More and more local municipalities in the
United States are seeing ex-police officers running for office. Most of these
candidates in both their law enforcement and political careers promote a policy
known as ‘zero tolerance,’ where minor infractions of the law are prosecuted to
the furthest extent of the law. The thinking behind such a policy is that in
order to prevent grave crimes from occurring like murder, forms of assault, illegal
trafficking and grand theft, it is necessary to punish (to the furthest extent
of the law) those who commit lesser crimes like breaking windows, graffiti,
disturbing the peace, loitering, public drunkenness, or disloyal opposition
(verbally disrespecting a police officer). The fines and time served for
committing such small violations are increasing through new legislation and the
general public, in general, is unaware and indifferent to the change. However,
many voters believe or are told to believe that a clean street will nurture
pure minds that uphold the law and report any deviant activity, keeping their
neighborhoods safe from crime.
The popularity of such a
program rests well on the coattails and hysteria of September 11. More and
more, Americans support candidates that are ‘tough on crime’ and are diverting
public spending from institutions like public education, food assistance and
health to security and law enforcement. Ask a recent graduate from a college or
university who the three most active job recruiters are and he/she will say homeland
security administrations, police departments and prisons. The financial crisis,
however, struck a blow to this growth temporarily. States had no choice but to
release some prisoners, often inmates that are in jail for marijuana possession
or other minor offenses. But the US economy will eventually rebound, not
necessarily to the prosperity known n the later half of the 20th
Century, but certainly to the point where it continues to be a major consumer
of goods from China and other developing nations. When it does, what government
exists at the local, state, and federal levels, will continue dismantling what
social safety nets remain and increase spending on law enforcement.
The trend of diverting
revenues to law enforcement instead of social programs is a reversal of the
social safety nets set up in the 1960s and 1970s. These decades witnessed a
counter-culture movement, a revolution that changed significantly how people
thought about life, law and society. Though not all followed the movement, it was
a time when people questioned the War in Vietnam, the intolerance and injustice
of Jim Crow laws in southern states, gender roles, and in general how people
treated others. It was a revolution that preached tolerance, acceptance of
difference and began questioning the power structures in education, business,
law, and politics. The counter-culture movement had its shortcomings and those
who were a part of it, if asked today, will likely admit it never completed its
objectives. Americans today, in fact, resemble the post-WW II generation that
purchased many goods and feared the Soviets, only now the products come from
overseas and the terrorism has replaced the Soviet threat.
There is a revolution
coming in the United States. It is not based on ideas and thinking from the
1960s and 1970s, however. It is one of greater law enforcement and intolerance towards
deviance and protest, eventually profiling and targeting all who are excluded
from the wealth and power in this country. It is a state where the privileged
are protected and the poor are punished, where the punishments grow more severe
and are used in cases where people break the law under duress more and more.
Those who can afford decent counsel are likely to walk away from their crimes
while those who are represented by overworked, public defenders serve time and
are slapped with hefty fines. The poor will be impoverished further and likely
to commit more crimes with little opportunity and a growing hatred for authority. Law
enforcement agencies commonly have the slogan ‘to protect and serve’ but this
is not for the common good. Their services are for those who are part of the
political and economic elite who live in gated communities or streets commonly
patrolled by public and private police agencies. The rest, however, have the
pleasure of living in fear of what activity will land them into a situation of
being questioned by the police, detained, and possibly arrested in the emerging police state that is the United States.