As long as humanity has had a civilization, there has been a need for a set of laws for us to follow & consequently a group of people to help enforce those laws. Whether they were humane or not!
According to Richard Lundman, the development of formal policing came from a process of 3 developmental stages;
1. Informal policing- all members of a society share equally in the responsibility for providing protection & keeping order.
2. Transitional policing- when police functions are informally assigned to particular members of society. This stage serves as a transition into formal policing.
3. Formal policing- Specific members of the community assume formal responsibility for protection & social control.
As societies evolved from mechanical or members that share similar beliefs & values but meet their basic needs independently, to organic, where members are dependent upon one another as a result of specialization, social control became more complex.
Organic societies grew into states & governments. A state is defined as "a political creation that has the recognized authority to use & maintain a monopoly on the use of force within a clearly defined jurisdiction," while a government is a "political institution of the state that uses organization, bureaucracy, & formality to regulate social interactions" (Gaines et al., p. 1).
Formal policing began with the organization of societies into states & governments. Which form of government was present had a heavy influence on the structure of police organizations. As Lang-worthy & Travis have argued, "since all police systems rely on state authority, the source of state power ultimately represents the basis of police authority as well" (p. 42).
Shelly suggests that there are 4 different models of policing & each established a different type of police force; communist, Anglo-Saxon, continental, & colonial. Each 1 differs based on their source of legitimacy, organizational structure, & police function.
1. The communist model of policing obtains legitimacy through the communist political party, is organized as a centralized, armed militarized force, & performs the functions of crime control & enforcement of state ideology.
2. The continental & colonial models have similar organizational structures & functions as the communist model, however the continental model obtains its legitimacy through the central government while the colonial model establishes legitimacy through the colonial authority.
3. The Anglo-Saxon model obtains legitimacy through local governments & is based in law. This model is organized as a decentralized force that is armed in some countries (United States) & not in others (England). Finally, police functions in this model include crime control, order maintenance, & welfare & administrative responsibilities.
To police means to maintain law & order, however the word derives from polis- the Greek word for "city," of "polity"- by way of politia, the Latin for "citizenship," & it entered English from the Middle French police, which meant not constables but government.
"The police," as a civil force charged with deterring crime, came to the United States from England & is generally associated with monarchy- 'keeping the king's peace.' Long before anyone called for the abolition of the police, it had to be invented. The ancient Greek polis had to become the modern police. To live in a polis, meant that everything was decided through words & persuasion & not through force & violence.
Hannah Arendt wrote in "The Human Condition." In the polis, men argued & debated, as equals, under a rule of law. Outside the polis, in the households, men dominated women, children, servants, & slaves, under a rule of force. Kings asserted a rule of force over their subjects on the idea that their kingdom was their household.
In 1769, William Blackstone, in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England," argued that the king, as "pater-familias of the nation," directs "the public police," exercising the means by which "the individuals of the state, like member of a well-governed family, are bound to conform their general behavior to the rules of propriety, good neighborhood, & good manners; & to be decent, industrious, & inoffensive in their respective stations."
The police are the king's men. History begins with etymology, but it doesn't end there. The polis is not the police. The American Revolution toppled the power of the king over his people- in America, "the law is king," Thomas Paine wrote- but not the power of a man over his family. The power of the police has its origins in that kind of power. Under the rule of law, people are equals; under the rule of police, as the legal theorist Markus Dubber has written, we are not. We are more like the women, children, servants, & slaves in a household in ancient Greece, the people who were not allowed to be a part of the polis.
Early Policing in England
Up until the mid-1800s, law enforcement in England was the responsibility of local citizens. From the 1066 invasion & conquering of England by William Duke of Normandy to the 1300s, police services were provided through the frankpledge system. This system appointed citizens with the responsibility of maintaining order & controlling crime. The men were put into groups of 10 called a tything. 10 tythings were grouped into 100 & were supervised by a constable. Groups of 10 100's created a shire, controlled by reeves. The word shire-reeve is actually the derivative of our current term sheriff (Uchida). In 1215, King John was forced to sigh the Magna Carta, a document that guaranteed basic civil rights to citizens. These guaranteed rights limited the power of the throne & their appointees, & greatly contributed to many of the liberties citizens of England & America enjoy today.
England increased its participation in world trade during the 1500s & thru the 1700s more citizens moved into the cities & crime began to rise. Despite England having 1 of the harshest criminal justice systems of its time, which included death sentences for minor crimes, crime & disorder continued to rise. A lot of people started hiring their own private police, & the king began a system of night watch for the large cities. The 1st formal taxation system for the purpose of law enforcement was introduced in 1737. City councils were given permission to levy taxes to pay for a night watch system. Despite this, crime continued to rise & the need for a different system of policing was clear.
The beginning of "modern" policing in England
When discussing the development of the 1st modern police force in England, there are generally 3 names that come up- Henry Fielding, Patrick Colquhoun, & Sir Robert Peel. Henry Fielding was a playwright & novelist that accepted a position as magistrate deputy of Bow Street Court in 1748. There are 2 major contributions to the field of policing that he is credited for.
1st, he advocated change & spread awareness about social & criminal problems through his writings.
2nd, he organized a group of paid nonuniformed citizens who were responsible for investigating crimes & prosecuting offenders.
The group became known as the Bow Street Runners. They were the 1st group that were paid using public funds that emphasized crime prevention in addition to crime investigation & apprehension of criminals. In the past citizens responsible for social control simply reacted to crimes, the Bow Street Runners added the responsibility of preventing crime through preventive patrol, considerably changing the system of policing.
In spite of the Bow Street Runners' efforts, Many English citizens were against developing a police force. They had 2 reasons for this:
1. The importance placed on individual liberties.
2. the English tradition of local government.
A Scottish magistrate, Patrick Colquhoun, reconciled these issues by developing the science of policing in the late 1700s. Colquhoun Suggested that police functions must include detection of crime, apprehension of offenders, & prevention of crime through their presence in public.
Colquhoun also argued that highly regulated police forces should form their own separate unit within the government. Also, judicial officers could provide oversight & control police powers if they were organized as a separate unit within the government, in effect proposing the separation of powers controlled through a system of checks & balances.
The theory of the social contract suggests that individual members of a society enter into a contract with their government where governments are responsible for providing protection & maintaining social order. In exchange for this protection, members of the society agree to relinquish some of their rights, including the right to protect their own interests through the use of force. Democratic societies are structured systems based on the balance between individual rights & the collective needs of those societies. In modern societies, the police are the agents responsible for maintaining that balance.
Even though the science behind policing was good, there were still issues regarding the English tradition of local government control. Sir Robert Peel addressed this issue by establishing the 1st modern police force in England under the Metropolitan Police Act. The bill passed Parliament in 1829 & created a single authority responsible for policing within the city limits of London. This force began with 1,000 officers divided into 6 divisions that were headquartered at Scotland Yard. The officers were known as "Bobbies." They were uniformed & introduced new elements into policing that became the basis for modern police. The County Police Act of 1839 allowed the creation of similar police forces in other localities, where responsibility & costs for the agencies were shared by the central & local governments.
There were 3 new elements of the English police forces that are important for modern policing;
1st, their mission was crime prevention & control. The philosophy that it was better to prevent crime than simply respond to it greatly influenced the role of modern police officers.
2nd, their strategy was to maintain a visible presence through preventive patrol.
3rd, forming a quasi-military organizational structure. The organizational structure of the London police was borrowed from the military, including uniforms, rank designations, & the authoritarian system of command & discipline.
Early policing in colonial America
Colonial America saw a similar development in law enforcement as England. Law enforcement was considered a local responsibility. The colonies established a system of night watch to guard cities against fire, crime, & disorder. There were also sheriffs appointed by the governor & constables elected by the people. They were responsible for maintaining order & providing other services. The following were problems that plagued colonial cities & was considered the responsibility of the police:
1. Controlling slaves & Indians.
2. Maintaining order.
3. Regulating specialized functions such as selling in the market & delivering goods.
4. Maintaining health & sanitation.
5. Managing pests & other animals.
6. Ensuring the orderly use of streets by vehicles.
7. Controlling liquor, gambling, vice, & weapons; and keeping watch for fires.
While night watch groups were being established in the northern colonies, groups of white men were organizing slave patrols in the southern colonies. Their responsibility was to control, return & punish runaway slaves. These groups helped maintain the economic order in the southern colonies. They are generally considered to be the 1st "modern" police organizations in the country.
Policing on the western frontier varied widely. Settlers that came from northern colonies would create marshals & police forces similar to those in northern colonies, while settlers from southern colonies developed systems with sheriffs & posses. However, many western settlements had no formal organized law enforcement. These areas were ruled by groups of vigilantes that were formed by volunteer citizens to combat any threat to the order of the settlements. These groups help influence collective social norms, including the lack of respect for the law.
The 1800s brought changes in American society & forced changes in law enforcement. Industrialization, urbanization, & immigration helped change this country from a primarily homogenous, agrarian society to a heterogeneous, urban 1. Citizens left rural areas for the cities in search of employment. Hundred of thousands of immigrants came to reside in America. Unsanitary living conditions & poverty were normal in American cities. Urban areas were filled with predominately poor immigrants who saw increases in crime & disorder. This resulted in a series of riots throughout the 1830s in numerous American cities. These riots illustrated the need for larger & better organized law enforcement. Both the watch systems in the north & the slave patrols in the south began to evolve into our modern police organizations that were heavily influenced by modern departments developing in England at the same time.
"Modern" policing in America
The 1st modern police forces in America were heavily borrowed from those established in England. American law enforcement agencies adopted:
1. the mission of crime prevention & control.
2. The strategy of preventive patrol.
3. The quasi-military organizational design of the 1st modern police department established in London.
4. The tradition that police have some limitations on their authority.
5. Local control of police agencies.
The protection of individual liberties was highly emphasized in both England & America, therefore limits were placed on governmental & police authority. Other European countries did not feel this way & police agencies were given broader powers & citizens had fewer individual liberties. Although many other countries have 1 centralized, national law enforcement agency, the English & American systems don't. In the American system of law enforcement, police are controlled at the local, state, & federal level, although the majority of departments are local municipalities.
A related feature of American policing adopted from English heritage is a highly decentralized & fragmented system of law enforcement. According to 1993 figures, there are nearly 20,000 different law enforcement agencies within the United States. Lack of coordination & cooperation among local law enforcement agencies is generally characteristic of the American system of law enforcement. These 3 elements combined with the quasi-military organizational structure of modern departments in England, describe the Anglo-Saxon model of policing.
There are some differences between the British & American systems of law enforcement. 1 of the most significant differences is the absence of strong political influences over police organizations in England, compared to the strong relationship between the 2 in America. Policing during the 19th century in America has been described as inefficient, ineffective, lacking professionalism, & highly corrupt.
The evolution of policing in America has been written about by many scholars. While the historical facts are not disputed, how these events are interpreted are. We are going to focus on 3 distinct eras in the evolution of policing in America.
Political, Reform, & Community
The political era
American policing in the late 19th century was plagued with political influence. Supporters of local politicians were rewarded positions on the police force for their support & positions & promotions could simply be bought. Unfortunately, this meant the ethnic & religious composition of police forces reflected the groups who had local political influence. Police officers received:
1. Little to no training.
2. No recruitment standards to speak of.
3. No job security, because officers could be hired or fired at will.
Corruption was a major characteristic of policing during this time. Everyone from low ranking officers to high ranking officers & even entire departments were involved in corruption & misconduct. It was even common for officers to accept bribes to look the other way & not enforce many moral crimes. Due to officers' reliance on foot patrol with no effective communication system & little direct supervision police work during this time was hopelessly inefficient.
Due to the lack of official oversight officers often evaded work which lead to citizens having difficulty contacting the police. The police were good at providing a variety of social services to citizens, including feeding the hungry & housing the homeless. Furthermore, he suggests that police frequently used physical force and enjoyed little citizen respect.
During this time period, increases in citizen violence finally led to the adoption of weapons carried by police officers. Surprisingly, the daily duties of patrol officers during this time did not differ significantly from activities performed by patrol officers today. It appears that officers during the political era spent little time handling major problems or serious incidents and rarely invoked the legal system. This is also true of patrol officers today.
The Reform Era
The 20th century brought dramatic change to the police. There were 3 principle forces underlying this change:
1. The police professionalism movement
2. Modern technologies
3. The civil rights movement
Some scholars suggest that police reform was the result of:
1. Investigative commissions
2. Reform initiated by police administrators
3. Political reform in general
The early 1900s brought a broad social & political movement in America. Progressivism, was bringing attention to & demanding reform across a broad spectrum of social problems. Progressives believed the government was responsible for improving the living conditions of citizens. They called for:
1. The regulation of big business & corrupt politics.
2. Changes in labor laws.
3. Improvements across all social welfare services.
4. The professionalization of police forces.
The Professionalization movement sought to reform the inefficient & corrupt police agencies that had developed during the 19th century. This reform era brought a total restructuring of police departments & a redefinition of the police role due to the perceived failure of police to enforce the law. The reformers sought to:
1. Eliminate political influences
2. Hire qualified leaders
3. Raise personnel standards
4. Called for a mission of nonpartisan public service & restructuring of police organizations through the use of the principles of scientific management & the development of specialized units.
There were several prominent police reforms during this time period that had a significant influence on policing.
1. Richard Sylvester, superintendent of the Washington, D.C., Police Department from 1898 to 1915, became the national voice for police reform. He served as president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) & had a significant impact on acceptance of the reform agenda across numerous departments.
2. August Vollmer, police chief in Berkeley, California, from 1905 to 1932, advocated the hiring of college graduates & offered the first collegiate course in police science at the University of California. Vollmer is also famous for the development of the principles of modern police administration. Advocates of the concepts of administrative efficiency sought to "centralize the authority within police departments" & to "rationalize the procedures of command control" (Walker, 1977).
The reform of police agencies during the first part of the 20th century was very slow to develop, & in some cities the impact of early reform efforts was nonexistent. Although considerable gains were made in agencies of cities such as Cincinnati & Berkeley, reform efforts were largely ineffective in other agencies, such as those of Los Angeles & Chicago (Walker, 1977). Efforts to professionalize the police increased after the 1931 reports by the Wickersham Commission, which contained vivid descriptions of police misconduct & use of force. The Wickersham Commission Report was the first national study of the criminal justice system in America & had a significant impact on the revitalization of the reform movement.
Professionalization continued under the direction of O. W. Wilson, 1 of Vollmer's protégés. Wilson was the chief of police in Wichita, Kansas, from 1928 to 1935, a professor of criminology at the University of California, & chief of the Chicago Police Department in the 1960s. Wilson had a significant impact on organizational changes within police departments during this time, largely through his textbook Police Administration (1950). Utilizing scientific principles of management, Wilson emphasized workload distributions based on calls for service & efficient management of personnel through bureaucratic design. Wilson also encouraged departments to gauge their success through measurable outcomes Such as:
1. Numbers of arrests
2. Citations
3. Rapid response to calls for service
Another Influential individual during this time period was J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (F.B.I.). Hoover's leadership of the F.B.I. had a direct influence on local police agencies because of his portrayal of agents under his command as:
1. Highly trained
2. Educated
3. Professional
4. Honest
He also instituted the F.B.I.'s Top 10 Most Wanted List, controlled the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) system, & effectively communicated to citizens that his organization was involved in a "war on crime." Most local departments wanted to emulate the professional F.B.I. agents & thus perpetuated the "crime fighter" image. New technologies also had a significant influence on policing in the early to mid-20th century. 3 technologies in particular have revolutionized policing:
1. The two-way radio
2. The patrol car
3. The telephone
With the advent of the two-way radio, officers could now be notified about calls for service & police supervisors could contact their officers directly. This change in technology had a significant impact on the provision of services to the public & the supervision of police personnel. Also, the use of patrol cars in the 1920s greatly enhanced the mobility of police officers & significantly reduced their response time to calls for service from citizens. Finally, the use of the telephone allowed citizens to have direct contact with the police department. Citizens were encouraged to call the police for any type of situation & the police promised a rapid response.
These new technologies also had unintended consequences on policing, the effect of which was not fully understood until much later. For example, the patrol car served to isolate patrol officers from the community. Previously, when officers patrolled on foot, they had an opportunity to engage citizens in conversations & had a familiarity with the neighborhood that was lost once officers patrolled in cars. When officers drove through neighborhoods with their windows rolled up, citizens perceived officers as outsiders in their communities. Encouraging citizens to call the police for service & promising a rapid response dramatically increased the workload of officers. Citizens began to call police for minor problems & the police continued to respond. In addition, police were called to handle private matters that they had not been responsible for in the past. The interactions between citizens & police took on a more personal nature as police responded to citizens' homes rather than simply patrolling & engaging citizens on the street.
As described by Walker, the result of these new technologies "was a complex & contradictory change in police-citizen contacts. The patrol car isolated the police from the people on the streets, the telephone brought police officers into peoples' living rooms, kitchens, & bedrooms. There, officers became involved in the most intimate domestic problems" (1999, p. 32).
The police-citizen crisis of the 1960s
The 1960s were a period of civil unrest. Citizens were upset with the social & political conditions, & with the treatment of minorities. During this time, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a series of landmark cases that limited the investigative techniques used by police officers.
1. The court decided in Mapp v. Ohio (367 U.S. 643 (1961)), that evidence obtained during a search & seizure that violated citizens' 4th Amendment rights could not be used against them in a court of law. Dubbed the exclusionary rule, Mapp guaranteed that the fruits of an unconstitutional search could not be used during prosecution.
2. In 1966, the court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, that a suspect must be advised of his or her right against self-incrimination (protected by the 5th Amendment) & the right to council (protected by the 6th Amendment) before police can interrogate that suspect. Any admission of guilt obtained prior to giving the Miranda warnings cannot be used against the suspect during prosecution.
Critics of these & other decisions claimed that the Supreme Court was "handcuffing" police. Most studies have shown, however, that these rulings did not have the substantial influence that either side believed would result (Leo).
During this time, the civil rights movement was gaining momentum & becoming more militant. Protestors gathered to demonstrate against race discrimination & injustice within the criminal justice system. White male police officers became the symbol of all the political & social ills of American society. Police officers across the country responded to protestors with physical brutality, which served to increase the tension between minority groups & the police. This tension exploded in the form of riots & civil disobedience, often sparked by incidents involving the police (Walker, 1999).
In response, a series of presidential commissions were ordered to investigate these issues. The most famous, the Kerner Commission investigated the causes of the nearly 200 disorders that had taken place in 1967. The Kerner Commission reported that there was deep hostility & distrust between minorities & the police. The report recommended the hiring of more minority officers & police practices be changed significantly. Interestingly, the commission reported that those departments that were believed to be the most "professional" were in fact those that had the most serious disturbances & civil unrest. This challenged many of the assumptions of the professionalism movement (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders).
Findings from social-scientific research further raised concern about the effectiveness of "professional" police departments. The American Bar Foundation's (ABF) field observation of police in 1956–1957 reported that officers exercised large amounts of discretion during encounters with citizens. Contrary to the popular conception of police officers as "crime fighters," studies found that officers spent most of the time:
1. Maintaining order
2. Providing services
3. Performing administrative tasks
The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment found that increasing the level of preventive patrol within an area did not have a significant influence on the level of crime or reduce citizens' fear of crime (Kelling et al.). A study examining the effectiveness of criminal investigations reported that the percentage of crimes cleared by arrest is relatively low, that follow-up work is often unproductive, & that most detective work involves mundane tasks & paperwork (Greenwood & Petersilia). Another study showed that increases in the response time of officers did not increase the likelihood of obtaining an arrest (Pate et al.). Finally, evaluations of the effects of team policing (a police tactic that involved the creation of specialized teams responsible for policing particular geographic areas) showed no influence on the level of crime (Sherman, Milton, and Kelly). Collectively, these studies suggested that current police practices were not effective in preventing crime or satisfying citizens.
Policing in America from the 1970s to the present—the community era?
The 1960s police-citizen crisis, coupled with research findings from the 1970s, questioned the core philosophies underlying policing in America. In a seminal article on policing, Wilson & Kelling proposed the broken windows thesis. They argued that a broken window in an abandoned building or car is a symbol that no one cares about the property, making it ripe for criminal activity. Wilson & Kelling stressed the importance of controlling minor crimes & disorders in an effort to curb more serious crime.
Making citizens feel safer & improving their quality of life should be the goal of police. This idea sparked the development of a number of different police strategies & tactics designed to improve police-community relations. The philosophy of community policing is built upon the premise that reducing citizens' fear of crime while forming a partnership between the police & the community is a worthwhile goal of police organizations. Particular tactics utilized in this philosophy include:
1. Foot patrol
2. Problem solving
3. Police substations
4. Community groups
These tactics stress citizen satisfaction & improvements in citizens' quality of life. In addition to changes in tactics, changes in organizational design must also accompany community policing. Police organizations are to become decentralized, flatter hierarchies with less bureaucratic control. Patrol officers at the lowest levels are encouraged to be creative in their responses to problems & are given more discretion to advance their problem-solving efforts.
Kelling & Moore have described the 1970s & 1980s as an era in which a shift toward community policing occurred. They suggest that community policing is a strategic change complete with changes in;
1. Organizational structures
2. tactics & outcomes
However, changes in organizational design appear to be more theoretical than practical. Maguire's examination of organizational change in a sample of large departments shows that there were no significant changes in the bureaucratic structures of police agencies practicing community policing in the 1990s compared to those who were not.
Although community policing & problem solving have been popular policing strategies, some departments are utilizing zero-tolerance policies. Zero-tolerance policies encourage the use of aggressive police tactics & full enforcement of minor offenses. Based on the "broken windows" hypothesis, aggressive enforcement of minor crimes is predicted to produce the same outcomes of increasing citizen satisfaction & improving quality of life that are sought under the models of community policing. However, the tactics are very different. Community policing encourages;
1. partnership development
2. Less frequent use of arrest
3. More creative responses to particular problems
Zero-tolerance policies encourage the use of arrest & other get-tough policies. Furthermore, trends in the militarization of police have been well documented. The number of police agencies that use police paramilitary units (PPUs) & special weapons & tactical teams (SWATs) have increased by over 80% since the 1970s (Kraska and Kappeler).
It's clear that the idea of a "community era" in policing isn't without critics. Walker (1984) claims that scholars have misinterpreted & misused history in their descriptions of the "community era." Williams & Murphy suggest that scholars have not attended to the obvious influences of the following on policing throughout history;
1. Slavery
2. Segregation
3. Discrimination
The description & interpretation of the history of police continues to be a matter of great debate. Perhaps this is due to our need to fully understand the events of the past to effectively guide the events of the future. *BIBLIOGRAPHY*
For centuries, through struggles for independence, emancipation, enfranchisement, & equal rights, we've been fighting to enter the polis. SO, another way to look at "Abolish the police," is an argument, that, now that all of us have finally clawed our way into the polis.
The president is not the king; the law is king. The police are not the king’s men; they are public servants. No matter how desperately anyone would like to make it so, policing isn’t a partisan issue. Out of the stillness of the shutdown, the voices of protest have roared like summer thunder. An overwhelming majority of Americans, of both parties, support major reforms in American policing. A whole lot of police, defying their unions, also support reforms.
The problem of policing can’t be solved without addressing the problem of guns, but this much is clear: the polis has changed, & the police will have to change, too.
