Racial Profiling hurts community Policing

Racial profiling exists only in the mind of those who make it their own agenda either con or pro compliance with the laws and their own personal believe that it is happening to them or others.

Therefore, conditionally, it does exist. It is not a universal concept applied by everyone or every police agency since we are talking about cops. It is conditional in every sense of the phrase and subject to many moral values as well as existing laws and norm values in our society. This can be defined by demographics as well as geographical histories, customs, practices and traditions but nevertheless, a negative input on how we perceive things in our head.

What we have here is two arguments. The first finding the objective definition of racial profiling that includes compelling reasons that it does exist in content and context given. The second is what "we" believe is racial profiling. The truth lies somewhere in between and whenever you are subjective about any issue, then the power is swayed towards that "believe" and that you are right no matter how the law or truth is read. However, this is not a method of compelling reasoning and is flawed severely.

Contextuality expresses the fact that an action does not exist in a vacuum. When we examine an action, we cannot ignore that the action takes place in a given context. This context is necessary to evaluate the consequences of an action, because it informs the values that are affected by the action. Unlike the phrase “a picture tells a thousand words” there should only be one inference or understanding of what really happened and how it was created. This is called a finding. This is where the facts [hopefully objective in nature] come in to rationalize the event or behaviors and explains the truth in objective and clear sense rather than emotional or irrational in manner.

It is important here to understand that while values themselves are objective in all ways, their specific implementation differs from person to person and from culture to culture thus what may be normal in one setting may be abnormal in another setting. Hence each case is different and must be examined for facts, not feelings or believes one is telling the truth.
Community policing is effective when the police officers are culturally diverse and trained in recognizing these values as norms thus avoiding stereotyping when responding to a call or incident whenever possible. Police policies may differ from region to region, district to district and is applied by the officer's knowledge of such direction. It does not imply racial profiling per se but can come under scrutiny if there are acts or words said that warrant a closer look at this incident to acquire a truth statement or finding.

In order to win an argument that racial profiling existed during the event, the officer or the subject [or witnesses] must effectively prove or disprove “objective moral facts” in this type of case and provide a compelling reason to believe they exist within the statements provided making their statement more powerful and truthful in the end than the other person’ strong believe that was based on their own or individual subjective matter and personal values rather than facts.

In other words, racial profiling hurts law enforcement as it disconnects the community with those who are there to help them. Unfortunately, the perception of truth may be distorted by the subjectivity involved on either side when the persons involved are viewed to be racist as this kicks in the defensive mechanisms we depend on for survival and self-defense. It is hard to convince another person you are not being a racist when they have already made up their minds that what you [cop] are doing is based on their believe you are profiling them on race hence the confrontation,relationship is heightened to a new and volatile level.

 

Hybrid Governance in Prisons and other public services

Hybrid governance with Prisons

By Carl R. ToersBijns, former deputy warden, ASPC Eyman, Florence, AZ

The age of hybrid governance is already upon us. Arizona today has made a clear decision to allow private prison contractors to occupy vital middle ground between our public-owned prison system and numerous and various private-sector organizations. The ideology is capitalistic and powerful as is has already established firm roots in the daily practice of running our prisons today.

 

What hasn’t been talked about is the parasitic nature of this relationship and how it is designed to absorb more government functions as time goes by. No longer an emerging market, private prison contractors have established the practice and future of public governance based on lessons learned from the past and have merged sizable government stakes, subsidies and management decision making that reflect a practice of preferential treatment in more than many ways.

 

There is no doubt that this merger has compromised those leading elements of the public sector’s regulatory environment as they evolve existing regulations to meet the new hybrid status between government and private industries.

 

This changes the traditional roles of the past and created an infusion of ideologies beyond the traditional division between labor and market demands. In fact, this merger is almost invisible and when active to the fullest extend, will remain blurred creating confusion to the taxpayers as to what actual role the government plays versus the role of private business in our state.

 

There is no secret between the cooperative levels of this state’s governor and elected officials towards private prison groups as there has been significant wealth distributed between the two parties.

 

Today, Arizona is witnessing a massive agenda of proliferation in the number of new contracts and business dealings with new parastatal entities around the state as well as outside the state. It impacts the entire criminal justice system including the administrative and judicial elements of law with little or no scrutiny of how business is conducted under this new hybrid process.

 

Public authorities have been compromised to be managed privately and secretively based on private enterprise standards not subject to open meeting laws or other regulatory requirements.

 

Power diffusion is the key in this methodology as more decisions are conducted in the shadows of corporate strength and weaker public infusions to the table. Operating in such a closed market with little scrutiny will change the integrity of government and allow growth or development of mediocrity in performance and corruption for many who are willing to ride this train as a parasite leeches off the body.

 

Thus on the pretense of improving state run agencies and reducing inefficiencies, the privatization of public service will be handed over to those corporations that can meet the productive needs of this market.

 

Power diffusion continues even in the shadow of strength. Recent decades have witnessed a gradual revival of parastatals that foreshadowed their present surge. They gained access to international capital markets and have leveraged investment to expand operations.

 

By floating shares on exchanges, contracting with auditing firms, establishing independent boards of directors, restricting subsidies from the government, and improving recruiting standards and managerial incentives, parastatals have been able to make themselves competitive with the private sector justifying their creation and existence by those that praise the concept.  

 

Today there are very few, if any, areas of governance that have not been placed in the custody of parastatals entities that undertake commercial activities on the government’s behalf. They range from public transportation, medical care, economic and logistical support of state utilities down to the smallest micro purpose of government services such as the maintenance of parks, recreation and other support agencies.

 

There are reasons for this transition.  First and foremost, state governments are broke. They lack funding and in fact are unable to manage current needs as they exist. Frustration has led to exploring alternatives and aside from the traditional practices of raising taxes or other fees they have considerable needs to improve the infrastructure and manpower requirement to meet the full demands placed on them by law and other regulatory mandates.

 

In short, parastatals are the entities everyone wants to do business with because in places where politics is an opaque void or a byzantine labyrinth, they “get things done.” Collectively, these types of parastatals have been crucial for rising powers to capture the commanding heights of personal wealth and finance.

 

Their recruitment of top investment-banking and private-equity talent and riskier investments are a major departure from decades of more conservative asset management by central banks allowing hybrid governance to coexist in many places.

 

It’s a sign of the times and Arizona is smack in the middle of such financial relationships, endorsements and futuristic expectations of spreading this hybrid governance concept to other states in due time.

 

Source:

http://www.mckinsey.com/features/government_designed_for_new_times/the_rise_of_hybrid_governance