Essay Questions Exam 2 Flashcards
What were the objectives of the COINTELPRO program and what kinds of tactics did it use? Why were many of these tactics viewed as problematic? How did the Levi Guidelines seek to limit COINTELPRO style operations?
According to J-Jones, the objectives of the COINTELPRO program was to investigate activities of political groups critical of the government. The program was against many groups such as communists, Black Panthers, Students for a Democratic Society and other various groups in the 1960s.
The tactics used were highly problematic due to the strong use of infiltration. COINTELPRO fell short on probable cause to make arrests, and even more frightening, used “black bag” jobs (burglaries, mail tampering) and sometimes deadly violence, as displayed in the Panther film. The tactics used by COINTELPRO were violations of the first and fifth amendments.
The Levi Guidelines sought to pull back the reins on the FBI by still allowing information gathering on specific groups, but limiting the scope and duration to a probable intent to commit violence or crime. The Levi Guidelines also demanded that agents have 90 days to substantiate the allegations or the case will be closed. Prior to the Levi Guidelines, there was virtually no oversight on the FBI. The guidelines moved to have the Attorney General oversee the FBI when it comes to domestic intelligence.
What were the objectives of the COINTELPRO program and what kinds of tactics did it use? Why were many of these tactics viewed as problematic? How did the Levi Guidelines seek to limit COINTELPRO style operations?
According to J-Jones, the objectives of the COINTELPRO program was to investigate activities of political groups critical of the government. The program was against many groups such as communists, Black Panthers, Students for a Democratic Society and other various groups in the 1960s.
The tactics used were highly problematic due to the strong use of infiltration. COINTELPRO fell short on probable cause to make arrests, and even more frightening, used “black bag” jobs (burglaries, mail tampering) and sometimes deadly violence, as displayed in the Panther film. The tactics used by COINTELPRO were violations of the first and fifth amendments.
The Levi Guidelines sought to pull back the reins on the FBI by still allowing information gathering on specific groups, but limiting the scope and duration to a probable intent to commit violence or crime. The Levi Guidelines also demanded that agents have 90 days to substantiate the allegations or the case will be closed. Prior to the Levi Guidelines, there was virtually no oversight on the FBI. The guidelines moved to have the Attorney General oversee the FBI when it comes to domestic intelligence.
Discuss the ways in which the FBI’s “new paradigm” advances the FBI’s “fuzzy mandate” when it comes to counter-intelligence and preventing crime. What is the role of the Patriot Act in this process? Why has the Patriot Act been viewed as controversial? BE SPECIFIC.
The FBI’s new paradigm advances the FBI’s fuzzy mandate by removing the walls that one inhibited the sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Warrantless searches expanded greatly in line with the expansion of technology. Prior to the new paradigm, FISA warrants for the gathering of intelligence were only to be granted for “primary purposes”, after the new paradigm, information gathering can be for “significant purposes”, thus painting with a broader brush.
The Patriot act is key in the process because the act was passed as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Patriot act expanded the scope of devices the government can eavesdrop on. Rather than tapping one telephone number, all emails, messages, and online activity can be monitored under the Patriot act.
The Patriot act is under extreme controversy for a number of reasons. The virtually unrestricted sharing and storing of data could lead to massive databases about citizens who have no criminal association or activity. Furthermore, the provision that allows “sneak and peek” warrants contradicts constitutional rights and is akin to breaking and entering. In short, the Patriot act jeopardizes Americans’ privacy and freedom.
In “Let’s Fight Terrorism Not the Constitution,” Cole identifies at least three reasons for why he thinks the Patriot Act invites the police to invade the privacy of its citizens. What are these three reasons? Why does Cole think they compromise a citizen’s individual rights and invites an intrusive state? Provide specific examples from the article.
- Implements philosophy of guilt by association
- Permits potential indefinite detention of “suspected terrorists”
- Denies entry and rights based purely on ideas and associations
Cole argues that the Patriot Act violates core constitutional principles, wastes resources on innocent people, and alienates American citizens of middle-eastern descent. Cole reminds readers that it is important not to repeat mistakes of the past, and mentions the deportation of American citizens who were of Japanese descent during World War II. The Patriot Act invades the privacy of the citizens it aims to protect by implementing the philosophy of guilt by association, or, any association with terrorist organizations are a deportable offense, which greatly increases those at risk for deportation.
This is extremely troublesome because, as Cole mentions, guilt by association violates the First and Fifth Amendment as ruled by the Supreme Court. Second, Cole argues that the Patriot Act permits the potential indefinite detention of “suspected terrorists”. That is, the Act allows for detention for up to seven days without filing any charges, despite the Supreme Court ruling that arrested individuals have a right to be brought before a judge prior to detention. Finally, Cole argues that the Patriot Act denies aliens entry to the country purely based on ideas and associations, which is the highest form of censorship. As a part of the FBI’s new paradigm, the Patriot Act compromises a citizen’s individual rights by taking away one’s freedom of association, a freedom in which the Supreme Court wrote makes the defense of the nation worthwhile.
Why does Lyman conclude (p. 220) that “one of the most resistant forces to the acceptance of a formal code of ethics” governing policing conduct is police subculture? What kinds of behaviors associated with the policing subculture lead him to this conclusion? Be sure to describe these behaviors; do not just state them.
For police, accepting a formal code of ethics would threaten the core values of the occupational subculture. Lyman cites Muir who explains that “loyalty by reference to the complicity that develops when police engage in individual rule breaking; once a police officer has violated a standard or rule, he or she is bound to remain silent regarding others’ violations, even if they are more serious.
Furthermore, Scheingold emphasizes the use of force as one dominant characteristic of police subculture that negates ethical codes. The profession embraces force for all situations wherein a threat is perceived. However, a statement against an officer’s authority can be interpreted as a threat in which force should be used. Force is both expressive and instrumental, it is a clear symbol of the police officer’s perceived authority and dominance in interaction with the public. This value of force is not exactly in line with what Graham V. Connor found.
In Graham V. Connor (Lyman: 197) the Supreme Court argued that the police can use force for only two reasons. What are these? What are the standards by which courts decide whether force was reasonable?
The landmark case Graham V. Connor found that police can use force for ONLY two reasons: defense and control. Police are not to use force to punish or intimidate. When force is used in a situation, the courts use the “reasonable standard” to judge the justifiability of the officer’s actions. That is, if a reasonable person were facing similar circumstances as the officer, would they act in the same way?
During the Occupy demonstrations at UC Davis, officers used pepper spray on students peacefully protesting. Using Lyman’s totality of circumstances, these students were not committing a severe crime, nor were they an immediate threat to safety officers or the public, therefore, the force could certainly be considered excessive in this case.
Moskos (p. 24) argues that “by the end of the academy, less than half the class saw a relation between what police learn in the academy and what police need to know on the street.” What kinds of things did recruits learn in the academy? What did instructors tell recruits about the conflict between the “formal ideal” of rules and the informal realities of working the streets? Provide specific “scenes” from the chapter to illustrate your points.
In the academy, the recruits learned to respect the chain of command and their place on the bottom of that chain. Recruits learned how to shine shoes, be on time, salute, and march in formation. Moskos argues that while these aren’t bad life lessons, they do little for instructing future police officers to respond to emergency situations in a professional matter. In most occupations, police work included, there is a conflict between the formal ideal of the rules and the informal realities of everyday work. In policing,
Moskos argues that the relationship between formal and informal rule is “simultaneously schizophrenic and symbiotic”. In chapter 2, Moskos recalls being instructed about pursuit policies. He remembers the instructor telling the class that pursuit is only to be done in certain circumstances when there is absolutely no alternative, and under no circumstances should a police officer drive more than ten miles per hour over the posted speed. The instructor pauses, laughs, and says “everybody knows this is a joke, but I just have to teach you what the general orders say.”
Moskos (p. 24) argues that “by the end of the academy, less than half the class saw a relation between what police learn in the academy and what police need to know on the street.” What kinds of things did recruits learn in the academy? What did instructors tell recruits about the conflict between the “formal ideal” of rules and the informal realities of working the streets? Provide specific “scenes” from the chapter to illustrate your points.
In the academy, the recruits learned to respect the chain of command and their place on the bottom of that chain. Recruits learned how to shine shoes, be on time, salute, and march in formation. Moskos argues that while these aren’t bad life lessons, they do little for instructing future police officers to respond to emergency situations in a professional matter. In most occupations, police work included, there is a conflict between the formal ideal of the rules and the informal realities of everyday work. In policing,
Moskos argues that the relationship between formal and informal rule is “simultaneously schizophrenic and symbiotic”. In chapter 2, Moskos recalls being instructed about pursuit policies. He remembers the instructor telling the class that pursuit is only to be done in certain circumstances when there is absolutely no alternative, and under no circumstances should a police officer drive more than ten miles per hour over the posted speed. The instructor pauses, laughs, and says “everybody knows this is a joke, but I just have to teach you what the general orders say.”
Discuss the ways in which the FBI’s “new paradigm” advances the FBI’s “fuzzy mandate” when it comes to counter-intelligence and preventing crime. What is the role of the Patriot Act in this process? Why has the Patriot Act been viewed as controversial? BE SPECIFIC.
The FBI’s new paradigm advances the FBI’s fuzzy mandate by removing the walls that one inhibited the sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Warrantless searches expanded greatly in line with the expansion of technology. Prior to the new paradigm, FISA warrants for the gathering of intelligence were only to be granted for “primary purposes”, after the new paradigm, information gathering can be for “significant purposes”, thus painting with a broader brush.
The Patriot act is key in the process because the act was passed as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Patriot act expanded the scope of devices the government can eavesdrop on. Rather than tapping one telephone number, all emails, messages, and online activity can be monitored under the Patriot act.
The Patriot act is under extreme controversy for a number of reasons. The virtually unrestricted sharing and storing of data could lead to massive databases about citizens who have no criminal association or activity. Furthermore, the provision that allows “sneak and peek” warrants contradicts constitutional rights and is akin to breaking and entering. In short, the Patriot act jeopardizes Americans’ privacy and freedom.
In “Let’s Fight Terrorism Not the Constitution,” Cole identifies at least three reasons for why he thinks the Patriot Act invites the police to invade the privacy of its citizens. What are these three reasons? Why does Cole think they compromise a citizen’s individual rights and invites an intrusive state? Provide specific examples from the article.
- Implements philosophy of guilt by association
- Permits potential indefinite detention of “suspected terrorists”
- Denies entry and rights based purely on ideas and associations
Cole argues that the Patriot Act violates core constitutional principles, wastes resources on innocent people, and alienates American citizens of middle-eastern descent. Cole reminds readers that it is important not to repeat mistakes of the past, and mentions the deportation of American citizens who were of Japanese descent during World War II. The Patriot Act invades the privacy of the citizens it aims to protect by implementing the philosophy of guilt by association, or, any association with terrorist organizations are a deportable offense, which greatly increases those at risk for deportation.
This is extremely troublesome because, as Cole mentions, guilt by association violates the First and Fifth Amendment as ruled by the Supreme Court. Second, Cole argues that the Patriot Act permits the potential indefinite detention of “suspected terrorists”. That is, the Act allows for detention for up to seven days without filing any charges, despite the Supreme Court ruling that arrested individuals have a right to be brought before a judge prior to detention. Finally, Cole argues that the Patriot Act denies aliens entry to the country purely based on ideas and associations, which is the highest form of censorship. As a part of the FBI’s new paradigm, the Patriot Act compromises a citizen’s individual rights by taking away one’s freedom of association, a freedom in which the Supreme Court wrote makes the defense of the nation worthwhile.
Why does Lyman conclude (p. 220) that “one of the most resistant forces to the acceptance of a formal code of ethics” governing policing conduct is police subculture? What kinds of behaviors associated with the policing subculture lead him to this conclusion? Be sure to describe these behaviors; do not just state them.
For police, accepting a formal code of ethics would threaten the core values of the occupational subculture. Lyman cites Muir who explains that “loyalty by reference to the complicity that develops when police engage in individual rule breaking; once a police officer has violated a standard or rule, he or she is bound to remain silent regarding others’ violations, even if they are more serious.
Furthermore, Scheingold emphasizes the use of force as one dominant characteristic of police subculture that negates ethical codes. The profession embraces force for all situations wherein a threat is perceived. However, a statement against an officer’s authority can be interpreted as a threat in which force should be used. Force is both expressive and instrumental, it is a clear symbol of the police officer’s perceived authority and dominance in interaction with the public. This value of force is not exactly in line with what Graham V. Connor found.
In Graham V. Connor (Lyman: 197) the Supreme Court argued that the police can use force for only two reasons. What are these? What are the standards by which courts decide whether force was reasonable?
The landmark case Graham V. Connor found that police can use force for ONLY two reasons: defense and control. Police are not to use force to punish or intimidate. When force is used in a situation, the courts use the “reasonable standard” to judge the justifiability of the officer’s actions. That is, if a reasonable person were facing similar circumstances as the officer, would they act in the same way?
During the Occupy demonstrations at UC Davis, officers used pepper spray on students peacefully protesting. Using Lyman’s totality of circumstances, these students were not committing a severe crime, nor were they an immediate threat to safety officers or the public, therefore, the force could certainly be considered excessive in this case.
How does the work environment of policing shape the occupational subculture of the job? What specific factors shape this subculture and in what ways do they result in specific behaviors, e.g., perceptions of danger, witnessing human tragedy, or a preoccupation with safety?
The subculture of the police is much like a secret brotherhood. When officers encounter life-threatening situations together, they develop a unique bond based on loyalty and honor (Brown).
The subculture of the police, according to Westley’s research, is one that stresses violence and secrecy – the stress of violence comes from the way that violence or the threat of violence is common when officers enforce the law. The secrecy in police work is part of the brotherhood loyalty: the informal code of the “Blue Curtain” in which officers will shield each other from being charged with unethical or illegal actions.
Work environment is central to police subculture. Officers have a very select perception of the public in that encounters with the public are usually negative. This perception fuels senses of suspicion for officers, leading to an arguably unreasonable preoccupation with safety.
Moskos (p. 24) argues that “by the end of the academy, less than half the class saw a relation between what police learn in the academy and what police need to know on the street.” What kinds of things did recruits learn in the academy? What did instructors tell recruits about the conflict between the “formal ideal” of rules and the informal realities of working the streets? Provide specific “scenes” from the chapter to illustrate your points.
In the academy, the recruits learned to respect the chain of command and their place on the bottom of that chain. Recruits learned how to shine shoes, be on time, salute, and march in formation. Moskos argues that while these aren’t bad life lessons, they do little for instructing future police officers to respond to emergency situations in a professional matter. In most occupations, police work included, there is a conflict between the formal ideal of the rules and the informal realities of everyday work. In policing,
Moskos argues that the relationship between formal and informal rule is “simultaneously schizophrenic and symbiotic”. In chapter 2, Moskos recalls being instructed about pursuit policies. He remembers the instructor telling the class that pursuit is only to be done in certain circumstances when there is absolutely no alternative, and under no circumstances should a police officer drive more than ten miles per hour over the posted speed. The instructor pauses, laughs, and says “everybody knows this is a joke, but I just have to teach you what the general orders say.”
Graham V. Connor
(1989) United States Supreme Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a free citizen’s claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of his person.
