Reducing Citizen Complaints: Community Policing Strategies

Introduction: Excessive Force and Officer Conduct

Psychologists have proven that it is often part of human nature that when humans are given more authority, they sometimes act excessively with that authority and go beyond the normal, accepted morality of a situation, becoming more brutal and violent. Witness many rather mild-mannered German officials who, during the advent of Nazism, became more fervent in their psychological lust for power to the point where they were able to assist in atrocities and behavior that would have been anathema to them in a different situation (Smith, 2003). Like the problem of excessive force within law enforcement, there are three major factors that contribute to the use of such force: the emotionality of the situation itself, the perceived permission of authoritative figures, and the officer's own background, innate personality, and prejudice regarding the situation.

Each situation is different for a law enforcement officer. They do not know if a simple traffic infraction has a deeper issue — for example, whether the perpetrator is unstable or hiding contraband. They do not know what weapons or intent a group of rioters might have; they do not know if a person holding a hostage is willing to kill; and they do not know what motives, armament, or reactions they might expect in any given situation. Additionally, it is a tough judgment call to decide what constitutes excessive force without being in that situation oneself. Three officers using clubs on a 120-pound young woman might seem excessive, while those same officers dealing with a 250-pound weight lifter on an unknown substance might seem more prudent. The officer's ability to uphold the law while also protecting themselves is often at odds with public perception — as illustrated by the events during the Kent State shootings (Ohio History, 2008).

In each society — chronologically as well as geographically and politically — there is a different level of permissiveness and tolerance for police actions. A raid on a drug manufacturing operation carries a different level of perceived threat than a shoplifting call; a 3 a.m. traffic stop of a vehicle with blacked-out windows differs from pulling over a minivan full of children; a sniper on a college rooftop requires different methods than students playing a prank. Despite the debate over what constitutes excessive force, one must also ask: if a loved one were being held hostage by armed bank robbers, what would constitute the necessary force to retrieve them safely? It is easy to second-guess after the fact, and while there have certainly been documented cases of excessive force, one must also weigh the orders and the tacit societal permission granted to the officers responding to an event (Montgomery, 2005).

Since individual officers are just that — individuals — training is essential for establishing a common standard of caution and law for the group as a whole. Because of individual differences, each person will react to a situation differently: one officer might be appalled by the mistreatment of an animal, while another might have less emotional investment in that type of incident. This is precisely where training, strict guidelines, and open communication from superiors become most critical. The officer needs to know how superiors define force and what they deem appropriate action in various situations — then temper that understanding with the reality of the law and the specifics of the individual situation (Montgomery, 2005).

There is also a problem with reporting statistical accuracy regarding the level of excessive force. The vast media coverage of the Rodney King incident is well remembered (Liebovitch, 1998), but many citizens are reluctant to come forward with complaints about their police department. In one study of approximately 26,500 complaints against a representative 60% of officers across major police forces in larger urban areas, fewer than 10% of those complaints were found to have merit (Hickman, 2006). While the Justice Department compiles statistics on excessive force, such issues are often litigated more in the media than in the judicial system. Conversely, several independent watchdog groups actively report and work to prevent excessive brutality, functioning as a check and balance on the use of force — among them Amnesty International, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Human Rights Watch.

The Philosophy of Policing

There have been many changes in the philosophy of policing over the last three to four decades, most especially within the United States. Since 1968 — with the historic events at Kent State and the Chicago Democratic Convention — questions have been raised about the use of force, rights-based policing, and several models of appropriate policing and community involvement at multiple levels (Russell, 2005). Rights-based policing has been endorsed by both the Red Cross and Amnesty International, with the core idea being to temper all police activity with the basic tenets of human rights and constitutional rights. As a strong component, it encourages community and police oversight in the implementation of day-to-day activities and needs of the police force. While much of the most egregious over-extension of police authority has occurred outside the United States, the concept of putting human rights at the forefront when dealing with police issues — emphasizing less force, more dialogue, and planning rather than reacting — represents an important part of the law enforcement framework (Williamson, 2008).

A utilitarian model, in contrast, focuses more on punishment — for example, the length of incarceration — as a way to maximize the safety of society. This utilitarian approach manifests itself as a view oriented toward pacifying the majority without as much thought to the actual rights of the individual accused. However, this view, espoused by John Stuart Mill in the late 1800s, does focus on consequences: if one commits a crime, there are consequences to that action, and crime may therefore be deterred by the fear of punishment — a deterrent system grounded in consequences (Lee, 2007).

Within law enforcement, it is often necessary to use deception — undercover agents, informants, and more invasive investigation techniques. Within the context of the two models discussed above, the very idea of deception is anti-rights-based, and may even verge on entrapment. For utilitarianism, however, the ends may justify the means within reason: the greater good of society is served by protecting the innocent from the criminal, and if techniques are legal, even if not entirely moral, society is still better served (Orsagh, 1985).

Thus, one must ask the central question about policing in the contemporary world: is law enforcement a unit of societal force and control, a public service organization designed to assist society in meeting its goals, or both — depending on the individual and unique situation? Because of the broad nature of this topic, this discussion is confined to policing in the United States, where the major paradigm is the power to enforce law, protect property, and reduce civil disorder. This broad definition takes on very different meanings when one compares situations such as the aftermath of 9/11, an angry riot, or crowd control at a local high school sporting event. To assess these differences, we can examine the police paradigm from a sociological standpoint to infer motivation, cultural disposition, and societal expectations.

Sociological Aspects of Policing

In contemporary society, a police officer is a bonded and warranted employee of a law enforcement organization — whether a local, regional, or state police force; a federal law enforcement agency; or a more specific correctional or law enforcement organization. Society maintains law enforcement because groups of people living together do not always coexist in harmony. It is the job of the police officer to maintain public order, prevent and detect criminal activity, apprehend criminals, collect evidence, and ensure that due process of law is followed within their assigned duty range. Under the rubric of Western democracies, the major role of the police force is to keep order and discourage crime. Police organizations are also called upon to assist with emergency and disaster services, emergency medical situations, and general citizen welfare. The duties of a police officer vary so dramatically that the safety and internal culture of a police force differs from organization to organization — a police officer in a large metropolitan area like New York will have very different duties and dangers than a county sheriff in rural Oklahoma (Barlow, 2000).

Society holds certain expectations of its law enforcement personnel, and those expectations — combined with the legal demands and internal stress resulting from constant exposure to danger and the more difficult aspects of human behavior — place significant pressure on officers. Officers face risks of infectious disease, motor vehicle fatalities, and encounters with persons under the influence of substances; line-of-duty deaths are not uncommon. Approximately 200 police officers die per year in the United States, with over half of those deaths resulting from direct assaults by suspects or criminals (Robert, 2008). Still, individuals are drawn to police work for numerous reasons: a desire to serve and protect the public; a desire to hold a position of respect and authority in their community; an abhorrence of crime; and the professional challenges that come with daily interaction with a difficult segment of the public. While society expects officers to be respectful, follow the law, and prevent crime proactively, the reality of the stresses on law enforcement personnel are varied and often serious (Blum, 2000).

Law enforcement officers are human and, like most humans, vulnerable to stress. Some scholars believe that the rate of alcoholism among officers is double that of the general population, and nationally, twice as many police officers die by suicide as are killed in the line of duty (Henry, 2004). One of the sociological challenges of studying this group is the code of silence that pervades many aspects of law enforcement culture. Beyond their sworn duty, officers often adhere to a unique internal code designed to protect both the structure of the agency and the individual officer. Society does not expect its police officers to appear weak or vulnerable; yet because they are human beings, they experience extreme stress, family problems, and the same sociological challenges as everyone else. Their internal language, behavioral expectations, and ways of relating to one another are designed to perpetuate a certain strength and stoicism (Gilmartin, 2002).

Looking at law enforcement through three different sociological paradigms helps illuminate how the structure of society shapes how police organizations can be understood. Utilizing the Structural-Functional Paradigm, one can view law enforcement as part of the symbiosis of an organized society. Police are one component of social function, and this model shows law enforcement as a part of social organization in which individual actions combine to form something greater than the sum of their parts. Modern society is continually evolving and rarely in equilibrium. Within this model, police forces represent the adaptive mechanism ensuring that the balance of the whole is maintained. The complexity of ethnicity and economic behavior within a city requires adaptation — race, gender, sexual orientation, social class, and age differentiation all change the societal values to which law enforcement must respond. Within this cooperative model, law enforcement can be considered a balancing agent maintaining peace among shifting societal norms, and may extend that role through community programs and community policing (Maguire, 1997).

When society is viewed as the product of regular actions and interactions among individuals and their associated groups, a Symbolic-Interaction Paradigm emerges. Three major elements of this theory apply directly to law enforcement. First, if individuals act toward things based on the meanings they assign to them, law enforcement must work to establish a definition of "police" that connotes respect and civic order. Second, if meaning is derived from social interaction, it is important that law enforcement regularly engage within the broader societal paradigm. Finally, if meanings occur and evolve through interpretation, law enforcement must communicate its message through appropriate media channels (Blummer, 1986). This approach functions more as a microcosm of medium and large police forces than as a macro-level account of how law enforcement has evolved into the twenty-first century. It has value for understanding internal departmental communication but does not fully account for the evolution of societal expectations in the post-9/11 world.

Community Policing: A Model to Reduce Citizen Complaints

One of the ways a number of police departments have both reduced citizen complaints and involved the community in the cultural and sociological aspects of policing is through community policing. Community policing is, according to the United States Department of Justice, "a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime" (cited in www.cops.usdoj.gov). From an internal community perspective, it means developing numerous collaborative partnerships between people and organizations within the community and law enforcement agencies across the board. The idea is to earn community members' trust, enlist their aid in identifying problem areas, and develop a greater liaison mentality between individuals and law enforcement (Miller, 2007).

The idea of collaboration between the community and law enforcement is not entirely new; many of its principles trace back to the very beginnings of organized policing. By sheer numbers, it is often impossible for a police force to be present everywhere at all times without some help from the community. History has shown that this concept can be taken to an extreme — during the Stalin era in the USSR, it was reported that as much as 50% of the population was effectively spying on the other half (Solomon, 1996). In contrast, the modern idea of public safety partnerships is centered on mutual trust. The potential of these partnerships is considerable: they can improve the trust relationship between the public and law enforcement while also providing a more direct channel through which the public can prioritize public safety concerns.

Conclusion: Building a Foundation for Accountable Policing

Increasing partnerships between local law enforcement and other governmental agencies can help identify individual community concerns and offer alternative solutions. Members of the District Attorney's Office, Health and Human Services organizations, schools, and even legislative bodies can more appropriately address their concerns and potential solutions under a community policing program (Briggs, 2008).

Community members and community groups are often among the most pivotal individuals in any community. They are frequently volunteers, activists for change, and formal or informal group leaders — residents who are able to identify problem areas and significant urban challenges. Engagement with these individuals fosters greater trust, supports local business owners, and allows police to do a better job of helping to keep the peace proactively rather than simply reacting to those who break it (Peak, 2007).

Organizations that by their nature advocate for community improvement — such as churches, service clubs, victim groups, and issue-focused organizations — can be critical and powerful partners in community policing. These groups are often composed of individuals who go out of their way to ensure their community prospers and who devote time, energy, and personal resources to support improvements and law enforcement (Miller, 2008).

Private businesses have a significant stake in keeping their community healthy, the streets free of crime, and a liaison relationship with law enforcement that provides a climate conducive to commerce. Most law enforcement scholars agree that it is essential for private business owners to communicate with local police about their own security needs and to use the police as advisors to prevent crime rather than merely react to it (Peak, 2007).

Finally, any community-level initiative should view the media as a powerful tool and ally for communicating concerns, reinforcing positive norms, and drawing regional, state, or national attention to specific community problems. When the relationship between local media — radio, television, and newspaper — and local law enforcement departments is positive, research indicates that criminal activity declines. The media can bring concerns to a broader audience and help coalesce the various community groups within the police liaison structure (Baker, 2005).

Critics of community policing point to the difficulty of managing such disparate groups into a unified whole. Critiques center on the notion that each group has its own agenda and that these groups will rarely cooperate with one another for the good of the community. Within law enforcement, turf disputes arise over who controls what; within the local community, the question becomes whether local business interests take precedence or whether churches and social service agencies carry more weight.

One author who took up this challenge in the early 1990s argued that the very difficulty of community policing is what tests and ultimately demonstrates the ability of non-cohesive groups to unite around a shared belief that their community is worth fighting for — and to set individual differences aside in order to work within the parameters of the law to build a better foundation. Despite persistent critique, the key to making community policing work is often a few pivotal leaders and a well-rounded, interactive, and problem-solving police chief (Rosenbaum, 1994).

The idea of community involvement in law enforcement is, by any measure, a positive one. It brings so many aspects of the community together and allows people of perhaps disparate viewpoints, social means, and ethnicities to work in concert toward a better and more prosperous community for all. When combined with rigorous officer training, clear use-of-force standards, active monitoring of officer conduct, and transparent complaint procedures, community policing represents a comprehensive and legally grounded affirmative action program for reducing citizen complaints and building lasting public trust in law enforcement.