Every newsletter on MYLIFEplus25 is public and free to everyone, but we ask for your support. Please consider becoming a patron now to help fund our ongoing legal efforts that dare to speak truth to power. This isn't journalism, it's activism! And these efforts are only possible through the support of good people just like you who believe that change is possible.
Please take a moment to subscribe to my podcast on one of the following channels:
Apple Podcasts:
Google Podcasts:
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy81NThjMWE5MC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw==
Spotify:
And follow me on Twitter here: Follow @lifeplus25
Thank you and I hope you enjoy today’s post.
—
Let's assume that you've just woken up – and before you even have the opportunity to brush your teeth or use the restroom – there's someone at your front door in a dark suit, sunglasses, with a no-nonsense veneer there to inform you that you've been selected for something a little more demanding of your time and life than jury duty. Instead of whatever you were about to do today what's now being explained to you is that as of right now you're a law enforcement officer. You've just been handed a series of documents that explain it all to you in legal jargon, which might as well be written in Swahili. For reasons that you don't quite understand you sign for the badge handed to you, then the firearm, and finally the keys to the unmarked vehicle now parked in your driveway. Someone else is now telling you that you are a detective for the major crimes unit and that you need to hurry and get dressed because there are a series of cases that require your immediate attention. The scene shifts and someone else is now explaining to you from outside your shower that time is of the essence and there is not a moment to lose.
"You might be feeling overwhelmed," says the middle aged man who reminds you of your P.E. teacher from middle school. He's handing you a towel and expecting you to step out there in all your glory. "There's nothing you have that I haven't seen before," he assures you.
"Now," he says, "the question I have for you is this: what kind of cop are you going to be?
“What I mean is, are you going to be a good cop or a bad cop? Are you going to be someone who upholds the Constitution, or someone who is just there to punch a clock? Are your personal ambitions more important than a suspect's legal rights? And, how well will your otherwise stellar, personal integrity hold up to the pressures and demands of a legal system that rewards neither personal integrity or transparent adherence to the law?"
We the People- Constitution Historicaviation.com
Naturally, some of what he has to say may seem inherently wrong or misplaced in context given that this is your first day in a job, career, or whatever this is that you've now woken up to. And before you can answer he adds another, "Do you know what groupthink is?"
He takes your momentary silence or hesitation as an answer and begins to explain that groupthink is the general consensus or opinion of a group that once established becomes the canon or creed of the whole. His explanation pushes the hamster wheel in your head into motion.
Protestors in Front of the Capitol Jan. 6th 2021 Alipac.us
You immediately think of the Catholic Church's insistence that the earth was the center of the universe, despite Galileo's evidence to the contrary. Groupthink was what most of us saw unfold on January 6, 2021, at the Capitol, because protesters were convinced that the election had been stolen. Groupthink is what happens when we accept the rhetoric of a source that we've come to trust without question, without inquiries into the veracity of the offered truth.
The man nods in agreement as he hands you a cup of coffee. He's apparently waiting for answers to the questions that you never would have thought to ask yourself, much less be in the position where you feel compelled to answer them.
As you begin to consider these questions you reflect on what morality and integrity mean to you as an individual, as a spouse, a parent, as a contributing member of society. You can't understand why the option to be a "bad cop" is even on the table. Something that your new companion intuits and likewise explains.
Because the legal system itself doesn't reward integrity or transparent adherence to the law. It rewards results – arrests and the subsequent convictions that follow – nothing more. There is no press conference with an awards ceremony for the official who challenges groupthink and derails an investigation. The mayor of the city doesn't come forth and offer the key to the city for efforts in preventing a wrongful conviction. What seems to you as obvious, isn't. You realize that in your frustrations with all the instances you've seen of police brutality, killings, corruption, or outright ineptitude that you've missed something crucial in your deliberations. Police and prosecutors are presented with responsibilities that most individuals can't even fathom, but they also have individual families, ambitions and lives that are of the utmost importance to them. Lives that include responsibilities like mortgages, tuition payments, medical bills and other obligations. And perhaps it's foolish to think that the constitutional rights and liberties of criminal suspects would ever win the internal dilemma of either doing the right thing or providing for that which most matters to you. Especially, when if you keep your mouth shut and don't rock the boat, you get to be a hero; the alternative is seeing your career and livelihood become casualties of departmental bureaucracy and groupthink.
History Things.com
So again, are you going to be a good cop or a bad cop?
It's not as simplistic a question as one might think. Law enforcement is comprised of individuals who have the same types of human ambitions as everyone else. Which doesn't make them inherently bad, selfish, or corrupt. It just makes them human. And as humans they are tasked with protecting the community, enforcing the law, investigating and prosecuting crimes. Obviously not an easy task, some might even argue that it's an impossible task.
First, it's important to understand that groupthink doesn't just infect law enforcement. Our first interactions with it were probably on the playground as children, when the popular kids labeled their nemeses as having "cooties". In corporate America, we've seen ego-centric personalities like former-CEO and cofounder of Apple Steve Jobs, someone known to foster the groupthink that derailed the careers of anyone who disagreed with him. In politics, well, the recent presidencies speak for themselves. And law enforcement is no exception to the rule.
In fact, police are known for being a coed brotherhood of unity and groupthink. When accused of misconduct or crime what rises is what's known as the blue wall of silence, not so different from the Omerta code of silence used by the Sicilians. And, instances of police criminality aside, in the day-to-day of police work it's extremely rare for a detective to break rank from groupthink so as to profess an opinion contrary to that of his unit or superiors in the chain of command.
The blackwall.com Blue Wall of Silence
Ideally they should, since the stated objective is to arrive at the truth. But this noble pursuit often clashes with a much more fundamental objective – survival. Challenging groupthink in a democracy is called debate, but in a bureaucracy it's called career suicide.
Yet, for the sake of argument let's assume you're not about to sacrifice your integrity for convenience, for ambition, or for any other reason. After all, you didn't ask for this job. But let's assume that you did, you sacrificed and worked hard to get to where you are and law enforcement is where you want to be. That changes things, doesn't it?
As we continue down the rabbit hole of this alternate reality let's assume that as you're assigned to your first murder case you notice that the elected-Sheriff and lieutenant of your division have made public declarations that the individual in custody (arrested last night), is without a doubt the guilty party.
Of course, the investigation has barely begun, much less concluded. You immediately notice that there's lots of evidence being conveniently ignored, potentially so as to substantiate what's already been publicly declared. But rather than inform the public on this dereliction of duty, you opt for self-preservation in hopes that the elected DA or prosecutor see the obvious incongruities in the investigation and choose to remedy it. What you don't initially realize or care to understand is that the DA, or the lowly prosecutors below her, are chained to the same groupthink as you. For a prosecutor of any stripe to expose investigative incompetence would be the political equivalent of cannibalism.
The back and forth of the the blame-shifting that would inevitably ensue between the police and prosecutors, so as not to lose face before the public, doesn't serve the objectives of a political career that requires endorsements from police chiefs, sheriffs, and other law enforcement stakeholders so as to win reelection. Which explains why we rarely see this sort of cannibalistic behavior. As mentioned, divergence from groupthink is counterintuitive to survival in a bureaucracy. Just as it's counterintuitive to justice.
dreamstime.com Blame-Shifting
For investigations to be effective they must be unbiased and as far-removed from groupthink as possible. Politician sheriffs and high-ranking police officers shouldn't make public declarations before the investigation and judicial proceedings are concluded. Because these declarations erect walls that prevent lowly investigators from pursuing all leads. Which is precisely why CIUs are inseparable from the pursuit of justice.
When detectives and prosecutors know that their decisions, statements, and actions are going to be scrutinized by a committee that isn't motivated or constrained by the established biases of groupthink they are more likely to behave in accordance with the law. As experience has taught us, transparency is crucial for legitimacy in democracy.
And despite what is obvious and known police and prosecutors tend to veer from transparency and oversight because it ultimately makes the conviction process more burdensome. What they overlook, however, is that everyone unilaterally benefits when the public trusts the legal and criminal justice system.
Because public trust in the process equates to more cooperation with the authorities. More cooperation means a higher probability of success – defined as more convictions within the limitations of the law and substantially less wrongful convictions.
How is law enforcement supposed to legitimately protect a public that doesn't trust it? It's not feasible. Propaganda can only carry legitimacy so far. We're all familiar with the political campaigns bringing these individuals into power and office. The typical taglines are Protect Our Communities or Tough on Crime. They step into these roles fired up to arrest criminals, get convictions, and thereby make communities safer. And despite the evidence before them, that communities aren't safer and criminality isn't being defeated, they fall into another form of groupthink that tells them otherwise; where our concept of justice has been highjacked by bureaucratic expediency.
Amny.com Minneapolis Police Station Burned after George Floyd’s Death
We see this when we follow the process from the commission of the crime, through investigation, to arrest(s), all the way to the eventual judicial resolution. We see that arrests are almost never substantiated by the totality of the evidence available. Usually they're substantiated by nothing more than a witness statement, other suspects, a hunch, or questionable forensic evidence. Charges are filed long before investigators can arrive at conclusive findings. None of which stops the media grandstanding of high-ranking officials who are more interested in giving themselves a congratulatory pat on the back than they are in arriving at the truth. Add to this the media circus that follows this type of grandstanding and reports speculation and selectively leaked evidence so as to stoke public outrage to sell advertising. A process further amplified if the suspect is associated with one racial, ethnic, religious, sexual orientation or political ideology over another.
And while this is taking place investigators like yourself are still trying to do their jobs, but now find themselves constrained by the groupthink that's already been stated by their superiors. Which means that lines of investigation or evidence that don't corroborate or coincide with groupthink is overlooked, ignored, or in many instances outright destroyed. Which is why we need CIUs and elected officials who are willing to bring transparency and legitimacy to the process.
The important thing to understand is that we're not tasked with reinventing the wheel of the rule of law or justice. We're tasked with ensuring that the moral compass of our integrity supersedes groupthink and bureaucratic convenience. And that only happens when we bring transparency and oversight into the process.
Obviously, CIUs are a potential headache to prosecutors and police who have grown accustomed to playing fast and loose with the facts and laws so as to attain publicity victories before the media. And understandably most people don't like to work with someone looking over their shoulders. But when we're dealing with public service in a democracy it's necessary, because transparency leads to public confidence which leads to a more functional democracy.
The frustrations you will inevitably experience in your new career in law enforcement as you witness the everyday horrors of career criminality and see the same faces pass through the revolving door of a broken justice system, it's comprehensible why you might feel justified in breaking the law, ignoring constitutional guarantees, or ignoring the truth so as to put bad people behind bars. But to permit this behavior desecrates the premise and bedrock on which justice and democracy stand. President Biden recently said, "We've got to prove democracy works." But without transparency to see our democratic mechanisms at work there is no trust or legitimacy, all of which leaves us at the doorstep of tyranny. Which is why we have started a petition on Change.org to encourage our elected leaders at both the state and national levels to make CIUs a standard part of the justice process.
As the alarm on your phone sounds you awake to find that it's all been a dream. You'll get up and get ready as you normally would, without the badge, the gun, or the need to answer the question, "What kind of cop would you be?" But maybe you'll answer it anyways, and in doing so help to bring about the reforms that will bring legitimacy back to law enforcement.
—