The killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis cops has sparked an ongoing series
of nationwide protests against police brutality, and it seems that a new consensus
is forming around the urgent need for criminal justice reform.
Six years ago after the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri
just 43% of Americans believed that
such incidents were indicative of a systemic problem.
Now even though police killings have remained level since 2014
69% of us agree that the killing of Floyd represents a broader problem within law enforcement.
To better understand the shift in calls for police reform and what sorts of changes would be most effective,
I sat down with the Washington Post Opinion Writer Radley Balko, a former reporter and senior editor
at Reason who covers police abuse, the drug war, and criminal justice reform.
His coverage of Corey Maye, a black man in
Mississippi put on death row
for killing a police officer during a no-knock raid,
helped bring about Mayes' acquittal.
And his books, "Rise of the Warrior Cop" and "The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist"
reveal widespread problems with law
enforcement and expert testimony.
Radley Balko, thanks for talking to Reason. My pleasure, thanks for having me.
You have been covering the broad topics the intersecting topics of the war on
drugs police abuse race issues in
America for going on 20 years now at a
variety of outfits including the Cato
Institute reason Huffington Post
Washington Post why did the George Floyd
killing do you think explode into public
consciousness the way that it did I mean
I think it's really to power a video you
know if you go back to in civil rights
movement you know obviously there were
civil rights abuses going on for a long
time in our country's history but you
know I think the the organizers of the
civil rights movement in the 60s really
recognized the power of images and I
think there were you know we know now
looking at that history that a lot of
the events are the protests that
inspired these kind of iconic photos and
videos were they do there was going to
be violence they knew that
the other side there we're gonna be
provoked and that was a strategy to kind
of win over the middle and win over
white America and you know the George
Floyd video is I mean it's indisputable
right I mean they've been attacks on
Floyd's character you know whatever his
decisions of might but like that video
there's there is no excuse for having
your knee on a guy's neck for nine
minutes yeah and it's you know III was
when I first saw that I was like I in my
mind I always go to the Rodney King
beating video which in a lot of ways is
kind of the starting point of kind of
citizen surveillance of police in a in a
modern context and I can remember in the
trial of the LAPD cops accused of
beating rodding King or not I mean they
beat him but of doing it in a in a
felonious way the the defense broke that
video down in the original trial to show
that actually they weren't beating him
and there was a broad kind of support of
like oh well you know maybe the LAPD was
doing okay when we look at Michael Brown
or the or that the the riots the
protests that came out of Michael Brown
in Ferguson in 2014 there was also this
discussion of like well you know on the
one hand the cops have to do this and on
the other with this Floyd nobody's
protecting him right or nobody is nobody
is defending the police action is that a
sign of progress even as you know we're
in the middle of ongoing protests
against police abuse I mean I think it's
a sign of progress there's been such a
widespread sort of embrace of the idea
that police are systematically abusive
that there's at the idea of racism in
policing in America has crept into ID
America into the suburbs that you have
now remember four years ago the
Democratic nominee for president
couldn't say the phrase it's black lives
matter without qualifying it a lot of
people were like that I when I first
heard the phrase I thought well that's
kind of a weird slogan although now
makes a lot of sense now you have you
know MIT Romney saying it unsolicited
you have you know it's a you have people
you know probably even protested ever in
their lives now joining
so I think that sign of progress I think
I think the role the video plays is that
it like like Michael Brown in Ferguson
st. Louis County like a lot of you know
to me or rights of these incidents that
have sparked sort of uprisings you know
none of them are really about those
cases in isolation right we would there
have been unjustified killing police
killings of we have white and black
people in cities all the country over
the last 20 years where we see the
uprisings tend to be in places that
those those stories speak to people on a
very personal level they tap into some
some long simmering tension resentment
pain fear despair and so you know I
think with Michael Brown with you like
you say even the Rodney King I think the
fact that the the initial narrative then
had some qualifications or context that
made it less compelling drew away from
the fact or gave sort of white people an
excuse to sort of dismiss it all as not
you know as a false narrative is based
on a false narrative and actually sort
of ignore the broader you know
long-simmering you know anger and
despair that led to the protest in the
first place in this case there's no
there's no contextualizing that video
and so it's easier to kind of you know
say alright I'm fully on board of this
what you know critics of black lives
matter and of the protest more generally
talked about two things one typically
they'll say okay police abuse you know
is why it's is widespread yet it's
really an individual with individual
police or individual cops and also that
race is not the issue here it's it's
something else they'll point to things
and I'm reading from a recent article in
City Journal put up by the Manhattan
Institute but where in 1971 the NYPD the
New York Police Department killed 93
people in 2016 they killed nine
discharged their weapons 810 times in
1971 72 times last year in 2016 and
they'll say that
they're just you know this is bad but it
is not a big scale problem how do you
how do you get across the idea that
actually it is a large scale problem so
a few uh I think there are two different
questions everyone about how systemic is
it is police abuse and pleas for
violations in general and then how how
systemic is race over yeah let's let's
separate the race to the to like you
know for a second here so so my response
to that is you know there are lots of
different things that drive how many
times police shoot people over the
course year including you know general
crime rates general sort of consensus
about you know how people's lives are
you know police attitudes how many
police officers are on the floors how
well equipped they are well trained they
are you know there was a lot of a lot
more violence period in the 1970s and
1980s and up to early 1990s you know my
my measure of whether a system is
corrupt is whether you can you can point
to specific incidents where you know a
bad apple or whatever you want to call
it has clearly acted corruptly and then
a you know violated some of these
constitutional rights and nothing is
done about it you can say that bad cops
are tiny percentage the overall force
but if the system isn't doing anything
about those bad cops or even if it when
it does they can find a job you know a
county or two over I think do you have a
corrupt system and and you know yes it's
probably a small percentage of cops who
kill people or her shouldn't go up to
people or we're sort of blatantly racist
but there is an entire police culture of
covering up of decided to get it cops
always should always look out for each
other that sort of the the best interest
of cops you know
prioritized over everything justice over
the community of people are supposed to
be serving so you know that I feel like
there are lots of different ways that
you can break down these shootings
liabilities you can crunch to date a lot
of ways you can try to like you know and
remove different variables but if you
have a system where even the sort of
obviously corrupt people are very rarely
held accountable then I think you can
say this with unequivocally its best
system
and I think you know your focus on
systems of policing and this I'm taking
of your book rise of the warrior cop
where you know in the end I mean you you
know individuals obviously you know
we're both libertarian leaning or
libertarian and so you know you want to
prioritize or you want to you want to
pay deference to people's individual
actions but when you're in a system that
is so overwhelmingly pointed in one
direction the limit for the scope for
individual action is by definition
limited right so yeah I mean this is you
know as somebody who sort of Begley came
from the right and who finds you know
less and less in common with prey but
you know one point I've tried to make
over the years I've tried to bring sort
of people on the right along when these
issues is that no we and people on the
right conservatives they understand the
value and the importance of incentives
and almost every other facet of
government except the Krakken justice
system
you know if you're police officer every
incentive points toward you covering up
for bad cops because if you don't you
know they're not going to get your back
if you need them there's gonna be
enormous for your pressure you know
there are I don't know how many stories
I've written over the years where you
know there are some sort of blatant act
of corruption or police abuse or
shooting or beating someone and the only
person who ends up getting disciplined
anyway is the cop you've reported the
other cops I mean that's a that's a it's
almost a cliche it's a so you know we
have a system a system is poorly
incentivized we have to start talking
about how we reverse those incentives
and I'll give you sort of a good example
of you know one of the policy proposals
that's you know pretty out there in
terms of you know whether it would ever
ever be politically acceptable but I
think makes a lot of sense this idea
that we should start paying settlements
or awards and police abuse police use
cases lawsuits out of police pensions
instead of out of the public fund and
you know it's never going to fly
although to be honest I never thought
repealing qualified immunity would have
the support it has today so who knows
but if you think about how that would
operate on the ground if I'm a cop now
you know every incentive is pushing me
toward
sort of going along with the way things
have always been not raising you know if
I'm adorable well-intentioned you know
conscientious cop every incentive is
toward me sort of just going along to
get along looking the other way if you
might wonder the cops are corrupt or
abusive but if you know if it's Florida
system where every time another cop does
something that risks a lawsuit and now
it's sort of like my pension is at stake
when you know my partner does something
bad
now the attendant you know you're
pushing back a little bit and now maybe
consented is maybe not to report him is
that will probably lead to a lawsuit but
at least to sort of you know try to get
him moving in the right direction at
least you know trying to not just sort
of going along to get along
what you recently updated a story I
guess that or a practice that you did a
survey that you did in 2018 of kind of
studies and stories about systemic
racism in policing you just updated that
it's Washington Post
can you define systemic racism and then
the ways in which you know just
summarized kind of your findings because
I think part of the confusion here
particularly on the right is that most
people are not you know openly racist
they're not Georgia or you know they're
not Strom Thurmond types or anything
like that and so they're slow to kind of
acknowledge that there can be racism
even if there aren't that many
particular races but can you talk about
what is systemic racism and then what
have you found how does that influence
policing so yes I think there are a lot
of misconceptions about what systemic
racism is and I'll be honest you know
for a long time I didn't really
understand what it was it's this
systemic racism is not the idea that
everybody every player within a system
is racist on a sort of individual level
it's that the system itself it was you
know constructed bill honed at a time
when in this country where you know
racism was sort of written into our laws
it was a day-to-day fact of life and way
of life and so you know the idea that
the criminal justice systems that we
built during Jim Crow era
during reconstruction you know which
haven't really substantively changed
since the end of Jim Crow the idea that
you know I don't even think it should be
practically controversial to think that
those systems you know that had a
purpose at that time now you know
probably haven't shed all of the the
sort of aspects of of you know
deliberately wanting racially based
outcomes they're not just gonna sort of
shed that stuff overnight I mean it has
to be purged from them and we haven't
really done a good job of that and will
give you a good you know my favorite
example of this which is you know after
Ferguson I went to st. Louis County in
Missouri and it's reporting there's been
a lot of subsequent reporting on this
but no st. Louis County has over 90
municipalities within the county which
is a scene number of cities and towns
and the reason for that is in during the
sort of great white flight from the
suburbs or to the suburbs from st. Louis
white people to remove into a suburb you
know eventually sort of black people
would also upper class middle class
black people would also move out white
people didn't like that so we picked up
and move a mile over and start a new
town and this kind of just kept
happening all over st. Louis County and
you got these sort of what they go
postage stamp towns all over the all
over the county well every one of those
towns also has a town council are almost
all and have a town council in a police
department and the towns are basically
funded well the primary source of
funding is supposed to be a sales tax
well if you're a poor town which tends
to be the black or towns you're gonna
get much less revenue from sales taxes
and so they supplement that or in some
cases their primary source of revenue
are fines and fees that they you know
extract from theirs their residents and
the really sort of pernicious part of
this that I think you know it's hard for
people to sort of understand without
knowing that history is that the blacker
the town you know the poor of the town
probably the black of the town and the
black of the town the more reliant they
are on these fines and fees and in all
these towns the police don't actually
solve crimes the county believe that
their sole purpose is to extract revenue
from their Reza
in order to pay their own salaries I
mean you know conservatives always like
to joke about the government program
that pays you know one guy to dig a
ditch and the other guy to float back up
I mean here you have a police department
that solely exists to phi extract fine
from people to pay the salaries of
police police office and you know a lot
of these towns have the black city
council or black city manager they're
their police departments are you know
usually blacker than other police
departments and yet they're doing more
harassing of their residents in any
other town and that so that's systemic
racism where it's it's it's independent
of almost anybody's explicit motivations
in a system right I mean you can argue
that the black cops that are harassing
people in the black towns are racist
you also can't argue that is Ana racist
system that is built on rate system
agassiz and you know I think you know we
you know it so battalions I think we
need to recognize that I also think you
know the whole idea of racism or
systemic racism racial profiling racism
the criminal justice system
you know the counter that is always well
yeah Julie the black card it's you know
in black on black crime looked at blacks
committed a disproportionate number as a
matter of fact I mean a lot of people
now are talking about however the you
guess Memorial Day weekend in Chicago 18
people were killed on May 31st but we
don't hear about that almost all of them
black on black right that's the argument
but you know the you look at for example
stop and frisk in New York City which is
often justified do you know that look at
all the black lives it stop and frisk
say because it took guns out of the
hands of criminals right well I can't
member the exact figure but something
like 94 95 percent of the people were
stopped and frisked at least didn't find
anything right so if that's the argument
that you know look at all the black guy
as we say for this is in response to the
higher proportion of black people commit
crimes what you're saying is those
ninety-five percent of people who were
stopped and frisked are innocent sorry
that's fine and that means were sort of
fine with punishing people of one group
of a particular group because other
members of that group you know did bad
things and you know that's sort of the
opposite of individualism right and they
we're sort of treating people based on
the actions of other people who look
like them
um you know if the argument is that
black people commit more crimes
therefore black people more black people
are in prison you know that's at least
something that we can look at the data
on and try to figure out but you know
the idea that it's that racial profiling
and stopping and searching innocent
people on the side of the road is okay
because those people you know are a
member of a group that tends to I don't
know be more likely to engage in drug
trafficking you're excusing justifying
the excuse me you're justifying
punishing people based on a member that
the fact that they're a member of a
racial and that is this fundamentally in
libertarian to turn it kind of in the
other direction if libertarians and
conservatives often get you know the
understanding of systems or you know in
the way you point out you know they
believe that incentive structure
behavior in every way except in you know
policing what are the main problems what
are the main problems that you see in
kind of liberal and progressive
critiques of policing or of a larger
system of oppression well I mean I think
there's there is a lot of emphasis on
there can be a lot of into some sort of
unproven social programs that you know I
think it may be contributed to a lot of
the problems that we're trying to fight
you know on these issues as a
libertarian I tend to you know identify
more with progressives and with
conservatives so you know and I think
that for about a generation or two now
conservatives have had kind of the upper
hand on this and have kind of
implemented their policies almost that
will a lot of times with help from you
know the Democratic Party for example
yeah I said I'm sorry to interrupt but I
was just watching a documentary where
Charles Rangel you know a black member
of Congress very influential talked
about his push in the 80s and 90s to
increase sentencing disparities between
powder and crack cocaine and then
recognizing that he actually made a
significant mistake there yeah both he
and Biden actually at various points
criticized the rate administration for
not going far enough or on drugs but I
guess my point is just that it's it's
you know it's hard for me to find a lot
of fault with where progressives are
coming down
leasing issues right now just because
we're in such a hole over the last you
know several decades of you know tough
and tougher and toughest on crime policy
you know a lot of progressive ideas
haven't been tried to so it's hard to
sort of say hey you're you're you know
you're you're advocating policies that
have failed which we can look do you buy
you into the you know I see this
adjacent to a lot of protests you know
the idea that capitalism is actually the
root cause of all of the sufferings of
black people in America yeah I mean I
it's hard for me to give that much
credence because you know there's
nothing you know capitalism is about
voluntary exchange it's about you know
owning your body and owning the the
products of your own labor you know I
understand the argument that the police
sort of exist to protect a capitalist
system where that's kind of
traditionally but how they've had
they've been viewed but you know I
actually agree with progressives that
you know policing you can draw a direct
line from modern policing to slavery and
slave patrols in fact number police
departments you know are direct
descendants of slave patrols and into
them South but I but you know as a
libertarian and I think slavery is sort
of the opposite of capitalism right I
mean if there's no and there's a lot of
debate on this I know what's a sixteen
banking project but you know I firmly
believe that you know capitalism means
free exchange and me and you and God
even the fruits of your labors and
slavery the hypothetical that so the
extent that like police evolved from the
system that tried to protect slavery I
think is a pretty good argument that it
doesn't have sort of its roots in
capitalism right you have written about
the Brianna Taylor case which a person
who was killed by police just a little
bit before George Floyd that case seems
to be a horrifying kind of encapsulation
of the way in which the drug war and and
a whole host of kind of constitutional
abuses that go along with the drug war
culminate in you know
terror of innocent citizens can you talk
a little bit about that and you know do
you do you think the Brianna Taylor
cases is driving enough of the
conversation for police reform you know
I'd like to see it driving more because
I think those the the use of those kinds
of tactics are far too common we're
seeing them expanded to being used you
know it used to be that kind of tactic
was only used if you were confronting
somebody who was in the process of
committing a violent crime where
somebody's life was an immediate risk
and what we see in the 80s and 90s is
those those kinds of you know dynamic
entry forced entry raids increasingly
and then not dominantly used to serve
drug warrants and was it was a really a
dramatic shift and the use of that kind
of violence government violence where
before you were using against somebody
who was you know in the process of
committing a violent crime so you know
an active shooter or a bank robber or a
hostage situation where now that kind of
forced primarily being using into people
who are still merely suspected of
committing non-violent consensual crimes
you know most of these raids are not you
know arrest warrants there were search
warrants there's still in the
investigative process a lot of times is
based on dirty information it's the the
tactics themselves are extremely
volatile and violent they leave a very
very little margin for error they leave
very little margin for error and you
know as we see the brian taylor people
die because of it the piece I wrote
about beyond Taylor you know it's a bit
like it's a bit into the weeds and the
the legal history about this but it's
really kind of remarkable um so about a
year in Africa I I looked at about a
hundred search warrants no not search
warrants that were served in Little Rock
Arkansas
I found that about 95 percent of them
were illegal they were in direct
defiance of a Supreme Court ruling on a
case called Richard Wisconsin what the
court held in that ruling was that in
order to get a no-knock warrant the
police have to show specific information
that the person they're going to search
is a threat to either you know attack
the police dispose of evidence or flee
if the cops take the time to knock in
the house first
and in these warrants I found a little
rock every single warrant just had this
boilerplate language cut and paste
almost word-for-word and most of them
that said that all drug dealers are a
threat you know to attack police or
dispose of evidence or flee if the
police not announced the Supreme Court
has explicitly said that's illegal that
is not acceptable you have to show
specific information about that
particular suspect and in Little Rock
you know they were using we have videos
is they were using explosives to blow
doors off the hinges I mean you know
sometimes the other side of that door
they're lucky to be alive
the remarkable thing is the judges were
signing off on these warrants and I
talked to the two judges who had signed
those to them and they were completely
oblivious to the fact that they were
signing illegal warrants so is it that
they don't read the warrants or they do
and they just ignore the Supreme Court
ruling or what's going on there so
here's the problem so a few years later
in the Hudson versus Michigan the court
ruled that yes the knock and announce
rule is you know inherent in the Fourth
Amendment it's part of the castle
doctrine which is the centuries-old law
that goes back to English common law but
we're not going to apply the
exclusionary rule when the police
violate this rule and so basically there
is no mechanism to actually enforce this
requirement and so at least millat of us
at the time predicted you know this is
going to be terrible because there's
nothing stopping publice violate it's
just on paper it's not a rule at all if
there's no way to enforce it and so
that's what we saw him with Rock and
that's what we saw in the Brianna Taylor
case I looked at there were five
warrants for that particular drug
investigation and on every one and then
under the the portion would be officer
the detective requested a no-knock it
was the word-for-word exact same
language about drug dealers being you
know violent or a threat to dispose of
evidence and Brianna Taylor's case you
know it was particularly pernicious
because Taylor her involvement in this
you know drug conspiracy or whatever you
want to call it was that she dated the
guy who was under investigation
several years earlier they broken up
years ago but she had let him use her
address to receive some packages in the
mail that was the extent of it now if
they had actually you know followed the
supreme courts you know guidance or
rules in this situation they would have
done a little bit more investigation and
they would have had to because the judge
would
required it before giving a no-knock and
they you know they and the judge would
have learned that she her connection
with all this was tenuous and that this
kind of violence wasn't necessary
against her the packages that the
boyfriend ex-boyfriend received her
house were clothing and shoes there
actually weren't even any drugs in the
packages her only crime was de letting
you know a former you know paramour used
her address to receive some clothing in
the mail and that they kicked down her
door in the middle of the night and her
then-boyfriend you know reaches for rape
a gun which he legally and that's
another day I mean you know they would
have done some research never known that
he stayed there they would have known
that he was a licensed gun owner and
they probably I would hope it would have
drawn the conclusion that drug dealers
tend not to license their weapons with
the government right is you know this is
a ridiculous question so I took you know
I apologize in advance for asking but is
it a sign of progress that charges
against the boyfriend who wounded a
police officer were dropped immediately
in the in the melee after the Brianna
Taylor killer absolutely doesn't mean
the corium a case that you know I sort
of started my career with the reason was
great example I mean Corey did ten years
in prison and several him on death row
for mistaking the cops who were breaking
into his home again with an ax warrant
that was probably illegal and right now
there's a guy in Texas is about to go on
trial for for killing a police officer
in a very similar situation and in that
case the police
you know admitted that they didn't find
they didn't follow their own policies
when they did this no not great on the
guy's house and they actually admit that
he reached for the gun at the same time
that the battering ram hit the door so
there's no way those pricks they were
cops and also didn't buy drugs so yeah I
mean it is progress I think the the
public pressure probably helped I think
the fact that Brianna Taylor was
completely innocent I think if she had
any kind of record at all would been a
lot more difficult to persuade the
district attorney to drop the charges
what are you know let's talk about
reforms
what what are the you know top three or
five reforms that you think can happen
that will actually radically shift the
way that policing is done in America
I mean it's an interesting question
because if you'd asking that question a
month ago the the sort of Overton Window
of what was possible is that what you're
I would yeah yeah yeah smaller think
what what's possible now versus what was
possible a month ago are two very very
different questions um you know I think
even before George Floyd we saw the ball
was moving on qualified immunity I think
thanks in large part to work from from
IJ and Cato who I think have really
mainstreamed the the really absurdities
that come with the idea that cops should
be sort of above the law it only comes
to violating people's constitutional
rights so I think abolishing qualified
immunity is very high on this list I
think reducing the influence of police
unions can I ask before we get to the
Union question qualified immunity though
Tim Scott the centered Republican
senator from South Carolina a black man
who has talked movingly in the Senate
about his experiences with cops
you know rouse rousting him simply for
being black he's bait he said you know
qualified immunity is not going to get
across the finish line so do you think
qualified immunity is is a live reform
or it's a kind of dead on arrival in the
US Senate I mean I think it's dead on
arrival as long as a Republican told the
Senate I think there's there's a
possibility that you know Senate changes
hands that it could make it could pass
but I mean I think you remember a
qualified immunity is it's it's a
judge-made law I mean it's an it is not
you know if you call yourself an
originalist there's no way you can
support followed by an immunity and it's
also just absurd I mean if we want to
talk about incentives I mean so in order
to get past qualified immunity in a
lawsuit against police officer you have
to prove that a the officer violated
your constitutional rights you have to
then be you have to show that basically
sort of the fact pattern by which the
cop violated your rights that there is
established law showing that that fact
pattern is unconstitutional and the way
the courts have interpreted this is is
you almost have to have a you know
spot-on fact for a fact everything has
to be exactly identical to a previous
case where the court has said yes this
is a constitutional violation to
you know to give an extreme example that
no reason is covered in there are cops
who stole my things like three hundred
thousand dollars from people while they
were conducting a search warrant on
their house stole their money and the
court ruled that well yeah that's
certainly a violation but there's no
sort of on point existing law saying
there's a violation so we can't hold
these cops accountable
the really absurd thing is if you think
about the incentives that puts in place
it it's actually incentive but police to
not educate themselves on the latest
developments in constitutional law
because they more they know about it
harder it is for them to say this wasn't
established law and I couldn't have
known and then the other really you know
crazy part of this is that the courts
sometimes they'll just move immediately
to the second prong they'll just say
well there's no previous case on point
here you know that matches this fact
pattern therefore this is an established
law therefore your suit fails but they
never actually rule on whether the
actions and that fact pattern were
unconstitutional and so that means the
next time the cops do something very
similar they can say well there was no
established law because you didn't say
that this is wrong you just said there's
no established law and becomes itself
sort of perpetuating problem where the
courts never actually hold cops
accountable because they never actually
you know definitively say no you can't
do that so qualified immunity is one you
were about to talk about police unions
how does that you know what needs to
happen to police unions to allow more
accountability I think they need to be
abolished frankly I mean I know that's
that's politically pretty difficult but
you know the very least we need to
drastically diminish their influence you
know a lot of places Little Rock again
which everything a lot about the black
black police officers actually started
their own union because they felt that
the white or the traditional Union
wasn't representing their interests
particularly when it came you know what
a white officers were conflicted with
the black officer or when a black
officer you know was facing discipline
for reporting misconduct by a white
officer the union would not protect the
black officer wouldn't represent them
the unions are far too influential they
having a massive stranglehold on
politicians particular in larger cities
if you look at de Blasio I mean you ran
my piece reform plan
form was elected on it and then said
offered to the most epic kind of
milquetoast criticism of policing I
think I've received a politician because
he told he mentioned in public that he
had told his mixed-race son Cameron with
the exact wording is something about you
know you should be careful when you're
around the place which you know is fine
in the union reacted this massive like
you know a show of effrontery and Perot
clutching to the point where you know
they turned his back on and when he
tried to give a eulogy at a police you
know and it's clear that it's from his
action since that that shook him to his
very core because he's been nothing but
deferential Lisa he is he is in his own
category because literally everybody
hates him in New York but he can win
elections with you know sixty percent
plus of the vote so yeah I mean he's
doing something right while he's yeah so
you know what what would go into
actually restraining police unions or
redirecting whatever collective
bargaining rights I have had how does
that work I mean it's difficult I mean I
think I think part of it is just you
know electing politicians who have the
spine to quote stand up to omit making
clear that you know there's more of a
political price to be paid for
capitulated new police union than for
standing up to them I mean I think
that's really kind of what it boils down
to they are you know that they're the
more powerful in some places in others
but they also don't exist everywhere and
the idea that sort of policing will
collapse and the cops will nobody will
be want to come up become a police
officer if there are no unions is the
lied by the fact that you know in the
large majority of the country there are
no unions and cups are fine you think
you know I mean they're they're fine in
the sense that you know they're not yet
they they get paid they you know they're
not fired for no cause or anything like
right I mean it's it's almost impossible
to fire a police officer whether there's
a union there that's pretty well step
farther are there particular
philosophies or theories of policing
that that are gaining ground at various
places that are you know more consistent
with the idea of people being able to
pursue life liberty and the pursuit of
happiness you know is is any of that
taking place well so one form that I
think particular batarians should be
giving a lot bang a lot attention to is
this group called cure violence that
operates in several large cities but but
primarily in Chicago and this group it's
an intervention group so they operate in
high crime areas and when there's a an
incident you know a homicide or you know
some some sort of gang activity for
example you know they they go in and
they have they have authority and
respect and credibility in the
communities where they operates a lot of
times they hire people who used to be in
those communities the hire former gang
members the idea is if they go in and
they intervene and they try to prevent
violence from spreading and they trying
to prevent you know clinic before it
happens and there is pretty compelling
empirical data in Chicago showing that
in the in that neighborhoods really
operated they had a very substantial
effect on reducing the homicide rate in
fact when the the homicide rate spiked
in Chicago several years ago it
coincided with City cutting funding to
clear care violence in fact if you look
at the neighborhood specific data it's
pretty overwhelming that this group was
doing a very good job the city cut
funding they were no longer in those
neighborhoods and crime you know resumed
and spiked in those neighborhoods you
know what would that work as a
replacement for police I don't know I
you know probably not but the idea that
you know maybe we could redirect you
know a not insubstantial amount of money
that we give to armed you know officers
of the government patrolling these
neighborhoods to unarmed people who try
to resolve things you know not with
coercion but with negotiation and
talking and mediation I think it's
definitely something that's that's worth
looking at you know it's hard to kind of
say pleasing has been with us for so
long and it in its current form it's
hard to sort of even kind of imagine a
country without any sort of armed police
at all but you know I do think we can
think creatively about these things I've
written a little bit about the des fund
that would determine to fund and a lot
of the controversy it has created but
you know there are a lot of policies
that that I think libertarians even
even police groups supportive can
support that at least would dramatically
reduce the footprint of police
decriminalizing drugs would take a
massive number of jobs off the streets
it's hard you know related to kind of
drug war issues you know most most
people in the country now live in a
place where either pot marijuana is
legal or is certainly been
decriminalized is there evidence that in
place it you know and this is the
beginning stages of the you know at the
end of the drug war which is going to
take decades if not centuries to really
unwind unfortunately but is there
evidence that in places where Breck way
recreational pot is legal and widely
accepted our buying and selling it
legally does that have an effect on
police abuse or you know is anything or
you know are there is there anything to
report on that yet so the studies I've
seen in states that have legalized
marijuana who said it dramatically
reduces number of arrests the number of
stops the number of searches which is
all very good things it doesn't really
do much on it when it comes to the
racial disparities among the ongoing
stops and arrests and searches but it
does diminish them overall it reduces
the number of you know contacts between
police the citizens which is always a
good thing and you know it reduces the
kind of roadside you know harassment
that we've seen which I think is
positive and you know it's been a while
now so I'm sure you could sort of cherry
big data to make it say whatever you
want to say you want to say crime is
going down or up since legalization but
we certainly haven't seen the sort of
explosion of crime that everybody know
that you know people were the probe drug
war people were predicting and of
anything I think I think you know
generally crime has either stayed the
same and one down in those states are
there other reforms that you think are
particularly worth kind of focusing on
yeah so one you know Alex Tabarrok wrote
about yesterday I think and if you ought
to be able kana for you to join me he's
written about it is you know there's no
reason why our traffic laws have to be
enforced by armed government agents I
mean you know if you will that you're
talking crazy but this is the type of
thing where it's like to say that out
loud
to be like of course right but it's not
imaginable until you actually say it
yeah and you start thinking about it I
mean what is the police when a police
officer pulls pulls you over what does
he do he pulls you over gives you a
ticket which then you take home and
decide whether or not you're gonna pay
and you send it in mail like why can't
you have a know some sort of civilian
traffic core who instead of pulling you
over they see you speeding they write
down your license plate they call it in
you get a ticket in the mail I mean the
end result is still the same you get to
take it in the mail that you can pay or
choose not to pay and face the
consequences of that the difference is
you're not having this armed you know
interaction slash confrontation with a
police officer I'm just completely
unnecessary you know the other thing is
we can we also need to just kind of
divorce the idea that we need our
traffic laws need to be about road
safety and now about generating revenue
you know there are lots of studies done
in Europe about the for instance
roundabouts instead of stop signs there
have been really a Dru studies about
speed limits and how arbitrary they are
roads are actually built you know
imagining people driving much faster
than speed limits allow which means you
know cities and towns can sort of play
speed limits wherever they want
arbitrarily in a way that sort of
maximizes revenue to the city that
shouldn't be the goal of our traffic
laws I drafted a little Oh should be
keep the streets a so you could
dramatically reduce the size of police
force by stopping traffic enforcement
and by you know reimagining the way our
traffic laws work so that it's not about
you don't have police departments and
cities that are reliant just budgets are
I mean there are cities that you know
forty fifty percent of their budget I
mean it's gonna be smaller towns but
I'll reliant on traffic revenue in it
and that you know police officers in
those places know that that's their job
it's to catch me and this is you know
it's kind of like the idea of going to
school and hating it I mean that idea of
the you know of a traffic stop or
you know of you driving through small
towns and you know and getting a ticket
and stuff like that it's so deeply
embedded in our culture it's almost
impossible to think about a world where
you wouldn't always be worried about
picking up a ticket right and you know
nobody's saying that that there's the
anarchy and the highways but we could
have speed limits that are more organic
and are more designed sort of calculated
based on how people actually drive I
mean studies showing the safest speed
limit is one that's like I think what
the 90th percentile of people drive at
and right now it's far lower than that
and that just creates unnecessary
interactions I mean if you think about
all if you think about all the police
you know
abuse cases or deaths or beatings that
originated with the traffic stop and
then sort of escalated from there think
about all the the animus and anger and
and you know marginalized communities
that come from the regular harassment
they face from traffic stops if they can
take those out of the picture I mean you
could go a long way toward you know
rehabilitating kind of the image of the
of the police and you know just those
proposals you know taking caps out of
schools of stopping the use of cops for
input enforce traffic laws you know even
just sort of decriminalizing drugs I
even necessarily legalize them right
there you're eliminating massive
portions of the police I mean that that
I think any of those things with
difficulties for defunding the police
and you know it would leave a much
smaller police force but it also mean
you could pay the cops over there more
you could hire better cops and they
would actually be fighting you know
crying and so sad I mean is is part of
the the large issue of reform is really
minimizing contacts a particularly kind
of confrontational
context between the police and citizens
because I recall reading you know that
in any individual stop it may not be
that a black or Hispanic is more likely
to you know get into you know be
ticketed or arrested but they have so
many more contacts with the police that
essentially it's you know over policing
is a fun
action or you know bad things happening
is mostly a function of the number of
contacts you have with the police okay
minimizing the overall number you're
gonna have a less fraught Society yeah
well I think there's there's an inherent
power imbalance when you're pulled over
and there's this guy who's got you know
six different weapons on his belt a sort
of hovering over you while you're
sitting in your car looking up at and
and if you're you know if you're a part
of the community where this happens to
you you know I don't know however many
times a month five six seven ten some
areas you know yeah it's easy for us you
know somebody who looks like me to say
what you should respectful to cops and
blank to them but you know if they're
like harassing even and and screwing
with you you know several times a month
you know eventually you're gonna like
kind of lose your patience and you know
I think we expect people to be perfect
in those situations and yeah I think
reducing the number of those contacts is
a huge part of this and you know it also
creates animus between makes it more
difficult for police to actually solve
crimes in those communities because
people don't trust them I mean there are
polls showing it was a very recent poll
actually showing that black people are
more fearful of being a victim of a
police beating or police shooting than
they are of being victimized by a
criminal and if people are more afraid
of the police and they are the criminals
they're not gonna cooperate with the
police they'll resolve crimes are you
optimistic final question are you
optimistic about some kind of serious
reform happening in a lot of ways I mean
it seems you know we've been here before
at various points where there are
high-profile cases to his credit Donald
Trump did signed some criminal justice
reform legislation earlier in his
presidency you know will you go back to
the discussions and arguments and
conversation that came out of Ferguson
are you optimistic about police reform
and and how will we know when we got
there yeah so you know Trump signed it's
on the first effect I mean he kind of
tried to undermine it every since he's
behind it but the fact that he you know
one it kind of the symbolic credit for
signing it is is remarkable I mean I
think most of my life you know
Democrat and Republican nominee for
president thought over to seem to be the
you know look the tough-on-crime so the
fact that people are trying to look like
reformers is pretty significant I'd and
we must say Joe Biden now is essentially
walking back almost his entire
legislative history right which is you
know I I don't want either I I think we
should just not have a president for
maybe the next eight or ten years but
it's kind of great to see Joe Biden
basically say yeah I didn't mean any of
that it was yeah I mean he says I think
you know whether you find that sincere
opportunist yeah who cares that's right
I mean if he's signing or if yep you
know but I actually am more optimistic
than I've been in a long time even even
that I was at Ferguson because I do
think with Ferguson again because of the
narrative around Michael Brown that
people could seize on if they didn't
want just to sort of sympathize with the
protesters it was there I'm gonna be
like a polling it is remarkable I mean I
think it's the support of for the
protesters has jumped 20 points and West
to well and the Washington Post actually
just ran a poll that said it was
something like 69 percent of Americans
now agree that there is a problem with
police and compared to something like
forty three percent right after Ferguson
and and the race aspect did I mean large
large majorities now accept the fact
that there is you know inherent racial
discrimination in policing and you know
that alone you think is is gonna yeah I
don't see it fading just because I don't
think that's the kind of thing that
you're convinced on and then two months
from now you change your mind like so
you know the fact what it is can I ask
in on the topic of police reform I mean
there's you know there are certain
federal laws that can be changed I will
have a significant impact but so much
policing is done at the local and state
level there are so many police
departments are so many municipalities
is it yeah I mean there is not a switch
right to just flip things and say okay
cops you can't do this anymore
right so well the best thing we can do
at the federal level is to remove the
kind of perverse incentives that are
driving bad behavior at the local level
but you're right I mean anything mostly
reforming
gonna happen absolute love when you know
what happened in Minneapolis I mean it's
gonna be fascinating to see what what
results meant maybe that is too much and
maybe they'll they'll be problems and
don't have to kind of roll it back a
little bit and they are they essentially
I mean the the City Council is
effectively abolishing the police
department as it exists now and
replacing it with a different set of
kind of operations right and it's not
clear what it's going to look like later
but you know I mean this says that you
know libertarian I think it's a good
thing I mean I think we want to see
cities experimenting and trying
different things and trying different
ways of you know walking that line
between public safety and individual
rights and you know the more that try
different formulas the more likely are
we to find one that's going to hit on
the right equation and then once we know
what works we could ignore that right
that's right but I mean you already kind
of see this I mean for years I was I was
harping on the idea that you know it is
really easy to influence significantly
influence a district attorneys race or
sheriff's race and it's something that
like criminal justice reform people had
kind of not really engaged with until
about say four or five years ago then we
saw them start to engage and now we're
seeing you know the the election of
prosecutors across the country who are
you know former defense attorneys who
you know are refusing to to enforce
unjust laws or at least keep prioritize
them and you know that the idea that you
know the prosecutor would enforce
certain laws strikes this is you know
maybe there's something unjust or unfair
about that that's always saying
prosecutors have never had the resources
to enforce all the laws all the time
there's always a matter of prioritizing
the way we're seeing prosecutors that
are and I elected in blazes that are
there they're you know implementing
these reforms less so and sheriff's
elections but we are seeing a little bit
of that and you know we're not seeing
crime spike in those particular areas I
mean there are some places where it has
other places where it's gone down I do
think that you know if you can't show
some sort of dramatic reaction to
abrasax to us where they progressive or
reform minded prosecutor you know the
fact that less people are being rolled
into the criminal justice system that
less people are having their lives
ruined with the criminal record or
sitting in jail for six weeks waiting
for
six months waiting for charges you know
that all to self is inherently a good
thing and you know I think you have to
show some pretty severe consequences in
terms of crime in order to offset that
good that's being done we really I
haven't seen that well we are going to
leave it there we've been talking with
Radley Balko of The Washington Post
about criminal justice reform police
abuse systemic racism Radley thanks so
much for talking
I played thanks
