Should Police Officers be required to learn sign and be bilingual?
Debate Rounds (4)
Before, I begin my argument, its important that you fully read this article for this debate to get really interesting.
Such police officers, even with far and beyond police training, fail to address and assess the sitation, and instead resort to brute force. According to NBC news, police departments across the country are already starting to push for such a reform.
As they say, the investment could eventually pay off, and police officers could better serve their individual communities.
"To fight crime you have to communicate" -Susan Shan at Vera Institute of Justice
As an individual who is fully fluent in ASL (I have a deaf relative), I see the problems that arise when officers are not aware of how to respond to situations like this. This does not call for officers to LEARN a language such as sign language, it simply calls for better training for awareness of a situation. These officers acted too quickly, without assessing the situation adequately. This requires sensitivity training, not learning a completely different language; the reason the officers assaulted this individual is because they did not know the individual was deaf. Granted, the reaction was excessive and the officers should be punished for that. Even if the officers had learned sign language and could communicate, they would have pinned the man's hands behind his back before realizing the man is deaf and attempting to communicate; the struggle would have ensued as a result anyway. I am in no way condoning the officers' subsequent actions, but sensitivity and conduct training addresses this problem more effectively than learning ASL does. If you are arguing that sensitivity training should increase, I agree; I disagree with your argument that a full language must be learned. You say that officers should be bilingual, but there is no way to ensure that the second language is ASL, and therefore the officer responding to a call is not guaranteed to be fluent in the necessary language; to find out the language that is needed before choosing a specific officer to respond wastes precious time in emergency situations.
I'll go ahead and address the three points (language equality, feasibility, and ability) in the next rounds. :D
I can see why you would argue sensitivity. Again, I guess I should have been more clear. I did not mean to directly say that officers should learn AN ENTIRE LANGUAGE. That would be a waste of resources. But, rather, know it enough to assess the sitation. Partly, sensitivity is part of my argument, but the bulk of it is focused towards what i've mentioned earlier. This also solves the issue with miscommunication. A police officer might make wrong record statements, based on a misinterpretation of what the witness might have said. Even a simple term can impose a different meaning. This would mean false evidence in court, and the possiblity that the wrong person prosecuted.
However, I would have to agree with you in that in a call of emergency, there is no guarantee an officer might be fluent in the neccesary language. Point made, in the long run, such a reform could be beneficial. Some one who speaks the language has a much better face-to-face interaction with the citizens of that sector, and puts more value to better serving the community.
Since we're now on the same page, I'd like to direct you to the NYPD's website and page regarding their use of diverse languages: http://www.nyc.gov...
If you're not already aware of this, there has been a major shift in police policy regarding foreign language use by officers since the turn of the century; as the NYPD page shows, more than 75 languages are spoken in the city's police force, with a surprising number of officers being bilingual. It is even stated that police officers are stationed in areas in which their second language would be the most useful. If it is ever the case that an officer is unable to communicate with a citizen, almost every officer in every department in every major city has the direct line to a police translator, who can interpret and facilitate a conversation (and, of course, this call is recorded for proof in court to clarify record statements and avoid false evidence in court, if it comes to that); language assistance has been a staple in the police force since immigration to the United States began. So, to address your concern, these measures have already been put into action; it will take a good deal more time for the system to perfect itself so we can avoid unfortunate misinterpretation incidents in the future.
I do agree that communications with deaf or mute persons is a degree of difficulty above spoken language, but the current trend shows that this will be addressed soon. Considering our country's population, it's natural to assume that police forces nationwide have already received plenty of complaints regarding miscommunication; in order to stay relevant and to do its job properly, the police programs everywhere are adapting to this. Even my tiny hometown's police force has officers fluent in nearly 20 languages - this shows that departments are recognizing the need for understanding.
Assessing the situation is an important tool for an officer; however, assessing a situation is more based on an officer's visual and sensory understanding of the situation, and is less so based on witness-to-officer communication (that often comes in much later). Therefore, a language barrier may come in later on in the process when officers have more time to respond and record details of an event. Even if an immediate response that requires language understanding is needed, more and more officers these days are carrying devices that connect to a police "Language Line" that can respond just as quickly as a 911 dispatcher can. Other than that, there's not much an agency can do to ensure the best possible communication, except perhaps a quick-reference handbook for the most-spoken languages in their precinct.
I definitely agree with the sentiment behind your position, however; I simply argue that there's only so much a department can do within its means to serve its community when a significant language barrier exists.
As far as I can see I think the carelessly placed word "required" really strengthens your arguments. I guess you must have seen it in a different persepctive than i did. Perhaps a revised question of the matter would have been more helpful. But, to contend, I think some people just need a more convincing opinion. Overall, I would just like police departments not to just overlook the sitation at hand.
The intentions that you have are great, except to create an impact on the scale that you want is an impossibility. Police departments simply do not have enough money to make this change happen quickly. I do believe that police are aware of the situation at hand, but I'd give it a few more years for us to see the impact that you would like to see. But every time one of these stories of miscommunication leading to harassment (like the one you posted) goes public, police stations buckle down even tighter to make sure these events don't happen again. All in all, we're on a good path in this regard!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed Pro's goal to be impractical, and also that his main evidence (the story) didn't support his case as well as he had hoped. Plus, Pro sort of conceded at the end. Good debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.