we will need a way to pay for people on the system. they're going to have to find a way to fix these issues. 2015i will remember because the aca survived. it faced a challenge in the court, and it was the law pretty much the same with the cadillac tax. i will remember this year as the year where bipartisan changes became possible. medical device tax, which we talked about. we saw a couple of tiny tweaks that affect expatriates outside the countries. 2016, the attention will shift from capitol hill witches and outside of health care story in election-year, let's focus more attention on what the political candidates are talking about for the aca,

what we have seen republicans talk about if there is a serious replacement plan. whoever the republican front-runner ends up being, that he or she puts out a replacement plan, what hillary clinton has to say, and the courts. they will be a focus of attention. thank you both for the last two hours and thanks for joining us on the wasn't an journal. -- thanks for joining us on the washington journal. >> former president bill clinton is hitting the campaign trail in january.

to campaign for his wife, democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton. bloomberg politics says she referred to her husband as why not so secret weapon. they will focus on the hampshire and chelsea clinton will campaign for her mother next month. according to jennifer epstein. jebld trump is criticizing bush for canceling and iowa campaign stump due to weather. this is a donald trump tweed showing the sign canceling the meeting. mr. trump held his own rally in council bluffs, iowa, saying the silent majority is silent no more. donald trump will be holding a campaign rally today in hilton head, south carolina. we will have coverage at 11:00 eastern on c-span and comments. c-span we look back on the notable people who died this past year. among them, former senator fred thompson and we will show his comments from 2007.

the main thing, i think that we need to think about going forward, is what are the principles we will operate under? the 15th or 24th plan is great. i can beat him, i got a 30 point plan. but what are the principles? when a plan goes a sender, and you cannot get the agreement, i think the united states and we as it citizens ought to remember the first principles. i don't think the declaration of independence or the constitution are out data documents -- outdated documents. [applause] tells us ouration rights come from god, not from government. [applause] constitution has a

framework set up, not as some kind of result of bureaucratic haggling but as something that is designed to promote freedom. you can see the comments by the late senator tonight on c-span as we show in memoriam, a look at the notable people that died during 2015. it begins at 8:00 eastern. up, c-spanps presents congress, year in review. the newsmaking issues, debates, and hearings that took center stage on capitol hill this year. join us thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern as we revisit mitch mcconnell taking his position as senate majority leader. joint session in congress, the resignation of john boehner, and the election of paul ryan.

the nuclear deal with iran and reaction from congress on mass shootings here and abroad. the rise of isis. review,: year in thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. three days of featured programming this new year's weekend on c-span. friday night at 8:00 eastern, law enforcement officials, activist's, and journalists investigate the prison system and its impact on minorities. >> the first and primary reason we have is to punish people for antisocial behavior. to remove that threat from society. prisons are to keep us safe, what they will rehabilitate the crime,r or deter future i think those are secondary concerns. great if it happens but the primary purpose of prisons is for people who are not interested in keeping society

safe from the threats imposed by those. eight, electeder officials and my freshman from areas experiencing racial tension with police. >> that is where we begin. and dot the job saying their job saying i am protecting the public. of the public is those that gave them their marching orders and that is us. we need to look at that and we look at transparency and look at those rules that they have and start using them to engage themselves with our community. at 6:30, avening discussion on media coverage of muslims and how american muslims can join the national conversation. at 9:00, and people across the united kingdom gather in the house of commons to discuss issues important to them. >> this is more important than trains and expense. it leaves people feeling

disdain, private, and disillusioned. -- deprived, and disillusioned. how about this. seenwe grow up, we have people lose their smiling faces and we are worried whether we can afford school tomorrow. >> for complete schedules, go to c-span.org. next, a member of the president's task force on 21st century policing spoke to the university of chicago law school about police accountability and lawfulness and law enforcement reform in states around the country. this is about an hour. my name is jeffrey stone. have the pleasure of introducing our keynote speaker.

law atilton professor at yale university. invitederved briefly, i -- invited tracy to come speak and this is one of the benefits of the service. we have the speaker right here at the chicago law school in 1991. me, this as well as spring marks the 25th anniversary of graduation from the law school. it's ok. with theto be professor at a reception last night for the john howard association. a wonderful organization in chicago that works to improve the quality of illinois prison system. one of the guests told me told her thates after earning her undergraduate degree from the university of illinois, she was contemplating going to law school.

being an engineering student she didn't know much about law school. some of us it was one of the best decisions i ever made as dean in terms of bringing people to the law school with the exception of hiring barack obama. graduating,, upon she served as a law clerk on the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit. and spent the set past seven years working at the department of justice and she returned as an assistant professor and later served as the professor of law and director of the law school. ago, profes years

sor meares headed to new haven where she remains to this day. career,er distinguished she worked extensively with things working with the federal government from 2004 to 2011, for example, she served on the .ommittee on law and justice she was named by attorney general eric holder to sit on the department of justice on the newly created science advisory board and president obama named her head of the task force on 21st century policing. focused on criminal procedure and criminal law policy with an emphasis on empirical investigation. including among them, criminal

justice. an urgent times. policing and rights in interstate communities. a time of widespread national concern about community safety, criminal justice, and police practices, she is one of the most thoughtful, respected, and innovative scholars in the field. she is truly a national leader and it is my pleasure to present my former student and my special friend, professor tracey m eares. [applause] prof. meares: thank you for that generous introduction. was honored to give this beynote and thrilled to able to come back home. in so manyas changed ways but i admit to feeling sad

about the demise. the food was in great but the chips were in comparable. thought a great deal about what i wanted to say. my primary goal was running back and emphasizing the hard work that i did with 10 of my other colleagues that ranged from police chief to young activists to civil rights lawyers to union representatives. we all served it together on the presidential task force. the president was especially concerned about the unrest that followed these incidents and he in a quote on the back of this report that i will read. when any part of the american family does not feel like it is

being treated fairly, that is a problem for all of us, not just for some or for a particular community or demographic. it means we are not as strong as a country as we can be and it applies to the criminal justice system and means we are not as effective at fighting crime as we could be. our task force was charged with examining how to foster building strong collaborative relationships between local law enforcement and the communities they protect and to make specific recommendations to the president on how policing practices can promote effective crime reduction while building public trust. a game you have heard about today for those of you who are in the colder room. reportst pillar of our is called building trust and legitimacy and i think that's the foundation of good policing. that's what i was going to talk about and i will hit on that topic. and that slight detour

comes because i was just here last week. sadly not in hyde park. i was in town for the international association of the police annual conference and there i heard fbi director james comey speak. prf -- perf has a gathering and because i heard him speak there i decided to shift my remarks. is likemeeting, he, who me, an alumni of this law school, echoed what he had said a few days before. maybe even in this room. he worried about a national spike in homicides and said, referring to a conversation he said he had with an officer who felt he wast he under siege because people are watching him with a cell phone

and this officer told director komi he did not feel like getting out of his car. presumably he is talking about the national spike in homicides. have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind loading through american law enforcement. that wind is surely changing behavior. that wind is surely changing behavior. momentleave a side in a as to whether there is a national surgeon homicide we need to explain and whether even if there were whether this national trend whether there is reliable data that there is a in police behavior as it opposed to anecdotal reports of understandable changes in feelings and attitudes.

police are now being more closely scrutinized than ever before. that can be partially responsible. i am happy to return to these topics but here is what i would like to focus my remarks on. that is that i think the public safety narrative has lost its way. andeeds to be redirected reshaped. that's why i chose the provocative title. i don't even know if many of you know but i was told i had to have a provocative title. for c-span. my title is against public and for public security. let me explain. the president's task force report makes public trust central to the mission of policing and the question is how do we do it. the public safety narrative and by that i mean the narrative that makes what police do, the number of police and particular strategies, where they go,

absolutely central to crime reduction. i will call it police effectiveness and it suggests public support for police is directly related to the public evaluation of police effectiveness. this turns out not to be the case. you may find that surprising in a world in which there's so much discussion of police effectiveness and media policies like james comey's remarks. the notion of a ferguson effect itself suggests there is a need tothat we might sacrifice police effectiveness order to reduction in fulfill our concern about police ability, lawfulness, etc.. it might surprise some of you in this room who are under the age of 30. i can't even pretend i am under 30 anymore.

it might surprise you to learn the idea of police effectiveness at crime reduction is a metric that should matter with respect to evaluation of police. it is actually a metric of recent effectiveness. for decades, many scholars and police believe law enforcement has little impact on crime rate. daily, a police dollar, -- david daily, a police scholar wrote in his book, and i will do not preventce crime. that is one of the best-kept secrets. the experts and public the best -- the african police know it but the public doesn't. they know that if they are given more resources and especially personnel, they will be a lipid that communities. this is a myth.

today of course police executives are expected and expect themselves to reduce crime in their jurisdictions. the impact of crime rates is conventional wisdom, thanks in part to the folks in this room like david weissberg, frank simmering. and other folks across the .idway like steve levitt as my colleague, tom tyler noted before the task force, while police seemingly have become better and better over time at reducing and addressing crime, surveys indicating levels of public support for and confidence in police have remained slack over the same amount of time in which crime rates have fallen precipitously. perceptions of trust are grounded in assessments of police effectiveness and this is not what we should be finding.

one might ask them if police effectiveness doesn't drive public trust, what does. another answer might be police lawfulness. again, in light of repeated incidents of quite shocking police fertility, consider the tragic death of walter scott in north charleston, south carolina who was shot in the backlight a white police officer as he fled. you might think that commitment to the rule of law and constitutional constraints that shape engagements between the public and police would support public trust. trust is ase police component of a legit state. there are problems with how the to about that relationship and public trust. one of which is whether we have objective measures of police lawfulness. we heard a bit about that today and frank simmering's report of how we count police -- civilian

deaths at the hands of police. i think there is a general sense and i'm not relying on debtor but if you look at the time over which clark -- crime has aclined, many think there's much higher level of police lawfulness than it used to be. there was an nrc report that seems to indicate that they came out 10 years ago and i collaborated with people on that. not as confident of our assessment of that inclusion based on recent events. here is another issue with thinking about the relationship between police lawfulness and assessments of public trust. of my own out research with tom tyler and jacob gardner. our work demonstrates public judgments of police legitimacy and assessments of how the public thinks about whether police are doing their job are not really that sensitive to whether police are behaving

consistently with constitutional law. the public is not define lawfulness or determine sanctioning through the same lens of legality that police and other legal authorities use. this research that i'm talking forthcoming in the journal of criminal law and criminology and it is called lawful or fair, how people view good policing. showing thisnce juncture. if our goal is promotion of public trust, we have to recognize that while both police effectiveness at crime reduction and police lawfulness are both relevant, neither alone is sufficient. i think the public safety narrative lost its way when many of its major advocates began to argue that police effectiveness becomee reduction has

self-justifying. that police effectiveness at crime reduction is a warrant for itself. it's not. we need a new narrative and i have decided to emphasize the word security as opposed to safety. ande may be a better phrase maybe you don't like security. but here's the primary point. we need a mission for policing that recognizes that people's desire to be kept safe from each other, security against private predation, as well as being free from government repression, security against government overreach. that pursuit of both at the same time is not a zero-sum game. how to achieve both? i think the answer is fairly clear or at least part of the answer.

with and through a commitment to policing that makes legitimacy and procedural justice central to its mission. you are going to learn much more about this research and these ideas when tom tyler summarizes his paper. i am not going to take his thunder and this will give us more time for questions at the end. i will sketch at a few basic points here and now. here are the basic theories. people's conclusions regarding their assessments of fairness of legal actors like institutions and law, does not flow, really, or primarily in their assessment of police effectiveness at tasks such as crime reduction or apprehension of wrongdoers. people tend to place more weight on how authorities exercise their power as opposed to the ends through which that power is exercised.

researchers have studied public evaluations, police officers, judges, managers, teachers, findings are consistent. conclusions concerning legitimacy are tied more closely to judgments of fairness of the actions of these actors than two evaluations or fairness of the effectiveness of their outcomes. the social-psychological literature, judgments regarding fairness depend on four factors, primarily. , orfirst is participation voice, is an important element. people report higher levels of satisfaction in encounters with authority when they have opportunities to explain their perspective on encounters. this is also true as you generalize about participation and opportunities to engage and shredded cheese to have commentary on lawmaking and so forth. all of these things are examples

of voice. second, people care a great deal about the fairness of decision-making and authority. why this i mean they're looking at decision-making and neutrality, objectivity, and sexuality. andsparency -- objectivity, transparency. specifically, people desire to be treated with respect to their rights. and politeness. interactions with authorities, people want to believe the authorities they are dealing with are acting out of a sense of benevolence toward them. by this i mean what people are looking for is a sense of the motive of the authorities they are looking at and dealing with. they want to believe they aren't sincere -- that they are sincere and well-intentioned.

public wantof the to believe is the authority they are dealing with like a police officer believe they count. i will repeat. if i am a member of the public and i am dealing with a police officer, i want to believe that officer believes i count. course, that officer doesn't really believe that. that's the trick part about this. perception,out my your perception, the public perception. the way that we operate in the world is that we are making these assessments by evaluating how we are treated. in these interactions. these dynamics are inherently relational. they are not instrumental. rather than being primarily concerned with outcomes and individual maximization of utility, and i am saying that in legitimacy based

compliance is centered on individual identity. to be saidot more about that and why that's true. i don't actually have time to go into that and maybe we can talk about that at the end. i'm sure tom will talk more about that this afternoon. here's one implication. police generate good feelings and their everyday contacts, it turns out people are motivated to help them by crime. when that happens. we expect that when they are, there will be lower crime rates. this is the only benefit. -- that isn't the only benefit. healthier andt is more democratic communities. enough,were not research shows when officers take this approach, it is better

and healthier for them on the street. how do we get there? maderesident's task force a number of recommendations. i will highlight a few of them but i do encourage you to read this report. there's a large number of important, concrete and doable recommendations. it will take all of us working together to get these recommendations implemented and make a change. first, the task force recommended that law enforcement agencies embrace what we call a guardian mindset in order to promote public trust and legitimacy. this recommendation encapsulates the thinking of another task -- sheember whose name was a sheriff in washington state for a very long time. she has written that officers must make a shift from a warrior mindset to a guardian mindset.

we might think the warrior mindset is about crime reduction at all costs. no. guardian mindset is different. the guardian mindset actually emphasizes the behaviors that are consistent with procedural justice and legitimacy among other things. importantly, this will be a cultural change that has both internal and external aspects to it. police officers will have to be treated within their organization. we are going to expect them to carry out this kind of behavior on the street. i think this recommendation is actually a tall order. said, it requires organizational change and agencies. it requires policing agencies to change the way the officers are trained. includery strategies diversifying the workforce, our policing agencies need more women, more educated officers,

more people of color, training on ds colorization, techniques, ization.ing on de-escal i also think outside of a place like chicago, force is necessary. many agencies are very small and you cannot government this kind of change in a tiny agency. what is the recommendation we make? encouraged tod be consolidate to at least 50 officers or more. second, the task force recommended that agencies acknowledge the role of policing injustices present and discrimination and how it is a hurdle to the promotion of community trust. i don't think this can be emphasized enough. we actually talked about it today. in one of the earlier panels. it has been powerful and poignant, the practices whereby police officials and members of

affected communities have come together for conversations about dueling narratives that undermine trust. they are incredibly moving accounts of individual officers making decisions to acknowledge these past transgressions of those in uniform before them. here is one story i want to talk about that makes the point i think really well. there is a police chief that is no longer police chief in montgomery, alabama whose name is kevin murphy. he was born a year after representative john lewis and the freedom riders famously traveled to montgomery where they were brutally and viciously beaten by a white mob and went to a church in montgomery that literally sits across the street from the police headquarters today. it wasn't then but it is now. where they were firebombed in the church, electricity lines were cut.

the police were nowhere to be found. 2013, chiefay in murphy was part of the delegation that welcomed representative lewis back to montgomery. in front of a large crowd, the chief said to representative lewis, i want to apologize. we, the montgomery police failed to protect you and the other riders in 1961. the montgomery police were not very good to you. but today, we are a better department. he went on and explain the things they were doing and so on. you might think that's the end what then, he takes his badge and says this badge is a representation of service and protection and in particular, promotion of individual constitutional rights. 1961, my colleagues were not worthy to wear this badge. but you were. i want you to have it. he took it off and give it to

him. this amazing moment, you can find it on youtube and see it on the net. it is pretty powerful. it is obviously an incredibly powerful act of symbolic reconciliation. the question is how to do this work in the large-scale. you willessary and recall a critical component of procedural justice is motive waste trust -- motive-based trust. it is a port for people to be expecting benevolent treatment. extraordinary acts like apologies and reparative strategies are necessary. certainly proceeding as if the past never happened as professor craig biederman noted in his preceptor this presentation, is not a not -- in his presentation, is not an option. to where ieturn

began. it is imperative that police agencies recognize that crime reduction is not itself justifying. police action taken for the purpose of making communities safer, especially aggressive action, can have the counterproductive result of destroying the very reservoir of trust on which communities and policing agencies depend for proper functioning. by folks liketed ray kelly and rudy giuliani and maybe former mayor bloomberg that we ought to somehow balance the benefits that groups of people such as african-americans and young african-american men in particular receive from plummeting crime rates without truly acknowledging the cost to them in terms of enforcement. here i am not just talking about incarceration. the shortsighted and deeply flawed. their arguments pro mess is that

aggressive policing is necessary -- their argument is that aggressive policing is necessary to crime reduction. that is not true. it is critical to understand the promotion of public trust is associated with voluntary compliance with the law. this means that policing agencies can achieve their goal of enhancing public safety while at the same time pursuing the mandate of increasing public trust through greater commitment to legitimacy and free speech and justice. while the prescription is relatively straightforward, the process of taking the medicine is not. one might imagine the old treatment for rabies. i am probably dating myself but when i was a kid, the treatment in theies was 21 shots abdomen. over three weeks. i understand that's no longer the case.

now it is like five shots in the arm but when i was a kid, we were all terrified by the specter of the rabies shot. day afraid of dogs to this because of the rabies treatment. i think the path to police reform will be something like this. a narrow prescription that we all understand is clear, that it is difficult to endure but worth it. literally, ise, death. painful forbe policing organizations. there will be resistance. there already is. there is a sense of righteousness. change will be difficult for the affected communities, especially communities of color. think of disadvantaged neighborhoods in baltimore who have long distrusted police or the children craig was talking about.

there will be resistance, there already is. there is a sense of righteousness. why should we be helpful? there are example -- why should we be hopeful? a primary example happened in the state in illinois. as i understand it has signed the omnibus police reform legislation that was passed almost unanimously by both houses. this is 130 five pages, i don't know if you looked at it. it has all kinds of stuff. the requirement for this kind of police training, procedural justin's -- procedural justice. it even requires every police officer when they stop someone give that person a receipt that has the officer's name, -- number, and reason for the stop. there are new requirements in massachusetts for training like this. the attorney general of california requires wholesale

training of every policing agency in the state. the new york police department has recently announced it will document every single use of force, including the kind used -- there is movement in response to the national conversation. i think we need deeper change. side ofo to the west the invisible institute, organized by jamie calton, you will see videos of teenagers recounting their experiences with chicago police. some of you if you were in this room today have already seen some of these. craig refers to this and describes the world the kids live in that they describe as one governed by an alternative constitution. that description resonates with me.

i think we are in the midst of a national moment. one in which we are trying to understand and work toward the terms of citizenship in a very real way that neither the first nor the second reconstruction achieved. even though those reconstructions may have provided the legal architecture for doing so. , through theion reconstruction amendments, 13th, ,4th, and 15th, and congress through the civil rights act, voting rights act, second reconstruction. provided what we might think of as a formal curriculum of citizenship. are byaws tell us who we how we value freedom of all individuals. an article i have written with a colleague last year, we wrote a

piece called how the criminal justice system educates citizens. benjamin is a historian of education and he introduced me to literature that talks about how students are treated in classrooms that makes the distention between the formal curriculum on the one hand and the hidden curriculum on the other. i was really moved by craig's work with these teenagers because it reflected this idea of the dichotomy between the formal curriculum on the one hand and the hidden curriculum on the other. the idea of the hidden curriculum comes from educational researchers to look at how classrooms are organized, who are the mascots, where the kids sit, who is not in civics on?s or who is called when the curriculum clashes with

the formal curriculum, we are provided with instructions about who is and who is not a citizen. citizens are those whose treatment by a legal authority is completely consistent with the formal curriculum of rights. those whose treatment is not consistent, they're hidden curriculum is different and we might say those folks, we get instruction on who the anti-citizen is. someone said we are in the nascent moments of a third reconstruction. i hope so. i'd like to think that this time, we will get it right. but how do we do that? one answer might be to rely on this idea about the distinction between the formal curriculum on the one hand and the hidden curriculum on the other. once we have a system in which the formal and hidden curriculum

are the same for everyone, then we will have achieved the goal of the third reconstruction. let's hope we are on the path to its achievement. thank you. [applause] >> for questions, please lineup at the microphone. >> your attempt to change the narrative about policing is on target. in such matters of public affairs, controlling the narrative is crucial. that will shape thinking and policy.

you indicated you are uncomfortable with the term public security. i think your instincts are correct. for the following reason. the term public security calls to many millions, national security, homeland security, and those terms have been used to justify excessive and it illegal government actions. it gives you serious thought to finding a different term. prof. meares: thank you. i should say part of the reason i used the term security is there is other literature in the u.k. workreferring to the of the book called civilizing security. ist they are trying to do what i am trying to do in the context of public safety. they are trying to convert the narrative about security to

encompass a greater onlywledgment of not individual rights but an understanding of the way in which state agents actually constituted who we are as citizens. i am doing a little bit of in theby saying at least domestic policing context, if we talk about people feeling secure in their persons, that willie college the rule and role that government can play in security and the pursuit of public safety. i get what you're saying. criticizing me, how about coming up with a new word? [laughter] >> excuse me. i would be curious to hear, maybe what the task force has worked on or what your thoughts

are on how this should be reflected in the school system, specifically within the disciplinary structure in cases like south carolina with the use , morece and other punitive measures for the schools. i was emphasizing in my remarks, primarily the first pillar of the report which is about building trust and confidence and legitimacy. the was the foundation for five other pillars we talked about. i can review them quickly. the second was policy and oversight. the third is technology and social media. fourth is community policing and crime reduction. five is training at education and six is officer safety and wellness. pillar four has a lot of recommendations about what you are talking about like the types of collaboration that policing agencies can and should undertake in schools.

we heard a great deal of testimony about trying to reduce the number of arrests that come out of the school context. the de-escalation conversation was consistent with that. talking about kids is vulnerable, populations understanding the first interaction that teenagers have with police actually our formative relationships that tell predictions about how they will view the police and the law in the future. there are pages and pages of this. that you takeend a look. i was quite taken by your notion of police as guardians. optimistichat less about the ability of society to

reach that understanding. you talked me, and about this, what we have to do is change culture. i don't see how we do that without incentives. i'm not sure that all truism -- altrusim and the notion that we can't let things go on the way they have been are sufficient. particularly, what is underlying at least part of the concern here is race. there was a talk earlier this week by the head of the chicago pd and an interesting question from someone from germany who said in germany, all police officers have to have a four year university degree. i would say wonderful, do we increase taxes to pay for that? especially if we live in nice white suburbs were we don't have to worry about this? give me a reason for optimism about why i shouldn't be

skeptical that we do not have a commitment to expand the resources that i think will be necessary to change culture. prof. meares: there are so many different ways to get at that. three or foursay things, not necessarily in order and they may not be coherent. here is the first. training, training, training. i think that one way to get from warrior to guardian is to have fundamental change in police training. certainly, the largest agencies in the country are focused on this. you might not actually be experiencing it on the street yet in chicago. but i can tell you that training on procedural justice here is very innovative. in doing it,leader

they have trained over 12,000 officers in the first eight hour module and i don't know how many for the second. implicit bias is on the way. the new york police department is required to inform their training out of litigation. that reform is underway. i know in part that it is underway because i am working with them and other people to do that. there are many recommendations about that and pillar five of the report. you say ok, but resources. while tonsd chicago, of offices, new york has 38,000, i said chicago. they have 12,000. that is a drop in the bucket when we are talking about the of americancape

policing. i think if we are going to have this change we need two things to happen. the requirements of every state to certify police officers have to adopt his changes and make him a requirement. that is a legal change. resources toneed implement this kind of training wholesale. it will be hard to do without force consolidation. that's one of the reasons we recommended that in the report. how does that happen? one way you might do consolidation is to give agency incentives to become a good with the allure of federal dollars. it turns out that fewer than half of the 18,000 policing agencies get any money from the department of justice. why would that be an incentive? it won't be. incentivequire an given by the executive leadership of every state. like the governor who is encouraging the municipality to

consolidate. how does that happen? maybe there is a federal caret given to the governor's saying i will give you more federal dollars in order to get this done and we have regular politics that happened. i don't know. in that sense, i am not super helpful. i will say -- i am not super hopeful. thell say the change to guardian mentality that is new. that is a shift in the context of policing agencies believing this is what they could do. they didn't used to believe that. that's why i started the talk with that anecdote. i think with the scrutiny and litigation with the fact that every police chief at least of a major city understands they have -- i'm going to say this on

c-span. allel everybody else's * * the time. there are expected to solve the discipline problems. they expect they have to do with andinstitutionalization there are serious issues of mental illness on the street. they are expected to deal with people battling the disease of addiction publicly and in the streets because nobody else is dealing with it. they are constantly looking for innovative responses. they are motivated. i think there is reason for hope. professor, i wanted to tell you that on november 19, which thursdays away, our academy of criminology will have a forum on your 21st century report. sean, from your group, will be there. we also have david who is a

member of our academy who is going to go into the history of police. if you look at that history, david has briefed me on what he will say, there was a posse comi tadas. even roberts institution of the police, -- in england, dependent on a sense of community, that the police come from the community. i think you will be interesting to review the findings of your force. against the light of a police history that few people know about or look into. i did want to say that the group was founded by ernest burgess. he was a sociology professor at the university of chicago who pioneered the application of social science to criminal justice studies. one of ourher as

past presidents was the dean of the law school and a prominent criminologist. a bunch of old people, but we like to look at these things historically. i look forward to what happens in a review of your report against the historical background and thank you for your presentation. prof. meares: thank you. >> hello. in spite of all the efforts to shift from warrior to guardian mentality no matter how the post certification requirements have changed, whatever training takes place, there will be some officers who don't get the message or refuse to. my question leads to the disciplinary process. mandatoryrisdictions, binding arbitration is the means of resolving disciplinary disputes, especially discharge of officers. and a very common pattern is for an arbitrator hearing a discharge grievance filed against an officer to say yes

the officer is guilty and he did this but it's not a big deal, reduce the penalty and put him back to work. recently, when the city of a courtttempted to have order set aside in arbitration, they were unsuccessful. the officer has been fired three times for three separate offenses. each time he was reinstated by an arbitrator. there have been civil litigations relative to the underlying incident which cost the city of boston and taxpayers substantial money. did theion is commission give any consideration to these issues of how police disciplinary cases are adjudicated and how the process could be made more effective? i could give you a laundry list of harder stories by officers who have been put back to work by arbitrators with no question of guilt, just a question of penalty.

in cincinnati, disco officers who were on duty -- to officers intoxicated offi women to their apartment and saidfired and arbitrators there was no big deal and put them back to work. prof. meares: ok. the question was did we consider discipline in particular in the recommendations and the answer is not with that level of specificity. although we did hear testimony and take testimony on the relationship between disciplinary procedures. i'm talking, jeff. alsoplinary procedures and

these ideas of procedural justice, legitimacy where you would think that having more community input and certain kinds of accountability might be inconsistent with the kind of union demands i think that lead to the structures you are talking about. we did talk about things that were related so the fact that many police operate in the way that you are talking about, a police executive will want to for a police officer egregious behavior and a police board would reinstate that officer. that was an example we used to pinpoint the complications of civilian oversight or how civilian oversight takes place in the form of a police force that reviews these decisions and is not actively involved in setting policy and articulating community goals and projects in the way that, for example, the

which is not called the board, i'm not sure what its called in los angeles. the los angeles version is not just reviewing particular police decisions or executive decisions. pointing outou're this issue of discipline is jumping off point for me to say. there's a lot of good stuff in there. we did this report in 57 days. the chairs were appointed december 1, the rest of the committee was appointed on the summer 19th. we started our work on january 13. it was an all-out sprint. whoad 150 witnesses testified in certain hearings. hundreds of pages of written testimony. he put together what i think is a good document. it's not enough, it's not complete. there are many other things to

say and he said. -- and be said. the other point to bring up is the idea you are bringing up. this idea of accountability is a critical aspect of building trust. you are not going to trust agencies or individuals who are not held accountable for wrongdoing. we definitely have to figure that out. i'm very interested in how you are defining the role of police from the perspective of guardianship. it makes me wonder if there is any policy initiative that speaks to, rather than having police deal with everyone, than having social services take the