Introduction

Trust is ‘an obstruct concept but one whose origins are firmly rooted in
experience; individual interactions with other people and their past experiences
with institutions create expectations about how you will be treated in future
(Mishler and Rose,(2016:5) .it is vital to first understand the epistemology of
trust in order to fully understand the application of the term to police reform.
The key role of experience in understanding trust logically need us to focus on
what tend to be called cognitive, active, contingent or reflective trust-‘the
residual belief in another person granted after considering of his reliability
(Govier,2015).The kind of experiences people have inevitable influence their
preparedness to trust though ,experience requires interpretation for it to be
meaningful.

Advanced forms of trust such as implicit trust, presuppose and absence of any
recent negative prior history (as say between two spouses) or a relationship of
some duration under which a pattern of benevolence and competence has been
established in the mind of the trustier. Familiarity, and hence prior knowledge
permits greater levels of trust or alternatively ,under histories of adverse
relations render the replacement of trust less likely.

Therefore a propensity to trust can be both necessary and desirable as means of

elf-protection, again according to prior history of relationships. Overcoming
distrust and hence building trust, will require tangible indicators of shift of
disposition and capacity in dealings with potential trustees. In the case of
institutional trust as is the focus of this paper, citizens often even after appalling
mistreatment by the state officials like police , still have the desire to trust them
again. This is mainly because of lack of any other credible alternative.
TABLE 1
A Review of Trust Definitions

Authors Definitions
Boon and Holmes “A state involving confident
(2014) positive expectations about
another’s motives with respect to
oneself in situations entailing risk”
(cited in Lewicki & Buncker, 2014,
p. 117).
Braithwaite (2016) A relationship between actors or
groups in which one party
adopts the position, expressed
either verbally or behaviorally,
that the other will pursue a course
of action that is considered
preferable to alternative courses of
action.
Berman (2013) Belief in the ability and good
intentions of someone or
something to perform.
Butler (2017) Willingness to risk increasing
one’s vulnerability to a person
whose behavior is beyond one’s
control.
Dasgupta (2017) Expectations about the actions of
other people that have a bearing on
one’s own choice of action when
that action must be chosen before
one can monitor the actions of
those others
Fukuyama (2016) Belief that others act responsibly
and for the common good.
Driscoll (2014) Belief that the decision makers will
produce outcomes favorable to the
person’s interests without any
influence by the person.
Gambetta (2017) The probability that [a person] will
perform an action that is
beneficial or at least not
detrimental to us is high enough
 for us to consider engaging in
some form of cooperation with [the
person].
Gamson (2014) The probability that the political
system will produce preferred
outcomes even if it is left
untended.
Giffin (2018) An attitude having both cathectic
and cognitive tendencies.
Hardin (2016) A form of encapsulated interest. A
trusts B because he or she
presumes it is in B’s interest to act
in a way consistent with A’s
interest
Golembiewski and An expectation about outcomes
McConkie (2014) based on perceptions and life
experiences.

The important part of studying police public trust is to recognise the 5 pillars
that supports police public trust. These are benevolence, competence, integrity,
honesty and openness. Police world over are trusted by the members of the
public based on how they fair on these pillars. Police organisations are unlikely
to be effective in their policing unless they gain public trust (Hardin 2016).

On benevolence, Police are expected to be kind and exercise some empathy.

Every police public encounter matters. When the public is welcomed with
kindness in words for instance, they are likely to come back in the future and
the opposite is still true. The police can also show benevolence through empathy
(Giffin, 2018). This is where the police put themselves in the shoes of the
members of the public without compromising their professionalism.

Yet another mentioned pillar is competence. The public expects police to be

skilful and have the required expertise to deal with their problems. Should the
police fail to solve their crime problems for an example they are likely to resort
to other unorthodox means. The world we are living in is dynamic so should be
police tactics. The emergence of new crimes like cyber crime for instance
should propel police to advance their skills so as to be equal to the task when
called to action (Giffin, 2018).

Integrity is another pillar worth discussing for police to achieve public trust.
Integrity is loosely defined as “walking the talk” and “talking the walk”. There
must be direct correlation between police promises and police actions. Issues of
police corruption are an enemy to police public trust. When media headlines on
police corruption then police should expect fewer incoming request for service.
People would then look elsewhere for help.

Another close ally to integrity is honesty. The public expect police to speak the
truth and be trustworthy (Gambetta, 2017). In this regard, police should not
manipulate the public for their own selfish gains but rather be frank of their
operations. When police lie for whatsoever reasons, the public ceases to believe
them again even when believing in them is so desirable to the police. It is
against this backdrop that Police are advised to be always truthful.

Finally, the public expects police to be open. By being open we mean police
must not classify information that is important for the public to know. This does
not mean police should lack confidentiality but simple means police but be
transparent in their operations. Openness also means open to public scrutiny.
The public should be able to question police behaviour when necessary. This
can make police always striving for excellence.

In conclusion, if police fail to attract public trust, then the police will resort to
other means like taking the law unto their hands. If not so rather, use other
private companies who are capable to deliver. When such happens it means this
noble profession is near extinction.
 References
Bottomley AK and Coleman CA (1980) Police effectiveness and the public: The
limitations of official crime rates. In: Clarke RVG and Hough JM (eds) The
Effectiveness of Policing. Farnborough, Hants: Gower Publishing Company,
70–97.

Jackson J and Bradford B (2009) Crime, policing and social order: On the
expressive nature ofpublic confidence in policing. British Journal of Sociology
60: 493–521.

Govier, T. (1997) Social Trust and Human Communities. Montreal: McGill/

Queen’s University Press.

Mishler, W. and R. Rose (1995) Trust, Distrust and Skepticism about

Institutionsof Civil Society. Glasgow: Centre for the Study of Public Policy,
University of Strathclyde.

Wilson JQ and Kelling GL (1982) Broken windows: The police and

neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly March: 29–38.