what is the use of force essay

“The Use of Force” by William Carlos Williams Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Plot and meaning of the story.

William Carlos Williams was a well-known American poet whose poems and stories were appreciated around the world. One of his stories that received a lot of attention in the literature field is “The Use of Force” because of the way it illustrates the use of force over powerless individuals. William’s story gives a detailed account of how human mind can be influenced by the pressure of attaining a particular goal or objective.

He uses a doctor, who is the main character in the story, to show what doctors go through when treating patients and hard choices they have to make. Although the goal of the doctor is to ensure that patients are healed, in the story, he ends up hurting the kid. The following paper analyzes William Carlos Williams’s story “ The Use of Force ” to understand the plot and meaning of the narrative to prove that the use of force by the doctor was justifiable.

The story portrays a doctor who does his best to save the child’s life by use of force. Although the doctor tries to reason with the kid, the child fails to open her mouth for medical examination. For example, the doctor says, “…Mathilda, open your mouth, and let’s take a look at your throat”; however, the patient refuses to cooperate. The doctor’s professional ethics guilds him to first interact with the kid and try to reason with her on the need for treatment, but the child is unwilling to cooperate.

In some situations, people are compelled to make choices that will hurt others for them to achieve the desired objective. The result intended directs an individual action and not the means to use when attaining the goal; this is illustrated when the doctor dominates the kid during treatment by forcing her to open her mouth. Williams’s story questions if the use of force can be justified by the result intended by the aggressor.

Due to the extreme energy used by the doctor, the kid’s tongue started to bleed, making her cry. The use of force may hurt others, but later, they will enjoy the result intended by the oppressor. For instance, after the doctor forces the kid to open her mouth, he discovers the illness affecting the child, which will make treatment easy, and the child will regain her health. The need to treat the child overpowers the doctor’s gentleness and compassion.

Goals intended by an individual may motivate him or her to use means, which society does not approve, such as the use of force. Professional roles sometimes conflict with the personal attributes of an individual. For instance, in the story, the doctor has an obligation of ensuring that he treats his patients in a gentle manner. However, he is agitated by the child and decides to use force to handle her. When means of achieving a particular objective are difficult, or impossible people tend to search for alternative ways.

In conclusion, the doctor justifies his actions by claiming that the goal was more important than the means used to attain it. The need to achieve a particular objective motivates an individual to use unconventional means to accomplish his or her aim. The story gives an insight into what happens in people’s daily life as they try to achieve different objectives.

• "Lords of the Sea" by John Hale Literature Analysis
• "Twelve Years a Slave" by Solomon Northup Literature Analysis
• Contemporary Literature. Poems and Paintings
• Carlos Ghosn as One of the Greatest Leaders
• Leadership and Motivation - Carlos Ghosn
• The Blind Side: Book and Movie Comparison
• American Born Chinese by Gene Yang Literature Analysis
• On Tidy Endings by H. Fierstein, Advice to My Son by P. Meinke and Safe by C. Lee
• "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair Literature Analysis
• "The Code of the Street" by Elijah Anderson Literature Analysis
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, April 16). "The Use of Force" by William Carlos Williams. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-use-of-force-by-william-carlos-williams/

""The Use of Force" by William Carlos Williams." IvyPanda , 16 Apr. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-use-of-force-by-william-carlos-williams/.

IvyPanda . (2020) '"The Use of Force" by William Carlos Williams'. 16 April.

IvyPanda . 2020. ""The Use of Force" by William Carlos Williams." April 16, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-use-of-force-by-william-carlos-williams/.

1. IvyPanda . ""The Use of Force" by William Carlos Williams." April 16, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-use-of-force-by-william-carlos-williams/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . ""The Use of Force" by William Carlos Williams." April 16, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-use-of-force-by-william-carlos-williams/.

Police Use of Force, Training, and a Way Forward After the Death of George Floyd

• June 4, 2020
• Ronald Tyler
• Suzanne A. Luban
• Q&A with Sharon Driscoll
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share by Email

Horrifying images of George Floyd dying on a Minneapolis street while a police officer knelt on his neck have sparked peaceful protests and rioting throughout the country. The latest in a string of killings of unarmed black Americans, the incident once again raises questions about training and the use of force by police and the ability of prosecutors to hold police accountable. Here, Ron Tyler, professor of law and director of Stanford Law’s Criminal Defense Clinic, and Suzanne Luban, clinical supervising attorney and lecturer in law, discuss the Floyd case and offer suggestions for a way forward.

The four officers involved in George Floyd’s detainment and death were fairly quickly fired from the Minneapolis Police Department. On May 29, officer Derek Chauvin was charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the killing of Floyd. What’s the latest on charging?

Tyler : The case changed dramatically as of June 3. The Attorney General of Minnesota took over the prosecution from the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office on June 1. Two days later, the AG completely changed the stakes. Derek Chauvin now faces three charges: 2 nd degree felony murder; 3 rd degree murder; and 2 nd degree manslaughter. The three other former officers involved in the death of George Floyd have also now been charged. Alexander Keung, Thomas Lane, and Tou Thao each face charges of aiding and abetting 3 rd degree murder and aiding and abetting 2 nd degree manslaughter.

How strong is the case against Chauvin?

Tyler: The easiest charge to prove against Derek Chauvin is second degree manslaughter, which is negligent homicide. Certainly a jury could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that by pressing his knee into George Floyd’s neck for almost 9 minutes while he was in handcuffs face down on the pavement with two other officers on his chest and legs for some significant part of that time, Mr. Chauvin negligently created an unreasonable risk that George Floyd would die or suffer great bodily harm. The video evidence, likely eyewitness testimony, and medical testimony based on the official and private autopsies will all support the conclusion that Mr. Floyd ultimately went into cardiac arrest and died due to those actions.

But the prosecutor will actually be seeking conviction on the far more serious charges. The original charge of 3 rd degree murder remains. Here, as well, a jury would have ample evidence to  convict Mr. Chauvin. Minnesota is one of only a handful of states with third degree murder on the books. Derek Chauvin would be convicted if the jury believes that he engaged in conduct that was eminently dangerous to human life, that he was aware that he was placing human life at risk,and that he disregarded that risk. It certainly seems clear that Chauvin’s conduct was dangerous to human life, that he was aware of that, and that, despite Mr. Floyd’s desperate pleas and those of onlookers, he disregarded that risk. The New York Times videos show this (extremely disturbing).

Can you talk about the more serious charge of 2 nd degree murder against Chauvin and the lesser charges against the three other officers?

Tyler : Obviously, the centerpiece of the new prosecution is the 2 nd degree felony murder charge. AG Ellison has stated that he wouldn’t have brought the charge if he didn’t think he could prove it. Certainly, the charge is justified. To prove that Mr. Chauvin is guilty of felony murder, the prosecution does not need to prove that he intended to kill Mr. Floyd. Instead, they have to prove that Mr. Chauvin committed a felony (in this case assault on Mr. Floyd) and that while he committed the assault, he caused Mr. Floyd’s death. The currently available evidence demonstrates that assault (the compression of his neck), his resultant loss of consciousness, and his tragic demise.

The aiding and abetting charges against the three other former officers seem strong, as well. After all, Messrs. Keung and Lane actively participated in pressing George Floyd to the pavement by holding down his legs and torso. Mr. Tao stood guard, preventing bystanders to come to Mr. Floyd’s aid and ignoring their pleas.

It is important to also note that last week U.S Attorney General William Barr announced a parallel federal civil rights investigation into the death of Mr. Floyd. The US Attorney for the District of Minnesota is responsible for that effort. To be clear, no federal charges have been brought. If a prosecution occurs, it would be based on the charge that the former officers, acting under color of law, deprived George Floyd of rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, in this case, obviously, his right to life. There are heightened potential penalties where the acts resulted in the death of the individual, including possible life imprisonment or death. At the moment there is no certainty that federal charges would ever be brought. I would observe that federal civil rights prosecutions have been rare in the current administration.

How likely is conviction?

Tyler : In spite of all this damning evidence, and in spite of my crisp march through the charges, the reality is that the chances of conviction of these four former officers is not as high as one would think, in light of the bleak history of such prosecutions in this country. As so many people know—many of whom have taken to the streets in protest—charges against officers are not common and convictions even less so. One of the reasons for few convictions is that officers successfully contend that they acted reasonably because they were in fear for their life. That defense would certainly appear to be unavailable to these four former officers. Another impediment to convictions is the elevated status that police hold in the minds of many jurors who afford them a much higher benefit of the doubt than a typical defendant.

Can you talk about police training and use of force?

Luban : A serious flaw in the training of officers is the philosophy that the degree of force called for is the “amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject.” [as defined by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, quoted in https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-police-use-force.]  Police may end up using more severe or damaging force than warranted by the nature of the crime suspected or the type of noncompliance. Another grave risk of such a policy is that police may employ force to “punish” a suspect for resisting.  After George Floyd complained of claustrophobia when the officers forced him into the police car, the officers dragged him out of the car and pressed him facedown onto the street. Three officers kneeled to apply pressure on Mr. Floyd’s airway and chest. When Mr. Floyd cried out, another officer taunted him, saying, “Get up. Get in the car.” The officers’ continued pressure on his neck and back prevented him from getting up.

Was the “neck hold” that Chauvin used, even though Floyd was in handcuffs, legal?

Luban : Chauvin used his knee to perform a “carotid restraint,” which applies pressure to vascular veins to temporarily cut off blood flow to the brain, rendering the person unconscious. We all saw that he continued this pressure for nearly three minutes after Floyd went limp. Since 2015, Minneapolis police officers have used neck restraints at least 237 times, and rendered people unconscious 44 times, according to NBC News. Minneapolis police officials told NBC that this hold is not sanctioned or taught there.

This type of control technique must be universally outlawed, especially when the person is handcuffed and therefore poses no serious danger to officers. The question of whether that hold was legal will be decided by a jury, but we would say no, it was not legal. Using this restraint on a handcuffed man begging to be allowed to breathe was a civil rights violation, a violation of all of those officers’ solemn duty to protect the life of their captive, and a violation of due process under the U.S. Constitution. In the wake of this killing, many police agencies are reexamining their own policies and some, such as several San Diego police agencies, are banning both choke-holds and carotid restraints.

The Minneapolis police union has indicated that it will contest the police officers’ firings. Is that standard practice?

Luban : Yes, the police unions see their role as the zealous representative of their member officers, in some cases even where prosecutors have determined the charged misconduct rises to the level of homicide. The union’s intervention on behalf of officers charged with excessive force is often successful.

Minneapolis has launched a civil rights probe. Is that significant? What does it mean?

Tyler : Actually, the State of Minnesota Department of Human Rights has launched an investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department. Their goal is to force major changes in the Police Department. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the State’s Human Rights Commissioner, Rebecca Lucero, described the investigation as covering the past ten years of policies, practices, and procedures to determine if the department has engaged in systemic discrimination. The Human Rights Department hopes to negotiate a consent decree, which would be enforceable by the courts. Remarkably, the Minneapolis City Council unanimously welcomed the investigation.

The Floyd case isn’t unique, is it? We’ve read reports of police shooting children with toy guns and unarmed men and women—using often lethal force that when captured on video seems unjustified. Do you have recommendations for addressing this pattern of excessive force used against people of color?

Tyler : Certain recommendations have been championed by reformers for years. Top of the list: giving real power to independent bodies to investigate citizen complaints against police officers and take meaningful action against charged officers including public disclosure and sanctions up to removal and referral for prosecution.

Rooting out officers engaged in explicit bias is key, but addressing implicit bias is also critical.

Stanford Psychology Professor Jennifer Eberhardt played an instrumental role in recent reforms in two Northern California police forces, Oakland, and Stockton. She trained police officers to interrupt the unconscious association people in general make between crime and Black skin. Before every traffic stop, officers are trained to ask: “Is this stop intelligence-led, yes or no?” Meaning: “Do I have information that ties this particular individual to a specific crime?”

After Oakland implemented Professor Eberhardt’s methods, stops of African Americans fell by over 43%.  And all Oakland residents benefited, since traffic stops overall dropped from 32,000 in 2017 to about 19,000 in 2018. And according to Professor Eberhardt, that drop happened even as the crime rate fell.

Also important are reforms within prosecutors’ offices that reduce the incentive for biased policing, for example by presumptive declination of drug possession charges based on pretextual stops or consent searches as was recently announced by San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin.

Luban : Racial bias and racial inequities are deeply embedded in police culture. We can see this reflected in the  disproportionate rates of virtually every police action against African Americans as compared with other groups and most noticeably whites, from traffic stops, searches, arrests, criminal charges, and the use of police brutality and fatal force. The police in Minneapolis used force against Black people at a rate at least seven times that of white people during the past five years, according to an analysis of city data reported in the NYT.  This disproportionate use of force is consistent throughout the country.

How racially balanced are America’s police? Is Affirmative Action part of police hiring across the country?

Tyler : Our police forces are not balanced.  According to an analysis of 2013 personnel data from the USDOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, people of color remained underrepresented, to varying degrees, in nearly all local law enforcement agencies serving at least 100,000 residents.  In 35 of the 85 jurisdictions where either African Americans, Asians or Latinx people made up the single largest racial or ethnic group, their individual presence in the police department was less than half their share of the population. ( Governing, https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-police-department-diversity.html ) I would be surprised if any analysis of more recent data revealed marked improvements overall.

California is one of several states that bans affirmative action in university admissions and public sector contracting and hiring. {Prop 209 added Sec. 31 of Art. 1 of California’s Constitution in 1996.}

Luban : Even when African American officers are on duty, the racially biased police culture supersedes the race of each officer. Case in point: three of the six officers who killed Freddie Gray were Black.

How are police held accountable? Are we looking at the procedures used, particularly when there are multiple complaints against an officer?

Luban : Oversight and police discipline in most cities and counties is generally done internally by the police agencies themselves. Police protect their own, as part of a pervasive culture of “us vs. them” and reluctance to punish officers who violate the civil rights of those they are sworn to protect. A recent example of this culture is shown in a June 1, 2020 tweet from Baltimore’s Fraternal Order of Police lashing out at “the sheepish leaders that surround us [and] ‘Monday morning quarterback’ our decisions to forcibly stop assaults on us.”

Police firings for misconduct are rare, even when an officer has received multiple complaints of misconduct.  Derek Chauvin, the officer who continued kneeling on George Floyd’s neck after he promised to get in the car and even after he fell unconscious, had 17 separate misconduct complaints, including three shootings, one of which was a fatality.

Internal oversight has historically resulted in few if any serious disciplinary penalties or findings of misconduct. Internal police reviews usually find no fault, even where objective evidence shows guilt, and even where courts have found that officers violated civil rights. In two cases over the past few years where clients of Stanford’s Criminal Defense Clinic lodged complaints of police abuses, the police force held an internal investigation but found no misconduct.

Even when prosecutors pursue criminal charges against police, jurors are reluctant to convict. The six officers who took part in the killing of Freddie Gray in Baltimore were each prosecuted, with charges ranging from misconduct in office to second-degree murder. Three officers were acquitted, and the D.A. dropped the charges against the other three. Five of the officers then faced departmental charges of violating policies and neglecting their duties, but only two received minor discipline, and all were returned to duty.

It is refreshing to see that Minneapolis’ police chief immediately fired all four officers who were part of Chauvin’s asphyxiation of George Floyd, and that they were all charged within a week of Mr. Floyd’s death.  But that is unusual. It took New York City five years after Eric Garner’s death to fire Daniel Pantaleo, the officer who killed Garner by using a banned chokehold. Garner’s death was ruled a homicide by New York City’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, but none of the police officers involved was charged with a crime.

What about transparency in police departments and police unions?

Luban : A major obstacle to transparency and accountability of police is the control over disciplinary processes and nondisclosure of records exerted by police unions in major cities all over the country. These unions have vastly more power than most labor unions. Police unions rose in power in the 1970s, and exerted financial and political pressure in many states including California, resulting in laws blocking public access to complaints and investigations of police for misconduct. ( See Katherine Bies, “ Let the Sunshine in: Illuminating the Powerful Role Police Unions Play In Shielding Officer Misconduct .”

Laws protecting against transparency of police misconduct records directly conflict with constitutional due process rights of accused persons to inform juries of the dishonesty and misconduct by the very officers whose testimony jurors are being asked to accept. ( Brady v. Maryland. )

Some states are starting to lift the veil of secrecy, to enforce transparency and public access to police complaints and disciplinary records. California’s amendment to the Public Records Act (effective 1/1/2019) enables the public to obtain a limited subset of records, those involving shootings or the use of force by an officer that results in death or great bodily injury, as well as sustained findings of sexual assault or dishonesty by an officer. Despite efforts by Attorney General Xavier Becerra to block requests under the new law, a court recently ruled in favor of public access. However, limiting disclosure to “sustained findings” means if police reviews exonerate their own officers, as occurs in most cases, the records will remain secret.

Another barrier to accountability, at least in Minnesota, is the process of arbitration that is part of the police unions’ contracts. Arbitrators have historically imposed little or no punishment for obvious civil rights violations by officers. The mayor of St. Paul has called for reform of police union contracts and dismantling laws that help those unions block accountability, and the mayor of Minneapolis has called for a state investigation of his police department.

Do you know of any efforts to address police accountability and department transparency?

Luban : Currently, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ) is proposing legislation in Calififornia creating an independent review body called the California Justice Commission, to review complaints of police misconduct and abuse, investigate cases and actually file charges and prosecute law enforcement officers.  Vesting power in an independent, civilian review entity would go a long way toward ensuring meaningful oversight. Police agencies and local district attorneys have a conflict of interest that prevents them from fairly investigating and disciplining their own officers.

It is appears that our politicians are finally listening to the voices of the many Americans marching in the streets to protest excessive force and racist policing. On June 10, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on “the crisis of racial profiling, police brutality, and lost trust between police departments and the communities they serve.”

Is there a uniform, federal standard for police conduct and accountability? Or is it state by state?

Luban : There is no national or universal rule governing when law enforcement officers may use force, or what degree of force is justified. Use of force policies vary state to state, agency to agency. Officers are trained to employ a continuum of force, starting with verbal commands, then bodily force ranging from “control holds” to punches and kicks, then so-called “less lethal” techniques such as striking with a baton, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and tasing. Lethal force is viewed as justified only where necessary for self-defense or defense of another, or to prevent escape of a dangerous suspect, neither of which was true in the arrest of Mr. Floyd, since he was being arrested for allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill and was already restrained in handcuffs behind his back.

Do serious incidents like the death of George Floyd bring about broader repercussions against law enforcement agencies?

Luban : Even though none of the officers involved in Freddie Gray’s death were convicted or punished, the Baltimore Police Dept. faced repercussions. Then-Police Commissioner Anthony Batts was fired, and the U.S. Dept. of Justice under the Obama administration investigated the Baltimore Police Dept. The DOJ’s 2016 report found system-wide misconduct including routine unjustified stops, searches, and arrests, subjecting African Americans to disproportionate rates of stops, searches and arrests, frequent use of excessive force, and retaliation against protesters. This led to agreement on court-enforceable reforms. Since the killing of Michael Brown, Ferguson Missouri’s police department has been under a federal consent decree that has restructured the department with positive results. Similarly, after the March 13 shooting of Breonna Taylor when police broke into her home to serve a “no knock” warrant at night, Louisville Kentucky’s mayor fired the police chief.  According to the New York Times , the mayor has also announced reforms to ensure “more scrutiny, transparency and accountability,” including requiring that officers wear and operate body cameras during search warrants, and establishing a civilian review board for police discipline.

However, these piecemeal reforms are too minimal to have a major impact. Statewide reforms being considered by state legislatures include a ban on chokeholds in Colorado, a bill aimed at minimizing the use of lethal force in Wisconsin, and repeal of California’s ban on affirmative action in public employee hiring. National outrage at Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, followed by those of 12-year-old Tamir Rice and Freddie Gray, have made an impact. Federal and local governments invested in police training on racial profiling and implicit bias. Agencies also introduced body-worn cameras that, while they have not stopped police shootings of unarmed black people, have recorded the undeniable violence by sworn peace officers. We still have a lot of work to do.

Tyler : We are hopeful that there will finally be national unity on the need for widespread police reform, retraining from the top down, and a nationwide ban on the lethal restraints that killed Eric Garner and George Floyd.

Ronald Tyler is Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Defense Clinic at Stanford Law School. Before joining the faculty in 2012, he was an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Northern District of California, where he had a distinguished 22-year career. Suzanne Luban joined Stanford in 2013. She co-teaches Stanford Law School’s Criminal Defense Clinic as the Clinical Supervising Attorney and Lecturer in Law. She began her legal career in civil litigation, then served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Eastern District of California and has nearly three decades of experience as an expert criminal defense practitioner.

What works to reduce police brutality

Psychologists’ research is pinpointing the factors that lead to overly aggressive, biased policing—and intervention that can prevent it

Vol. 51, No. 7 Print version: page 30

• Physical Abuse and Violence
• Forensics, Law, and Public Safety
• Racism, Bias, and Discrimination

When the Las Vegas Police Department applied a psychology-informed “hands off” policy for officers involved in foot chases, use of force dropped by 23%. In Seattle, officers trained in a “procedural justice” intervention designed in part by psychologists used force up to 40% less. These are just a few examples of the work the field is doing to address police brutality.

“There’s much more openness to the idea of concrete change among police departments,” says Joel Dvoskin, PhD, ABPP, a clinical and forensic psychologist and past president of APA’s Div. 18 (Psychologists in Public Service).

That shift is backed by support from the public. Since 2016, the share of Americans who say that police use the right amount of force, treat racial and ethnic groups equally and hold officers accountable for misconduct has declined substantially, according to the Pew Research Center ( Majority of Public Favors Giving Civilians the Power to Sue Officers for Misconduct , 2020).

Psychologists have already played a critical role in the reform process—from collecting data on biased police stops, searches and use of force to designing and delivering interventions that reduce the chances that police will rely on stereotypes, for instance by limiting the amount of discretion officers have during searches.

Now, psychologists are promoting those interventions to more police departments, conducting research to determine how well they work and continuing to collect and organize data on police behavior and department culture.

“Criminal justice—police, courts, prisons—has been called an evidence-free zone,” says Tom Tyler, PhD, a professor of psychology at Yale Law School and an expert in the psychology of justice. “People in positions of power tend to make policy decisions based on intuition and common sense—presumptions that we as psychologists recognize are often in error.”

“What’s really needed is an evidence-informed model of criminal justice,” he says. “And a lot of that evidence can come from psychologists.”

Psychological research in action

In 2015, President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing reviewed scientific data on policing, recommending major policy changes at the federal level to improve oversight, training, officer wellness and more ( Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing , 2015).

Federal efforts have slowed in recent years, with most changes happening at the local level. But with around 18,000 police departments nationwide, that response has been fragmented and inconsistent ( National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data , Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016).

Still, psychologists have forged ahead with efforts that are making a difference. One key contribution involves spurring policy changes and interventions based on psychological insights.

“One of the most influential approaches coming from psychology is training in procedurally just policing,” says Calvin Lai, PhD, an assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.

That approach aims to increase the public’s trust in police by drawing on psychological research on justice and fairness. It involves teaching officers strategies such as explaining to citizens why they’ve been stopped and how it will benefit public safety ( Principles of Procedurally Just Policing , The Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law School, 2018).

“We know that the policing model of using force to compel compliance lowers the crime rate but does not build trust,” says Tyler, who has developed and studied models of procedurally just policing. “The crime rate has declined about 75% in the last 30 years, but public trust in the police hasn’t increased at all.”

His research has shown that what community members really want is for police to treat them with respect and to give them a voice—a chance to explain their situation before action is taken. People also want to know that police are sincere, care about the well-being of their community, and act in an unbiased and consistent way—for example, by explaining the rules they use and how they’re applying them.

A study in Seattle randomly assigned officers to receive training in procedurally just policing, leading to a reduction in use of force of between 15% and 40%, depending on the situation (Owens, E., et al., Criminology & Public Policy , Vol. 17 , No. 1, 2018).

“It seems to be doing what we’d hope in terms of promoting better relationships between police officers and community members,” says Lai.

The Center for Policing Equity (CPE), led by psychologist Phillip Atiba Goff, PhD, of Yale University, has also led a number of psychology-driven policy changes in police departments around the country. In an effort to cut down on high-adrenaline encounters—where police officers are more likely to rely on stereotypes—Goff urged the Las Vegas Police Department to bar officers involved in a foot pursuit from handling suspects when the chase ends. The policy led to a 23% drop in use of force at the department, an 11% reduction in officer injury and a simultaneous drop in racial disparities in use of force data. CPE has also pioneered efforts to recruit racially and ethnically diverse officer candidates and to make immigration enforcement more consistent.

Another key area that psychological interventions target is implicit bias, which has been documented across a range of domains and populations ( State of the Science: Implicit Bias Review , Kirwan Institute, 2017). One study led by Jennifer Eberhardt, PhD, professor of psychology at Stanford University, reviewed body camera footage and found that police officers in Oakland, California, treated Black people with less respect than whites (Voigt, R., et al., PNAS , Vol. 114, No. 25, 2017).

Eberhardt and others, including Lorie Fridell, PhD, a professor of criminology at the University of South Florida, have designed and begun to deliver training programs on implicit bias to law enforcement agencies around the country (“ Producing Bias-Free Policing: A Science-Based Approach ,” Springer Publishing, 2017).

Those programs, which typically mix instruction, discussion and role-playing, aim to help agencies reduce high-discretion policing and hold officers accountable for biased practices. But there’s no standardized curriculum—and experts say more research is needed to determine whether implicit bias training has a lasting impact and how such training can work alongside other agency reform efforts.

“There seem to be some forms of training that are effective, but the studies on these interventions are still pretty limited,” says Lai. “We just don’t know that much one way or the other.”

The power of peer intervention

Another intervention that has shown promise for reducing violence among police is known as  Project ABLE , or Active Bystandership for Law Enforcement. Based on the work of psychologist Ervin Staub, PhD, an emeritus professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and past president of APA’s Div. 48 (Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence), the program promotes a culture of peer intervention. It teaches officers to prevent their peers from perpetrating unnecessary violence, which can save both lives and careers. Developed by the New Orleans Police Department in 2014 and originally named Ethical Policing Is Courageous (EPIC), Project ABLE is now being adopted by all police departments in New Hampshire and Washington state, as well as those in Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, several other cities and the FBI National Academy.

When an officer commits an act of unnecessary violence, his colleagues face a tough choice, Dvoskin says. Report the act and get a reputation as a “rat”—which may mean your next call for backup goes unanswered—or lie, which is a crime.

“What if, instead, you can prevent the bad thing from happening in the first place?” he says. “What if you manifested your loyalty to a fellow officer by helping him or her stay out of trouble?”

Staub says minor interventions can be highly effective. During recent protests of confederate monuments in New Orleans, an officer stopped a peer from attacking demonstrators by putting an arm around his shoulder. Trainees also apply strategies taught by the program to themselves. One officer in New Orleans reported using EPIC to avoid retaliating against a protester who had spit in her face.

That sort of behavior requires culture change. Police officers need to get comfortable both giving and receiving such interventions—and that culture must be modeled and supported by the highest levels of leadership within an organization, Dvoskin says.

To test his model of active bystandership, Staub studied examples of group violence, such as genocide, observing how hostility and violence evolve progressively. He has also conducted experimental research to understand how people respond to emergencies depending on the actions of those around them. In one study, participants’ helping behavior in response to a simulated emergency ranged from 25% to 100% of the time depending on a confederate’s response to the emergency. He also found that those who are asked to help once are more likely to volunteer later (Staub, E., “ The Roots of Goodness and Resistance to Evil ,” Oxford University Press, 2015).

Now, Project ABLE has support from Georgetown University and the international law firm Sheppard Mullin, which will help fund free training in active bystandership for any interested U.S. police department—and they’ve had hundreds of inquiries since June. Dvoskin, Staub and their team are now working to standardize lesson plans and policy guidelines.

“If this training is introduced in many police departments and done effectively, I believe that policing in America will be transformed,” Staub says.

Understanding and changing officer behavior

Psychologists are also helping agencies collect, report and understand data on their officers’ behavior—data that can point to further policy changes to reduce unnecessary violence and racial bias.

Simply changing the definition of a “police stop,” for instance, can help identify patterns of racial profiling that might otherwise be missed, says social psychologist Jack Glaser, PhD, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy. Glaser has advised the California attorney general’s office on how to collect policing data, including revising the regulations on police stop reporting.

“Some police-civilian encounters are very casual and are not typically recognized as stops—but they are done with investigatory intent and can escalate to a detention,” he says.

For example, a pedestrian might voluntarily speak with a police officer who says, “Hi, can I ask you a question?”—but that conversation could lead to a search and even an arrest. Those stops typically aren’t reported, so racial bias in such practices could go unchecked.

Glaser has also partnered with CPE for a nationwide effort to aggregate data on police behavior with the  National Justice Database , which draws from nearly 100 police departments representing more than a third of the U.S. population. He has worked to standardize and harmonize that data—which includes hundreds of thousands of entries on police stops, searches and use of force and can vary a lot from one agency to the next—so that researchers can start making comparisons and looking for larger trends.

Glaser says reporting officer behavioral data in different ways can paint a very different picture about whether racial disparities exist—so it’s important to get it right. For example, some departments consider officer presence or unholstering a weapon instances of police use of force, while others do not.

Goff, Glaser and their team delved into police use of force data to explore why some researchers, such as economist Roland Fryer, PhD, of Harvard University, have reported no racial differences in officer-involved shootings (Fryer, R.G.,  Journal of Political Economy   , Vol. 127, No. 3, 2019). Their preliminary analysis shows that racial disparities may not exist in all officer-involved shootings, but that there’s a clear bias against African Americans when the victim is unarmed.

“Given that the protest movement is overwhelmingly about unarmed people getting killed by police, that seems to be the most important data point—but it seems to be getting lost,” Glaser says.

One major takeaway from the National Justice Database so far is that police are more likely to display racial bias when they conduct a “high-discretion search”—usually done on a hunch in ambiguous circumstances—versus a “low-discretion search,” a more routine activity, for instance when a person has already been detained for a crime. When the California Highway Patrol banned high-discretion searches, racial disparities began to level off (   Racial & Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report   , 2020).

“The obvious implication there is to try and minimize high-discretion searches,” Glaser says. “The tremendous amount of discretion given to police promotes decision-making under ambiguity and uncertainty, which psychologists know is ripe for stereotype influence.”

Screening officer candidates

Other psychologists have worked to adapt the police selection process to address the issue of implicit bias. Portland-based forensic psychologist David Corey, PhD, ABPP, has urged departments to add “cultural competence” as a criterion for screening law enforcement officers. “On the surface, the implicit bias literature is dismally depressing, because it tells us that everybody has automatic stereotypes that operate unconsciously and affect behavior,” says Corey, who also founded the  American Board of Police and Public Safety Psychology .

Because of measurement issues, it’s not practical to screen candidates for policing jobs based on their implicit biases. But studies show that some personality dimensions can help officers temper those biases (Ben-Porath, Y.S., “ Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF ,” University of Minnesota Press, 2012). Specifically, people high in executive functioning, emotional regulation skills and metacognitive abilities are better able to prevent implicit biases from affecting their behavior. A capacity for theory of mind formation—the ability to anticipate how others will behave based on their actions or tone of voice—also helps officers learn to bypass their initial instincts.

“Those competencies render implicit bias more malleable,” says Corey. “So, my focus, and that of a growing number of colleagues around the country, is to evaluate applicants for those qualities.”

The Portland Police Bureau, as well as several other agencies in the Pacific Northwest, have added such measures to their selection battery.

Answering more questions

Looking ahead, psychologists are working to address gaps in the data in crucial areas such as use of force, says Shauna Laughna, PhD, ABPP, a Florida-based police and public safety psychologist and chair of APA Div. 18’s Police and Public Safety section. She adds that recruitment, training, discipline and retention of personnel can vary greatly across the 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States. That points to a need for more data, standardized measures—for instance, what constitutes excessive use of force—and a comprehensive national database on policing incidents.

“Attempting to generalize from data gathered at one agency to another may not always be prudent,” she says.

As reform efforts continue at the local and state levels, there’s one other essential thing the field can do, says Colby Mills, PhD, a clinical psychologist who works with the Fairfax County Police Department in Virginia: Provide more formal training opportunities for police psychologists, including during graduate school and in the form of continuing education. The limited police psychology coursework currently available within forensic psychology programs often does not include adequate training on the culture, ethics and special skills required to do such work, he says.

“It takes a lot of courage for a police officer to reach out to a mental health professional, because of the stigmas and the pressures they experience,” Mills says. “But once they do it, we owe it to them to provide a qualified professional who knows what they face and understands their culture.”

Critical incident response

In addition to their involvement with department-wide training efforts, psychologists are also increasingly providing ongoing mental health services, for instance after an officer-involved shooting occurs, says Colby Mills, PhD, a clinical psychologist who contracts with the Fairfax County Police Department in Virginia.

Along with peer support officers and the station’s police chaplain, Mills deploys immediately after a critical incident occurs and delivers Stress First Aid, a model developed for the military that can support officers in processing emotions ( Stress First Aid for Law Enforcement , National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, 2016).

“We want to strike a balance where we offer support without implying that an officer will automatically need help to recover,” Mills says.

The Fairfax County Police Department works with about a dozen psychologists who provide critical incident response, therapy, psychoeducation, consultations and pre-employment screenings.

“In general, police and public safety agencies are starting to embrace these sorts of psychological services more and more,” Mills says.

Further reading

A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures Forscher, P.S., et al. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 2019

The Science of Justice: Race, Arrests and Police Use of Force Goff, P.A., et al. Center for Policing Equity, 2016

Preventing Violence and Promoting Active Bystandership and Peace: My Life in Research and Applications Staub, E., Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2018

Recommended Reading

Apa’s recommendations for police reform.

• Promote community policing
• Ban chokeholds and strangleholds
• Invest in crisis intervention teams
• Increase the number of mental health professionals in law enforcement agencies
• Involve psychologists in multidisciplinary teams to implement police reforms
• Encourage partnerships between mental health organizations and local law enforcement
• Discourage police management policies and practices that can trigger implicit and explicit biases
• Strengthen data collection
• Bolster research

Read more about APA’s recommendations online .

Contact APA

You may also like.

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Overview of Police Use of Force

Broadly speaking, the use of force by law enforcement officers becomes necessary and is permitted under specific circumstances, such as in self-defense or in defense of another individual or group.

There is no single, universally agreed-upon definition of use of force. The International Association of Chiefs of Police has described use of force as the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject" [1] .

Officers receive guidance from their individual agencies, but no universal set of rules governs when officers should use force and how much.

Context counts. No two situations are the same, nor are any two officers. In a potentially threatening situation, an officer will quickly tailor a response and apply force, if necessary. Situational awareness is essential, and officers are trained to judge when a crisis requires the use of force to regain control of a situation. In most cases, time becomes the key variable in determining when an officer chooses to use force.

Amount of Force Used

Law enforcement officers should use only the amount of force necessary to mitigate an incident, make an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force , and lethal force.

Learn more about the use-of-force continuum .

The level of force an officer uses varies based on the situation. Because of this variation, guidelines for the use of force are based on many factors, including the officer’s level of training or experience.

An officer’s goal is to regain control as soon as possible while protecting the community. Use of force is an officer’s last option — a necessary course of action to restore safety in a community when other practices are ineffective.

Injuries may occur in any use-of-force incident, and police should ensure that those injured receive medical aid and that the family of any injured person is notified.

Excessive force. The frequency of police use-of-force events that may be defined as justified or excessive is difficult to estimate [2] . There has been no national database of officer-involved shootings or incidents in which police use excessive force. On January 1, 2019 the FBI launched  a national use-of-force data collection .

[note 1] International Association of the Chiefs of Police, Police Use of Force in America, 2001 , Alexandria, Virginia, 2001.

[note 2] Alpert, Geoffrey P., and Roger G. Dunham, 2004. Understanding Police Use of Force: Officers, Suspects, and Reciprocity, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Cite this Article

Read more about:.

• Log in/Log out (Opens in new window)
• All content
• Rural Alaska
• Crime & Courts
• Alaska Legislature
• ADN Politics Podcast
• National Opinions
• Letters to the Editor
• Nation/World
• Film and TV
• Outdoors/Adventure
• High School Sports
• UAA Athletics
• National Sports
• Food and Drink
• Visual Stories
• Alaska Journal of Commerce (Opens in new window)
• The Arctic Sounder
• The Bristol Bay Times
• Today's Paper (Opens in new window)
• Legal Notices (Opens in new window)
• Peak 2 Peak Events (Opens in new window)
• Educator of the Year (Opens in new window)
• Celebrating Nurses (Opens in new window)
• Top 40 Under 40 (Opens in new window)
• Alaska Spelling Bee (Opens in new window)
• Alaska Craft Brew Festival
• Best of Alaska
• Spring Career Fair (Opens in new window)
• Achievement in Business
• Youth Summit Awards
• Teacher of the Month
• 2024 Alaska Summer Camps Guide (Opens in new window)
• Holiday Bazaar Guide (Opens in new window)
• 2024 Back to School (Opens in new window)
• Alaska Visitors Guide 2024 (Opens in new window)
• Bear Paw Festival 2024 (Opens in new window)
• 2023 Best of Alaska (Opens in new window)
• Alaska Health Care (Opens in new window)
• On the Move AK (Opens in new window)
• Senior Living in Alaska (Opens in new window)
• Youth Summit Awards (Opens in new window)
• Alaska Visitors Guide
• ADN Store (Opens in new window)
• Classifieds (Opens in new window)
• Jobs (Opens in new window)
• Place an Ad (Opens in new window)
• Customer Service
• Sponsored Content

State finds use of force justified in fatal shooting of East Anchorage woman by SWAT officer

Lisa Fordyce-Blair died following a standoff with police Wednesday, June 19, 2024, at her home on the 7400 block of East 20th Avenue. (Tess Williams / ADN)

A state review released Tuesday found an Anchorage police sergeant was justified in his use of force when he fatally shot a 58-year-old woman during a SWAT standoff in June.

The Office of Special Prosecutions review sent to Chief Sean Case on Sunday determined Sgt. Jonathan Butler would not face criminal charges in the death of Lisa Fordyce-Blair.

The 18-page letter summarized a number of steps patrol officers, negotiators and SWAT officers took to try to get Fordyce-Blair to come out of her East Anchorage home after she barricaded herself inside following a confrontation with a neighbor on June 19.

Police initially responded to her home on the 7400 block of East 20th Avenue after a neighbor reported she had threatened him and his son with a gun, the review said. The neighbor told police her behavior was unusual and they were friends, it said. Fordyce-Blair had barricaded herself inside her home by the time officers arrived, and they tried to serve an arrest warrant on a charge of third-degree assault, the review said.

Negotiators made announcements over a loudspeaker repeatedly for hours, spoke with her on the phone and communicated by text message, fired less-lethal rounds at her house and through her windows, deployed chemicals into her house and flew a drone through her window as they tried to get her to come out, the review said.

The review notes officers were concerned Fordyce-Blair may have been experiencing mental health issues, according to the letter.

Eventually, Fordyce-Blair began firing shots from inside the house, the letter said. Footage showed her firing at a drone, it said.

Officers said the garage door began opening, with Fordyce-Blair visible inside, and they gave commands for her to drop a gun she held in her left hand, the review said. Butler fired and fatally shot her, it said.

Fordyce-Blair was one of six people shot by Anchorage police since mid-May. Three other people died and two were wounded.

This is the fourth Office of Special Prosecutions review to be released on the recent Anchorage shootings. All of the officers involved in the other shootings were also found to be justified in their use of force. No officers have been criminally charged in Alaska for their role in a shooting in recent decades.

There is no body-camera footage of Fordyce-Blair’s shooting because Anchorage SWAT officers were not equipped with the technology at the time of the shooting.

Tess Williams

Tess Williams is a reporter focusing on breaking news and public safety. Before joining the ADN in 2019, she was a reporter for the Grand Forks Herald in North Dakota. Contact her at [email protected].

• Transition Guide Opens in new window
• Subscribe Now Opens in new window
• Your Military
• Army Times Opens in new window
• Navy Times Opens in new window
• Air Force Times Opens in new window
• Marine Corps Times Opens in new window
• Pentagon & Congress
• Defense News Opens in new window
• Israel-Palestine
• Extremism & Disinformation
• Afghanistan
• Benefits Guide Opens in new window
• Family Life
• Military Pay Center
• Military Retirement
• Military Benefits
• Discount Depot
• Gear Scout Opens in new window
• Military Culture
• Military Fitness
• Military Movies & Video Games
• Military Sports
• Military Communities
• Pay It Forward Opens in new window
• Military History
• Salute to Veterans
• Black Military History
• Congressional Veterans Caucus Opens in new window
• Military Appreciation Month
• Vietnam Vets & Rolling Thunder
• Service Members of the Year Opens in new window
• World War I
• Honor the Fallen Opens in new window
• Hall of Valor Opens in new window
• Create an Obituary Opens in new window
• Medals & Misfires
• Installation Guide Opens in new window
• Battle Bracket
• America's Military
• Task Force Violent
• CFC Givers Guide
• Newsletters Opens in new window
• Early Bird Brief
• MCON Opens in new window
• Long-Term Care Partners
• Navy Federal

Trump clarifies Medal of Honor comments, calls it the ‘ultimate’ honor

Former President and current Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump this weekend worked to clarify his controversial remarks on the Medal of Honor from last week, calling the military award “the ultimate” honor America can bestow while noting the bodily sacrifices of troops who earn it, and how “it is a painful thing to get.”

Trump received criticism from veterans groups and Democratic leaders after his original remarks last Thursday at a campaign event in New Jersey, where he compared the nation’s highest military honor to the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

“It’s the equivalent of the congressional Medal of Honor,” Trump said of the civilian Medal of Freedom. “But the civilian version, it’s actually much better because everyone that gets the Congressional Medal of Honor, they’re soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they’re dead.”

Trump belittles Medal of Honor award in campaign speech

“they’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they’re dead,” trump said of medal of honor recipients..

During an interview with WBRE in Pennsylvania days later, Trump said his “better” comment was misconstrued.

“When I say better, I would rather, in a certain way, get it, because people, they get the congressional Medal of Honor, which I’ve given to many, are often horribly wounded or dead,” he said “They’re often dead. They get it posthumously.

“And when you get the [military] medal, I always consider that to be the ultimate, but it is a painful thing to get it. When you get the Presidential Medal of Freedom, it’s usually for other things, like you’ve achieved great success in sports, or you’ve achieved great success someplace else.”

According to Defense Department rules, the Medal of Honor is awarded to servicemembers who distinguish themselves “through conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty.”

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is awarded at the commander-in-chief’s discretion to “individuals who have made exceptional contributions to the security or national interests of America, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”

During his time in office, Trump presented nine Medals of Honor for battlefield bravery, two posthumously. He awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom 24 times.

On Monday, former Trump chief of staff and retired Marine Gen. John Kelly told CNN that the two medals have “no equivalency of any kind” and criticized Trump for his previous comments.

Officials from the Veterans of Foreign Wars in a statement called Trump’s comments “asinine” and said they “not only diminish the significance of our nation’s highest award for valor, but also crassly characterize the sacrifices of those who have risked their lives above and beyond the call of duty.”

Speakers at the Democratic National Convention on Monday night also criticized Trump for the comments, calling them just the latest in a long line of disrespectful remarks by the former commander in chief.

Leo covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He has covered Washington, D.C. since 2004, focusing on military personnel and veterans policies. His work has earned numerous honors, including a 2009 Polk award, a 2010 National Headliner Award, the IAVA Leadership in Journalism award and the VFW News Media award.

In Other News

Navy releases list of sailors selected to become chiefs

Read more to see the latest entrants into the goat locker..

Vets’ PACT Act claims continue to rise, two years after law’s passage

More than 1 million disability claims related to military toxic exposure have been approved in the first two years of the veterans benefits legislation..

Soldier indicted for lying about involvement in insurrectionist groups

Authorities allege a fort liberty soldier lied when he said he didn't belong to a group dedicated to overthrowing the u.s. government..

Vets may see only a small cost-of-living boost in benefits next year

An outside watchdog estimates the benefits adjustment will be less than 3% in 2025..

Recommended

Hotel union’s hypocrisy unmasks the cynicism of the ‘safe hotel act’.

The Hotel Trades Council wants it both ways: It’s seeking to force all city hotels to use union-only labor, with no outside contracting allowed — even as the union itself spends millions on farmed-out services per year, including to non-union firms.

The HTC spent more than $700,000 in contracts for maintenance and cleaning services over the past 10 years, plus millions more on legal, consultant and computer services.

Meanwhile, City Councilwoman Julie Menin and the HTC push the unionization bill as aiming chiefly to curb sex trafficking and other criminal behavior, hence the deceptive name, the “Safe Hotel Act.”

Bizarrely, Menin cites rising hotel-related 311 calls ( not 911) as indicating a growing safety problem.

Yet the American Hotel and Lodging Association points out, most hotel- or motel-related 311 complaints are “related to illegal parking, noise, dumping, elevator outages, blocked driveways and issues associated with people experiencing homelessness.”

Forcing the city’s 400 non-union hotels to hand over management of their workforces to the HTC would do nothing to solve these problems.

But it would force some owners to close up shop , and ensure costlier NYC hotel rooms, already among the nation’s most expensive (second only to Boston).

And so further kneecap a tourism industry that’s already taken a beating from the city’s real crime crisis and COVID lockdowns.

The bill is another bullet the city’s economy and a naked gift to a special interest, putting every hotel in town under one union’s thumb.

A union that doesn’t even live by the rule it’s out to impose on the industry.

Kamala Harris Addresses Economy In Speech—Here’s What To Know About Her Policy Agenda

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled more details about her economic agenda in a speech Friday in North Carolina, proposing an “opportunity economy” as the Democratic nominee focused on lowering the price of groceries and prescription drugs and addressing the housing crisis with an eye on bolstering the middle class.

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at Wake Tech Community College in Raleigh, N.C., on Aug. 16.

Grocery Prices: The candidate would work in her first 100 days to help Congress pass a national ban on “price gouging” for food and groceries, as well as give the Federal Trade Commission and prosecutors authority to go after companies they determine price gouge, support small businesses in the industry, take a closer look at mergers between big grocery companies and “aggressively” investigate price-fixing in meat supply chains specifically.

Housing Costs: Harris wants to provide $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers and is calling for the creation of three million new housing units within the next four years, proposing a tax credit for developers who build starter homes and investing $40 million in an innovation fund to tackle the housing crisis.

Rental Costs: Harris would also expand a tax credit for housing developers who build affordable housing rental units, and is calling on Congress to pass legislation that would stop predatory investors who buy up rental homes and collude with each other to raise rental prices.

Child Tax Credit: Harris proposed giving families a $6,000 tax credit for newborns in their first year of life, and restore a pandemic-era tax credit of $3,600 per child for middle and lower-class families.

Taxes: Harris also wants to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit for workers in lower-income jobs, which would cut taxes by up to $1,250, and has previously said she would continue President Joe Biden’s promise not to raise taxes on American households earning $400,000 or less annually, and does support raising taxes for high earners and corporations, according to The New York Times.

No Tax On Tips: Harris has separately endorsed a plan to get rid of taxes on tips for hospitality and service workers, echoing a proposal by former President Donald Trump—which has been criticized by some experts—though a campaign official told CNN tips would still be subject to payroll taxes, and would include an income limit and guardrails to prevent people like hedge fund managers from taking advantage of the policy.

Prescription Drug Prices: Harris proposed a $35 cap on insulin and capping out-of-pocket expenses on prescription drugs at $2,000 per year on Friday, also saying she would speed up Medicare negotiations on the price of prescription drugs—after the Biden administration announced a deal lowering costs on 10 medications—and crack down on anti-competitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry that cause higher prices.

Healthcare: The Harris campaign also announced her intention to work with states to cancel Americans’ medical debt, and she proposed expanding subsidies for Affordable Care Act plans that would save health insurance customers an average of $700 on their health insurance premiums.

Paid Leave: Harris has not released a specific paid leave proposal, but she has previously co-sponsored 12-week paid leave legislation, Politico notes, with Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., telling the outlet, “I absolutely believe that when they are in office, we will get a paid leave bill done finally.”

Minimum Wage: Harris called for raising the minimum wage in a Las Vegas speech earlier in August, but her campaign has not specified how high she believes it should be raised.

Fed Independence: Harris has vowed to maintain the Federal Reserve’s independence after Trump said he believed “the president should have at least [a] say” on the Federal Reserve’s decisions, with Harris telling reporters, “The Fed is an independent entity and as president I would never interfere in the decisions that the Fed makes.”

Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We’re launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day’s headlines. Text “Alerts” to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here .

Crucial Quote

Harris said Friday she’d be “laser focused on creating opportunities for the middle class” if elected president, calling for “an economy where everyone can compete and have a real chance to succeed.” “Now is the time to chart a new way forward, to build an America where everyone’s work is rewarded and talents are valued, where we work with labor and business to strengthen the American economy, and where everyone has the opportunity not only to get by, but to get ahead,” the vice president said.

What To Watch For

Harris said in her North Carolina speech that she intends to unveil more economic proposals in the weeks ahead. The vice president has still not issued a full policy platform or unveiled proposals for policy issues beyond the economy, and those are also expected in the near future.

How Do Harris’ Policies Compare With Biden’s?

Harris’ economic policy agenda is largely in line with Biden’s economic platform, with some tweaks to emphasize causes that are more important to her, like the child tax credit. “Same values, different vision,” a Harris aide told The Guardian. “She’s not moving far away from him on substance, she will highlight the ones that matter most to her.” The initial plans from Harris’ campaign also suggest the vice president plans to be more aggressive in her policy approaches than Biden, however, as polls have suggested voters hold dim views of how the president has handled the economy. While Biden has also opposed price gouging, Harris’ proposal to enable the FTC and U.S. attorneys to go after companies that hike up prices goes beyond what the president has proposed, Politico notes , and her proposed $40 million investment in the housing crisis is double the amount the Biden administration spent.

Harris’ economic agenda released Friday didn’t go fully in depth about her proposals, which The New York Times reports is by design. The Times reported prior to Harris’ speech that the Harris campaign has adopted a “strategic vagueness” for her economic proposals, believing that being more of a “blank slate” will help ward off attacks and attract more support from business groups.

How Do Harris’ Policies Compare With Trump’s?

Trump’s economic agenda is largely focused on raising tariffs on imported goods, which Harris has said she opposes. The ex-president has also called for cutting taxes and regulations in hopes of lowering inflation, including lowering the corporate tax rate, and has encouraged increasing oil production in order to lower energy prices. In addition to his “no tax on tips” proposal that Harris has also endorsed, Trump has called for ending taxes on Social Security benefits, which Harris has not yet responded to. Experts believe the ex-president’s proposal could speed up Social Security and Medicare becoming insolvent, with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projecting exempting taxes on benefits would result in Social Security and Medicare receiving $1.6 trillion less in revenue between 2026 and 2035. The Trump campaign opposed reports of Harris’ economic proposals Wednesday, with spokesperson Steven Cheung saying in a statement, “Kamala Harris can’t hide from her disastrous record of skyrocketing inflation … Americans are struggling under the Biden-Harris economy, and now she wants to gaslight them into believing her bald-faced lies.”

42%. That’s the share of voters who trust Harris more to handle the economy, according to a Financial Times/University of Michigan poll released Sunday, versus 41% who trust Trump more. That’s down from Trump holding a six-point lead over Biden in July, though the poll also showed 42% believe a Trump presidency would leave them better off financially, while only 33% said the same for Harris.

Key Background

Harris became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in July after Biden stepped down suddenly from the presidential race, following weeks of pressure over mounting concerns about his mental fitness. While the vice president has quickly garnered Democrats’ support and risen in the polls, Harris has released few concrete policy proposals in the first few weeks of her campaign—drawing some criticism as a result—with her speech Friday expected to be the most substantive remarks she’s given on policy so far. Her focus on the economy comes as polling has repeatedly shown it’s the most important issue to voters in this election cycle, with the vice president hoping to attract support amid low approval ratings for Biden’s handling of the economy. Harris’ speech also comes days after news that inflation fell in July to its lowest point in more than three years, with federal data released Wednesday showing inflation at 2.9% in July, the first time it’s been below 3% since March 2021.

Further Reading

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

Advertisement

Supported by

Harris Plans to Ban Grocery ‘Price Gouging.’ What Does the Evidence Say?

Price increases when demand exceeds supply are textbook economics. The question is whether, and how much, the pandemic yielded an excess take.

• Share full article

By Jim Tankersley and Jeanna Smialek

Reporting from Washington

Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda for her presidential campaign features an argument that blames corporate price gouging for high grocery prices.

That message polls well with swing voters. It has been embraced by progressive groups , which regularly point to price gouging as a driver of rapid inflation, or at least something that contributes to rapid price increases. Those groups cheered the announcement late Wednesday that Ms. Harris would call for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries in an economic policy speech on Friday.

But the economic argument over the issue is complicated.

Economists have cited a range of forces for pushing up prices in the recovery from the pandemic recession, including snarled supply chains, a sudden shift in consumer buying patterns , and the increased customer demand fueled by stimulus from the government and low rates from the Federal Reserve. Most economists say those forces are far more responsible than corporate behavior for the rise in prices in that period.

Biden administration economists have found that corporate behavior has played a role in pushing up grocery costs in recent years — but that other factors have played a much larger one.

The Harris campaign announcement on Wednesday cited meat industry consolidation as a driver of excessive grocery prices, but officials did not respond on Thursday to questions about the evidence Ms. Harris would cite or how her proposal would work.

There are examples of companies telling investors in recent years that they have been able to raise prices to increase profits. But even the term “price gouging” means different things to different people.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .