Is It Time to Dissolve the Oakland Police Department? � Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

10.10.12

Is It Time to Dissolve the Oakland Police Department? � Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names: by DAN SIEGEL

How is this for a novel idea?

“The police are the public and the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

Or this?

“The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.”

These statements were not made by an advocate for police reform but by Sir Robert Peel, who served as the English prime minister during the first half of the 1800s and created London’s Metropolitan Police Force in 1829. Peel was a Conservative politician who argued that effective policing depended on public support that diminished proportionately to police use of force. He also stated, “Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.”

Whether policing in the United States, particularly in cities like Oakland, ever conformed to Peel’s principles is surely subject to debate. What is not controversial, however, is the reality that Oakland’s police are not members of the community. Fewer than 10 percent live in Oakland.