Restoring Trust in Law Enforcement May Require Upholding the Constitution

Congress is at a crossroads when it comes to law enforcement reform. Sometimes they do the right thing and sometimes they don't.....but the problem continues forth. (Senator Tim Scott discusses hope for reform and a balance between reform and supporting police in the article, 'Scott: 'There is hope' for police reform bill'" The department issue might make sense considering many times there are cultural aspects that don't empower officers to contradict and report those "bad apples". I would suspect that liability might increase reform🤔 That could be the middle ground. HR1220). There is a lot of confusion on the source of discontent and its possible solutions but we should all be focused on the same long term health and viability of the nation. To solve this crisis of confidence requires means putting down old ways of looking at a long stemming problems and finding a new path forward that makes pragmatic, political, and economic sense. We do this through cultural artifacts like the Constitution that can lead us to a more productive inclusive society that encourage entrepreneurial spirt and thoughtful patriotism.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Constitution of the U.S.) 

Of particular interest to this issue is the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment. Being the "wrong" religion is a protection under the government and through our collective effort we continuously improve upon the fundamentals of our free society by working together to support it. That diversity is likely to save our competitive future if we can harness its collective human capital for maximum national gain (There is an association between good legal governance and concepts like corporate investment and worker motivation based on trust.) 

The lens can change very quickly depending on your perceived religion and your willingness to accept people of different races and backgrounds (I have friends from different cultures and that might not sit well with some people I know.) Each of the perceptions and vantage points sees something a little different when they view situation (s) (This is why we must uphold the document that binds all Americans to an explicit and implicit social contract. It gives us all the same perspective as charter for what we "should" be like. See Rousseau Philosopher Social Contract)  

A "reasonable" person (that is an important distinction) that was aware misconduct (law enforcement and/or hate based groups) would find it concerning that such self seeking and manipulative behaviors that exploit racial and religious differences for gain were given a "blind eye" because of social connections (Remember...I said I support police 100% and their mission in society.... and ways to improve when helpful.). 

A few essential interest arise here 1.) At what point do we not want to blindly follow misdirection of others? 2.) Are there any legal protections for a large percentage of society that could be easy targets of hate based behaviors (...not necessarily law enforcement based. They also can protect against such behaviors with the right training.)? (i.e. voicing disagreement with bad behavior can be escalated to a point it begins to violate our social contracts  and 3.) What are our steps as a national and legislative body to ensure we are trying to resolve such issues in the future (See Michigan Hate Crimes and Coding)? 

We must always be concerned when social groups begin to accept the mantel of hate and use their social connections to corrupt and distort officer actions(In this example, it was the manipulation of a social network that created one aspect of the problem). A "blind eye" could embolden the group to act (if not continuing to act) against other minorities, local officials and/or even fellow law enforcement agents (Think about it...if the law doesn't apply and there is guaranteed protection for bad behavior regardless of truth then we have discounted the institution.)

Tulsa Massacre as an example of corruption.
 No one was held to account
because it was sociably unacceptable to prosecute one's social group even
 though the facts led to the innocence
of the accused. The entire Black community
was punished for one person's lie that led to
the incitement of violence.

Think about the different logics being used (I'm not talking about law enforcement in general.). One logic is based on this groups false perceptions of what "Muslims", Blacks, Arabs, and even White people who don't act like them look like and their value (They discount the value of anyone who doesn't confirm their distorted beliefs.) The other aspect of that logical chain is when people act on that (Either group or the officer(s) associated with that group) they create a very dangerous situation backed by corruption (I wonder if the group could even force a local judge to decide in their favor for fear of not being re-elected and/or intimidated? 🤷 Even a remote possibility should be a concern but that would require us to focus closely on our essential shared expectations and values.). 

What we find is there is "local" influence that may move away from acceptable American practices and more into the supporting of one's social and ethnic group (The cause of social upheaval and ethnic issues in other countries. Look at the Tulsa Massacre and see how intentionally false rumors create extremism and unbridled destruction that is remember generations later. International research supports the concepts of trust in institutions as essential to maintaining that domestic tranquility in the Constitution. Plato also believed in the ethical city and ethical person.) Where the Constitution should be center, we have sometimes put other values in its place that without change will continue to rub ever more abrasive against the wider needs of society. 

Many people don't know what is in the Constitution and the general protections people have from certain actions even though they have heard of the of the dusty old document. As a supporter of the Constitution and positive influence of police (in general) have on people's lives we must make sure that those who reject the tenets of the Constitution and good more conscious are not given positions of authority where they can continue to harm the population with immunity. (Keep in mind the difference of opinion and how that is not the same as intentionally circumventing the law and undermining essential American values.).

While people might think I'm liberal in orientation but I'm actually conservative by nature. The Constitution is one of those things that is fundamental to our existence as an "American" idea. Enforcing the fundamental rights and values outlined in the Constitution is incumbent on politicians, civic/military leadership, and the general population who are bound by it. See Stoic Concepts of Justice. It should be remembered that the debate over whether or not we should be protecting the public should have been resolved  a long time ago when the Constitution was formed and we should now be focused solely on how we do that (i.e. meaning policy that enhances police while limiting the negative effects from "bad apples".). 

Hopefully we aren't some still debating the first part of that question? 🤔Think of it this way, if our social networks and false distorted views of others lead to circumventing the laws then passing new laws won't be particularly helpful until we have the commitment and will power as a nation to enforce existing laws with good moral conscious. This is why restoring trust in law enforcement may require upholding the Constitution in all of our thoughts, choices, and application/passing of law. I'm not a politician so maybe we should go ask the experts. Find your representative and ask them because they may know something the rest of us don't. 🤷 See Find Congressional Representative and feel free to share your opinion on the matter...regardless of your political persuasion (We all get a voice here, White, Black, Muslim, Jew, Hispanic, Asian, Democrat, Republican, etc...that is what makes us a Democracy! ). In the end there are there is really only one beneficial path forward (there are multiple paths but only one sustainable one)...the rest is a discussion on how to get there; or how to get lost on the way. 

The question our national leaders should ask is, "Who are your stakeholders?" That will determine how they negotiate, vote, and decide these issues that are now forced into the forefront of national conscious (unless we want to delay dealing with it and see how it turns out 10 or 20 years down the road. In my experience when there is a longitudinal trend forming you will want to resolve those issues as soon as possible to adjust its trajectory toward a more beneficial stage. Maybe it will all go away on its own? No idea. Contact your rep and find out! 🤷).