The Power of Violence: In Defense of the American Criminal

"And you know now, if you did not before, that the police departments of your country have been endowed with the authority to destroy your body. It does not matter if the destruction is the result of an unfortunate overreaction. It does not matter if it originates in a misunderstanding. It does not matter if the destruction springs from a foolish policy...your body can be destroyed." 

-Ta-Nehisi Coates

We left off my last post with a number of questions unanswered. All are important, but the true question at hand relates to the use of violence between citizens in our society, and in my county. Is there a place for violence enacted for the common good, and if so, should there be equality in the capability for violence?

In “The Politics,” Aristotle discussed the relationship that is to be maintained between all members of a society. Aristotle stated that, “those regimes which look to the common advantage are correct regimes…while those which look only to the advantage of the rulers are errant…for they involve mastery, but the city is a partnership of free persons” (Aristotle 95). It seems that the Aristotelian conception of governance lends itself to a society wherein the people are the equals of the ruler. Yet, it would also seem to be the case that if the ruler were to have an excessive capacity for violence over the citizenry, this relationship would crumble in the face of inequality.

If we were to level the accusation that the police are enacting society-wide violence upon the average citizen, we would be living in a world of hyperbole. The power of American policing today is brought down not upon the head of Joe the Plumber, but on Joe the Coke Dealer, or Joe the Arms Dealer—criminals, or, more accurately suspected criminals. To put it another way—innocent men and women. Let’s never forget that there is always to be a presumption of innocence. So, we are left with a sect of society made up of individuals who may or may not have committed a crime, but are still fully citizens and members of the society, on equal grounds not only with the common man, but with the police carrying out their duties. If they are subjected to violence in some excessive manner, does the relationship between the citizen and ruler not fall?

LaQuan McDonald's death recorded on dashcam. Note that McDonald was armed with a knife at the time.

Iris Marion Young, in her seminal work on what she called the “Five Faces of Oppression,” noted violence as the final form of oppression. To set the frame, it should be understood that if there is an oppressed sect of our society, that is an indication of a democratic failure. I also will note that in the context of Young’s work I would like to utilize the term violence to mean excessive violence borne of an inequality of defensive capabilities between the police and suspected criminals. In Young’s words, “What makes violence a phenomenon of social injustice, and not merely an individual moral wrong, is its systemic character, its existence as a social practice” (Young 62). In other words, if we are witnessing the sanctioning of violence (again, in excess) against suspected criminals in our society, we are witnessing the oppression of members of the citizenry who are in essence relegated to the place of the lesser. If this is the case, the equality amongst citizens that the Aristotelian strives for is gone.

So let’s take it one step further. Let’s assume that we are able to curtail the enactment of excessive violence against suspected criminals. Let’s imagine a situation wherein the police simply held the capability to enact this form of violence. Would this still constitute a democratic failure? The short answer seems to be yes, but let’s look a little closer. Locke held that, “the power of the Society, or Legislative constituted by them, can never be suppos’d (sic) to extend farther than the common good” (Locke 353).  What is the common good? It would seem to be the realization of a society without oppression. Of note is the fact that Locke describes not the actions, but moreso power, or in other words governmental capability to reach beyond the common good. It seems to be the case that if the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department held equipment that provided them with militaristic capabilities that went unused, their simple presence in the inventory of the Sheriff’s department would still constitute a democratic failure. The dominoes would fall like so: the police hold the power of excessive violence, which, if it were to be used, would be brought down upon the suspected criminals in society, which, if it were to happen, would constitute a democratic failure in the Aristotelian and “Young-ian” sense as stated above.

If we live in a society in which the powers of the ruler and the ruled are unequal, we live in a society where democracy has failed. If a single power between some sect of society and the ruler of said society is unequal, we are witnessing a democratic failure. If suspected criminals are subject to excessive violence or even the possibility of excessive violence, this would constitute a democratic failure. What is left to be discussed is the question of whether or not the use of 1033 equipment leads to the implementation of violence in excess. This question will be discussed in my third and final post, as will the question of how we may resolve a democratic failure of the sort herein described.

Author’s Note: I believe that it is of the utmost importance that it is understood that this post specifically is not intended to disparage or in anyway accuse the Sheriff’s Department of Oakland County of causing a democratic failure. The purpose of this post is simply to discuss the conditions under which a democratic failure would have occurred in the philosophical sense. The full question of whether or not the current situation constitutes a democratic failure shall be discussed in my final post.

Bibliography

Aristotle, and Carnes Lord. The Politics. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1984. Print.

I'm a Respectable Citizen. N.d. AZ Quotes. A-Z Quotes. Web.

Locke, John, and Peter Laslett. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, n.d. Print.

Police in Combat Gear. N.d. Washington Times, Ferguson, MO. Washington Times. Web.

Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1990. Print.