Soon after the Newark Uprising in July 1967, Governor Richard J Hughes ordered a committee to study the uprising. Many documents and testimonies were submitted to the GSCCD by both sides of the conflict: the policemen and the black community. According to Governor Hughes, the GSCCD’s report was meant to only study the causes of the uprising and to find practical solutions that would prevent similar uprisings from reoccurring1. However, the evidence founded in the report were used by many people to assess the conflict and to decide who was the victim and who was the criminal. Therefore, in reality each document in the report was a way to condemn the actions of either the police department or the members of the black community. Among these documents …show more content…
In nine points, the policy summarized the guidelines that every policeman was supposed to be using when interacting with civilians. These nine points demonstrated that the Police Department believed that all the people should have equal rights and should be treated equally regardless of their color, race, social, and economic status. The police department also claimed that policemen represent the law and are not controlled by any party in power and therefore, they are enforcing the laws “objectively without fear or favor”3. The policy also pointed out to the civilians’ right of assembly and petition as long as it is done peacefully. The Newark police reminded the people that there will be serious consequences for anyone who violates the law. All of this information was supposed to indicate that policy of the police system is unbiased and only seek justice. However, the real purpose of this document was to appeal to the members of the black community and to calm down the tension that was arising in Newark as a result of poverty and police brutality. This policy is considered a document against the police department simply because policemen did not follow it. Many policemen, prior to the uprising and after the uprising too, violated this policy and the law and yet there was not legitimate action taken against them. …show more content…
Kowalewski, who was a patrolman in the Newark Police Department for eleven years. The policy states “the police have a sworn duty to enforce the laws impartially and objectively without fear or favor”6. This statement, which suggests that policemen are only controlled by the law and not by anyone or any power, was contradicted by what Mr. Kowalewski mentioned in his statement. Mr. Kowalewski claimed that Colonel Hassan was not arrested even though he “destroyed public property”7 and when he was asked why, he failed in providing a straightforward answered, but he agreed that members of the black community, such as colonel Hassan, “are the ones today that have immunity from the law enforcement”8. Even though he mentioned that the policemen were not scared of doing their job, it was obvious that the pressure put on the police department by the people because of police brutality had a great influence on their decision of enforcing the laws. Mr. Kowaleski agreed that sometimes the laws are not applied because of fear of social pressure on the Police Department, which again contradicts the policy issued by the Police Department. If policemen were intimidated by just one man, as Mr. Kowalewski mentioned, then they are not really enforcing the law; they are just acting based on their