The Public Duty Doctrine.72: Cops Don't Co-Parent

C-Span 1 this morning interviewed a Michelle Alexander, author of "The New Jim Crow." The crux of her position was that The Drug War is making people of color, who have been convicted of a felony, permanent second class citizens, a form of branding. She mentioned that America has more people incarcerated than any other country in the world, and that it boils down to racial politics.

I hope this critique clearly presented her basic position.

Question: Why does America have more people incarcerated than any other nation?

Could it be that Ms. Alexander failed to grasp the broad context in which criminal behavior is dealt with?

If the majority of American parents bought into the idea of law enforcement's Protect & Serve motto, could it be that Americans on average, regardless of color, view police paternalistically -- in other words, as co-parents? Co-parenting their unsupervised, out-late-at-night, gang-involved, unprotected-sex-involved, graffiti-involved, drug-involved children?

This view of law enforcement's legal duty (protect & serve) sounds like "It takes a village to raise a child" -- on steroids.

As we know, this is not Mayberry. There is no Sheriff Andy Taylor, who catches a truent student and asks, "Does your momma know where you are?" and then takes him home in the patrol car with a stern warning, released into the arms of an embarrassed mother who says, "Just wait until your father gets home."

No. We're a different kind of America. Law enforcement does not co-parent or enable parents. Their mission, legally speaking, is Law & Order -- period.

Now, here's a twist: Suppose your 14-year-old daughter is raped by a stranger while walking a few blocks from home. She cooperates with the police, goes to the hospital, participates with Rape Crisis counselling, and the case starts to fall apart.

Suppose the father suggests to the investigating officer on more than three occasions that his daughter undergo hypnosis in order to glean more information to help in the investigation.

Suppose the hypnosis is performed with the daughter's and the doctor's agreement. Suppose the father calls the investigating officer upon completion of the hypnosis and says that they'd like to meet at the police station and provide this additional information.

And suppose the next thing that happens is the father receives a letter in the mail from the district attorney's office stating that the father had irreparably harmed his daughter's case by having her memory refreshed; in other words, her memory contaminated by a psychiatrist. Her testimony deemed unreliable by having her memory refreshed.

And at no time did the investigating officer warn the father to refrain from the procedure or to consult an attorney before doing so.

As you can see, cops don't co-parent the parents either.