What Counts as Police Violence? A Case Study of Data in the CATO Institute’s Police Misconduct Reporting Project

Background This article presents a case study about the role of data in the CATO Institute’s Police Misconduct Reporting Project and reflects on what constitutes police violence.Analysis Augmenting this data aggregation work, the article turns to additional data projects focused on recording police crime and misconduct to gather a broader understanding of incidents of police violence beyond acts that cause death. Conclusion and implications It is only when we look at data on acts of violence that occur when an officer is on duty and off-duty, with or without a firearm, that a clearer sense of the traumatic cycle of policing can be understood. This way of looking at police data requires both broader practices of “copwatching,” as well as a broader definition of what counts as violence.Contexte Cet article présente une étude de cas sur le rôle des données dans le Police Misconduct Reporting Project (Projet sur le recensement des inconduites policières) du CATO Institute et offre une réflexion sur ce qu’est la violence policière.Analyse L’article complète cette étude de cas en examinant d’autres projets semblables portant sur les inconduites et crimes policiers afin d’en arriver à une meilleure compréhension d’instances de violence policière au-delà d’actions causant la mort.Conclusion et implications C’est seulement quand on examine des données sur les actes violents ayant lieu quand un policier est de service ou non, avec ou sans arme à feu, qu’on peut mieux comprendre le cycle traumatique relatif au travail policier. Cette manière de considérer les données sur la police requiert à la fois des pratiques plus englobantes de surveillance des policiers et une définition plus large de ce qu’est la violence.

What Can We Do?

Chapter Six asks whether we have done everything possible to keep Americans safe at work. The answers to that question are a discussion of common sense reforms that if implemented will make Americans safer at work. But, anticipating the anti-regulatory arguments from self-described free marketers, Chapter Six first rebuts these arguments championed by conservative think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Mercatus Center, and funded by Charles and David Koch, among others.Thereafter, Chapter Six discusses how reforming the workers compensation system, enhancing the penalties and criminal provisions in the OSHAct, criminally prosecuting employers like Don Blankenship, regulatory reform and more local worker safety laws will help keep Americans safer at work.