Yesterday, the Philadelphia Inquirer published a piece I wrote about pending legislation in Pennsylvania to anonymize officers under investigation for use of force. The legislation is supposed to increase officer safety. A snippet:
Of course, officer safety is important. But there is scant evidence that specific police officers or their families — in Pennsylvania or elsewhere — have been targeted and harmed by criminals because they were named in use‐of‐force incidents. (While police officers have been the tragic victims of ambushes, including in Philadelphia, the indications are that officers are, as New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton said in 2014, “targeted for their uniform,” not their actions.)
At best, these bills provide a remedy for something that has not been proven to be a problem. At worst, they protect officers with documented histories of violence and, ironically, give the majority of officers a bad rap.
Internal and criminal investigations are by their nature kept from the public eye, and for good reason. But the community should know if its public servants are under investigation for inappropriate violence and who they are. If one officer out of a thousand does something bad, but no one can say who he is, all officers fall under suspicion because the so‐called bad apple is indistinguishable from everyone else.
As we saw in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of John Geer in Virginia, when police withhold information from the public about inappropriate uses of force, silence can seem like a cover‐up. States and police agencies should look for ways to increase transparency after questionable uses of force, not put up new barriers to information.
Read the whole thing here.
This is cross‐posted at PoliceMisconduct.net.