring crime rates down and keep them safe. There's also the "fear factor", that if people are afraid of crime and believe the government will keep them safe they'll give the government a longer leash (ie. Patriot Act).
I tweeted to you that I believe we are a throwaway society. If animals or people have problems, or are inconvenient, our society is more likely to put them down or away - out of sight, out of mind. Nevermind that the factors that cause animal overpopulation, or criminal behaviour (poverty, disenfranchisement, racism), can be addressed but are not, so the cycle begins again.
Therein lies the ideological aspect. People with conservative ideologies generally don't acknowledge that social factors contribute to criminal activity, whereas people with progressive ideologies are more likely to address these problems.
Then there's the profit motive. There's big money to be made in locking people up - if the institution housing them is privately or corporately owned. This was touched upon in Michael Moore's "Capitalism, a Love Story" but it is happening in Canada too. The secure detention/treatment facility I volunteer at is part of the private sector, not public sector.
I don't understand how people can feel safer if they're building more prisons when crime is down, especially after the G20.
And I don't understand why prisons for profit are allowed. Just the thought makes me want to run and hide and take a shower.
Most people came away from the G20 afraid of protesters, not police. I'm saddened that people would be afraid of either but I've had lots of experience with both so for me there is no "us" and "them".
The protesters are myself, friends, fellow alumni, etc. The police are my Dad, my godfather, my cousin, my uncle, and the people I grew up around. Emphasis on people.
Depending on which side of the fence people fall on, the other side is dehumanized. In this case the majority of people being dehumanized are the protesters, "criminals". That's why fear works. In your case it's working in the opposite direction, but the fear still exists.
Imagine some politician came along and offered to keep cops off the streets. You wouldn't have to look at them, interact with them, be exposed to them. You'd probably feel safer because being in their presence makes you feel unsafe - whether you are or not. Same goes for the people who feel that way about criminals.
*When I say most people came away from the G20 I mean most of the public came away with that impression, not the people who were actually present. That was poorly worded, sorry.
Actually, removing all the cops (especially if it were an announced policy) wouldn't make me feel safer either. At the moment I feel unsafe when I see cops on the street (especially when they're carrying big bundles of those plastic handcuff things!) and I feel they're currently the biggest threat, but in general I can't protect myself from anyone and I need the police to protect me from other people who want to hurt me. It is a bit self-contradictory, but ultimately what I need to feel safe is to fix the police, not eliminate them.
Does having police officers in your family give you any information on how we can be safe from them, like how we can avoid being rounded up when we're innocently going about our business, or de-escalate a situation that police are trying to escalate, or not get beaten or sexually assaulted if we have an encounter with them?
That's a bit like asking if knowing Muslims can keep you safe in an Al Quaeda terrorist attack. The answer to both is no.
I don't see police officers and assume/fear that they're going to assault me and violate my rights.
Any time there is a distinction made between "us" and "them", no matter who "they" are, the other group get dehumanized and stereotyped. It's easy to fear "them" and that fear is the political motivation behind putting more of "them" aka so-called criminals in prison.
It's all about public perception, generating fear and how best to use that to their advantage while manipulating it to suit their ideology.
That's a bit like asking if knowing Muslims can keep you safe in an Al Quaeda terrorist attack. The answer to both is no.
I don't know if this analogy is entirely apt. I think it would be more apt to say would knowing people who have been through Al Qaeda training camps help you avoid getting caught in terrorist attacks. I'm thinking police training and internal culture is a factor
I don't see police officers and assume/fear that they're going to assault me and violate my rights.
And I didn't either, until Queen & Spadina happened. After Queen & Spadina, I can't see any other possible interpretation.
Are you able to articulate what it is you see or know that I don't that eliminates this fear, even though you've seen and heard what happened at Queen & Spadina just as much as I have?
In any case, I have another blog post on tap about this (I'll try to get it up within the next couple of days), but humanization is basically the core of what I'm going for. I'm trying to figure out what I have to do to get police officers to see me as a human being.
Ironically, before the G20 happened, they were totally humanized to me. I read a lot of police procedurals, so I just saw them as people with normal human judgement trying to do their jobs. Then the G20 happened, and I see a bunch of scary automatons with no sense of humanity. So now I'm walking down the street and I see a police uniform, and I have no way of knowing if it's Officer Bubbles or that nice mounted policeman that let me pet his horse. But, until I have some evidence to the contrary, I have to assume it's Officer Bubbles, just like how you have to assume you aren't safe getting into a car with a strange man until he proves otherwise.
All of which circles back to the original question: what is gained politically by creating a context that dehumanizes the police to the public like this?
I don't know if this analogy is entirely apt. I think it would be more apt to say would knowing people who have been through Al Qaeda training camps help you avoid getting caught in terrorist attacks. I'm thinking police training and internal culture is a factor
Hmm. Fair enough. The only difference is people who have been through terrorist training camps are being trained to kill, it is their intent to kill.
Men and women don't join police services because they want to harm people. In Halton there is rigorous psychological testing that candidates must pass to advance in the recruiting process. I'm sure there's a small margin of error with the test results but outside of that bullies and rage-oholics don't make the cut.
That said there are definitely different cultures in different police services and Metro has a reputation for being heavy-handed. Peel, last I heard, was on a work to rule campaign, and Halton is just Halton.
Are you able to articulate what it is you see or know that I don't that eliminates this fear, even though you've seen and heard what happened at Queen & Spadina just as much as I have?
Honestly it's just perception. Most police aren't brutal, most criminals aren't worthless. There is no "us" and there is no "them". We're the same in our humanity.
I totally understand why you're uncomfortable - the analogy I was trying to make was that people who support "tough on crime" politicians are also uncomfortable and don't feel safe. The difference is they feel threatened by criminals and you feel threatened by police.
If as a society we lose sight of the fact that everyone is a human being it's much easier to instill fear in the public and manipulate them.
All of which circles back to the original question: what is gained politically by creating a context that dehumanizes the police to the public like this?
Politically there is more to be gained by dehumanizing criminals.
Re your original question, conservatives everywhere win points by appearing to be "tough on crime" and labelling liberals weak on crime. "Tough on crime" in some cultures is a code word for racist, anti-immigrant, anti-counter-culture - whatever applies and appeals to conservative, usually white, often rural voters.
I do think many people go into law enforcement in order to hurt people. They may not conceive of it that way, but they enjoy authority, enjoy the uniform, believe that society is too lax and they can help enforce order.
Private sector does not necessarily mean for-profit. The nonprofit world is mostly private sector. D/S, is the facility you volunteer with non-profit or for-profit?
One of my problems with this conversation is the distinction between police and "criminals". Almost none of the people arrested and brutalized during the G20 demos had committed any criminal act. We're not talking about police vs criminals, we're talking about police vs citizens peacefully exercising their rights.
I have two family members who are cops, both good people who try hard and mean well. It has not changed my opinion of the police and their intentions at all - still very negative.
But I do believe there is us and them - it's very much how I see the world. Us being the people who want peace and justice, they being the people who don't. So I'm coming from a very different perspective.
I do think many people go into law enforcement in order to hurt people. They may not conceive of it that way, but they enjoy authority, enjoy the uniform, believe that society is too lax and they can help enforce order.
That's really interesting to me. A police service is a para-military organization so the rank and file don't have any authority. Or autonomy. I'm surprised because you know so many people who entered the actual military with good intentions.
Policing in the states is very different from policing in Canada, the cultures are different, the recruiting is different, the compensation is different. Police in the states are notoriously underpaid for the work they do. Police in Canada typically have very good salaries and benefits - lots of incentive to choose policing as a career path that don't exist in the states, overall anyway.
Just as many of the people rounded up and held captive at the G20 didn't commit any crimes, many of the police on duty that day did not commit any act of brutality.
My point has not been to make distinctions between criminals and police, only to illustrate that one group can easily dehumanize the other and it behooves certain people to do so. I have a problem with sweeping generalizations.
Individuals in the justice system and individuals in a police service are still individuals.
As easily as a Torontonian can look at the events of the G20 and take away a negative impression of all police, so can police take away negative experiences (ie being assaulted on duty, which happens often) and form negative opinions of a group of people. Neither is correct.
The institution I volunteer at used to be government run and they sold it off - so yes it's for profit. It's Kinark Child and Family Services. Its only client is the government http://www.kinark.on.ca/pdf/120280%202010%20MAR%2031%20FS.pdf
The only related non-profits I am aware of are the John Hopkins Society and maybe some group homes? Detention centers are never non-profit. Nobody would donate to them. Very few people want to volunteer at them.
The only difference is people who have been through terrorist training camps are being trained to kill, it is their intent to kill.
I wasn't thinking at all of the training and intent. I was thinking more about how knowing someone who's into something can give you insight into how that something works. Growing up with my father taught me how to deal with crotchety sysadmins. If you guys happen to read my translation posts, you might be better equipped to give useful answers if a translator ever calls you up at work asking seemingly-bizarre questions, or to write a document that's eventually going to be translated.
Private sector does not necessarily mean for-profit. The nonprofit world is mostly private sector
Why would a non-profit run a prison? I can't imagine how they'd arrive there.
I have two family members who are cops, both good people who try hard and mean well.
Does this give you any insight into how we can be safer around police?
A number of the other threads of discussion here tie in with another upcoming post (the one on deprovocation that I haven't posted yet, not the one I just posted) so I'm going to pick them up there.
Why would a non-profit run a prison? I can't imagine how they'd arrive there.
No, not a prison, I agree. But treatment facilities, group homes, halfway houses, and such, may be run by private sector companies, but are not necessarily for-profit. There's a huge distinction there.
I have two family members who are cops, both good people who try hard and mean well.
Does this give you any insight into how we can be safer around police?
No, unfortunately. They both tout the usual lines about how difficult it is for the cops, how they're in a no-win situation, and so on. They would both say if you don't want to be hurt protesting, don't protest.
One is a cousin, the other is a nephew. I steer clear of many topics with them because of their jobs.
I wish I could offer you something concrete that would help you feel safer around police. My comfort stems from my experience and my perception which is very much shaped by yoga and Buddhist philosophies.
In general I choose not to be fearful. I don't lock my apartment door. I've given strangers rides to the train station. My family, and most of my friends find this foolish - I won't be offended if you do too!
I haven't always been this way. I grew up in Burlington and still lived there when Leslie Mahaffey was missing, and then found. When I was thirteen (old enough to be left alone with my younger brother when my parents went out for the evening) I would answer the front door with a kitchen knife concealed behind the door, in my right hand. Fear is a very powerful thing, if you let it be.
To bring this all back to your original question it's fear of "criminals" that the government is counting on, touting a tough on crime stance in hopes of gaining popular support and votes.
Look forward to your next post!
It always amazes me when people can choose how they feel. I've heard enough people state it as fact that I know some people can actually do it, but I can't choose to feel or not to feel something any more than I can choose how fast my hair grows.
(Although I always lock my door even if I'm not afraid ever since that one time in res when a drunken girl walking by in the hallway managed to trip and fall into my room.)
LOL! As I said, I wasn't always this way. And it's not like a light switch. When something happens (like the G20) I have a very visceral emotional reaction for a day or so, then it subsides and normalcy resumes. I went through a therapy process last summer to address some other issues and the CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) model shows that our feelings are the direct product of our automatic thoughts. We all have a narrative and if we can change that, we can change our emotional response. The CBT model is event--->thoughts (interpretation of the event, your "truth")--->feelings.
DS, since locking your door takes almost no time, and could protect you from very serious harm, why wouldn't you do it, even though you don't feel fearful?
I am not fearful. But I wear a seat belt, wear a helmet if I'm on a motorcycle or bike, lock my door, and take other simple precautions that keep me safer. If I had sex with a stranger, I'd use a condom, not because of fear, but because of reality and reducing risk.
I wonder why people associate these things with fear, rather than common sense.
Also, I hope if you give rides to strangers, you never give a ride to a man, and never, ever, in the US, where guns are so prevalent. Statistically, it is one of the most dangerous things you can do.
I think CBT and learning to control our responses can be very helpful. But I also think that is different than changing our feelings - our gut reactions.
I don't lock my door because nobody's coming in.
The rides I gave to two ladies on two separate occasions - one a woman who knocked on my car window desperate to get to work in Toronto during the blackout, and one who asked me (while I was standing beside my car) how to get to the train station because she was new to Oakville (she was actually asking me which bus to take there) were given out of kindness, because it was easy to see myself being in a similar predicament. I do for others what I hope they would do for me. The woman asking about the bus was almost in tears she was so grateful - not because she didn't have to take the bus, but because somebody she didn't know went our of her way for her. She kept saying she couldn't believe it, that nobody had been that kind to her since she was in the Maritmes.
I wear a seatbelt, I don't have unprotected sex (that's an extreme comparison imo) but I don't wear a helmet when I'm biking. I still bike with dogs after numerous accidents, one of which was significant enough to bend the handlebars of my bike. I still foster kittens even though a previous foster litter gave a parasite to my own cats which made them terribly sick.
If I avoided everything that I'd had a negative experience with I'd never do anything.
Risk is inherent in everything, every day. Anything could happen at any time. To me "safety" is an illusion. I'm going to die, I'm probably going to get hurt many times before that happens. Nothing is going to change that, so I choose to go about my life not worrying about it. Dwelling on it or worrying about it won't change or prevent it, so it's wasted energy. People worry about things that will never happen. The thing that does eventually happen will probably be the one you never saw coming. The guy who assaulted me in an act of road rage last month is a good example of that. But I don't get nervous every time I see a white guy with a beard in a sedan in my rearview mirror.
I respectfully disagree with your thoughts on CBT. Identifying automatic thoughts, and challenging them, does indeed change gut reactions. Gut reactions (biases and interpretations) are not to be confused with intuition. If every single fibre of your being is telling you something is terribly wrong about a situation, it probably is, and you need to get yourself out of asap.
We can choose our thoughts and by doing so choose how we see the world, and the people in it. It takes time and practice to undo years of programming - it's not like flipping a light switch, but it's one of the most liberating things I've ever experienced. If I can choose not to be in a semi-constant state of fear, or anger, which are consuming, exhausting emotions and not generally helpful or productive, then that's the choice for me.
I know some people think anger is useful, I find compassion just as motivating and waaay less toxic.
If I avoided everything that I'd had a negative experience with I'd never do anything.
Absolutely. I'm a risk-taker, and I also push myself to do things I'm afraid of, so I certainly know that.
And I'm the first one to tell you safety is an illusion. I say and write that all the time. We all have to do certain things to *feel* safe - and there are some simple ways we can make ourselves safer and prolong good, happy lives.
Risk, of course, is not only about death. Few of us would choose to become paraplegics or be raped. Those situations are both survivable, but not what we'd choose.
Unprotected sex is actually not an extreme example. Statistically, your chances of being seriously hurt by not wearing a seatbelt or a helmet are far greater than by contracting disease through unprotected heterosexual (or female homosexual) sex. That risk has been blown all out of proportion, IMO.
In any case, I'm very glad to know the people you gave rides to were women. I will do that frequently without a second thought.
I'm sorry about the door lock. None of the women who have been raped by people who first jiggled the door handle, then walked right in, ever thought someone was coming in either. It's such a simple precaution, and could mean so much.
Re CBT, I wasn't making the distinction between gut reaction and intuition. I guess what I'm talking about is intuition. I'll have to think more about the difference between the two. Thanks for that.
Also:
If I can choose not to be in a semi-constant state of fear, or anger,
I've never experienced this, except in relation to outright trauma (PTSD).
I do experience anger, and I think it's a healthy, realistic emotion, but it's just an emotion, it doesn't overwhelm me or control my life. I almost never experience fear (again, except through PTSD, and that's outside "normal" experience).
So I think we're coming from such totally different places that they are not comparable.
For you, this is about releasing yourself from debilitating emotions that were holding you back, keeping you unhappy. That's a brilliant thing to learn - so liberating, as you said. Very important.
For me, locking my door (just using that as an for example) doesn't come laden with any fear or anger. It's like clicking a seatbelt - it's nothing, I don't give it another thought. I don't lock my door because I'm afraid, anymore than I brush my teeth because I'm afraid.
While you find it necessary and important to get rid of anger and fear by controlling your thoughts, I would no sooner get rid of them than I would laughter. For me, they're just part of the spectrum of emotions I feel - not harmful, certainly not exhausting in any way (more often they are energizing), not dangerous, just my natural human reaction that I'm fine with.
I don't know if that makes sense. My point is that I think our basic outlook about emotions like anger or fear is coloured by very different experiences of them, and the very different effects those emotions have had on our lives.
Anyway, many thanks to Imp Strump for letting us chat this way here!
I still bike with dogs after numerous accidents, one of which was significant enough to bend the handlebars of my bike.
Does biking with dogs mean the dog is on the bike, or on a leash running beside the bike?
Re: door-locking, seatbelts, etc. - I find that once I do any precaution for some time, it becomes routine and is no longer motivated by fear, or anything other than muscle memory.
For example, when Paul Bernardo was loose, one thing they drilled into us is that you shouldn't walk close enough to the road for passing cars to grab you. And we were very careful about that, because the threat was very much real. (Kim, maybe you got the same thing?) To this day, if a car slows down while driving near me, I take a step away from the curb. But there's no fear in the act, no thought whatsoever about whether I'm about to get abducted. It's completely automatic.
It will be interesting to see what happens to my newfound distrust of police in that respect. Decades from now, will I (and others who feel the same) still be looking for escape routes when we see a police car? My grandmother once told me a story of how she put her baby down for a nap in a pram on the front lawn, and tied the dog to the pram to guard the baby. (The thought never crossed her mind that the dog might chase a squirrel or something and pull the baby with it.) Will my story of having once pet a police horse sound similarly ridiculous in the future?
Does biking with dogs mean the dog is on the bike, or on a leash running beside the bike?
The dogs are on a leash which is attached to the bike. It's risky, but they love it and I love it, so it's worth the spills. I'm pretty sure I've left my DNA on every street in my parents' neighbourhood. Again I conceed that it's risky, but I've learned from each accident and they very rarely happen now. If they had a breakaway leash I'd buy it in a second, but since it wouldn't be practical for dog walking I don't think they'll invent it. I also manage to wipe out quite spectacularly on my own :P
For example, when Paul Bernardo was loose, one thing they drilled into us is that you shouldn't walk close enough to the road for passing cars to grab you.
I don't recall hearing that, but my friends and I were all extremely worried and extremely cautious: we never walked alone, never after dark, etc. etc. We talked more about it amongst ourselves than we did with our parents, although some of my friends' parents did buy them personal alarms to carry. I asked my Dad for pepper spray and he said no. snort.
I'm a risk-taker, and I also push myself to do things I'm afraid of.
I do know that. It's one of the many things I love and admire about you.
They would both say if you don't want to be hurt protesting, don't protest.
I can't stand that reasoning. If you want civil rights, don't exercise them... riiiight. And things will magically improve on their own. And I'm riding a unicorn to your party next weekend!
None of the women who have been raped by people who first jiggled the door handle, then walked right in, ever thought someone was coming in either.
Are there statistics for that? The odds seem miniscule at most, especially living in an apartment... how would they know who's inside? I feel I'm much more likely to be attacked when I'm out with my dogs. Even under those circumstances though, I don't know. Assailants usually go the path of least resistance/attention. Trying to grab someone with two dogs would be tricky at best.
My grandmother once told me a story of how she put her baby down for a nap in a pram on the front lawn, and tied the dog to the pram to guard the baby.
My Nan took pictures of my Mom as an infant being guarded by their Samoyed. Knowing your background is English, as mine is, maybe there's something to that? Staffordshire Terriers are known as "nanny dogs" in England...
Will my story of having once pet a police horse sound similarly ridiculous in the future?
Why would that be?
Re: door-locking, seatbelts, etc. - I find that once I do any precaution for some time, it becomes routine and is no longer motivated by fear, or anything other than muscle memory.
I agree, and for me, locking the door when I'm inside and putting on a seatbelt never came with any fear at all. I was taught to do these things as a child, similar (as I mentioned) to brushing my teeth.
I don't have stats on push-in/ break-in rapes. I only know that in my work around sexual assault, most women I knew who survived stranger assaults (as opposed to rape by someone they knew - date, husband, teacher) were raped in their own homes. These often involved the perpetrator walking in through an unlocked door.
How does the perpetrator know who lives where? By surreptitiously watching in advance. It can't be that hard to do.
Again, a locked door for me is just common sense, not fear-based.
I agree you are pretty safe outside with your dogs. In fact, the presence of your dogs inside might keep you much safer than a locked door!
I look forward to meeting your unicorn next weekend! :)
(Yes, that "reasoning" on rights is full o' shit.)
The dogs are on a leash which is attached to the bike
That sounds enormously fun! How do you and the dogs communicate to each other which speed to go at?
Staffordshire Terriers are known as "nanny dogs" in England
Wait...so Nana the dog from Peter Pan is, like, REAL??? OMG!
My grandmother didn't have anything that well thought-out. The dog was a small-breed puppy (maybe cocker spaniel?) that she impulse-purchased because it looked cute in the store window, and she just tied it to the pram because she thought it would guard the baby, because, like, she wanted it to. My first thought on hearing this: "But what if the dog decides to chase a squirrel or something?" My grandmother's reply: "You don't think of that when you're only 20 years old!" This was particularly amusing because the conversation took place just days after my 20th birthday.
Will my story of having once pet a police horse sound similarly ridiculous in the future?
Why would that be?
It never occurred to my grandmother, in her youthful naiveté, that the dog might chase a squirrel or do anything other than what she wanted it to, so she tied a dog to a pram without even thinking that it might be a bad idea.
It never occurred to me, in my youthful naiveté, that the police could might a horse at a person or might arrest me even though I wasn't doing anything wrong, so I got closer to the police and their horses without even thinking that it might be a bad idea.
Unless they fix the police, decades from now I might find myself telling this story, and the teenagers listening will likely respond "But what if the police decide to charge their horses or start kettling people?"
Post a Comment