Dear Editor,
I believe it is a fair statement that there is substantial public skepticism the world over of police self-investigations. That is, when there are probes of allegedly errant officers by the police itself. The odds are that investigations will come up emptyhanded.
I share coverage from the New York Post highlighting this reality. The caption of June 26 was: “NYPD failed to find one instance of biased policing in five years.” The devil is in the details.
According to the Post, “The NYPD received 2,495 reports of biased policing since it began investigating allegations from the public five years ago — but cops haven’t substantiated a single complaint, a new city report has found.” It would be helpful to repeat for emphasis: not a single complaint passed muster; not one found guilty of anything. I think this means a few thing
First, there is a large population of minorities waiting for an opportunity to bring the police into disrepute through lying about its actions. Second, that the police’s efforts to investigate (its own) with the intensity due these complaints were mainly lacking, complaints being given superficial attention. Or, third, that the investigating units themselves were biased and bent matters to facilitate favourable outcomes.
More specifics were furnished by The Office of the Inspector General, which reported, that the complaints were based on race, national origin and sexual orientation. And that NYPD officials have “never substantiated an allegation of biased policing.” To add fuel to speculations, a more credible entity was not part of the investigating mix: there was the disclosure that the Civilian Complaint Review Board — the agency that probes police misconduct — doesn’t investigate bias complaints. I see that as problematic.
“Biased policing, actual or perceived poses a threat to public safety….” Inspector General Philip Eure said. “NYPD must ensure that these complaints are thoroughly investigated…the independent CCRB should expand its authority to investigate biased-policing complaints filed with that agency.”
Biased-based policing in New York City is a seen as a huge problem, at least from minority communities; and is a source of grave resentments and antagonisms between police and community. The more visible street agitations throughout the United States have had their origins in serious police misconduct.
Though some degree of biased-based policing may be occurring in Guyana, the bigger concerns locally are about serious issues of police misconduct at many levels. These would range from manufacturing circumstances and charges; favouring and protecting felons; working as informants or proxies for higher tiered, bigtime (in colloquial terms: ‘big fish’) crime bosses. Recent allegations against a senior covered some of this troubling turf.
Some two months after the Deputy Commissioner of Police and Crime Chief was sent on administrative leave to facilitate an investigation of alleged corrupt practices, the head of the Guyana Police Force announced that the investigation cleared him. The problem is that some heavy-duty matters were involved, and the accusatory net cast a wide arc with various names and figures pinpointed. The biggest was that of the now cleared Crime Chief.
In the first place, this officer and citizen was/is due every benefit of every doubt; and must be still presumed innocent, despite sentiments to the contrary. The greatest care and sensitivity should be manifested in handling what follows. Nonetheless, citizens are also due the confidence that they are in good hands with the Guyana Police Force; that the investigation(s) was entrusted to the most skilled and credible hands; and that the most rigorous probes happened.
Whether in New York or Guyana, the Crime Chief is neither a constable nor a corporal; nor were a handful of misdemeanors alleged. This was an officer at the highest elevations and named in some alleged top-of-the-line felonies. Any finished probe should have been thoroughly clean; and look and smell so. It also should pass the sharpest, most critical scrutiny.
In this quest, citizens are familiar with another dispiriting reality: with many everywhere in this country suspected of tainted behaviours, the concern is how authentic such an investigation could have been. I may be inclined to be accommodating. That is, reluctantly aligning with the results of the investigation. Others, a not so inconsiderable number, may not be so generous to organization or individual. The Crime Chief would be operating under a cloud. His body of future work would be subjected to every manner of undermining. Ditto his motives. Those who report directly to him would suffer.
This is neither wholesome nor healthy for citizens or crimefighters. It would not be for the Crime Chief. This is bigger than the Top Cop himself; it goes beyond issues of administration. I suspect that this reaches to government and its sense of the best action to take, all things considered.
The government must be forthcoming quickly. The bottom line is this: doing what is best to rebuild public trust and confidence. Doing what is most helpful to police standards. Doing what is best for troubled citizens. The Crime Chief could be a beneficiary of such action.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
