Police, state, and federal authorities are responsible for holding police officers accountable for abusive acts: police officials must ensure that police officers are punished when they violate administrative rules, while state and federal prosecutors must prosecute criminal acts committed by officers. All of these officials are also responsible for requiring that the conduct of police officers meet international human rights standards and comply with human rights treaties by which the U.S. is bound, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture. While only the federal government is responsible for reporting internationally on U.S. compliance with these treaties, local and state officials share responsibility for ensuring compliance within their jurisdictions.

Federal Aid Policy: It is common under federal law to condition a grant to state and municipal entities on compliance with provisions of federal law. It is also common for the U.S. government, pursuant to legislation on human rights, to condition foreign aid on other governments' compliance with international human rights practices. We believe that such conditionality is appropriate in the case of the rights to life, physical integrity, and humane treatment of persons in the United States - rights protected under international treaties, the U.S. Constitution, and under U.S. civil rights law. Directly and indirectly, local police departments receive billions of dollars annually in federal grants to support training, community relations, personnel hiring, and equipment purchases.

Congress should pass legislation that would withhold these funds from police departments or receiving cities unless they provide data regarding the use of excessive force - data that the Justice Department has failed to compile even though Congress instructed it to do so in 1994.

Congress should also pass legislation that would withhold grants if it can be shown that the police department requesting the funding fails to fully respect human rights. Specifically, when the Justice Department, as part of its new "pattern or practice" investigations, identifies widespread human rights violations in a police department, federal funding to that department should be ended if the police department fails, or demonstrates its unwillingness, to implement reforms. Congress should also consider conditioning federal funds on all recipient police departments' demonstrable progress in adopting the reforms set out in agreements already made by the Justice Department with two police departments under the "pattern or practice" review, such as to create and utilize "early warning systems" to identify officers who are repeatedly the object of citizen complaints and including civil lawsuits against officers as part of the "early warning" tracking system; to develop and implement a use of force policy that is in compliance with applicable law and current professional standards; to require officers to file appropriate use offorce and other reports; to conduct regular audits and reviews of potential racial bias, including the use of racial epithets by officers; to apply appropriate discipline following sustained complaints; and to appoint an independent auditor to ensure improvements. Since the Justice Department has endorsed these standards for some departments as essential for improved accountability, all police departments should be rewarded for taking demonstrable steps toward implementing similar procedures.

In the three areas we have highlighted - obstacles to justice, problems of investigation and discipline, and public accountability and transparency - we recommend the following changes.