Forming A More Perfect Union: An Interview About Police Reform with Dr. James Copple
Anna Marquardt and Cate Caperton
Aberle and Wall, LLC
Dr. James E. Copple, the founding partner of Strategic Applications International, is a distinguished expert in public policy, institutional improvement, government relations, fund development, and community policing. Dr. Copple has a prolific career, which includes authoring two major pieces of federal legislation, being the Founding President of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the National Crime Prevention Council in Washington, D.C. In 2015, Dr. Copple facilitated President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, (known today as The Task Force Report on Policing) and was the principal writer for the Implementation Guide for the Department of Justice. Moreover, Dr. Copple has facilitated more than 22 statewide summits on multifarious topics; from violence prevention and gun prevention, to alcohol prevention in underage youth. Dr. Copple also works in international development with governments to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa, and currently is the Global Policy Advisor for the Kenyan Council on Foreign Relations.
“The Preamble to the Constitution starts with ‘[w]e the people,’ and the next phrase, ‘in order to form a more perfect union.’ And then it lists things we need to do in order to form that more perfect union. The reality was that 233 years ago, the framers of the Constitution were operating in their historical context, and they also realized that this isn’t a perfect union. Women were excluded, slaves were excluded, indigenous populations were excluded. But throughout our history, we have taken iterative steps to create that more perfect union, whether it's the 13th amendment, 14th amendment, 19th amendment, whatever those issues were. We have made progress and [in] each generation, there’s a saying called, “generational forgetting”, and in this we need to remind ourselves periodically that we are in process. I am appalled at the assertion that America has ever been great. I think America is improving, and that we have yet to achieve our full greatness, but I am confident in the institution that we have.”
Dr. James E. Copple, interview with Aberle & Wall
This article began with one simple goal in mind: to understand the key similarities and differences between the leading Democratic and Republican proposals on police reform in America. We wanted simply to learn and educate others about the two prevailing pieces of federal legislation crafted in response to growing public calls for criminal justice reform after the high profile death of George Floyd by former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin.
In an effort to learn more about how public policy takes shape on a national level, we reached out to Dr. James E. Copple, founder of Strategic Applications International, and facilitator of President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. He took some time from a busy schedule that included consulting with people about these very bills, and generously agreed to an exclusive interview with Aberle & Wall. After speaking with him, however, we gained more than just a better understanding of the two leading proposals. We left with a renewed sense of optimism about the future. As divisive a topic as criminal justice can be, America has an often understated value that is as old as the country itself: improvement. From the Preamble to the amendments, one lesson of the U.S. Constitution is that it is patriotic to acknowledge the need to make the country a more perfect union.
A Tale of Two Bills
The Democratic-led House of Representatives unveiled the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act Bill on Monday, June 8, 2020, calling for a wide range of policy reformation and law enforcement accountability. This bill was passed in the House on Thursday, June 26, 2020, which was a bipartisan win for the Democrats, at a tally of 236-181, with 3 Republicans voting in favor. The House bill can be found here.
The Republican-led Senate brought forth their own bill on June 16, 2020 called the JUSTICE Act ( S.3985). The Senate bill, introduced by Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) had many positive facets, but its critics argued it didn’t go far enough in terms of meaningful, reformative changes and in a 55-45 vote, failed to gain the 60 votes needed to advance to a full vote. That bill can be found here. The two bills are similar in that they both require increased data collection among police agencies when deadly force is utilized, significantly increased training for those in law enforcement, incentives for police officers to wear body cameras, and establish lynching as a federal crime. The aspects where they differ is what reflects the bipartisan differences between the House and Senate, and they are outlined below.
The House bill lowers the criminal intent standard of a law enforcement officer, changing the current mental standard of “willful” to “knowing or reckless”. Further, Title 1, SEC. 101, p. 6: Section 242 of Title 18 United States Code would add the following clause, “any act shall be considered to be ‘death resulting’ if the act was a substantial factor contributing to the death of the person.” The Senate bill, however, does not address lowering the mental state for officers involved in misconduct, but rather incentivizes training programs that will help to educate law enforcement officers on the history of racism in America. Other training programs introduced in the Senate bill will also be implemented in local police departments, such as bystander prevention and de-escalation training, as well as creating a Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys located in D.C. to study police violence and systemic racism in minority communities.
Another popular contention is the use of deadly tactics by officers, particularly the chokehold maneuver that took the life of Eric Garner. The House bill works to outright ban chokeholds and other similar maneuvers. In fact, the House bill punishes the use of such tactics, when applied to the throat or windpipe, which would in any way restrict blood flow or oxygen to the brain or any carotid artery. The House bill additionally allows the Department of Justice to issue subpoenas in order to investigate police departments. Encompassed in the Senate bill is a narrow definition of chokeholds, and bans their use only if it can be proven that the officer was intending to “incapacitate” the victim. The Senate bill goes further to condition the distribution of federal grants for local police departments on banning the use of chokeholds. This is similar to the House Bill, but ultimately defers to the Attorney General to place tighter restrictions on the use of deadly force on police departments. SB TITLE 1, Sec. 105, p. 24: (1).
The House bill requires that “no-knock warrants” be eliminated for federal drug cases. Section 509 of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 879, would be amended to include the following: “A search warrant authorized under this section shall require that a law enforcement officer execute the search warrant only after providing notice of his or her authority and purpose.” Another critique of the Senate bill is how minimally it alters no-knock warrants, the practice that resulted in the unfortunate death of Breonna Taylor. The bill would merely require officers to report their use of no-knock warrants to the Attorney General. SB TITLE 1, Sec. 102, p. 12. The critique that this ‘reform’ is insufficient is understandable, given the already prevalent disparity between police reports, their body-camera footage, and witness statements.
Another divisive topic has been the issue of qualified immunity, which is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations. The Democratic-led House bill limits qualified immunity as a defense to liability for law enforcement officers. 42 U.S.C. 1983 would be amended by adding that a local law enforcement officer or state correctional officer shall not have defense or immunity under this section for any action brought against them. On the other hand, Senator Tim Scott R-SC, who sponsored the Senate bill, pointedly left out alterations to qualified immunity, arguing that to disband that practice would be a “poison pill”. However, other Republican Senators are not dismissing the idea of modifying the principle of qualified immunity.
Dr. James E. Copple discussed why both the Senate and House put forth separate bills on police reform, stating it had to do with the disconnect between both political parties. “The Republican Party is trying to placate some of the concerns raised by rank and file officers or by police management, and the House bill, which was initiated by the Congressional Black Caucus, is really designed to speak to serious reform and the community perceptions of a lot of injustices that take place and that are perpetrated by the police. These two political tensions are at play here. I frankly think the Democratic version is actually more realistic and more needed. The Republican version is very watered down and tepid; it doesn’t really get to the heart of the issue.”
When expanding his thoughts on the two proposed bills, Mr. Copple stated there was an essential element missing from both: addressing racial bias. “The tension between the proposed reforms, both from the Democratic version and the Republican one, I think misses one of the key issues in this whole discussion: the issue of bias. We can change the laws, we can defund, deregulate, we can restructure, we can reorganize, but at the end of the day, racial bias is part of our DNA as a country. It's part of who we’ve been for 400 years when the first slaves arrived here and it continues to express itself in a variety of ways, through systemic injustice, implicit bias and overt bias. Until we can get to the hearts and minds of the officers that are serving, we can restructure or reorganize as much as we want, but it's still that initial encounter and bias you have going into that encounter.” Copple further expands on the issue of bias, “I am a firm believer in changing policy and practice to drive change. It's just when it comes to certain issues that are part of the software of who we are, as a society, which is heart and mind issues, it’s not until you have repeated exposure in certain circumstances that the foolishness of bias is realized.”
Nevertheless, when asked the likelihood of the House bill being passed, Dr. Copple thought the chances would be “slim to none”, as Congress continues to “show itself incapable of coming to a meaningful solution." Dr. Copple mentions three issues that are preventing bipartisan legislators from putting forth effective policy reform: the use of chokeholds, requiring the National Decertification Index, and qualified immunity. “The Democratic proposed bill, requires some kind of version with a compromise around chokeholds. I think we can get some sort of compromise around the National Decertification Index. It already exists and is operating in 42 states. But it’s also not required. Mandating departments to require an index and make decisions about who they hire and don’t hire, because today still, an officer can be fired from one department and go to another department, and that index may not be consulted or they may not even pay attention to it, depending on the infraction. The issue of qualified immunity is going to need to be an important discussion in the reform effort. The Republican version does not support it, even though it was advocated for. The Democratic one wants it.”
Not only is there a horizontal disconnect between political parties, but a vertical one between state and federal level policy reform as well. When asked what the state level could do to support police reform at the federal level, Dr. Copple instead suggested that the question people should be asking is “what can the federal government do to support what state and local government can do? Ninety percent of policy and practice related to policing or even criminal justice reform is with the local and state [governments]. The federal government comes in and supplements it, and in policing, their greatest leverage is in civil rights legislation. The federal government has historically left policy and practice and decision making at the local and state level. The federal government can offer guidelines, and incentivize local governments with grants and financial resources so that laws apply equally across the board. Ultimately it’s going to be a local and state government role. The federal government can intervene by being sure that the civil rights of all people are protected in this process.”
How Do We Move Forward?
We asked Dr. Copple to give some remarks about how both politicians and regular Americans can move forward on criminal justice reform when partisan divisiveness can stall efforts. In regards to the political sphere, he recently worked for the Counsel on Criminal Justice, which focused on the passing of the First Step Act, a bipartisan sentencing reform bill signed by President Trump in 2018. Dr. Copple points to bipartisanship, noting that “political conservatives and political liberals came together in agreement that we are over incarcerating in this country. [T]he phrase, which needs to be the framework of legislation moving forward is this phrase, ‘sanctity of life’. Everybody at the end of the day should be able to go home. We should treat and conduct our business in policing to be sure that we are deescalating and that we are offering aid. Whatever decision making takes place, what can we do to protect life?” Perhaps politicians can set aside differences by framing the debate that criminal justice reform is about protecting the sanctity of all life, from the officer to the citizen.
On progressing as a community, Dr. Copple had some sage advice on how civilians need to step up and be more conscious of who we vote into power. “There are some signs of hope, but it’s going to take pressure. Congress has the lowest approval rating of any government agency in the history of this country, but we continue to reelect them. I think there has to be accountability. Show up and go to town hall meetings, write letters, make sure your voice is heard. Even if your political contribution may seem small, what it tells the candidate is the number of people that are engaged, and it’s an important barometer of the health of the system. I continue to be somewhat skeptical about the current environment for bipartisan collaboration, but if this current outrage continues to raise its voice, they’re going to have to listen. Who knows what could happen?”
Maybe the debate can be reframed on a personal level, too. When Colin Kaepernick knelt during the anthem, many people failed to appreciate the reason that he was kneeling because they were preoccupied with a feeling that the American flag was somehow being “disrespected.” Similarly, many people who don’t wish to hear disparaging things about American history or culture, can’t seem to engage on the issues because it is difficult for them to get over the premise that they believe American values are under attack.
But here is the thing: the U.S. Constitution begins with a preamble that the country is striving to form a more perfect union. The document then ends with 27 separate amendments to date. Acknowledging that we get things wrong and need to confront ourselves and our country’s history is as American a value as freedom, justice, democracy, and apple pie. If we can start with the premise that it is, indeed, patriotic to improve ourselves and our society, maybe we can see past partisanship and work together on the noble, if endless, struggle that will last beyond our children’s lifetimes: forming a more perfect union.