Professional Documents
Culture Documents
8
Bicycle Patrol
Aircraft Patrol
Watercraft Patrol
Police Patrol Strategies
Routine Preventive Patrol
Maximizing Resources for Directed Patrol
Directed Patrol
Racial Profiling
Criminal Investigations
Investigations: A Historical Perspective
The Detective as Secretive Rogue
The Detective as Inquisitor
The Detective as Bureaucrat
The Investigation Process
Preliminary Investigations
Follow-up or Latent Investigations
Research on the Effectiveness of Investigations
The Traffic Function
The Police and the Traffic Function
Driving-under-the-Influence Enforcement
Police Paramilitary Units
Distinguishing PPUs from Regular Police
Police Partnerships
Summary
Review Questions
References
9
Prostitution and Human Trafficking
Pornography
Gambling
The Investigation of Vice
Policing Hate Crimes
Disenfranchised Populations
The Homeless
The Mentally Ill
Controlling Police Discretion
Understanding the Need for Control Mechanisms
Internal Control Mechanisms
External Control Mechanisms
Summary
Review Questions
References
10
CHAPTER 8 Police Culture and Behavior
Introduction
The Psychological Perspective
The Sociological Perspective
Types of Police Officers
The Anthropological Perspective
The Police Subculture
The Law and Police Culture
The Police Worldview
Police Bravery, Autonomy, and Secrecy
Police Isolation and Solidarity
Police Postulates and the Code
Police Subcultures of Violence and Social Context
Police Stress
Sources of Police Stress
Effects of Police Stress
Police Suicide
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Mortality and Health Problems
Reducing Police Stress
Summary
Review Questions
References
11
Extortion
Narcotics Violations
The Scope and Forms of Police Corruption
“Rotten Apples” or Systemic Abuse?
Deviant Behavior
Statistical Definition of Deviance
Absolutist Definition of Deviance
Reactivist Definition of Deviance
Normative Definition of Deviance
Alcohol and Other Drugs of Abuse
Sexual Harassment
Police Sexual Violence
Stacking-Up, Jacking-Up, and Using Cover Charges
Gratuities
Goldbricking versus Quotas
Disciplining the Police
Summary
Review Questions
References
12
Comparative Negligence
Assumption of Risk
Police Liability under Federal Law
Acting under Color of State Law
Violation of a Constitutional Right
Municipal Liability for Failure to Train
Defenses to Section 1983 Lawsuits
Absolute Immunity
Qualified Immunity
Probable Cause
Good Faith
Preventing Liability
Summary
Review Questions
References
13
The Nature and Extent of the Drug Problem
Drugs and Crime
The Nation’s Drug Strategy
Interdiction
Drug Prevention Programs
Drug Treatment
The Illegal Drug Delivery System
Criminal Organizations
Drug Enforcement Techniques and Programs
Attacking High-Level Distributors
Drug Enforcement at the Retail Level
Community Policing and Drugs
Summary
Review Questions
References
14
Summary
Review Questions
References
GLOSSARY
AUTHOR INDEX
SUBJECT INDEX
15
Acknowledgments
Writing an introductory text is a tremendous undertaking, and it usually involves the advice and counsel of a
large number of colleagues. We depended upon the generosity of our colleagues to provide criticism, ideas, and
information. At this point, we would like to acknowledge their contributions and express our gratitude.
First, we would like to thank Steven G. Brandl of University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee and Larry Miller of East
Tennessee State University for their comments on earlier editions of this book. Their reviews resulted in a
number of changes that substantially improved this text. Second, a number of our colleagues provided valuable
information that we have included in this text. They include Tom Barker, Gary Potter, and Peter Kraska of
Eastern Kentucky University; Rolando del Carmen and Victor G. Strecher of Sam Houston State University;
and Mark Blumberg of Central Missouri State University. We thank Tom O’Connor of North Carolina
Wesleyan College for assisting us in locating many of the Web sites included in this edition, as well as
allowing us to reference his extensive Web sites on policing. Some of our current and former graduate students
assisted with various aspects of developing this text. They include Brandon Marker, William Oakley, Greg
Ferrell, Louis Cubellis, Tammy Garland, Natalie Powell, Lisa Conley, April Hatfield, Holli Sims, Daniel Wright,
and Jordan Henson. Also, we would like to thank Aaron E. Kappeler, University of Toronto, for keeping us on
the straight and narrow concerning the historical, anthropological, and archaeological records. He conducted a
significant amount of research and critique for various editions. His future as a scholar is certain. We would
like to express our gratitude to the many police departments and federal agencies that provided us with data
and other information.
We would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the staff at Elsevier Science and Technology Books, and its
affiliates. Mickey and Susan Braswell deserve special mention for their constant cajoling and encouragement.
Marisa LaFleure, our editor, did a fantastic job of working with us on this edition, and during the final stages
of manuscript development.
Larry K. Gaines
Victor E. Kappeler
16
Preface
Police work is becoming increasingly complex, specialized, and interwoven into the social fabric of American
society. The activities and practices of American police officers are expanding into areas of social life that far
exceed their traditional social role. As each year passes, police are becoming more involved in the day-to-day
activities of citizens and their private lives. The 1970s and 1980s saw the federal government almost totally
neglect our nation’s cities and the many social problems that contribute to crime and other police problems.
During those decades, governmental resources for policing became scarce. Government agencies, especially
police departments, had to do much more with fewer resources. These factors created substantial strain and
pressure on police departments and on police officers. These conditions seemed to change almost overnight as
economic and political changes engulfed the United States in the 1990s.
The last decade of the twentieth century saw a general and broad-based improvement in American economic
conditions; there was a resurgence of governmental and public interest in our cities and in policing. There was
an increase in the number of television programs dealing with police work, and the news media gave more
attention to police activities and crime. Decades of neglect changed to an urban focus with considerable money
being spent to revitalize our nation’s cities. Policing has been drawn into this focus. As our social gaze changed
from neglect to almost an obsession with urban affairs, media and political leaders generated an unprecedented
fear of crime among citizens, despite more than two decades of declining criminal victimization. There was a
growing concern among citizens that they are not as safe as they once were. This situation, coupled with a
renewed focus on the police, led to changes in the police institution as well as shifts in the philosophies that
underpinned policing. Police became intimately involved in establishing order in what were characterized as
“decaying urban centers” dubbed “pathological.” The language of disorder, coupled with political leaders’
preference for formal social control over the expansion of social programs placed policing once again in the
political spotlight. These trends and the new language of policing, politics, and crime control contributed to the
complexity and specialization of the American police institution. Such a situation led to no shortage of serious
social issues confronting both the police and society. Most police agencies developed some form of community
police program in response to these problems. Police became the major problem-solvers in the nation’s cities,
especially where political leaders failed in their responsibilities or developed poor social policy.
At the height of the police institution’s focus on communities and local social problems, the nation experienced
the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC altered the
federal government’s focus once again, away from local problems and the needs of citizens, to concerns with
national security. Police agencies came under extreme pressure to alter their view and take a more national
security focus. Federal funds and training dollars were shifted away from community policing and pumped
into forging the police as first responders—intelligence gatherers for federal agencies—and much of the burden
of federal law enforcement was pushed down to the local level. As this dynamic unfolds and as the economic
recession continues, it remains to be seen whether the gains made by community policing, especially among
minority communities, will be washed away in the changing role of the police. Concerns with controlling
immigration, preventing domestic terrorism, and protecting critical infrastructure all promise to alter the police
institution. Political leaders and the media have used the fear of terrorism to advance many misconceptions
about police work, immigration, and terrorism itself, and these misconceptions inhibit policing from becoming
fully responsive to the real needs of the people they are to serve. Today policing may face some of the worse
circumstance is its history. Political leaders continue, and the public expects, the services provided by the police
be expanded, even as they slash budgets and make derogatory comments about public servants. People are
living under chronic economic stress, cities have smaller budgets, and the police are once again called on to do
more with less. Often what the police are called upon to do is the result of political leaders inability to address
17
or solve social problems like homelessness, high rates of unemployment and underemployment and issues
associated with mental illness. This decade promises to by one of the most challenging for the police
institution.
The purpose of this text is to provide an overview of contemporary police work, as well as an accurate
assessment of where we are and where we need to go. This unique look at policing provides the reader with
information to assist in gaining a better understanding of the complex relationship between police and society,
to assist in making informed decisions about the many social issues facing the police institution, and to guide
officials in their approaches to law enforcement operations and policies. We accomplish the goals of this text if
readers come away with a better understanding of the complex issues facing the police and society.
Victor E. Kappeler
Larry K. Gaines
18
Chapter 1
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
—Thomas Paine
Learning Objectives
Key Terms
Bill of Rights
Case law
Civil law
Constitution
Constitutional government
Criminal justice system
Decentralization
Dual citizenship
Executive branch
Explanation
Federal law enforcement
Federalism
Formal social control
Government
Governmental structure
Harrison Act
Informal social control
Judicial branch
Judiciary Act of1789
Jurisdiction
19
Law
Law and order
Law enforcement role
Legalistic style
Legislative branch Convenience norm enforcement
Order maintenance role
Police functions
Police power
Procedural law
Role
Separation of powers
Service role
Service style
Social contract
Social control
Society
State
State police
Substantive law
Subsystem
Theory
USA PATRIOTAct
Watchman-style
20
Introduction
The American police fulfill their various responsibilities within the confines of a unique environment. This
environment is constantly evolving and is composed of social, legal, economic, political, and intellectual forces
that combine to create a unique climate. This environment substantially influences the behavior of American
police officers and, to some degree, determines where and when they will enforce the law, how they will go
about enforcing the law, and even which laws will be enforced and which ones will be ignored. Although the
police can be distinguished from other social institutions and are a distinct governmental entity, their actions
are largely controlled by forces within the environment that are external to police organizations. This is not to
say that police are merely passive actors who respond to their environment. Police, in fact, are active in both
responding to these forces and shaping their working and social environments. To really understand the
policing and police behavior requires us to consider both the internal and external working environments of
the police institution. In this chapter, however, we will focus on the external environment of American
policing and how the police institution is structured.
The primary shapers of the American police institution are society and government. Because of their
interdependence, the terms “state,” “government,” and “society” are often used interchangeably. They are,
however, distinct. A state is an apparatus that has the recognized authority to use and maintain a monopoly on
the use of force within a clearly defined geography or jurisdiction. Government is a political institution of the
state that uses organization, bureaucracy, and formality to regulate social interactions and is most often
recognized among societies that emerge as nation-states. Society is the totality of networks and patterns of
social interaction occurring between members of a bounded social group, including those interactions within
organizations and institutions. Societies can exist without the formation of a state or formal government, but
states and government cannot exist without a social structure and citizens.
The relationship among the state, government, and society has occupied the attention of political scholars since
the early days of philosophy. Many great political thinkers of the 1700 and 1800s spent considerable time
examining the role of the state and government in society. Political philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas
Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed lengthy works on the ideal relationship between government
and society. Collectively, these theories are referred to as the social contract. Under the social contract,
members of society are assumed to have entered an agreement to create the state and a government to acquire
security and order for the entire society. By entering into such a contract, citizens are said to surrender certain
natural rights and vest government with the power to maintain social stability and protect the interests of its
members. In exchange for relinquishing the right to use physical force—for defense and to secure the
necessities of life—members of society expect the government to provide an effective system for regulating
conduct and creating forums for resolving conflicts between citizens. While it is assumed that citizens and the
governments they create will abide by the spirit of the social contract, inherent deviations on both sides of the
contract exist. Conduct against the social good, whether by citizens or government, that violates the spirit of
the social contract, requires political change, social control, and, in some cases, formal sanction.
To learn more about the social contract and Rousseau, visit the Website
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/rousseau-soccon.asp
While social contract theory provides us with a framework for considering the relationship between a state and
members of society, it is not without problems. There are many variations of social contract theory. Some
political philosophers describe the social contract as placing members of society in the dominant position,
while others characterize the state as the controlling party. Still other philosophers dispute the notion that
members of society would knowingly enter into an agreement that would require them to relinquish their
21
rights to create a state—absent compulsion, coercion, or use of force.
Social contract theory does not apply to most historical forms of government but is usually associated with
new democratic forms that are guided by the provisions of constitutions. In this sense, social contract theory is
not an explanation for the formulation of states and forms of governance but, rather, an ethical or logical
theory that is used to justify the creation of new states and governments (Figure 1.1).
FIGURE 1.1 Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778). Engraved by R. Hart and published in The Gallery of Portraits with Memoirs encyclopedia,
United Kingdom, 1833. Copyright Shutterstock/Georgios Kollidas.
Democratic systems of government are built on a delicate balance between individual rights and the collective
needs of members of society. In this balance, the police perform the critical role of protecting individual rights
and ensuring social order. In this context, Jerome Skolnick (1994) noted that law and order are constantly
shifting terms balanced by the police. Indeed, the imposition of order creates disorder. As society changes and
political leaders create new laws, emerging norms and values produce crime and deviance in a transformative
process. Not only does too much order create disorder, but too much law also threatens the principles of
democracy. When we seek order for its own sake, to the detriment of individual freedom, we move away from
the democratic ideal toward the creation of a police state.
In all states, it is necessary for the police to restrict, or take away, the freedoms of some to protect the liberties
and interests of others. It is the social and legal configuration of these interests among different classes, ethnic
groups, and gendered communities that determines police orientation. Police officers arrest individuals who are
“suspected of committing” criminal acts but, at the same time, they must ensure that their investigative
procedures and behaviors do not violate a suspect’s constitutional rights. If individual rights are neglected in
favor of social order, government ultimately becomes totalitarian and repressive. Everyone’s individual
freedoms are slowly extinguished (Bayley, 2002; Chevigny, 2002). On the other hand, if individualism were
allowed to completely overshadow collective societal needs, then there would be little order. These ideas
“suggest that police are intricately intertwined in the social fabric of American democracy” (Kappeler, Sluder,
& Alpert, 1998:2).
Democratic government embraces several unique principles that distinguish it from other forms of
government. The concept of democracy includes belief in such fundamental principles as respect for the rule of
law, individualism, civil rights, human dignity, constitutionalism, social justice, and majority rule. These
22
principles are held in high regard and, historically, the desires for social control and order have been viewed as
secondary concerns.
In terms of the social contract, democratic societies view the government as the minor party in the contractual
arrangement and emphasize the process by which order and stability are achieved over the ends themselves.
These principles make democracy a unique form of governance and policing a difficult challenge. Enforcement
of social norms is less efficient in a political system that values civil rights, individualism, and respect for the
rule of law over order and conformity. The balance between effective and efficient control of social behavior
and the values of democracy is constantly in a state of flux.
23
The Government Structure and Policing
The police institution operates within a governmental structure. This structure shapes the character of a
nation’s police. It is not uncommon for police systems to closely mirror the form of government under which
they operate. For example, police systems operating in countries with dictatorships or totalitarian forms of
government are much different from the police systems operating in democracies. These police systems have a
tendency to be politically centralized and paramilitary in appearance and operation, and they are vested with
authorities and powers that are not usually subject to formal review. Because government is a forum for
making and carrying out public policy, the manner in which this is done shapes the character of a society and
its social institutions. The police are no exception to this principle.
Government, in general, is another institution that addresses social problems; it provides a forum for debating
solutions to problems, but, most importantly, government provides a system of formal social controls. Social
controls are the collective practices by which a group attempts to ensure that individuals conform to the norms
and values of the group. While government is but one institution that controls human behavior, it is by far the
most formidable. Other social institutions such as religious groups, the family, and educational institutions also
shape behavior in society and perform control functions, but these institutions are informal as compared to
government. These institutions use informal social controls so that individuals are socialized into internalizing
the norms and values of these institutions. Formal social control involves the use of sanctions for rule breaking.
Through the political process, government determines what behaviors are acceptable and provides the means
by which violations of acceptable behavior are sanctioned. Obviously, governmental agencies such as the
police, who are charged with detection and control of crime, will closely resemble the structure of the society
and government they serve and will tend to focus on rule-breaking behaviors and sanctions as they are
formalized in the political process.
Constitutional Government
Because historical, political, social, and cultural differences exist in different countries, each country has a
unique form of government with different methods of carrying out very different public policies. One way of
distinguishing governments from one another is the presence of constitutions. Constitutions describe the social
arrangements between a government and its citizens. These documents provide broad guidelines and
limitations describing the relationship between people and their government. Constitutions detail the
responsibilities of government and the rights of citizens by establishing a general framework within which the
government should operate.
In the same broad fashion, constitutions distribute authority and limit the use of power. Not only are
constitutions political instruments designed to curb abuses of power by the government, but they also have an
administrative quality. Essentially, constitutions establish parameters that define a government’s control over
its citizens and indicate how such control can be established and maintained (Figure 1.2).
24
FIGURE 1.2 “Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States,” by Howard Chandler Christy (oil on canvas, 1940). Courtesy of
Architect of the Capitol.
In terms of American law enforcement, the U.S. Constitution places restrictions on what police officers can do
when enforcing the law or investigating crime. The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are known as
the Bill of Rights and afford American citizens certain rights and protections. Citizens have the right to free
speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to protest governmental actions. The First Amendment
protects these rights. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from illegal searches and seizures and the
improper use of police force. The manners in which police officers obtain confessions and conduct lineups are
addressed by the Fifth Amendment, while the Sixth Amendment guarantees suspects the right to legal counsel.
The Fourteenth Amendment, with its due process and equal protection clauses, helps ensure that police officers
carry out their law enforcement role in a manner that protects citizens’ rights. Finally, police officers
sometimes are called upon to protect citizens as they exercise their constitutional rights. They must protect the
privacy and domestic tranquility of complaining citizens while ensuring that those who are causing the
disturbance as a result of exercising their freedom of speech are equally protected. Box 1.1 presents the Bill of
Rights to the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
25
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in
time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed 20 dollars, the right of trial by jury
shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United
States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Separation of Powers
The U.S. Constitution created three branches of government: the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the
legislative branch. The Constitution provides for the separation of powers between these branches of
26
government. Ideally, each branch of government operates independently, acting as a source of checks and
balances on governmental power and authority (Bowman & Kearney, 2009). The police come under the
administrative control of the executive branch of government but fulfill the will of all branches of government.
Police officers must enforce the laws that are passed by the legislature, and they must abide by the procedural
guidelines promulgated by the courts.
This often causes conflict for the police because they must respond to different sources of authority. State
legislators may, for example, enact a law for the police to enforce, but local government officials may be
responsible for allocating funds for the police to carry out enforcement activities, and the courts may
determine what practices are appropriate for enforcing the legislation. Police officers must respond to all of
these political dictates when executing their responsibilities. While there is a tendency to think of police
agencies as being separate from politics, or even apolitical, the police institution is inherently political. Not
only are police agencies creations of government and the political system that control government, but also
organizational activities are directed by the edicts of each branch of government.
Principles of Federalism
One unique feature of the American system of government is the principle of federalism. Federalism is a form
of political organization that distributes authority and power among levels of government. This principle
basically vests certain powers in the federal government, other powers in state governments, and the
remaining powers and rights in individual citizens. One of the powers vested in state governments is the ability
to allow the formation and regulation of units of local government. Although the Tenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution reserves police powers for the states, law enforcement agencies have evolved at each of these
three levels, and they have different operational responsibilities. Cole (1995) provided some background about
how federalism has been applied and how federal agencies have come into existence:
As a consequence of the bargain worked out at the Constitutional Convention, the general police power was not delegated to the federal
government. No centralized national police force with broad enforcement powers may be established in the United States. It is true that the
national government has police agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Secret Service, but they are authorized to
enforce only those laws prescribed under the powers granted to Congress (1995:14–15).
To learn more about the Constitution and to view historical documents, visit the National Archives and
Records Administration Website at:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html
This unique form of political subdivision has several implications for American police. First, police power is
distributed among several levels of government, and administration of the police is divided among these levels.
This helps ensure that no single police agency accumulates too much power and leads to various types of police
organizations, each with unique laws to enforce and a unique set of responsibilities. For example, the FBI and
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) are federal agencies, while each state—except Hawaii— has a
state police or highway patrol agency, and cities and counties often have police departments.
Second, because government in the United States is decentralized, the police institution is likewise
decentralized. Although it has been debated that a centralized police system, such as the types found in Europe,
may be a more efficient system of policing, decentralization helps ensure that police agencies do not amass too
much power and are somewhat responsive and accountable to the unique populations they serve. Third, the
principle of federalism provides members of American society with dual citizenship—citizenship of the United
States and citizenship of the respective state in which each citizen resides. This means that the police must
27
respond to the dual rights of citizens. Fourth, federalism results in the creation of a unique web of overlapping
jurisdictions for law enforcement agencies. In some cases within a single city, more than a dozen agencies from
all political subdivisions of government might have responsibility for law enforcement.
Finally, as a practical matter, decentralized policing can be a challenge to crime control. A single homicide, for
example, might be dispersed across several jurisdictions. A suspect might live in one state, commit a crime in
another state, dispose of the evidence of the crime in a third state, and even move or flee to still another state.
In an increasingly global society, crime can even cross international borders. Multijurisdictional cases present a
challenge to effective crime control and communications between police agencies.
28
Police and the Law
Law is a binding rule that regulates conduct and provides sanctions for violations of its provisions. The law
serves several functions:
In terms of legitimizing the existing social structure, the law embodies the basic agreements of a society, as
they are decided through the political process. The extent to which one social group can guide or influence the
political course of law, as compared to another social group, depends on the power that group can generate and
their position in the social structure. The law regulates social conduct by establishing boundaries of acceptable
behavior, providing some measure of order and predictability to our daily lives. To the extent that this is
possible, the law attempts to hold constant existing social norms, values, and arrangements and thus lends
legitimacy to the existing social structure. We expect other members of society to behave within legally
prescribed boundaries, which foster a sense of well-being, order, and security. The law both curtails and
defines our freedom. The amount of freedom that an individual has changes over time, as the result of the
passage of new laws, court decisions, and the individual’s position in society. In the end, it is the law and its
enforcement (or lack of enforcement) that define what government and citizens can and cannot do. Finally, the
law establishes the formal structures by which citizens and governments can resolve disputes. It formalizes the
process of dispute resolution, which, in turn, further reinforces the existing social order (Figure 1.3).
FIGURE 1.3 Police personnel are called upon to give testimony in legal and legislative proceedings. Photo courtesy of AP Photo/Andre J. Jackson,
Pool.
Although there are many forms of law, essentially four types of law affect the police: substantive law,
procedural law, civil law, and case law. Substantive lawrefers to criminal statutes that define which behaviors
are acceptable and which behaviors are unacceptable in our society. The legislature passes laws that define
crimes such as murder, robbery, rape, larceny, or burglary. These criminal statutes represent the bulk of a
police department’s “law enforcement” role. Police officers cannot arrest citizens unless they violate a
substantive law. In this sense, the law directs the focus of the police on certain types of behaviors that have
been criminalized.
29
Procedural law refers to laws that prescribe how police officers apply substantive laws. For example, many
state legislators have passed laws dictating the circumstances in which police officers can use deadly force. The
use of force by police officers must conform to the requirements of procedural law. These laws may also
delineate conditions regulating the types and standards of evidence that may be admitted in a criminal trial.
For example, legislators have described how police officers will apply breath tests and how their data will be
admitted during a driving-under-the-influence case. Likewise, procedural law determines the practices in
which police officers can engage while conducting a criminal investigation or making an arrest.
Civil law regulates social interactions arising from private, commercial, or contractual relations. Family law,
the law of contracts, and business law are all considered forms of civil law. Certain codes for operating
businesses, housing restrictions, and safety regulations are often embodied in the civil law. Historically, the
police have had little to do with civil law enforcement. Today, however, because of changes in the orientation
of many police departments, and newly enacted laws, police are more likely to become involved in civil law
enforcement. In fact, some police departments, such as the New York City Police Department, use civil law to
bolster criminal law enforcement. The owner of an apartment complex who has rented to drug traffickers may
find the police enforcing city codes or safety regulations in an attempt to force the owner into cooperating with
police enforcement objectives. Legislative bodies have enacted civil forfeiture laws that allow the police to
confiscate personal property such as money, houses, and motor vehicles if citizens are suspected of being
involved in certain crimes. Many of these laws do not require citizens to be convicted of a crime before their
property is seized and becomes the property of the state. Civil enforcement and civil forfeiture of property are
controversial legal trends in policing.
Case law refers to the written opinions of the courts. As disputes come before the courts, judges decide cases
and formulate written opinions. These opinions have the force of law and often determine which police
practices are acceptable and which practices are unacceptable. The courts provide guidelines relative to how
police officers should apply the criminal code, as well as the procedures that officers should follow when
enforcing the law. There are numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions that dictate how police officers should
collect evidence and how it is to be used in a criminal case. The case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) provided
guidelines relative to police searches, the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) dictated when officers would
advise suspects of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination, and Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and
Graham v. Connor (1989) provided additional requirements as to when police could use force in effecting
arrests. Through the litigation and appeals process, the Supreme Court reviews state and federal laws and
police procedures to determine whether they violate the U.S. Constitution. Because the U.S. Constitution is the
highest law of the land, all other laws must be consistent with it.
30
Police in the Criminal Justice System
In the United States, crime control and the administration of justice are handled by the criminal justice system.
The criminal justice system is composed of three primary and discernible components: police, courts, and
corrections. These components are sometimes referred to as subsystems. From this perspective, the components
of the criminal justice system are seen as interrelated, interdependent, and striving to achieve a unified goal.
This view of criminal justice often focuses on how cases flow through the system, causing ripple effects as
cases move from one component to the next. The actions of police officers on the streets, for example, affect
the workload of courts, and the decisions of judges in courtrooms affect the operation of jails and prisons.
Police hold a special place in the criminal justice system. Not only do the activities of law enforcement officers
affect the operations of the entire criminal justice system, but also police are said to be the “gate keepers” of the
system: “They are usually the first to make contact with accused offenders and are in a position to make some
very important decisions about what will happen to those individuals. Perhaps the most frequent decision that
a police officer makes is… to initiate an alleged offender’s journey through the maze of American criminal
justice” (Alpert & Dunham, 1997:11) (Box 1.2).
Although most citizens are never arrested or even experience a face-to-face encounter with the police in any
given year, police are the most likely component of the criminal justice system to have an influence on their
day-to-day lives. More often than not this influence is largely symbolic. People usually see the police while
they are carrying out their day-to-day activities or when they are exposed to media depictions of the police.
Police far outnumber members of other occupational groups in criminal justice. There are about 1.8 million
public employees in the justice system; more than 1.1 million serve in a law enforcement capacity (Kyckelhahn,
2010). The police are not only the most numerous but also the most visible component of the criminal justice
system. The vast majority of commissioned personnel in police agencies are uniformed, making them readily
identifiable to the public. In addition, the majority of commissioned personnel in police agencies are assigned
to patrol duties, and most work out of marked patrol vehicles (Kappeler et al., 1998). As we discuss in other
chapters, visibility has been a major element in police crime control strategies and practices.
To learn more about the stages of the criminal justice system, refer to the chart at
31
http://www.bjs.gov/content/justsys.cfm
32
The Roles and Functions of Police in Modern Society
Citizens’ perceptions and ideas about the police are based on global attitudes toward crime and social justice,
past experiences with governmental agencies, and social status. Our knowledge about the police, what they do,
and how they do it comes from a number of sources, and quite often represents distorted or incomplete
pictures about the police. The public and media have had a long-running fascination with police work. From
the Keystone Cops of the early cinema to the most current depiction of the police, many of us have grown up
with media portrayals of policing. These images of policing usually carry with them certain recurrent themes
that promote and shape views of the nature of police work in American society (Dowler, 2004). Prevalent in
media images of police work is that policing is all about crime fighting, excitement, and danger. As Kappeler
and Potter (2005) remarked:
When citizens reflect upon the role of the police, invariably they think in terms of their law enforcement capacity. Whether they are being
depicted in a police series on television or in a current movie, police officers are portrayed almost solely as crime fighters. Citizens spend
hours of leisure time watching cops engage in such activities as high speed pursuits involving wanted felons, questioning persons who are
suspected of having committed serious crimes, shooting it out with dangerous criminals, and involved in other law enforcement tasks. This
image presented by the media is erroneous. It is a myth to believe that the police spend the majority of their time involved in crime-fighting
activity. In fact, the average cop on television probably sees more action in a half-hour than most officers witness in an entire career. As a
general rule, most police work is quite mundane.
The average citizen collects information about the police on a piecemeal basis, and often this information is
incomplete or inaccurate. The public processes and stores this information and uses it to make judgments about
the police and what they do. Research suggests that the majority of citizens are more likely than not to report
that police are doing a “good” job, and, for the most part, citizens view the police positively (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2011). One should keep in mind, however, that the majority of American citizens are white and
working and have never experienced a confrontation with the police. Even though a majority of citizens have a
positive view of the police and support them, this support is not uniform across all segments of society and in
all social settings.
Citizens with little or no contact with the police may draw on media depictions of policing or their global
attitudes about crime and justice to form their views of the police. Research indicates, for example, that citizens
who have no contact with the police have more favorable views of the police than citizens who have contact
with the police. This finding seems to hold regardless of whether the police initiate the contact or the citizen
calls the police. Likewise, while there is some indication that negative police actions—making an arrest, issuing
a traffic citation, or aggressively questioning a citizen—lead to an unfavorable view of the police, citizen
perceptions of being treated fairly determine their view of the police regardless of enforcement actions
(Mazerolle, Antrobus, Bennett, and Tyler, 2013). In this fashion, experience with the police shapes citizens’
global attitudes about crime and justice, and global attitudes about crime and justice shade specific experiences
with the police. Public attitudes toward the police are addressed in more detail in Chapter 10.
The police are called on to perform a wide range of tasks and activities. Although the obvious functions of the
police are to “protect and serve” the public, police officers in some jurisdictions are expected to be responsible
for nonlaw enforcement activities such as reading meters, serving as animal control officers, or inspecting
homes for insect infestations during summer months. Some citizens expect the police to provide public services
such as helping open locked doors, offering motorist assistance, or disseminating information about
community problems and issues. Smaller jurisdictions sometimes require their officers to perform activities
that are considered outside the traditional boundaries of police responsibility. Generally, police departments in
smaller jurisdictions are more service orientated. The police are also called on to maintain public order by
investigating disturbances, breaking up fights, and settling domestic disputes.
33
One important distinction that police scholars make when discussing the varied activities of the police is
between roles and functions. A role refers to a basic or standardized social position that carries with it certain
expectations. These expectations can be very specific or diffuse, and they are often associated with social
institutions. Roles can carry with them specific functions. Police functions are the tasks and activities associated
with a role of the police. The police are expected to carry out various social roles and engage in a variety of
social functions or tasks.
For the most part, there are four primary roles over which the police have responsibility:
1. Law enforcement
2. Order maintenance
3. Provision of miscellaneous services
4. Convenience norm enforcement
Box 1.3 provides a partial listing of the various tasks or activities that police officers might perform in each of
these roles. The listing in Box 1.3 represents a wide range of activities. Citizens and citizen groups have varying
expectations about what the police should do—some are specific and some are diffuse. For example, merchants
and business people typically envision and advocate that police officers’ primary role should be to protect them
and their businesses from burglars or perhaps remove panhandlers so that they do not obstruct their doorways.
Residents in a housing project expect police officers to maintain order and provide them protection from the
criminals and drug dealers who might reside in the area. Suburbanites, on the other hand, frequently expect
the police to expedite the flow of traffic so they can travel to their jobs with the minimum amount of
inconvenience.
What the police actually do, therefore, is the result of a complicated political and social process. The
government, city council, mayor, and city manager will attempt to appease citizen constituents by pressuring
various governmental agencies to provide expected services. Sometimes, citizens will band together in an effort
to pressure government officials to change policies. The police also have an interest in the services they are
called on to perform. Depending on the change that is being advocated, the police may support or resist the
change.
Law Enforcement
Order Maintenance
34
Miscellaneous Services
Convenience Norms
Conflict often develops regarding what the police do and how they do it. Klockars (2006) discussed this issue in
terms of the “Dirty Harry” problem, and Bittner (1974) deliberated the police role in an article titled “Florence
Nightingale in search of Willie Sutton.” Essentially, the police are confronted with role conflict when they are
expected to effectively perform a sometimes dirty, undesirable job within the confines of a number of legal and
constitutional limitations. In other words, the police are expected to apprehend criminals, but officers must
follow legal and constitutional mandates when doing so. Officers sometimes use “dirty means” to accomplish
“good ends,” and when they do they essentially step outside legal, ethical, or moral boundaries.
In the end, the police are continually involved in providing a variety of services that have differential effects on
citizens. Yet, police are at least expected to act within the legal and constitutional parameters that protect
individual rights and accord citizens the due process of law. The relative importance and mix of these services
and how they are performed change with the political winds. As society identifies new problems, police
departments identify new priorities. Even though a number of attempts have been made to enumerate police
activities or objectives, Goldstein (1977:52) identified those objectives that are most applicable:
1. To prevent and control conduct widely recognized as threatening to life and property;
2. To aid individuals who are in danger of physical harm, such as the victim of a criminal attack;
3. To protect constitutional guarantees, such as the right of free speech and assembly;
4. To facilitate the movement of people and vehicles;
5. To assist those who cannot care for themselves: the intoxicated, the addicted, the mentally ill, the
physically disabled, the old and the young;
6. To resolve conflict, whether it is between individuals, groups of individuals, or individuals and their
government;
7. To identify problems that have the potential for becoming more serious problems for the individual
citizen, for the police, or for government; and
8. To create and maintain a feeling of security in the community.
Police Activities
Police officers typically view themselves as crime fighters or crook catchers (Manning, 2006), and many people
seek careers in law enforcement because of the “exciting” connotation surrounding crime fighting (Kappeler et
al., 1998). Some police officers view their sole role as that of law enforcement. They tend to relegate other
duties and responsibilities to a lower level and, in some cases, argue that they are not obligated to perform
them. This sometimes causes problems, when people go into the police occupation with unrealistic expectations
35
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
DANCE ON STILTS AT THE GIRLS’ UNYAGO, NIUCHI
I see increasing reason to believe that the view formed some time
back as to the origin of the Makonde bush is the correct one. I have
no doubt that it is not a natural product, but the result of human
occupation. Those parts of the high country where man—as a very
slight amount of practice enables the eye to perceive at once—has not
yet penetrated with axe and hoe, are still occupied by a splendid
timber forest quite able to sustain a comparison with our mixed
forests in Germany. But wherever man has once built his hut or tilled
his field, this horrible bush springs up. Every phase of this process
may be seen in the course of a couple of hours’ walk along the main
road. From the bush to right or left, one hears the sound of the axe—
not from one spot only, but from several directions at once. A few
steps further on, we can see what is taking place. The brush has been
cut down and piled up in heaps to the height of a yard or more,
between which the trunks of the large trees stand up like the last
pillars of a magnificent ruined building. These, too, present a
melancholy spectacle: the destructive Makonde have ringed them—
cut a broad strip of bark all round to ensure their dying off—and also
piled up pyramids of brush round them. Father and son, mother and
son-in-law, are chopping away perseveringly in the background—too
busy, almost, to look round at the white stranger, who usually excites
so much interest. If you pass by the same place a week later, the piles
of brushwood have disappeared and a thick layer of ashes has taken
the place of the green forest. The large trees stretch their
smouldering trunks and branches in dumb accusation to heaven—if
they have not already fallen and been more or less reduced to ashes,
perhaps only showing as a white stripe on the dark ground.
This work of destruction is carried out by the Makonde alike on the
virgin forest and on the bush which has sprung up on sites already
cultivated and deserted. In the second case they are saved the trouble
of burning the large trees, these being entirely absent in the
secondary bush.
After burning this piece of forest ground and loosening it with the
hoe, the native sows his corn and plants his vegetables. All over the
country, he goes in for bed-culture, which requires, and, in fact,
receives, the most careful attention. Weeds are nowhere tolerated in
the south of German East Africa. The crops may fail on the plains,
where droughts are frequent, but never on the plateau with its
abundant rains and heavy dews. Its fortunate inhabitants even have
the satisfaction of seeing the proud Wayao and Wamakua working
for them as labourers, driven by hunger to serve where they were
accustomed to rule.
But the light, sandy soil is soon exhausted, and would yield no
harvest the second year if cultivated twice running. This fact has
been familiar to the native for ages; consequently he provides in
time, and, while his crop is growing, prepares the next plot with axe
and firebrand. Next year he plants this with his various crops and
lets the first piece lie fallow. For a short time it remains waste and
desolate; then nature steps in to repair the destruction wrought by
man; a thousand new growths spring out of the exhausted soil, and
even the old stumps put forth fresh shoots. Next year the new growth
is up to one’s knees, and in a few years more it is that terrible,
impenetrable bush, which maintains its position till the black
occupier of the land has made the round of all the available sites and
come back to his starting point.
The Makonde are, body and soul, so to speak, one with this bush.
According to my Yao informants, indeed, their name means nothing
else but “bush people.” Their own tradition says that they have been
settled up here for a very long time, but to my surprise they laid great
stress on an original immigration. Their old homes were in the
south-east, near Mikindani and the mouth of the Rovuma, whence
their peaceful forefathers were driven by the continual raids of the
Sakalavas from Madagascar and the warlike Shirazis[47] of the coast,
to take refuge on the almost inaccessible plateau. I have studied
African ethnology for twenty years, but the fact that changes of
population in this apparently quiet and peaceable corner of the earth
could have been occasioned by outside enterprises taking place on
the high seas, was completely new to me. It is, no doubt, however,
correct.
The charming tribal legend of the Makonde—besides informing us
of other interesting matters—explains why they have to live in the
thickest of the bush and a long way from the edge of the plateau,
instead of making their permanent homes beside the purling brooks
and springs of the low country.
“The place where the tribe originated is Mahuta, on the southern
side of the plateau towards the Rovuma, where of old time there was
nothing but thick bush. Out of this bush came a man who never
washed himself or shaved his head, and who ate and drank but little.
He went out and made a human figure from the wood of a tree
growing in the open country, which he took home to his abode in the
bush and there set it upright. In the night this image came to life and
was a woman. The man and woman went down together to the
Rovuma to wash themselves. Here the woman gave birth to a still-
born child. They left that place and passed over the high land into the
valley of the Mbemkuru, where the woman had another child, which
was also born dead. Then they returned to the high bush country of
Mahuta, where the third child was born, which lived and grew up. In
course of time, the couple had many more children, and called
themselves Wamatanda. These were the ancestral stock of the
Makonde, also called Wamakonde,[48] i.e., aborigines. Their
forefather, the man from the bush, gave his children the command to
bury their dead upright, in memory of the mother of their race who
was cut out of wood and awoke to life when standing upright. He also
warned them against settling in the valleys and near large streams,
for sickness and death dwelt there. They were to make it a rule to
have their huts at least an hour’s walk from the nearest watering-
place; then their children would thrive and escape illness.”
The explanation of the name Makonde given by my informants is
somewhat different from that contained in the above legend, which I
extract from a little book (small, but packed with information), by
Pater Adams, entitled Lindi und sein Hinterland. Otherwise, my
results agree exactly with the statements of the legend. Washing?
Hapana—there is no such thing. Why should they do so? As it is, the
supply of water scarcely suffices for cooking and drinking; other
people do not wash, so why should the Makonde distinguish himself
by such needless eccentricity? As for shaving the head, the short,
woolly crop scarcely needs it,[49] so the second ancestral precept is
likewise easy enough to follow. Beyond this, however, there is
nothing ridiculous in the ancestor’s advice. I have obtained from
various local artists a fairly large number of figures carved in wood,
ranging from fifteen to twenty-three inches in height, and
representing women belonging to the great group of the Mavia,
Makonde, and Matambwe tribes. The carving is remarkably well
done and renders the female type with great accuracy, especially the
keloid ornamentation, to be described later on. As to the object and
meaning of their works the sculptors either could or (more probably)
would tell me nothing, and I was forced to content myself with the
scanty information vouchsafed by one man, who said that the figures
were merely intended to represent the nembo—the artificial
deformations of pelele, ear-discs, and keloids. The legend recorded
by Pater Adams places these figures in a new light. They must surely
be more than mere dolls; and we may even venture to assume that
they are—though the majority of present-day Makonde are probably
unaware of the fact—representations of the tribal ancestress.
The references in the legend to the descent from Mahuta to the
Rovuma, and to a journey across the highlands into the Mbekuru
valley, undoubtedly indicate the previous history of the tribe, the
travels of the ancestral pair typifying the migrations of their
descendants. The descent to the neighbouring Rovuma valley, with
its extraordinary fertility and great abundance of game, is intelligible
at a glance—but the crossing of the Lukuledi depression, the ascent
to the Rondo Plateau and the descent to the Mbemkuru, also lie
within the bounds of probability, for all these districts have exactly
the same character as the extreme south. Now, however, comes a
point of especial interest for our bacteriological age. The primitive
Makonde did not enjoy their lives in the marshy river-valleys.
Disease raged among them, and many died. It was only after they
had returned to their original home near Mahuta, that the health
conditions of these people improved. We are very apt to think of the
African as a stupid person whose ignorance of nature is only equalled
by his fear of it, and who looks on all mishaps as caused by evil
spirits and malignant natural powers. It is much more correct to
assume in this case that the people very early learnt to distinguish
districts infested with malaria from those where it is absent.
This knowledge is crystallized in the
ancestral warning against settling in the
valleys and near the great waters, the
dwelling-places of disease and death. At the
same time, for security against the hostile
Mavia south of the Rovuma, it was enacted
that every settlement must be not less than a
certain distance from the southern edge of the
plateau. Such in fact is their mode of life at the
present day. It is not such a bad one, and
certainly they are both safer and more
comfortable than the Makua, the recent
intruders from the south, who have made USUAL METHOD OF
good their footing on the western edge of the CLOSING HUT-DOOR
plateau, extending over a fairly wide belt of
country. Neither Makua nor Makonde show in their dwellings
anything of the size and comeliness of the Yao houses in the plain,
especially at Masasi, Chingulungulu and Zuza’s. Jumbe Chauro, a
Makonde hamlet not far from Newala, on the road to Mahuta, is the
most important settlement of the tribe I have yet seen, and has fairly
spacious huts. But how slovenly is their construction compared with
the palatial residences of the elephant-hunters living in the plain.
The roofs are still more untidy than in the general run of huts during
the dry season, the walls show here and there the scanty beginnings
or the lamentable remains of the mud plastering, and the interior is a
veritable dog-kennel; dirt, dust and disorder everywhere. A few huts
only show any attempt at division into rooms, and this consists
merely of very roughly-made bamboo partitions. In one point alone
have I noticed any indication of progress—in the method of fastening
the door. Houses all over the south are secured in a simple but
ingenious manner. The door consists of a set of stout pieces of wood
or bamboo, tied with bark-string to two cross-pieces, and moving in
two grooves round one of the door-posts, so as to open inwards. If
the owner wishes to leave home, he takes two logs as thick as a man’s
upper arm and about a yard long. One of these is placed obliquely
against the middle of the door from the inside, so as to form an angle
of from 60° to 75° with the ground. He then places the second piece
horizontally across the first, pressing it downward with all his might.
It is kept in place by two strong posts planted in the ground a few
inches inside the door. This fastening is absolutely safe, but of course
cannot be applied to both doors at once, otherwise how could the
owner leave or enter his house? I have not yet succeeded in finding
out how the back door is fastened.