This paper examines how the Prohibition era (1920s) shaped public perception of law enforcement in the United States. It traces early temperance efforts leading up to Prohibition, then analyzes how widespread corruption among police officers and elected officials — exemplified by bribe-taking from bootleggers and a high rate of agent dismissals — generated deep public distrust. The paper also considers corrective measures, including the mass dismissal of corrupt officers and an emphasis on professionalism in public interactions, that may have helped restore public confidence in law enforcement. The analysis draws on historical and sociological sources to connect the enforcement failures of Prohibition with lasting consequences for police-community relations.
Prohibition mainly concerned itself with the ban on the manufacture, transportation, and sale of liquor. From the outset, a number of reasons were cited in support of Prohibition by its proponents. These reasons included alcohol's link to a range of social ills, including but not limited to child abuse, domestic violence, and decreased labor productivity. This paper discusses the effects of Prohibition in regard to shaping public perception toward law enforcement during the period. It also highlights some of the measures that may have been taken by law enforcement to reshape or change that perception.
It is important to note that long before the 1920s Prohibition, several efforts had already been undertaken to control the consumption of alcohol in the United States. Such efforts included the 1825 temperance crusade spearheaded by Evangelical Protestants. During the Prohibition era, enforcement of the ban on alcohol production, manufacture, and distribution proved to be quite cumbersome. Reports of widespread disregard for the law became commonplace, with some law enforcement officers being compromised by individuals bent on defeating the very purpose of the Prohibition provisions. As Hanson, Venturelli, and Fleckenstein note, "enforcement of laws against alcohol use was thwarted by corrupt law enforcement officials" (p. 222). This is largely what informed the negative perception members of the public held toward law enforcement.
Some law enforcement officials regularly took bribes from bootleggers, and this aided the development of a number of criminal organizations keen on benefiting from the significant profits being generated by bootlegging. Bootlegging, according to Hanson, Venturelli, and Fleckenstein, essentially concerned itself with "making, distributing, and selling alcoholic beverages during the prohibition era" (p. 222). Some of the high-profile criminals who profited from bootlegging as a result of corruption on the part of law enforcement officials include Al Capone. To highlight the level of corruption that existed during the Prohibition era, Deitch notes that apart from police officers, elected officials were also routinely compromised. In the author's own words, "the Prohibition Unit trained and later dismissed (for cause) a far greater number of agents than any other branch of the federal government" (p. 113). This is a clear indicator of the rot that existed within the ranks of law enforcement during the Prohibition period, and it is the same rot that fueled a low public opinion of law enforcement at the time.
Based on the role they played in advancing the agenda of bootleggers, the public developed a low opinion of law enforcement officers. However, it is important to note that contempt for law enforcement officers existed only in some areas of the United States during the Prohibition period. This is largely because in some localities, the effectiveness of law enforcement officials in upholding the rule of law could not be put to question. As Hanson, Venturelli, and Fleckenstein note, enforcement of Prohibition in some parts of the United States was relatively strict (222).
"Dismissals and professionalism as trust-rebuilding strategies"
To repair the already battered image of law enforcement officials, efforts could also have been put in place to control the conduct of officials as they sought to enforce the Prohibition. Key considerations that may have been taken into account include the personal image projected by law enforcement during operations, as well as the level of professionalism officials demonstrated to the general public. During the period, interaction with the public was critical as law enforcement officials sought to crack down on illegal liquor distribution channels. Had there been a stronger insistence on professionalism and community engagement from the start, relations between law enforcement officials and members of the public could have been significantly enhanced. This would have provided a timely boost to those seeking to defeat the illegal cartels that specialized in selling liquor during the Prohibition period.
From the outset, discussions regarding alcohol Prohibition and the subsequent enforcement of the law became one of the most contentious and hotly debated issues of the 1920s. Proponents and critics were locked in a bitter debate regarding the relevance as well as the long-term applicability of the Prohibition provisions. Such opposition, combined with laxity on the part of law enforcement officers, made Prohibition difficult to enforce.
Deitch, Robert. Hemp: American History Revisited: The Plant With a Divided History. Algora Publishing, 2003. Print.
Hanson, Glen R., Peter J. Venturelli, and Annette E. Fleckenstein. Drugs and Society. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2011. Print.
Miller, Linda S., Karen M. Hess, and Christine H. Orthmann. Community Policing: Partnerships for Problem Solving. Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
You’re 81% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.