Policing & Prejudice: Fixing the U.S. Incarceration System

                       

Being a consciously ethical person is not a prerequisite for enforcing criminal law. It is preferential criteria, as the power that accompanies a police badge or judge gavel is immense and has the potential to affect society positively or otherwise. No, an individual is not required to prove their ethicality before appointment to such an occupation. Such a quality is immeasurable, and, at times, completely subjective. Ethics are dependent on one’s experience and surroundings, generalized in law to create social order and peace, but just how effective is this translation in enforcing justice for crime?

            According to Federal Magistrate Judge Gordon Gallagher, not completely effective, as he calls for a nationwide need “to fix the system.” As a seasoned practitioner of United States criminal law, Gallagher is not new to facing the shortcomings of a complex judiciary body. Further, such inaccuracies in the enforcement of criminal justice have foundational effects on our country; “it causes problems for our democracy,” says Gallagher.

In particular, Gallagher’s professional experience has led him to consternation with the existence of blatant injustices installed in the very democratic system purposed at their defeat. Gallagher houses particular disagreement with the manner by which some judges achieve appointment; when judges are able to campaign for their job, “a lot of money has been tracked back to potential litigants,” says Gallagher. By funding the campaign of the judge who will be handling their criminal case, individuals may effectively buy their innocence, and legally so.

Money plays an essential role in the judicial process, as it has potential to effect judge appointments and their consequent rulings while in term, even the nation’s written law itself. Similar ethical ambiguity exists in the policing side of criminal justice, according to Mesa County police chief, John Camper. Camper spoke of “COPS grants,” basically, “government money so that we can hire more officers.” The qualifications for these funds are changed with each new presidential term, and, this year, the Grand Junction police department “didn’t even apply,” says Camper. The applications required “extensive proof that Grand Junction is not a sanctuary city,” says Camper, among other information of specific pertinence to immigration laws and related policing activity.   

Given the new president’s push for an increased enforcement of immigration law, Camper suspected the federal money given by COPS grants would be in specific affiliation with bipartisan political goals. “Immigration is a federal responsibility,” says Camper, and the acceptance of such politically motivated funds would require his department to enforce the immigration laws of its funders at the state level. However, it is not that the GJPD wouldn’t benefit from some extra money. On the contrary, in the modern policing climate, Camper fears, “we are pouring more and more on [an officer’s] plate than they can deal with,” and insists the hiring of more law enforcement is essential to increase the responsibilities of such. The function of police departments across the U.S. would be benefit from the increased allocation of funds to allow them to expand their ranks and their responsibilities, but the only offered funds are tied with political bias, preventing the use of such funds, despite an obvious need.

Ethics are potently present in the operations of the U.S. criminal justice system, however, they seem to falter to less importance in the operations of the judicial and police forces in one particular area: money. Funds are withheld from police forces that do not represent the motivations of the party in current, temporary power, rather than being allocated to the departments whose operations and upheaval of criminal law which could most benefit from such assistance. Here, the enforcement of criminal justice is hindered by an inappropriate allocation of funds. A similar result stems from judicial campaign bribery, creating failures in the outcomes of our criminal justice operators. So, “why should a rich person be less dangerous if they have a million dollars cash?” asks Gallagher. The short answer- they shouldn’t be, but the manner by which money moves around our criminal justice system is attributed with clear ethical leniency.