Three Policing Styles: Watchman, Service, and Legalistic
This paper examines the three primary styles of law enforcement identified in policing scholarship: the watchman, service-oriented, and legalistic styles. Drawing on Talarico and Swanson's foundational 1978 typology, the paper compares how each style approaches law enforcement, community relations, and the treatment of minor offenses. It explores the philosophical underpinnings of each approach—from the legalistic view of universal law application to the service model's emphasis on community trust—and considers the watchman style as a pragmatic middle ground. The paper concludes by evaluating the real-world implications of each style for police-community relations and public respect for the law.
- Introduction to the Three Policing Styles: Defines watchman, service, and legalistic styles
- Practical Differences in Law Enforcement Approaches: Compares enforcement strictness across policing styles
- Philosophical Foundations of Each Style: Explores beliefs underlying each enforcement philosophy
- Community Trust and the Legalistic Approach: Examines how strict enforcement affects community relations
- The Watchman Style as a Middle Ground: Watchman style as pragmatic compromise between extremes
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses a clear three-way comparison structure, making it easy to follow how each policing style differs in both practice and underlying philosophy.
- The traffic-speed analogy concretely illustrates abstract differences between styles, grounding the argument in an accessible real-world scenario.
- The paper moves logically from definitional introduction to practical differences to philosophical underpinnings, building the reader's understanding incrementally.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of a typology framework—anchored in a cited academic source—to organize and compare multiple competing approaches within a field. Rather than treating each style in isolation, it consistently positions them in relation to one another along a spectrum, which strengthens analytical coherence.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with brief definitional introductions to all three styles, then devotes a paragraph to their practical differences and another to their philosophical differences. Separate paragraphs examine the community-trust implications of legalistic policing and the philosophical rationale for the service approach, before closing with the watchman style synthesized as a compromise position. A single foundational source is cited throughout.
Introduction to the Three Policing Styles
There are three main styles of law enforcement: the watchman, the service-oriented, and the legalistic. The watchman style emphasizes maintaining order, with the understanding that full enforcement of the law is not always possible. The service-oriented style focuses on assisting citizens, including the use of non-arrest measures when the situation calls for them. The legalistic style is focused on full enforcement of the letter of the law, operating on the belief that this delivers equal treatment under the law (Talarico & Swanson, 1978).
Practical Differences in Law Enforcement Approaches
Perhaps one of the easiest ways to understand the differences between these styles is their adherence to the letter of the law. The legalistic department is focused on full enforcement, to the point where even minor crimes receive strict action, and such policing is often carried out with an eye toward legal punishment as well. On the other end of the spectrum is the service-oriented style. This style sees the police as having a role within the community while simultaneously being members of it. Police operating under this model therefore do not prioritize strict enforcement of the law, but instead seek to build trust within the community.
One of the ways this manifests is through a degree of leniency with minor crimes—seeking to engage with the community, create non-arrest solutions, and help build stronger communities without incarcerating people over minor offenses. The watchman style serves as something of a compromise, acknowledging that full enforcement is very difficult to attain, but that the service element can be difficult to implement in a fair and even-handed manner. The watchman style holds that there is a need to enforce the laws, but may be willing to compromise on total enforcement.
Philosophical Foundations of Each Style
These practical differences arise from philosophical differences between the styles. The legalistic style views the law as an absolute force in society, maintaining that fairness arises when the law is applied universally. People are expected to know the rules and should therefore not be surprised when they are subject to punishment for violating them. The degree of punishment for each crime should correspond to the nature of the offense, and because punishments exist, they should be applied to all who are found guilty. The philosophical challenge this creates, however, is that it produces a situation in which people may be punished for any mistake. Since most people make mistakes, they may develop less respect for the law—knowing that they will likely break it at some point—which in turn makes it harder for them to take the law seriously.
References
Talarico, S. & Swanson, C. (1978). Styles of policing: A preliminary mapping. Policy Studies Journal, 7(Special Issue), 398–406.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.