How we can make racism a solvable problem -- and improve policing | Dr. Phillip Atiba Goff

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Zoe Chang

When people meet me for the first time on my job,

我常在工作場合碰到陌生人，

they often feel inspired to share a revelation they've had about me,

迫不及待告知他們對我的第一印象，

and it kind of goes something like this.

內容都差不多是：

"Hey, I know why police chiefs

「嘿，我知道為什麼警察局長

like to share their deep, dark secrets with you.

會跟你說他們不可告人的秘密。

Phil, with your PhD in psychology,

菲爾，你有心理學博士學位

and your shiny bald head,

和閃閃動人的光頭，

you're basically the Black Dr. Phil, right?"

你根本就是黑人版的 菲爾博士，對吧？」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And for each and every person who's ever said that to me

我要謝謝每一個對我說過這番話的人，

I do want to say thank you

因為你們每一個都是 第一個告訴我這個笑話的人。

because that was the first time I ever heard that joke.

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

至於其他人，我真心希望你們相信，

But for everybody else, I really hope you'll believe me

when I tell you no police chief likes talking to me

沒有任何一個 警察局長喜歡跟我講話，

因為他們以為我是臨床心理學家。

because they think I'm a clinical psychologist.

And also I'm not.

但其實我真的不是。

I have no idea what your mother did to you, and I can't help.

我無法一眼看穿你跟你媽的 親子關係，我也幫不了你。

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

Police chiefs like talking to me

警察局長喜歡跟我講話，

because I'm an expert on a problem that feels impossible for them to solve:

是因為我是處理某類 他們無法解決的問題的專家：

racism in their profession.

種族歧視。

Now my expertise comes from being a scientist

我的專業其實來自我的科學家身分，

who studies how our minds learn to associate Blackness and crime

我研究為什麼人類大腦 自動把黑人與犯罪畫上等號，

and misperceive Black children as older than they actually are.

以及為何誤判黑人孩童， 以為他們比實際年齡大。

It also comes from studying actual police behavior,

我同時也研究警察的行為表現，

which is how I know that every year,

這就是我為什麼知道，每一年，

about one in five adults in the United States

在美國平均五個成人中就有一個

has contact with law enforcement.

會碰上執法人員。

Out of those, about a million are targeted for police use of force.

其中有約一百萬人列名 警察可以使用武力的名單。

And if you're Black,

而且，如果你是黑人，

you're two to four times more likely to be targeted for that force

你比白人碰到警察武力的比例 又高出二到四倍。

than if you're white.

同時，我的專業讓我看到 這些統計數字時感覺更深。

But it also comes from knowing what those statistics feel like.

I've experienced the fear of seeing an officer unclip their gun

我在看見警官解開槍套時恐懼不已，

and the panic of realizing that someone might mistake my 13-year-old godson

恐慌他們是否會誤以為 我那才十三歲的教子

as old enough to be a threat.

已經大到對他們可能構成威脅時。

So when a police chief,

所以，每當警察局長，

or a pastor,

還是基督教的牧師，

或者穆斯林的伊瑪目， 還是任何人的母親打電話給我──

or an imam, or a mother --

when they call me after an officer shoots another unarmed Black child,

又一個警察對 手無寸鐵的黑人孩子開槍──

I understand a bit of the pain in their voice.

我能了解他們聲音中的痛苦。

It's the pain of a heart breaking when it fails to solve a deadly problem.

心碎的痛苦來自無法解決 這個致命的問題。

Breaking from trying to do something

心碎是因為試圖要改善現況，

that feels simultaneously necessary and impossible.

那個需要是如此迫切，

卻無法達成的。

只要碰到種族歧視問題時 總是同樣的感覺──

The way trying to fix racism usually feels.

Necessary and impossible.

必須改變現狀，卻不可能。

So, police chiefs like talking to me because I'm an expert,

所以警察局長喜歡找我談， 是因為我是專家，

但是，如果我直說問題有多絕望，

but I doubt they'd be lining up to lie down on Dr. Phil's couch

我猜他們會寧願排隊 去躺菲爾博士的沙發。

if I told them all their problems were hopeless.

All of my research,

我所有的研究，

and the decade of work I've done with my center --

以及十年來我在 公平執法中心的工作，

the Center for Policing Equity --

讓我從美國這些 悲傷的種族歧視故事中，

actually leads me to a hopeful conclusion

amidst all the heartbreak of race in America,

得出一個有希望的結論，

which is this:

那就是：

trying to solve racism feels impossible

消滅種族歧視似乎不可能，

because our definition of racism makes it impossible --

是因為我們對種族歧視的定義 讓它顯得無法被消滅──

but it doesn't have to be that way.

但不一定如此。

So here's what I mean.

我的意思是，種族歧視 最常見的定義就是

The most common definition of racism

is that racist behaviors are the product of contaminated hearts and minds.

種族歧視的行為是 心態及想法受汙染後的產物。

When you listen to the way we talk about trying to cure racism,

光聽到我們討論如何 解決種族歧視，你就知道了。

you'll hear it.

「我們必須剷除仇恨」

"We need to stamp out hatred.

We need to combat ignorance," right?

「我們必須消滅偏見」 聽到了嗎？

It's hearts and minds.

問題在心態和想法。

Now the only problem with that definition is that it's completely wrong --

這個定義唯一的問題，

就是它完完全全錯了── 無論是從科學還是其他方面都錯了。

both scientifically and otherwise.

One of the foundational insights of social psychology

社會心理學的基本洞見之一就是：

is that attitudes are very weak predictors of behaviors,

態度不太能夠用來預測行為，

but more importantly than that,

但，更重要的是，

no Black community has ever taken to the streets

從沒有任何黑人團體走上街頭，

to demand that white people would love us more.

要求白人多愛我們一點。

Communities march to stop the killing,

黑人團體走上街頭的訴求是停止殺戮，

because racism is about behaviors, not feelings.

因為種族歧視的重點 在於行為，而非情感。

And even when civil rights leaders

即便過去的民權領袖，

like King and Fannie Lou Hamer used the language of love,

金恩博士和芬妮·露·哈默 訴諸「愛」的語言，

the racism they fought,

他們所對抗的種族歧視

that was segregation and brutality.

一樣是種族隔離和暴行。

It's actions over feelings.

行動勝過情感。

And every one of those leaders would agree,

我想所有的人權領袖皆會同意，

if a definition of racism makes it harder to see

如果是種族歧視的定義導致

the injuries racism causes,

大家看不到種族歧視所帶來的傷害，

that's not just wrong.

那麼這定義本身就不僅是錯而已。

A definition that cares about the intentions of abusers

如果這個定義著眼點在 施暴者的意圖，

more than the harms to the abused --

多過被受害者所受的傷害，

that definition of racism is racist.

那麼這個定義本身就已經帶有歧視了。

But when we change the definition of racism from attitudes to behaviors,

但，若我們改一下種族歧視的定義，

把重點從「態度」改成「行為」，

we transform that problem from impossible to solvable.

問題就從「不可能」變成「可解決」。

Because you can measure behaviors.

因為「行為」是可以測量的。

And when you can measure a problem,

當問題本身能被量化，

你就能運用放諸四海皆準的 組織成功的法則之一。

you can tap into one of the only universal rules of organizational success.

You've got a problem or a goal, you measure it,

先將問題還是目標量化， 再要求自己達到目標。

you hold yourself accountable to that metric.

So if every other organization measures success this way,

如果這法則已經在所有 其他組織證實可用，

why can't we do that in policing?

我們何不也用在警方執法上？

It turns out we actually already do.

事實證明，其實早已開始。

Police departments already practice data-driven accountability,

警察部門早已開始 運用數據分析，

it's just for crime.

僅只用在犯罪範圍。

The vast majority of police departments across the United States

美國大部分的警察局

use a system called CompStat.

使用名為 CompStat 的系統。

It's a process that, when you use it right,

如果你懂得怎麼使用，

it identifies crime data,

它可以分析辨視犯罪數據，

it tracks it and identifies patterns,

追蹤、並找出犯罪模式，

and then it allows departments to hold themselves accountable

這個系統讓警察單位在

達成公共安全目標上有據可循。

to public safety goals.

It usually works either by directing police attentions and police resources,

這個系統的成效需要配合 警力資源的導引分配，

或者說改變警察的應對行為。

or changing police behavior once they show up.

So if I see a string of muggings in that neighborhood,

比方說如果在同一個社區 連續發生搶劫案，

I'm going to want to increase patrols in that neighborhood.

我們就得增加該社區的巡邏。

又若是殺人案激增，

If I see a spike in homicides,

I'm going to want to talk to the community to find out why

我們就得和社區對談， 找出原因及合作方式，

and collaborate on changes on police behavior to tamp down the violence.

同時改變警察的運作方式， 一起減少暴力。

Now when you define racism in terms of measurable behaviors,

如果要重新定義 種族歧視，將行為量化，

you can do the same thing.

也可以用同樣的原理，

You can create a CompStat for justice.

打造一套專為司法公正 所用的 CompStat 系統。

That's exactly what the Center for Policing Equity has been doing.

這正是公平執法中心 一直在做的事。

讓我說明一下運作方式。

So let me tell you how that works.

每當警察局邀請我們加入後，

After a police department invites us in,

我們負責法律相關事務， 建立和社區的連結互動，

we handle the legal stuff, we engage with the community,

再來就是分析數據，

our next step is to analyze their data.

The goal of these analyses is to determine

目的是要找出

how much do crime, poverty, neighborhood demographics

社區的犯罪率、貧困指數、 與社區人口結構等因素

predict, let's say, police use of force?

能否預測出警察使用武力的機率？

Let's say that those factors predict

比方說我們用這些因素推算出

police will use force on this many Black people.

警察會對多少黑人使用武力。

There?

OK？

So our next question is,

下一個問題是，

how many Black people actually are targeted

實際上有多少黑人真的成為 警察武力的目標？

for police use of force?

假設有這麼多好了。

Let's say it's this many.

So what's up with the gap?

那中間這個差距是怎麼回事？

Well, a big portion of the gap is the difference

這個差距有很大一部分

between what's predicted by things police can't control

是來自於預測結果並不包含 警察無法控制的因素，

and what's predicted by things police can control --

及警察可控制的因素── 原則及應對方式──

their policies and their behaviors.

And what we're looking for are the types of contact

而我們希望找到的就是 最常發生衝突的方式

or the areas in the city

或是哪個區域，差距特別明顯，

where that gap is biggest,

because then we can tell our partners,

這樣就能回報給警察單位：

"Look here. Solve this problem first."

「看到了嗎？先解決這個問題吧。」

It's actually the kind of therapy police chiefs can get behind,

這作法其實最受到警察局長的支持，

because there is nothing so inspiring in the face of our history of racism

種族歧視的問題歷史悠久，

沒有什麼能比解決它 更鼓舞人心了。

as a solvable problem.

Look, if the community in Minneapolis asked their police department

如果明尼亞波里斯的人 跟他們的警政單位說：

to remedy the moral failings of race in policing,

請改善執法時 在種族方面的道德疏失，

I'm not sure they know how to do that.

我不確定警政單位是否能懂。

But if instead the community says,

但，如果將問題改成：

"Hey, you're data say you're beating up a lot of homeless folks.

「嘿，你們的數據顯示 你們毆打無辜遊民，

可以別再這樣做了嗎？」

You want to knock that off?"

That's something police can learn how to do.

這正是警察可以改進的地方，

And they did.

而他們也做到了。

So in 2015, the Minneapolis PD let us know

2015 年，明尼亞波里斯 警察單位告訴我們，

their community was concerned they were using force too often.

當地社區反映警方使用武力 似乎太頻繁了。

So we showed them how to leverage their own data

於是我們教他們如何 運用警方現有的數據，

to identify situations where force could be avoided.

判斷哪些情況下其實 能不必使用武力。

And when you look at those data,

你如果仔細分析數據，

you'll see that a disproportionate number of their use-of-force incidents,

就會發現使用武力的數據 與實際需求不成比例，

they involved somebody who's homeless, in mental distress,

因為很多時候是遊民、 精神狀態有問題者、吸毒的人，

has a substance abuse issue or some combination of all three --

甚至是這三項的組合──

more than you expect

警方對他們使用武力的數字 遠高過你所預期，

based on those factors I was just telling you about.

這僅僅是我剛提過的那三類而已。

So right there's the gap.

對，這中間的確有落差。

Next question is why.

下一個問題是：為什麼？

Well, it turns out homeless folks often need services.

我們發現，遊民肇事的起因 常常是來自缺乏協助。

And when those services are unavailable, when they can't get their meds,

當他們得不到所需的服務，

比方說藥品，還是失去 他們在庇護所的床位，

they lose their spot in the shelter,

they're more likely to engage in behaviors that end up with folks calling the cops.

他們就可能做出讓人報警處理的行為。

And when the cops show up,

警察出現，

they're more likely to resist intervention,

更加讓他們反抗警察的干預，

oftentimes because they haven't actually done anything illegal,

因為他們覺得他們並沒有犯法，

they're literally just living outside.

他們實際上只是住在外面。

The problem wasn't a need to train officers differently in Minneapolis.

解決問題的方法不是重新訓練 明尼亞波里斯的警力。

The problem was the fact that folks were using the cops

因為問題出在報警的人身上，

to "treat" substance abuse and homelessness in the first place.

他們用報警來「處理」 吸毒和遊民的問題。

So the city of Minneapolis found a way to deliver social services

最後，明尼亞波里斯市 找到解決辦法：

將社會服務及城市資源

and city resources

to the homeless community before anybody ever called the cops.

在任何人報警之前 就先提供給遊民。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Now the problem isn't always homelessness, right?

問題的來源並不只有遊民，對吧？

Sometimes the problem is fear of immigration enforcement,

有時候問題是擔心移民局前來執法，

like it was in Salt Lake City, or it is in Houston,

比方說過去的鹽湖城 還是現在的休士頓，

where the chiefs had to come forward

警政署長必須站出來說：

and say, "We're not going to deport you just for calling 911."

「我們不會因為你打 一一九就將你驅逐。」

Or the problem is foot pursuits,

有時問題可能出在徒步追捕，

like it was in Las Vegas,

比方說在拉斯維加斯，

where they had to train their officers to slow down and take a breath

警官要訓練慢下來，深呼吸，

instead of allowing the adrenaline in that situation to escalate it.

避免腎上腺素飆升 讓情況越演越烈。

It's searches in Oakland;

奧克蘭的問題來自搜索行動；

it's pulling folks out of cars in San Jose;

聖荷西的問題則是把人拉出車外；

it's the way that they patrol the neighborhoods

在匹茲堡擁有獨特 巡邏方式的第三區

that make up Zone 3 in Pittsburgh

and the Black neighborhoods closest to the waterfront in Baltimore.

還有巴爾的摩離水岸 最近的黑人社區。

But in each city,

我們只要幫每個城市把問題 從「不可能」變成「可解決」，

if we can give them a solvable problem,

they get busy solving it.

他們就會立即展開行動。

And together our partners have seen an average of 25 percent fewer arrests,

跟我們合作的警政單位 目前已經達到：

平均逮捕率下降 25%， 使用武力案數減少，

fewer use-of-force incidents

and 13 percent fewer officer-related injuries.

因警力造成的受傷案例 也下降了 13%。

Essentially, by identifying the biggest gaps

基本上，藉由找出最大的落差，

and directing police attentions to solving it,

再投入警察的人力跟資源去解決，

we can deliver a data-driven vaccine against racial disparities in policing.

有點像做出一個 以數據為基礎的疫苗，

用來抵抗執法上碰到的 種族差別待遇問題。

Right now, we have the capacity to partner with about 40 cities at a time.

目前，

我們的資源能同時 與大約四十個城市合作。

That means if we want the United States to stop feeling exhausted

也就是說，如果我們希望

美國可以停止浪費精力 在不可能解決的問題上，

from trying to solve an impossible problem,

we're going to need a lot more infrastructure.

我們需要大大地擴充現有的規模。

Because our goal is to have our tools be able to scale

因為下一個目標應該是

讓我們的工具能夠協助及發揚

the brilliance of dedicated organizers

熱衷投入的組織者 與亟欲革新的警察局長的才智。

and reform-minded chiefs.

So to get there we're going to need the kind of collective will

要達到目標，我們需要展現 之前用來廢除種族隔離學校、

that desegregated schools

and won the franchise for the sons and daughters of former slaves

以及為奴隸後代贏得公民權的 那種集體意志，

只有這樣，我們才能打造出 一個類似健康照護的體制，

so that we can build a kind of health care system

將我們的消滅種族歧視的 警政疫苗傳送到全國各地。

capable of delivering our vaccine across the country.

Because our audacious idea

因為我們有個大膽想法，

is to deliver a CompStat for justice

我們想將這套為司法公正 設計的 CompStat 系統，

to departments serving 100 million people across the United States

交給服務全美一億人民的警察局，

in the next five years.

目標是在五年內完成。

(Applause and cheers)

Doing that would mean arming about a third of the United States

如此做之後，全美會有大約 三分之一擁有這個工具，

with tools to reduce racial disparities in police stops, arrests and use of force,

來減少警察在攔檢、逮捕、 使用武力時的種族差異對待，

but also tools to reduce predatory cash bail

這個工具也能減少 貪婪高昂的保釋金，

and mass incarceration,

監獄人滿為患、家庭破裂，

family instability

慢性精神疾病和藥物濫用，

and chronic mental health and substance abuse issues,

and every other ill that our broken criminal-legal systems aggravate.

以及所有因為千瘡百孔的 刑事法律制度而更惡化的問題。

Because every unnecessary arrest we can prevent

因為每發生一件不必要的逮捕，

saves a family from the terrifying journey through each one of those systems.

就有個家庭得經歷、 飽受這個體制的摧殘。

Just like every gun we can leave holstered

或者說，每減少一次拔槍的機會，

saves an entire community from a lifetime of grief.

或許就能免除整個社會沉痛終生。

Look, each and every one of us,

真的，我們每一個人

we measure the things that matter to us.

都會衡量評估我們在乎的事物。

Businesses measure profit;

就像企業評估獲利，

good students keep track of their grades;

好學生追蹤紀錄自己的成績，

families chart the growth of their children

父母也把孩子的身高記錄下來，

with pencil markings in doorframes.

在門框上用鉛筆畫記號。

We all measure the things that matter most to us,

我們都會去測量追蹤 我們最在乎的事物，

which is why we feel the neglect

因此當沒有人在乎衡量 我們在乎的事物時，

我們感到被忽視。

when nobody's bothering to measure anything at all.

For the past quarter millennium,

在過去二十五年間，

we've defined the problems of race and policing

我們對於種族及執法問題的定義，

in a way that's functionally impossible to measure.

讓這些問題在執行面無法被測量。

But now the science says we can just change that definition.

但今天科學的發展顯示 我們可以改寫那定義。

And the folks at the Center for Policing Equity,

我們在公平執法中心，

對警察行為表現所做的數據測量，

I actually think we may have measured

more police behavior than any one in human history.

已經遠遠超過有史以來任何人了。

And that means that once we have the will

這也就是說，

只要我們有意願、

and the resources to do it,

有資源來做這件事，

this could be the generation

我們這個世代就有可能

that stops feeling like racism is an unsolvable problem

逆轉種族歧視── 這個無法解決的問題，

and instead sees

讓期待已久的、

that what's been necessary for far too long is possible.

必須的執法公平

變成可能的未來。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲及歡呼）