FBI Director Defends "Mass Incarceration"

81.6/3rd

 

How many points does "6" rate?

 

Is the Ferguson Effect real:

President Obama and his FBI director are sparring over whether the so-called “Ferguson Effect” is real, complicating the president’s push to loosen the nation’s sentencing laws.

The dispute could threaten the growing bipartisan momentum behind a criminal justice reform effort that Obama sees as a top second-term priority.

The question of whether police are reluctant to enforce the law because they are afraid of being videotaped has become the subject of fierce debate, as experts struggle to explain an uptick in violent crime in some U.S. cities.

FBI Director James Comey, a Republican, amplified the argument twice over the past week, suggesting anti-police sentiment fueled by the killings of unarmed black men in places such as Ferguson, Mo., has resulted in a crime spike.

“Some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year. And that wind is surely changing behavior,” Comey said in an October 23 speech at the University of Chicago Law School.

Obama pushed back against that idea, arguing the existence of a violent crime wave is not supported by statistics, even while acknowledging rates are up in some major cities.

“We do have to stick with the facts,” Obama told the International Association of Chiefs of Police last Tuesday in Chicago. “What we can't do is cherry-pick data or use anecdotal evidence to drive policy or to feed political agendas.”

Obama, FBI director spar over the 'Ferguson Effect' on police

 

Police should never be afraid to enforce the law because they are afraid of being videotaped. If they're doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide, right?

 

So people who wouldn't otherwise have committed violent crimes are now committing them because police who otherwise would be stopping them are standing down, presumably as the crimes are being committed in their presence? Because how else would their inaction matter? The logic of the overarching point does not withstand even the most cursory of inspections. I'm sure Ferguson has had a dramatic psychological effect on both the law enforcement communities and the communities they serve, but if officers are reacting to Ferguson by saying, "Well, fuck it, I'm not going out of my way to police those ungrateful bastards," that's on them. It's understandable, from a human psyche standpoint, but it's still on them, and it is a dereliction of their sworn duty. And I'm still not sure what connection it has to violent crime: pretty sure the guys who make up the drug, gang and major crimes task forces responsible for combating much of the crime in question are not the kinds of guys likely to allow the threat of a cellphone camera to interrupt their SOP. I have no doubt that Ferguson has eroded some respect for authority -- I know it has for me, personally -- but the suggestion that this pushes people into committing violent crimes that they wouldn't otherwise commit again does not really withstand any degree of critical thought.

On the other hand, Comey's comments about his experiences in Richmond are thought-provoking, and, if they are an accurate representation of the reality of those times, they should certainly be represented in the nationwide conversation we will hopefully be having about making our justice system more fair and effective. That being said, front-line types aren't always the best at seeing the broader picture that exists outside their narrow scope. Reducing crime is an important end, but the process matters. If Comey's Richmond team started arresting everybody they found on the streets after 9 p.m., it would certainly reduce crime and make communities safer. And I'm sure many of the community members who did not end up in jail would appreciate the program. But what if it meant that 10 percent of those arrested and jailed were fast food workers heading home from their closing shifts? Frankly, Comey's logic when extended to the extreme is the kind that ends up being used by those justifying ethnic cleansing programs. The mass incarceration "problem" lies in the nonviolent offenders who never would have gone on to become part of the violent crime epidemic who happened to get swept up along with the real menaces to society (and, in many cases, end up turning into just such menaces in jail). It's a fascinating and complex problem that is not nearly as simple as those that make for good speeches.

 

The nation's top drug enforcement official said Wednesday that FBI Director James Comey was "spot on'' when he recently offered the controversial assessment that violent crime surges in some cities may be linked to police officers' reluctance to engage suspects.

"I think there is something to it,'' Drug Enforcement Administration chief Chuck Rosenberg told reporters, referring to the so-called "Ferguson-effect'' in which police have been reportedly hesitant to act for fear of prompting the kind of civil unrest that engulfed Ferguson, Mo., last year. "I think (Comey) was spot on.''

Comey's remarks during appearances last month in Chicago put the FBI director at odds with some in law enforcement and the White House, which indicated that existing evidence did not support such a claim.

"I will say that the available evidence at this point does not support the notion that law enforcement officers around the country are shying away from fulfilling their responsibilities,'' White House spokesman Josh Earnest said last week. "On the contrary, I think you’ve seen a lot of local law enforcement leaders indicate that police officers and sheriffs and other local law enforcement officials are actually dedicated public servants who on a daily basis are putting their lives on the line to serve and protect the communities that they’re assigned to.''

DEA chief: Comey 'spot on' linking Ferguson impact to crime surge

 

Hypothetical: Say a video shows cops doing their job exactly by the book. But an op-ed claims they were profiling. Then, despite clear evidence they did nothing wrong, a bunch of dipshits on the Internet support the idea that the cops did, in fact, do something wrong.

 

In your hypothetical, dipshits on the Internet are still dipshits on the Internet and their opinions have no bearing on what is or isn't factually accurate. Having a louder voice, or a Twitter handle, doesn't automatically mean one is worth listening to.

 

Not being worth listening to doesn't mean you won't, in fact, be listened to.

 

Truth is still truth, regardless of what the Internet lynch mob does before it moves to its next shiny object.

 

While that is indeed the truth, it is also true that the Internet lynch mob can inflict a great deal of damage before it moves on.

 

In addition, many things that are not truth have grown legs and moved on to the point they are accepted by the masses as true.

"How long have you been a black quarterback?"