Abstract
AbstractDespite reforms aimed at reducing racial disparities, the police department in this study experienced ongoing disparities in use of force. Through an analysis of the department's policies, training, and interviews with officers, this article identifies a practice termed 'forceful deescalation,' involving preemptive low-level force against passive non-compliance. Falling outside official use of force classifications, forceful de-escalation emerges as the department attempts to reconcile reform goals with perceived realities of street enforcement. Justifications rest on presuppositions of: a double-bind between crimefighting and reform; verbal and passive non-compliance as threats; and low-level force as minimally harmful. Forceful de-escalation reveals how police violence is reproduced in response to reform. As attention focuses on "less lethal" force, this paper illuminates how low-level police violence maintains harms and inequalities associated with deadly force. Through interactions often escaping official scrutiny, aggressive tactics become reinscribed and normalized as "de-escalation," perpetuating racial inequities under the guise of progressive change.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference73 articles.
1. Abramson, Marc F. (1972) “The Criminalization of Mentally Disordered Behavior: A Possible Side Effect of a New Mental Health Law.” Psychiatric Services 23(4): 101–105.
2. Alexander, Michelle (2012) The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York, NY: New Press.
3. Ba, Bocar A., Dean Knox, Jonathan Mummolo, and Roman Rivera (2021) “The Role of Officer Race and Gender in Police-Civilian Interactions in Chicago.” Science 371(6530):696–702.
4. Balko, Radley. Rise of the warrior cop: The militarization of America's police forces. PublicAffairs, 2013.
5. Bandes, Susan A., Marie Pryor, Erin M. Kerrison, and Phillip Atiba Goff (2019) “The Mismeasure of Terry Stops: Assessing the Psychological and Emotional Harms of Stop and Frisk to Individuals and Communities.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 37(2):176–194.