Read on Twitter
Several of these milestones focus on the fact that crime in Cambridge are at record lows--but the number of people employed by the police department are at a record high.
Instead of expanding our government services to create a broad array, we dedicate all new roles as "police". https://twitter.com/CambridgePolice/status/1276247556067069952
Instead of expanding our government services to create a broad array, we dedicate all new roles as "police". https://twitter.com/CambridgePolice/status/1276247556067069952
In 2005, the Cambridge Police department kidnapped my children from the park. My daughters, confused about what was happening, called me on the cell phone they had, and had it taken away by the police officer.
I don't want "Family and Social Justice" staffed in the police role!
I don't want "Family and Social Justice" staffed in the police role!
We now have greater Homeless street outreach--but the people who do that outreach are housed alongside the same uniformed officers I routinely see bothering unhoused folks in Central Square.
The homeless folks I've worked with don't trust the police!
The homeless folks I've worked with don't trust the police!
The "Office of Procedural Justice" reviews policing, ensuring that police behavior is not exhibiting racial or other bias -- but rather than having that staffed under a civilian agency like the Police Advisory Review Board, and giving it teeth, we put it in the department itself.
And of course, some of these milestones seem only vaguely related to policing: a decline in crash-related calls is far more likely to be because of increased safety in street design... combined with the fact that people have learned not to call the cops if they can avoid it!
It's not that I think these roles are bad. It's not that I think the officers are bad! It's that I think that rather than putting everything we want to see happen in the city under the umbrella of "police" produces negative externalities that *can't be fixed by police reform*.
And even if you *do* believe that every single one of these roles is important -- I don't understand how you can defend the idea that at a time when crime is at record lows, what we need most is *more patrol officers*!
If you had fewer students in school, we'd probably hire fewer teachers.
If you had fewer folks needing housing, we'd hire fewer housing liasons.
If we had fewer library patrons, we'd hire fewer librarians.
But when we have less crime, we hire *more* police.
If you had fewer folks needing housing, we'd hire fewer housing liasons.
If we had fewer library patrons, we'd hire fewer librarians.
But when we have less crime, we hire *more* police.
Police have special powers. It makes their engagement in public service fundamentally tricky. The number one piece of advice that most criminal defense lawyers will give you is not "Don't talk to firemen" or "Don't talk to librarians": It's "Don't. Talk To. The Police."
This makes their role in anything other than brute force more difficult: working with the police is a good way to get yourself in trouble.
We could serve the public better by having fewer police officers, because they could behave the exact same way and *get better results*.
We could serve the public better by having fewer police officers, because they could behave the exact same way and *get better results*.
That isn't the fault of the CPD. It's the result of an adversarial system where the police are given special authority. They can lie to you; you can't lie to them. They can use force against you: you can't use force against them. It's an inherently unequal relationship!
In any relationship with our municipal services, we should attempt to minimize the power imbalance to the minimum amount necessary.
We don't need most situations to be solved by cops, and if we mitigated that power imbalance, we'd have a better set of public services for people.
We don't need most situations to be solved by cops, and if we mitigated that power imbalance, we'd have a better set of public services for people.
