Today I begin with the thesis that there is no such thing as a "good" cop. If you are one of those who are ready to jump down my throat and hurl rotten tomatoes at me, I ask that you remain calm until I have explained my position in sufficient detail. Bear in mind that most of what I will assert and attempt to defend bears the modifying amendment of "as currently constituted" and/or "as currently defined". I will do my best to make all of this clear in short order.
To begin, I strenuously and unequivocally object to the concept of a "law enforcement officer" for the reason that "law" stands ill-defined in every source I have come to know. In the dozens of attempts at defining "law" that I have read, which range from Bouvier's and other law dictionaries, to various less-formal swags, nowhere have I encountered a definition that was in any way so much as approaching the sufficiency of rigor. This is more than a little surprising, given that the future's of countless lives have hung and continue to hang on the concept, which speaks directly to the much vaunted idea of "justice". How can one have justice if we cannot define that which is just?
Even more surprising is the fact that one of the very best treatments on the subject can be found on wikipedia.org, a source I generally and validly view with keen suspicion and doubt. And yet, the article acknowledges my assertion that there exist no proper definitions of the term. To wit:
The article goes on in some detail, citing the various opinions regarding that which constitutes "law", the value there to be found in the confirmation of just how hopelessly inadequate are the extant definitions.
The one commonality that most definitions hold is the assertion that law is a system of "rules of action". While this is correct, so far as it goes, it goes not nearly far enough to satisfy the requirements of rigor.
I have, therefore, chosen to coin a new term, "Law", and do note the capitalization. "Law" is distinguished from "law" in that the factors arbitrariness and non-substantiation are absent. One might also call it "objective Law". Objective Law is that which can be demonstrated as objectively valid regardless of differing frames of reference and other variances between individuals or larger populations that are often used as the bases for justifying the arbitrary whims of so-called "authorities" in different places.
"Law" must be provably valid, a requirement which today is absent to an almost universal extent, most often leaving legislatures free to enact nearly anything they please. Statutes relating to firearms and taxation are perhaps the ultimate examples of the freewheeling arbitrariness that is so typically found these days.
Returning to the topic at hand, and assuming a properly rigor-laden definition of "Law", I would hold less objection to the idea of "Law enforcement officer", though I still see the keen and central emphasis on "enforcement" as being problematic. I am far more amenable to the old-school label of "peace officer", for in my opinion maintaining the public peace is far more in keeping with the proper role of a cop, enforcement being what we might regard as a regrettable secondary requirement to be undertaken only in the most grave of circumstances.
The enforcement of "law", vis-à-vis "Law", is perhaps the central problem that soundly discredits any claim of there being "good" cops. It is precisely the fact that "law" almost always represents the arbitrary and most often capricious will of a legislative body and that the enforcement of such arbitrary fiat is the core duty of law enforcement personnel that proves beyond argument that there are no such things as "good" cops. This is not to say that there are no good men who are cops or that cops never do good things. Quite the contrary, law enforcement officers do all manner of good things.
We often hear stories of cops who save drowning children and puppies. They apprehend dangerous criminals such as murderers and child molesters. All such acts are laudable from both practical and normative moral standpoints. But on the other hand, they also arrest people for possession of illegal drugs; growing cannabis; soliciting the services of prostitutes; gambling in non-approved facilities; bearing firearms and, until recently, engaging in homosexual congress. These are just a few of the more common statutory prohibitions of non-criminal acts that cops enforce at the points of guns and with threats of bodily destruction, financial ruin, prison, etc.
In other words, they enforce non-Law. This, of course, ventures into a far deeper and broader philosophical discussion, which we shall save for another day. But if for now you will partially suspend your inner skeptic and accept that proper Law cannot be arbitrary in its dictates, then the argument is very nearly mine at this point.
There are those who would cite the many good deeds of cops as some sort of justification for calling them "good". Let us briefly examine this through a simple comparative thought experiment where we set the Wayback machine to the early 1900s. As we step into 1908 Brooklyn, we find ourselves in a fine old-world Italian neighborhood where the people simply love their local hero, Vito Corleone. When Mrs. Poor Widowini was evicted for having a dog, Don Vito interceded on her behalf with the landlord, who eventually came around to his way of seeing things and not only allowed her to stay, but to also keep the dog, and reduced her rent by five- no, ten dollars per month!
Vito Corleone also gave countless thousands of dollars to innumerable good causes and saw to it that no foreign interloper caused trouble in his neighborhood. When the little girl needed surgery her parents could not afford, there was Don Vito with his open wallet to save the day. Signore Corleone was a true hero. A good man who was faithful to his wife and loved his children with great devotion. He was a "business" man, said business occasionally requiring something of a sterner hand with some of his associates. Every once in a while, when a partner got too far out of line, well... you know how that can go, and when Roberto Gandini suddenly disappears without a trace, what can one say? The Gowanis canal can be a dangerous place.
Do all the good deeds - those which grossly outnumber those criminal - excuse Vito Corleone's occasional acts of murder? Does the fact that he gives so much for his beloved neighborhood suggest we should turn a blind eye to the very serious crimes he commits, however infrequently?
If the answer you give is "no", then how could you or anyone so answering be able to excuse the crimes that cops commit as they carry out their duties in enforcing statutes that are not only morally repugnant and reprehensible, but are actually and provably felonious themselves?
This is where "as currently constituted" comes into play. "There is no such thing as a good cop, as their duties and responsibilities are currently constituted." It is impossible to credibly claim otherwise when their official acts result in the destruction of the lives of innocent people. When some sad sack, lonely man turns to a streetwalker for comfort, an act that in itself holds no element of criminality, and he is arrested, his name published in the newspaper as a "john", is fined countless thousands of dollars, and is jailed for a year with hardened criminals, there is nothing that can be said about the arresting cops to validly justify their dastardly act. The same may be said of the young punk who decides to fire up a gigantic spliff on the steps of the Manhattan courthouse and goes to prison for twenty years as a result. Stupidity does not perforce equate to feloniousness.
Taking action against those who commit crimes mala in sé is a valid role for cops.
Enforcing statutes for acts mala prohibita, on the other hand, is not a valid role for cops. In such cases, the act of enforcement itself becomes criminal, reducing cops to the status of felons whose acts cannot by any valid standard be justified as anything other than first-degree felonies.
Because of this dolorous circumstance of morally corrupt job requirements, cops are set between a rock and hard place. There is no doubt that many cops seek to do the good, but such intentions count for nothing when pursuant to such goals they unjustifiably bring innocents to harm with the complicity and protection of "the state".
This, my friends, is why so many people fear, despise, and hate cops. I can think of no person I have ever known who would fault a cop for arresting a bank robber, rapist, murderer, etc. Such acts represent true and actual crimes with true and actual victims. Conversely, I know and have otherwise met large numbers of people who consider cops to be dangerous and corrupt because they enforce statutes prohibiting activities such as gambling, drug use/possession/sales, sex for money, running naked through the streets, and so on.
Until the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of cops are amended to reflect the proper corrections to the gross and unjustifiable insufficiencies in the specifications of said duties, etc., a vast plurality of Americans are going to retain their jaded and mostly unfavorable opinions of law enforcement personnel.
There may be those who say "so what if some of us have no respect for cops?" To those people I would point out that such disharmony serves nobody well, save those few who stand to profit from such tensions, which is to say the political class who have historically used strife and its byproducts to justify usurpations of ever greater power.
Do cops want to be hated? Doubtless some may get off on the idea, but my money says most do not want to be the objects of broad ridicule, hatred, and ostracization. Therefore, it behooves us to redefine the role of the cop such that the vast and overwhelming majority of the people will be inclined to live in agreement with those roles and be more inclined to helpfulness, rather than fear or indifference.
We have a huge problem, and the status quo is not helping. Many say cops need to be reeled in - I even say it myself at times when I find myself exasperated with the current reality. Perhaps the better term would be "reshaped" into roles with which one would become hard-pressed to disagree.
I do sincerely believe that the redefinition of what it means to be a cop, when done competently and honestly, would go a long way to a significant general improvement in the quality of the lives of everyone, save the political class who would doubtlessly rail like sirens against any such changes.
Be well, be good, and as always, please accept my best wishes.
