 |
 |
PFI 2005 Annual Conference
in conjunction with WFS (World Future Society)
“WorldFuture 2005: Foresight, Innovation, and Strategy”
July 29-31, 2005
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago Hilton and Towers |
 |
 |
 |
2005 Chicago, IL |
|
 |
|
|
|
In conjunction with the World Futures Society, the Society for Police Futurists International hosted three presentations at the 2005 conference. All three presentations had excellent attendance. The two panels each ended with a lively Q&A session with attendees from the audience. |
|
|
| |
|
|
”Is Democracy in Everyone’s Future” |
|
|
| |
|
|
Democracy “of sorts” may sweep the world, but it may not offer the freedom, and individual rights Americans associate with the term, two PFI members told an audience at the PFI-World Future Society (WFS) meeting in Chicago. “Illiberal” democracy can be every bit as suppressive as a dictatorship or military junta.
“Illiberal democracy can create a tyrannical majority intent on persecuting minorities or a leader intent on eliminating civil liberties for political enemies,” they said. “While an ‘enlightened’ despot may support respect for law, establishment of liberal institutions, a free press, capitalism, and eventually free elections.”
Only “liberal democracy” offers hope of a world run by the people and for the people—free of a police state, they added. Characteristics of liberal democracy include:
- a Constitution which limits the powers of government;
- election of public officials “in a fair and just manner”;
- the individual’s right to vote and stand for election;
- freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of association (without fear of persecution);
- equality of the law and due process under the rule of law and educated citizens informed of their rights and civil responsibilities.
“Even nations with long-standing democracies and a tradition of ‘rule of law’ struggle to meet these requirements,” said Alexander, noting that in many elections less than 20% of those “qualified” even bother to vote. “Is that democracy?” he questioned. “And many are not allowed to vote,” added Stephens.
Whereas bringing liberal democracy to the world may be a noble goal, the PFIers cited numerous obstacles, such as convincing dictators or religious leaders to turn over power to the people, convincing the people to use the power to benefit all groups in society, and convincing powerful leaders—backed by their military—to relinquish power when they lose elections.
Panelists also noted that democracy doesn’t necessarily equate with capitalist economies. Liberal democracies also can be established with socialist economic systems or “hybrids” (e.g., capitalism as the method of production and socialism as the means of distribution of the profits, such as in most Scandinavian countries). Thus bringing true democracy to the world means also allowing the people the right to choose their economic system.
The panelists concluded: Be careful what you wish for; you might just get it. The people’s will is not always motivated by the highest and best moral values; power and self interest are far better predictors of who wins elections. Add religious fervor and John Stuart Mill’s “Tyranny of the Majority” is easy to see in budding democracies. |
|
|
| |
|
|
The Future of 21st Century Law Enforcement:
Front-line Protectors or Back-lot Relics? |
|
|
| |
|
|
The double-edged sword of technology coupled with the courage and fortitude to lead in times of threat to public safety are the greatest challenges facing 21st century law enforcement. That was the conclusions of three PFI panelists at the PFI/World Futures Society (WFS) meeting in Chicago.
Panelists covered an array of new technologies and the crimes they spawn, as well as the crime-fighting tools they provide, from the nanotechnology-produced tiny but powerful weapons to the identity theft and cyber fraud of computer-savvy offenders. To stop criminals and terrorists, we will have to use the new and emerging tools to track, identify, and apprehend them before they strike. Just a few of the new tools that we have barely begun to look at for law enforcement include: biometrics, information fusion (datamining, collaboration software, artificial intelligence, etc.), sensor networks, microsurveillance cameras, UAVs.
At the same time, civil liberties must be protected. Failure to keep ahead of high-tech offenders will result in civil liberties lost either from the crimes/terrorism attacks themselves or from the backlash from frightened citizens demanding protection, even at the cost of loss of freedoms. “Stopping criminals and terrorists and protecting civil liberties are not mutually exclusive activities,” Cowper concluded. “We can accomplish both at the same time and with equal effectiveness, but it will require creative, educated, and enlightened approaches to policing, fully understanding every implication of every technology application, and wisely implementing them within the unique circumstances of our communities.”
Dr. Levin talked about his findings in his work as the first “futurist in residence” with the FBI, studying human capital development in policing with input from a survey of FBI National Academy students, and self-identified police futurists (mostly PFI members). While both groups acknowledge the need for improvement in human capital development—which consumes the majority of police managers’ time, Levin said ”the futurists wrote more about what policing could do to affect the future rather than merely coping with it.” Among his conclusions:
- The ‘military model’ police academies and organizational hierarchies in general will prove increasingly dysfunctional in the information age;
- Careers in policing will be shorter and more diverse, with increased movement between agencies;
- Because of increasing complexity of roles, career tracking will occur near or at the point of hiring;
- Much of policing will still be a blue collar enterprise attempting to join the professions, but it will be moving closer to other human services;
- Even current college textbooks on law enforcement organization and administration address the future of policing in only a page or two, if at all.
Stephens concluded the session with a review of findings from a questionnaire circulated among PFI members on the future of policing, published in the March-April 2005 issue of The Futurist (“Policing the Future: Law Enforcement’s New Challenges”). |
|
|
| |
|
|
“The Future of Higher Education Partnerships and Collaboration with Law Enforcement “ |
|
|
| |
|
|
This session explored the future potential engendered by the interactions between higher education and law enforcement. Research has shown that better educated law enforcement officers are more professional and productive. In this session, panelists explored the various innovative educational partnerships and opportunities that police agencies, universities, and colleges can use to change the way police (both trainees and veterans) learn. The wave of the future is interactive, computer-based, and group-focused, emphasizing self-paced education training.
[In-depth reports of conference contents can be found in the Fall 2005 issue of the PFI Newsletter, Police Futurist. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
