为什么美国警察杀了那么多相比,欧洲的警察?

为什么美国警察杀了那么多相比,欧洲的警察?

芝加哥警官贾森·范戴克 被控 在Laquan麦当劳死亡一级谋杀十一月24。 一个 视频警方公布 显示范戴克射击小将16倍。

范戴克是美国警察使用不必要的致命武力的模式的一个极端的例子。 美国警察杀 几个人每天,使他们远远超过欧洲警察更致命。

在欧洲的致命警察开枪的历史率表明,在美国2014警方18倍,丹麦警方和100倍芬兰警方更有杀伤力更具杀伤力,再加上他们杀了显著更频繁地比法国,瑞典等欧洲国家的警察。

作为社会学和刑事司法的学者,我最近开始着手了解 为什么在美国警方致死率 如此比欧洲率要高得多。

更多的枪和侵略

如此大规模的差距违抗了一个简单的解释,但美国的枪支文化显然是一个重要因素。 不像欧洲国家,多数国家很容易让大人购买自卫手枪,并让他们在方便的几乎所有的时间。

获取非法枪支 在美国没有太大困难。 关于 今年的致命武力的受害者57% 到目前为止据称实际,玩具或副本枪武装。 美国警察 引期待枪。 枪支暴力的幽灵可能使他们容易 正确地识别或放大的威胁 如手机和螺丝刀。 这可能会使美国更治安 危险的实战为导向。 它还加强警察文化强调 和侵略。

美国人致命较少的武器武装像刀 - 甚至是那些已知手无寸铁的 - 也更容易被警察杀死。

非致命武器的人只占约 致命武力的受害者20% 在美国。 然而,这些死亡的发生率独自超过任何欧洲全县总称为致命武力率。

刀暴力是一个 在英国大问题,但英国警方枪杀 只有一个人挥舞着一把刀 因为2008 - 一个劫持人质者。 相比之下,我的计算基于汇编的数据 fatalencounters.org 和华盛顿邮报显示,美国警察开枪打死超过575人涉嫌挥舞着刀片和其他此类武器只是因为2013多年。

种族主义有助于解释为什么 非裔美国人土著美国人 特别容易受到警察暴力。 种族主义,具有沿通行 个人主义和有限政府的美国的意识形态,有助于解释为什么白人公民和立法者给予这么多的支持 争议警察射手咄咄逼人的警察战术 所以不大 罪犯穷人.

没有单独的种族主义

但仅凭种族主义不能解释为什么非拉丁裔白人美国人 26倍可能 警方枪声比德国人死亡。 和种族主义本身并不能解释为什么像规定 蒙大拿州,西弗吉尼亚州和怀俄明州 - 在致命武力既肇事者和受害者几乎都是白人 - 表现出警杀伤力率相对较高。

它的地方主义 - 一种解释可能会在美国治安的一个重要区别特征被发现。

每个美国的 15,500市,县有关部门 负责筛选申请人,实行纪律和 培训人员 当一个新的武器像泰瑟枪被采用。 一些资源不足的部门可能执行其中的一些关键任务 不好.

为了使问题更糟糕,资金短缺的地方政府像 弗格森,密苏里州 可能会看到门票,罚款,蓄水费用和没收资产为 收入来源 并推动更多非自愿的警察遭遇。

危险将小地方

More than a quarter of deadly force victims were killed in towns with fewer than 25,000 people despite the fact that only 17% of the US population lives in such towns.

By contrast, as a rule, towns and cities in Europe do not finance their own police forces. The municipal police that do exist are generally unarmed and lack arrest authority.

As a result, the only armed police forces that citizens routinely encounter in Europe are provincial (the counterpart to state police in the US), regional (Swiss cantons) or national.

What’s more, centralized policing makes it possible to train and judge all armed officers according to the same use-of-force guidelines. It also facilitates the rapid translation of insights about deadly force prevention into enforceable national mandates.

In the US, the only truly national deadly force behavioral mandates are set by the Supreme Court, which in 1989 deemed it constitutionally permissible for police to use deadly force when they “reasonably” perceive imminent and grave harm. State laws regulating deadly force – in the 38 states where they exist – are almost always as permissive as Supreme Court precedent allows, or more so.

A Different Standard

police shootingsAnnual fatal police shootings per million residents. Data are based on most recent available. US: 2014; France: 1995-2000; Denmark: 1996-2006; Portugal: 1995-2005; Sweden: 1996-2006; Netherlands: 2013-2014; Norway: 1996-2006; Germany: 2012; Finland: 1996-2006; England & Wales: 2014. CC BYBy contrast, national standards in most European countries conform to the “欧洲人权公约”, which impels its 47 signatories to permit only deadly force that is “absolutely necessary” to achieve a lawful purpose. Killings excused under America’s “reasonable belief” standards often violate Europe’s “absolute necessity” standards.

For example, the unfounded fear of Darren Wilson – the former Ferguson cop who fatally shot Michael Brown – that Brown was armed would not have likely absolved him in Europe. Nor would officers’ fears of the screwdriver that a mentally ill Dallas man Jason Harrison refused to drop.

In Europe, killing is considered unnecessary if alternatives exist. For example, national guidelines in Spain would have prescribed that Wilson incrementally pursue verbal warnings, warning shots, and shots at nonvital parts of the body before resorting to deadly force. Six shots would likely be deemed disproportionate to the threat that Brown, unarmed and wounded, allegedly posed.

In the US, only eight states require verbal warnings (when possible), while warning and leg shots are typically prohibited. In stark contrast, Finland and Norway require that police obtain permission from a superior officer, whenever possible, before shooting anyone.

Not only do centralized standards in Europe make it easier to restrict police behavior, but centralized training centers efficiently teach police officers how to avoid using deadly weapons.

The Netherlands, Norway and Finland, for example, require police to attend a national academy – a college for cops – for three years. In Norway, over 5,000 applicants recently competed for the 700 annual spots.

Three years affords police ample time to learn to better understand, communicate with and calm distraught individuals. By contrast, in 2006, US police academies provided an average of 19 weeks of classroom instruction.

Under such constraints, the average recruit in the US spends almost 20 times as many hours of training in using force than in conflict de-escalation. Most states require fewer than eight hours of crisis intervention training.

Desperate and potentially dangerous people in Europe are, therefore, more likely than their American counterparts to encounter well-educated and restrained police officers.

However, explanations of elevated police lethality in the US should focus on more than police policy and behavior. The charged encounters that give rise to American deadly force also result from weak gun controls, social and economic deprivation and injustice, inadequate mental health care and an intense desire to avoid harsh imprisonment.

Future research should examine not only whether American police behave differently but also whether more generous, supportive and therapeutic policies in Europe ensure that fewer people become desperate enough to summon, provoke or resist their less dangerous police.

关于作者谈话

hirschfied paulPaul Hirschfield, Associate Professor of Sociology and Affiliated Professor in the Program in Criminal Justice, Rutgers University. His research has focused on a broad range of topics pertaining to crime and justice with an emphasis on their relationship to youth, education, and social policy.

本文最初发表于 谈话。 阅读 原创文章.


相关图书: