cultural competence

article link

Unconscious Bias in Prisons

 To be honest with you, I believe this bull about Eric Holder believing cops are affected by an “unconscious bias” goes a little too far over the blurred lines but it does give us some food to think about. The Attorney General feels police officers in the case of Eric Garner’s death need to be examined for this type of bias inside their heads because he feels they are infected with a decision making process that may predict poor police interactions that are associated with race and social class biases as well as the traditional lines of police work in general. 

One has to be aware that with some level of certainly, this kind of a bias may appear to be true in some cases but keeping it in content and context, so that these assessments are not skewed or taken out of context. This value of unconscious biases has been underrated and overrated by many studies and must be kept in the parameters and environments that are real and within logical and rational expectations and desired outcomes. 

If such studies do not take into account community demographics, culture, training and roles provided, it can lead someone down the wrong path and draw the wrong conclusions. It has been said that police have better results and less violence in their interactions with those of a higher social class than those belonging to a middle or lower social class. 

Perhaps there is a preference for cops to work in good neighborhood rather than working in poor neighborhoods. It does seem to affect their perception to a degree. If this perception guides their decision making, then what can be said about correctional officers working in a criminal element and putting their own conscious biases towards those they manage or supervise and what does that do to institutional enforcement levels and use of force situations? The questions are real but rarely assessed or researched. 

We know there is a distinct preference what custody levels officers prefer to work or engage in with convicted felons. There is also reasonable grounds to believe officers would rather work with those of a higher intelligence and better communication skills than those who are slow at mental processing and speech. Their patience wears thin and often results in frustration. 

It may not be based on race or other inequalities but it could trigger a modal response that is hard to deny to exist and create a conflict in actions and interactions based on their own perceptions and preferences. Thus it is reasonable to suggest that a conscious bias may impair or place an effective barrier to the desire to produce effective and safer solutions especially when some of these inequalities are misunderstood.

Recent and past work experiences have shown that implicit biases also exist among police officers and correctional officers and are associated with perceptions and beliefs about persons considered to be suspected criminals or convicted criminals. One just has to inject a bias towards the nature of crime committed or accused of to change the perception or outcome. 

Together, such a finding may suggest that the relationship between law and criminal may be an important contributing factor to racial and social disparities in law enforcement either on the streets or inside a jail or prison.

Additionally, there are reasonable conclusions drawn from anecdotal experiences such biases may be generated or reinforced during formal, informal, on the job  training as well as educational resources and may enable the design of interventions to address disparities in such enforcement of law and rules.

Why Correctional Officers are not treated like Cops

To quote Paco Villa "Correctional officers do deserve special recognition.   They have an important and dangerous job.  They are often subjected to all kinds of abuse by prison inmates.  During their shifts they are confined to almost the same degree as the inmates they are in charge of.  Unfortunately the public does not hold correctional officers in high esteem.  They are unappreciated and underpaid.  But calling themselves cops does not change any of that." This takes us one step further and declare a fact how grand juries perceive our roles to be.

This controversy on how grand juries seem to always never fail to indict a cop for anything – not for murder, assault or other crimes whether serious or not, brings up the romantic relationship prosecutors have with police officers but not correctional officers. This process of indicting a cop is way different from indicting a correctional officer. There seems to be no parity here whatsoever. In fact, there appears to be a pattern of behavior that is very disturbing for the profession.

The facts are being revealed via the media how prosecutors operate and run a grand jury. It makes you realize how a prosecutor can make this group of citizens “see” what they want them to see. This alone should make you aware that the system is broken somewhere along the line we tow as correctional officers also charged with statutory enforcement within a criminalized society.

How you recognize the difference is in perception, role, culture and connection prosecutors have with cops and not correctional officers is important. How they act in their role to indict or not indict should be a key how they feel about the profession as well as the position correctional officers’ play in the criminal justice system.

Can you see my argument? Are you aware of the difference in professional courtesy and treatment?  Justice is served in the eyes of the prosecutor. There should be no uncertainty how the prosecutors view correctional officers. We as a profession are demonized by society, the media and yes, our own law enforcement community. In short, we are the bad guys and bad guys do wrong. We are always guilty based on our role in society’s eyes.

Experts say grand juries can reliably be counted upon to deliver indictments the vast majority of the time, and available numbers seem to back that up. Still, the key to success is the prosecutors and the prosecutors have their own agenda except when it comes to working with cops. They need cops to make their cases, unlike correctional officers who are deemed to be expendable by the system.

The news site FiveThirtyEight.com reported that of 162,000 federal cases in which prosecutors sought indictments in 2010, grand juries failed to deliver an indictment only 11 times. Also worth noting, however, is that when charges against police officers are on the table, indictments are far less certain. Again, this is not the case for correctional officers. They are indicted at higher rates than cops yet they do the same difficult jobs inside a prison. Where is the justice?

Why is that? Correctional officers, like our cops on the street, have the authority to do things ordinary citizens do not, and that can create some shady areas in interpreting potential crimes inside our jails and prisons. The fact is, many are set up by these criminals who are going along for a ride to “burn an officer.”

How can we show these grand jurors of this cultural dynamic and influence different results; they may be more inclined to side with correctional officers in any confrontation with an already convicted felonious criminal if they set the prosecutors’ biases aside.

Little can be done to meaningfully change either of those factors. But there’s also this: Prosecutors themselves can effectively rig the process by not fighting particularly hard for an indictment against a fellow member of law enforcement. They may be playing a political game, trying not to anger police or their supporters in higher places.

However, they do no such efforts for correctional officers left to defend themselves without any aid from the administration who let them go because of potential embarrassment of a conviction among the rank and file. They basically wash their hands the moment the allegation was made.

Book Cover

please donate link

MY book

One of the strangest things have happened since I started this book. I have found an alliance with my heart, my conscience and my relationship with others who have shared my views all along. When I thought I was alone in my stand, I was in fact, not alone but with silent partners who came through when I needed it the most. Thank you for your support.

Carl & Mental Illness & Law book

One of the strangest things have happened since I started this book. I have found an alliance with my heart, my conscience and my relationship with...

www.gofundme.com

Why is it important to have a philosophy of morality?

Let me make one point clear right at the beginning. There is no “pure” morality in our society or in our hearts and minds. We all want to have or create a pure state of morality but it’s just not possible as a human race prone to error and emotions. We can and do build foundations on principles or values that appear to be logical and rational in nature and content but in all reality, may not apply to all situations in life.
They are not lasting, definitive or firm foundations. They are in fact mere inspirational ideas, thoughts or actions based on personal desires or outcomes. Flawed from the moment they are created, there is no such thing as a perfect morality. There is no such existence of a perfect moral value or legislative law in existence today in our world. What may be rational or logical for some, may in fact be contrary to the culture and practices of others.
Rather than attaining a point of acknowledgement, we have to accept the fact we are really at a point of departure. A departure from the ideal humanly inspired principle or values that shapes our morality. So the question is, how do we construct a pure philosophy of morality?
What laws of nature do we apply? What laws of religion do we apply? What constitutional rights do we forgo and still retain our freedoms? What rational or sense of direction do we use? Is it the good for many versus the good of a few or is it good versus evil and nothing falls in the middle?
The reality is by virtue of being human, there is no perfect answer to such a rule. There will always be a conflict between the laws of nature versus the laws of freedom. Do we need a moral force? Who will enforce this morality force; the police, the establishments, or the governments?
What in the name of anthropology, psychology, and sociology do we apply and how much weight does that value carry in the enforcement realm? Moral enforcement should not be based on non-scientific considerations or values.
It should not be man-made but on the other hand, does this power come from religions people worship and value as their means of living the good word. Neither options are acceptable and we stand to show there is no pure moral force nor is there a pure moral rule.
Do we include moral obligations or do we include human feelings? Does this philosophy deny the fact that this may be the difference between what people want and what people need? As I see it today, there is no pure moral force or rule today and I don’t think it will ever be.
Society does not have the fairest or the most judicial means to weigh the true nature of morality. What may be fair and impartial for others may in fact be unfair and biased for others.
It comes down to what people actually do versus what they actually feel. It defines the common sense ideology of duty, honor, integrity, and other tangible and intangible elements of human emotions and characteristics. How you invoke these philosophies and make them law or rule is most questionable.
More importantly, how do we inject morality as a universal law when the universe does not have one rule or one constant value among the human race? All said, it cannot be applied with a universal law of reason as reasons differ in various cultures.
Nobody argues the fact that there has to be a binding force to enforce the law. There have to be common agreement to determine particular norms within a society and deal with them if they breach the common trust of society.
However, how do we find a binding force that in inclusive of all cultural factors and how do we make it universally binding. The fact is we can only come to a partial agreement that morals are universally applicable. This is weighed by the benefit to society rather than a natural, religious or the right of freedom.
It has been said human beings are rational beings. Far from perfect, a rational being can be wrong as well as those acting irrational as it becomes an inference or perception that conflicts with each other at a specific moment in time.
Using the sign of the times as an example, we can see fatal weaknesses in the rational approach when something external is influencing the definitions of what are moral acts and what are unlawful acts. If permitted to violate the rules by some and not of others, where do we find peace of mind and an acceptable situation?
Is society trying to find laws or moral rules which turns into something binding regardless of all natural or cultural factors? If something is law then it must be universally binding to be considered a pure law.
However, when you question this law, is it morally in tune with the needs of society and their pursuit of justice? This can go on and on but one thing is clear, human beings are not rational for the status of being rational is defined by a political, religious or selfish sense of value and approach.

Cultural Competence - the key to better Understanding People