Harry's Gang: There's always room for policing improvements

A few years ago, Cloquet commissioned a police study, which recommended significant changes to the department. A new chief was hired to implement the changes, among other things. Long story short, resistance in the department was so high, the chief ended up resigning. What makes us think we are going to have any real success in reforming police departments around the country, when simple organizational and procedural changes are rejected by the police force?

With the recent demands for police reform, we can expect to see lawmakers pay close attention to how police departments are run and how officers are held accountable. It won’t be easy.

Public opinion is a terrible way to run a police department. Community feedback, on the other hand, is a terrific way to approach policing. The first assumes the public is in control, and can tell the cops what to do. The second understands that the government is in control, and is willing to address public concern.

Of course, just saying “the government is in control” will send apoplectic shocks through many of us. Big Brother! Deep State! We love the conspiracy theories, but the facts are that lawmakers make up our government, and lawmakers are elected into office. Frequently. Most elected officials serve 4-year terms and are held accountable through frequent elections. And just about anyone can run for office. Our representative government is indeed of, for, and by the people. So, the public really is in charge.

One problem with combating racism, over-aggressiveness and bias in local police departments arises from the expectations our leaders put upon the police force. So, focusing on elected officials is a good place to start.

First, we need to examine what, exactly, is and isn’t criminal behavior. For example, so many people are criminals just for traffic violations. The sheer number of traffic laws on the books make it likely that just about everyone you know is probably a convicted criminal, due to speeding tickets alone. Is that what we need a police force for?

I’m not suggesting we allow speeding. But we need to address the expectation that our police spend a significant amount of time and effort enforcing speeding laws. I bet if we ask the cops why we need speeding laws, and we ask the safety experts why we need speeding laws, we can figure out a way to reduce the amount of time cops spend enforcing traffic laws.

Let’s talk about drugs. Drug use and possession, as well as activities related to use of alcohol, have kept cops very busy. Again, we don’t want people using drugs or driving drunk. But is there a better way to enforce these rules? Is a cop’s best use of time and talent spent on pulling over drunk drivers? Maybe, maybe not. I know many cops are happy to get drunks off the road. But I also know many cops are annoyed at the time and energy it takes to process a drunk driver. There has to be a better solution.

So, we need to elect leaders who understand their role is to oversee police operations. A city council runs the city, not the police chief. God forbid we have a city council that favors disbanding the police altogether. That’s called anarchy. And it would be just as bad to allow the police to run the city; that’s called fascism. Neither extreme fits well in our democracy.

So, solving the public’s issues with a police force needs to start with the lawmakers. It’s never been easy to get elected to office by campaigning on a ‘let’s get soft on crime!” platform. And who wants to see an increase in drunk-driving deaths and accidents? But I suggest that choosing thoughtful elected leaders is a good first step in addressing police reform.

Pete Radosevich is the publisher of the Pine Knot News and an attorney in Esko. He hosts the talk show Harry’s Gang on CAT-7. His opinions are his own. Contact him at Pete.Radosevich@PineKnot News.com.