In order to understand whether police are doing their job correctly or not, we have to look at the history of policing. Prior to modern day police as we know them today, cities were protected by soldiers. We also have to look at the institutions in which the police serve. This is different around the world. I am not going to list everything in this article; but let us quickly take a look at the Sir Robert Peel’s nine principles. Peel is often considered the father of modern policing.
Sir Robert Peel’s 9 Principles of policing in a democracy:
1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To always recognize that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Now that we looked at the ideal of policing, we can now look at some of its history. Here is are two quotes from Eastern Kentucky University History of Policing in the United States:
“The only effective political strategy available to exploited workers was what economic elites referred to as “rioting,” which was actually a primitive form of what would become union strikes against employers (Silver 1967). The modern police force not only provided an organized, centralized body of men (and they were all male) legally authorized to use force to maintain order, it also provided the illusion that this order was being maintained under the rule of law, not at the whim of those with economic power.” — https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/history-policing-united-states-part-2
“In addition, the creation of the modern police force in the United States also immutably altered the definition of the police function. Policing had always been a reactive enterprise, occurring only in response to a specific criminal act. Centralized and bureaucratic police departments, focusing on the alleged crime-producing qualities of the “dangerous classes” began to emphasize preventative crime control. The presence of police, authorized to use force, could stop crime before it started by subjecting everyone to surveillance and observation. The concept of the police patrol as a preventative control mechanism routinized the insertion of police into the normal daily events of everyone’s life, a previously unknown and highly feared concept in both England and the United States (Parks 1976).” — https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/history-policing-united-states-part-2
The above article is very interesting and you can see why we are having policing problems today.
The call from the media and public to de-fund the police is worrisome. Refer to Peel’s Principle number one. Who will replace the police if you de-fund or disband them? The City of Minneapolis, as well as other cities, are looking at disbanding their police force and replacing it with something else. I am not sure what that would look like; but it will end up being police again anyway. Instead we should look at making the police more independent of the politicians and corporations so they can be true to their calling as defenders or guardians of democracy.
If you de-fund the police or disband them. You will need to use something else or bad actors will appear and take advantage. The last thing we need is a private police force. Private police forces have been known to not have the public interest at heart; but only the corporation they serve. Others think we will have two police types. One to serve the rich and one to serve the poor. I believe people want the police to be less militaristic and more community based which is what it should be anyway. It is foolish to think we can now live without police in modern cities. Do you want to live in anarchy? The only way would be to form your own gangs and do the policing yourself; but then you would be the police. Police are needed. Police forces need to be managed properly. The cities misuse the police in order to bring in revenue from tickets and fines. The cities pressure the police to write more violation tickets because they bring in dollars for the city. This does not help the police get to know the community they serve in. The public should not be nervous because of police presence. They should be glad to see a police officer approach; but we are over regulated and over policed in many societies. The only way this can be improved is to have the police deal with the public in a more restorative way with less focus on punishment and more focus on relationships. A police officer should never feel pressured to write more tickets or make more arrests to please his boss. There are so many teaching and coaching moments in policing; but the joy is lost when police are pressured to punish and arrest to get stats for the department heads.
Police are also asked to do too many things that are not crime related. Police duties need to be pared down to crime prevention and community policing. There is public anger towards police because they are always put in the position of the punisher. I know there are plenty of police officers who would love to put their ticket book away and just build community relationships. There is a distrust for the police because they appear to be avengers instead of friends. Firemen are always seen as good guys because they are helpers and rescuers; not punishers. As a thought experiment what if we asked the firemen to go inspect homes and fine those homeowners and renters for not having proper fire extinguishers and safety plans? It would affect their branding for sure. The police need new branding and new job descriptions which include relationship building. There would be no title of community liaison officer because all police officers will fill that role.
I believe it would be better to send someone other than an armed police officer to conduct a wellness check. This takes the gun out of the equation until it is actually needed. A combination of police officer and psych nurse works really well because the nurse can be the point person and the police officer can just be there to keep everyone safe.
Sir Robert Peel and those before him knew what it was like to have soldiers roaming the streets to keep order. Many countries in the world do not have democracy and therefore do not have police to protect them.
If you examine Peel’s Principles you will find what is clearly lacking in policing today. Although not all are equal in their shortcomings in measuring up to Peel’s test. Our society has taken community policing and made it a profession. So instead of having a member of the community dealing with a problem we have a professional who is detached from the community he or she serves. There should be a requirement that police members live in the same city they serve so they are an actual member of the public so we can say the police are the public. I think there is a detachment from the community when police are driving around in cars waiting for a 911 call. And in busier cities police are going from call to call to call without any time to get to know the people they serve.
We also need to send other professionals to deal with mental health calls. Send a nurse and social worker to the call and if it becomes violent let them call the police. There are a lot of mentally ill people who fear the police so their presence does not make sense unless there is violence.
If we are to keep democracy we need the police. The alternatives are not good for democracy.
The idea stems from Peel’s original principles. The public are the police and the police are the public.
The Public Interest is also an important principle because this controls the police behavior in a democracy. What we are seeing right now in 2020 is the public telling the police they are not happy with them right now. So the police have the duty to change to meet the interest of the public while keeping law and order. What does this look like? Do individual police officers have the discretion needed to make good decisions or are they under pressure to make arrests?
The police in the UK are probably the closest to the ideal Peel had; but now they too are having issues with crime and disorder. I believe it comes back to community policing.
There are many opinions about this topic in the world. I believe Peel had the best solution.
When the police are under attack democracy is under attack. The police were put there in place of soldiers. If you want to really live in a police state then get rid of the police who are the guardians of democracy. The police officers are not the problem, it is the political institutions and corporations they work for. I think this latest battle is not about race as it is about classes. This is a class war; not a race war.
If you want change then run for public office. Wake up people. The real trouble has just started.
