To truly understand and address the problem of sexual violence and other abuses of power within police forces, we must grapple with the deeper psychological and philosophical dynamics at play. History has proven that power (from a statistical perspective) corrupts, and unchecked power (as history also has shown power is hard to check) corrupts absolutely. The structure of law enforcement, with its hierarchical system, institutional protections, and culture of silence, allows misconduct to flourish. At the same time, the narratives we are given—of police as protectors—serve to obscure these abuses. Only by deconstructing these systems of power, questioning the dominant narratives, and examining the psychology of those in positions of authority can we begin to address the root causes of this systemic violence.

You want to talk about the real slaves of today? Let’s be honest, they’re not toiling in fields or building pyramids—they’re the girls these so-called protectors, these men in blue, are raping in the shadows. The ones we’re supposed to trust, the ones with the power to “fix” this whole mess? Yeah, those same guys are part of the problem, and they’re laughing all the way to their next patrol. It’s almost medieval, isn’t it? Only now, instead of lords and peasants, we’ve got cops and CEOs, and the chains are just a little less visible.

The whole idea of knowing that you know nothing is what keeps you open to learning. In an era of post-truth, where opinions masquerade as facts, the humility to say, “I might be wrong, let me keep learning” is crucial. It doesn’t mean you’re avoiding real problems; it means you’re approaching them with a more adaptable mindset.

It’s easy to think we’ve come a long way from the days of serfs and lords, but all we’ve really done is trade crowns for corporate logos, and armor for three-piece suits. The modern-day feudal lords aren’t sitting in castles—they’re lounging in boardrooms, signing contracts that keep the machine running smoothly while they watch their portfolios swell. The serfs? They’re the ones scrambling to survive, one paycheck away from disaster, drowning in debt, and told to be grateful for whatever scraps they get tossed. The gap between us and them? Just as wide as it ever was. The hierarchy? Oh, it’s still there—it just learned to speak the slick, soulless language of capitalism.

These days, feudalism’s got a new PR firm. It’s rebranded as “trickle-down economics,” as “shareholder value,” as “the free market,” but underneath the buzzwords and the buzz cuts, it’s the same damn thing. The peasants still toil for the lords, only now it’s under the illusion that one day, if they just work hard enough, they might join the ranks of the powerful. Spoiler alert: they won’t. Because the system wasn’t built to lift them up—it was built to keep them exactly where they are, right under the boot, right where the modern-day lords like them.

And the police? Let’s talk about them. They’re not here to protect the people—they’re here to protect the system. They serve the lords, not the peasants. They’re the enforcers of this sick, twisted order. They’re the ones turning a blind eye when girls go missing, when women cry out for help. Or worse, they’re the ones causing the harm, standing there in uniform like modern knights of some dark kingdom, taking whatever they want because they know no one’s going to stop them.

And we’re supposed to believe they are going to fix this?

This is the part that makes my blood boil—the idea that the very people perpetuating the problem are somehow going to be the ones to clean it up. That we’re supposed to sit back, trust the system, and let the foxes guard the henhouse. The worst part? The people at the top, the ones with the golden parachutes and corporate titles, they’ve got this whole thing sewn up so tight that they’ll never be touched. They’re cushioned by privilege, protected by laws they helped write, and held aloft by a system that rewards their every greed.

This isn’t just corruption; this is feudalism in its most insidious form. It’s a well-oiled machine designed to keep the lords fat and happy while the rest of us claw at whatever’s left. The girls who get raped, the workers who get exploited, the voices that get silenced—it’s all part of the same system. A system that pretends it’s about freedom and opportunity, but really? It’s just the same old game with new rules. And the rules are rigged.

Feudalism didn’t die. It just went corporate. The new lords don’t wear crowns, but they’ve got just as much power. And instead of peasants, they’ve got workers, consumers, and victims—people trapped in cycles of exploitation so finely tuned that they don’t even realize they’re trapped. And the worst part is, we’ve let it happen. We’ve convinced ourselves that capitalism is freedom, that the free market is the great equalizer, but all it’s really done is give the lords a shinier platform to stand on while the rest of us drown in the mud.

So yeah, the slaves of today? They’re the ones suffering at the hands of the very people we think we can trust. The feudal lords are alive and well, dressed in suits and ties, watching as the system they built continues to churn out profit at the expense of everyone else. And as long as we keep pretending the system can fix itself, as long as we keep trusting the fox to guard the henhouse, we’re just feeding the same old machine.

And let’s be clear—it’s not just the cops, the CEOs, or the politicians. It’s the whole damn structure, the invisible chains that bind us all to this hierarchy we’ve inherited. It’s the wealth hoarded at the top while the bottom burns. It’s the illusion of freedom sold to us while real power is traded behind closed doors. It’s modern-day feudalism, and it’s just as brutal as it ever was, only now it’s got better PR.

Understanding these frameworks helps reveal why it is difficult to determine the full scope of police misconduct, particularly sexual violence. The very systems designed to protect the public often serve to shield those in power from accountability. Police abuse of power, including sexual misconduct, is a serious issue, but it's also incredibly difficult to quantify due to significant underreporting, legal protections, and systemic failures in holding officers accountable. Historical examples and legal cases provide some insight into how widespread these issues are, but they also highlight why it's nearly impossible to know the full extent of the problem.

A significant factor is underreporting. Victims of police sexual misconduct may feel intimidated to come forward, particularly when their abuser is part of the institution meant to protect them. Many fear retaliation, not being believed, or further harm, especially if the officer is still in power. This, combined with qualified immunity, which protects police officers from many forms of prosecution, makes it harder to hold officers accountable for their actions.

In postmodern philosophy, there’s a deep skepticism of grand narratives—claims that one single story or system can explain everything. When it comes to abuse of power within law enforcement, this skepticism is critical. Jean Baudrillard’s concept of simulacra can help explain the way the public image of law enforcement often disguises the reality of corruption and abuse. The "official" narrative of police as protectors and enforcers of justice may, in fact, be a distortion that masks the prevalence of misconduct.

Misperception of Law Enforcement’s Role: Historically, police forces were created to protect the property and interests of the powerful, often at the expense of marginalized groups. Over time, this role has been romanticized, with police portrayed as heroic and necessary defenders of social order. However, this narrative often obscures the darker realities of how power operates within these systems.

The historical and evolutionary role of police forces has often centered around the protection of property and the enforcement of laws that maintain social hierarchies, rather than the direct service of "the people" in an egalitarian sense. This origin is particularly evident when examining the early development of police forces in Western societies, especially in North America and Europe. Below is a detailed exploration of the historical roots and evolution of policing that highlights this dynamic.

Historically, the first formalized police systems were designed to protect the interests of the wealthy and uphold property rights. This was especially true in the 18th and 19th centuries during industrialization, as capitalist economies and class disparities grew. Here are several historical contexts where the role of police was inherently tied to property control rather than the welfare of ordinary citizens:

• Slave Patrols in the U.S. South: In the United States, one of the earliest forms of organized law enforcement came in the form of slave patrols in the 1700s and 1800s. These patrols were tasked with controlling enslaved Black people, preventing rebellions, and recapturing those who tried to escape. Their primary purpose was to protect the property of slaveholders, as enslaved people were legally considered property. These patrols laid the groundwork for modern policing in the U.S., with their emphasis on enforcing racial hierarchies and protecting the interests of the ruling class. The legacy of this institution still lingers, with many scholars arguing that it informs the racial bias present in contemporary policing.

• Early British Policing and the Preservation of Property: In Britain, the origins of modern policing can be traced back to the establishment of the Metropolitan Police Force in 1829 by then Home Secretary Sir Robert Peel. Known as "Peelers" or "Bobbies," this police force was created primarily to prevent civil disorder and protect property in the rapidly growing urban centers of England during the Industrial Revolution. The concern was not primarily public safety in terms of preventing harm to individuals but rather preventing property crimes like theft and controlling the burgeoning working-class population to ensure they did not threaten the status quo or the interests of the elite.

  • Riots and Class Control: Policing in this period often centered on quelling unrest and riots that were sparked by poor working conditions, low wages, and other systemic inequalities. The role of the police was to maintain order by protecting businesses and private property, rather than addressing the root causes of inequality.

The development of police forces in the United States mirrored the British model but with additional complexities arising from race, class, and the protection of economic interests:

• Post-Reconstruction Policing: After the Civil War and the end of slavery, policing continued to play a key role in maintaining racial hierarchies. Black Codes and later Jim Crow laws were enforced through the use of police, particularly in the South, where they acted to restrict the freedoms of newly emancipated Black people and maintain a racialized system of labor that benefited white property owners.

• Labor Strikes and Union Busting: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, police forces were frequently used to suppress labor strikes and protect industrialists. For instance, during the Pullman Strike of 1894, federal troops and local police were deployed to break up strikes, leading to violent confrontations. Again, the primary function of law enforcement was to protect the property and economic interests of the wealthy industrial class, not to safeguard the rights of workers who were often living in abject conditions.

• Red Scare and Political Policing: During the First Red Scare (1917-1920), law enforcement agencies were tasked with suppressing political dissent, particularly from socialist and communist groups that threatened capitalist structures. The police were often employed to crack down on labor organizations and activists, further reinforcing their role in maintaining existing economic and political orders.

Philosophically, the role of the police can be understood through the lens of thinkers like Michel Foucault and Max Weber, who explore the relationship between authority, power, and the state.

• Foucault’s Concept of Discipline and Surveillance: In his work Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault discusses how modern institutions, including policing, operate as tools of surveillance and control, aimed at maintaining social order through discipline. The role of police is not just to react to crime but to create a system of pervasive surveillance that subtly controls the behavior of the populace, ensuring that the power dynamics of society remain unchallenged. This concept can be applied to understanding how police forces have historically functioned to control marginalized populations, ensuring that their actions do not disrupt the existing social and economic hierarchies.

• Weber’s Definition of the State: Max Weber defined the state as the entity that holds a monopoly on legitimate violence. This is particularly relevant when examining the role of police, who are the instruments of the state’s power. Police forces act as the enforcers of laws created by the state, which are often designed to protect property and maintain order in a way that favors those in power. This framework suggests that police violence, whether in the form of racial discrimination or abuse of authority, is not an aberration but a core function of their role in maintaining the state’s power over its citizens.

While the formal mission of modern police forces has shifted to “serve and protect,” the underlying structures that prioritize the protection of property over people remain. There are several key areas in which this dynamic manifests:

• Qualified Immunity and Lack of Accountability: The legal doctrine of qualified immunity protects police officers from being sued for actions performed in the line of duty, even when those actions result in harm to individuals. This creates a system where police officers are rarely held accountable for their actions, fostering a culture of impunity. This protection mirrors historical precedents where police forces were not held accountable for their role in protecting property and suppressing marginalized communities.

• Criminalization of Poverty: In many cities, police are used to enforce laws that disproportionately target poor and homeless individuals, such as loitering or vagrancy laws. These laws are often implemented at the behest of property owners and businesses, once again aligning police priorities with the protection of property rather than the welfare of vulnerable citizens.

• Militarization of the Police: In recent decades, the increasing militarization of police forces in the United States has raised concerns about their role in civil society. The use of military-grade equipment and tactics by police, particularly during protests, reinforces their role as enforcers of state power, protecting property and the interests of the elite from the perceived threat of civil unrest. This shift underscores the extent to which police are seen as protectors of the status quo, rather than guardians of individual rights.

The historical and philosophical foundations of policing reveal a consistent pattern: law enforcement has been designed to protect property, maintain social hierarchies, and control marginalized populations. While modern policing has evolved, the core function remains: the preservation of order as defined by those in power. This is why systemic abuses, including violence against civilians and the protection of property over people, continue to plague law enforcement. Understanding these origins is crucial for addressing the failures of modern policing and working towards reform that genuinely protects and serves all members of society, not just the wealthy and powerful.

Foucault’s Panopticism: Foucault’s work on the panopticon—a metaphor for the way modern society regulates behavior—can be applied to the way police departments are structured. Officers are constantly aware that they are being watched (by their superiors, the media, or the public), but this does not necessarily lead to ethical behavior. Instead, the surveillance creates a system where maintaining the appearance of control becomes more important than actual justice. This system can hide the abuses that occur, as officers become skilled at manipulating the narrative and covering up wrongdoing.

Truth and Authority: In many cases, the "truth" about police misconduct is obscured by the very structure of authority. Postmodern theorists like Lyotard have argued that those in power control the narrative by determining which voices are heard and which are silenced. Victims of police misconduct, especially in cases of sexual violence, are often silenced, both through intimidation and through the legal system’s inherent biases.

• Qualified Immunity: This legal protection serves to shield officers from many of the consequences of their actions. Even when victims come forward, the legal system is designed to protect officers, making it incredibly difficult for victims to achieve justice.

• Silencing Mechanisms: Victims of police misconduct face barriers like victim-blaming, disbelief, and fear of retaliation, which prevent them from reporting. When they do report, they may be pressured to withdraw their claims, or their cases may be mishandled, further perpetuating the cycle of abuse.

For example, a study noted that around 1,100 police officers are arrested each year for various crimes, including sexual offenses. But the actual number is likely higher due to the professional courtesy and institutional biases that shield officers from being charged in the first place. Even when they are charged, conviction rates are relatively low compared to the crimes committed, creating an environment where the abuse of power thrives​ Criminal Legal News The Crime Report.

The fact that around 1,100 police officers are arrested annually for various crimes, including sexual offenses, is alarming, and many experts suggest that the real number of offenses is likely higher due to significant underreporting. The systemic nature of police misconduct, compounded by qualified immunity, professional courtesy, and institutional protection, creates an environment where officers are shielded from scrutiny. Even when cases of police misconduct come to light, conviction rates remain relatively low, creating a cycle where officers who commit crimes, including sexual offenses, are not held accountable at the same level as civilians.

Underreporting and Barriers to Accountability

Studies and cases reveal that victims of police misconduct often don’t come forward out of fear of retaliation, intimidation, or disbelief. Police officers wield significant power over the individuals they are meant to serve and protect, and this creates a dangerous power imbalance when it comes to sexual misconduct. Victims might also fear that reporting will lead to further harm, especially if the officer remains in a position of power.

Moreover, police departments have often been accused of protecting their own. Internal investigations can be biased, and officers often receive leniency compared to the general population. Qualified immunity, which shields government officials, including police, from lawsuits unless they violated "clearly established law," provides another layer of protection. This legal doctrine makes it difficult to hold officers accountable in civil court for abuses, including sexual misconduct​ Criminal Legal News The Crime Report.

Many departments lack transparency, and internal investigations often protect officers rather than hold them accountable. This creates an environment where sexual misconduct, as well as other abuses of power, can thrive. Officers may be more likely to engage in illegal activities if they believe they will not face consequences. The culture within police forces, combined with external legal and institutional barriers to accountability, means that the actual number of officers committing crimes—including sexual misconduct—is likely underreported​ The Crime Report.

This reality makes the claim that women are more likely to be raped by a cop than anyone else plausible. However, the undercounting of crimes, police culture, and the inherent power imbalance make it nearly impossible to accurately quantify these abuses.

Additionally, historically, there have been cases like the Jon Burge torture cases in Chicago, where systemic abuse went on for decades. Officers, like Burge, tortured and framed numerous poor and minority individuals, many of whom were later exonerated. This case revealed not only the abuse but also the deep-rooted complicity of the legal system, which protected officers even after their crimes were exposed. The same patterns can be found in more recent cases, such as the Baltimore Gun Trace Task Force, which operated as a criminal enterprise for years​ Criminal Legal News.

It’s not just the individual officers that are problematic but the culture within police departments that often ignores or minimizes these behaviors. Many states still don't have adequate laws addressing police sexual misconduct, and even when laws do exist, they often only apply when a crime is proven. This means that unless there is overwhelming evidence, victims are left without recourse​

Victims of sexual misconduct by law enforcement officers often fear retaliation or further abuse, which can prevent them from coming forward. Many fear the direct consequences of reporting, such as harassment, false charges, or the possibility that the complaint won’t be taken seriously.

A report by the CATO Institute highlighted that sexual misconduct is one of the most common forms of police crime, yet it is severely underreported due to the power imbalance between the police and the victims. Fear of reprisal and lack of faith in the justice system are common reasons for this underreporting. In such a system, victims often feel that they have nowhere to turn, which perpetuates the cycle of abuse.

The legal system, in many instances, does appear to protect those in positions of authority more than it safeguards victims. There are several institutional reasons for this:

• Qualified Immunity: This legal doctrine often shields law enforcement officers from personal liability unless they violated "clearly established law." This makes it incredibly difficult for victims of police misconduct to sue the officers responsible for their abuse.

• Internal Affairs Investigations: Many complaints of police misconduct are handled internally by police departments, which can lead to conflicts of interest. Officers are often reluctant to hold their colleagues accountable, and investigations may be biased in favor of the accused.

• Prosecutorial Reluctance: Prosecutors often work closely with the police, which can lead to hesitancy in pursuing cases against officers for fear of damaging their working relationships.

Police officers hold significant power in society, and this power can be misused in ways that exploit vulnerable populations, such as women, people of color, or those in low-income communities. The inherent power imbalance between law enforcement and civilians can create situations where individuals feel coerced or unable to refuse advances, a dynamic well-documented in cases of sexual violence committed by police.

For example, research by Human Rights Watch has documented numerous cases where police officers have abused their authority to coerce sex or commit sexual violence, often targeting marginalized women like sex workers. These victims are less likely to report abuse due to their marginalized status.

This issue isn’t new. Historically, law enforcement agencies have often acted with impunity when it comes to sexual violence. Several high-profile cases have brought attention to the problem, such as the 2015 conviction of Daniel Holtzclaw, an Oklahoma City police officer who was found guilty of sexually assaulting several women, many of whom were Black and came from low-income backgrounds. These women were often selected because they were seen as less likely to be believed if they reported the crime.

• Independent Oversight: Strengthening independent police oversight bodies can ensure that complaints of sexual violence by law enforcement are investigated fairly and without bias.

• Training and Education: Training officers to recognize and prevent sexual misconduct, and providing clear avenues for victims to report abuse without fear, can help reduce this problem.

• Legal Reform: Addressing legal doctrines like qualified immunity and enhancing the accountability of law enforcement through clearer legislation are vital steps.

Addressing sexual misconduct by law enforcement requires acknowledging the systemic power imbalance and creating more robust, transparent systems to support victims. Research will need to focus on gathering more reliable data to better understand the scope of the problem while advocating for legal reforms that make it easier to hold officers accountable.