Having taken a few days to decide that the situation in Ferguson was worthy of his attention, Missouri Governor, Jay Nixon, has decided to make up for his indolence with extreme reactions. A period of under-reaction followed by a period of over-reaction does not add up to an appropriate reaction. It is not that he is now overestimating the seriousness of the situation. It is that his reactions seem calibrated for headlines rather than effect.
For example, he has called for justice for the family of Michael Brown, the civilian shot by police. Obviously, Brown’s family is a party to whom justice must be done. But as a former Attorney General, Nixon should recognize the need to do justice to the police officer accused of (though not charged with) unlawfully killing him. Even if the officer is guilty, he is entitled to a fair trial, which the governor should not prejudge.
Nixon has also imposed a curfew. This is another headline grabbing initiative designed to show he is, now, taking the matter seriously. I suspect the thought process was: I must do something; this is something; therefore I must do this. An intelligent thought process would weigh up the costs and benefits of the policy.
The costs are certain and high. The benefits seem to this columnist to be speculative and relatively low.
A curfew infringes people’s civil liberties and is constitutionally dubious. Among the things is infringes is the right of free assembly. Enforcing a curfew is an immense resource strain on a police force not presently coping with more pressing needs such as dealing with rioting, arson and looting.
But what are the benefits? First, obviously, a curfew is not a way of arresting people engaged in real crimes such as looting and arson. The power to arrest such people already exists, though in Ferguson it seems that neither the resource nor the will exists. Curfew is the power to arrest people who are not engaged in such things, presumably on the grounds that they may have done so earlier, and evidence to that effect may turn up, or may be planning to do so, and arresting them prevents the crime. This would certainly be a benefit.
Presumably enforcing the curfew on people posing no immediate threat to anyone will be a lower priority than dealing with arson, looting and riot. No-one will even start to enforce the curfew until there are enough police officers in place to deal with the more pressing concerns, and some to spare. Perhaps, with the National Guard and state troopers being brought in, that is possible. Though if the real and violent crimes can be readily addressed by the police, then presumably the need for the curfew has already passed.
Enforcing a curfew is hard. There will need to be exceptions for people working night shifts. Police will stop law-abiding people to ask them where they are going, and for evidence thereof. But Americans do not carry identity papers. Driver’s licenses do not show where a person works, let alone a shift pattern. Employer passes and perhaps a letter to say what shift a person is working will all be in different formats from different employers. They will take time to check. Does the Ferguson police really have people in place to enforce this, over and above those that dealing with the riots?
Quentin Langley is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the University of Bedfordshire Business School as well as a freelance columnist published in the UK and all parts of the US. He blogs on social media and crisis communications at brandjacknews.com
Filed under: U.S. Politics
