This is partially why residents balked at Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman’s proposal in 2010 to build an even larger jail to house 5,832 inmates. Not only could Gusman’s staff not control the population they had, but the city’s increasing incarceration rate was not correlating with a decline in crime. Crime had, in fact, been increasing.
Gusman’s proposal was squashed by a coalition of community organizations that mobilized residents and convinced the city that it could not financially afford to keep, as one city council representative put it, jailing its way to becoming a safer city. The city ended up approving a new jail in 2011 that was just a quarter of the size the sheriff wanted: 1,485 beds, though the city was holding twice as many inmates as that at the time. This meant the city had to rethink and revamp its incarceration practices moving forward.
The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, delivered an unusually candid speech on Thursday about the difficult relationship between the police and African-Americans, saying that officers who work in neighborhoods where blacks commit crimes at a high rate develop a cynicism that shades their attitudes about race.
Citing the song â€œEveryoneâ€™s a Little Bit Racistâ€ from the Broadway show â€œAvenue Q,â€ he said police officers of all races viewed black and white men differently. In an address to students at Georgetown University, Mr. Comey said that some officers scrutinize African-Americans more closely using a mental shortcut that â€œbecomes almost irresistible and maybe even rational by some lightsâ€ because black men are arrested at much higher rates than white men.
In speaking about racial issues at such length, Mr. Comey used his office in a way that none of his predecessors had. His remarks also went beyond what President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. have said since an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, was killed by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo., in August.
Mr. Comey said that his speech, which was well received by law enforcement officials, was motivated by his belief that the country had not â€œhad a healthy dialogueâ€ since the protests began in Ferguson and that he did not â€œwant to see those important issues drift away.â€
Previous F.B.I. directors had limited their public comments about race to civil rights investigations, like murders committed by the Ku Klux Klan and the bureauâ€™s wiretapping of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Â But Mr. Comey tried to dissect the issue layer by layer.
He started by acknowledging that law enforcement had a troubled legacy when it came to race.
â€œAll of us in law enforcement must be honest enough to acknowledge that much of our history is not pretty,â€ he said. â€œAt many points in American history, law enforcement enforced the status quo, a status quo that was often brutally unfair to disfavored groups.â€
Mr. Comey said there was significant research showing that all people have unconscious racial biases. Law enforcement officers, he said, need â€œto design systems and processes to overcome that very human part of us all.â€
The FBI in Seattle created a fake news story on a bogus Seattle Times web page to plant software in the computer of a suspect in a series of bomb threats to Laceyâ€™s Timberline High School in 2007, according to documents obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in San Francisco.
The deception was publicized Monday when Christopher Soghoian, the principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, D.C., revealed it on Twitter.
In an interview, Soghoian called the incident â€œoutrageousâ€ and said the practice could result in â€œsignificant collateral damage to the public trustâ€ if law enforcement begins co-opting the media for its purposes.
The EFF documents reveal that the FBI dummied up a story with an Associated Press byline about the Thurston County bomb threats with an email link â€œin the style of The Seattle Times,â€ including details about subscriber and advertiser information.
The link was sent to the suspectâ€™s MySpace account. When the suspect clicked on the link, the hidden FBI software sent his location and Internet Protocol information to the agents. A juvenile suspect was identified and arrested June 14.
The revelation brought a sharp response from the newspaper.
â€œWe are outraged that the FBI, with the apparent assistance of the U.S. Attorneyâ€™s Office, misappropriated the name of The Seattle Times to secretly install spyware on the computer of a crime suspect,â€ said Seattle Times Editor Kathy Best.
â€œNot only does that cross a line, it erases it,â€ she said.
â€œOur reputation and our ability to do our job as a government watchdog are based on trust. Nothing is more fundamental to that trust than our independence â€” from law enforcement, from government, from corporations and from all other special interests,â€ Best said. â€œThe FBIâ€™s actions, taken without our knowledge, traded on our reputation and put it at peril.â€
An AP spokesman also criticized the tactic.
â€œWe are extremely concerned and find it unacceptable that the FBI misappropriated the name of The Associated Press and published a false story attributed to AP,â€ Paul Colford, director of AP media relations. â€œThis ploy violated APâ€™s name and undermined APâ€™s credibility.â€
Before we jump all over the FBI, it happens more than you think and has similar things happened recently in Saskatoon with false news stories planted in the media. Â That and the Seattle Times got itâ€™s outrage wrong. Â You donâ€™t need spyware to get an I.P. address.
Long before the killing of Michael Brown and the subsequent protests in Ferguson, Missouri, which have brought with them countless images of heavily armored local authorities pointing guns at and firing tear gas and other nonlethal weapons at unarmed protesters, some were disturbed by what Washington Post journalist Radley Balko calls â€œthe rise of the warrior copâ€ â€” that is, the increasing tendency of some local police forces to rely on military-style gear and tactics, even in situations that appear devoid of any real threat to officersâ€™ safety.
The story of how this happened and the oftentimes tragic results have been well-told by Balko, the American Civil Liberties Union, and others. In short, thereâ€™s been a flood of drug-war and post-9/11 money that has helped outfit police departments, even towns where a single murder is an incredibly rare event, with gear that could help repel seasoned paramilitaries.
Whatâ€™s less clear is how this gear changes the psychological dynamics of policing and crowd control. Is it true, as many people are arguing online, that â€œWhen you have a hammer, everything looks like a nailâ€ â€” that is, that simply having military gear will make police more likely to act in an aggressive manner toward civilians? How does this change the relationship between police and civilians?
At the most specific level, these questions havenâ€™t been studied empirically. But a great deal of social-psychological research, as well as important anecdotal evidence from law-enforcement specialists themselves, suggests that militarized policing can greatly inflame situations that might otherwise end peacefully.
The so-called â€œweapons effectâ€ can partly explain whatâ€™s going on in Ferguson and elsewhere. The mere presence of weapons, in short, appears to prime more aggressive behavior. This has been shown in a variety of experiments in different lab and real-world settings.
â€œTheory underlying the weapons effect or similar kinds of phenomena would suggest that the more you fill the environment with stimuli that are associated with violence, the more likely violence is to occur,â€ said Bruce Bartholow, a University of Missouri social psychologist who has studied the weapons effect. Brad Bushman, a psychologist at Ohio State, agreed. â€œI would expect a bigger effect if you see military weapons than if you see normal weapons,â€ he said.
This isnâ€™t just about a link between visual stimuli like guns and violence, however. It also has to do with the roles people adopt, with how they respond to the presence of others who may â€” or may not â€” mean them harm. To a certain extent, if you dress and treat people like soldiers facing a deadly enemy, theyâ€™ll act like it.
â€œThis process isn’t necessarily good or bad, but depends on the extent to which the more militaristic role fits the situation,â€ said Craig Anderson, a psychologist at Iowa State, in an email. â€œWhen it doesn’t fit well, it is likely to lead to more judgment and behavior errors.â€ Maria Haberfeld, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice who has studied how police departments outfit themselves, said the dynamic could be particularly dangerous in the context of nonviolent protests like Ferguson (there was rioting and looting earlier this week, but there have also been widespread reports of nonviolent protests being broken up by police aggression).
â€œMilitary equipment is used against an enemy,â€ said Haberfeld. â€œSo if you give the same equipment to local police, by default you create an environment in which the public is perceived as an enemy.â€ On the other side of these confrontations, this could have a negative effect on protesters. â€œWe live in a democratic country, and we believe that this is our right to go out and exercise the right to [free speech],â€ she said. â€œAnd when you go out there and exercise that right and suddenly you are faced with soldiers â€” even though these are not soldiers, but police officers looking like soldiers â€” then something is triggered, definitely.â€
Bushman said that meeting nonviolent protests with a militarized response is â€œreally a bad idea. I canâ€™t believe theyâ€™re doing it.â€ â€œItâ€™s just really bad for the officers because they feel more powerful, more invincible, more militaristic, ready to attack,â€ he said. â€œAnd also, I think it elicits a response from the observers that, hey, this is war, and people become defensive and they have a fight/flight response.â€ The adoption of masks themselves in a militarized setting, on the part of police or protesters, can also contribute to violence by triggering senses of anonymity and what psychologists call deindividuation. “There’s all kinds of evidence in social psychology that that will lead people to do things that they wouldn’t do if they could be identified,” said Bartholow.
All this militarization, said Bartholow, can be contrasted â€œagainst the old kind of beat-cop model where people in the neighborhood know the police officersâ€™ name and heâ€™s kind of everybodyâ€™s buddy in a sense.â€
In prison Angel thought that it wouldnâ€™t be too hard to find a job once he got out. He believed he had come a long way. At eighteen he hadnâ€™t been able to read or write. He wet his bed and suffered from uncontrollable outbursts of anger. At forty-seven he had studied at the college level. He told me he had read several thousand books. He earned numerous certificates while incarceratedâ€”aVocational Appliance Repair Certificate, a Certificate of Proficiency of Computer Operator, a Certificate in Library Training, an IPA (Inmate Program Assistant) II Training Certificate, and several welding certificationsâ€”but in the outside world these credentials counted for little.
“Irrelevant,” Angel said. â€œThey might as well be toilet paper.”