Editorials and Opinions – Criminal Justice Access

Are We Missing The Discussion Of Anomie and Its Role In Mass Shootings?

We see it played out again and again in the news; another tragic mass shooting and more calls from activists and politicians to do something to stop the “gun violence”. Yet only a few on either side of the political aisle push for the solutions to stop the every-day gun crimes that plague our large cities and take far more victims to the grave in a matter of weeks than a whole year of mass shootings. But it is the spectacular nature of the crime that draws the attention of the public and pundits alike and many time the proposed solutions for the events split down the political spectrum. Often the Democratic view perceives the problem to be too many guns and too easy access to them while the Republican view, in order to not in any way infringe on lawful gun ownership, seek to address the problem by promoting target hardening and the use of police and the justice system to enforce exiting gun laws.

Typically, liberal Democrats would like to think that simply banning certain weapons (“assault weapons”) and their high capacity magazines will make a dent in the problem but seemingly are unaware that there are over 20 million modern sporting rifles (as second amendment advocates refer to AR 15 styled rifles) in circulation, making them difficult to eliminate. These rifles are also not used in the majority of mass shooting incidents, pistols are, but the labeling of these semiautomatic weapons as “battle rifles” and “assault weapons” would seem to paint them as easy targets for banning and thus affecting mass shootings. Preventing access to these rifles and other firearms through age limitations and “universal” background checks are seen as another way to prevent the mass shootings that have garnered so much attention but yet these proposals have little potential in stopping mass shootings let alone other criminal use of firearms. As background checks currently only apply to licensed gun dealers, trying to impose such restrictions on the private transfer of firearms to others would be difficult to enforce and likely would only provide a another hoop for lawful gun owners to jump through but would not be much of a hindrance to the criminal element. Already, most responsible gun owners who try to sell their firearms on-line make those transfers through FFLs out of a sense of responsibility and a sense of concern over being criminally and/or morally liable if the gun is misused by a restricted individual.

Adding age restrictions would seem to have a negligible effect on gun violence as individuals under 21 are already restricted from purchasing handguns Yet handguns are the most commonly used firearms relating to criminal behavior both in mass shootings and other gun violence, as opposed to rifles that account for a small percentage of all murders as it is. Overly restrictive gun laws seem to have little effect as well. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws regarding possession and sale of firearms but yet it has one of the nation’s highest murder rates. However, this call for restricting rifle purchases for those under 21 gained new impetus following the Uvalde shooting but making policy on the ideas that “this one thing” could have prevented a shooting is ill informed and constitutes legal whack-a-mole in the search for some other thing that could have prevented a shooting after it occurs.

The conservative Republican approach rightly eschews the call for rifle bans because despite the attention mass shootings get, other murder weapons, including the hands, kill more people every year than rifles do and these mass shootings like what occurred in Uvalde typically account for less than 1% of all firearm deaths in any given year. As of this current year, more than 95% of gun homicides have been shootings with only one to three victims. If the key to addressing firearm violence is not the guns but rather than individual, as well as focusing on the everyday firearm deaths and gun violence rather than on one-off events, the conservative path addresses the consistent statistics that show only a small percentage of the population are engaged in violence utilizing firearms, they are typically known to law enforcement as repeat offenders in terms of their criminal behavior, and that the geographic areas of frequent gun violence are limited in size and well known to the police. According to the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab, just 4% of city blocks account for the majority of gun violence. A 2017 report by the Guardian found across the U.S., neighborhoods that contained just 1.5 % of the population accounted for 26% of gun homicides. However, in the current social climate such a focus on certain individuals and neighborhoods could be construed as over-policing in minority neighborhoods, and without modifying training and appropriate supervision and documentation, bias does become a salient issue.

But within these perspectives is an approach that ostensibly should provide common ground-that of red flag laws (RFL) that focus on mental health issues. Conservatives do want to bring attention to the fact that many mass shooters suffer from some form of mental health problem and the importance of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Liberals see the path to this through the implementation of RFL. However, conservatives have some concerns, and rightly so, that RFL can be applied very subjectively and limit second amendment rights. Traditionally, mental illness adjudication was necessary to prevent possession of a firearm and the lower standard presented by RFL can allow for the restriction of possession, or removal of firearms, based on reports from family, friends, teachers and other non-mental health professionals. The ability to have firearms returned, and the timeline and criteria for their return, is often rendered unclear and subjective. Having some common, and not necessarily dangerous, mental health issues like depression, anxiety, or anger issues could trigger firearm removal without clear criteria on when these issues actually pose a threat and whether they have been resolved sufficiently to allow for their return. However these non-professional reports are essentially the only way that the authorities can move quickly to address individuals with mental health problems who may pose a danger to others. Vague or non-specific threats can too easily be downplayed or overlooked, as happened in Uvalde (and many other incidents) and when these threats become more concrete it may tragically be too late to enact firearm prohibitions or removals.

The most current gun legislation has tried to address the mental health issue and school safety while trying to limit the prohibition of firearms themselves. Pro-gun conservatives should see this as a win as they can claim taking part in legislation that may give the appearance of having an effect on gun violence without any real prohibitions on ownership and which encompasses a focus on target hardening at schools, which can also fail, like in Uvalde, when school personnel fail to follow safety recommendations and protocols that would have prevented the violence in the first place. However the prospect of more money for the state to address mental health issues and enhanced background checks on young adults have raised the specter of unfair limitations on some ownership.

Liberals bemoan that this new legislation did little to address reducing firearms ownership through some of their main pressure points like universal background checks and the prohibition of certain firearms. As gun ownership has increased so has the pressure to limit or reduce gun ownership with the belief that with more guns comes more violence and crime. Firearm ownership has increased during which we have seen a spike in violent crime in recent years in this country, especially in urban areas. But their belief that more guns means more crime and more mass shootings may simply be a false equivalency. This increase in ownership has been steadily climbing over the past couple decade while the violent crime rate has been dropping over the past few decades. Lawful gun ownership has continually been on the rise and not just with white males. Female and minority ownership has been on the rise, with Black females representing one of the groups with some of the largest increases in ownership in recent years. As socially aware as liberals should be, many of those with an anti-gun viewpoint seem to be missing the point on the causes of gun violence that don’t have a focus on the firearms themselves.

The problem with gun violence in general stems greatly from the social problems that plague the poor neighborhoods of large cities, namely poor educational resources lead to an uneducated populace and poverty. Low levels of education limit the opportunities for upward social movement and good employment. Limited employment workforces and opportunities translates to little incentive to invest economically in these poor neighborhoods leading to even less job opportunities. The strain that the social problems introduce into the populace manifest themselves into mental health issues like anxiety, anger, and depression. The accompanying sense of hopelessness and limited opportunities results in a loss of collective efficacy which manifests into criminal behavior as well as a “code of the street” structure that drives revenge and retribution, stemming from a distorted honor culture that views violence as the way to engender respect and preserve social status. In these conditions, attempts to limit access to firearms does little to stop street gun violence and simply provides a market for additional criminality in the form of gun trafficking.

Access to guns also would seem to have little bearing on mass shootings and gun violence in general and has more to do with both mental health and a sense of anomie. That particular form of strain constitutes a sense of separation from society and the culture at large, leaving young people adrift in a society that appears not to value them, and which being valued is increasingly difficult. When you cease to be part of society and/or view yourself as separate from society and culture the restraints on abnormal or violent behavior become increasing y difficult to recognize and accept.

That sense of anomie may be particularly salient when it comes to the issue of mass shootings. Time magazine recently posted an article examining mass shootings and the gun culture in the Philippines. The Philippines, similar to the US, suffers from poverty , corruption, drug problems, and crime in addition to an authoritarian government regime. When Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972, Filipinos were limited to one handgun and one low powered rifle, both which had to be licensed with the government. But in 2000, President Estrada lifted these bans and allowed citizens to possess as many guns as they wanted, of any type and any caliber. In 2013, some limitations were placed on ownership and carrying in public through individual licensing, such as being 21 and taking a firearms safety seminar but the average citizen could own up to 15 firearms (collectors even more) but licenses were good for 10 years.

Yet, even while not enshrined in their constitution, firearms are an important feature in the culture, and similarities to our culture at large. include relatively easy access to firearms, a high percentage of illegally owned firearms, and a high rate of homicides involving firearms. It is one of the deadliest places in Asia when it comes to firearm homicides. The Philippines murder rate involving firearms is 1 out of 100,00 compared to the US murder rate of 4 out of 100,000.

But despite this proliferation of guns and gun culture the Philippines do not experience what we typically describe as mass shootings. To be sure there have been instances of large body counts but these are connected to politics or criminal gang activities but the “angry loner” type of gun violence that we see in schools, churches, shopping malls and workplaces are very rare. The victims were rarely bystanders and homicides had more to do with monetary gain or reward in a country were a quarter of the population is below the poverty line

While this lack of mass shootings could be due somewhat to the effect of a legal system that may deal harshly with criminal use of firearms more importantly, says Philippine academic Raymund Narag, an Associate Professor at Southern Illinois University, are the powerful social factors that have a restraining effect on indiscriminate violence. They are deterred in part by hiyâ. It is a Tagalog word meaning shame or embarrassment and avoiding it and sparing one’s family and community from it is often described as a core Philippine value. The idea that someone would engage in such behavior of random wanton violence would be seen as unconscionable and a source of shame that shouldn’t be visited on the family, friends, and community of a potential shooter. As with other Asian cultures, the importance of society and culture at large are paramount and the ties to society and cultural are not to be overridden by the individual self. Narang says the strong ties of Philippine kinship means troubled individuals are more likely to be identified before they become mass shooters. In the US “if you have a problem you are expected to go seek out a mental health professional,” though it entails stigma, access difficulty and financial burden, and “are expected to divulge everything there. You don’t talk to your neighbors or your parents (because the US doesn’t have an engaged culture) where one’s problem is everyone’s problem.” Jose Clemente, a professor of social psychology at the University of the Philippines, says the difference in his country is that community is everything. “At an early age we are taught to value our families and our relationships” and that that extends on to valuing their communities and developing close-knit relationships. This then makes avoiding hiyâ an important component of being a member of society.

In looking at mental health issues in this country, the idea of community and society and what is acceptable needs greater reinforcement at a younger age, holding individuals responsible for their effect on society as part of that society, and building those close-knit relationships that act as a form of social control rather than leaving individuals to suffer from anomie, adrift in a society they have weak or distorted connections to. Attention seeking through social media is no substitute for real community connections and a lack of accountability that encompasses more than what is offered by the legal system can lead individuals to have a distorted view of self and community. Trying to fix the problems of a disturbed individual on the cusp of committing violence with a deficient mental health system is a too little too late response. Rather, instilling a sense of community, personal responsibility, and the importance of real life connections to others at a young age may be a more effective response to dealing with the problem of mass shootings.

A Free Cup of Coffee: A Brief Analysis of Police Corruption (2008)

INTRODUCTION

A free cup of coffee. To the general public, it’s not what one usually thinks of in terms of police corruption. But it’s this humble beginning that supposedly will put police officers on a slippery slope of corruption. Police corruption is not a new phenomenon nor is the desire to eliminate it, as evidenced by the Law Enforcement Council report on official corruption from 1973 urging all elements of the criminal justice system “to join it in increased efforts to “eradicate corruption” as urged in a 1969 resolution of the International Association of Chiefs of Police”. (Crime and Delinquency, 1974) That corruption is such a prevailing problem it should, to some degree, be expected in every law enforcement agency given the power and discretion afforded to law enforcement officers.

Police corruption encompasses a broad range of activities but a defining factor in this discussion is the willful behavior of law enforcement, not simple negligence or incompetence. Corruption can manifest itself in literally every aspect and duty of police work. Besides simple gratuities, it can be seen in a variety of street policing activities like theft of property from burglary crime scenes, street shakedowns, organized payoffs and bribes, protection rackets, drug rip-offs and sales, and violent crimes ranging from simple assaults to murder. It can also be seen in unequal treatment of victims and suspects based on racial, gender, ethnic, and socioeconomic status, as well as in false arrest, and illegal search and seizure. It also involves a range of simple job performance related ethical issues; activities like willful non-enforcement of laws beyond the boundaries of established discretionary powers, truthfulness in report writing and in viewing and reporting the actions of other officers, along with other mundane but time and resource wasting activities.

This corruption can also be seen not only in the ranks of patrolmen and detectives but in supervisors and chiefs as well; making biased determinations about the quality of investigations or which investigations are forwarded for prosecution, and stalling or derailing internal investigations. These officials offer little guidance to personnel on the issue of corruption or actually tacitly approve of the corrupt actions of the department’s personnel.

There are a few theories as to why it occurs (including the Society Itself Is Corrupt hypothesis) but this discussion will focus on two predominant theories; The Rotten Apple Theory and The Structural (Rotten Barrel) Theory. One blames the individual officer for lacking in a sufficient moral or ethical code and the other focuses on the culturalization undergone by officers in the rationalization of questionable ethical behavior. Underscoring both of these theories is the existence of the Code of Silence, a thin blue line that officers do not cross in order to prove their allegiance to fellow officers by keeping silent about corruption.

This discussion will analyze these two hypotheses, their causes and remedies, in an attempt to better understand the mindset of officers on corruption issues, how this affects the view of the police by the public, whether it is reasonable to expect high moral standards within the occupation, and how these standards can be achieved.

POSITION A

The traditional view of police corruption, typically espoused by police administration and some criminologists, has been addressed through the Rotten Apple Theory. It harkens back to the cliché that “One rotten apple spoils the barrel”. The theory very simply puts the onus of police corruption on the individual officer.

Corruption exists all around us and it is not limited to a handful of jobs or occupations. Employees from all professions may engage in theft from the employers, ranging from office supplies to actual embezzlement. Theft of time, shortcuts that violate policies (or laws), and falsified reports are not strictly the domain of law enforcement. The common factor is employee honesty and ethics. Human beings, whether viewed as individuals or as parts of an organization are fallible. They are tempted by wealth, power, and status, wherever it is available to them. Police organizations, by their very nature present these potential ethical dilemmas to officers in the field. The discretion and responsibility associated with the power to relieve someone of their freedom or their life can be a heavy burden and when coupled with environments that allow officers easy access to wealth, privilege, and drugs it can challenge even the most ethically stalwart.

It is key then that officers put in a position of the public trust be of the highest character. While a small bribe or gratuity from a diner might easily be accepted by a waiter for preferential treatment and viewed by the public as well as an acceptable way of doing business, the same public has an expectation that our police are and should be above reproach as do law enforcement professionals. The Chicago Crime Commission “placed an emphasis on the type of police officer on the force” in examining the major causes of police criminal behavior. The Commission concluded that poor recruitment methods permitted many men to enter the department who were not suited for law enforcement work. The commission recommended that all police candidates be subject to “a complete character investigation”. (Delattre, 2006 p.84) If substandard candidates are granted employment in law enforcement, we should certainly expect to see corruption within the ranks. These rotten apples not only degrade the image of police in the public’s eyes, they are also detrimental to other officers in the field. Unscrupulous officers may play on the brotherhood inherent within the police community to drag other officers into morally questionable actions, testing these officers resolve in the face of not only temptation, but in the approval and acceptance by partners and/or other shift officers. We cannot simply assume that every individual who has joined a police force did so with an overall altruistic sense. The power and discretion afforded to officers can be a temptation not only to officers already employed but to prospective officers looking for power and opportunity to bolster their own self-worth or to exercise dominance.

The police, as a group of individuals, don’t fail to recognize corruption. They are very aware of it and because corrupt officers do not usually make up the majority of a police force, they believe that severity of the sanctions should be appropriate for the severity of the corrupt behavior and that corrupt behavior should be reported. (Klockars, 2000) What is also evident in the Klockars report is that police officers do not view all corruption as the same. Some hypothetical situations presented in the report prompted officers to respond that some small offenses warrant no, or very minor, reprimands and that these minor offenses do not warrant reporting the officer to a superior. This would suggest that there are indeed different standards in ethical consideration amongst individual officers, in that the issue is not black & white, corrupt or not corrupt. This disparity is certainly influenced by individual officers’ perspectives as not all officers in the study categorized the hypothetical situations at the same level of corruptness.

Police administrators are then confronted with the necessity of detecting and removing rotten apples, preferably before they become entrenched in a department. High employment standards are one remedy. The very concept of policing involves placing a great amount of power in the hands of an individual, leaving that person to use his best judgment in applying his authority. It is foolish to believe that you can employ officers of the highest caliber if hiring standards are lax. Literate, college educated, criminal offense-free candidates are absolutely necessary to populate a department with personnel that are worthy to carry the public trust. The candidates should have a demonstrable ethic code that helps insure that not only are they morally solid but that these morals can withstand assault. Supervisory personnel are also key in seeking out and removing officers who may be prone to and/or engage in corrupt behavior. They must remove the rotten apple before it spoils the barrel. This is accomplished through increased supervision of marginal officers, periodic proactive internal investigations, thorough reactive corruption investigations and psychological screenings before and after employment. All of these remedies can easily exist within a department’s current structure with minimal costs, especially when balanced against the potential costs that a corrupt officer can bring down on a department.

POSITION B

The Structural Theory behind corruption has gained more traction in the past 30 years. As more scholars look deeper into the subculture of police, they have come to realize that corruption is a feature in police work that is ingrained within the structure itself. Delattre explains it as a young, naïve individual enters a profession where the worst of people is exposed to them and they are socialized to this environment by senior officers who have become cynical and lost faith in police work. Under pressure to form bonds of mutual trust and reliance while witnessing corrupt practices, it’s realized that superiors don’t support efforts to behave honorably, that sanctions for corruption are negligible, and the young officer will probably accept the status quo and join in the corrupt practices (Delattre 2006).

The body of work supporting this theory is impressive and evidence of the Structural Theory is witnessed in reports of corruption within units in departments and whole departments themselves. The idea is that prospective officers enter with high ethical standards, as one would expect of a police officer. Because of a great degree of social isolation related to their profession, officers tend to only socialize with officers and consequently take away a similar environmental view. Complaints of public misperceptions of police work reinforce social isolation and the unique nature of the profession, it’s dangers and pitfalls, leaves officers feeling an increased need to bond together, unfortunately forming a siege mentality; it’s Us vs. Them. In such a scenario, mutual trust becomes almost paramount, and this continues up the chain of command. Supervisors who have already been socialized tend to view minor corruption as something that just happens and unless the matter is serious i.e. serious enough to be easily exposed and bring censure or sanctions down on the department, the minor issues are ignored or minimized. If such behavior and attitudes continue up the ranks to the Chief or Police Commissioner, you have a wholly corrupt department.

If we also include the “Code of Silence” in the mix, these strong subcultural norms of support and brotherhood above all, tends to detract from the moral belief systems held by individual officers. We cannot expect police officers to be made of iron, they are human and subject to human frailties and eventually the cynicism and social norms within police work change the officer and allow for the acceptance and practice of behaviors that would have been eschewed outside of the police force.

Within this framework, we can look at two structures that contribute to the problem of police corruption, opportunity and organizational structures as denoted by Kappeler’s 1998 work (White et al, 2008). By the nature of police work and structural organization, there lies an opportunity structure that provides police with a unique authority, a public perception that the police can be trusted, social isolation, high discretion (and I might add low visibility) and a lack of supervision.

Bureaucratic institutions like police departments contain common organizational structure elements that facilitate deviance. These features include a division of labor with specialized units, limited career mobility, and the existence of a distinct sub-culture that is defined by social isolation and solidarity and governed by informal rules that value autonomy, secrecy, and maintaining the status quo. (White et al, 2008).

In viewing these two structures, we have to understand that there are features within the opportunity structure that will be difficult to control but the most amenable to change is the lack of supervision. The expectation is that officers have a good understanding about criminal procedures and the law and that in most cases supervisory input in regards to enforcement duties is not needed. Supervisors must play a larger role though as role models and as an actual supervisory force. Officers typically look to superiors for proper behavior and attitudes in unfamiliar territory and it is crucial that the wrong message not be sent. If the message is anything other than all corruption is wrong, all corruption should be reported, and the reporting of corruption is appreciated, then the wrong message is being sent, allowing officers to utilize their discretion in inappropriate ways. While it may put pressure on some officers, the need for monitoring is essential. It must be realized that even the most ethically strong officer can be tempted, and if there is temptation, there is a possibility of succumbing to that temptation. Supervisors need to be proactive in their monitoring efforts to send a message that misconduct within the force is not tolerated.

From an organizational structure standpoint, the most detrimental feature is existence of the subculture itself. The existence of this subculture is well established and subcultures typically establish their own social norms. The elimination of the subculture is not entirely feasible but what is possible is the modification of some components that facilitate misconduct and, more importantly, hide the misconduct from internal and external view.

There is no denying that an Us vs Them mentality unofficially exists within a number of police departments. Public misconceptions, lack of public appreciation and recognition, and cynicism among officers fosters an attitude that objectifies and labels the public. In doing so, it’s easy for officers to lose their perspective that they are servants of the public and that they should be held accountable to them. It becomes much easier to identify only with their departmental perspective and rely only on the approval and acceptance of other officers. In this way the Code of Silence is a protective function against those who simply don’t understand the police. This unfortunately lends itself to secrecy and an acceptance of the idea that police actions are inherently right.

To counteract these forces, remedies exist both internally and externally. Internally, comprehensive selection processes, effective supervision and internal affairs, and ethics training and policy mandates concerning whistleblowing and misconduct are all viable. Externally criminal and civil liabilities and citizen review boards can address issues of misconduct when a department fails to adequately address them itself.

CRITIQUE OF POSITIONS

The Rotten Apple Theory (RAT) has fallen from favor over the past 30 years to be replaced by Structural Theory (ST). The Knapp Commission characterized RAT as “border(ing) on official department doctrine, any policeman found to be corrupt must be promptly denounced as a rotten apple in an otherwise clean barrel. It must never be admitted that his individual corruption may be symptomatic of an underlying disease.. The rotten apple doctrine has in many ways been a basic obstacle to meaningful reform …[and] the commission examined and rejected the premise upon which the rotten apple doctrine rested” (White 2008). While the Knapp Commission claims to reject the premise of the doctrine, to deny that RAT is not a factor to consider would be short-sighted.

As is typical in certain fields of science, some in the research community would like to see a particular theory (usually their own) elevated to a singular defining analysis of a problem. This is simply not the case. There is no doubt that some misconduct and corruption stems from the personal moral failings of an individual officer, whether this deficiency was present at the time of employment or whether it manifested itself over time if given opportunities to grow. We must consider there is significant interplay and co–dependence within the two theories and even in their remedies. While morally deficient officers do exist within our police forces, it cannot solely be attributed to one theory or the other. “Rotten apples” do exist and they are found in all varieties of occupations. There will always be individuals who are on the look out for opportunities to profit at the expense of others. Inevitably you will find that given the broad scope of human nature that there are certain individuals who should never be police officers. That they exist within a police force, given officers’ power and discretion, should be a cause of grave concern.

If you place ethically deficient officers in a workplace environment where misconduct is merely given a wink and a nudge, you do provide tacit approval of their actions and send a message to the rest of the force that misconduct is acceptable and over time may influence those with stronger ethics to put them aside in place of acceptance within the workplace. The Code of Silence does serve a function in police subculture and while this certainly fosters a sense of brotherhood it also contributes to either theory of corruption. Individual morally deficient officers find that their moral failings are less likely to be noted and censured, allowing for continued morally aberrant behavior. Officers attempting to follow their own reasonably sufficient moral compass find that the subculture they are employed in doesn’t recognize their efforts in maintaining professional ethical standards, let alone community standards.

But how prevalent is the ethical breakdown within the police structure? A self-report study (with its inherent flaws and biases) conducted in Georgia seems to indicate that police have more willingness to, and are more prone to, actually reporting corruption than employees in other civil service positions. While this may speak to officer integrity, the report notes that they are only slightly more prone to this behavior. Given there are features within the Georgia law enforcement departments, like reporting policies, internal investigation units, and polygraph use not present in other civil service jobs, these ST remedies seem to provide for only a slight increase in ethical reporting. One point of the Georgia study is that a mandatory reporting policy was related to almost all of the measures of willingness to blow the whistle, but none of the measures of frequency of whistleblowing. Were those features not present, it is likely that ethical reporting would be at the same level, if not lower, than other civil service positions. This could suggest that overall, people in general, and police officers in particular, have the same basic ethical nature. If that were the case, it is the few rotten apples who have spoiled the barrel.

Even though there was only a slight increase, it doesn’t belie the significance of the ST. If ST remedies do provide only a small positive effect on ethical behavior and reporting, it is better than none at all. The public does expect a higher ethical standard from the police than they would from a city meter reader and it may be necessary to force those ethical standards onto officers through departmental policies and changes to ensure that higher standard. Remedies within the ST do have an influence especially if they come from within the department. Supervisors set the parameters for the street level officers and comprehensive ethics training and the supervisors’ willingness to mandate, approve of, and follow up on reports of misconduct sends a message to lower ranking officers that the former cover of the “blue curtain” has ended. Supervisors and departments must not only expect but require ethical behavior.

As neither theory is completely comprehensive, we must look to a combination of the two. To deny the existence of rotten apples as a feature of police corruption is to put too narrow a focus on the institution. To imagine that a subculture doesn’t significantly influence it’s members is naïve.

AUTHOR’S POSITION

As stated above, a remedy for corruption must come from multiple sources. We would like to expect that our prospective law enforcement candidates come to the academy with the highest ethical standards. This is simply not going to be the case. High employment standards can certainly be used to weed out marginal candidates. While exemplary candidates are preferred, it’s likely we will end up with a typical range of personal ethical standards. In these candidates we will find a typical human thought process. Namely, that we bond with co-workers through trust and respect, that we want others to trust and respect us also, and that in order to function within a workgroup, we must adopt some of their attitudes. The nature of these attitudes is the key here. Hardly anyone, no matter what their occupation, does not have some reservations about getting a co-worker in trouble for what is viewed by the actor, the witness, and the workgroup as merely a minor infraction of policies or law. No one wants to set an impossible standard of behavior yet an environment of integrity must be maintained in the workplace.

Perhaps a more definitive standard of what constitutes misconduct would be beneficial. When a department sets clear policies and guidelines as to what is acceptable and what is not, it will help guide officers’ actions as opposed to them adopting the attitude that “this is the way things are done” among their colleagues. Departments must recognize that officers are human and that not all misconduct necessarily leads to that slippery slope, as long as there are departmental roadblocks. Policies could be designed that actually allow the acceptance of some gratuities while setting clear boundaries as to where gratuities stop and where low level extortion begins. This not only prevents innocuous actions from becoming a slippery slope but it can allow for better rapport between the police and the public. It is important that the police are recognized for the work they do and the permittance of a small gratuity, that free cup of coffee or discounted meal, I think, will help foster better relationships between the public and police. With Community Policing currently being the buzzword within the field, these small gratuities could be seem as humanizing of both the police and the public and hearken back to the day when the policeman was a neighborhood figure and friend.

Given that, serious infractions must be dealt with swiftly and severely. With clear guidelines, departmental policy is the reigning factor and the attitude must be fostered that officer loyalty is first and foremost not to the members of the organization but to what the organization stands for. It must be enforced that officers are called upon to use their discretion in a way that benefits the public. Officers that fail to meet that standard have not just failed other officers and the department but the public and themselves. A very high standard of professionalism, honesty, and ethical behavior must be reinforced as law enforcement qualities. Openness and the freedom to whistleblow must be so ingrained in the subculture as to make the reporting of misconduct an honorable action. The police subculture, as any subculture, is a distinct microcosm that sets the mores of the group. If it can do this, it can also be changed by both the willingness of its members and the added support of the community. Fostering better relationships between the public and the police helps negate their differences and shortens the distances between the two groups. Eliminating the Us vs Them mentality is the only way the Code of Silence can be eliminated. Utilizing community resources like substations, neighborhood watches, and crime meetings help bond officers to the public and vice versa.

While most departments have mechanisms that address allegations of misconduct, i.e. internal affairs, there will be a need for citizen review boards. While it’s uncertain that the public in general will be better able to determine incidents, causes, and remedies of police misconduct, than an internal review. Just as internal review boards should not be a rubber stamp acceptance of police behavior, civilian reviews don’t need to serve as a rubber stamp that finds fault in every police action simply because it involves the police. These boards do bring transparency to the process, and if conducted fairly, that transparency is more important than the results of a civilian review board, as it existence reinforces the notion that the public and police are partners.

It is no mystery that the police function better when the public and the police view themselves as one. Conceptually, it has been shown over and over again. But concepts are meaningless without the backing of the actors involved. Police departments really do have a duty to perform to the benefit of the public and the management of the department not only defines the actions but the attitudes of its officers. Departments must consider themselves not only as a management tool but as a resource that the individual officer can draw upon. The attitudes within police forces are defined by the management of the department and those managers must take definitive steps to foster and enforce ethical attitudes. Most of the measures described in this paper have little cost associated with them. Resources within the community as mentioned above can certainly change the attitudes of both the public and police. It is this change from an Us vs Them mentality that I think is the key to ending corruption. There will always be rotten apples, and some will always find their way into police forces, but what can be eliminated is the systemic corruption that is witnessed when the police stop viewing the public as partners and see them as the enemy.

Careful Examination Not Defunding Needed For Police Reform

Following the killing of George Floyd pundits, politicians, and social justice warriors have been calling for a dismantling or defunding of the police. However, what that means varies depending who you talk to, their knowledge of policing, and where they believe the problems in policing exist. There are roughly 800,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S. having hundreds of thousands of contacts with citizens everyday where no one is injured. A little over 1000 people are killed a year by police (who also suffer the loss of a couple hundred officers a year as well) and only around 100 unarmed citizens (of all races) are included in that number While Blacks accounted for only 25 unarmed citizen deaths in 2019, anecdotal incidents like the George Floyd case where the police were clearly in the wrong, while making up a very small fraction of all police encounters, engender anger that policing is a racist institution and that police brutality is out of control.

Despite much criminal justice research demonstrating there is no systemic racism in policing, or other CJ institutions for that matter, social commentators driven by conformity toward this “broken police” narrative, are calling to end biased policing by implementing extreme measures. Deep cuts in personnel will reduce police presence on the street making citizens more at ease with less police in their neighborhoods. Eliminating preventive/self-directed patrol will keep officers from “harassing” citizens through investigative field stops and stop and frisks and officers will only need to respond to dispatch calls. Eliminating an armed police response will force officers to use de-escalation and people skills to handle situations rather than force. Mandating that the use of force only be used when a risk of serious bodily injury or death is present will keep officers from using force against unarmed citizens who are non-compliant, thus preventing suspect injury or death. While these might sound good to a citizenry that has convinced itself that all police are brutal racists and that we need to scrap the current state of policing and start with something new, the reality of policing is different.

Most of the commentators offering up these ill-conceived ideas seem to lack knowledge about policing in general or the current state of policing. For example the desire to decrease the member of sworn officers may require legislative action. The Minneapolis city charter mandates a ratio of officer to citizen and to change it would require a vote by the people. However research has indicated that a visible police officer presence can make the public feel safe. That presence is enhanced by officers’ self-directed patrol and that patrol does provide opportunities for positive interactions with citizens, which is essential in improving police/public relations. The idea that an armed response can be eliminated from policing is to not understand policing in America. Gun rights in this country mean that criminals do have access to guns and we cannot have the police at a such a disadvantage when called upon to protect the lives of victims, bystanders, and themselves. Calls for service and fields stops can be dynamic, and volatile, situations that may quickly evolve from a “standard” stop to a fight for an officer’s life and officers should not handcuffed by a lack of force options. Attempting to require officers to utilize force in only the most serious circumstances in public encounters limits officers’ ability to gain subject compliance when verbal attempts at compliance have failed. Officers need to have their authority submitted to if they are to be seen as legitimate institution and the ability to gain compliance, despite the subject’s refusal and resistance, is necessary to ensure law and order. One area of policing that has been under reform for decades is the use of force and the means of applying that force. The idea of a continuum of force has led to the development of non-lethal or less than lethal force options beyond the classic night stick to include pepper spray, tasers, non-lethal rounds. Departments are also refining their use of force policies in regards to allowed techniques, and appropriateness of armed response. These policies are also supplemented by more realistic training exercises for officers in use of force encounters.

We need to remember that policing is in a constant state of reform. It is a sociopolitical institution that provides for a great amount of authority over citizens and rightly it has been under scrutiny for decades. As problems become evident in a police department that scrutiny results in departments operating under consent decrees to address these problems, and many of the largest U.S. cities have. at one point or another, operated under a consent decree in order to force police reform. Many departments, large and small, have also implemented citizen review boards to serve as a form of watchdog agency that ensures that the public is represented when police officer behavior is called in to question.

But reform doesn’t always come following inappropriate officer or department behavior. Academics and police management have focused on change within the institution of policing in a variety of ways. Morphing form the Problem Oriented Policing of decades ago Community Oriented Policing (COP) has been viewed as an important change in how policing should be viewed. It provides officers a means to interact more closely with the community, which allows them to develop innovative, non-conventional solutions to problems rather than a strictly law enforcement response. This increases understanding and cooperation between the police and the public, promotes a diversity of ideas, and involves an increased participation of other city agencies in addressing issues and problems. Changing attitudes and the way public interactions are conducted by officers is the goal of Procedural Justice (PJ) reforms. An important internal structure in policing for over ten years, procedural justice seeks to incorporate, fairness, empathy, respect, and two-way communication in all police/citizen encounters.

Other current innovations in policing that have sought to moderate a law enforcement approach to police encounters include the use of Community Service Officers (CSOs) and Crisis Intervention Teams (CITs). Community Service Officers are not sworn officers, are more casually dressed, and are unarmed. They provide a number of policing services that do not require the response of a sworn law enforcement officer such as taking theft and missing property reports, retrieval of abandoned property, animal at large calls, etc. These officers serve as representatives of the local police department and their interactions with the public tend to be non-confrontational and rely on service and assistance to members of the public. While some critics unwisely suggest putting all mental health related issues solely into the hands of social services, Crisis Intervention Teams provide a more comprehensive response to homeless, substance abuse, mental health, and domestic issues and problems. These teams are typically made up of multi-agency members and may include, a nurse, a mental health professional, a social worker, and a plainclothes officer, who not only provides for police authority and response but also to insure the security of the other team members in case the subject becomes aggressive or the situation turns violent, as can often be the case in dealing with emotionally disturbed individuals. These multi-disciplinary teams are better equipped to address the varied needs, and manage the risks, of these segments of the population.

Police reform in a broader scope continues to be addressed by the larger concepts of COP and procedural justice and more and more departments are orienting themselves to these concepts but it doesn’t mean we solved the problems in policing. However, the messages that should be conveyed about the real problems in policing are wrapped up in the false narrative of “the police are racist”. While many departments have adhered to the COP and PJ concepts, there is certainly work to be done in policing that may not need a broad prescription but rather with policies focused on the particular needs of a department, adapting programs and policies that address what may be lacking or needing support within the individual departments or their communities. For example, some departments could benefit from a high functioning early warning systems for officers, which might have picked out Derek Chauvin before he killed Floyd, or requiring in-service training that goes beyond law enforcement skills and includes communication skills and group social interaction. Other programs can also work toward improving public relations and outreach towards both children and adults, like preventing gun violence, after school programs, participation in neighborhood and community social events, promoting personal and online safety, and crime prevention awareness. While some departments and communities could benefit from the inclusion of these programs and features, many communities and departments have already incorporated these into their social structure. Too often critics standing on the sidelines, judging the police by anecdotal evidence, fail to see that in the vast majority of communities the narrative of an authoritarian force hell-bent on suppressing minorities rings hollow. Rather the police are but one of a number of sociopolitical institutions that have been working together and striving for peaceful, safe communities. But it is within these communities as well as the more troubled ones that vigilance needs to be maintained against problematic officers and divisive attitudes, and that is assisted by supporting policing programs, not defunding the police.

Departments need to be examined and see what can be done to bring them up to speed in some areas. While the policing literature has been talking about change and innovation in policing for decades, some departments may still just simply be behind the times. Municipal governments and departments themselves should take an outside view of the department and assess how current they are within the forward movement of policing and implement change; for example, adopting or more strongly reinforcing the COP and PJ concepts, reexamine their use of force policies, or whatever is pertinent and appropriate to their circumstances, not just take a blanket approach to a problem that might need very specific answers. Its important to fix those problems, not just simply dismantle the police, essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Police reform is best accomplished on a local level, specific to the problems and issues of the particular community, not as an overly broad mandate that could potentially waste resources on non-problematic areas. In the departments that are still lagging behind the curve, and there are a number of them, we have to consider that reform and change are not so easily implemented because of political and societal realities. At that local level, there may be a variety of roadblocks that exist to implementing change. Cities need to hire chiefs who are progressive in their policing style and methods and are willing to adopt to the best practices that have been supported by research evidence; something that the cities’ elected officials must actually be willing to do. Even if you have buy-in from a chief on incorporating more PJ in the patrol officers’ interactions, you need that officer buy-in as well, and that comes from good middle management within the department. If that is weak, sergeants and officers will just continue along with policing as usual and will be slow to adopt or resist change. City budgets, rather than defunding the police, are needed to maintain funding for departments so that the departments can continue to support a wide array of officer training programs, community support and outreach, crime prevention programs, as well as provide for the ability to attract high quality officers by providing attractive pay scales. In defunding the police, it is likely these areas would receive budget cuts before any kind of cuts in hours or layoffs of personnel would occur. Now in times of economic downturn, as cities may have to slash budgets, the implementation and support of these programs may fall away, and without that support, needed reform is more difficult to implement. Calls to limit police presence on the streets may receive applause from some quarters of the community but other community members, particularly the business community may strongly object to a decrease in police presence, especially following the wave of violence and destruction that swept across cities during the protesters’ calls to implement justice by reducing police authority and presence. Others in the communities, such as in Fargo, my hometown, saw protesting and rioting against a police force that has actually had strong community ties and strong community support. Many here saw the protestors’ reaction to the local police as misguided, and in turn the overall idea of police reform that the protestors push for loses their support. Without strong, influential community support to push for reform cities will quickly lose the will to do the hard work to implement change in social institutions. The community may also reject some new forms of policing, and the public often sends conflicting messages about its expectations of the police. Fargo PD spoke of dispatch trying to send the casually dressed, unarmed CSOs to take crime reports but citizens often objected to the approach, wanting “a real cop” instead.

So if there is a desire to cause positive change or reform in a city’s police department, a knee jerk reaction of slashing budgets, implementing new policies to address non-issues and dismantling the police structure without a clear plan for replacement is a recipe for disaster as police morale drops, cities with already high levels of calls for service will suffer response time delays, and beneficial programs and training lose their funding. Rather, the correct response needed is a careful assessment of the department in question. Determining weakness or problems in the department, whether in the command structure or with officers, examining the acceptance and progress of policing models like COP and PJ, assessing the current state of new officer, and in-service, training with an eye toward improvements, utilizing improved use of force training and the existence of officer accountability structures, incorporating technical improvements like the use of bodycams, and establishing a diversity of community related programs. City and police officials meeting with community leaders on concerns and issues should precede a joint effort by these groups to determine what problems exist, if any, and the best approach to solving problems, which may utilize a variety of efforts, resources, agencies, and groups. This ensures the process is focused and based on need while resources aren’t wasted on misdirected blanket efforts. This process will not as likely involve defunding as it will redirecting funding within the department and providing increased funding as deficiencies in training, recruitment practices, and community programs are discovered. Police reform is an important ongoing issue but true effective reform calls for a close examination of problems and a willingness to fund solutions, not for soundbite driven reactions.

Has the National Firearms Act Outlived Its Usefulness?

Introduction

The National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 and mandates the registration of certain firearms, firearms accessories, and destructive devices. While originally enacted as a response to well-armed violent criminals and their well-publicized crimes, the NFA may have outlived its usefulness when you consider changes in current firearm design and the amount of crime associated with NFA weapons. I propose changes could be made that lift onerous registration and tax stamps while still providing a modicum of control for fully automatic weapons.

During the 20’s and 30’s the criminal exploits of characters like John Dillinger, Machine Gun Kelly, and Bonnie and Clyde along with the underworld activities of organized crime syndicates thrilled newspaper audiences. Despite these crimes being atypical of violent crime in general, politicians, fueled by media reports of heavily armed criminals wreaking havoc throughout the country thought they found a solution to a perceived wave of violent crime in the NFA.

When bank robbers and other violent armed criminals utilized high powered but shortened weapons like “sawed off” short barreled rifles (SBRs) and short barreled shotguns (SBSs), their concealability and more powerful rounds gave them an advantage over local citizens and police who would typically only be armed with pistols or revolvers. Fully automatic weapons (FAWs) prior to the NFA were available to anyone, citizens and law enforcement alike. However, the typical police officer wouldn’t have such a weapon easily accessible while walking a beat and would again be at a disadvantage facing a determined villain with a full auto weapon. Silencers as well were lumped into this criminal milieu as being associated with hitmen and assassinations. The argument for the NFA was to limit making high-powered weapons like rifles and shotguns concealable (and thus more likely to be used in crime). While these weapons, along with full auto weapons and silencers, could be possessed they required registration with the government and a $200 tax stamp. This was a substantial sum at the time. It was the equivalent to the retail cost of a Thompson submachine gun and $200 dollars far exceeded the costs of rifles and shotguns that might fall under the purview of the NFA. The amount of the tax hasn’t changed, but at $200 per registration as well as the Occupational Tax collected from dealers, for FY 2018 this revenue amounts to $6.7 million collected from dealers and $33.3 million collected from new individual registrations and transfers. The NFA made possession of unregistered, untaxed SBSs, SBRs, FAWs.(along with some firearms designated as Any Other Weapons, destructive devices like anti-tank weapons, mortars, and grenades, and silencers) a violation of federal law. Criminal sanctions for a violation include up to 10 years in prison and fines ranging between $10,000 and $250,00 for an individual and up to $500,000 for an organization as well as forfeiture of the weapon and the vehicle it was conveyed or concealed in.

Argument against retaining the NFA as it stands

Current firearms designs render the NFA dimensional standards moot. A number of weapons meet the letter of the law as it applies but not the spirit or intent in limiting concealable high power weapons. Gun rights advocates, who often bash the ATF (though based on some of ATF’s past behavior, there is some justification) really have their administrative rulings on weapons and weapon accessories to thank for easy accessibility to short barreled shotguns and what are essentially short barreled rifles.

For a shotgun to be considered an NFA weapon it’s first important to understand that the ATF defines a shotgun as being designed to be fired from the shoulder, meaning it is designed with a stock. The NFA defines a short barreled shotgun as having a barrel under 18 inches or having an overall length of less than 26 inches. What this means for the gun owner is that if they cut the barrel under its legal length or if the stock is cut down rendering the shotgun under the legal length, they have made, and now possess, an unregistered NFA weapon in violation of the law. Gun owners are free to modify a shotgun to an SBS, as well as purchase a shotgun already configured as an SBS, as long as they register the weapon and pay the tax. However the devil is in the details and both Remington and Mossberg have found ways to make short shotgun weapons that the average person would consider a “sawed off shotgun” which follow the letter of the law and avoid being classified as an SBS.

For example, Mossberg took its classic Model 500, a conventional pump shotgun, and installed a 14″ barrel and replaced the shoulder stock with a “bird’s head” pistol grip that maintained a total length of just a fraction over 26 inches, calling it the Shockwave. Mossberg, as a manufacturer, designed the gun this way, however if an average citizen took a conventional Model 500, cut down or replaced the barrel and replaced the stock with a similar pistol grip they have violated the law. Because the conventional Model 500 was designed with, and as purchased had, a shoulder stock, it is a shotgun and must have a barrel exceeding 18 inches and be over 26″ long. Because Mossberg designed the Shockwave without a shoulder stock, it is not a shotgun, it is merely a pistol grip firearm and not subject to barrel length restrictions. Shotshell firing weapons can also fall into the Any Other Weapon (AOW) category if designed as a smoothbore handgun or dual barrel centerfire cartridge and shotshell weapon with a barrel greater than 12 inches but less than 18 inches, and measuring less than 26 inches overall.

These dimensional intricacies, and some would say hypocrisies, can be best illustrated with a meme photo that accurately depicts the slight variations in design of Mossberg 500 shotguns that define an NFA weapon.

If concealability of a high powered weapon is a major concern, the above example illustrates that while their NFA status differs, their concealability is essentially the same. In fact, the longest weapon depicted is the one designated as an SBS and subject to the NFA which was supposed to deter ownership of short shotguns.

In regards to short barreled rifles, the ATF description of a rifle includes a stock and a barrel over 16 inches long, with an overall length, with stock extended, of 26 inches or more. The popularity of the AR and AK rifle platforms have given rise to large, rifle caliber, AR and AK pistols, essentially the rifle version with 9 to 12 inch barrels with no stock. Because these platforms were never designed to function as pistols, they are heavy and ungainly and aftermarket manufacturers have responded by producing arm braces. They are securely affixed to the rear of the firearm in place of the stock and are strapped around the forearm to provide added support in wielding the pistol. In an issue that was eventually addressed by an ATF ruling, there was a question of whether using the arm brace as a shoulder stock was a violation of the SBR definition in the NFA. Again the ATF came down on the side of gun advocates by ruling that merely using a device designed as an arm brace as a stock, didn’t equate to it being a stock, and thus was not a law violation. But as evidenced by the design of these braces, they resemble stocks, albeit uncomfortable ones, and will effectively function as one.

This essentially provides the gun owner with accessibility to a concealable high powered weapon that functions as an SBR without having to go through a registration and tax process. Other than an issue of refined design to enhance ergonomics and comfort, there is essentially no difference between a rifle caliber pistol with an arm brace and an SBR.

Suppressors or silencers, through TV and movie depictions, have typically been associated with spies and assassins. However, what is typically not depicted is suppressor use as a safety device designed to limit the potential for hearing damage as well as noise pollution. That potential, along with the tacti-cool aspect for recreational shooting has prompted pistol manufacturers to increasingly offer threaded barrels either as a standard feature or option. Silencer manufacturers and their products were relatively sparse twenty years ago but that has changed with aftermarket competition in the field lowering prices and some firearm manufacturers are designing and producing integrally suppressed firearms. No longer an oddity with questionable legitimate purposes, the suppressor has become a common firearm accessory enjoyed by both recreational shooters and hunters.

The Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986, while allowing the possession or transfer of FAWs legally registered prior to May 1986, banned the possession and/or transfer of FAWs manufactured after this date for citizens, leaving an exception for the military and law enforcement. Parts designated by the ATF like fire control groups, receivers, and bolts could also be classified as machine guns as well as items like trigger actuators because they are integral to the function of, or mimic, a machine gun. However the ATF again came down on the side of gun rights advocates in determining the legality of bump stocks. It was only after public outcry following the mass shooting in Las Vegas and presidential prompting that got the ATF to change its determination that the stock itself constitutes a machine gun.

The limited number of weapons that meet that prior date criteria has raised their prices to many thousands of dollars. The high cost of weapons, their limited availability and the necessity of registration have essentially removed these items from illegally trafficking and criminal use. As gun violence and mass shootings are popular cable news fodder, any recent criminal full auto weapon use would have surely generated notable news coverage. Based on media reports there seems to be little evidence of the use of FAWs in criminal activity. However, there will still be cases of gun owners illegally converting semiauto weapons to full auto capabilities (by virtue of not registering the weapon). While criminality may be primarily limited to a lack of registration, continued registration for FAWs (as well as Destructive Devices, like cannons, mortars, grenades, and missiles) may be warranted. There is a recognizable increase in potential lethality with a FAW, and in reality these weapons’ usefulness are limited to combat, criminal activity, and a fun way to expend ammunition. Thus, a law-abiding individual’s capacity to have fun firing off hundreds of rounds of ammunition is not infringed by having to register the weapon because of its potential criminal use and trafficking potential. However, the required $200 tax stamp could be argued as unnecessary. It was not a tax borne out of necessity but as the ATF states, it was meant to impose a burden and act as a deterrent.

Criminality and the NFA

The issue of criminal use of NFA weapons is hard to determine. We know that street gangs, organized crime, and biker gangs have access to NFA weapons as evidenced by raids and arrests but outside of SBSs and SBRs which can be simply produced, the source of FAWs likely stems from military equipment thefts. The ATF doesn’t compile any readily available data on the use of either unregistered or registered NFA weapons in crime incidents. In opposition to the ATF’s 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) change regarding trusts and NFA weapons, the Firearm Industry Consulting Group noted that the ATF “failed to identify a single example where a prohibited person gained actual possession of a NFA firearm by virtue of his relationship to a legal entity, let alone where a person gained possession of a NFA firearm due to his relationship to a legal entity and then used that firearm in the commission of any crime”. Additionally, in response to a FOIA request, the ATF failed to produce any document that showed a single instance where a registered NFA weapon was used in the commission of a crime. An internet search revealed little in the way of data other than historical media accounts like the 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery or the assassination of radio personality Alan Berg by white supremacists where the perpetrators used illegally converted semi auto weapons. NFA weapons haven’t been specifically implicated in mass shooting events and according to the website Statistica, in the past 38 years, pistols have been the predominant weapon in mass shootings and the use of shotguns and rifles (despite the concern over modern sporting rifles, aka “assault rifles”) account for only 26 and 47 incidents respectively.

Criminality associated with NFA weapons is seemingly more focused on the possession of unregistered weapons. However, the determination of whether a weapon was registered can be problematic and result in wasted efforts with investigations and the prosecution of innocent individuals. The NFRTR is fraught with problems that stem back decades. Congressional testimony, internal ATF audits, and Inspector General audits demonstrated that ATF employees have destroyed registration records because they didn’t want to process them, there were major discrepancies when old data was compiled into a new data base following the move from the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice, the software used for the query system of the NFRTR was substandard, and the employees using the system were poorly trained on its data entry and proper use resulting in imputation errors. This has resulted in numerous instances of ATF agents starting investigations and forwarding charges against individuals because the ATF couldn’t find registration documentation, NFA weapons still being registered to deceased individuals, and dealers facing fines because their inventory doesn’t match the faulty ATF database. It can be contended that with the NFRTR being so inaccurate, with estimates of errors in the database ranging historically from 4 to 40%, that it is unsuitable to be used as a standard of proof to convict individuals of unlawful possession.

The ATF acknowledges the intent of Congress in utilizing registration, a substantial tax, and severe penalties was to deter the private ownership of these weapons. However while deterrence was its intended effect, the level of deterrence to possession is hard to gauge by the numbers. As of May 2019, the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) showed that in the U.S. and it’s territories there were:

62,162 AOWs
155,021 SBSs
413,167 SBRs
699,977 FAWs
1,750,233 Silencers
2,997,630 Destructive Devices

Just in 2018, there were 21,580 applications to make an NFA weapon and 128,324 individual transfer applications. As well for 2018, there was a total of 339,278 of all registration and transfer applications, with a total number of weapon registrations at over 1.4 million.

Despite a lack of a deterrent effect on possessing these weapons and silencers, there seems to be little indication, especially with FAWs, that these weapons are inordinately used in criminal activity. This ineffectiveness of the NFA does present an opportunity for both proponents and opponents of gun rights to amend it.

Changes to the NFA

Gun rights opponents could suggest that the wording and definitions of the NFA don’t address current firearm design changes that allow for the possession of concealable high powered firearms that the NFA was designed to deter. To address this, gun rights opponents could suggest the following changes:

The definition of a shotgun be changed to any firearm or weapon that fires a shotshell, and that a shotgun must have at minimum a 40″ overall length and have at a minimum a 22″ barrel. This would limit the availability of short length shotguns like the Mossberg Shockwave by placing them into the NFA category and keeping conventional shotguns at a length that can still accommodate smaller shooters but limit the weapon’s concealability.
The definition of a pistol be changed to bar any device that can be affixed to the rear of the pistol that is intended to support the firearm. Attaching such a device, either a stock or arm brace transforms the pistol into a rifle, subject to the ATF’s definition of a rifle and SBR.
The definition of a rifle be changed to define a rifle as having at a minimum a 16″ barrel and a minimum overall length of 36″. This will encompass conventional .22 rifles and centerfire carbines and lever actions which tend to be shorter firearms. AR and AK style pistols would become rifles if a brace or stock is attached and if they did not meet the minimum rifle dimensions, they would become NFA weapons.
An amendment to the NFA can be introduced that would no longer allow the transfer of FAWs and Destructive Devices between individuals (however, this will still be allowable under a trust). After the possessor’s demise, the weapon is turned in for destruction.
Increase the tax on NFA weapons and silencers to something more in keeping with the current economy. $200 in 1934 was a substantial amount, meeting and often exceeding the cost of the weapon itself which could have acted as a deterrent. Increasing the current tax burden could also act as a deterrent, for example, making the tax equivalent to the price or value of the weapon. This could range from 400 dollars for an SBR or SBS to tens of thousands of dollars for a FAW.

Alternatively, and more in keeping with constitutional freedom, the NFA could be highly modified to align it with current firearm design and shooting sports interest. As previously mentioned the design of short length shotguns, rifle caliber pistols and the popularity of threaded barrels and silencers suggest that the law is out of step with gun owners and the gun industry. The chart below, from the ATF’s 2019 Firearms Commerce in the United States report, indicates the spike in interest in NFA items over the past 15 years.

The NFA could be amended in a number of ways:

Eliminate the SBR and SBS categories. As I noted above, current firearm designs make NFA dimensional parameters, which were designed to deter concealability, moot. The removal of these weapons classification from the NFA will essentially have no effect on possession of high powered, concealable firearms as these weapons already exist,, are plentiful and available to the general public in the form of rifle caliber pistols utilizing braces, and weapons like the Mossberg Shockwave. We already know that criminals are not deterred from converting conventional weapons into unregistered NFA items, and so the only deterrent effect is generated on the law abiding public who must go through the arguably infringing process of registration over what is simply a rifle or shotgun, be charged $200 to possess it, and then potentially face prison time, fines, and weapon forfeiture because the ATF poorly maintains the records that demonstrate your legal possession.
Eliminate the silencer category from the NFA but require a background check on Form 4417. While there are benefits for both hunters and recreational shooters in the use of silencer/suppressors, much of the public may still associate them with criminal activity. It is true that there is a potential that a suppressor may be used in a crime and in order to address its possible criminal use or prohibited person’s possession, just as is done with all firearms, a purchase could require a background check utilizing the standard Form 4417 that is used in all firearm transfers. There would be no registration fee or tax associated with a suppressor purchase, only what is required with any other firearm purchase.
Eliminate the Any Other Weapon category. Many of these weapons are in actuality historical oddities, novelties and antiques that while they can be defined as AOWs do not require registration. Dual barrel survival rifles, and pen and umbrella guns would be unlikely to be used in criminal activity and more likely in self defense if at all. This change would also address inconsistencies with the designation of short barreled shotguns as demonstrated above as well as inconsistencies in shotgun pistol design. The Taurus Judge is designed to fire both .45 long colt rounds as well as .410 shotshells in a conventional double action revolver but despite being a pistol that fires a shotshell it is not defined as an AOW because it has a small amount of rifling at the end of the barrel. However, in practical terms, there is virtually no difference in shotshell lethality by virtue of this small amount of rifling versus a smoothbore. Any larger gauge pistol (since a 12 gauge larger than .5″ bore is not considered a destructive device because of its sporting purpose) could thus be considered as simply a pistol and not an AOW.
Retain registration for full auto weapons with a nominal fee but discontinue the tax stamp. The NFA as a law written to deter ownership of firearms, was in its original iteration, meant to require the registration of ALL firearms but this view was walked back as likely facing constitutional grounds challenges. But the law, as it stands, was clearly designed, and its purpose stated as such, as a deterrent to owning certain kinds of firearms. However, the government should not be trying to deter, i.e. infringe, on the exercise of a constitutional right without a compelling interest. The evident lack of the criminal use of FAWs does not support that compelling interest. However, the potential lethality and potential criminal use and trafficking potential justifies continued registration. What is not justified is the $200 tax imposed simply for registering or transferring a weapon. The ATF has used the protected tax status of NFRTR information to impede criminal defense investigations by refusing to release exculpatory evidence that would establish legal possession or information that would demonstrate the inaccuracies inherent in the NFRTR. Rather than a tax, a nominal registration fee should be imposed that is earmarked specifically to fund audits and improvements in the NFRTR, which includes software redesign, proper training for end users, and error reconciliation.

These changes to the NFA will likely have little effect on the possession of NFA style weapons or crimes committed with them, will eliminate the imposition of unjustified burdens on law abiding gun owners, spur gun industry growth, and still maintain some degree of control over full auto weapons. In addition, supporting the maintenance of the NFRTR through registration fees will help ensure the accuracy of the database as it is the only standard of proof in determining lawful possession of NFA weapons. Improving the accuracy of the data will not only save on ATF investigative and administrative time and costs, but also help reduce unwarranted prosecutions on weapon owners and dealers who face sever penalties and fines over what is essentially a paperwork error on the part of the ATF.

Fixing Stop and Frisk

Support for Stop and Frisk as an Incident Practice

The fact that stop and frisk, within the context of the Terry ruling, was misused, doesn’t preclude it from being necessary and useful. Stop and frisk is an important investigative tool for law enforcement. Without the ability to stop and frisk, the police are hamstrung in their efforts in proactive policing. We have an expectation that the police will be proactive in an attempt to halt or prevent crime by investigating suspicious circumstances, trusting in the individual officers’ training, experiences, and abilities to identify and react to these circumstances. Police officers need the ability to act on their suspicions. Without the ability to temporarily detain and question in order to identify the subject and satisfy their suspicions, criminally minded individuals could simply ignore officers’ questions and commands and walk away with impunity. However, besides those who question the constitutionality of the Terry ruling, there are concerns, and as indicated in At Issue, some evidence, that not all stop and frisks met the Terry standard. While its use as a program versus incidental use is discussed below, for incidental stops there should be assurances that officers are operating within the guidelines of the Terry ruling.

Revising Stop and Frisk Documentation

To assist in that regard, the establishment of a reporting system, or the refinement to existing forms and systems is necessary. With an appropriate design, the form will allow for the collection of criminal intel that could be gathered from the stop, allowing for both police departments and researchers’ examination of the form data for analysis of criminal intel as well as statistical program analysis. The field stop form should exist in both an electronic format that is accessible, searchable, and fileable from the car, and in a short form paper format that officers can fill out as the stop progresses, as opposed to filling out the form later, or transferring field notes from a notebook to the form. Ultimately, the form will contain data on the different aspects of the stop with spaces for information on the:

Officer-Name, Age, Gender, Race or Ethnicity, Years with dept., Precinct, Beat, Shift

Subject-Name, Age, Gender, Race or Ethnicity, Height, Weight (if able to be determined or verified through officer or subject), Level of non-compliance, and Statements made

Location and Circumstances-Physical location or address of stop, Time of day, Weather, Whether the stop was associated with a particular location like a business, housing project, or public transit spot

Reason for Stop-Utilizing a blank space for a narrative, not checkboxes with preprinted justifications

Officer and Subject information will allow departments to examine individual officer performance; to determine the number of stops performed, the productivity of the stops (hit rates), whether more experienced officers are more productive and can be utilized as a training resource, and, based on subject demographics, data could be used to deflect or verify criticisms of individual officer bias. Departments can also use the data to analyze precinct, beat, and shift activity for patterns of effective operation, developing problem areas, and changes in geographic and demographic criminal activity. For researchers, these benefits are the same, with variables like officer race and subject noncompliance being especially informative in examining issues of racial bias by officers in stops, frisks, and arrests.

Location and circumstances information will provider a more comprehensive picture of the circumstances under which stop and frisk are conducted (night, bad weather) and how those may have influenced any of the other circumstances or outcomes of the stop. It will also be informative to have a determination of whether the stop and frisk activity may be focused on certain locations (as well as dependent on the time of day, shift, or beat). At Issue discussed the findings that the productivity of stops varied widely by location. Certain businesses and locations can be criminogenic, drawing both criminals and victims, and while the beat officer may realize this, it also provides a mechanism for intelligence analysis and dissemination across shifts, beats, and precincts. Utilizing this data may allow departments to better refine their focus on existing or emerging criminogenic locations and businesses.

Incorporating a blank space for stop justifications rather than checkboxes is one way to help preserve the Terry standard, and defend against 4^th amendment violations. Having officers write out their justifications forces them to comply with an important component of “reasonable suspicion”, that the reason for the stop be articulable. Utilizing checkboxes allows officers to habitually start using cognitive shortcuts by having the decisions written out in front of them, waiting for them to choose one, or retroactively choosing the justification that seemed most appropriate. While some commenters have lamented the net widening of justification for stops (and frisks), officers have to be given some deference in determining what is (articulable) suspicious in making a stop. Recognizing suspicious behavior that may be a prelude to criminality is a skill not well understood by the general public and most academics and one, that for officers, takes both natural aptitude and investigative street experience, to obtain. The cues that officers receive may be innocuous to many observers; the subject nervously hitching up his pants indicates he could take flight, unconsciously touching the waistband or pocket likely indicates a concealed weapon, subtly changing one’s stance indicates they are about to be combative, how often a person scans the environment indicates a lookout, the length and type of contact between two individuals on the street could indicate a drug transaction. For officers to be proactive we assume and expect that they develop those skills of picking out suspicious behavior. They should be allowed to act upon them as long as they articulable. In having to articulate them officers can more easily self-monitor the appropriateness and legal sufficiency of their actions.

The stop is a temporary detention to allow officers to investigate, i.e. question, the subject. Either through questioning, or the presentation of identification, the identity and address of the subject should be determined, the request for this information wholly justified by their presentation of suspicious behavior. All of the information obtained should also be incorporated on the field stop form. The questioning process will always vary depending on the particular situation and the matter under investigation but officers typically will look for explanations, given to their satisfaction, for the subject’s behavior or presence in the area. It can be from this questioning that additional suspicions can arise (as well as from the justification for the stop) that will prompt an officer to frisk a subject.

This is another feature that can’t be denied to officers, as long as it follows the Terry standard of being minimally intrusive. The expansion of situations that might comprise an issue of officer safety is justified, however they need to be limited to weapons searches and not expanded into other contraband. High crimes areas, by virtue of being so, constitute an increased risk to officer safety, and within these high crime area, public attitudes toward the police can be hostile, which might result in greater non-compliance, threats and attacks on the police. While drug possession is typically considered a nonviolent crime, drug transactions are another matter. As drug transactions that will be observable to officers will likely occur in the relative open in high crime areas, both the dealer and buyer run the risk of violence perpetrated against them through deals gone sour, and by street robbery and rival crews. Conducting transactions in risky areas will certainly prompt many of these individuals to arm themselves for protection, and in turn the police need protection from these individuals by a weapons frisk. But in keeping a broader acceptable range of frisk justifications, they also must be articulable, with an appropriate narrative of such included on the field stop form.

Changing the Way Stop and Frisk is Done With Individuals

However, there are ways that stop and frisk can be utilized that can mitigate some of the intrusiveness and perceived bias, and help promote police legitimacy. Regardless of the officers’ justifications for the stop, its crucial for officers to take a procedural justice approach. Hit rates can vary widely and, as the data showed in NYC and other places, it is more unlikely than likely an officer will recover contraband or make an arrest. So to help mitigate that intrusion on a possibly innocent person, officers will use their communication skills to approach the stop with dignity and respect for the subject, to be upfront and truthful with the subject, to allow the subject to have a voice in the matter, and to be fair and without bias in dealing with the subject. This entails maintaining politeness and respect as the subject is approached. The subject should be informed why he is being stopped, which should be the same reason articulated on the field stop form. When questioning, that same level of respect should try to be maintained, (though admittedly this is difficult when the subject is lying to you). The officer should explain what information he is seeking and why, so that it is clear to the subject what it was that made the officer suspicious and the purpose of the officer’s questioning. For example, to identify the subject, to seek information about a crime that occurred, or to ask the subject to explain his suspicious actions. Rather than asking “what ya doing around here”, officers need to be more precise, and polite, in their approach. “I stopped you because you were loitering in a drug trafficking area. Are from this area, or do have some business here?”.

Frisks also need to be done appropriately and with a statement to the subject about the justification for the frisk, the same as the articulable reason on the field stop form, with an explanation to the subject that it is done for both the officer’s and the subject’s safety and that it is only checking for weapons. The officer should explain to the subject where, and in the manner, they are going to be touched during the frisk, and be empathetic toward feelings of intrusion they may feel. These approaches help ensure that the public feels like the police have trustworthy motives and is listening to the subject and communicating rather than just talking at them. In doing so, the effects of an intrusive encounter can be mitigated while bolstering police legitimacy.

To assist officers in employing procedural justice during stop and frisks, practical experience in conducting and explaining stop and frisk behavior should be provided both to new officers and as in-service training. Improving their written communication skills is important as well in assisting officers in how to translate their observational experience (as noted above in the discussion of stops) into articulable statements. Officers often refer to a hunch, gut feeling, or their sixth sense in what draws their attention and makes them want to investigate. However, the Terry ruling was clear that a hunch is insufficient for a stop. In my discussions with police officers, this hunch is likely an unconsciously generated cue based on their past observational experiences. Its something an officer has seen before that was prelude to criminality or danger, it signals to the officer that “something isn’t right”. The challenge is assisting officers in breaking down their hunches to those base cues that are articulable and written communication skills programs could assist in that.

Changing the Way Stop and Frisk is Done in the Community

Stop and frisk is problematic as a general deterrence program. Even though evidence suggests it was targeted to hotspots and appropriately focused on those most likely to be involved in violent crime, ultimately it casts too wide of a net and generated feelings of over-policing and rights violations. However, larger scale deterrence generated by stops and frisks can still be utilized if limited in scope in a crackdown. Crackdowns (on guns for example) could be cycled through major hotspots for limited periods of time, or applied as necessary to flareups in hotspots. To help mitigate tensions, buy-in and cooperation with local community or neighborhood leaders is important. They can assist in announcing the crackdown beforehand to the community, neighborhood, or beat, provide a voice of community support for the police in its efforts on crime, and serve as a liaison, monitor, and information source between the community and the police. This will still provide for a deterrent effect but its limited scope, and coordination with the neighborhood and its leaders, will help repair or establish police legitimacy. The stops and frisks themselves will still need to be done with adherence to Terry and in a procedurally just manner however, officers won’t be increasing the number of stops they make which could lead to a weakening of reasonable suspicion justifications, but rather increasing the number of officers in the crackdown area.

An Alternative to Stop and Frisk

Terry stops were meant to be used as an investigative practice necessary for proactive policing and officer safety and were not intended for programmatic use. However as justifications expanded, it was morphed into a deterrence program, like Broken Windows Theory morphed into Zero Tolerance policing, that overstepped its boundaries and damaged police/public relations. The deterrence program may have been effective in reducing violent crime as it focused on high crime areas and those individuals more likely to be involved in crime (younger male residents). But by doing so communities did and will pay a cost in anger and mistrust of the police, as those primarily focused on were minorities which results in a loss of police legitimacy and hampers law enforcement efforts as the public becomes uncooperative.

Stop and frisk in NYC was focused on the “right kind of people” which is supposed to be young males in high crime areas. While its violation of the 14^th amendment may be arguable as it was not the state’s intention to utilize SQF to adversely affect or benefit one racial group over another, but rather the state was indifferent to the racial disparities and its effect and perception of the practice suggests it targets minorities. Because with programmatic SQF there is no real discrimination between who are actually the right people, the criminals, and who are the law abiding, non-problematic residents of the neighborhoods.

While as an investigator, it might be tempting to just shake the trees and see what falls out, an alternative to stops and frisk, is an informal field stop which can be useful for gathering information. Rather than shaking down youths in the neighborhoods, officers could take a more nonconfrontational approach. Officers can approach individuals not based on suspicion but just as a potential information source. Officers take a friendlier, more informal approach and try to build a rapport with the subject to have a conversation rather than an interrogation. A friendlier approach allows people to let their guard down and building a rapport with the subject will get them talking more freely, which allows the officer to guide the conversation toward what he wants to know.

It is important to get to know the residents of the beat; a good cop should be able to read people and figure out through the interactions, and the intel gathered in these interactions, who the problem people are and who the law abiding ones are. This allows officers to focus their efforts on the bad guys while building a sense of trust with the law abiding neighborhood residents. Good street cops should be using these contacts and developing formal and informal informants from their interactions, as well as building rapport, trust, and good will with residents. This approach in either stop and frisks or in an informal stop, can turn a potentially negative encounter for both parties into one that may be neutral for the public and positive for the officer as he may be able to gather intel either on general or specific criminality on his beat or will get to know and distinguish between the different types of people on his beat. This will also benefit future investigations as well as enhance their proactive behavior by having a better idea on who to focus on rather than just blindly casting a wide net.

Approach to Racial Bias Analysis

In the situation with NYC, racial disparities were cast as racial bias, but just like the rule “correlation doesn’t mean causation”, disparity doesn’t mean discrimination. In trying to understand disparity and disparate impact we can’t forget to utilize a disease risk model, which in a policing context means not considering the population as a whole but only the portion of the population at risk for SQF. And there is a far greater likelihood of being subjected to a SQF if you are a young male (the universal profile), even more so if you reside or are in a high crime area, irrespective of race. Social conditions however have situated a high percentage of minorities in these disadvantaged high crime areas. While this may generate a disparate impact within the community, it may struggle to actually be a racial disparity, given the specific population demographics, racial crime rates, and criminal suspect descriptions. This focus on minority populated hotspots of crime does not provide evidence for any institutionalized bias, as by necessity and public expectation, more police resources are focused on higher crime areas.

As was discussed in At Issue, in the analysis of SQF for racial bias, methodology is very important. To examine racial disparities or bias an appropriate unit of analysis must be determined. While most researchers have focused on precincts rather than city population as whole I suggest that the beat, a smaller microunit of analysis, be utilized. A precinct can encompass a relatively large area and within that precinct are districts, sectors or beats that could be similar but could just as likely vary widely from the adjoining beat. One beat might hold a lot of retail businesses while an adjoining beat might be residential, while another adjoining beat might be commercial/industrial. The crime rates of each beat, which could vary widely based on the businesses, residents, and potential targets, when averaged for a precinct crime rate might mask, for analysis purposes, a high level of criminal activity in one of the beats.

Increased stop and frisk activity generated from this beat may, when viewed from a perspective of precinct crime rates, seem disproportionate, but is actually inline with the crime happening on that particular beat. Beat demographics are then a more appropriate denominator to calculate rates because disparity is only proven with the correct population demographics and if the demographics of SQF match that of the beat and its criminal subjects, there is no disparity and thus no bias. As was discussed in At Issue, evidence suggests that hit rates can vary by location, with some locations being criminogenic. Those locations are much better determined and analyzed at a beat level as well.

As discussed earlier in the section on revising stop and frisk documentation, the comprehensive inclusion of appropriate variables is also important in trying to determine if racial bias in stops or frisks exist, and variables like officer race and subject noncompliance must be included. Some commenters in At Issue approach officer motivation in these stops with an almost automatic assumption of implicit bias, if not some policing subculture learned bias, against minorities. This may exist to some degree on an individualized basis with some officers, but it also impugns the vast majority of officers who really are motivated by preventing crime and promoting safety and don’t care what race the subject is, only about determining if he’s a good citizen or a bad guy. The inclusion of officer race in these encounters will surely provide a more nuanced look at the possible existence of racial bias toward minority subjects, especially in cities like NYC and others who have a large percentage of minority officers. Similarly in frisks and arrests, the level of noncompliance is going to be an important determining factor in whether these frisks and arrests occur. Research has shown that Blacks tend to be more confrontational with the police than Whites and differing levels of non-compliance may have some explanatory power in disparities seen here.

Conclusion

Stop and frisk has gone from an essential investigative tool to something that’s vilified as constitutionally challenged and racist. However, the truth is that the practice itself while acceptable and necessary, can be misapplied and mismanaged, which in turn can unintentionally damage police legitimacy. If departments can more closely adhere to the Terry ruling, scale back its use, refine and improve its use, and seek alternatives to its use, the practice itself will gain back some of its legitimacy as will the departments themselves.

A Continuum of Deviance-From Motorcyclist to Outlaw Biker

Frank Heley 2009

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to examine the deviant subculture of bikers and outlaw motorcycle clubs and determine the sources of the deviance and what factors contribute to increased deviance as deeper immersion in the subculture occurs, eventually culminating in serious, organized criminal enterprise. I believe that there is a continuum of deviance that starts at an individual’s basic socio-economic level and is coupled with an interest in motorcycling and upon entry into the subculture there is a natural progression toward deeper deviance. Most of the general observations contained here about bikers and the lifestyle come from my personal observations over the years, both in Fargo, ND and Dallas, TX. From 1986, when I bought my first motorcycle to 2003, when life’s circumstances took precedence over riding, I worked for and with bikers, had friends who were bikers, and I spent time in biker and biker friendly bars.

DEFINITIONS

To facilitate the exploration of the continuum of deviance within the biker subculture, it is important to provide some context and definitions. The term one percenter is common amongst the vernacular of bikers and law enforcement alike. The term is said to have reportedly originated from an American Motorcycle Association estimate in the ‘40’s that one percent of motorcyclists were causing trouble for all motorcyclists (Barker, 2004). While the term is used with little empirical evidence and subject to disagreement as to the exact origin, it has become so commonplace as to be a legitimate label for outlaw motorcycle gangs and their members (Heley, Personal Knowledge).

The use of the term gang is also related to those who invoke it. The members themselves will always refer to themselves as a club. The press and law enforcement will frequently if not exclusively, use the term gang to define motorcycling organizations whose members engage in or are believed to engage in criminal activities (Quinn & Koch, 2003). This may institute a degree of bias into sociological and law enforcement analysis of these organizations. Minnesota statute defines a criminal gang as an organization consisting of three or more individual which has as one of its primary activities, is the engagement in felony level criminal activities, who have a common name, sign or symbol who individually or collectively currently or have in the past engaged in a pattern of criminal activity. In this report the term motorcycle club (MC) and outlaw motorcycle club will be utilized rather than gang but the term 1% in reference to clubs and members will be used to give a better indication of the level of deviance and criminal activity in MCs that are being addressed.

It is important to recognize that amongst the thousands of MCs, are around 300 that are one-percenters. (Barker, 2005) Amongst those are a handful of MCs that have been more than prominent in the eyes of the public, press, and law enforcement. The Big Five as described by Barker, the Hell’s Angels, the Bandidos, the Pagans, the Outlaws, and the Sons of Silence have distinguished themselves from other 1% clubs through size, criminal activity, prosecution, and press coverage. There are also a number of 1% clubs that are major independents in that they are limited by the number of chapters, member strength, and lack of affiliation or geographical competition with the Big Five. (Barker, 2005)

The Big Five clubs originated in the 50’s and 60’s (Barker, 2005) and according to anthropologist Daniel Wolf, bikers are alienated products of anomic, urban, technological society who adhere to their own version of a wild west ethic (as cited in Quinn & Koch 2003). While this may be somewhat applicable to the origins of these clubs, I feel it falls a little short as the progression from simple deviance to outright criminal behavior is not so easily explained. Quinn and Koch also portray the one-percenter world as both countercultural and subcultural, in that their lifestyle and behaviors seem to run counter to the rest of societal norms, but that their respect for hierarchy, power, and belonging are a “caricature of a subterranean norm” (2003). This is a more comprehensive view of a lifestyle that is at the same time both secretive and highly visible.

THE CONTINUUM OF DEVIANCE

The assertion of this work is that there is a continuum of deviance within the motorcycling world that can be explained and defined through various sociological and criminological views. Since the inception of the motorcycle, riders have been viewed with some trepidation. At a time when the automobile was still a relatively new invention, the motorcycle was thought of as dangerous and those who rode them were viewed as unconventional, adventurous, or reckless depending on the viewpoint of the observer. The formation of 1% clubs cannot be explained solely by disenfranchisement and anomie. The Hells Angels were formed by former WW II vets, the Pagans by a biochemist employed at the National Institute of Health, and the Florida based Warlocks, a major independent, by a Vietnam era sailor. (Barker, 2005) Indeed, a number of now defunct clubs were started by WW II servicemen (Heley, Personal Knowledge)

In the case of these servicemen I believe it is not anomie per se but, as Quinn agrees, the bonds of brotherhood and risk-taking behavior fostered in the military prompted the formation of the clubs (2001). Others, I believed were formed as a means of binding like-minded loners, which is the view of former National President of the Hells Angels Sonny Barger and anthropologist Daniel Wolf, though this loyalty is magnified by their distrust and rejection of mainstream society (Quinn, 2001). Already viewed as somewhat outside of the mainstream by virtue of being motorcycle riders, those more comfortable in a “saloon society milieu” (Quinn, 2001), gravitate toward one another in a sense of kinship that I believe runs deeper than just a means of dealing with blue collar stress.

AFFINITY, AFFLIATION, AND SIGNIFICATION

This suggests the continuum of deviance that exists amongst bikers, typified by Matza’s theory of affinity, affiliation, and signification. Motorcyclists now are relatively conventional but not completely mainstream. The motorcycle is an acceptable means of travel, but it has also come to signify freedom seeking. From this very nominal deviance it’s possible to transition from motorcyclist to biker. It is in the saloon society, that Quinn refers to, that bikers associate in; one of lower class focuses and attitudes. It’s here that affinity starts. Based on my observations, bikers are defined by themselves and other based on the style of dress, the make and model of motorcycle, overt behavior, and dedication to motorcycle riding. Dress and personal style indicate toughness with black leather, denim, chains, heavy boots, and the typical carrying of a weapon, often a knife. Violent or sexual imagery, or those related to the biking lifestyle are typical tattoos within the subculture. To support this image of toughness, real toughness is required. It is important to show perceived masculine traits; those associated with a penchant for, or at least an acceptance of, violence, misogyny, substance abuse, and minor criminal activity. Hard drinking, recreational drug use, and a willingness for confrontation are typical behaviors. (Heley, Personal Knowledge)

However, the other defining factor is riding itself. It is important not only as a primary means of transportation but in making very sharp distinctions. What you ride, American made Harley Davidson versus import, is important, as well as how often you ride. Bikers who tow their bikes to shows and on long runs are treated with derision. So too are those with too many luxuries and accessories on their bikes versus the stripped down or chopped ride. Distinctions are also made between those who ride the smaller Harleys called Sportsters and those who ride the “Big Twins”. Another very important distinction is between those who repair and modify their own bikes versus those who rely on shops to service and customize their bikes. There are a large amount of subcultural norms that need to be understood and accepted, and this also takes an investment of time, dedicating oneself to the lifestyle if you wanted to be viewed as and consider yourself a biker (Heley, Personal Knowledge).

This indicates that there are certain expectations that must be met to achieve full status, i.e. being a real biker. Within the subculture, bikers are very quick to make distinctions between “righteous bros” and “posers”. It are only these righteous bros that move further down the continuum.

Joining a motorcycle club moves the biker from affinity to affiliation. The club becomes a source of personal and group identity (Quinn and Koch, 2003). If you are a member of a club, you can now wear the label of biker with no argument, but you have a new role to fulfill. MCs can be either conventional, those just interested in motorcycling and that are recognized by the AMA, or norm violating, which is our focus here. Membership can occur in different ways. One can request membership if sponsored by a member, one can be recruited by a nomad affiliated with a 1% club, or you can be patched over (Quinn and Koch, 2003). As a member of the club there are further expectations to be adhered to, primarily loyalty to the club. New members are typically socialized to the ways of the club by “prospecting”. The prospect is in a probationary period designed to see if he is worthy to be a club member. They may be assigned a variety of mundane and dirty jobs and in some of the 1% clubs, may be required to commit a felony for the club to insure membership. (Barker, 2005) Once a full member, the prospect is allowed to wear the club insignia or “patch” and now has a patch holder status. The patch holds ultimate importance for a club member. It is never to be surrendered or allowed to be desecrated. Patch holders will also typically procure more tattoos that further show allegiance to the club. MC members have a fierce loyalty to not only the club and its members but its activities. Club members are expected to be active in the club by participating in runs, attending meetings, paying dues, and abiding by club rules which dictate behavior towards other members, allowable drug use, and other behaviors that affect the club’s cohesion or reputation (Quinn and Koch, 2003).

This image of a MC fits thousands of clubs around the US and world. Patch holder membership is typically made up of the type of biker described previously. However, within the context of 1 % clubs, and MCs in general, criminal activity by individual club members and the club itself varies widely (McNally and Alston, 2006). Individual deviance may go beyond recreational drug use to minor dealing or petty theft to grand theft. These criminal activities and behaviors usually occur on an individual level or between cliques in the club (McNally and Alston, 2006) but are not typically club directed.

The National Association Of Gang Investigators put the number of 1% clubs at over 300 nationwide. (Barker, 2005) It is during club membership, either in an existing 1% club or in a club that is transitioning into one, that signification takes place. The member is no longer a biker who may commit some crimes but has now become a criminal biker, an outlaw. There is sufficient evidence from law enforcement to suggest that 1% clubs do engage in ongoing criminal operations that are diverse and lucrative. The crimes are designed to benefit the club and are typical of the subculture they occupy and the norms they conform to, but at a more extreme level such as drug manufacturing and dealing, prostitution, auto & bike theft, gun running, and contract killings (Barker, 2004). The continuum toward more extreme deviance culminating in extreme criminality is enhanced by a few features within the subculture, the differential association and the hierarchy that exists in clubs, especially the one-percenters.

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION

Within the subculture of the MC exists hang-arounds, friends, and associates of the club, and puppet clubs, i.e. weaker clubs affiliated with the larger, stronger clubs. These peripheral components demonstrate a varying level of involvement and loyalty to the club and subsequently, the criminal and deviance associated with each (McNally & Alston, 2006). They are usually subservient to ranking gang members and often must be sponsored by a member to achieve this status. Typically, they are involved in only a limited degree in club business but may participate in the criminality associated with the club. Also, with each chapter are a number of cliques. These members associate to a greater degree because of the task sharing and specialization in maintaining criminal activity. In using a social network analysis, McNally and Alston assert that the level of criminality that exists relates to the club’s hierarchy and the closeness of core and peripheral member contact. Core members and officers account for only 15-20% of criminal activity in McNally and Alston’s analysis, with the bulk of the crime committed by rank and file members. While individual members may engage in criminality, the level at which they associate, or are in contact, with core members and club officers helps determine their level of criminal involvement, supporting a differential association view regarding the members (McNally and Alston, 2006).

HIERARCHY, ONE-PERCENTERS, AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

MC’s including 1% clubs have a very distinct hierarchy. There is a home or mother chapter, the original chapter of the club. Its president is typically the national president. The Big Five have a varied number of chapters and members. Exact numbers are unknown but most of the clubs have around 80 chapters worldwide, with member numbers in the hundreds, if not thousands. (Barker, 2005) The home chapter set rules and guidelines, and issues charters for the chapters. However, it appears that criminal activity is not dictated by the home chapter but through individual chapters, though some in law enforcement believe the national chapter sets drug prices (Quinn, 2001). The national chapter may not dictate the requirement of criminal behavior to the chapters, but they are a means of resolving disputes regarding criminal activities engaged in by chapters or individual members. There is continued disagreement over whether the criminality in MCs are simply expressive acts or are actually instrumental, but it is likely that it is a combination of both (Quinn and Koch, 2003).

There is evidence of advancement in status within the club. Within the chapters, they have elected officials; the president, vice president, secretary/treasurer, sergeant at arms, and the road captain, each with their distinct duties within the club. (Heley, Personal Knowledge). Within the Big Five and undoubtedly other outlaw clubs, are sub groups like the Hell’s Angels’ Filthy Few, which law enforcement reports act as hit squads, but the club maintains they handle internal security and recruiting. Also, within the clubs are Nomads who are members of the club but are not affiliated with any chapter and answer only to the home chapter. Purportedly they serve as recruiters and inter-chapter liaisons (Quinn & Koch, 2003).

Because a hierarchy exists there is an incentive to achieve more status. This is accomplished by evident adherence to club rules and extraordinary loyalty to the club and its activities. As Sonny Barger, the Original President of the Hells Angels put it, you have to “show class” (Thompson, 1966). As Thompson also related, the Hell’s Angels, and other clubs as well, are very well aware of their outlaw status as viewed by the general public and with that, it carries a certain level of protection from societal censure at least in the first person, especially with the promotion of a “one on all, all on one” view of total retaliation (Thompson, 1966). Because of this, as a club member they become socialized deeper and deeper into a subculture where criminal activity is increasingly acceptable. With less societal sanctions, there ceases to be limiting factors to the members’ behavior. Peer pressure is also significant. Because your loyalty is scrutinized, it becomes increasingly important to participate in club activities no matter the extent of the criminal activity. This loyalty to the club and members is enhanced by the social isolation that comes from being a member of the subculture (Quinn, 2001).

Also crucial to the 1% club is the acquisition and maintenance of territory. This is usually accomplished through violent means and your loyalty to the club is again tested by your participation in inter-club violence. Most of the serious violence attributed to 1% clubs are directed at other clubs. Smaller clubs or their chapters are “patched over”, in a sense a hostile takeover accomplished through violence and intimidation, by a larger 1% club, incorporating the other clubs’ members and their turf. (Quinn & Koch, 2003) The larger market for illegal gains becomes an important commodity for the club, and it protects it from any perceived threats (Quinn, 2001). The level of inter-club violence has increased in recent decades, as evidenced in a paramilitary attack by the Hell’s Angels against the Mongols MC at a casino in Laughlin, NV in 2002 and the use of army ordinance rockets against the Banditos in Holland and Scandinavia in the ‘80’s and ’90’s (Barker, 2004). Canada has within this decade and the previous one been marred by turf wars between the Outlaws and Hells Angels to control the methamphetamine trade (Quinn & Koch, 2003).

CONCLUSIONS

From this research I’ve concluded that the first stages in the continuum of deviance, from being a member of saloon society who likes motorcycles to becoming a biker is not easy. It requires strict conformity to norms of the subculture, which is enhanced by a significant amount of peer pressure to conform. The more you conform, the more accepted you are and the more likely you will be presented with an opportunity to prospect. Having already been involved in the minor criminal activity that is associated with being a biker and saloon society in general, such as theft, assault, and drug use, differential association becomes a factor. You have a group of criminal-minded individuals who reap benefits, both in status and financially, by engaging in more serious criminal behavior like organized theft, and drug dealing which is further facilitated by the level of commitment to the club and the associations they maintain within the club. Within the 1% clubs there are both conservative and radical members and that “hegemonic radicalism at critical turning points in the development of the club is a significant determinate of its eventual commitment to organized crime” (Wolf, 1991 as cited in Quinn, 2001). Because the club member so strongly identifies with the club, loyalty to it being paramount, actions that benefit the club are viewed favorably, strengthening the incentive to engage in serious criminal behavior. This behavior can occur in any number of MCs, through the differential association that takes place. With the true 1% club, especially so with the Big Five and major independents, the gains made from criminal enterprises push the behavior from just sub-cultural deviance to its pinnacle within the continuum, that of an outlaw. The nature of the club requires that you firmly accept this label, as evidence of your loyalty is always necessary. While there seems to be scant evidence that the national chapters are the real heads of sophisticated criminal enterprises, you have to consider that loyalty and respect for the club and its ideals, as dictated by the national chapter, will exert some influence on individual chapters’ operation. It would be hard to imagine a Hell’s Angels chapter being in existence long if its members did not support the tough criminal image (and actions) that needs to be maintained to control lucrative criminal gains.

I contend that the level of criminal gains to be made for the club, and the level of involvement and association of the members, help set the club’s and members’ level of deviance. The profits a large club can reap by benefit of the control of large section of territory necessitate extreme means to keep control. It is inter-club conflict over criminal territory and activity and the depth of their association with other criminal organizations, including other clubs, street gangs and the mafia, (Quinn & Koch, 2003) that leads to the violence associated with outlaw clubs. As criminal opportunities are limited within the context of control by MCs, the level of criminal activity needed to manage it is necessarily less. As gains and markets become smaller, the criminal activity moves toward a less organized level. It now becomes more dependent on the individual level of deviance of the members and the associations that they make in the subculture and there is less incentive to engage in criminal activity. However even if there is no or only a nominal level of organized criminal activity in the club, doubtless there will members who are engaging in illegal activities in accordance with their own level of social deviance.

References

Barker, T. (2004). Exporting american organized crime-outlaw motorcycle gangs. Journal of Gang Research, 11 (2), 37-50.

Barker, T. (2005). One percent biker clubs: a description. Trends in Organized Crime, 9 (1), 101-112. doi: 10.1007/s12117-005-1005-0

McNally, D. and Alston, J. (2006). Use of social network analysis (SNA) in the examination of outlaw motorcycle gangs. Journal of Gang Research, 13 (3), 1-25.

Quinn, J.F. (2001). Angels, banditos, outlaws and pagans: the evolution of organized crime among the big four 1% motorcycle clubs. Deviant behavior, 22 (4), 379-399. doi: 10.1080/016396201750267870

Quinn, J. and Koch, D. Shane (2003). The nature of criminality within one-percent motorcycle clubs. Deviant Behavior, 24 (3), 281-305 doi: 10.1080/01639620390117291

Thompson, H. S. (1966). Hell’s angels. A strange and terrible saga. New York: Ballantine.

Category: Editorials and Opinions

A Free Cup of Coffee: A Brief Analysis of Police Corruption (2008)

Like this:

Careful Examination Not Defunding Needed For Police Reform

Like this:

Has the National Firearms Act Outlived Its Usefulness?

Like this:

Fixing Stop and Frisk

Like this:

A Continuum of Deviance-From Motorcyclist to Outlaw Biker

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: